HomeMy WebLinkAbout05.20.19 Full Packet
NOTICE OF MEETING
City of Lake Elmo Park Commission
3800 Laverne Avenue North
May 20, 2019 6:30 PM
AGENDA
1.Pledge of Allegiance
2.Approve Agenda
3.Approve Minutes
a)March 18, 2019
b)April Meeting Canceled
4.Sunfish Lake Bike Trail Proposal
5. 2020-2024 Parks Commission Capital Improvement Plan (CIP)
6.Buckthorn Removal Grant
7.Sunfish Lake Nature Center Patio Addition
8.June 2019 Meeting Agenda
9.Communication
10. Adjourn
***Note: Every effort will be made to accommodate person or persons that need special considerations to attend
this meeting due to a health condition or disability. Please contact the Lake Elmo City Clerk if you are in need of
special accommodations.
Our Mission is to Provide Quality Public
Services in a Fiscally Responsible Manner
While Preserving the City’s Open Space
Character
MINUTES
City of Lake Elmo Parks Commission
March 18, 2019
Members Present: Commissioners Olinger, Schumacker, Weeks, & Zeno. Mayek arrived late.
Members Absent: Commissioners Ames, & Nightingale
Staff Present: Public Works Lead Worker Colemer, City Planner Prchal
The meeting was called to order by Chair Weeks at 6:30 PM.
Approval of Agenda
Weeks made a suggestion to amend the agenda item 5 to Park Naming Policy as it is described
in the report and attached documents and add 3b - Public Comment to the
agenda after the Approval of Minutes. Zeno made a motion to approve the
amended agenda, Schumacker seconded the motion. Motion passed.
Approval of Minutes
Motion by Olinger to approve the February minutes, seconded by Schumacker. Motion passed,
Zeno abstained.
Public Comment
George Johnson stated he has been part of the Nature Center board and buckthorn removal in
the past but has since resigned and is not here to speak on behalf of the Nature
Center. He said he is here speaking as a citizen on his own belief that he does
not think mountain biking belongs in the park and will harm the park. He asked
what the hurry is to add mountain biking to Sunfish Lake Park before completing
the Reid Park trails and surveying the residents.
Johnson stated that there has been two plans completed to restore Sun Fish Lake Park in 2011
and 2017 and he would like to see the restoration take place. He said he found a
company called Stantec that creates proposals to the DNR to get funding for
parks. All of the paperwork would be completed by Stantec. The City would
have to agree to a $10,000 investment or 10 percent in order to get the project
constructed. With the funding the City could plant the species they want into
the park, especially now that the buckthorn has been removed.
Linda Keller 4594 Lilac Lane N, member of St. Paul Audubon. She stated that animals need large
tracks of land that has not been carved up by human activity in order to survive
and believes mountain biking trails will carve up the park.
Judith Blackford 9765 45th St N stated that the erodible soils in the park have been researched
by the DNR and Washington County and ordinances were made to protect this
park. She stated that through clerical errors and technicalities the ordinances
were emitted and now promises of no mountain biking are being asked to be
broken. She asked the Commission members to research the topic and to make
a decision on integrity.
Susan Dunn, 110818 Upper 33rd Street, is in favor of preserving Sunfish Lake Park. She is
concerned that once damage has been done to the park it cannot be undone.
She would also like the Parks Commission contacts updated.
Susan Saffle, 11180 50th Street N, Sunfish Lake Park has been called it a high quality hardwood
forest. The intact forests are becoming more of a rarity in central Minnesota.
The DNR promotes low-impact walking trails. She is concerned about safety,
injury, and liability as a nurse. Would like to attend the meeting with the MN
Land Trust.
Jeff Moris, 9876 Tapestry Road, was around when the park was created and aware of the
original ordinances to protect the park. His family has mountain bikes and his
property has egress to the park and would never bike in the park. Concerned
about safety.
Ann Bucheck, 2301 Legion Ave, asked if the Parks Commission received a copy of the
Conservation Easement established by the MN Land Trust. She asked if there
would be a report of the meeting. Wanted to know when, why, and how did the
rules regarding biking in city parks change.
Playground Proposal for Wildflower and Village Preserve
Prchal stated that .7 acres of land was provided in-lieu of cash for parkland in the Wildflower &
Village Preserve area. The city has $105,000 set aside for park improvements.
There were three proposals, St. Croix Recreation is the preferred choice since their bid is
inclusive of grading, pea gravel, curbing, etc. Both other bids require the City to
do that work separate from the bid costs.
Weeks asked if St. Croix Recreation is who did Savona or another park in the city. Colemer
stated the have supplied equipment for Sanctuary. Additional questions around
pea gravel and mulch, screening materials, and maintenance were discussed.
Weeks made a made a motion to approve the proposal from St. Croix Recreation, seconded by
Mayek.
Olinger asked if this is Public Works and the residents’ first choice. Prchal explained it was and
that Inwood would be the next park for review and construction.
Motion passed unanimously.
Park Naming
Prchal presented the proposed policy.
Ann Bucheck, 2301 Legion Ave, asked if the public would be notified if parks would be changing
names. She also asked if people would be notified of the parks naming. Weeks
explained that most of the publication is online and the purpose is to have future
parks to not be named for the development it is located near to prevent the
confusion about who can use a park.
Zeno made a motion to add in a method to notify public. Mayek made a motion to adopt the
Parks Naming Policy, Zeno seconded the motion.
Amended motion passed unanimously.
April Meeting Agenda
Parks Commission bylaws and policy
Communications
None
Meeting adjourned at 7:43 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Tanya Nuss
STAFF REPORT
DATE: 5/20/2019
REGULAR
TO: Parks Commission
FROM: Ben Prchal, City Planner
AGENDA ITEM: Bike Trials within Sunfish Lake Park
REVIEWED BY: Kristina Handt, City Administrator
BACKGROUND:
The City of Lake Elmo Parks Commission and City Council approved a Capital Improvement expenditure
of $120,000 for the development of bike trials in Sunfish Lake Park. Staff was then directed through the
2019 parks work plan to further explore trail development and gather information on what it would mean
to build bike trails within the park. The Parks Commission had an opportunity to review a preliminary
bike trail map at their January 23rd meeting. At that meeting they directed staff to focus on developing
one trail that would be reasonable to present to them and to the Land Trust, who also has a level of
authority over the park related to the conservation easement. A draft map was sent to the Land Trust to
review, to which they provided feed back to the City. Staff took their comments and incorporated them
into the other trail option as it was more in line with what the Trust saw as being acceptable. Since then, a
new bike trail map has been developed which has been approved by the Land Trust. Staff recognizes that
this map is different than what the Parks Commission had previously approved but would ask them to
understand that it has met the expectations of the Land Trust. A Request for Proposal (RFP) was also
prepared in tandem with the trail.
ISSUE BEFORE THE PARKS COMMISSION:
Does the Parks Commission support the proposed Trail Map and RFP for the Sunfish Lake Trail system?
PROPOSAL DETAILS/ANALYSIS:
The intent of this report is to cover a few of the key discussion points that came up at prior meetings as well as provide
some relevant detail about the proposed bike trail map.
SOILS:
Staff researched the soil types that are throughout the park and have provided some information from the USDA Web
Soil survey website (https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx). After looking into the site in more
detail the survey produced a map that would indicate the soils to range from somewhat limited to very limited in
terms of their ability to develop trails. On the site you can search the soils capability for development by use, such
as trails, off-road trails, camp grounds, home sites, etc. Staff ran two reports one for paths and trails and one for off
road motorcycle trails. Staff ran both reports because the bike trails seemed to fit between the two use categories,
both reports produced similar results. Beyond maintenance reasons, motorized vehicles will not be allowed on the
trails. The section of soil that the trail will be going through is classified as somewhat limited for this use. The
USDA classifies the “somewhat limited” soils as follows:
““Somewhat limited” indicates that the soil has features that are moderately favorable for the specified use. The
limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or installation. Fair performance and
moderate maintenance can be expected.”
2
Staff believes that with the professional design, review of the Minnesota Land Trust, and design implementation of
the final contractor the trails will be able to overcome the limiting factors of the soil.
HISTORY:
MN Historical Society:
Searching the Minnesota Historical Society website did not produce any information that was relevant to Sunfish
Lake Park.
National Registry:
The National Registry for Historical Places also did not produce any information pertaining to Sunfish Lake Park.
Staff understands that the park does hold historical value to some residents. This is clearly outlined in the “History
of Sunfish Lake Report” that was produced by residents of the City.
THREATENED OR ENDANGERED SPECIES:
MN DNR:
Using the Minnesota DNR website Staff performed a search of Lake Elmo (https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/rsg/index.html).
There was only one species that came up as being threatened which was the Pugnose Shiner (fish). These fish are
known to inhabit clear glacial lakes. The trail has limited exposure to the pond within the Park and if the fish are
present in the pond it is not expected that the trail will impose detrimental effects to the fish. Also known to be in
the park is the Blandings Turtle. The DNR lists the turtles habitat as being in prairie, floodplain forest, wet forest,
steams and ponds. As you will see the trial has been moved out of the prairie to help mitigate the impact to other
species.
US. Fish and Wildlife:
The search through this agency produced more results but instead of providing data specific to Lake Elmo it provided
information state wide (https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp0/reports/species-listed-by-state-report?state=MN&status=listed). The
search could suggest that there is habitat for the Rusty Patch Bumble Bee which is listed as endangered. Their habitat
consists of grasslands. Keeping this in mind a trail route has been suggested which would mitigate interference with
the existing grassland/prairie. Beyond that they also list Bush-clover as being a threatened species. The preferred
habitat is considered to be tall grass parries. Similar to the bumble bee, the bike trail has been moved to help limit
the potential exposure.
NEPA (National Environmental Protection Agency):
Staff also ran a report from the NEPA website, which is attached. There are some relevant categories that the report
will provide for evaluating the site. Such as historic relevance, impaired (does not meet quality standards) waterbodies,
or streams. Based on the produced report staff did not see anything that was not already known or posed substantial
concern for further review.
3
Staff was unable to find substantial evidence proving that mountain bikers would cause more of a disturbance to the
natural environment than other user groups. There is also a continual statement that mountain bikers produce more
litter than hikers or other user groups. Again, there was not supporting evidence to prove that there was a direct
correlation between activity and careless displacement of litter.
SUNFISH LAKE TRAIL PROPOSAL:
Aspects of the Trial:
Due to the potential for conflicts between user groups, the number of crossings was reduced. This is beneficial from
two perspectives. It will help to reduce the potential for conflicts as well as prolong the riders’ ability to focus on the
trail without constantly being cautious of another crossing.
Number of Bike/Walking Trail Crossings
- 10 crossings
Estimated Trail Length
- 4 miles
The bike trails proposed for Sunfish Lake would be narrow trails called single-track. Once established, single-track
trails average 18-24” in width, are not paved, reach a broad range of riders and are designed to flow through natural
areas with gradual inclines and declines in topography. These single-track trails can be seen as similar to a narrow
hiking path (not like the trails already existing) with the exception that bike trails would be closed to the public when
saturated with water after a significant rainfall, melting snow or melting frost, and would remain closed until dry to
avoid erosion and degradation of the trail surface. Modern trail design and construction uses sustainable trail building
techniques. Single-track trails have been shown to have minimal impact on the environment, resist erosion through
proper design, construction and maintenance, co-exist with the natural environment and blend with the surrounding
area.
Impact on surrounding properties:
The park does not boarder a large number of residential properties. The majority of the homes are located to the
North/ North East of the park with the rest being farm land or larger residential properties. The bike trail is generally
kept internal to the site and Staff believes it would be difficult to see the proposed trail from the edges of the park.
Staff does not anticipate bikers to cause more of a nuisance than other users within the park.
There is an established park entrance with a parking lot which is where we would expect most users to enter the park.
Staff does expect the trail to receive active use but at this time believes the parking lot(s) to be adequate for users.
Impact to other users:
With the added amenity of bike trails, it is anticipated that the number of users in the park will increase. With the
user type expected to vary, the majority of the proposed trail is designed to mitigate the speed at which a bike will
cross a walking path. The design of the trail is predominately located in areas that do not have an established use,
thus not now actively used. It is important that the park is safe and offer useful amenities for all residents and visitors.
Where crossings are going to occur they will be established in a way that will force bike riders to slow their speed to
safely cross the walking trail. Clearing brush near the trail crossings would also be a method to help establish better
visibility around each trail intersection.
Signage:
Where intersections occur, trails would be marked displaying the direction of travel and expectations. The City
should expect to put up signage warning walkers and bikers of the crossings. There can also be signage placed at the
entrance to further inform users of expectations as well as conditions of trails after rain events. Such as: “Riders must
wait 2 hours after a rain event before trail use” and “Be good stewards remove all trash”.
Request for Proposal Details:
The attached RFP is important in that it outlines the expectations that the City would have for the trail builder. Staff
sent the Land Trust the RFP at the time that the first trail map was provided to them for review. The organization did
not have any suggestions for edits to the RFP with the exception of adding language to improve the trails which are
being removed. Staff does not believe this is largely impactful and something that can easily be accomplished. Some
ideas to satisfy this requirement might be an Eagle Scout project or else the City could consider ordering a few more
4
trees for the Arbor Day give away that would be plated in the park. Staff is aware that the maps have not been
updated in the RFP but they will be changed out by the time the request is made public.
FISCAL IMPACT (Estimated) :
There is $120,000 reserved for the development of bike trails throughout the park.
Signage $700 - $800 (intersection signage)
Trail Head Sign $1,000 - $2,000 staff would recommend revamping the entire kiosk at the park.
A report for trail maintenance was prepared by rails to trails conservancy, this is not solely specific to Minnesota but
staff does not believe that trail maintenance and costs will dramatically vary. The full report can be found on the City
website at http://www.lakeelmo.org/parks-commission-sunfish-lake-park-documents. The time and cost to
maintain trails had a wide range which would depend on the amount of yearly maintenance such as mowing,
vegetative clearing, and asphalt repair. The report was written to cover asphalt and crushed stone paths. Crushed
stone is similar to mountain bike trials but different in design and natural material. However, the report indicated
that entities that actively maintained their trails expected to spend $1,000 to $2,000 per mile depending on surface
type.
After speaking to Minnesota Off-Road Cyclists (MORC) and the Recreation Manager at the City of Woodbury, those
figures do appear to also apply to bike trails. Based on current information, there does not appear to be an increased
cost to maintain mountain bike trails over other paved or natural surface trails.
OPTIONS:
Staff is requesting that the Parks Commission review and comment on the draft trail design.
The Parks Commission may:
1. Recommend approval of the bike trail and RFP as approved by the Land Trust.
2.Direct Staff to make amendments and then recommend approval.
3. Recommend denial of the bike trail and RFP as approved by the Land Trust
RECOMMENDATION:
At this time Staff believes that information known today is sufficient to know that bike trails, if designed, built, and
maintained appropriately will not erode the park.
“Recommend approval of the Trail Plan and RFP to build the new trails which has been presented, within
Sunfish Lake Park”
ATTACHMENTS:
•Draft Trail Map.
•April 18, 2019 Letter from MN Land Trust
•Due to the size of some of the attachments a City webpage has been established to hold the documents.
Please visit http://www.lakeelmo.org/parks-commission-sunfish-lake-park-documents
o Soil Survey
o MN DNR Report
o National Environmental Protection Agency Report (NEPA)
o Ecological Review
o Maintenance Report
o Land Trust Easement
o RFP
Paths and Trails—Washington County, Minnesota
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
2/14/2019
Page 1 of 7
49
8
2
4
0
0
49
8
2
7
0
0
49
8
3
0
0
0
49
8
3
3
0
0
49
8
3
6
0
0
49
8
3
9
0
0
49
8
4
2
0
0
49
8
4
5
0
0
49
8
2
4
0
0
49
8
2
7
0
0
49
8
3
0
0
0
49
8
3
3
0
0
49
8
3
6
0
0
49
8
3
9
0
0
49
8
4
2
0
0
49
8
4
5
0
0
505300 505600 505900 506200 506500 506800 507100 507400 507700 508000 508300 508600
505300 505600 505900 506200 506500 506800 507100 507400 507700 508000 508300 508600
45° 0' 52'' N
92
°
5
6
'
3
'
'
W
45° 0' 52'' N
92
°
5
3
'
2
3
'
'
W
44° 59' 38'' N
92
°
5
6
'
3
'
'
W
44° 59' 38'' N
92
°
5
3
'
2
3
'
'
W
N
Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 15N WGS84
0 500 1000 2000 3000
Feet
0 200 400 800 1200
Meters
Map Scale: 1:16,000 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet.
MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION
Area of Interest (AOI)
Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
Soil Rating Polygons
Very limited
Somewhat limited
Not limited
Not rated or not available
Soil Rating Lines
Very limited
Somewhat limited
Not limited
Not rated or not available
Soil Rating Points
Very limited
Somewhat limited
Not limited
Not rated or not available
Water Features
Streams and Canals
Transportation
Rails
Interstate Highways
US Routes
Major Roads
Local Roads
Background
Aerial Photography
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at
1:15,800.
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
measurements.
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL:
Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator
projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts
distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the
Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more
accurate calculations of distance or area are required.
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as
of the version date(s) listed below.
Soil Survey Area: Washington County, Minnesota
Survey Area Data: Version 14, Oct 9, 2018
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales
1:50,000 or larger.
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Mar 16, 2012—Sep
13, 2016
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor
shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.
Paths and Trails—Washington County, Minnesota
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
2/14/2019
Page 2 of 7
Paths and Trails
Map unit
symbol
Map unit name Rating Component
name (percent)
Rating reasons
(numeric
values)
Acres in AOI Percent of AOI
12D Emmert gravelly
loamy coarse
sand, 15 to 25
percent slopes
Somewhat
limited
Emmert (90%)Too sandy (0.50)2.1 0.2%
Slope (0.18)
49 Antigo silt loam,
0 to 2 percent
slopes
Somewhat
limited
Antigo (80%)Dusty (0.00)23.3 2.6%
Billyboy (8%)Dusty (0.00)
Sconsin (5%)Depth to
saturated zone
(0.50)
Dusty (0.00)
Rosholt (3%)Dusty (0.00)
Brill (2%)Depth to
saturated zone
(0.50)
Dusty (0.00)
49B Antigo silt loam,
2 to 6 percent
slopes
Somewhat
limited
Antigo (80%)Dusty (0.00)94.7 10.5%
Billyboy (5%)Dusty (0.00)
Sconsin (5%)Depth to
saturated zone
(0.50)
Dusty (0.00)
Rosholt (5%)Dusty (0.00)
Brill (3%)Depth to
saturated zone
(0.50)
Dusty (0.00)
49C Antigo silt loam,
6 to 15
percent slopes
Very limited Antigo (85%)Water erosion
(1.00)
19.3 2.1%
Dusty (0.00)
Ossmer (2%)Depth to
saturated zone
(1.00)
Dusty (0.00)
120 Brill silt loam Somewhat
limited
Brill (90%)Dusty (0.01)16.5 1.8%
153B Santiago silt
loam, 2 to 6
percent slopes
Somewhat
limited
Santiago (90%)Dusty (0.01)61.1 6.8%
155B Chetek sandy
loam, 0 to 6
percent slopes
Somewhat
limited
Chetek (90%)Dusty (0.00)6.4 0.7%
Paths and Trails—Washington County, Minnesota
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
2/14/2019
Page 3 of 7
Map unit
symbol
Map unit name Rating Component
name (percent)
Rating reasons
(numeric
values)
Acres in AOI Percent of AOI
155C Chetek sandy
loam, 6 to 12
percent slopes
Somewhat
limited
Chetek (90%)Dusty (0.00)90.1 10.0%
155D Chetek sandy
loam, 12 to 25
percent slopes
Somewhat
limited
Chetek (90%)Slope (0.02)135.5 15.0%
Dusty (0.00)
177B Gotham loamy
sand, 1 to 6
percent slopes
Somewhat
limited
Gotham (90%)Too sandy (0.57)46.8 5.2%
177C Gotham loamy
sand, 6 to 12
percent slopes
Somewhat
limited
Gotham (90%)Too sandy (0.57)0.9 0.1%
266 Freer silt loam Very limited Freer (90%)Depth to
saturated zone
(1.00)
6.1 0.7%
Dusty (0.01)
301B Lindstrom silt
loam, 2 to 4
percent slopes
Somewhat
limited
Lindstrom (90%)Dusty (0.01)5.1 0.6%
302B Rosholt sandy
loam, 2 to 6
percent slopes
Somewhat
limited
Rosholt (80%)Dusty (0.00)88.3 9.8%
Scott Lake
(10%)
Dusty (0.00)
Antigo (5%)Dusty (0.00)
Chetek (3%)Dusty (0.00)
302C Rosholt sandy
loam, 6 to 15
percent slopes
Somewhat
limited
Rosholt (85%)Dusty (0.00)68.3 7.6%
Chetek (7%)Dusty (0.00)
Scott Lake (2%)Dusty (0.00)
367B Campia silt
loam, 0 to 8
percent slopes
Somewhat
limited
Campia (90%)Dusty (0.01)3.6 0.4%
449 Crystal Lake silt
loam, 1 to 3
percent slopes
Somewhat
limited
Crystal Lake
(90%)
Dusty (0.01)6.5 0.7%
452 Comstock silt
loam
Somewhat
limited
Comstock (90%)Depth to
saturated zone
(0.44)
16.9 1.9%
Dusty (0.01)
454B Mahtomedi
loamy sand, 0
to 6 percent
slopes
Somewhat
limited
Mahtomedi
(90%)
Too sandy (0.72)4.3 0.5%
454C Mahtomedi
loamy sand, 6
to 12 percent
slopes
Somewhat
limited
Mahtomedi
(90%)
Too sandy (0.72)5.9 0.7%
454D Mahtomedi
loamy sand,
Somewhat
limited
Mahtomedi
(90%)
Too sandy (0.72)25.9 2.9%
Paths and Trails—Washington County, Minnesota
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
2/14/2019
Page 4 of 7
Map unit
symbol
Map unit name Rating Component
name (percent)
Rating reasons
(numeric
values)
Acres in AOI Percent of AOI
12 to 25
percent slopes Slope (0.18)
454F Mahtomedi
loamy sand,
25 to 40
percent slopes
Very limited Mahtomedi
(90%)
Slope (1.00)3.8 0.4%
Too sandy (0.72)
456 Barronett silt
loam
Very limited Barronett (85%)Depth to
saturated zone
(1.00)
2.8 0.3%
Ponding (1.00)
Dusty (0.01)
507 Poskin silt loam Somewhat
limited
Poskin (90%)Depth to
saturated zone
(0.44)
16.0 1.8%
Dusty (0.01)
896D Mahtomedi-
Kingsley
complex, 12 to
25 percent
slopes
Somewhat
limited
Mahtomedi
(60%)
Too sandy (0.72)44.4 4.9%
Slope (0.18)
Kingsley (35%)Slope (0.18)
1029 Pits, gravel Not rated Pits, gravel
(100%)
5.7 0.6%
1033 Udifluvents Not rated Udifluvents
(90%)
2.5 0.3%
1040 Udorthents Not rated Udorthents
(90%)
58.7 6.5%
1055 Aquolls and
Histosols,
ponded
Very limited Histosols,
ponded (50%)
Depth to
saturated zone
(1.00)
1.5 0.2%
Organic matter
content (1.00)
Ponding (1.00)
Dusty (0.01)
Aquolls, ponded
(50%)
Depth to
saturated zone
(1.00)
Ponding (1.00)
Dusty (0.01)
1847 Barronett silt
loam, sandy
substratum
Very limited Barronett, sandy
substratum
(85%)
Depth to
saturated zone
(1.00)
28.2 3.1%
Ponding (1.00)
Dusty (0.01)
W Water Not rated Water (100%)11.5 1.3%
Totals for Area of Interest 902.7 100.0%
Paths and Trails—Washington County, Minnesota
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
2/14/2019
Page 5 of 7
Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI
Somewhat limited 762.5 84.5%
Very limited 61.8 6.8%
Null or Not Rated 78.4 8.7%
Totals for Area of Interest 902.7 100.0%
Description
Paths and trails for hiking and horseback riding should require little or no slope
modification through cutting and filling.
The ratings are based on the soil properties that affect trafficability and erodibility.
These properties are stoniness, depth to a water table, ponding, flooding, slope,
and texture of the surface layer.
The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Rating class terms indicate the extent
to which the soils are limited by all of the soil features that affect the specified
use. "Not limited" indicates that the soil has features that are very favorable for
the specified use. Good performance and very low maintenance can be
expected. "Somewhat limited" indicates that the soil has features that are
moderately favorable for the specified use. The limitations can be overcome or
minimized by special planning, design, or installation. Fair performance and
moderate maintenance can be expected. "Very limited" indicates that the soil has
one or more features that are unfavorable for the specified use. The limitations
generally cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, or
expensive installation procedures. Poor performance and high maintenance can
be expected.
Numerical ratings indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are
shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations
between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the
use (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (0.00).
The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying
Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil
Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen. An aggregated
rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit
are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit. The
percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to
help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the
rating presented.
Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit. The
ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be
viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil
Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to
validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given
site.
Paths and Trails—Washington County, Minnesota
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
2/14/2019
Page 6 of 7
Rating Options
Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition
Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified
Tie-break Rule: Higher
Paths and Trails—Washington County, Minnesota
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
2/14/2019
Page 7 of 7
MINNESOTA'S LIST OF
ENDANGERED, THREATENED, AND SPECIAL CONCERN
SPECIES
PURPOSE, SCOPE, AND RELATIONSHIP TO FEDERAL LAWS
Minnesota’s Endangered Species Statute (Minnesota Statutes, Section 84.0895) requires the Minnesota Department
of Natural Resources (DNR) to adopt rules designating species meeting the statutory definitions of endangered,
threatened, or species of special concern. The resulting List of Endangered, Threatened, and Special Concern
Species is codified as Minnesota Rules, Chapter 6134. The Endangered Species Statute also authorizes the DNR to
adopt rules that regulate treatment of species designated as endangered and threatened. These regulations are
codified as Minnesota Rules, Parts 6212.1800 to 6212.2300.
Minnesota’s Endangered Species Statute and the associated Rules impose a variety of restrictions, a permit program,
and several exemptions pertaining to species designated as endangered or threatened. A person may not take,
import, transport, or sell any portion of an endangered or threatened species. However, these acts may be allowed
by permit issued by the DNR; plants on certain agricultural lands and plants destroyed in consequence of certain
agricultural practices are exempt; and the accidental, unknowing destruction of designated plants is exempt. Species
of special concern are not protected by Minnesota’s Endangered Species Statute or the associated Rules. Persons
are advised to read the full text of the Statute and Rules in order to understand all regulations pertaining to species
that are designated as endangered, threatened, or species of special concern.
Note that the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 USC 1531 - 1544) requires the U.S.
Department of the Interior to identify species as endangered or threatened according to a separate set of definitions,
and imposes a separate set of restrictions pertaining to those species. In the following list, the federal status of
seventeen federally-listed species that occur in Minnesota is noted to the right of those species’ common names
(E = endangered; T = threatened; P=proposed; C = candidate).
DEFINITIONS
A species is considered endangered if the species is threatened with extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range within Minnesota.
A species is considered threatened if the species is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range within Minnesota.
A species is considered a species of special concern if, although the species is not endangered or threatened, it is
extremely uncommon in Minnesota, or has unique or highly specific habitat requirements and deserves careful
monitoring of its status. Species on the periphery of their range that are not listed as threatened may be included in
this category along with those species that were once threatened or endangered but now have increasing or
protected, stable populations.
CONTENTS
Mammals ..............................................................Page 2
Birds .....................................................................Page 2
Amphibians and Reptiles ......................................Page 3
Fish .......................................................................Page 3
Mollusks ...............................................................Page 4
Jumping Spiders ...................................................Page 4
Leafhoppers ..........................................................Page 4
Dragonflies ...........................................................Page 4
Butterflies and Moths ...........................................Page 5
Alphabetical Index by Scientific Name ................Page 11
FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:
Minnesota Endangered Species Coordinator
Division of Ecological and Water Resources
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
500 Lafayette Rd., Box 25
St. Paul, MN 55155
1-888-646-6367 (or 612-296-6157 in the metro area)
http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/ets/index.html
Caddisflies ............................................................Page 5
Tiger Beetles .........................................................Page 5
Vascular Plants (endangered) ...............................Page 6
Vascular Plants (threatened) .................................Page 7
Vascular Plants (special concern) .........................Page 8
Fungi .....................................................................Page 9
Lichens..................................................................Page 10
Mosses ..................................................................Page 10
Effective August 19, 2013
MINNESOTA’S LIST OF ENDANGERED, THREATENED, AND SPECIAL CONCERN SPECIES PAGE 2
MAMMALS
Threatened
Spilogale putorius ....................................................................................................................................eastern spotted skunk
Thomomys talpoides ................................................................................................................................northern pocket gopher
Special Concern
Alces americanus .....................................................................................................................................moose
Cervus canadensis ...................................................................................................................................elk
Cryptotis parva ........................................................................................................................................North American least shrew
Eptesicus fuscus .......................................................................................................................................big brown bat
Lynx canadensis .......................................................................................................................................Canada lynx (Fed. Status: T)
Microtus ochrogaster...............................................................................................................................prairie vole
Microtus pinetorum .................................................................................................................................woodland vole
Mustela nivalis .........................................................................................................................................least weasel
Myotis lucifugus .......................................................................................................................................little brown myotis
Myotis septentrionalis..............................................................................................................................northern myotis (Fed. Status: P)
Onychomys leucogaster ...........................................................................................................................northern grasshopper mouse
Perimyotis subflavus ................................................................................................................................tri-colored bat
Perognathus flavescens............................................................................................................................plains pocket mouse
Phenacomys ungava ................................................................................................................................eastern heather vole
Puma concolor .........................................................................................................................................mountain lion
Reithrodontomys megalotis......................................................................................................................western harvest mouse
Sorex fumeus ............................................................................................................................................smoky shrew
Synaptomys borealis ................................................................................................................................northern bog lemming
Urocitellus richardsonii ...........................................................................................................................Richardson’s ground squirrel
BIRDS
Endangered
Ammodramus bairdii ...............................................................................................................................Baird's sparrow
Ammodramus henslowii ...........................................................................................................................Henslow's sparrow
Anthus spragueii ......................................................................................................................................Sprague's pipit (Fed. Status: C)
Athene cunicularia ...................................................................................................................................burrowing owl
Calcarius ornatus ....................................................................................................................................chestnut-collared longspur
Charadrius melodus.................................................................................................................................piping plover (Fed. Status: E/T)
Lanius ludovicianus .................................................................................................................................loggerhead shrike
Podiceps auritus ......................................................................................................................................horned grebe
Rallus elegans ..........................................................................................................................................king rail
Threatened
Phalaropus tricolor ................................................................................................................................Wilson's phalarope
Sterna hirundo .........................................................................................................................................common tern
Special Concern
Accipiter gentilis ......................................................................................................................................northern goshawk
Aegolius funereus.....................................................................................................................................boreal owl
Ammodramus nelsoni...............................................................................................................................Nelson’s sparrow
Asio flammeus ..........................................................................................................................................short-eared owl
Buteo lineatus .........................................................................................................................................red-shouldered hawk
Chondestes grammacus ...........................................................................................................................lark sparrow
Coturnicops noveboracensis ...................................................................................................................yellow rail
Cygnus buccinator ...................................................................................................................................trumpeter swan
Empidonax virescens ..............................................................................................................................acadian flycatcher
Falco peregrinus......................................................................................................................................peregrine falcon
Gallinula galeata .....................................................................................................................................common gallinule
Leucophaeus pipixcan..............................................................................................................................Franklin’s gull
Limosa fedoa ...........................................................................................................................................marbled godwit
Parkesia motacilla ..................................................................................................................................Louisiana waterthrush
Pelecanus erythrorhynchos......................................................................................................................American white pelican
Progne subis ............................................................................................................................................purple martin
Setophaga cerulea ..................................................................................................................................cerulean warbler
Setophaga citrina ....................................................................................................................................hooded warbler
Sterna forsteri .........................................................................................................................................Forster's tern
Tympanuchus cupido ...............................................................................................................................greater prairie-chicken
Vireo bellii ...............................................................................................................................................Bell’s vireo
MINNESOTA’S LIST OF ENDANGERED, THREATENED, AND SPECIAL CONCERN SPECIES PAGE 3
AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES
Endangered
Acris blanchardi ......................................................................................................................................northern cricket frog
Sistrurus catenatus...................................................................................................................................massasauga (Fed. Status: C)
Threatened
Crotalus horridus ....................................................................................................................................timber rattlesnake
Emydoidea blandingii ..............................................................................................................................Blanding's turtle
Glyptemys insculpta .................................................................................................................................wood turtle
Pantherophis obsoletus ............................................................................................................................western ratsnake
Special Concern
Ambystoma maculatum ............................................................................................................................spotted salamander
Anaxyrus cognatus ...................................................................................................................................Great Plains toad
Apalone mutica .......................................................................................................................................smooth softshell
Coluber constrictor..................................................................................................................................North American racer
Hemidactylium scutatum..........................................................................................................................four-toed salamander
Heterodon nasicus ...................................................................................................................................plains hog-nosed snake
Necturus maculosus .................................................................................................................................mudpuppy
Pituophis catenifer ..................................................................................................................................gopher snake
Plestiodon fasciatus .................................................................................................................................common five-lined skink
Tropidoclonion lineatum..........................................................................................................................lined snake
FISH
Endangered
Alosa chrysochloris .................................................................................................................................skipjack herring
Crystallaria asprella ...............................................................................................................................crystal darter
Hybopsis amnis ........................................................................................................................................pallid shiner
Noturus exilis ...........................................................................................................................................slender madtom
Threatened
Erimystax x-punctatus..............................................................................................................................gravel chub
Fundulus sciadicus .................................................................................................................................plains topminnow
Ictiobus niger ...........................................................................................................................................black buffalo
Notropis anogenus ...................................................................................................................................pugnose shiner
Polyodon spathula ...................................................................................................................................paddlefish
Special Concern
Acipenser fulvescens ................................................................................................................................lake sturgeon
Anguilla rostrata......................................................................................................................................American eel
Aphredoderus sayanus ............................................................................................................................pirate perch
Clinostomus elongates .............................................................................................................................redside dace
Coregonus kiyi .........................................................................................................................................kiyi
Coregonus nipigon...................................................................................................................................Nipigon cisco
Coregonus zenithicus ..............................................................................................................................shortjaw cisco
Couesius plumbeus ..................................................................................................................................lake chub
Cycleptus elongatus .................................................................................................................................blue sucker
Etheostoma chlorosoma...........................................................................................................................bluntnose darter
Etheostoma microperca ...........................................................................................................................least darter
Hybognathus nuchalis..............................................................................................................................Mississippi silvery minnow
Ichthyomyzon fossor ................................................................................................................................northern brook lamprey
Ichthyomyzon gagei ................................................................................................................................southern brook lamprey
Lepomis gulosus.......................................................................................................................................warmouth
Lepomis peltastes .....................................................................................................................................northern longear sunfish
Lythrurus umbratilis ................................................................................................................................redfin shiner
Morone mississippiensis ..........................................................................................................................yellow bass
Moxostoma duquesnei..............................................................................................................................black redhorse
Notropis nubilus.......................................................................................................................................Ozark minnow
Notropis topeka .......................................................................................................................................Topeka shiner (Fed. Status: E)
Percina evides..........................................................................................................................................gilt darter
Phenacobius mirabilis .............................................................................................................................suckermouth minnow
Platygobio gracilis...................................................................................................................................flathead chub
Prosopium coulterii ................................................................................................................................. pygmy whitefish
MINNESOTA’S LIST OF ENDANGERED, THREATENED, AND SPECIAL CONCERN SPECIES PAGE 4
MOLLUSKS
Endangered
Arcidens confragosus...............................................................................................................................rock pocketbook
Cumberlandia monodonta ......................................................................................................................spectaclecase (Fed. Status: E)
Cyclonaias tuberculata ...........................................................................................................................purple wartyback
Elliptio crassidens ...................................................................................................................................elephant-ear
Epioblasma triquetra ..............................................................................................................................snuffbox (Fed. Status: E)
Fusconaia ebena .....................................................................................................................................ebonyshell
Lampsilis higginsii ...................................................................................................................................Higgins eye (Fed. Status: E)
Lampsilis teres .........................................................................................................................................yellow sandshell
Megalonaias nervosa ..............................................................................................................................washboard
Plethobasus cyphyus ................................................................................................................................sheepnose (Fed. Status: E)
Quadrula fragosa ....................................................................................................................................winged mapleleaf (Fed. Status: E)
Simpsonaias ambigua .............................................................................................................................salamander mussel
Tritogonia verrucosa ..............................................................................................................................pistolgrip
Threatened
Actinonaias ligamentina ..........................................................................................................................mucket
Alasmidonta marginata............................................................................................................................elktoe
Ellipsaria lineolata .................................................................................................................................butterfly
Elliptio dilatata .......................................................................................................................................spike
Lasmigona costata ...................................................................................................................................fluted-shell
Ligumia subrostrata................................................................................................................................. pondmussel
Quadrula metanevra ...............................................................................................................................monkeyface
Quadrula nodulata ..................................................................................................................................wartyback
Truncilla donaciformis ............................................................................................................................fawnsfoot
Venustaconcha ellipsiformis ...................................................................................................................ellipse
Vertigo meramecensis ..............................................................................................................................bluff vertigo
Special Concern
Anodonta suborbiculata...........................................................................................................................flat floater
Elliptio complanata ................................................................................................................................. eastern elliptio
Gastrocopta rogersensis ..........................................................................................................................Rogers’ snaggletooth snail
Lasmigona compressa .............................................................................................................................creek heelsplitter
Ligumia recta ..........................................................................................................................................black sandshell
Planogyra asteriscus................................................................................................................................eastern flat-whorl snail
Pleurobema sintoxia ................................................................................................................................round pigtoe
Striatura ferrea ........................................................................................................................................black striate snail
Zonitoides limatulus................................................................................................................................. dull gloss
JUMPING SPIDERS
Threatened
Tutelina formicaria ..................................................................................................................................a species of jumping spider
Special Concern
Habronattus calcaratus maddisoni ..........................................................................................................a species of jumping spider
Habronattus texanus ...............................................................................................................................a species of jumping spider
Habronattus viridipes ..............................................................................................................................a species of jumping spider
Marpissa formosa ....................................................................................................................................a species of jumping spider
Paradamoetas fontana ............................................................................................................................a species of jumping spider
Pelegrina arizonensis .............................................................................................................................a species of jumping spider
Phidippus apacheanus ............................................................................................................................a species of jumping spider
Phidippus pius .........................................................................................................................................a species of jumping spider
Sassacus papenhoei .................................................................................................................................a species of jumping spider
LEAFHOPPERS
Special Concern
Aflexia rubranura ....................................................................................................................................red-tailed leafhopper
Attenuipyga vanduzeei .............................................................................................................................hill prairie shovelhead leafhopper
Macrosteles clavatus................................................................................................................................caped leafhopper
DRAGONFLIES
Threatened
Ophiogomphus susbehcha ......................................................................................................................St. Croix snaketail
Special Concern
Aeschna sitchensis ...................................................................................................................................zigzag darner
Aeschna subarctica ..................................................................................................................................subarctic darner
Boyeria grafiana ......................................................................................................................................ocellated darner
Ophiogomphus anomalus .......................................................................................................................extra-striped snaketail
Ophiogomphus howei ..............................................................................................................................pygmy snaketail
Somatochlora brevicincta ............................... ........................................................................................Quebec emerald
Somatochlora forcipata .................................. ........................................................................................forcipate emerald
MINNESOTA’S LIST OF ENDANGERED, THREATENED, AND SPECIAL CONCERN SPECIES PAGE 5
BUTTERFLIES AND MOTHS
Endangered
Erynnis persius persius ............................................................................................................................persius dusky wing
Hesperia assiniboia ................................................................................................................................assiniboia skipper
Hesperia dacotae ....................................................................................................................................Dakota skipper (Fed. Status: P)
Hesperia ottoe..........................................................................................................................................ottoe skipper
Hesperia uncas .......................................................................................................................................uncas skipper
Lycaeides melissa samuelis......................................................................................................................Karner blue (Fed. Status: E)
Oarisma poweshiek..................................................................................................................................poweshiek skipper (Fed. Status: P)
Oeneis uhleri varuna ...............................................................................................................................Uhler's arctic
Threatened
Oarisma garita ........................................................................................................................................garita skipper
Special Concern
Atrytone arogos iowa ...............................................................................................................................arogos skipper
Catocala abbreviatella ............................................................................................................................abbreviated underwing
Catocala whitneyi ....................................................................................................................................Whitney’s underwing
Erebia mancinus ......................................................................................................................................disa alpine
Hesperia leonardus..................................................................................................................................leonardus skipper
Lycaeides idas nabokovi ..........................................................................................................................Nabokov’s blue
Pyrgus centaureae freija..........................................................................................................................grizzled skipper
Schinia indiana .......................................................................................................................................phlox moth
Schinia lucens ..........................................................................................................................................leadplant flower moth
Speyeria idalia ........................................................................................................................................regal fritillary
CADDISFLIES
Endangered
Hydroptila waskesia ................................................................................................................................a species of purse casemaker caddisfly
Limnephilus janus ....................................................................................................................................a species of northern caddisfly
Limnephilus secludens .............................................................................................................................a species of northern caddisfly
Ochrotrichia spinosa ...............................................................................................................................a species of purse casemaker caddisfly
Polycentropus milaca .............................................................................................................................a species of tube casemaker caddisfly
Threatened
Chilostigma itascae .................................................................................................................................headwaters chilostigman caddisfly
Goera stylata ...........................................................................................................................................a species of caddisfly
Hydroptila rono .......................................................................................................................................a species of purse casemaker caddisfly
Ironoquia punctatissima ..........................................................................................................................a species of northern caddisfly
Lepidostoma libum...................................................................................................................................a species of caddisfly
Limnephilus rossi .....................................................................................................................................a species of northern caddisfly
Oecetis ditissa ..........................................................................................................................................a species of long-horned caddisfly
Oxyethira ecornuta ..................................................................................................................................a species of purse casemaker caddisfly
Parapsyche apicalis ................................................................................................................................. a species of netspinning caddisfly
Polycentropus glacialis............................................................................................................................a species of tube casemaker caddisfly
Ylodes frontalis ........................................................................................................................................a species of long-horned caddisfly
Special Concern
Agapetus tomus ........................................................................................................................................a species of caddisfly
Anabolia ozburni .....................................................................................................................................a species of northern caddisfly
Hydroptila metoeca .................................................................................................................................a species of purse casemaker caddisfly
Hydroptila quinola...................................................................................................................................a species of purse casemaker caddisfly
Hydroptila tortosa ..................................................................................................................................a species of purse casemaker caddisfly
Oxyethira itascae .....................................................................................................................................a species of purse casemaker caddisfly
Protoptila erotica ....................................................................................................................................a species of saddle casemaker caddisfly
Triaenodes flavescens ..............................................................................................................................a species of long-horned caddisfly
TIGER BEETLES
Endangered
Cicindela fulgida fulgida .........................................................................................................................crimson salflat tiger beetle, fulgida ssp.
Cicindela hirticollis rhodensis .................................................................................................................hairy-necked tiger beetle
Cicindela limbata nympha .......................................................................................................................sandy tiger beetle
Threatened
Cicindela fulgida westbournei ................................................................................................................crimson salflat tiger beetle, westb. ssp.
Cicindela lepida .......................................................................................................................................ghost tiger beetle
Special concern
Cicindela denikei .....................................................................................................................................Laurentian tiger beetle
Cicindela macra macra ...........................................................................................................................sandy stream tiger beetle
Cicindela patruela patruela .....................................................................................................................northern barrens tiger beetle
Cicindela splendida cyanocephalata .......................................................................................................splendid tiger beetle
MINNESOTA’S LIST OF ENDANGERED, THREATENED, AND SPECIAL CONCERN SPECIES PAGE 6
VASCULAR PLANTS
Endangered
Achnatherum hymenoides............................................................................................................................................Indian rice grass
Agalinis auriculata ......................................................................................................................................................eared false foxglove
Agalinis gattingeri ......................................................................................................................................................round-stemmed false foxglove
Agrostis hyemalis ........................................................................................................................................................winter bentgrass
Allium schoenoprasum ................................................................................................................................................wild chives
Aristida longespica var. geniculata .............................................................................................................................slimspike three-awn
Asclepias stenophylla ..................................................................................................................................................narrow-leaved milkweed
Astragalus alpinus var. alpinus ...................................................................................................................................alpine milk-vetch
Bartonia virginica .......................................................................................................................................................yellow bartonia
Botrychium ascendens .................................................................................................................................................upswept moonwort
Botrychium gallicomontanum......................................................................................................................................Frenchman’s Bluff moonwort
Botrychium lineare ......................................................................................................................................................slender moonwort
Botrychium spathulatum..............................................................................................................................................spathulate moonwort
Calamagrostis purpurascens .......................................................................................................................................purple reedgrass
Caltha natans ..............................................................................................................................................................floating marsh marigold
Carex careyana ..........................................................................................................................................................Carey’s sedge
Carex formosa .............................................................................................................................................................handsome sedge
Carex pallescens .........................................................................................................................................................pale sedge
Carex plantaginea .......................................................................................................................................................plantain-leaved sedge
Carex supina ssp. spaniocarpa ...................................................................................................................................weak arctic sedge
Castilleja septentrionalis.............................................................................................................................................northern paintbrush
Chrysosplenium iowense .............................................................................................................................................Iowa golden saxifrage
Commelina erecta .......................................................................................................................................................slender dayflower
Diarrhena obovata .....................................................................................................................................................obovate beakgrain
Dodecatheon meadia var. meadia ...............................................................................................................................prairie shooting star
Draba cana .................................................................................................................................................................hoary whitlow grass
Draba norvegica .........................................................................................................................................................Norwegian whitlow grass
Dryopteris marginalis .................................................................................................................................................marginal shield fern
Eleocharis wolfii .........................................................................................................................................................Wolf's spikerush
Elodea bifoliata ...........................................................................................................................................................two leaf waterweed
Empetrum atropurpureum ...........................................................................................................................................purple crowberry
Empetrum nigrum .......................................................................................................................................................black crowberry
Erigeron acris var. kamtschaticus ...............................................................................................................................bitter fleabane
Erythronium propullans ..............................................................................................................................................dwarf trout lily (Fed. Status: E)
Escobaria vivipara ......................................................................................................................................................ball cactus
Fimbristylis puberula var. interior ..............................................................................................................................hairy fimbry
Hasteola suaveolens ....................................................................................................................................................sweet-smelling Indian-plantain
Hybanthus concolor ....................................................................................................................................................eastern green-violet
Hydrastis canadensis...................................................................................................................................................goldenseal
Iodanthus pinnatifidus ................................................................................................................................................purple rocket
Isoetes melanopoda .....................................................................................................................................................prairie quillwort
Juglans cinerea ...........................................................................................................................................................butternut
Juncus articulatus .......................................................................................................................................................jointed rush
Juncus marginatus ......................................................................................................................................................marginated rush
Juncus subtilis .............................................................................................................................................................slender rush
Lechea tenuifolia var. tenuifolia ..................................................................................................................................narrow-leaved pinweed
Listera auriculata ........................................................................................................................................................auricled twayblade
Lysimachia maritima ...................................................................................................................................................sea milkwort
Malaxis paludosa .......................................................................................................................................................bog adder's mouth
Marsilea vestita ...........................................................................................................................................................hairy waterclover
Montia chamissoi ........................................................................................................................................................montia
Osmorhiza berteroi .....................................................................................................................................................Chilean sweet cicely
Oxytropis viscida.........................................................................................................................................................sticky locoweed
Packera cana...............................................................................................................................................................gray ragwort
Packera indecora ........................................................................................................................................................elegant grounsel
Paronychia canadensis................................................................................................................................................Canada forked chickweed
Paronychia fastigiata var. fastigiata ...........................................................................................................................forked chickweed
Parthenium integrifolium ............................................................................................................................................wild quinine
Phegopteris hexagonoptera ........................................................................................................................................broad beech fern
Physaria ludoviciana...................................................................................................................................................bladderpod
Platanthera praeclara .................................................................................................................................................western prairie fringed orchid (Fed. Status: T)
Polanisia jamesii .........................................................................................................................................................James' polanisia
Polemonium occidentale ssp. lacustre.........................................................................................................................western Jacob’s ladder
Polygala cruciata .......................................................................................................................................................cross-leaved milkwort
Polystichum acrostichoides .........................................................................................................................................Christmas fern
Potamogeton bicupulatus ............................................................................................................................................snailseed pondweed
Potamogeton confervoides ..........................................................................................................................................algae-like pondweed
Potamogeton diversifolius ...........................................................................................................................................diverse-leaved pondweed
Potamogeton oakesianus .............................................................................................................................................Oake’s pondweed
Potamogeton pulcher ..................................................................................................................................................spotted pondweed
Prosartes trachycarpa .................................................................................................................................................rough-fruited fairybells
Psoralidium tenuiflorum..............................................................................................................................................slender-leaved scurf pea
Rhodiola integrifolia ssp. leedyi ..................................................................................................................................Leedy’s roseroot (Fed. Status: T)
Rubus missouricus.......................................................................................................................................................Missouri dewberry
Rubus stipulatus ..........................................................................................................................................................bristle-berry
Sagina nodosa ssp. borealis ........................................................................................................................................knotty pearlwort
Sagittaria brevirostra ..................................................................................................................................................short-beaked arrowhead
Saxifraga cernua ........................................................................................................................................................nodding saxifrage
Scleria triglomerata ....................................................................................................................................................tall nutrush
Selaginella selaginoides ..............................................................................................................................................northern spikemoss
Stuckenia vaginata ......................................................................................................................................................sheathed pondweed
Tofieldia pusilla ..........................................................................................................................................................small false asphodel
Tsuga canadensis var. canadensis ...............................................................................................................................eastern hemlock
Utricularia purpurea ..................................................................................................................................................purple-flowered bladderwort
Vaccinium uliginosum .................................................................................................................................................alpine bilberry
Xyris torta ...................................................................................................................................................................twisted yellow-eyed grass
MINNESOTA’S LIST OF ENDANGERED, THREATENED, AND SPECIAL CONCERN SPECIES PAGE 7
VASCULAR PLANTS
Threatened
Achillea alpina ............................................................................................................................................................Siberian yarrow
Ammophila breviligulata ssp. breviligulata ................................................................................................................beachgrass
Aristida tuberculosa ....................................................................................................................................................seaside three-awn
Arnica lonchophylla ...................................................................................................................................................long-leaved arnica
Arnoglossum plantagineum ........................................................................................................................................tuberous Indian plantain
Arnoglossum reniforme ...............................................................................................................................................great Indian plantain
Asclepias amplexicaulis ..............................................................................................................................................clasping milkweed
Asclepias hirtella.........................................................................................................................................................prairie milkweed
Asclepias sullivantii.....................................................................................................................................................Sullivant's milkweed
Asplenium trichomanes ssp. trichomanes ....................................................................................................................maidenhair spleenwort
Aureolaria pedicularia ................................................................................................................................................fernleaf false foxglove
Bacopa rotundifolia.....................................................................................................................................................water hyssop
Berula erecta ...............................................................................................................................................................stream parsnip
Besseya bullii .............................................................................................................................................................kitten-tails
Bistorta vivipara..........................................................................................................................................................alpine bistort
Boechera retrofracta ...................................................................................................................................................Holboell's rock cress
Botrychium lanceolatum ssp. angustisegmentum ........................................................................................................narrow triangle moonwort
Botrychium lunaria .....................................................................................................................................................common moonwort
Botrychium mormo ......................................................................................................................................................goblin fern
Botrychium oneidense .................................................................................................................................................blunt-lobed grapefern
Callitriche heterophylla ..............................................................................................................................................larger water starwort
Cardamine pratensis ...................................................................................................................................................cuckoo flower
Carex conjuncta ..........................................................................................................................................................jointed sedge
Carex davisii ..............................................................................................................................................................Davis' sedge
Carex festucacea .........................................................................................................................................................fescue sedge
Carex garberi ..............................................................................................................................................................Garber’s sedge
Carex jamesii ..............................................................................................................................................................James’ sedge
Carex laevivaginata ....................................................................................................................................................smooth-sheathed sedge
Carex laxiculmis..........................................................................................................................................................loose-culmed sedge
Carex novae-angliae ...................................................................................................................................................New England sedge
Carex rossii .................................................................................................................................................................Ross’ sedge
Carex sterilis ...............................................................................................................................................................sterile sedge
Crassula aquatica ......................................................................................................................................................pigmyweed
Cyperus acuminatus ....................................................................................................................................................short-pointed umbrella-sedge
Cypripedium arietinum................................................................................................................................................ram's head orchid
Deschampsia flexuosa ................................................................................................................................................slender hair grass
Desmodium cuspidatum var. longifolium ....................................................................................................................big tick trefoil
Desmodium nudiflorum ..............................................................................................................................................stemless tick trefoil
Diplazium pycnocarpon ..............................................................................................................................................narrow-leaved spleenwort
Eleocharis flavescens var. olivacea .............................................................................................................................olivaceous spikerush
Eleocharis robbinsii ....................................................................................................................................................Robbins’ spikerush
Eleocharis rostellata ...................................................................................................................................................beaked spikerush
Erigeron lonchophyllus ...............................................................................................................................................short ray fleabane
Eupatorium sessilifolium .............................................................................................................................................upland boneset
Floerkea proserpinacoides ..........................................................................................................................................false mermaid
Gaylussacia baccata ...................................................................................................................................................black huckleberry
Hamamelis virginiana .................................................................................................................................................witch-hazel
Heteranthera limosa....................................................................................................................................................mud plantain
Hudsonia tomentosa ....................................................................................................................................................beach heather
Huperzia porophila ....................................................................................................................................................rock fir moss
Leersia lenticularis......................................................................................................................................................catchfly grass
Lespedeza leptostachya ..............................................................................................................................................prairie bush clover (Fed. Status: T)
Luzula parviflora.........................................................................................................................................................small-flowered woodrush
Melica nitens ..............................................................................................................................................................three-flowered melic
Minuartia dawsonensis................................................................................................................................................rock sandwort
Moehringia macrophylla ............................................................................................................................................large-leaved sandwort
Napaea dioica .............................................................................................................................................................glade mallow
Nymphaea leibergii .....................................................................................................................................................small white waterlily
Orobanche fasciculata ................................................................................................................................................clustered broomrape
Orobanche ludoviciana var. ludoviciana.....................................................................................................................Louisiana broomrape
Orobanche uniflora .....................................................................................................................................................one-flowered broomrape
Phacelia franklinii .......................................................................................................................................................Franklin’s phacelia
Phemeranthus rugospermus ........................................................................................................................................rough-seeded fameflower
Piptatherum canadense ...............................................................................................................................................Canadian ricegrass
Platanthera flava var herbiola ...................................................................................................................................tubercled rein orchid
Poa paludigena ...........................................................................................................................................................bog bluegrass
Polystichum braunii ....................................................................................................................................................Braun's holly fern
Rhynchospora capillacea ...........................................................................................................................................hair-like beak rush
Rotala ramosior ..........................................................................................................................................................toothcup
Rubus chamaemorus ...................................................................................................................................................cloudberry
Rubus fulleri ................................................................................................................................................................bristle-berry
Rubus semisetosus .......................................................................................................................................................swamp blackberry
Rudbeckia triloba var. triloba .....................................................................................................................................three-leaved coneflower
Sagittaria calycina var. calycina .................................................................................................................................hooded arrowhead
Salicornia rubra ..........................................................................................................................................................red saltwort
Salix pellita ................................................................................................................................................................satiny willow
Scleria verticillata ......................................................................................................................................................whorled nutrush
Scutellaria ovata var. versicolor .................................................................................................................................ovate-leaved skullcap
Shinnersoseris rostrata ...............................................................................................................................................annual skeletonweed
Silene nivea .................................................................................................................................................................snowy campion
Spiranthes casei var. casei ..........................................................................................................................................Case’s ladies’ tresses
Subularia aquatic ssp. americana ...............................................................................................................................awlwort
Sullivantia sullivantii...................................................................................................................................................reniform sullivantia
Trichophorum clintonii................................................................................................................................................Clinton’s bulrush
Utricularia geminiscapa..............................................................................................................................................hidden-fruit bladderwort
Utricularia resupinata ................................................................................................................................................lavender bladderwort
Valeriana edulis var. ciliata ........................................................................................................................................edible valerian
Viola lanceolata var. lanceolata..................................................................................................................................lance-leaved violet
Viola nuttallii .............................................................................................................................................................yellow prairie violet
Vitis aestivalis var. bicolor ..........................................................................................................................................silverleaf grape
Woodsia alpina ...........................................................................................................................................................alpine woodsia
Woodsia glabella ........................................................................................................................................................smooth woodsia
Woodsia scopulina ssp. laurentiana ............................................................................................................................Rocky Mountain woodsia
MINNESOTA’S LIST OF ENDANGERED, THREATENED, AND SPECIAL CONCERN SPECIES PAGE 8
VASCULAR PLANTS
Special Concern
Adlumia fungosa ......................................................................................................................................Allegheny vine
Alisma gramineum ...................................................................................................................................narrow-leaved water plantain
Allium cernuum........................................................................................................................................nodding wild onion
Androsace septentrionalis........................................................................................................................northern androsace
Antennaria parvifolia...............................................................................................................................small-leaved pussytoes
Arabis laevigata var. laevigata ................................................................................................................smooth rock cress
Arisaema dracontium...............................................................................................................................green dragon
Aristida purpurea var. longiseta .............................................................................................................red three-awn
Asplenium platyneuron ............................................................................................................................ebony spleenwort
Astragalus flexuosus var. flexuosus .........................................................................................................slender milk-vetch
Astragalus missouriensis var. missouriensis ............................................................................................Missouri milk-vetch
Avenula hookeri .......................................................................................................................................oat-grass
Baptisia bracteata var. glabrescens ........................................................................................................plains wild indigo
Baptisia lactea var. lactea........................................................................................................................white wild indigo
Bidens discoidea ......................................................................................................................................discoid beggarticks
Botrychium acuminatum ..........................................................................................................................tailed grapefern
Botrychium campestre .............................................................................................................................prairie moonwort
Botrychium minganense ..........................................................................................................................Mingan moonwort
Botrychium pallidum................................................................................................................................pale moonwort
Botrychium rugulosum.............................................................................................................................St. Lawrence grapefern
Botrychium simplex .................................................................................................................................least moonwort
Buchloe dactyloides .................................................................................................................................buffalo grass
Calamagrostis lacustris ...........................................................................................................................marsh reedgrass
Calamagrostis montanensis .....................................................................................................................Plains reedgrass
Carex annectens ......................................................................................................................................yellow-fruited sedge
Carex exilis ..............................................................................................................................................coastal sedge
Carex flava .............................................................................................................................................yellow sedge
Carex grayi ..............................................................................................................................................Gray’s sedge
Carex hallii ..............................................................................................................................................Hall's sedge
Carex hookerana .....................................................................................................................................Hooker’s sedge
Carex media.............................................................................................................................................intermediate sedge
Carex michauxiana ..................................................................................................................................Michaux’s sedge
Carex muskingumensis ............................................................................................................................Muskingum sedge
Carex obtusata ........................................................................................................................................blunt sedge
Carex ormostachya ..................................................................................................................................necklace sedge
Carex praticola .......................................................................................................................................prairie-dweller sedge
Carex scirpoidea .....................................................................................................................................northern singlespike sedge
Carex typhina ..........................................................................................................................................cattail sedge
Carex xerantica .......................................................................................................................................dry sedge
Chamaesyce missurica ............................................................................................................................Missouri spurge
Cirsium pumilum var. hillii .....................................................................................................................Hill's thistle
Cladium mariscoides ...............................................................................................................................twig rush
Crataegus calpodendron..........................................................................................................................late hawthorn
Crataegus douglasii .................................................................................................................................black hawthorn
Crotalaria sagittalis.................................................................................................................................rattlebox
Cymopterus glomeratus ...........................................................................................................................Plains spring parsley
Cypripedium candidum ............................................................................................................................small white lady's slipper
Dalea candida var. oligophylla ...............................................................................................................western white prairie clover
Decodon verticillatus ...............................................................................................................................water willow
Deparia acrostichoides ............................................................................................................................silvery spleenwort
Desmanthus illinoensis ...........................................................................................................................prairie mimosa
Dicentra canadensis ................................................................................................................................squirrel corn
Draba arabisans ......................................................................................................................................Arabian whitlow grass
Drosera anglica .......................................................................................................................................English sundew
Drosera linearis.......................................................................................................................................linear-leaved sundew
Dryopteris goldiana ................................................................................................................................Goldie's fern
Elatine triandra .......................................................................................................................................three-stamened waterwort
Eleocharis coloradoensis.........................................................................................................................dwarf spikerush
Eleocharis nitida......................................................................................................................................neat spikerush
Eleocharis quinqueflora ..........................................................................................................................few-flowered spikerush
Eryngium yuccifolium ..............................................................................................................................rattlesnake master
Euphrasia hudsoniana var. ramosior.......................................................................................................Hudson Bay eyebright
Fimbristylis autumnalis ...........................................................................................................................autumn fimbry
Gaillardia aristata ...................................................................................................................................blanket flower
Gentiana affinis .......................................................................................................................................northern gentian
Gentianella amarella ...............................................................................................................................felwort
Gymnocarpium robertianum....................................................................................................................northern oak fern
Gymnocladus dioica ................................................................................................................................Kentucky coffee tree
Helianthemum canadense ........................................................................................................................Canada frostweed
Helianthus nuttallii ssp. rydbergii ...........................................................................................................Nuttall's sunflower
Huperzia appalachiana............................................................................................................................Appalachian fir moss
Hydrocotyle americana............................................................................................................................American water-pennywort
Jeffersonia diphylla .................................................................................................................................twinleaf
Juncus stygius var. americanus................................................................................................................bog rush
Juniperus horizontalis..............................................................................................................................creeping juniper
Limosella aquatica...................................................................................................................................mudwort
Listera convallarioides ............................................................................................................................broad-leaved twayblade
Littorella americana ................................................................................................................................American shore plantain
Lysimachia quadrifolia ............................................................................................................................whorled loosestrife
Malaxis monophyllos var. brachypoda ....................................................................................................white adder’s mouth
Muhlenbergia uniflora .............................................................................................................................one-flowered muhly
MINNESOTA’S LIST OF ENDANGERED, THREATENED, AND SPECIAL CONCERN SPECIES PAGE 9
VASCULAR PLANTS
Special Concern (continued)
Myriophyllum heterophyllum ...................................................................................................................broadleaf water milfoil
Najas gracillima ......................................................................................................................................slender naiad
Najas guadalupensis ssp. olivacea...........................................................................................................southern naiad
Najas marina ...........................................................................................................................................sea naiad
Nuttallanthus canadensis .........................................................................................................................old field toadflax
Oenothera rhombipetala ..........................................................................................................................rhombic evening primrose
Opuntia macrorhiza ................................................................................................................................. devil’s tongue
Osmorhiza depauperata ...........................................................................................................................blunt-fruited sweet cicely
Panax quinquefolius ................................................................................................................................American ginseng
Pellaea atropurpurea...............................................................................................................................purple cliff brake
Persicaria careyi .....................................................................................................................................Carey’s smartweed
Phlox maculata ........................................................................................................................................wild sweet William
Pinguicula vulgaris..................................................................................................................................butterwort
Plagiobothrys scouleri .............................................................................................................................Scouler’s popcornflower
Plantago elongata....................................................................................................................................slender plantain
Platanthera clavellata..............................................................................................................................small green wood orchid
Poa wolfii.................................................................................................................................................Wolf's bluegrass
Polytaenia nuttallii ..................................................................................................................................prairie parsley
Pyrola minor ............................................................................................................................................small shinleaf
Quercus bicolor .......................................................................................................................................swamp white oak
Ranunculus lapponicus ............................................................................................................................Lapland buttercup
Rorippa sessiliflora .................................................................................................................................sessile-flowered yellow cress
Rubus multifer..........................................................................................................................................Kinnickinnick dewberry
Rubus quaesitus .......................................................................................................................................Prince Edward Island blackberry
Rubus vermontanus..................................................................................................................................Vermont blackberry
Ruellia humilis .........................................................................................................................................wild petunia
Ruppia cirrhosa .......................................................................................................................................spiral ditchgrass
Salix maccalliana ....................................................................................................................................McCalla’s willow
Salix pseudomonticola .............................................................................................................................false mountain willow
Sanicula trifoliata ....................................................................................................................................beaked snakeroot
Saxifraga paniculata ...............................................................................................................................encrusted saxifrage
Schedonnardus paniculatus .....................................................................................................................tumble grass
Shepherdia canadensis ............................................................................................................................soapberry
Silene drummondii ssp. drummondii ........................................................................................................Drummond’s campion
Solidago mollis ........................................................................................................................................soft goldenrod
Stellaria longipes ssp. longipes................................................................................................................long-stalked chickweed
Symphyotrichum shortii ...........................................................................................................................Short’s aster
Taenidia integerrima ...............................................................................................................................yellow pimpernel
Tephrosia virginiana................................................................................................................................goat's rue
Thaspium barbinode ................................................................................................................................hairy-jointed meadow-parsnip
Torreyochloa pallida ...............................................................................................................................Torrey’s mannagrass
Trillium nivale ........................................................................................................................................snow trillium
Triplasis purpurea var. purpurea.............................................................................................................purple sandgrass
Trisetum spicatum....................................................................................................................................spike trisetum
Verbena simplex.......................................................................................................................................narrow-leaved vervain
Waldsteinia fragarioides var. fragarioides ..............................................................................................barren strawberry
Woodsia oregano ssp. cathcartiana .........................................................................................................Oregon woodsia
Xanthisma spinulosum var. spinulosum ...................................................................................................cutleaf ironplant
Xyris montana ..........................................................................................................................................montane yellow-eyed grass
FUNGI
Endangered
Psathyrella cystidiosa ..............................................................................................................................a species of fungus
Psathyrella rhodospora ...........................................................................................................................a species of fungus
Suillus weaverae ......................................................................................................................................a species of fungus
Special concern
Boletus subcaerulescens ..........................................................................................................................a species of fungus
Laccaria trullisata ...................................................................................................................................a species of fungus
Lactarius fuliginellus ...............................................................................................................................a species of fungus
Lysurus cruciatus ....................................................................................................................................a species of fungus
Sarcosoma globosum ...............................................................................................................................a species of fungus
MINNESOTA’S LIST OF ENDANGERED, THREATENED, AND SPECIAL CONCERN SPECIES PAGE 10
LICHENS
Endangered
Caloplaca parvula ...................................................................................................................................a species of lichen
Dermatocarpon moulinsii ........................................................................................................................a species of lichen
Leptogium apalachense ...........................................................................................................................a species of lichen
Lobaria scrobiculata................................................................................................................................a species of lichen
Parmelia stictica ......................................................................................................................................a species of lichen
Pseudocyphellaria crocata ......................................................................................................................a species of lichen
Umbilicaria torrefacta .............................................................................................................................a species of lichen
Threatened
Allocetraria oakesiana.............................................................................................................................a species of lichen
Arthrorhaphis citrinella ...........................................................................................................................golden dot-lichen
Coccocarpia palmicola ............................................................................................................................a species of lichen
Lecanora epanora....................................................................................................................................a species of rim lichen
Parmelia stuppea .....................................................................................................................................a species of lichen
Peltula bolanderi .....................................................................................................................................Bolander’s peltula lichen
Protopannaria pezizoides ........................................................................................................................brown-gray moss-shingle lichen
Ramalina roesleri ....................................................................................................................................frayed ramalina lichen
Usnea mutabilis .......................................................................................................................................bloody beard lichen
Special concern
Ahtiana aurescens....................................................................................................................................a species of lichen
Amygdalaria panaeola.............................................................................................................................powdery almond lichen
Anaptychia crinalis ..................................................................................................................................a species of lichen
Arctoparmelia centrifuga .........................................................................................................................concentric ring lichen
Arctoparmelia subcentrifuga ...................................................................................................................a species of ring lichen
Bryoria fuscescens ...................................................................................................................................pale-footed horsehair lichen
Buellia nigra ............................................................................................................................................a species of lichen
Caloplaca stellata ....................................................................................................................................a species of firedot lichen
Cladonia pseudorangiformis ...................................................................................................................a species of lichen
Heteroderma obscurata ...........................................................................................................................orange-tinted fringe lichen
Melanelia subolivacea .............................................................................................................................brown-eyed camouflage lichen
Menegazzia terebrata ..............................................................................................................................port-hole lichen
Ochrolechia androgyna ...........................................................................................................................powdery saucer lichen
Peltigera venosa ......................................................................................................................................a species of lichen
Platismatia glauca ...................................................................................................................................ragbag lichen
Ramalina thrausta ...................................................................................................................................angel’s hair lichen
Stereocaulon pileatum .............................................................................................................................pixie foam lichen
Sticta fuliginosa .......................................................................................................................................a species of lichen
Thelocarpon epibolum .............................................................................................................................a species of thelocarpon lichen
Usnea longissima .....................................................................................................................................Methuselah’s beard lichen
Usnea rubicunda......................................................................................................................................red beard lichen
MOSSES AND LIVERWORTS
Endangered
Bryoxiphium norvegicum .........................................................................................................................sword moss
Schistostega pennata................................................................................................................................luminous moss
Splachnum rubrum...................................................................................................................................red parasol moss
Threatened
Cirriphyllum piliferum .............................................................................................................................hair-pointed feather moss
Cryptocolea imbricata .............................................................................................................................hidden perianth liverwort
Cynodontium schisti................................................................................................................................. mowed mosquito moss
Lescuraea saxicola ..................................................................................................................................lustrous bow moss
Sphagnum compactum .............................................................................................................................cushion peat moss
Sphagnum lescurii ...................................................................................................................................red twisted peat moss
Trichocolea tomentella ............................................................................................................................down liverwort
Special Concern
Aphanorrhegma serratum ........................................................................................................................lidded earth moss
Atrichum crispum.....................................................................................................................................wave-leaved crane’s-bill moss
Atrichum tenellum....................................................................................................................................little saw moss
Aulacomnium androgynum ......................................................................................................................bud-headed thread moss
Aulacomnium heterostichum....................................................................................................................differential branched crease capsule moss
Bryum cyclophyllum ................................................................................................................................egg-leaf true moss
Buxbaumia aphylla ..................................................................................................................................bug-on-a-stick moss
Cyrto-hypnum pygmaeum ........................................................................................................................pygmy plume moss
Encalypta procera ...................................................................................................................................tall extinguisher moss
Frullania selwyniana ...............................................................................................................................Selwyn’s ear-leaf liverwort
Heterocladium dimorphum ......................................................................................................................spaced-out tangle moss
Hyophila involuta ....................................................................................................................................rolled-leaf wet-ground moss
Jaffueliobryum wrightii............................................................................................................................Wright’s blunt leaved true moss
Meesia uliginosa ......................................................................................................................................swan moss
Pogonatum urnigerum .............................................................................................................................urn-bearing hair moss
Thelia hirtella ..........................................................................................................................................nipple moss
Tortella inclinata .....................................................................................................................................shortleaf chalk moss
MINNESOTA’S LIST OF ENDANGERED, THREATENED, AND SPECIAL CONCERN SPECIES PAGE 11
Alphabetical Index by Scientific Name
STATUS CODES: E = Endangered; T = Threatened; SC = Special Concern
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME STATUS TAXONOMIC GROUP
Accipiter gentilis .............................................northern goshawk .........................................................SC ....................bird
Achillea alpina................................................ Siberian yarrow ............................................................ T.......................vascular plant
Achnatherum hymenoides ............................... Indian rice grass ............................................................E.......................vascular plant
Acipenser fulvescens ....................................... lake sturgeon .................................................................SC ....................fish
Acris blanchardi ............................................. northern cricket frog .....................................................E.......................amphibian/reptile
Actinonaias ligamentina ................................. mucket .......................................................................... T.......................mollusk
Adlumia fungosa ............................................. Allegheny vine..............................................................SC ....................vascular plant
Aegolius funereus ...........................................boreal owl .....................................................................SC ....................bird
Aeschna sitchensis .......................................... zigzag darner ................................................................SC ....................dragonfly
Aeschna subarctica ......................................... subarctic darner ............................................................SC ....................dragonfly
Aflexia rubranura ...........................................red-tailed leafhopper .....................................................SC ....................leafhopper
Agalinis auriculata ......................................... eared false foxglove ......................................................E.......................vascular plant
Agalinis gattingeri .......................................... round-stemmed false foxglove......................................E.......................vascular plant
Agapetus tomus...............................................a species of caddisfly ....................................................SC ....................caddisfly
Agrostis hyemalis............................................ winter bentgrass ............................................................E.......................vascular plant
Ahtiana aurescens........................................... a species of lichen .........................................................SC ....................lichen
Alasmidonta marginata .................................. elktoe ............................................................................ T.......................mollusk
Alces americanus ............................................moose ...........................................................................SC ....................mammal
Alisma gramineum .......................................... narrow-leaved water plantain........................................SC ....................vascular plant
Allium cernuum............................................... nodding wild onion .......................................................SC ....................vascular plant
Allium schoenoprasum....................................wild chives ....................................................................E.......................vascular plant
Allocetraria oakesiana.................................... a species of lichen .........................................................T.......................lichen
Alosa chrysochloris ........................................skipjack herring ............................................................E.......................fish
Ambystoma maculatum ...................................spotted salamander .......................................................SC ....................amphibian/reptile
Ammodramus bairdii ...................................... Baird's sparrow .............................................................E.......................bird
Ammodramus henslowii .................................. Henslow's sparrow ........................................................E.......................bird
Ammodramus nelsoni...................................... Nelson’s sparrow .......................................................... SC ....................bird
Ammophila breviligulata ssp. breviligulata .... beachgrass ....................................................................T.......................vascular plant
Amygdalaria panaeola....................................powdery almond lichen.................................................SC ....................lichen
Anabolia ozburni ............................................ a species of northern caddisfly......................................SC ....................caddisfly
Anaptychia crinalis .........................................a species of lichen .........................................................SC ....................lichen
Anaxyrus cognatus..........................................Great Plains toad ..........................................................SC ....................amphibian/reptile
Androsace septentrionalis............................... northern androsace........................................................SC ....................vascular plant
Anguilla rostrata............................................. American eel .................................................................SC ....................fish
Anodonta suborbiculata.................................. flat floater .....................................................................SC ....................mollusk
Antennaria parvifolia...................................... small-leaved pussytoes .................................................SC ....................vascular plant
Anthus spragueii ............................................. Sprague's pipit (Fed. Status: C).....................................E.......................bird
Apalone mutica ...............................................smooth softshell ............................................................SC ....................amphibian/reptile
Aphanorrhegma serratum ............................... lidded earth moss ..........................................................SC ....................moss/liverwort
Aphredoderus sayanus ....................................pirate perch ...................................................................SC ....................fish
Arabis laevigata var. laevigata ....................... smooth rock cress .........................................................SC ....................vascular plant
Arcidens confragosus......................................rock pocketbook ...........................................................E.......................mollusk
Arctoparmelia centrifuga................................concentric ring lichen ...................................................SC ....................lichen
Arctoparmelia subcentrifuga ..........................a species of ring lichen .................................................SC ....................lichen
Arisaema dracontium...................................... green dragon .................................................................SC ....................vascular plant
Aristida longespica var. geniculata ................ slimspike three-awn ......................................................E.......................vascular plant
Aristida purpurea var. longiseta ..................... red three-awn ................................................................SC ....................vascular plant
Aristida tuberculosa ....................................... seaside three-awn..........................................................T.......................vascular plant
Arnica lonchophylla ....................................... long-leaved arnica.........................................................T.......................vascular plant
Arnoglossum plantagineum ............................ tuberous Indian plantain ...............................................T.......................vascular plant
Arnoglossum reniforme .................................. great Indian plantain .....................................................T.......................vascular plant
Arthrorhaphis citrinella ..................................golden dot-lichen ..........................................................T.......................lichen
Asclepias amplexicaulis .................................. clasping milkweed ........................................................T.......................vascular plant
Asclepias hirtella ............................................ prairie milkweed ...........................................................T.......................vascular plant
Asclepias stenophylla...................................... narrow-leaved milkweed ..............................................E.......................vascular plant
Asclepias sullivantii ........................................ Sullivant's milkweed .....................................................T.......................vascular plant
Asio flammeus ................................................. short-eared owl .............................................................SC ....................bird
Asplenium platyneuron ...................................ebony spleenwort ..........................................................SC ....................vascular plant
Asplenium trichomanes ssp. trichomanes ....... maidenhair spleenwort ..................................................T.......................vascular plant
Astragalus alpinus var. alpinus ......................alpine milk-vetch ..........................................................E.......................vascular plant
Astragalus flexuosus var. flexuosus ................ slender milk-vetch ........................................................SC ....................vascular plant
Astragalus missouriensis var. missouriensis ... Missouri milk-vetch ......................................................SC ....................vascular plant
Athene cunicularia.......................................... burrowing owl ..............................................................E.......................bird
Atrichum crispum ........................................... wave-leaved crane’s-bill moss ......................................SC ....................moss/liverwort
Atrichum tenellum........................................... little saw moss ..............................................................SC ....................moss/liverwort
Atrytone arogos iowa......................................arogos skipper...............................................................SC ....................butterfly/moth
Attenuipyga vanduzeei .................................... hill prairie shovelhead leafhopper.................................SC ....................leafhopper
Aulacomnium androgynum ............................. bud-headed thread moss ...............................................SC ....................moss/liverwort
Aulacomnium heterostichum........................... differential branched crease capsule moss ....................SC ....................moss/liverwort
Aureolaria pedicularia ................................... fernleaf false foxglove .................................................. T.......................vascular plant
Avenula hookeri ..............................................oat-grass........................................................................SC ....................vascular plant
Bacopa rotundifolia ........................................ water hyssop .................................................................T.......................vascular plant
Baptisia bracteata var. glabrescens................ plains wild indigo .........................................................SC ....................vascular plant
Baptisia lactea var. lactea ..............................white wild indigo ..........................................................SC ....................vascular plant
Bartonia virginica........................................... yellow bartonia ............................................................. E.......................vascular plant
Berula erecta .................................................. stream parsnip ...............................................................T.......................vascular plant
Besseya bullii .................................................. kitten-tails .....................................................................T.......................vascular plant
Bidens discoidea .............................................discoid beggarticks .......................................................SC ....................vascular plant
Bistorta vivipara ............................................. alpine bistort .................................................................T.......................vascular plant
MINNESOTA’S LIST OF ENDANGERED, THREATENED, AND SPECIAL CONCERN SPECIES PAGE 12
Alphabetical Index by Scientific Name
STATUS CODES: E = Endangered; T = Threatened; SC = Special Concern
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME STATUS TAXONOMIC GROUP
Boechera holboellii......................................... Holboell's rock cress .....................................................T.......................vascular plant
Boletus subcaerulescens .................................a species of fungus........................................................SC ....................fungus
Botrychium acuminatum .................................tailed grapefern .............................................................SC ....................vascular plant
Botrychium ascendens ....................................upswept moonwort .......................................................E.......................vascular plant
Botrychium campestre .................................... prairie moonwort .......................................................... SC ....................vascular plant
Botrychium gallicomontanum ......................... Frenchman’s Bluff moonwort .......................................E.......................vascular plant
Botrychium lanceolatum ssp. angustisegmentum ..narrow triangle moonwort ............................................T.......................vascular plant
Botrychium lineare .........................................slender moonwort .........................................................E.......................vascular plant
Botrychium lunaria ......................................... common moonwort .......................................................T.......................vascular plant
Botrychium minganense..................................Mingan moonwort ........................................................SC ....................vascular plant
Botrychium mormo ......................................... goblin fern ....................................................................T.......................vascular plant
Botrychium oneidense.....................................blunt-lobed grapefern ...................................................T.......................vascular plant
Botrychium pallidum ......................................pale moonwort ..............................................................SC ....................vascular plant
Botrychium rugulosum....................................St. Lawrence grapefern .................................................SC ....................vascular plant
Botrychium simplex ........................................ least moonwort ............................................................. SC ....................vascular plant
Botrychium spathulatum .................................spathulate moonwort.....................................................E.......................vascular plant
Boyeria grafiana ............................................. ocellated darner ............................................................SC ....................dragonfly
Bryoria fuscescens ..........................................pale-footed horsehair lichen..........................................SC ....................lichen
Bryoxiphium norvegicum ................................ sword moss ...................................................................E.......................moss/liverwort
Bryum cyclophyllum ....................................... egg-leaf true moss.........................................................SC ....................moss/liverwort
Buchloe dactyloides ........................................ buffalo grass .................................................................SC ....................vascular plant
Buellia nigra ................................................... a species of lichen .........................................................SC ....................lichen
Buteo lineatus ................................................. red-shouldered hawk.....................................................SC ....................bird
Buxbaumia aphylla ......................................... bug-on-a-stick moss ......................................................SC ....................moss/liverwort
Calamagrostis lacustris .................................. marsh reedgrass ............................................................ SC ....................vascular plant
Calamagrostis montanensis ............................Plains reedgrass ............................................................SC ....................vascular plant
Calamagrostis purpurascens ..........................purple reedgrass ............................................................E.......................vascular plant
Calcarius ornatus ........................................... chestnut-collared longspur ............................................E.......................bird
Callitriche heterophylla ..................................larger water starwort .....................................................T.......................vascular plant
Caloplaca parvula ..........................................a species of lichen .........................................................E.......................lichen
Caloplaca stellata ...........................................a species of firedot lichen .............................................SC ....................lichen
Caltha natans.................................................. floating marsh marigold................................................ E.......................vascular plant
Cardamine pratensis....................................... cuckoo flower ...............................................................T.......................vascular plant
Carex annectens ............................................. yellow-fruited sedge .....................................................SC ....................vascular plant
Carex careyana............................................... Carey’s sedge................................................................E.......................vascular plant
Carex conjuncta.............................................. jointed sedge .................................................................T.......................vascular plant
Carex davisii ................................................... Davis' sedge ..................................................................T.......................vascular plant
Carex exilis ..................................................... coastal sedge .................................................................SC ....................vascular plant
Carex festucacea.............................................fescue sedge ..................................................................T.......................vascular plant
Carex flava .....................................................yellow sedge .................................................................SC ....................vascular plant
Carex formosa ................................................handsome sedge ............................................................E.......................vascular plant
Carex garberi ................................................. Garber’s sedge ..............................................................T.......................vascular plant
Carex grayi ..................................................... Gray’s sedge .................................................................SC ....................vascular plant
Carex hallii ..................................................... Hall's sedge ...................................................................SC ....................vascular plant
Carex hookerana ............................................ Hooker’s sedge .............................................................SC ....................vascular plant
Carex jamesii .................................................. James’ sedge .................................................................T.......................vascular plant
Carex laevivaginata ........................................smooth-sheathed sedge .................................................T.......................vascular plant
Carex laxiculmis ............................................. loose-culmed sedge.......................................................T.......................vascular plant
Carex media.................................................... intermediate sedge ........................................................SC ....................vascular plant
Carex michauxiana ......................................... Michaux’s sedge ...........................................................SC ....................vascular plant
Carex muskingumensis ................................... Muskingum sedge .........................................................SC ....................vascular plant
Carex novae-angliae....................................... New England sedge ......................................................T.......................vascular plant
Carex obtusata................................................ blunt sedge....................................................................SC ....................vascular plant
Carex ormostachya ......................................... necklace sedge ..............................................................SC ....................vascular plant
Carex pallescens ............................................. pale sedge ..................................................................... E.......................vascular plant
Carex plantaginea ..........................................plantain-leaved sedge ...................................................E.......................vascular plant
Carex praticola ............................................... prairie-dweller sedge ....................................................SC ....................vascular plant
Carex rossii .................................................... Ross’ sedge ...................................................................T.......................vascular plant
Carex scirpoidea............................................. northern singlespike sedge ............................................SC ....................vascular plant
Carex sterilis .................................................. sterile sedge ..................................................................T.......................vascular plant
Carex supina ssp. spaniocarpa .......................weak arctic sedge ..........................................................E.......................vascular plant
Carex typhina .................................................cattail sedge ..................................................................SC ....................vascular plant
Carex xerantica .............................................. dry sedge....................................................................... SC ....................vascular plant
Castilleja septentrionalis ................................northern paintbrush .......................................................E.......................vascular plant
Catocala abbreviatella ................................... abbreviated underwing .................................................SC ....................butterfly/moth
Catocala whitneyi ........................................... Whitney’s underwing .................................................. SC ....................butterfly/moth
Cervus canadensis .......................................... elk ................................................................................. SC ....................mammal
Chamaesyce missurica.................................... Missouri spurge ............................................................ SC ....................vascular plant
Charadrius melodus ....................................... piping plover (Fed. Status: E/T) ...................................E.......................bird
Chilostigma itascae ........................................headwaters chilostigman caddisfly ...............................T.......................caddisfly
Chondestes grammacus ..................................lark sparrow ..................................................................SC ....................bird
Chrysosplenium iowense ................................ Iowa golden saxifrage ...................................................E.......................vascular plant
Cicindela denikei ............................................Laurentian tiger beetle ..................................................SC ....................tiger beetle
Cicindela fulgida westbournei ........................crimson saltflat tiger beetle, tiger beetle, westb. ssp .....T.......................tiger beetle
Cicindela fulgida fulgida ................................crimson saltflat tiger beetle, fulgida ssp........................E.......................tiger beetle
Cicindela hirticollis rhodensis ........................hairy-necked tiger beetle...............................................E.......................tiger beetle
Cicindela lepida.............................................. ghost tiger beetle........................................................... T.......................tiger beetle
Cicindela limbata nympha ..............................sandy tiger beetle ..........................................................E.......................tiger beetle
Cicindela macra macra .................................. sandy stream tiger beetle .............................................. SC ....................tiger beetle
MINNESOTA’S LIST OF ENDANGERED, THREATENED, AND SPECIAL CONCERN SPECIES PAGE 13
Alphabetical Index by Scientific Name
STATUS CODES: E = Endangered; T = Threatened; SC = Special Concern
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME STATUS TAXONOMIC GROUP
Cicindela patruela patruela ............................northern barrens tiger beetle .........................................SC ....................tiger beetle
Cicindela splendida cyanocephalata .............. splendid tiger beetle ...................................................... SC ....................tiger beetle
Cirriphyllum piliferum .................................... hair-pointed feather moss .............................................T.......................moss/liverwort
Cirsium pumilum var. hillii ............................. Hill's thistle ...................................................................SC ....................vascular plant
Cladium mariscoides ...................................... twig rush .......................................................................SC ....................vascular plant
Cladonia pseudorangiformis .......................... a species of lichen .........................................................SC ....................lichen
Clinostomus elongates .................................... redside dace ..................................................................SC ....................fish
Coccocarpia palmicola................................... a species of lichen .........................................................T.......................lichen
Coluber constrictor......................................... North American racer ...................................................SC ....................amphibian/reptile
Commelina erecta ........................................... slender dayflower ......................................................... E.......................vascular plant
Coregonus kiyi ................................................ kiyi................................................................................ SC ....................fish
Coregonus nipigon ......................................... Nipigon cisco ................................................................SC ....................fish
Coregonus zenithicus ......................................shortjaw cisco ...............................................................SC ....................fish
Coturnicops noveboracensis ...........................yellow rail .....................................................................SC ....................bird
Couesius plumbeus ......................................... lake chub.......................................................................SC ....................fish
Crassula aquatica ...........................................pigmyweed ...................................................................T.......................vascular plant
Crataegus calpodendron ................................ late hawthorn ................................................................ SC ....................vascular plant
Crataegus douglasii........................................ black hawthorn ............................................................. SC ....................vascular plant
Crotalaria sagittalis .......................................rattlebox ........................................................................SC ....................vascular plant
Crotalus horridus ........................................... timber rattlesnake .........................................................T.......................amphibian/reptile
Cryptocolea imbricata .................................... hidden-perianth liverwort .............................................T.......................moss/liverwort
Cryptotis parva ............................................... North American least shrew .........................................SC ....................mammal
Crystallaria asprella....................................... crystal darter .................................................................E.......................fish
Cumberlandia monodonta ..............................spectaclecase (Fed. Status: E).......................................E.......................mollusk
Cycleptus elongatus ........................................ blue sucker ....................................................................SC ....................fish
Cyclonaias tuberculata ...................................purple wartyback ..........................................................E.......................mollusk
Cygnus buccinator .......................................... trumpeter swan .............................................................SC ....................bird
Cymopterus glomeratus ..................................Plains spring parsley .....................................................SC ....................vascular plant
Cynodontium schisti ....................................... mowed mosquito moss .................................................T.......................moss/liverwort
Cyperus acuminatus ....................................... short-pointed umbrella-sedge .......................................T.......................vascular plant
Cypripedium arietinum ................................... ram's head orchid ..........................................................T.......................vascular plant
Cypripedium candidum................................... small white lady's slipper ..............................................SC ....................vascular plant
Cyrto-hypnum pygmaeum ............................... pygmy plume moss .......................................................SC ....................moss/liverwort
Dalea candida var. oligophylla.......................western white prairie clover..........................................SC ....................vascular plant
Decodon verticillatus...................................... water willow .................................................................SC ....................vascular plant
Deparia acrostichoides................................... silvery spleenwort .........................................................SC ....................vascular plant
Dermatocarpon moulinsii ............................... a species of lichen .........................................................E.......................lichen
Deschampsia flexuosa .................................... slender hair grass ..........................................................T.......................vascular plant
Desmanthus illinoensis ................................... prairie mimosa ..............................................................SC ....................vascular plant
Desmodium cuspidatum var. longifolium........big tick trefoil ...............................................................T.......................vascular plant
Desmodium nudiflorum .................................. stemless tick trefoil .......................................................T.......................vascular plant
Diarrhena obovata .........................................obovate beakgrain .........................................................E.......................vascular plant
Dicentra canadensis ....................................... squirrel corn ..................................................................SC ....................vascular plant
Diplazium pycnocarpon .................................. narrow-leaved spleenwort .............................................T.......................vascular plant
Dodecatheon meadia var. meadia................... prairie shooting star ......................................................E.......................vascular plant
Draba arabisans ............................................. Arabian whitlow grass ..................................................SC ....................vascular plant
Draba cana ..................................................... hoary whitlow grass ......................................................E.......................vascular plant
Draba norvegica ............................................. Norwegian whitlow grass .............................................E.......................vascular plant
Drosera anglica .............................................. English sundew.............................................................SC ....................vascular plant
Drosera linearis.............................................. linear-leaved sundew ....................................................SC ....................vascular plant
Dryopteris goldiana ........................................ Goldie's fern .................................................................SC ....................vascular plant
Dryopteris marginalis..................................... marginal shield fern ......................................................E.......................vascular plant
Elatine triandra .............................................. three-stamened waterwort .............................................SC ....................vascular plant
Eleocharis coloradoensis ................................ dwarf spikerush ............................................................SC ....................vascular plant
Eleocharis flavescens var. olivacea ................ olivaceous spikerush .....................................................T.......................vascular plant
Eleocharis nitida............................................. neat spikerush ...............................................................SC ....................vascular plant
Eleocharis quinqueflora ................................. few-flowered spikerush ................................................SC ....................vascular plant
Eleocharis robbinsii ....................................... Robbins’ spikerush .......................................................T.......................vascular plant
Eleocharis rostellata....................................... beaked spikerush ..........................................................T.......................vascular plant
Eleocharis wolfii ............................................. Wolf's spikerush ...........................................................E.......................vascular plant
Ellipsaria lineolata ......................................... butterfly ........................................................................ T.......................mollusk
Elliptio complanata ........................................ eastern elliptio ..............................................................SC ....................mollusk
Elliptio crassidens .......................................... elephant-ear .................................................................. E.......................mollusk
Elliptio dilatata ............................................... spike .............................................................................T.......................mollusk
Elodea bifoliata .............................................. two leaf waterweed .......................................................E.......................vascular plant
Empetrum atropurpureum .............................. purple crowberry ..........................................................E.......................vascular plant
Empetrum nigrum ........................................... black crowberry ............................................................E.......................vascular plant
Empidonax virescens ......................................acadian flycatcher .........................................................SC ....................bird
Emydoidea blandingii ..................................... Blanding's turtle ............................................................T.......................amphibian/reptile
Encalypta procera .......................................... tall extinguisher moss ...................................................SC ....................moss/liverwort
Epioblasma triquetra ......................................snuffbox (Fed. Status: E)..............................................E.......................mollusk
Eptesicus fuscus ............................................. big brown bat ................................................................SC ....................mammal
Erebia mancinus ............................................. disa alpine .....................................................................SC ....................butterfly/moth
Erigeron acris var. kamtschaticus ..................bitter fleabane ...............................................................E.......................vascular plant
Erigeron lonchophyllus ..................................short ray fleabane..........................................................T.......................vascular plant
Erimystax x-punctatus .................................... gravel chub ...................................................................T.......................fish
Eryngium yuccifolium ..................................... rattlesnake master .........................................................SC ....................vascular plant
Erynnis persius persius ...................................persius dusky wing .......................................................E.......................butterfly/moth
Erythronium propullans.................................. dwarf trout lily (Fed. Status: E)....................................E.......................vascular plant
MINNESOTA’S LIST OF ENDANGERED, THREATENED, AND SPECIAL CONCERN SPECIES PAGE 14
Alphabetical Index by Scientific Name
STATUS CODES: E = Endangered; T = Threatened; SC = Special Concern
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME STATUS TAXONOMIC GROUP
Escobaria vivipara ......................................... ball cactus .....................................................................E.......................vascular plant
Etheostoma chlorosoma.................................. bluntnose darter ............................................................SC ....................fish
Etheostoma microperca ..................................least darter ....................................................................SC ....................fish
Eupatorium sessilifolium ................................upland boneset ..............................................................T.......................vascular plant
Euphrasia hudsoniana var. ramosior ............. Hudson Bay eyebright ..................................................SC ....................vascular plant
Falco peregrinus............................................. peregrine falcon ............................................................SC ....................bird
Fimbristylis autumnalis .................................. autumn fimbry .............................................................. SC ....................vascular plant
Fimbristylis puberula var. interior .................hairy fimbry ..................................................................E.......................vascular plant
Floerkea proserpinacoides ............................. false mermaid ...............................................................T.......................vascular plant
Frullania selwyniana ...................................... Selwyn’s ear-leaf liverwort...........................................SC ....................moss/liverwort
Fundulus sciadicus ......................................... plains topminnow .........................................................T.......................fish
Fusconaia ebena ............................................. ebonyshell ..................................................................... E.......................mollusk
Gaillardia aristata ..........................................blanket flower ...............................................................SC ....................vascular plant
Gallinula galeata ............................................ common gallinule .........................................................SC ....................bird
Gastrocopta rogersensis ................................. Rogers’ snaggletooth snail ............................................ SC ....................mollusk
Gaylussacia baccata ....................................... black huckleberry .........................................................T.......................vascular plant
Gentiana affinis .............................................. northern gentian ............................................................SC ....................vascular plant
Gentianella amarella ssp. acuta ..................... felwort ..........................................................................SC ....................vascular plant
Glyptemys insculpta ........................................ wood turtle ....................................................................T.......................amphibian/reptile
Goera stylata .................................................. a species of caddisfly ....................................................T.......................caddisfly
Gymnocarpium robertianum........................... northern oak fern ..........................................................SC ....................vascular plant
Gymnocladus dioica ....................................... Kentucky coffee tree .....................................................SC ....................vascular plant
Habronattus calcaratus maddisoni ................. a species of jumping spider...........................................SC ....................jumping spider
Habronattus texanus .......................................a species of jumping spider...........................................SC ....................jumping spider
Habronattus viridipes ..................................... a species of jumping spider...........................................SC ....................jumping spider
Hamamelis virginiana .................................... witch-hazel ...................................................................T.......................vascular plant
Hasteola suaveolens ....................................... sweet-smelling Indian-plantain .....................................E.......................vascular plant
Helianthemum canadense ...............................Canada frostweed .........................................................SC ....................vascular plant
Helianthus nuttallii ssp. rydbergii .................. Nuttall's sunflower ........................................................SC ....................vascular plant
Hemidactylium scutatum ................................four-toed salamander ....................................................SC ....................amphibian/reptile
Hesperia assiniboia ........................................ assiniboia skipper .........................................................E.......................butterfly/moth
Hesperia dacotae ............................................ Dakota skipper (Fed. Status: P)....................................E.......................butterfly/moth
Hesperia leonardus.........................................leonardus skipper ..........................................................SC ....................butterfly/moth
Hesperia ottoe ................................................ ottoe skipper .................................................................E.......................butterfly/moth
Hesperia uncas ............................................... uncas skipper ................................................................E.......................butterfly/moth
Heteranthera limosa .......................................mud plantain .................................................................T.......................vascular plant
Heterocladium dimorphum ............................. spaced-out tangle moss .................................................SC ....................moss/liverwort
Heteroderma obscurata ..................................orange-tinted fringe lichen............................................SC ....................lichen
Heterodon nasicus .......................................... plains hog-nosed snake .................................................SC ....................amphibian/reptile
Hudsonia tomentosa .......................................beach heather ................................................................T.......................vascular plant
Huperzia appalachiana .................................. Appalachian fir moss ....................................................SC ....................vascular plant
Huperzia porophila......................................... rock fir moss .................................................................T.......................vascular plant
Hybanthus concolor ........................................ eastern green-violet.......................................................E.......................vascular plant
Hybognathus nuchalis .................................... Mississippi silvery minnow ..........................................SC ....................fish
Hydrastis canadensis ...................................... goldenseal .....................................................................E.......................vascular plant
Hydrocotyle americana .................................. American water-pennywort ..........................................SC ....................vascular plant
Hydroptila metoeca ........................................a species of purse casemaker caddisfly .........................SC ....................caddisfly
Hydroptila quinola .........................................a species of purse casemaker caddisfly .........................SC ....................caddisfly
Hydroptila rono .............................................. a species of purse casemaker caddisfly ......................... T.......................caddisfly
Hydroptila tortosa .......................................... a species of purse casemaker caddisfly ......................... SC ....................caddisfly
Hydroptila waskesia .......................................a species of purse casemaker caddisfly .........................E.......................caddisfly
Hyophila involuta ........................................... rolled-leaf wet-ground moss .........................................SC ....................moss/liverwort
Ichthyomyzon fossor .......................................northern brook lamprey ................................................SC ....................fish
Ichthyomyzon gagei ........................................southern brook lamprey ................................................SC ....................fish
Ictiobus niger ..................................................black buffalo .................................................................T.......................fish
Iodanthus pinnatifidus ....................................purple rocket .................................................................E.......................vascular plant
Ironoquia punctatissima ................................. a species of northern caddisfly......................................T.......................caddisfly
Isoetes melanopoda ........................................ prairie quillwort ............................................................E.......................vascular plant
Jaffueliobryum wrightii .................................. Wright’s blunt leaved true moss ................................... SC ....................moss/liverwort
Jeffersonia diphylla ........................................ twinleaf .........................................................................SC ....................vascular plant
Juglans cinerea ...............................................butternut........................................................................E.......................vascular plant
Juncus articulatus ...........................................jointed rush ...................................................................E.......................vascular plant
Juncus marginatus .......................................... marginated rush ............................................................ E.......................vascular plant
Juncus stygius var. americanus....................... bog rush ........................................................................SC ....................vascular plant
Juncus subtilis ................................................slender rush...................................................................E.......................vascular plant
Juniperus horizontalis ....................................creeping juniper ............................................................SC ....................vascular plant
Laccaria trullisata .......................................... a species of fungus ........................................................ SC ....................fungus
Lactarius fuliginellus ......................................a species of fungus ........................................................SC ....................fungus
Lampsilis higginsii.......................................... Higgins eye (Fed. Status: E).........................................E.......................mollusk
Lampsilis teres ................................................yellow sandshell ...........................................................E.......................mollusk
Lanius ludovicianus ........................................ loggerhead shrike..........................................................E.......................bird
Lasmigona compressa ....................................creek heelsplitter ...........................................................SC ....................mollusk
Lasmigona costata .......................................... fluted-shell .................................................................... T.......................mollusk
Lecanora epanora...........................................a species of rim lichen ..................................................T.......................lichen
Lechea tenuifolia var. tenuifolia ..................... narrow-leaved pinweed................................................. E.......................vascular plant
Leersia lenticularis ......................................... catchfly grass ................................................................T.......................vascular plant
Lepidostoma libum ......................................... a species of caddisfly ....................................................T.......................caddisfly
Lepomis gulosus ............................................. warmouth ...................................................................... SC ....................fish
Lepomis peltastes............................................ northern longear sunfish ...............................................SC ....................fish
MINNESOTA’S LIST OF ENDANGERED, THREATENED, AND SPECIAL CONCERN SPECIES PAGE 15
Alphabetical Index by Scientific Name
STATUS CODES: E = Endangered; T = Threatened; SC = Special Concern
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME STATUS TAXONOMIC GROUP
Leptogium apalachense .................................. a species of lichen .........................................................E.......................lichen
Lescuraea saxicola ......................................... lustrous bow moss ........................................................T.......................moss/liverwort
Lespedeza leptostachya .................................. prairie bush clover (Fed. Status: T)...............................T.......................vascular plant
Leucophaeus pipixcan .................................... Franklin’s gull .............................................................. SC ....................bird
Ligumia recta..................................................black sandshell..............................................................SC ....................mollusk
Ligumia subrostrata ....................................... pondmussel ................................................................... T.......................mollusk
Limnephilus janus ...........................................a species of northern caddisfly......................................E.......................caddisfly
Limnephilus rossi............................................ a species of northern caddisfly...................................... T.......................caddisfly
Limnephilus secludens ....................................a species of northern caddisfly......................................E.......................caddisfly
Limosa fedoa .................................................. marbled godwit .............................................................SC ....................bird
Limosella aquatica ......................................... mudwort........................................................................SC ....................vascular plant
Listera auriculata ...........................................auricled twayblade ........................................................E.......................vascular plant
Listera convallarioides ...................................broad-leaved twayblade ................................................SC ....................vascular plant
Littorella americana ....................................... American shore plantain ...............................................SC ....................vascular plant
Lobaria scrobiculata ...................................... a species of lichen .........................................................E.......................lichen
Luzula parviflora ............................................small-flowered woodrush .............................................T.......................vascular plant
Lycaeides idas nabokovi ................................. Nabokov’s blue............................................................. SC ....................butterfly/moth
Lycaeides melissa samuelis ............................ Karner blue (Fed. Status: E).........................................E.......................butterfly/moth
Lynx canadensis..............................................Canada lynx (Fed. Status: T)........................................SC ....................mammal
Lysimachia maritima ...................................... sea milkwort .................................................................E.......................vascular plant
Lysimachia quadrifolia ................................... whorled loosestrife ....................................................... SC ....................vascular plant
Lysurus cruciatus............................................ a species of fungus........................................................ SC ....................fungus
Lythrurus umbratilis ....................................... redfin shiner ..................................................................SC ....................fish
Macrosteles clavatus ...................................... caped leafhopper ...........................................................SC ....................leafhopper
Malaxis monophyllos var. brachypoda ........... white adder’s mouth .....................................................SC ....................vascular plant
Malaxis paludosa ............................................ bog adder's mouth .........................................................E.......................vascular plant
Marpissa formosa ........................................... a species of jumping spider...........................................SC ....................jumping spider
Marsilea vestita .............................................. hairy waterclover .......................................................... E.......................vascular plant
Meesia uliginosa ............................................. swan moss.....................................................................SC ....................moss/liverwort
Megalonaias nervosa ...................................... washboard ..................................................................... E.......................mollusk
Melanelia subolivacea ....................................brown-eyed camouflage lichen .....................................SC ....................lichen
Melica nitens .................................................. three-flowered melic .....................................................T.......................vascular plant
Menegazzia terebrata .....................................port-hole lichen.............................................................SC ....................lichen
Microtus ochrogaster...................................... prairie vole....................................................................SC ....................mammal
Microtus pinetorum ........................................ woodland vole ..............................................................SC ....................mammal
Minuartia dawsonensis ................................... rock sandwort ...............................................................T.......................vascular plant
Moehringia macrophylla ................................ large-leaved sandwort ...................................................T.......................vascular plant
Montia chamissoi............................................ montia ...........................................................................E.......................vascular plant
Morone mississippiensis ................................. yellow bass ...................................................................SC ....................fish
Moxostoma duquesnei ....................................black redhorse...............................................................SC ....................fish
Muhlenbergia uniflora ....................................one-flowered muhly ......................................................SC ....................vascular plant
Mustela nivalis................................................least weasel ...................................................................SC ....................mammal
Myotis lucifugus.............................................. little brown myotis ....................................................... SC ....................mammal
Myotis septentrionalis..................................... northern myotis (Fed. Status: P)...................................SC ....................mammal
Myriophyllum heterophyllum.......................... broadleaf water milfoil .................................................SC ....................vascular plant
Najas guadalupensis ssp. olivacea .................southern naiad...............................................................SC ....................vascular plant
Najas gracillima .............................................slender naiad .................................................................SC ....................vascular plant
Najas marina ..................................................sea naiad .......................................................................SC ....................vascular plant
Napaea dioica ................................................. glade mallow ................................................................T.......................vascular plant
Necturus maculosus ........................................ mudpuppy ..................................................................... SC ....................amphibian/reptile
Hybopsis amnis ............................................... pallid shiner ..................................................................E.......................fish
Notropis anogenus ..........................................pugnose shiner ..............................................................T.......................fish
Notropis nubilus .............................................Ozark minnow ..............................................................SC ....................fish
Notropis topeka............................................... Topeka shiner (Fed. Status: E)......................................SC ....................fish
Noturus exilis .................................................. slender madtom ............................................................E.......................fish
Nuttallanthus canadensis ................................ old field toadflax........................................................... SC ....................vascular plant
Nymphaea leibergii......................................... small white waterlily ....................................................T.......................vascular plant
Oarisma garita ...............................................garita skipper ................................................................T.......................butterfly/moth
Oarisma poweshiek......................................... poweshiek skipper (Fed. Status: P)...............................E.......................butterfly/moth
Ochrolechia androgyna ..................................powdery saucer lichen ..................................................SC ....................lichen
Ochrotrichia spinosa ...................................... a species of purse casemaker caddisfly .........................E.......................caddisfly
Oecetis ditissa ................................................. a species of long horned caddisfly ................................T.......................caddisfly
Oeneis uhleri varuna ...................................... Uhler's arctic .................................................................E.......................butterfly/moth
Oenothera rhombipetala ................................. rhombic evening primrose ............................................SC ....................vascular plant
Onychomys leucogaster ..................................northern grasshopper mouse ........................................SC ....................mammal
Ophiogomphus anomalus ...............................extra-striped snaketail ...................................................SC ....................dragonfly
Ophiogomphus howei .....................................pygmy snaketail ............................................................SC ....................dragonfly
Ophiogomphus susbehcha ..............................St. Croix snaketail.........................................................SC ....................dragonfly
Opuntia macrorhiza ........................................ devil’s tongue ...............................................................SC ....................vascular plant
Orobanche fasciculata .................................... clustered broomrape .....................................................T.......................vascular plant
Orobanche ludoviciana var. ludoviciana ........ Louisiana broomrape ....................................................T.......................vascular plant
Orobanche uniflora ........................................ one-flowered broomrape ...............................................T.......................vascular plant
Osmorhiza berteroi ......................................... Chilean sweet cicely .....................................................E.......................vascular plant
Osmorhiza depauperata.................................. blunt-fruited sweet cicely ............................................. SC ....................vascular plant
Oxyethira ecornuta .........................................a species of purse casemaker caddisfly .........................T.......................caddisfly
Oxyethira itascae ............................................ a species of purse casemaker caddisfly ......................... SC ....................caddisfly
Oxytropis viscida ............................................ sticky locoweed ............................................................ E.......................vascular plant
Packera cana ..................................................gray ragwort..................................................................E.......................vascular plant
Packera indecora............................................elegant grounsel ............................................................E.......................vascular plant
MINNESOTA’S LIST OF ENDANGERED, THREATENED, AND SPECIAL CONCERN SPECIES PAGE 16
Alphabetical Index by Scientific Name
STATUS CODES: E = Endangered; T = Threatened; SC = Special Concern
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME STATUS TAXONOMIC GROUP
Panax quinquefolius ....................................... American ginseng .........................................................SC ....................vascular plant
Pantherophis obsoletus................................... western ratsnake ...........................................................T.......................amphibian/reptile
Paradamoetas fontana ....................................a species of jumping spider...........................................SC ....................jumping spider
Parapsyche apicalis ........................................ a species of netspinning caddisfly.................................T.......................caddisfly
Parkesia motacilla .......................................... Louisiana waterthrush...................................................SC ....................bird
Parmelia stictica ............................................. a species of lichen .........................................................E.......................lichen
Parmelia stuppea ............................................ a species of lichen .........................................................T.......................lichen
Paronychia canadensis ...................................Canada forked chickweed .............................................E.......................vascular plant
Paronychia fastigiata var. fastigiata .............. forked chickweed..........................................................E.......................vascular plant
Parthenium integrifolium................................ wild quinine ..................................................................E.......................vascular plant
Pelecanus erythrorhynchos............................. American white pelican ................................................SC ....................bird
Pelegrina arizonensis .....................................a species of jumping spider...........................................SC ....................jumping spider
Pellaea atropurpurea...................................... purple cliff brake ..........................................................SC ....................vascular plant
Peltigera venosa .............................................a species of lichen .........................................................SC ....................lichen
Peltula bolanderi ............................................ Bolander’s peltula lichen .............................................. T.......................lichen
Percina evides ................................................ gilt darter ...................................................................... SC ....................fish
Perimyotis subflavus ....................................... tri-colored bat ...............................................................SC ....................mammal
Perognathus flavescens ..................................plains pocket mouse......................................................SC ....................mammal
Persicaria careyi ............................................ Carey’s smartweed .......................................................SC ....................vascular plant
Phacelia franklinii .......................................... Franklin’s phacelia .......................................................T.......................vascular plant
Phalaropus tricolor ........................................ Wilson's phalarope........................................................T.......................bird
Phegopteris hexagonoptera ............................ broad beech fern ...........................................................E.......................vascular plant
Phemeranthus rugospermus ........................... rough-seeded fameflower .............................................T.......................vascular plant
Phenacobius mirabilis .................................... suckermouth minnow ...................................................SC ....................fish
Phenacomys ungava ....................................... eastern heather vole ......................................................SC ....................mammal
Phidippus apacheanus ....................................a species of jumping spider...........................................SC ....................jumping spider
Phidippus pius ................................................a species of jumping spider...........................................SC ....................jumping spider
Phlox maculata ............................................... wild sweet William .......................................................SC ....................vascular plant
Physaria ludoviciana ...................................... bladderpod ....................................................................E.......................vascular plant
Pinguicula vulgaris......................................... butterwort .....................................................................SC ....................vascular plant
Piptatherum canadense .................................. Canadian ricegrass ........................................................T.......................vascular plant
Pituophis catenifer.......................................... gopher snake .................................................................SC ....................amphibian/reptile
Plagiobothrys scouleri .................................... Scouler’s popcornflower...............................................SC ....................vascular plant
Planogyra asteriscus ...................................... eastern flat-whorl snail .................................................SC ....................mollusk
Plantago elongata........................................... slender plantain.............................................................SC ....................vascular plant
Platanthera clavellata .................................... small green wood orchid...............................................SC ....................vascular plant
Platanthera flava var. herbiola ....................... tubercled rein orchid .....................................................T.......................vascular plant
Platanthera praeclara .................................... western prairie fringed orchid (Fed. Status: T).............E.......................vascular plant
Platismatia glauca ..........................................ragbag lichen ................................................................SC ....................lichen
Platygobio gracilis ......................................... flathead chub ................................................................SC ....................fish
Plestiodon fasciatus ........................................ common five-lined skink ..............................................SC ....................amphibian/reptile
Plethobasus cyphyus .......................................sheepnose (Fed. Status: E)............................................E.......................mollusk
Pleurobema sintoxia .......................................round pigtoe..................................................................SC ....................mollusk
Poa paludigena ............................................... bog bluegrass ................................................................T.......................vascular plant
Poa wolfii........................................................ Wolf's bluegrass............................................................SC ....................vascular plant
Podiceps auritus ............................................. horned grebe .................................................................E.......................bird
Pogonatum urnigerum .................................... urn-bearing hair moss ...................................................SC ....................moss/liverwort
Polanisia jamesii ............................................ James' polanisia ............................................................E.......................vascular plant
Polemonium occidentale ssp. lacustre ............ western Jacob’s ladder ..................................................E.......................vascular plant
Polycentropus glacialis ..................................a species of tube casemaker caddisfly ..........................T.......................caddisfly
Polycentropus milaca .....................................a species of tube casemaker caddisfly ..........................E.......................caddisfly
Polygala cruciata ........................................... cross-leaved milkwort...................................................E.......................vascular plant
Polyodon spathula .......................................... paddlefish .....................................................................T.......................fish
Polystichum acrostichoides ............................ Christmas fern ..............................................................E.......................vascular plant
Polystichum braunii ........................................ Braun's holly fern .........................................................T.......................vascular plant
Polytaenia nuttallii .........................................prairie parsley ...............................................................SC ....................vascular plant
Potamogeton bicupulatus ...............................snailseed pondweed ......................................................E.......................vascular plant
Potamogeton confervoides..............................algae-like pondweed .....................................................E.......................vascular plant
Potamogeton diversifolius .............................. diverse-leaved pondweed..............................................E.......................vascular plant
Potamogeton oakesianus ................................ Oake’s pondweed .........................................................E.......................vascular plant
Potamogeton pulcher ......................................spotted pondweed .........................................................E.......................vascular plant
Progne subis ................................................... purple martin ................................................................ SC ....................bird
Prosartes trachycarpa ....................................rough-fruited fairybells .................................................E.......................vascular plant
Prosopium coulterii ........................................ pygmy whitefish ...........................................................SC ....................fish
Protopannaria pezizoides ...............................brown-gray moss-shingle lichen ...................................T.......................lichen
Protoptila erotica ...........................................a species of saddle casemaker caddisfly .......................SC ....................caddisfly
Psathyrella cystidiosa .....................................a species of fungus ........................................................E.......................fungus
Psathyrella rhodospora ..................................a species of fungus ........................................................E.......................fungus
Pseudocyphellaria crocata ............................. a species of lichen .........................................................E.......................lichen
Psoralidium tenuiflorum .................................slender-leaved scurf pea ...............................................E.......................vascular plant
Puma concolor................................................ mountain lion ................................................................SC ....................mammal
Pyrgus centaureae freija.................................grizzled skipper ............................................................SC ....................butterfly/moth
Pyrola minor ................................................... small shinleaf ................................................................ SC ....................vascular plant
Quadrula fragosa ...........................................winged mapleleaf (Fed. Status: E)................................E.......................mollusk
Quadrula metanevra ....................................... monkeyface................................................................... T.......................mollusk
Quadrula nodulata ......................................... wartyback ..................................................................... T.......................mollusk
Quercus bicolor ..............................................swamp white oak ..........................................................SC ....................vascular plant
Rallus elegans ................................................. king rail.........................................................................E.......................bird
Ramalina roesleri ...........................................frayed ramalina lichen ..................................................T.......................lichen
MINNESOTA’S LIST OF ENDANGERED, THREATENED, AND SPECIAL CONCERN SPECIES PAGE 17
Alphabetical Index by Scientific Name
STATUS CODES: E = Endangered; T = Threatened; SC = Special Concern
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME STATUS TAXONOMIC GROUP
Ramalina thrausta .......................................... angel’s hair lichen......................................................... SC ....................lichen
Ranunculus lapponicus ................................... Lapland buttercup .........................................................SC ....................vascular plant
Reithrodontomys megalotis.............................western harvest mouse .................................................SC ....................mammal
Rhodiola integrifolia ssp. leedyi ..................... Leedy's roseroot (Fed. Status: T)..................................E.......................vascular plant
Rhynchospora capillacea ................................ hair-like beak rush ........................................................T.......................vascular plant
Rorippa sessiliflora......................................... sessile-flowered yellow cress........................................ SC ....................vascular plant
Rotala ramosior ..............................................toothcup ........................................................................T.......................vascular plant
Rubus chamaemorus ....................................... cloudberry.....................................................................T.......................vascular plant
Rubus fulleri ................................................... bristle-berry ..................................................................T.......................vascular plant
Rubus missouricus .......................................... Missouri dewberry ........................................................E.......................vascular plant
Rubus multifer ................................................ Kinnickinnick dewberry ...............................................SC ....................vascular plant
Rubus quaesitus .............................................. Prince Edward Island blackberry ..................................SC ....................vascular plant
Rubus semisetosus .......................................... swamp blackberry .........................................................T.......................vascular plant
Rubus stipulatus.............................................. bristle-berry ..................................................................E.......................vascular plant
Rubus vermontanus......................................... Vermont blackberry ......................................................SC ....................vascular plant
Rudbeckia triloba var. triloba......................... three-leaved coneflower................................................T.......................vascular plant
Ruellia humilis ................................................wild petunia ..................................................................SC ....................vascular plant
Ruppia cirrhosa ..............................................spiral ditchgrass ............................................................SC ....................vascular plant
Sagina nodosa ssp. borealis............................ knotty pearlwort............................................................E.......................vascular plant
Sagittaria brevirostra .....................................short-beaked arrowhead ................................................E.......................vascular plant
Sagittaria calycina var. calycina .................... hooded arrowhead......................................................... T.......................vascular plant
Salicornia rubra ............................................. red saltwort ...................................................................T.......................vascular plant
Salix maccalliana ........................................... McCalla’s willow .........................................................SC ....................vascular plant
Salix pellita ..................................................... satiny willow ................................................................ T.......................vascular plant
Salix pseudomonticola .................................... false mountain willow .................................................. SC ....................vascular plant
Sanicula trifoliata ........................................... beaked snakeroot ..........................................................SC ....................vascular plant
Sarcosoma globosum ......................................a species of fungus ........................................................SC ....................fungus
Sassacus papenhoei ........................................a species of jumping spider...........................................SC ....................jumping spider
Saxifraga cernua............................................. nodding saxifrage .........................................................E.......................vascular plant
Saxifraga paniculata....................................... encrusted saxifrage .......................................................SC ....................vascular plant
Schedonnardus paniculatus ............................ tumble grass ..................................................................SC ....................vascular plant
Schinia indiana ...............................................phlox moth ....................................................................SC ....................butterfly/moth
Schinia lucens .................................................leadplant flower moth ...................................................SC ....................butterfly/moth
Schistostega pennata ...................................... luminous moss ..............................................................E.......................moss/liverwort
Scleria triglomerata ........................................ tall nutrush ....................................................................E.......................vascular plant
Scleria verticillata .......................................... whorled nutrush ............................................................T.......................vascular plant
Scutellaria ovata var. versicolor ..................... ovate-leaved skullcap ...................................................T.......................vascular plant
Selaginella selaginoides .................................northern spikemoss .......................................................E.......................vascular plant
Setophaga cerulea ..........................................cerulean warbler ...........................................................SC ....................bird
Setophaga citrina............................................ hooded warbler .............................................................SC ....................bird
Shepherdia canadensis ...................................soapberry ......................................................................SC ....................vascular plant
Shinnersoseris rostrata ................................... annual skeletonweed .....................................................T.......................vascular plant
Silene drummondii ssp. drummondii............... Drummond’s campion ..................................................SC ....................vascular plant
Silene nivea .....................................................snowy campion .............................................................T.......................vascular plant
Simpsonaias ambigua .....................................salamander mussel ........................................................E.......................mollusk
Sistrurus catenatus ......................................... massasauga (Fed. Status: C).........................................E.......................amphibian/reptile
Solidago mollis ............................................... soft goldenrod ...............................................................SC ....................vascular plant
Somatochlora brevicincta ............................... Quebec emerald ............................................................SC ....................dragonfly
Somatochlora forcipata .................................. forcipate emerald ..........................................................SC ....................dragonfly
Sorex fumeus...................................................smoky shrew .................................................................SC ....................mammal
Speyeria idalia ................................................regal fritillary ................................................................SC ....................butterfly/moth
Sphagnum compactum .................................... cushion peat moss .........................................................T.......................moss/liverwort
Sphagnum lescurii .......................................... red twisted peat moss ....................................................T.......................moss/liverwort
Spilogale putorius ...........................................eastern spotted skunk ....................................................T.......................mammal
Spiranthes casei var. casei .............................. Case’s ladies’ tresses ....................................................T.......................vascular plant
Splachnum rubrum ......................................... red parasol moss ...........................................................E.......................moss/liverwort
Stellaria longipes ssp. longipes ...................... long-stalked chickweed ................................................SC ....................vascular plant
Stereocaulon pileatum ....................................pixie foam lichen ..........................................................SC ....................lichen
Sterna forsteri ................................................. Forster's tern .................................................................SC ....................bird
Sterna hirundo ................................................ common tern .................................................................T.......................bird
Sticta fuliginosa .............................................. a species of lichen .........................................................SC ....................lichen
Striatura ferrea ............................................... black striate snail ..........................................................SC ....................mollusk
Stuckenia vaginata..........................................sheathed pondweed .......................................................E.......................vascular plant
Subularia aquatica ssp. americana................. awlwort .........................................................................T.......................vascular plant
Suillus weaverae .............................................a species of fungus........................................................E.......................fungus
Sullivantia sullivantii ...................................... reniform sullivantia.......................................................T.......................vascular plant
Symphyotrichum shortii .................................. Short’s aster ..................................................................SC ....................vascular plant
Synaptomys borealis ....................................... northern bog lemming ..................................................SC ....................mammal
Taenidia integerrima ...................................... yellow pimpernel ..........................................................SC ....................vascular plant
Tephrosia virginiana ...................................... goat's rue .......................................................................SC ....................vascular plant
Thaspium barbinode ....................................... hairy-jointed meadow-parsnip ......................................SC ....................vascular plant
Thelia hirtella ................................................. nipple moss ...................................................................SC ....................moss/liverwort
Thelocarpon epibolum ....................................a species of thelocarpon lichen .....................................SC ....................lichen
Thomomys talpoides ....................................... northern pocket gopher .................................................T.......................mammal
Tofieldia pusilla .............................................. small false asphodel ......................................................E.......................vascular plant
Torreyochloa pallida ...................................... Torrey’s mannagrass.....................................................SC ....................vascular plant
Tortella inclinata ............................................ shortleaf chalk moss .....................................................SC ....................moss/liverwort
Triaenodes flavescens ..................................... a species of long horned caddisfly ................................SC ....................caddisfly
Trichocolea tomentella ................................... down moss ....................................................................T.......................moss/liverwort
MINNESOTA’S LIST OF ENDANGERED, THREATENED, AND SPECIAL CONCERN SPECIES PAGE 18
Alphabetical Index by Scientific Name
STATUS CODES: E = Endangered; T = Threatened; SC = Special Concern
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME STATUS TAXONOMIC GROUP
Trichophorum clintonii ................................... Clinton’s bulrush ..........................................................T.......................vascular plant
Trillium nivale ................................................ snow trillium.................................................................SC ....................vascular plant
Triplasis purpurea var. purpurea ................... purple sandgrass ...........................................................SC ....................vascular plant
Trisetum spicatum........................................... spike trisetum................................................................SC ....................vascular plant
Tritogonia verrucosa ...................................... pistolgrip....................................................................... E.......................mollusk
Tropidoclonion lineatum ................................ lined snake ....................................................................SC ....................amphibian/reptile
Truncilla donaciformis ................................... fawnsfoot ...................................................................... T.......................mollusk
Tsuga canadensis var. canadensis .................. eastern hemlock ............................................................E.......................vascular plant
Tutelina formicaria .........................................a species of jumping spider...........................................T.......................jumping spider
Tympanuchus cupido ...................................... greater prairie-chicken ..................................................SC ....................bird
Umbilicaria torrefacta .................................... a species of lichen .........................................................E.......................lichen
Urocitellus richardsonii.................................. Richardson’s ground squirrel .......................................SC ....................mammal
Usnea longissima............................................ Methuselah’s beard lichen ............................................ SC ....................lichen
Usnea mutabilis ..............................................bloody beard lichen ......................................................T.......................lichen
Usnea rubicunda............................................. red beard lichen ............................................................ SC ....................lichen
Utricularia geminiscapa .................................hidden-fruit bladderwort ...............................................T.......................vascular plant
Utricularia purpurea ......................................purple-flowered bladderwort ........................................E.......................vascular plant
Utricularia resupinata ....................................lavender bladderwort ....................................................T.......................vascular plant
Vaccinium uliginosum .................................... alpine bilberry...............................................................E.......................vascular plant
Valeriana edulis var. ciliata............................ edible valerian ..............................................................T.......................vascular plant
Venustaconcha ellipsiformis ........................... ellipse ........................................................................... T.......................mollusk
Verbena simplex ............................................. narrow-leaved vervain ..................................................SC ....................vascular plant
Vertigo meramecensis.....................................bluff vertigo ..................................................................T.......................mollusk
Viola lanceolata var. lanceolata ..................... lance-leaved violet ........................................................T.......................vascular plant
Viola nuttallii .................................................. yellow prairie violet ......................................................T.......................vascular plant
Vireo bellii ................................................. Bell’s vireo ................................................................... SC ....................bird
Vitis aestivalis var. bicolor .............................silverleaf grape .............................................................T.......................vascular plant
Waldsteinia fragarioides var. fragarioides ..... barren strawberry ..........................................................SC ....................vascular plant
Woodsia alpina ...............................................alpine woodsia ..............................................................T.......................vascular plant
Woodsia glabella ............................................ smooth woodsia ............................................................T.......................vascular plant
Woodsia oregano ssp. cathcartiana ................ Oregon woodsia ............................................................ SC ....................vascular plant
Woodsia scopulina ssp. laurentiana ............... Rocky Mountain woodsia .............................................T.......................vascular plant
Xanthisma spinulosum var. spinulosum .......... cutleaf ironplant ............................................................SC ....................vascular plant
Xyris montana................................................. montane yellow-eyed grass...........................................SC ....................vascular plant
Xyris torta ....................................................... twisted yellow-eyed grass .............................................E.......................vascular plant
Ylodes frontalis ............................................... a species of long horned caddisfly ................................T.......................caddisfly
Zonitoides limatulus ....................................... dull gloss.......................................................................SC ....................mollusk
NEPAssist Report
Input Coordinates: 44.996811,-92.898488,44.996568,-92.900033,44.995779,-92.914881,44.997175,-
92.923293,45.012347,-92.923722,45.012954,-92.916255,45.008463,-92.916255,45.008524,-92.898831,44.996811,-
92.898488
Project Area 1.13 sq mi
Within an Ozone 8-hr (1997 standard) Non-Attainment/Maintenance Area?no
Within an Ozone 8-hr (2008 standard) Non-Attainment/Maintenance Area?no
Within a Lead (2008 standard) Non-Attainment/Maintenance Area?no
Within a SO2 1-hr (2010 standard) Non-Attainment/Maintenance Area?no
Within a PM2.5 24hr (2006 standard) Non-Attainment/Maintenance Area?no
Within a PM2.5 Annual (1997 standard) Non-Attainment/Maintenance Area?no
Within a PM2.5 Annual (2012 standard) Non-Attainment/Maintenance Area?no
Within a PM10 (1987 standard) Non-Attainment/Maintenance Area?no
Within a Federal Land?no
Within an impaired stream?no
Within an impaired waterbody?no
Within a waterbody?yes
Within a stream?no
Within an NWI wetland?Available Online
Within a Brownfields site?no
Within a Superfund site?yes
Within a Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) site?no
Within a water discharger (NPDES)?no
Within a hazardous waste (RCRA) facility?no
Within an air emission facility?no
Within a school?no
Within an airport?no
Within a hospital?no
Within a designated sole source aquifer?no
Within a historic property on the National Register of Historic Places?no
Within a Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) site?no
Within a RADInfo site?no
Created on: 2/12/2019 3:00:24 PM
Prepared for: Parks Canada – National Office (Visitor Experience Branch)
Mountain Biking: A
Review of the Ecological
Effects
February 2010
Prepared by Michael Quinn and Greg Chernoff
Mountain Biking : A
Review of the
Ecological Effects
A Literature Review for Parks Canada – National
Office (Visitor Experience Branch)
FINAL REPORT
February 2010
Prepared by Michael Quinn and Greg Chernoff
Miistakis Institute
Faculty of Environmental Design – University of Calgary
2500 University Drive NW
Calgary, AB
T2N 1N4
Phone: (403) 220-8968
Email: institute@rockies.ca
Web: www.rockies.ca
Mountain Biking: A Review of the Ecological Effects
Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................... 1
SOMMAIRE ...................................................................................................................................... 3
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 6
Mountain Biking ........................................................................................................................... 7
BACKGROUND – RECREATION ECOLOGY ................................................................................. 9
MOUNTAIN BIKING EFFECTS ON SOILS ...................................................................................16
MOUNTAIN BIKING EFFECTS ON VEGETATION ......................................................................17
MOUNTAIN BIKING EFFECTS ON WILDLIFE .............................................................................18
MOUNTAIN BIKING EFFECTS ON WATER .................................................................................21
RESULTS AND KNOWLEDGE GAPS ...........................................................................................21
DISCUSSION – RESEARCH QUESTIONS, MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS .............................23
REFERENCES ...............................................................................................................................26
Appendix A - Annotated Bibliography ...........................................................................................32
Case Studies – Ecological ...........................................................................................................32
Case Studies – Sociological ........................................................................................................38
Modeling Tools for Recreation Ecology ......................................................................................40
General Recreation Ecology – Not Mountain-Bike-Specific ........................................................41
Mountain Biking: A Review of the Ecological Effects
1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In order to inform an activity assessment of mountain biking within Canada‟s national protected
heritage places, Parks Canada commissioned the following literature review on the ecological
effects of mountain biking. The purpose of this review was to summariz e the nature of the
ecological perturbations or effects arising from the disturbance of recreational mountain biking.
Extensive searches and cross-references were conducted using the most relevant on-line databases
available through the University of Calgary library. Searches of the World Wide Web via leading
search engines and focused reviews of known mountain biking and trail associations were also
conducted. The intent of the initial search was to identify as many papers, reports and theses as
possible that addressed topics related to mountain biking. Source materials were then filtered to
identify those references that addressed ecological effects of the activity. The research described in
this report is concurrent with a complementary effort to understand the demographics, culture, and
social effects of mountain biking as a recreational activity.
Mountain biking is a popular and burgeoning recreational activity. Compared to other outdoor
recreational activities, there is a relative dearth of understanding and peer-reviewed scientific
papers on the ecological effects of mountain biking. The original objective of this literature review
was to provide a comparison of published research on the relative effects of four distinct sub -
disciplines of mountain biking: cross country, freeride, downhill and bike parks/dirt jumps.
However, the lack of published literature focusing on the sub-disciplines, or the comparison
between them, made this impossible. Therefore, the review provided herein primarily addresse s
cross-country riding. Specific effects associated with mountain biking activity and infrastructure
characteristic of the other types of use have emerged as a considerable gap in the research
literature.
The literature review was conducted within the framework of recreation ecology – the study of the
biophysical effects of recreational activity. One of the most important theoretical generalizations
arising from recreation ecology is referred to as the curvilinear use-impact relationship. In simple
terms, the nonlinear nature of the use-effect relationship suggests that the greatest proportion of
ecological effect is generated during the initiation and early use period of a new facility or
infrastructural development. This phenomenon has been clearly established for a wide variety of
soils and vegetation responses to activity, and suggests that the majority of the environmental effect
occurs when a trail is first developed or constructed.
The review followed the approach used in the majority of the recreation ecology literature,
exploring the ecological effects of the activity on soils, vegetation, water and wildlife individually.
Although this framework provides a useful structure in which to discuss the effects of recreation, it is
essential to recognized that there are connections, feedbacks and synergies between the categories.
Ultimately, effects of disturbance must be addressed with an understanding of the cumulative and
synergistic nature of their occurrence.
The available published literature indicates that mountain biking as an anthropogenic disturbance
is similar in its environmental effects as other forms of summer season trail use. The effects of
mountain biking on soils and vegetation have received the most attention and experimental
Mountain Biking: A Review of the Ecological Effects
2
examination of the four categories. Research has mainly focused on quantifying erosion (created
by shear forces) and compaction (created by normal forces) that result from mountain bike use and
combine to create “tread incision”. Other concerns include water runoff and resulting sediment
transport (erosion), and trail widening to avoid muddy or puddled areas. As with other forms of
trail-based recreation (hiking, horseback riding), research has shown that the soil type (erodability),
terrain relief and amount of moisture have the greatest influence on the significance of mountain
biking effects on soils. Researchers also reported that cycling technique and skill level influences
the level of impact on soils, with braking/skidding and cutting switchbacks creating the most
damage. Vegetation trampling and removal generally follows the curvilinear use-effect relationship
described above with de-vegetated trails appearing even after relatively low levels of use.
Mountain bike trails as vectors for the spread of non-native exotic plant species has been identified
as a concern, but little empirical work is available to draw any conclusions beyond the knowledge
that exists for other similar hiking and horse trails. The current review was unable to find any
published research on the effects mountain biking on water quality.
The effects of mountain biking on wildlife are primarily related to habitat alteration as a result of
impact to soils and vegetation, as well as disturbance of daily or seasonal habitat use. The
significance of the disturbance is related to the type, timing, intensity, duration and spatial
distribution of use. One of the most significant characteristics of mountain biking as a form of
wildlife disturbance is a result of the potential relative speed and silence of the activity. A relatively
fast moving, quiet mountain biker may approach an animal without being detected until well within
the normal „flight response zone‟. The result may be a severe startle response by the wildlife
species with significant consequences to the animal and/or the mountain biker. In the case of
grizzly bears, such incidents may result in aggressive behaviour toward the mountain biker. In the
case of bison, elk and pronghorn antelope, one study did not reveal a significant difference
between hikers and mountain bikers with respect to the reaction of any of the three species to their
presence.
This review clearly identifies significant gaps in the available literature to assess the ecological
effects of mountain biking. Some of the most important knowledge gaps include: 1) To date, there
have been few documented interdisciplinary studies of the environmental and social effects
associated with mountain biking; 2) Very little has been studied of the recreational ecology o f
mountain bikes in the Canadian context. Since many of the environmental effects are known to
vary according to regional geophysical traits, applying research carried out in other biomes and
landscapes may be problematic. Similarly, there are few studies outside of mountainous and high
relief terrain areas; 3) No specific research has been published on the water-related environmental
effects of mountain biking; 4) Some more focused study of the effects of mountain biking on
wildlife would be of benefit; 5) Existing research focuses mainly on the type of recreational activity
with little or no emphasis on the timing, intensity, duration and spatial distribution of the activity.
Furthermore, there is little in the literature to differentiate between different types of mountain
biking; 6) There is a tremendous need for research that addresses the cumulative effects of human
recreational activity in protected areas. This includes the need to identify thresholds associated
with numbers, timing, type and distribution of use.
Mountain Biking: A Review of the Ecological Effects
3
SOMMAIRE
Parcs Canada a fait établir la présente analyse documentaire dans le but de contribuer à
l‟évaluation nationale du vélo de montagne pour les aires patrimoniales protégées du Canada et de
résumer la nature des effets ou des perturbations écologiques découlant de cette activité. Pour ce
faire, on a rassemblé le plus de documents possible sur le vélo de montagne (articles, rapports,
thèses, etc.) en réalisant des recoupements et des travaux de recherche poussés au moyen des
bases de données pertinentes de la bibliothèque de l‟Université de Calgary, en menant des
recherches Internet grâce aux moteurs de recherches les plus couramment utilisés et en effectuant
un examen ciblé de diverses associations bien connues dans le domaine du vélo de montagne et
des sentiers. De ces documents, on n‟a ensuite retenu que ceux portant sur les effets écologiques
de l‟activité. La recherche dont il est question dans le présent rapport s‟inscrit dans un effort
complémentaire de compréhension des effets démographiques, sociaux et culturels du vélo de
montagne en tant qu‟activité récréative.
Le vélo de montagne est une activité récréative populaire et florissante. Cependant, ses effets
écologiques sont plutôt méconnus, et il n‟existe que très peu d‟artic les scientifiques évalués par les
pairs sur le sujet, comparativement aux autres activités de plein air. Le premier objectif de la
présente analyse documentaire était de fournir un examen comparatif des effets relatifs de quatre
sous-disciplines distinctes du vélo de montagne, soit le cross-country, le freeride, la descente et les
parcs de vélo/sauts en terre battue. Toutefois, le manque de documentation publiée sur ces
sous-disciplines ou le manque de comparaisons entre elles rend cette tâche impossible. Par
conséquent, la présente analyse concerne principalement le cross-country. En ce qui concerne les
effets spécifiques associés au vélo de montagne et aux caractéristiques de l‟infrastructure des autres
types d‟utilisation, on a constaté qu‟il y avait une lacune considérable sur le plan des comptes
rendus de recherche.
On a mené la présente analyse documentaire dans le cadre de l‟écologie de récréation – l‟étude
des effets biophysiques des activités récréatives. L‟une des généralisations théoriques les plus
importantes que l‟on peut tirer de l‟écologie de récréation a trait à la relation non linéaire entre
l‟utilisation et les effets qui en découlent. En termes simples, l‟existence d‟une relation
utilisation-effets de nature non linéaire tend à montrer que la majeure partie des effets écologiques
se manifestent lors de la période d‟initiation et des premières utilisations d‟une nouvelle installation
ou infrastructure. Ce phénomène a été clairement établi dans le cas d‟une grande variété de sols et
de végétation, et laisse entendre que la majorité des effets sur l‟environnement se produisent lors
de l‟aménagement d‟un sentier ou de la construction d‟une installation.
La présente analyse a été réalisée suivant l‟approche utilisée dans la majorité des documents sur
l‟écologie récréative, qui consiste à explorer individuellement les effets écologiques de l‟activité sur
quatre grandes catégories, soit les sols, la végétation, l‟eau et la faune. Bien que ce cadre fournisse
une structure utile favorisant l‟examen des effets de l‟activité récréative, il est essentiel de
reconnaître qu‟entre ces différentes catégories, il existe des liens, des réactions et des synergies. En
définitive, il faut connaître la nature cumulative et synergétique des effets de la perturbation pour
arriver à les contrer.
Mountain Biking: A Review of the Ecological Effects
4
Selon les documents consultés, les effets qu‟entraîne sur l‟environnement le vélo de montagne en
tant que perturbation anthropique sont similaires à ceux découlant des autres formes activités de
sentier pratiquées pendant la saison estivale. Les effets du vélo de montagne sur les sols et la
végétation sont, des quatre catégories, ceux qui ont reçu le plus d‟attention et fait l‟objet du plus
d‟examens expérimentaux. Les recherches étaient principalement axées sur l‟érosion quantifiable
(créée par les forces de cisaillement) et sur la compaction (créée par les forces normales) qui
résultent de l‟utilisation du vélo de montagne et se combinent pour créer une « bande de
roulement ». Parmi les autres préoccupations figurent aussi l‟écoulement de l‟eau et l‟amenée de
sédiment qui en résulte (l‟érosion) ainsi que l‟évitement des passages boueux et glaisés entraînant
l‟élargissement des sentiers. Comme pour les autres formes d‟activités de sentier (par exemple, la
randonnée et l‟équitation), la recherche montre que le type de sol (caractère érodable), le relief du
terrain et le taux d‟humidité ont une grande incidence sur l‟importance des effets du vélo de
montagne sur les sols. Des chercheurs indiquent que les techniques de vélo et le degré d‟habileté
peuvent aussi avoir une incidence; en effet, le freinage, le dérapage et les virages dans les sentiers
en lacet peuvent entraîner des dommages importants. Les dommages causés par le piétinement
ainsi que l‟élimination de la végétation suivent la relation utilisation-effets non linéaire décrite plus
haut; des chemins dépourvus de végétation se forment malgré une utilisation relativement
modérée des sentiers. Le fait que les sentiers de vélo de montagne constituent un vecteur de
propagation d‟espèces végétales exotiques soulève également des préoccupations, mais il n‟existe
pas suffisamment de travaux d‟observation sur le sujet pour permettre de tirer des conclusions
autres que celles qui existent déjà pour les sentiers de randonnée et d‟équitation. Dans le cadre de
la présente analyse, il a été impossible de trouver des documents publiés concernant les effets du
vélo de montagne sur la qualité de l‟eau.
Les effets du vélo de montagne sur la faune sont principalement liés à la modification de l‟habitat,
qui découle de l‟incidence sur les sols et la végétation, et à la perturbation causée par l‟utilisation
quotidienne ou saisonnière de l‟habitat. L‟importance de la perturbation est liée au type et au
temps d‟utilisation, ainsi qu‟à son intensité, à sa durée et à sa distribution spatiale. L‟une des
principales caractéristiques de la perturbation de la faune qu‟entraîne le vélo de montagne résulte
de la vitesse relative des vététistes et du caractère potentiellement silencieux de l‟activité. Un
vététiste silencieux roulant relativement rapidement peut s‟approcher d‟un animal sans se faire
repérer et s‟aventurer à l‟intérieur de la « zone normale de fuite ». Dans une telle situation, les
animaux sauvages peuvent avoir une vive réaction de sursaut entraînant des conséquences graves
pour l‟animal ou pour le vététiste. Le grizzly, par exemple, peut adopter un comportement agressif
envers le vététiste. Selon une étude, la réaction que produit un vététiste sur le bison, le wapiti et
l‟antilocarpe ne serait pas tellement différente de celle que produit un randonneur.
La présente analyse montre clairement qu‟il existe des lacunes importantes dans les documents
publiés et que, pour cette raison, il est très difficile d‟évaluer les effets écologiques du vélo de
montagne. Parmi les lacunes les plus importantes, on trouve celles qui suit : 1) Jusqu‟à
aujourd‟hui, on a mené peu d‟études interdisciplinaires documentées sur les effets sociaux et
environnementaux découlant du vélo de montagne. 2) On en connaît très peu sur l‟écologie
récréative liée au vélo de montagne au Canada; comme un grand nombre d‟effets
environnementaux varient en fonction des caractéristiques géophysiques régionales, l‟application
des résultats de recherche obtenus dans d‟autres biomes et types de paysages peut d‟avérer
Mountain Biking: A Review of the Ecological Effects
5
problématique. De plus, très peu d‟études ont été menées à l‟extérieur des aires montagneuses et
de haut-relief. 3) Aucun travail de recherche n‟a été publié concernant les effets environnementaux
du vélo de montagne sur l‟eau. 4) Il serait utile de mener davantage de recherches axées sur les
effets du vélo de montagne sur la faune. 5) Les recherches actuelles mettent principalement
l‟accent sur le type d‟activité récréative, mais se concentrent peu, voire pas du tout, sur le temps,
l‟intensité, la durée et la distribution spatiale de l‟activité. De plus, on trouve peu d‟information
permettant de faire la différence entre les différentes disciplines de vélo de montagne. 6) Il faudrait
absolument effectuer des recherches sur les effets cumulatifs de l‟activité récréative humaine dans
les aires protégées. Il est notamment essentiel de déterminer les limites associées à la fréquence, au
temps et au type d‟utilisation, ainsi qu‟à sa distribution.
Mountain Biking: A Review of the Ecological Effects
6
INTRODUCTION
In order to inform an activity assessment of mountain biking within Canada‟s national protected
heritage places, Parks Canada commissioned the following literature review. This report reviews
both peer-reviewed scientific and grey literature sources, and represents not a comprehensive or
exhaustive study of available literature, but rather a solid foundational overview upon which future
efforts can hopefully build.
Throughout this review the authors assume that mountain biking constitutes an anthropogenic
„disturbance‟ to the physical environment in which it occurs. An ecological disturbance is “A cause;
a physical force, agent, or process, either abiotic or biotic, causing a perturbation (which includes
stress) in an ecological component or system; relative to a specified reference state and system;
defined by specific characteristics” (Rykiel 1985, p. 364). Disturbances create changes to the
background or „average‟ environmental conditions that may be short-term, long-term or
permanent. “Outdoor recreation, including nature-based tourism, has long been recognized as an
agent of ecological change in natural systems, with the potential to affect soil, vegetation, wildlife,
and water quality” (Monz et al. 2010). Whether such change is positive, negative or neutral is
entirely a human construct based on societal values. The purpose of this review is to summarize
the nature of the ecological perturbations or effects arising from the disturbance of recreational
mountain biking. Although the term „impact‟ is, by definition, value neutral (e.g., “the effective
action of one thing or person upon another; the effect of such action; influence; impression”,
Oxford English Dictionary [online version] 2010) the term „environmental impact‟ is generally
received by the natural resource management community as referring to negative conditions or
outcomes. Therefore, for the purpose of this review, we will primarily refer to the environmental
„effects‟ of the „disturbance‟ (i.e., mountain biking).
The authors are confident that the references and annotated bibliography included in this
document include the vast majority of papers, theses and reports dedicated solely to the
assessment of the ecological effects of mountain biking. Extensive searches and cross-references
were conducted using the most relevant on-line databases available through the University of
Calgary library (e.g. Environmental Abstracts, ENVIROnetbase, Environment Complete, Wildlife &
Ecology Studies Worldwide, Scopus, Web of Science, Index to Theses, Theses Canada Po rtal,
ProQuest Dissertations and Theses). The majority of searches were conducted using the search
terms 'mountain bike or biking'. This ensured that all literature pertaining to mountain biking was
identified. Resultant titles and abstracts were then s earched to identify those papers/reports/theses
that addressed issues of ecological effects We included the search term „impacts‟ as the term is
commonly included in the literature. We also searched the World Wide Web using Google, Google
Scholar and specific searches of known mountain biking and trail associations. Existing review
papers were used as a means to validate our search results. We subsequently reviewed,
summarized and synthesized all available, relevant material within the time constraints of the
contract. An annotated bibliography of selected sources is included as Appendix A.
There are several existing literature reviews that address the ecological effects of mountain biking
on wildlands. Cessford (1995) reviewed studies on environmental and social effects of mountain
biking, focusing on examples from the US and Australia. Lathrop (2003) published a literature
review for an American conservation advocacy group, counterbalanced by Marion & Wimpey's
(2007) science review that was supported by the largest mountain bike advocacy group in the
Mountain Biking: A Review of the Ecological Effects
7
world, the International Mountain Bike Association (IMBA). A more recent treatment was published
by Pickering et al. (2010), who conducted a comprehensive review of studies related to the
environmental effectss of hiking, horseback riding and mountain biking, focusing mainly on
examples from the US and Australia. As with any topic, there are reports that present a particular
normative position (e.g., Vandeman (2004) versus Sprung (2007)). In other words, some of the
grey literature is clearly written to advocate for or against mountain biking in protected places.
Therefore, we have relied primarily on literature that has been peer-reviewed wherever possible.
In reviewing material that may have been biase d, we attempted to focus on the primary evidence
and not the opintions or conclusions of the authors.
The research described in this report is concurrent with a complementary effort to understand the
demographics, culture, and social effects of mountain biking as a recreational activity. As such, we
have reviewed little of the research that has been done on this subject with the understanding that
it will be given fair treatment elsewhere. There exists, however, a grey area between human and
ecological elements of this topic. Moreover, it is essential that these dimensions be integrated in an
interdisciplinary approach that fully addresses the complexity of the management issues of
importance to the managers of national protected heritage places and those participants in the
activity assessment for mountain biking. The management of human recreational activity in
national protected heritage places is ultimately about articulating and managing for an acceptable
level of change. A sampling of studies on the social effects of mountain biking are included in later
sections, where we discuss some research and management questions that arise from our findings.
Mountain Biking
Mountain biking is a popular and burgeoning recreational activity. From its humble b eginnings in
Marin County California in the early 1970's, it has grown to become an immensely popular
recreational activity with at least one mountain bike in 52% of all Canadian households (Mosedale
2003, p.19). Compared to other outdoor recreational activities, there is a relative dearth of
understanding and peer-reviewed scientific papers on the ecological effects of mountain biking
(Newsome and Davies 2009). For example, the most recent peer-reviewed literature review that
includes the environmental effects of mountain biking included only 11 published papers in the
review (Pickering et al. 2010).
Within mountain biking there are a number of distinct disciplines (modified from the Statement of
Work for this review):
1. Cross-Country (XC) is the most common form of mountain biking, practiced on trails that
feature a wide variety of terrain and routes that consist of uphill, downhill and flat sections – often
on trails that were originally developed for some other intended use (e.g., hiking). Trail types can
vary from flat dirt roads to technical rocky/rooty singletrack, may include technical trail features,
and can vary in length. Typical XC riders are self-sufficient and looking for solitude, nature,
exercise, and challenge from their recreational experience. The type of bicycle used for this
discipline will range from bikes that are more traditional looking with little or no suspension to
more durable bikes with longer-travel suspension and aggressive tires. Slightly more technical and
aggressive XC riding is sometimes referred to as trail or all-mountain riding.
Mountain Biking: A Review of the Ecological Effects
8
2. Freeride is a discipline between cross-country mountain biking and downhill mountain
biking. Aside from the usual climbing and descending found in cross-country, freeriding involves
specific bike-handling skills and techniques and can practiced with natural and constructed
obstacles that are either off-trail or can be included as part of a cross-country trail. The vehicle used
for this discipline often has dual suspension and is lighter than downhill but heavier than XC
bicycle.
3. Downhill - This gravity-assisted discipline involves manoeuvring a sustained descending
trail that ends at a lower altitude than the start, requiring the rider to either push, shuttle (with a
motorized vehicle or ski lift), or less commonly pedal his/her way to the top. The terrain for
downhill trails can be steep and often includes jumps, drops, rocky sections, and roots. Participants
are seeking challenge and speed, in some cases reaching speeds of 85 kilometres per hour. The
downhill mountain biker requires a high level of technical skill, control, quick reflexes and intense
concentration. The equipment used for this discipline is a downhill mountain bike specifically
designed for descending challenging trails, which is heavier and more impact-resistant than freeride
mountain bikes. It also has aggressive tires and participants commonly wear protective gear (e.g.
downhill (full-face) helmet, goggles, body pads, etc.).
4. Bike Parks and Dirt Jumps - Bike parks usually consist of a variety of natural obstacles
such as rocks and logs, constructed features such as ladder bridges, pumptracks and mounds of dirt
for jumping over, all arranged in a controlled and confined area. This discipline requires a specific
set of technical skills and bike-handling techniques. The types of bicycle used can include jumping-
specific models of mountain bikes (called “dirt”, “park”, or “DJ” bikes), as well as all other types of
mountain bikes. Dirt jumps are courses that include a series of mounds of dir t placed strategically
to ride over, around or jump from. Constructed terrain may include dirt jumps, berms, etc. Similar
to freeride, mountain biking, bike park obstacles are constructed using soil, raw timber, and man-
made materials.
In general "[i]mpacts are likely to be greater when riding is faster, less controlled, occurs on steeper
slopes and in wetter conditions" (Pickering et al. 2010). In terms of required degree of alteration to
the natural landscape and amount of infrastructure development (cons truction of bike-specific
features), there is a clear continuum evident in the four mountain biking disciplines described
above. Newsome and Davies (2009) provide a slightly expanded list of mountain bike riding styles
and their potential effects (Table 1).
The original objective of this literature review was to provide a comparison of published research
on the relative effects of each of these four disciplines, but with the exception of an editorial article
that makes specific reference to off-trail free-riding (Ferguson 2008) and an Australian study that
enumerated and mapped unauthorized bike-specific obstacle construction (Davies & Newsome
2009), the current body of knowledge (published literature) appears unable to accommodate such
differentiation. Therefore, the review provided herein primarily addresses cross-country riding.
Specific effects associated with mountain biking activity and infrastructure characteristic of the other
types of use have emerged as a considerable gap in the research literature.
Mountain biking differs from other non-motorized recreational activities (e.g., hiking, horseback
riding) via the mediation of travel by wheels. In a malleable substrate, these wheels have the
potential to create a groove / single-track that may subsequently conduct water and facilitate
erosion. Skidding and braking may also result in the bicycle wheels physically moving soil and
Mountain Biking: A Review of the Ecological Effects
9
vegetation. The activity may also occur at a greater speed than hiking or equestrian travel. The
implications of this are twofold: 1) mountain bikes have the potential to rapidly approach animals
without being detected, and 2) speed and mechanical advantage may allow mountain bikes to
access relatively more terrain in a shorter period of time. In addition, access to existing trails may
result in new trail proliferation as well as the alteration of terrain or construction of infrastructure for
more technical mountain bike experiences. In most other respects, the following review indicates
that mountain biking (at least trail-based) as an anthropogenic disturbance is similar in its
environmental effects as other forms of summer season trail use.
(Newsome and Davies 2009, p. 239).
BACKGROUND – RECREATION ECOLOGY
Mountain Biking: A Review of the Ecological Effects
10
Outdoor recreation soared in popularity following World War II w hen much of society saw an
increase in disposable income, leisure time, improved access to information, advancements in
technology, and the provision of recreational infrastructure (Gnieser 2000). Concomitantly,
resource managers became acutely aware of, and concerned by, the environmental and social
costs associated with recreational activity. The study of the biophysical effects of recreational
activity is addressed by the field of recreation ecology (Liddle 1997). Recreation ecology is an
applied science founded on the realization that recreation "impact is inevitable.... Avoiding impact
is not an option unless all recreation is curtailed. Managers must make conscious decisions about
tolerable levels of impact, and implement strategies that keep impacts within acceptable levels"
(Cole 2004, 113). Although the studies of recreational effects have been conducted since as early
as the 1920s (e.g., Meinecke 1928), it was not until the 1970s that long-term research programs
were initiated to explore the effects of outdoor recreation on the receiving environment (e.g.,
Bayfield 1973, Liddle 1975, Cole 1978). The first textbooks dedicated primarily to issues of
recreation ecology were published in the 1980s (e.g., Hammit and Cole 1987). Parks Canada has
a long history in researching the effects of recreation on the biophysical environment. For
example, extensive recreation effect studies and inventories were initiated in the Rocky Mountain
National Parks in the 1970s (e.g., Geist 1971, 1975; Kuchar 1972, Landals and Knapik 1972;
Landals and Scotter 1973; Leeson 1979; Lesko and Robson 1975; Nagy and Scotter 1974;
Roemer 1975; Scotter 1976; Trottier and Scotter 1973) some of which were revisited in the 1990s
(e.g., Achuff 1992, Scotter 1992). However, although Parks Canada has a reasonably long history
in recreation ecology research, the work is limited in geographic scope and type of activity
examined. In general, recreation ecology has tended to focus on single issues at relatively small
scales. In order “for the field to advance, more attention needs to be given to other ecosystem
attributes and to the larger aspects of environmental conservation occurring at landscape scales”
(Monz et al. 2010).
We consider any disturbance to the ecological (biophysical) system resulting from recreational
engagement by humans to be an ecological effect or perturbation. We focus herein on ecological
effects that result in undesirable changes to the environment. The significance of such undesirable
changes to the receiving environment is a function of the activity (type, timing, intensity, duration
and spatial distribution) and the sensitivity of the environment (resistance and resilience) including
the morphological characteristics of vegetation, the nature of the substrate and the behavioural
ecology of the species of interest (Fig. 1). In this review, we do not attempt to make any
judgements about the acceptability of undesirable change as this is ultimately a management
decision.
Mountain Biking: A Review of the Ecological Effects
11
Figure 1. Criteria that help to define the significance of an ecological effect (Cole and Landres
1996).
This review is concerned principally with the environmental effects attributable to recreational
activity, specifically mountain biking. A commonly used (Cessford 1995, Liddle 1997, Marion &
Wimpey 2007, Mosedale 2003) and meaningful framework around which to organize these effects
was first proposed by Wall and Wright (1977), and is illustrated in modified form in Figure 2. This
approach divides major recreation effects into four main categories:
Soil – effects of activity on soil structure and composition, including increased erosion,
compaction, and water runoff.
Vegetation – effects of activity on plant community composition, diversity, and structure.
Wildlife – the extent to which a recreational activity disturbs wildlife populations through
mortality, removal/alteration of habitat, or behavioural stress or disturbance.
Water – effects of recreational activity on water resources, through introduction of nutrients
or other pollutants, or as a transmitter of pathogens into a watershed.
Mountain Biking: A Review of the Ecological Effects
12
Figure 2. A framework for understanding the ecological effects of recreational activity (Adapted
from Mathieson and Wall (1982), in ICLEI and IDRC 1996)
Although this framework provides a useful structure in which to discuss the effects of recreation, it is
essential to note that there are connections, feedbacks and synergies between the categories.
Ultimately, effects of disturbance must be addressed with an understanding of the cumulative and
synergistic nature of their occurrence. A more recent conceptual model for understanding the
ecological effects of outdoor recreation is presented in Figure 3. This model is congruent with the
disturbance (agents of change) approach adopted for the current literature review.
Mountain Biking: A Review of the Ecological Effects
13
Figure 3. A conceptual model of ecological effects of outdoor recreation (Monz et al. 2010)
The study of recreation ecology involves considering activities that occur on land as well as in the
air and water and below the ground. However, since we are concerned with effects of mountain
biking, attention will be focused on terrestrial activities that happen in a similar setting (i.e., on
trails).
A commonly noted characteristic of environmental effects related to nature-based recreation is
referred to as the curvilinear use-impact relationship (Cessford 1995, Davies & Newsome 2009,
Lathrop 2003, Liddle 1997, Marion & Wimpey 2007, Morlock et al. 2006, Pickering et al. 2010,
Sprung 2004, Wilson & Seney 1994In fact, the "asymptotic nature of the use-impact relationship is
among the most important generalization produced by recreation ecology" (Cole 2004, 111). In
simple terms, the nonlinear nature of the use-effect relationship suggests that most of the ecological
effect is generated in the first few uses. This phenomenon has been mostly observed in soils and
vegetation responses to activity, and suggests that the majority of the environmental effect occurs
when a trail is first developed or constructed – that very low levels of activity are responsible for
creating a great deal of environmental degradation. Figure 4 provides an excellent example of this
relationship showing that 60-70% of the vegetation loss, vegetation change, tree seedling loss,
Mountain Biking: A Review of the Ecological Effects
14
organic litter loss, and soil compaction occurred on campsites after only 10 camping nights in the
Boundary Waters Canoe Area (Marion 1998). A generalized model of the curvilinear use -effect
relationship is presented in Figure 5.
Figure 4. An example of the curvilinear use-effect relationship (Marion 1998, p. 188).
Mountain Biking: A Review of the Ecological Effects
15
Figure 5. A generalized model of the curvilinear use-effect relationship.
Mountain Biking: A Review of the Ecological Effects
16
Figure 6. A conceptual model of trampling effects (Therrell et al. 2007)
Much of the research on this topic has come about as a result of the focus on 'trampli ng' as one of
the primary effects of recreational activity in wildland settings. Figure 6 provides a conceptual
model of trampling effects and the complexity of examining recreational effects. Incremental use,
including use by new activities has been found to result in marginally less additional impact. This
relationship makes comparative assessment of the impacts of one type of use over another
problematic, as evidenced by many of the studies described in this report.
MOUNTAIN BIKING EFFECTS ON SOILS
There has been considerable research done on the effects of mountain biking on soils, in part
because of the commonly held perception among other recreationists that mountain biking
contributes disproportionately to soil degradation (Cessford 2003, Mann & Absher 2008, Mason &
Leberman 2000). Research has mainly focused on quantifying erosion (created by shear forces)
and compaction (created by normal forces) that result from mountain bike use and combine to
create “tread incision” (Cessford 1995). Other concerns include water runoff and resulting
sediment transport (erosion), and trail widening to avoid muddy or puddled areas (Pickering et al.
2010).
One of the most frequently cited studies of soil erosion was published by Wilson & Seney (1994),
who applied a prescribed treatment (100 passes each with four different types of recreational
activity, followed by simulated rainfall to assess soil erosion potential) to 108 sample plots along a
trail network in Gallatin National Forest, Montana. The authors found that foot- and hoof-powered
activities (hiking and horseback riding) had a greater erosive potential than did wheeled activities
(off-road vehicles and mountain bikes). This effect was found to be especially pronounced when
going downhill.
A similar experiment was conducted in a Provincial Park in southern Ontario, producing
comparable results. Thurston & Reader (2001) applied mountain biking and hiking to adjacent,
previously undisturbed plots at five different intensities, and recorded soil exposure. In her graduate
work Thurston (1998) also measured soil compaction resulting from the two activities. The findings
are consistent with the curvilinear use-impact relationship described above, and found no
significant difference in the effects on soils of the two activities. A study that was conducted on a
multi-use trail network in Kentucky and Tennessee found that of all types of trails, bike trails were
found to be the narrowest, to have the least amount of soil loss, and to have the least incidence of
running water on the trails (Marion & Olive 2006).
Many studies suggest that the site, situation, and landscape characteristics of a trail have more
potential to effect soils than the actual nature of the activity. Trail steepness and orientation to
terrain fall lines are both design factors that determine the extent of soil degradation; trails that are
routed across slopes are less potentially erosive and have less water runoff potential than trails that
run straight down slopes (Marion & Olive 2006, Cessford 1995, White et al. 2006). Landscape
factors such as shade and moisture (Bjorkman 1998), and variability in composition of the soil
(Marion & Olive 2006, Wilson & Seney 1994, Morlock et al. 2006) all have an effect on the
Mountain Biking: A Review of the Ecological Effects
17
erosion and compaction potential from mountain biking. Soil moisture has the potential to be
beneficial to trail sustainability if it leads to increased cohesion (and hence reduced erosion), but if
too much moisture is present in the right soils it can lead to increased compaction and channel ling
of water by the action of wheeling (Cessford 1995, Pickering et al. 2010). Marion & Olive (2006)
reported that trails with heterogeneous soil composition (including rocks and gravel) are less
susceptible to erosion than trails over more homogeneous, finer-grained soils. Goeft & Alder
(2001) noted a seasonal effect on soil erosion – the effect was more pronounced during rainy
seasons.
Researchers commonly indicated that mountain biking effects on soils are often the result of poor
trail design, or of trails being used for activities outside of their originally intended purpose
(Callahan 2008, Davies & Newsome 2009, White et al. 2006). Therefore, careful planning,
maintenance (e.g., construction of water bars, berming or banking corners, ensuring proper
drainage, avoiding steep slopes or loose erodible soils) and designation of trails to specific uses
(and seasonal trail closures) may help mitigate against some of the more serious effects of
mountain bike recreation to soils (Marion & Wimpey 2007, Goeft & Alder 2001). In discussions of
best practices, researchers mentioned that cycling technique also influences the level of impact on
soils, with braking/skidding and cutting switchbacks creating the most damage (Callahan 2008,
Morlock et al. 2006, Marion & Wimpey 2007).
MOUNTAIN BIKING EFFECTS ON VEGETATION
Of the impacts to vegetation attributable to mountain biking and other recreational activities,
vegetation trampling/removal is most commonly studied, followed by changes to biodiversity and
facilitation of encroachment by invasive species.
Vegetation removal occurs commensurate with soil exposure, and is most prevalent when a trail is
first constructed. The linkage between vegetation removal and soil compaction/erosion is so strong
that the two phenomena are often studied in tandem (Bjorkman 1998, Goeft & Alder 2001,
Pickering et al. 2010, Sun & Walsh 1998, Thurston & Reader 2001). The curvilinear impact-use
relationship described above is well-supported in scientific studies of vegetation removal – for
example, Thurston & Reader (2001) reported vegetation loss of up to 100% within two weeks of
introduction of cycling (and hiking) activities on previously undisturbed sample plots. The majority
of the deleterious effects is shown to occur during the first stages of trail development, and effects
appear to be the same or similar regardless of the type(s) of recreational activity that are present
(Bjorkman 1998, Pickering et al. 2010).
Studies on loss of plant diversity as a result of recreational activity have recently been reviewed by
Pickering & Hill (2007). The authors found that recreational activity in Australia contributes
appreciably to a loss in vegetation and native biodiversity, but that further quantitative study is
required in order to assess the magnitude of the problem and to differentiate between effects of
various types of recreational use. Although it is assumed that mountain biking provides a vector for
the spread of invasive non-native plant species, we found no specific published studies addressing
this issue. Likewise, Pickering and Mount (in press) found no studies examining mountain bikes as
seed vectors.
Mountain Biking: A Review of the Ecological Effects
18
Crealock (2002) undertook a comparative study of c-stratum vegetation adjacent to hiking, multi-
use, and biking trails in coastal California, and found that different exotic and/or invasive species
respond differently to varied types and intensities of disturbance. The study found that native plant
cover decreased in areas more proximal to trails of all types, and generally that invasive species
were more likely to be found immediately adjacent to trails of all types. Experimental treatment of
simulated recreational use on sample plots indicated that some types of recreation favoured the
spread of certain invasive species, while other types of activity created niches for different invasive
species.
Depending on climate, plant physiology, and other landscapes, the response of vegetation to
disturbance can be highly variable. Regarding all recreational effects on vegetation, caution must
be exercised in applying findings from one ecological region directly to another. In one study of
recreational effects on soil and vegetation in the southwestern US, White et al. (2006) interpret
their findings according to Common Ecological Regions (CERs), and advocate that future broad-
ranging recreation ecology studies apply a similar prescription.
MOUNTAIN BIKING EFFECTS ON WILDLIFE
Recreational activity can affect wildlife in three main ways (Liddle 1997):
1. Stress/Disturbance: Wildlife becomes aware of human activity, and respond by becoming
stressed, altering their behaviour, avoiding (fleeing) areas of activity, or
confronting/attacking humans. Such responses may detrimentally affect the fitness of an
individual or a population. Displacement of animals by recreational disturbance may be
short term (i.e., minutes or hours) or permanent.
2. Alteration of Habitat: The presence of human activity and/or infrastructure serves to remove
or fragment habitat for wildlife, or can create artificial habitat which elicits change in
population dynamics or encroachment of new species/populations.
3. Collision/Mortality: Wildlife is struck by humans or their vehicles, resulting in injury or death.
Clearly the sensitivity of each of these effects will vary widely between and even within species, and
depending on the type of human activity that is taking place (Hammitt & Cole 1998, Bath & Enck
2003, Tempel et al. 2008, Knight & Gutzwiller 1995). The response of different species to different
disturbance activities is largely a function of:
Detection distance – the distance between humans and wildlife at which human
presence is first detected.
The sensitivity of a given species to human presence (including previous experience
with human activity).
The zone of influence associated with a given activity (determined by noise
generated, speed of travel, intensity of use).
Timing of the effect (e.g., life stage of the animal, breeding season, dispersal season,
etc.).
Mountain Biking: A Review of the Ecological Effects
19
The following is a sample of the available literature on the responses of wildlife to recreation
generally, and mountain biking in particular.
“The sudden encounter is the most common situation associated with grizzly bear inflicted injury”
(Herrero 1989). Mountain bikers are at particular risk of this type of encounter b ecause the
potential speed and relative silence of a biker may facilitate closer proximity to bears before being
detected. Schmor (1999) interviewed 41 mountain bikers in the Calgary region who cycled in the
Rocky Mountains. The responses indicated that 84% of survey participants had come within 50 m
of a bear while mountain biking and 66% of the encounters clearly startled the bear. Herrero &
Herrero (2000) studied incidence of conflict/interaction between humans and grizzly bears (Ursus
arctos horribilis) along the Moraine Lake Highline Trail in Banff National Park. They found that,
though intensity of use was much lower for mountain bikers than for hikers along this trail,
mountain bikers accounted for a disproportionately high incidence of conflict wit h bears. Herrero
and Herrero (2000) suggest that grizzly bears are more likely to attack if a human is closer than 50
m before being detected. The speed and relative silence of mountain bikes, especially when
combined with environmental factors (e.g., dense vegetation, hilly terrain, sound of running water),
likely contributed to mountain bikers approaching bears closer than 50m before being detected by
the bear. Parks Canada instituted a requirement to travel in tight groups of at least six, which has
reduced human-bear conflict in the area (Simic 2007).
Attempts to mitigate the relative silence of mountain bikes include the use of sound devices such as
„bear bells‟. Jope (1985) experimentally tested effect of bear bells on bear response to hikers in
Glacier National Park. The results showed that a significantly greater number of bears responded
by moving away from hikers with bear bells compared to hikers without bells. However, bear bells
may not be as effective for mountain bikers as the sound may not be detected within the 50 m
threshold distance. Schmor (1999) conducted field experiments to measure the sound of mountain
bikers on uphill, downhill and flat sections of forested trail. The results indicated that increases in
sound output over ambient sound levels ranged from 1 dB to 10.75 dB; very low levels that would
only be detected in close proximity to the bicycle. Schmor (1999) repeated the trials using bear
bells affixed to the handlebars of a mountain bike. Sound levels were measured at 2.5 d B to 12.75
dB over ambient sound levels with the greatest sound being produced over very rough terrain.
Measurements indicated that the sound of a bear bell on a mountain bike was undetectable at a
distance over 30 m. The author concludes that “bear bells are inadequate as a means of warning
bears when used on mountain bikes” (p. 29). Schmor (1999) developed a conceptual design for a
small, handle-bar mounted, ultrasonic sound device that was capable of providing a warning to
bears at a distance of greater than 50 m while traveling at 20 km/hr. There is no indication that
such a device has been tested or commercially produced as a means of warning wildlife of
approaching mountain bikes.
Wildlife response to recreational activity is partly influenced by the nature and sequence of the
sensory stimulus detection. The sensitivity to auditory, olfactory, visual and tactile stimuli is a
function of the individual species characteristics. Rece nt advances in methods and monitoring
technology have allowed researchers to collect data on sound (noise) and its potential disturbance
to wildlife. The current literature review located only one study that focused on monitoring sounds
of mountain biking and the potential effects on wildlife. However, a recent methods and review
Mountain Biking: A Review of the Ecological Effects
20
paper provides valuable information on collecting sound data for trail monitoring (Pater 2009).
Monitoring the sounds associated with mountain biking (and other types of trail use) would be
highly valuable for two reasons: 1) to quantitatively test the above assertion that mountain biking
constitutes a unique type of disturbance due to the speed and relative silence of the activity thereby
resulting in pronounced startle responses by wildlife, and 2) an increase in sound levels of only a
few decibels has been shown to cause substantial changes in wildlife response (Grubb et al. 1998).
In an attempt to understand the comparative effects of different types of use, Taylor & Knight
(2003) examined the response of bison (Bison bison), mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), and
pronghorn antelope (Antilocapra americana) to hikers and mountain bikers at Antelope Island
State Park, Utah, by comparing alert distance, flight distance, and distance moved. The study did
not reveal a significant difference between hikers and mountain bikers with respect to the reaction
of any of the three species to their presence. A recent study by Naylor & Wisdom (2009), however,
produced contrary results, albeit for a different species. In a controlled experiment, the behavioural
changes by 13 female elk (Cervus elaphus) were monitored in response to four types of
recreational disturbance: all-terrain vehicle riding, mountain biking, hiking, and horseback riding.
Compared to control periods when elk spent most of their time feeding and resting, travel time
increased in response to all recreational disturbance, but decreasing in the order listed above (i.e.
ATV use eliciting the greatest increase in travel time, horseback riding eliciting the least). Both
mountain biking and hiking activities were found to significantly reduce resting time for elk.
Avian species have been studied extensively regarding their response to recreation and other
human disturbance. Miller & Knight (1998) studied responses of multiple species of birds to
recreational activities (including mountain biking) along a trail network in Boulder, Colorado. They
found that the presence of trails and activity along them (types or intensities of use were not
compared) led to an alteration of species composition in both ponderosa pine forest and open
mixed grassland ecosystems. Specifically, generalist species such as American Robins (Turdus
migratorius) were found to be more common along recreational trails. Nests for all species were
less likely to occur and more susceptible to predation in areas proximal to trails. In a study
conducted in the Black Forest in southwestern Germany (Thiel et al. 2008), Collared Capercaillie
(Tetrao urogallus) were observed before and during ski season, and were found to experience
elevated levels of stress during periods of increased human activity. Blumstein et al. (2005)
gathered and analyzed all available data published between 1980 and 2003, and modeled
behaviour of 150 avian species in response to disturbance by human recreation (specifically
hiking). The model suggests that detection distance is a key factor explaining inter-specific variation
in response to human disturbance and that, in general, larger birds detect human presence at
greater distance than smaller birds. Whitfield et al. (2008) reviewed the literature for alert distance
and flight initiation distance for 26 bird species of interest in Scotland. They found the literature
wanting in empirical data to justify the establishment of buffer zones. Although expert opinion may
provide the best available information, Whitfield et al. (2008) clearly demonstrate that such
information be employed only as “a stopgap until empirical research has been conducted” (p.
2715).
The alteration and fragmentation of habitat that results from construction of linear features like
trails and the resulting effect on wildlife that depend on that habitat is a topic of current concern in
the literature. The majority of research has been conducted in a site-specific manner and over
short periods of time. However, "[n]umerous studies assess the short-term responses of individual
Mountain Biking: A Review of the Ecological Effects
21
animals to recreational disturbances.... But little is known about whether such disturbances have
significant long-term impacts on... wildlife" (Cole 2004, 109). Thiel et al. (2008) as discussed
above, discovered that Capercaillie abandoned otherwise ideal habitat that was located in areas
adjacent to busy ski trails. Preisler et al. (2006) studied the response of elk (Cervus elaphus L.) to
all-terrain vehicle use in a controlled-access area, and found that once displaced from an area by
human activity, they habitually avoided those areas regardless of the attractiveness of the habitat
within the zone of human influence.
Incidences of direct mountain-bike caused wildlife mortality are rare, the most frequent casualties
being insects. Since mortality or injury from collision only becomes a concern with recreational
activities that are largely prohibited in National Parks, further discussion of this effect is not
warranted.
MOUNTAIN BIKING EFFECTS ON WATER
This review discovered no published research related to the effects of mountain biking on water
resources.
Hammitt & Cole (1995) provide a good overview of water quality concerns that relate to outdoor
recreation; these include:
Introduction of pollutants or pathogens through careless disposal of human waste (see
also Suk et al. 1987).
Alteration to the nutrient content of water courses and water bodies, resulting in changes
to aquatic biota.
Increased sedimentation and turbidity resulting from activities that occur in or adjacent to
water.
Cole and Landres (1996) indicate that "our understanding of recreational impacts on aquatic
systems in wilderness is so rudimentary that a simple assessment of the prevalence and intensity of
such impacts is a top research priority" (p. 171).
RESULTS AND KNOWLEDGE GAPS
This review of the literature has identified some important gaps in the current state of knowledge
regarding the environmental effects associated with mountain biking.
The vast majority of research that has been conducted on this subject addresses the more
“traditional” disciplines of mountain biking – that is, cross-country or trail riding. These are
activities that occur largely on infrastructure (trails and associated features) that already exist, and
that were likely originally developed for some other purpose. The fact that cross-country mountain
biking often shares trails with other forms of recreation like hiking and horseback riding facilitates
the comparison of these uses and their resulting environmental effects. Although the objective of
Mountain Biking: A Review of the Ecological Effects
22
this study was to compare documented environmental effects among the different disciplines of
mountain biking, such a comparison is currently impossible since there is no scientific literature to
support it.
It is important to recognize that any form of recreational activity involves some degree of
environmental effect on the soils, vegetation, wildlife and water of the landscape it which it takes
place. Some clear conclusions can be drawn from the literature presented in this report:
The science strongly indicates a curvilinear relationship between use and environmental
effects; regardless of the type of activity that occurs, the most detrimental environmental
effects (especially to soils and vegetation) occurs when a trail is first co nstructed.
Though the effects on soil of wheeled travel are notably different than those of
recreationists travelling on feet or hooves, it seems difficult to determine whether one
mode of travel is universally more damaging than the other. The amount of erosion,
compaction, and sediment damage that occurs is highly variable and depends on:
o The ecosystem and resulting soil characteristics in which the activity is taking place.
o The amount of moisture in or on the soil.
o The steepness of the slope, its orientation in relation to the fall line, and the direction
of travel (ascending or descending) of the user.
o The behaviour of the user (whether or not best practices are known/applied).
o The design of the trail (including mitigative infrastructure) and the recreational use
for which it is intended.
Effects on vegetation are highly commensurate with effects on soil, and are similarly
difficult to assess universally in terms of types of recreation that are comparatively more
or less detrimental. Vegetation is removed from a trail as part of its design, and activities
that follow trails should not appreciably increase the amount of vegetation that has been
removed. Certain invasive species seem to react favourably to the presence of mountain
biking, but others prefer the vectors provided by other activities.
There is support in the literature for the hypothesis that the effects on some species of
wildlife are more pronounced with mountain bikes than they are with other forms of
recreation (primarily related to the 'sudden encounter' effect), but again these effects are
highly dependent on the species being considered and other factors.
Recreation ecology, similar to other kinds of field ecology, is fraught with the challenges
of conducting statistically valid research. “Most studies are deficient in any number of
ways: they may be too short in duration, not have adequate controls or replications, be
anecdotal in nature, or have too many potentially confounding variables” (Knight and
Cole 1995).
Some gaps in the research are also evident from our review of the literature. Some of the most
important knowledge gaps include:
Mountain Biking: A Review of the Ecological Effects
23
To date, there have been no documented interdisciplinary studies of the environmental
effects associated with mountain biking.
Very little has been studied of the recreational ecology of mountain bikes in the
Canadian context. Since many of the environmental effects are known to vary according
to regional geophysical traits, applying research carried out in other biomes and
landscapes may be problematic.
No specific research has been published on the water-related environmental effects of
mountain biking.
Some more focused study of the effects of mountain biking on wildlife would be of
benefit.
Existing research focuses mainly on the type of recreational activity with little or no
emphasis on the timing, intensity, duration and spatial distribution of the activity.
There is a tremendous need for research that addresses the cumulative effects of human
recreational activity in protected areas. This includes the need to identify thresholds
associated with numbers, timing and distribution of use.
DISCUSSION – RESEARCH QUESTIONS, MANAGEMENT
IMPLICATIONS
In order to address the knowledge gaps identified in the previous section, we propose some
potential questions to be answered by future research.
Since the different disciplines of mountain biking involve different equipment, infrastructure, and
terrain, they can be expected to result in differing degrees of environmental effects. Some research
questions that may be asked to aid in assessing these differences include:
What are the effects to soils and vegetation of off-trail riding?
Given that freeride and downhill bikes are generally heavier but also have larger, lower -
volume tires, and also given that freeride and downhill disciplines involve more
descending and less climbing, what are the comparative effects on soil erosion of these
types of bicycles versus cross-country bicycles?
Since speed and range of detectability are two main determinants of human-animal
conflict, and since freeride and downhill mountain biking potentially involve travelling
more quietly and quickly, are there increased risks of conflict associated with these forms
of mountain biking over others?
What are the effects related to construction of mountain biking infrastructure such as log
bridges, ramps, and berms? How do the potentially negative effects (removal of
vegetation including logs for construction purposes, shifting of soils and vegetation to
alter landforms, etc.) weigh against the potential benefits (e.g. bridges elevate cyclists off
the ground, reducing potential effects on soil and vegetation)?
Mountain Biking: A Review of the Ecological Effects
24
With respect to the lack of a Canadian perspective in the current body of knowledge on this
subject, obviously a nation-wide systematic study would be impractical. Instead we recommend
that managers consider how the Canadian context differs from those of other studies, and consider
some site-specific assessment of potential effects.
Similarly, concerns regarding the interaction between moun tain bikers and wildlife are difficult to
generalize on a national level – potential threats to critical species must be assessed at a local level
and on a case-by-case basis. An easily accessible means of reporting human-wildlife interaction
might assist in building a longitudinal data set which could be analyzed to identify problem areas
and better focus research efforts.
Potential research questions related to effects of mountain biking on water resources might include:
How do stream crossings by mountain bikes affect water quality, aquatic habitat, etc.?
Are their additional effects (compared to other recreational activities) from mountain
biking associated with stream-side or riparian areas?
The human dimensions research on the subject of the mountain b iking community, public
perceptions of this culture, and conflict between different user groups is extensive and growing. The
results of many surveys (Cessford 2003, Chavez et al. 1993, Janowsky et al. 2003, Mann & Absher
2008, Mason & Leberman 2000) demonstrate a gap between the perception and reality of
environmental effects associated with mountain biking, and suggest the need for management of
not only the effects but the perception thereof as well.
To further complicate matters, there may be a perception-reality conflict among the mountain
biking community as well. Two separate user preference studies (Bowker & English 2002 and
Symmonds et al. 2000) reported conflicting results – surveyed mountain bikers reported a
preference for technically challenging trails with loose rocks, exposed roots, and rutting, but also
stated a preference for minimized environmental degradation. Results such as these suggest that
some education on cycling best practices may be needed.
This leads to a grey area between natural and social science in the management of recreation in
public spaces – it may be that in order to manage for minimization of negative environmental
effects, some social intervention (e.g., education in best practices, user conflict resolution
workshops, etc.) is necessary.
Another management concern may be related to designing trails for appropriate use. There are
some design practices that make sense for all recreational uses, but others that are more use -
specific. We speculate that very few trails in National Parks have been designed specifically with
mountain biking and the minimization of associated environmental effects in mind – moreover, the
majority of mountain biking currently occurs on old fire roads, hiking, or pack trails. Trail creation,
maintenance, modification or access limitation that recognizes the different effects and designs to
minimize these effects and promote best practices should be considered (Flickinger 1994). This
gives rise to a suite of design-related research questions:
If we recognize, for example, that erosional effects are most severe when cyclists climb
steep hills and hikers descend steep hills, what reductions to erosion can we expect if we
limit hiking to trails with minimal steep descents, and cycling to trails with minimal steep
climbs?
Mountain Biking: A Review of the Ecological Effects
25
Can a reduction in environmental effects be achieved by offering (or mandating) best
practice education programs for trail users?
Do seasonal closures have the potential to reduce environmental effects?
Can designing trails with mountain biking in mind (e.g., banking corners, surface
treatment, minimizing fall line descents, ensuring proper trail drainage, etc.) tangibly
reduce environmental damage?
There is potential to use spatially explicit modeling techniques to evaluate the potential benefits of
these types of management practices (e.g. Itami et al. 2003).
Mountain Biking: A Review of the Ecological Effects
26
REFERENCES
Achuff, P. 1992. Sunshine meadows summer use monitoring 1984-1991: summary, evaluation,
and limits of acceptable change. Warden Service Report, Banff National Park.
Bath, Alistair J., & Jody W. Enck. 2003. Wildlife-Human Interactions in National Parks in Canada
and the USA. Social Science Research Review, vol.4 no.1, 32pp.
Bayfield, N.G. 1973. Use and deterioration of some Scottish hill paths. Journal of Applied Ecolo gy
10:639-648.
Bennett, Victoria J., Matthew Beard, Patrick A. Zollner, Esteban Fernandez-Juricic, Lynne
Westphal, & Cherie LeBlanc. 2008. Understanding wildlife responses to human disturbance
through simulation modeling: A management tool. Ecological Complexity (2008),
doi:10.1016/j.ecocom.2008.08.002.
Bjorkman, Alan Wayne. 1998. Biophysical Impacts on and User Interactions with Mountain Bicycle
Off-Road Corridors. PhD Thesis. University of Wisconsin – Madison.
Blumstein, Daniel T., Esteban Fernandez-Juricic, Patrick A. Zollner, & Susan C. Garity. 2005.
Inter-specific Variation in Avian Response to Human Disturbance. Journal of Applied Ecology,
vol.42, pp.943-953.
Bowker, JM and Donald BK English. 2002. Mountain Biking at Tsali: An Assessment of Users,
Preferences, Conflicts, and Management Alternatives. USDA Forest Service, Athens, GA.
Callahan, Joshua. 2008. Erosion and Trail Building: A Case Study of the East Tennessee State
University Trail System. MSc Thesis. East Tennessee State University.
Cessford, Gordon. 2003. Perception and Reality of Conflict: Walkers and Mountain Bikes on the
Queen Charlotte Track in New Zealand. Journal for Nature Conservation, vol.11, pp.310 -316.
Cessford, Gordon R. 1995. Off-Road Impacts of Mountain Bikes – A Review and Discussion. New
Zealand Department of Conservation. Science and Research Series, no.92. 41pp.
Chavez, Deborah J., Patricia L. Winter, & John M. Baas. 1993. Recreational Mountain Biking: A
Management Perspective. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration vol.11 no.3, pp.29-36.
Chiu, L. and L. Kriwoken. 2003. Managing recreational mountain biking in Wellington Park,
Tasmania, Australia. Annals of Leisure Research 6(4):339-361.
Cole, D.N. 1978. Estimating the susceptibility of wildland vegetation to trailside al teration. Journal
of Applied Ecology 15:281-286.
Cole, D. N. 1987. Research on soil and vegetation in wilderness: a state-of-knowledge review.
Proceedings - national wilderness research conference: issues, state-of-knowledge, future
directions. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report INT-220. R. C. Lucas. Ogden, UT,
USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Reserch Station: 135-177.
Cole, D.N. 2004. Environmental impacts of outdoor recreation in wildlands. In: M.J. Manfredo,
J.J. Vaske, B.L Bruyere, D.R. Field and P.J. Brown, (eds) Society and Natural Resources: A
Summary of Knowledge, International Symposium on Society and Natural Resource Management,
Jefferson, MO, pp. 107-116.
Mountain Biking: A Review of the Ecological Effects
27
Cole, David N., & Terry C. Daniel. 2003. The Science of Visitor Management in Parks and
Protected Areas: From Verbal Reports to Simulation Models. Journal for Nature Conservation,
vol.11, pp.269-277.
Cole, D.N. and P.B. Landres. 1996. Threats to wilderness ecosystems: impacts and research needs.
Ecological Applications 6(1):168-184.
Crealock, Anne G. 2002. The Role of Trails and Trail-Users in the Spread of Non-Native Plants.
MSc Thesis, San Jose State University.
Davies, Claire, & David Newsome. 2009. Mountain Bike Activity in Natural Areas: Impacts,
Assessment and Implications for Management – A Case Study from John Forrest National Park,
Western Australia. CRC for Sustainable Tourism Pty, Australia.
Ferguson, Krystyn. June 2008. The Destructive Impact of Mountain Biking on Forested
Landscapes. The Environmentalist vol.28 no.2, pp.67-68.
Flickinger, Mark John. 1994. Bicycle use in national parks. Ph.D. dissertation. The University of
Arizona.
Geist, V. 1971. Is big game harassment harmful? Oilweek 22(17):12 -13.
Geist, V. 1975. On the management of mountain sheep: theoretical considerations. In: Trefethen,
J. (ed.). The Wild Sheep in Modern North America. Winchester Press, New York, pp. 77-105.
Gnieser, C.H. 2000. Ecological consequences of recreation on subarctic-alpine tundra:
experimental assessment and predictive modeling as planning tools for sustainable visitor
management in protected areas. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Geography, University of
Calgary, Calgary, AB.
Goeft, Ute, & Jackie Alder. 2001. Sustainable Mountain Biking: A Case Study from the Southwest
of Western Australia. Journal of Sustainable Tourism vol.9 no.3, pp.193-211.
Grubb, T.G., L.L. Pater, and D.K. Delaney. 1998. Logging truck noise near nesting northern
goshawks. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Research Note RM-RMRS-RN-3, Rocky
Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA.
Hadwen, Wade L., Wendy Hill, & Catherine M. Pickering. 2007. Icons Under Threat: Why
Monitoring Visitors and Their Ecological Impacts in Protected Areas Matters. Ecological
Management & Restoration, vol.8 no.3, pp.177-181.
Hebblewhite, Mark, & Evelyn Merrill. 2008. Modelling Wildlife-Human Relationships for Social
Species with Mixed-Effects Resource Selection Models. Journal of Applied Ecology, vol.45, pp.834 -
844.
Herrero, Stephen. 1989. Injury to people inflicted by black, grizzly or polar bears: recent trends and
new insights. International Conference on Bear Research and Management 8:25 -32.
Herrero, Jake, & Stephen Herrero. 2000. Management Options for the Moraine Lake Highline
Trail: Grizzly Bears and Cyclists. Parks Canada.
Holderman, Jill C. 1991. Development of a bike path in the ecologically sensitive Lake Tahoe
basin. Masters Thesis, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada.
Mountain Biking: A Review of the Ecological Effects
28
ICLEI (The International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives) and IDRC (The International
Development Research Centre). 1996. The local Agenda 21 planning guide. Online, URL:
http://www.idrc.ca/openebooks/448-2/
Itami, Robert, Rob Raulings, Glen MacLaren, Kathleen Hirst, Randy Gimblett, Dino Zanon, &
Peter Chladek. 2003. RBSim 2: Simulating Complex Interactions Between Human Movement and
the Outdoor Recreation Environment. Journal for Nature Conservation, vol.11, pp.278-286.
Janowsky, Dagmar V., & Gero Becker. 2003. Characteristics and Needs of Different User Groups
in the Urban Forest of Stuttgart. Journal for Nature Conservation, vol.11, pp.251-259.
Jones, Steven Michael 1999. Site selection for a mountain biking facility. Masters Thesis, San Jose
State University, United States .
Jope, K. 1984. Hiker behaviour and the outcome of interactions with grizzly bears. Leisure
Sciences 6(3):
Jope, K. 1985. Implications of grizzly bear habituation to hikers. Wildlife Society Bulletin 13:32 -37.
Knight, Richard L., & Kevin G. Gutzwiller, Eds. 1995. Wildlife and Recreationists: Coexistence
Through Management and Research. Island Press. 372pp.
Kuchar, P. 1972. Ecological impact study of Maligne Lake area, Jasper National Park. Unpublished
report, Parks Canada, Calgary, AB.
Landals, M. And L. Knapik. 1972. Great Divide Trail: an ecological study of the proposed route,
Jasper National Park and vicinity. Unpublished report, Canadian Wildlife Service, Edmonton, AB.
Landals, M. and G. Scotter. 1973. Visitor impacts on meadows near Lake O‟Hara, Yoho National
Park. Unpublished report, Canadian Wildlife Service, Edmonton.
Lathrop, Jason. 2003. Ecological Impacts of Mountain Biking: A Critical Literature Review.
Wildlands CPR Report. 11pp.
Leberman, Sarah. 2000. Mountain biking in the Manawatu region: Participants, perceptions, and
management decisions. New Zealand Geographer 56(1):30-38.
Leeson, B. 1979. Research on wildland recreation impact in the Canadian Rockies. In: Ittner, R.,
D. Potter,J. Agee, and S. Anschell (eds.). Recreational impact on wildlands – conference
proceedings, October 27-29, 1978, Seattle Washington. R-6-001, USDA Forest Service, USDA, US
National Park Service.
Lesko, G. And E. Robson. 1975. Impact study and management recommendations for primitive
campgrounds in the Sunshine – Egypt Lake area, Banff National Park. Unpublished report, Forest
Research Center Information Report, NOR-X-132. Edmonton, AB.
Liddle, M.J. 1975. A selective review of the ecological effects of human trampling on natural
ecosystems. Biological Conservation 7:17-36.
Liddle, Michael. 1997. Recreation Ecology: The Ecological Impact of Outdoor Recreation and
Ecotourism. Chapman & Hall. 639pp.
Mountain Biking: A Review of the Ecological Effects
29
Mann, Carsten, & James D. Absher. 2008. Recreation Conflict Potential and Management
Implications in the Northern/Central Black Forest nature Park. Journal of Environmental Planning
and Management vol.51 no.3, pp.363-380.
Marion, Jeffrey L., & Nate Olive. 2006. Assessing and Understanding Trail Degradation: Results
from Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research
Center/National Park Service Research Report. 84pp.
Marion, Jeff, & Jeremy Wimpey. 2007. Environmental Impacts of Mountain Biking: Science
Review and Best Practices. In Managing Mountain Biking: IMBA's Guide to Providing Great
Riding.
Marion, Jeffrey L. 1998. Recreation ecology research findings: Implications for wilderness and park
managers. In: Proceedings of the National Outdoor Ethics Conference, April 18-21, 1996, St.
Louis, MO. Gaithersburg, MD: Izaak Walton League of America. pp. 1 88-196.
Mason, Peter, & Sarah Leberman. 2000. Local Planning for Recreation and Tourism: A Case
Study of Mountain Biking from New Zealand's Manawatu Region. Journal of Sustainable Tourism,
vol.6 no.2, pp.97-115.
Miller, Scott G., & Richard L. Knight. 1998. Influence of Recreational Trails on Breeding Bird
Communities. Department of Fishery and Wildlife Biology, Colorado State University. 31pp.
Monz, C.A., D.N. Cole, Y.F. Leung and J.L. Marion. 2010. Sustaining visitor use in protected
areas: future opportunities in recreation ecology research based on the USA experience.
Environmental Management [online first: January 21, 2010].
Morlock, Phil, Dave D. White, Don Applegate, & Pam Foti. 2006. Planning & Managing
Environmentally Friendly Mountain Bike Trails – Ecological Impacts – Managing for Future
Generations – Resources. 59pp.
Mosedale, Jan. 2003. Planning for Appropriate Recreation Activities in Mountain Environments:
Mountain Biking in the Canadian Rocky Mountains. York University, Faculty of Environmental
Studies Outstanding Graduate Student Paper Series, vol.7 no.5. 114pp.
Naber, Michael David. 2008. Integrating Trail Condition Assessment with Recreational Demand
Modeling of Mountain Bikers in the Research Triangle, North Carolina. PhD Thesis. North Carolina
State University. 119pp.
Nagy, J. And G. Scotter. 1974. A quantitative assessment of the effects of human and horse
trampling on natural areas, Waterton Lakes National Park. Unpublished report, Canadian Wildlife
Service, Edmonton, AB.
Naylor, Leslie M., Michael J. Wisdom, & Robert G. Anthony. 2009. Behavioural Responses of
North American Elk to Recreational Activity. Journal of Wildlife Management, vol.73 no.3, pp.328 -
338.
Needham, Mark David 2002. The 'other' season at ski hills: Applying the limits of acceptable
change (LAC) to a study of summer alpine recreation on and adjacent to Whistler Mountain,
British Columbia. Masters Thesis, University of Victoria, Victoria, B.C.
Mountain Biking: A Review of the Ecological Effects
30
Newsome, David and Claire Davies. 2009. A case study in estimating the area of informal trail
development and associated impacts caused by mountain bike activity in John Forrest National
Park, Western Australia. Journal of Ecotourism 8(3):237-253.
Pater, L. L., T. G. Grubb, et al. 2009. Recommendations for improved assessment of noise impacts
on wildlife. Journal of Wildlife Management 73(5): 788-795.
Pickering, Catherine Marina, Wendy Hill, David Newsome, & Yu-Fai Leung. 2010. Comparing
Hiking, Mountain Biking, and Horse Riding Impacts on Vegetation and Soils in Australia and the
United States of America. Journal of Environmental Management 91(3):551-562.
Pickering, Catherine Marina, & Wendy Hill. 2007. Impacts of Recreation and Tourism on Plant
Biodiversity and Vegetation in Protected Areas in Australia. Journal of Environmental
Management, vol.85, pp.791-800.
Pickering, C.M., Mount, A., in press. Do tourists disperse weed seed? A global review of
unintentional human-mediated terrestrial seed dispersal on clothing, vehicles and horses. Journal
of Sustainable Tourism.
Preisler, Haiganoush K., Alan A. Ager, & Michael J. Wisdom. 2006. Statistical Methods for
Analysing Responses of Wildlife to Human Disturbance. Journal of Applied Ecology, vol. 43,
pp.164-172.
Roemer, H. 1975. Ecological impact of recreational use in the Magog area, Mount Assiniboine
Provincial Park. Unpublished report, Provincial Parks Branch, Department of Recreation and
Conservation, Victoria, BC.
Rykiel, E.J. Jr. 1985. Towards a definition of ecological disturbance. Australian Journal of Ecology
10:361-365.
Schmor, Mathew Robert. 1999. An exploration into bear deterrents, as related to mountain biking,
and the design of an ultrasonic bear warning device. Masters Degree Project, Faculty of
Environmental Design, University of Calgary.
Scotter, G. 1976. Recovery of subalpine meadows under protection after damage by human
activities, Yoho National Park. Unpublished report, Canadian Wildlife Service, Edmonton, AB.
Scotter, G. 1992. Recovery of subalpine meadows under protection after damage by human
activities, Yoho National Park, 1972-1991. Unpublished Canadian Parks Service Report.
Simic, Jovan. 2007. Moraine Lake – 2007 Group Access Study: Visitor Experience, Compliance
and Awareness. Parks Canada. 15pp.
Sprung, Gary. 2004. Natural Resource Impacts of Mountain Biking – A Summary of Scientific
Studies that Compare Mountain Biking to Other Forms of Trail Travel. In Trail Solutions: IMBA's
Guide to Building Sweet Singletrack.
Stankowich, T. 2008. Ungulate flight responses to human disturbance: A review and meta-analysis.
Biological Conservation 141(9): 2159-2173.
Suk, T.J., S.K. Sorenson and P.D. Dileanis. 1987. The relation between humna presence and
occurrence of Giardia cysts in streams in teh Sierra Nevada, California. Journal of Freshwater
Ecology 4:71-75.
Mountain Biking: A Review of the Ecological Effects
31
Sun, D., & D. Walsh. 1998. Review of Studies on Environmental Impacts of Recreation and
Tourism in Australia. Journal of Environmental Management, vol.53, pp.323 -338.
Symmonds, Mathew C., William E. Hammitt, & Virgil L, Quisinberry. 2000. Managing
Recreational Trail Environments for Mountain Bike User Preferences. Environmental Management,
vol.25 no.5, pp.549-564.
Taylor, Audrey R., & Richard L. Knight. 2003.Wildlife Responses to Recreation and Associated
Visitor Perceptions. Ecological Applications, vol.13 no.4, pp951-963.
Tempel, Douglas, Vita Wright, Janet Neilson, & Tammy Mildenstein. 2008. Linking Wilderness
Research and Management – vol.5. Understanding and Managing Backcountry Recreation Impacts
on Terrestrial Wildlife – An Annotated Reading List. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain
Research Station, Fort Collins, CO. 70pp.
Therrell, L., D. Cole, V. Claassen, C.Ryan and M.A. Davies. 2007. Wilderness and backcountry site
restoration guide. Online URL: http://www.fs.fed.us/t-d/pubs/htmlpubs/htm06232815/index.htm
Thiel, Dominik, Susanne Jenni-Eiermann, Veronika Braunisch, Rupert Palme, & Lukas Jenni.
2008. Ski Tourism Effects Habitat Use and Evokes a Physiological Stress Response in Capercaille
Tetrao urogallus: A New Methodological Approach. Journal of Applied Ecology, vol.45, pp.845-
853.
Thurston, Eden, & Richard J Reader. 2001. Impacts of Experimentally Applied Mountain Biking
and Hiking on Vegetation and Soil of a Deciduous Forest. Environmental Management, vol.27
no.3, pp.397-409.
Thurston, Eden. 1998. An Experimental Examination of the Impacts of Hiking and Mountain
Biking on Deciduous Forest Vegetation and Soil. PhD Thesis, University of Guelph. 150pp.
Törn, A., A. Tolvanen, et al. 2008. Comparing the impacts of hiking, skiing and horse riding on
trail and vegetation in different types of forest. Journal of Environmental Management In Press,
Corrected Proof.
Trottier, G. and G. Scotter 1973. A survey of backcountry use and the resulting impact near Lake
Louise, Banff National Park. Unpublished report, Canadian Wildlife Service, Edmonton, AB.
Vandeman, M.J. 2004. The impacts of mountain biking on wildlife and people. Online. URL:
http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7
Wagar, Alan. 1964. The Carrying Capacity of Wild Lands for Recreation. Forest Science,
Monograph 7. Society of American Foresters. 31pp.
White, Dave D., M. Troy Waskey, Grant P. Brodehl, & Pamela E. Foti. 2006. A Comparative
Study of Impacts to Mountain Bike Trails in Five Common Ecological Regions of the Southwestern
U.S. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, vol.24 no.2, pp.21-41.
Wilson, John P., & Joseph P. Seney. 1994. Erosional Impact of Hikers, Horses, Motorcycles, and
Off-Road Bicycles on Mountain Trails in Montana. Mountain Research and Development, vol.14
no.1, pp.77-88.
Mountain Biking: A Review of the Ecological Effects
32
APPENDIX A - ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY
References are categorized by broad subject area. Grey text denotes grey literature sources.
Annotations focus on any information that documents contain relating to ecological impacts.
Case Studies – Ecological
Bjorkman, Alan Wayne. 1998. Biophysical Impacts on and User Interactions with Mountain Bicycle
Off-Road Corridors. PhD Thesis. University of Wisconsin – Madison.
A study of ecological impacts (focusing on soil and vegetation) of mountain bike trail use in the
Kettle Moraine State Forest in southeastern Wisconsin. Bjorkman found that slope, shade and type
surface treatment (and interestingly not intensity of use) were the strongest factors determining
width of trampled vegetation. The dissertation also includes a sociography of MTB trail users,
providing insight into the efficacy of different potential mitigative approaches.
Callahan, Joshua. 2008. Erosion and Trail Building: A Case Study of the East Tennessee State
University Trail System. MSc Thesis. East Tennessee State University.
A study of the erosion associated with increased MTB use on a multi-use trail system at East
Tennesse State University in Johnson City, Tennessee. More of a literature review with subsequent
recommendations than a focused research project – no data collected on rates of erosion on ETSU
trail network.
Cessford, Gordon R. 1995. Off-Road Impacts of Mountain Bikes – A Review and Discussion. New
Zealand Department of Conservation. Science and Research Series, no.92. 41pp.
A comprehensive (current to 1995) review of existing literature on ecological and sociological
impacts related to mountain bike trail use. Author asserts that there is a gap between perception
and reality when it comes to impacts of mountain biking as compared to other activities.
Chiu, Luke, & Lorne Kriwoken. 2003. Managing Recreational Mountain Biking in Wellington Park,
Tasmania, Australia. Annals of Leisure Research vol.6 no.4, pp.339-361.
This paper includes both a literature review of ecological and sociological impacts of MTB use, and
also a focused study designed to determine the specific impacts of MTB use in Wellington Park.
Specifically looks at comparing impacts related to MTB versus other uses. Ecological study
addresses impact on soil impaction and erosion, with six main hypotheses (listed on p.349) related
to trail site characteristics. Data collection was through a linear elevation measuring instrument.
Sociological data gathered through a trail user survey.
Davies, Claire, & David Newsome. 2009. Mountain Bike Activity in Natural Areas: Impacts,
Assessment and Implications for Management – A Case Study from John Forrest National Park,
Western Australia. CRC for Sustainable Tourism Pty, Australia.
Mountain Biking: A Review of the Ecological Effects
33
Literature Review on the impacts of MTB use, both ecological and sociological. Ecological impacts
seem to focus on trail erosion. Aside from general impact assessment from literature review,
includes a biophysical assessment of soil alteration/damage within John Forrest National Park near
Perth Australia – use of GPS to map and enumerate informal trail network, constructed features,
etc. Differentiates between different 5 types of MTB users. Also contains a section on proposed
management strategies to mitigate against trail erosion/degradation.
Ferguson, Krystyn. June 2008. The Destructive Impact of Mountain Biking on Forested
Landscapes. The Environmentalist vol.28 no.2, pp.67-68.
An editorial, written by a restoration ecology student, describing observed detrimental impacts of
freeride MTB use on soils and native vegetation in the Natchez Hills forest tract near Kitchener,
Ontario. Not a scientific study so much as an anecdotal editorial based on personal experience and
observation.
Goeft, Ute, & Jackie Alder. 2001. Sustainable Mountain Biking: A Case Study from the Southwest
of Western Australia. Journal of Sustainable Tourism vol.9 no.3, pp.193-211.
The authors report on a two-pronged study assessing mountain bike use in southwestern Australia.
The first study focused on determining ecological impacts (soil and vegetation) through a
systematic survey; the second assessed sociological impacts through a rider survey. The physical
study assessed soil erosion and compaction as well as vegetation composition and removal (trail
widening) on sample plots along both new and old trails with both open and limited access. Study
results suggest suggest that trail erosion rates are determined by seasonality, slope, and age of trail.
Herrero, Jake, & Stephen Herrero. 2000. Management Options for the Moraine Lake Highline
Trail: Grizzly Bears and Cyclists. Parks Canada.
A study of the reported incidences of bear-human conflicts along the Moraine Lake Highline Trail
near Lake Louise in Banff National Park. The authors found that, though intensity of use is much
lower for mountain bikers than for hikers along this trail, mountain bikers accounted for a
disproportionately high incidence of conflict with grizzly bears. Furthermore, mountain bikers are
more likely to be attacked, since they travel more swiftly and silently and are hence more likely to
surprise a bear (bears demonstrate a greater propensity to attack when they first become aware of
human presence at a distance of less than 50m).
Lathrop, Jason. 2003. Ecological Impacts of Mountain Biking: A Critical Literature Review.
Wildlands CPR Report. 11pp.
An assessment of current (2003) literature on the ecological impacts of mountain biking, in terms of
trampling (effects on vegetation), erosion (effects on soils), and wildlife disturbance. His is not a
peer-reviewed article and the author appears to have an anti-MTB prejudice. Conclusions are that
there is little documented difference in impact on vegetation between hiking and MTB use, that
there is support for the generic “curvilinear response” of soils (most of the damage occurring during
of immediately following construction) to trail construction and use, that soil damage may be less
significant with wheeled use than with foot-based activities, and that though there is an intuitive
Mountain Biking: A Review of the Ecological Effects
34
increase in human-wildlife conflict potential with mountain biking versus other activities, this has
not been studied extensively.
Marion, Jeff, & Jeremy Wimpey. 2007. Environmental Impacts of Mountain Biking: Science
Review and Best Practices. In Managing Mountain Biking: IMBA's Guide to Providing Great
Riding.
A literature review of ecological effects associated with mountain biking, subdivided into impacts
on vegetation, soil, water and wildlife. The review lists general recreation ecology studies as well as
MTB-specific and comparative studies, and also suggests mitigative management practices that
could serve to minimize disturbance by mountain bikers. The authors conclude that careful
management of mountain biking and other recreation (designation of specific trails for specific
uses, use-specific and ecologically conscientious trail design, user education, seasonal closures,
etc.) can effectively minimize the environmental impacts associated with mountain bike use. IMBA
endorsement suggests potential for some prejudice.
Marion, Jeffrey L., & Nate Olive. 2006. Assessing and Understanding Trail Degradation: Results
from Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research
Center/National Park Service Research Report. 84pp.
This paper documents a ecological impact study that was conducted on a multi-use trail network in
Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area, located on the Cumberalnd Plateau in
Kentucky and Tennessee. The author includes a literature review and description of the research
project, it's findings, and some management recommendations. 24% of the trail network was
sampled, stratified by use (hiking, mountain biking, OHV, horseback riding, and mixed use trails.
Data was collected related to soil erosion, exposure of roots, widening/re-routing of trails
(secondary tracks), wet (muddy) soil, and running water on trails. Site characteristics such as
vegetation type, topography, soils, and infrastructure were also recorded. Of all use types, bike
trails were found to be the narrowest, to have the least amount of soil loss, and to have the least (0)
incidence of running water on the trails.
Miller, Scott G., & Richard L. Knight. 1998. Influence of Recreational Trails on Breeding Bird
Communities. Department of Fishery and Wildlife Biology, Colorado State University. 31pp.
The influence of proximity recreational trails on behavioural ecology of breeding birds was
examined in two ecosystems (ponderosa pine forest containing 29 bird species, and mixed-grass
prairie containing 13 bird species)in Boulder, Colorado. The authors found that the presence of
trails led to an alteration of species composition in both ecosystems, favouring an increase in
generalist avian species. In grassland areas, birds were less likely to nest near trails; in both
ecosystems the presence of trails was found to result in an increased rate of nest predation. Though
mountain bike use is not assessed independent of other uses, it is one of the documented uses on
the trail network.
Morlock, Phil, Dave D. White, Don Applegate, & Pam Foti. 2006. Planning & Managing
Environmentally Friendly Mountain Bike Trails – Ecological Impacts – Managing for Future
Generations – Resources. 59pp.
Mountain Biking: A Review of the Ecological Effects
35
A guide to trail construction and maintenance that considers environmental impacts. Ecological /
biophysical impacts are assessed both generally through a literature review, and specifically
through three separate studies conducted in the southwestern US (collectively referred to as the
Southwest Mountain Bike Study). In the first study, biophysical characteristics of 31 MTB trails
were assessed. The trails were located in 5 distinct ecological regions, and the authors emphasize
the need to compare ecological impact studies within Common Ecological Regions (CERs). The
second study assesses the effectiveness of a management policy implemented in the Lake Tahoe
Basin. The third study examined the pre- and post-race ecological conditions of the site of an
annual MTB race in Arizona. Main conclusions of the report are that mountain biking has an
ecological impact, but that this impact is mitigable with proper trail design, trail use, and
management; that impacts of mountain bike use must be assessed within CERs; and that more
empirical studies are required in order to determine the impacts and suggested ma nagement
strategies within different ecoregions.
Naylor, Leslie M., Michael J. Wisdom, & Robert G. Anthony. 2009. Behavioural Responses of
North American Elk to Recreational Activity. Journal of Wildlife Management, vol.73 no.3, pp.328 -
338.
The authors assess the behavioral changes demonstrated by 13 female elk (Cervus elaphus) in
response to four types of recreational disturbance: all-terrain vehicle riding, mountain biking,
hiking, and horseback riding. Compared to control periods when elk spent most of their time
feeding and resting, travel time increased in response to all recreational disturbance, but decreasing
in the order listed above. Observed increases were highest during mornings. Both mountain biking
and hiking are demonstrated to reduce resting time for elk. Study area is Starkey Experimental
Forest and Range in northeast Oregon.
Newsome, David and Claire Davies. 2009. A case study in estimating the area of informal trail
development and associated impacts caused by mountain bike activity in John Forrest National
Park, Western Australia. Journal of Ecotourism 8(3):237-253.
The authors develop and test a rapid assessment tool for evaluating the effects of mountain biking
in natural areas. The emphasis is on the spatial identification of new trails and modifications to
existing trails.
Pickering, Catherine Marina, Wendy Hill, David Newsome, & Yu-Fai Leung. 2010. Comparing
Hiking, Mountain Biking, and Horse Riding Impacts on Vegetation and Soils in Australia and the
United States of America. Journal of Environmental Management 91(3):551-562.
A systematic, comprehensive review of all known empirical studies from the US and Australia that
have sought to identify and/or compare the effects of hiking, mountain biking, and horseback
riding on soils and vegetation. A very good and current synopsis of known literature related to soils
and vegetation recreation ecology. Impacts associated with each type of use are described
individually, and there is also a section describing the findings of comparative, cross-use studies.
Pickering, Catherine Marina, & Wendy Hill. 2007. Impacts of Recreation and Tourism on Plant
Biodiversity and Vegetation in Protected Areas in Australia. Journal of Environmental
Management, vol.85, pp.791-800.
Mountain Biking: A Review of the Ecological Effects
36
A systematic literature review of the ecological impacts of outdoor recreation in Autralia,
specifically related to vegetation. Along with denudation of landscapes, the research also points to
indirect impacts such as addition of nutrients (human waste), creation of vectors for invasive plants,
and the introduction of pathogens (e.g. root rot). The authors point to one study that showed a
higher degree of erosion attributed to mountain bikes than to high-use hiking trails. Mostly a
general treatment of recreation ecology, but some comparative or single-use research is cited.
Preisler, Haiganoush K., Alan A. Ager, & Michael J. Wisdom. 2006. Statistical Methods for
Analysing Responses of Wildlife to Human Disturbance. Journal of Applied Ecology, vol. 43,
pp.164-172.
A controlled study of the response of Rocky Mountain elk (Cervus elaphus L.) to all-terrain vehicle
use along a 32km trail inside a 1453ha elk enclosure. Human movement was recorded using GPS,
and elk movement was recorded by telemetry. The methods used suggest that elk respond (with
flight/avoidance) to human presence upwards of 1km distant. Furthermore, elk displayed
avoidance of the trail even when no ATVs were present.
Schmor, Mathew Robert. 1999. An exploration into bear deterrents, as related to mountain biking,
and the design of an ultrasonic bear warning device. Masters Degree Project, Faculty of
Environmental Design, University of Calgary.
A masters degree projected conducted to evaluate the noise produced by mountain biking. This is
one of the only studies to quantitatively assess the sounds produced by mountain biking. The
author tests the effectiveness of bear bells and concludes that they are ineffective in providing
adequate warning to bears on trails. A design for an ultrasonic warning device is develop ed, but
not tested.
Simic, Jovan. 2007. Moraine Lake – 2007 Group Access Study: Visitor Experience, Compliance
and Awareness. Parks Canada. 15pp.
Partly as a result of Herrero and Herrero's research (see above), Banff National Park implemented
a minimum group size of six (subsequently reduced to four) in the Moraine Lake area of Banff
National Park. The author finds that a reduction in minimum group size from six to four increased
both compliance and visitor satisfaction, while keeping incidence of human -bear conflicts well
below historical levels.
Sprung, Gary. 2004. Natural Resource Impacts of Mountain Biking – A Summary of Scientific
Studies that Compare Mountain Biking to Other Forms of Trail Travel. In Trail Solutions: IMBA's
Guide to Building Sweet Singletrack.
An annotated bibliography or research on the ecological impacts of mountain biking. The author
clearly displays some pro-bike prejudice in the discussion sections, but regardless there are some
good resources cited, especially regarding impacts on wildlife.
Taylor, Audrey R., & Richard L. Knight. 2003.Wildlife Responses to Recreation and Associated
Visitor Perceptions. Ecological Applications, vol.13 no.4, pp951-963.
Mountain Biking: A Review of the Ecological Effects
37
An attempt to address the gap in knowledge regarding the response of wildlife to mountain bike
use as compared to other types of recreation. The study examined the response of bison (Bison
bison), mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), and pronghorn antelope (Antilocapra americana) to
hikers and mountain bikers at Antelope Island State Pa rk, Utah, by comparing alert distance, flight
distance, and distance moved. The study did not reveal a significant difference between hikers and
mountain bikers with respect to the reaction of any of the three species to their presence. The zone
of human influence within the study area constituted 7% of the total area of the island. The study
also surveyed recreational users to determine their perceived impact on wildlife, and found a strong
propensity for users to blame other user groups for having a great er impact on wildlife.
Thiel, Dominik, Susanne Jenni-Eiermann, Veronika Braunisch, Rupert Palme, & Lukas Jenni.
2008. Ski Tourism Effects Habitat Use and Evokes a Physiological Stress Response in Capercaille
Tetrao urogallus: A New Methodological Approach. Journal of Applied Ecology, vol.45, pp.845-
853.
The authors radio-tracked and collected fecal samples of capercaille in the Black Forest of
Germany, and compared levels of corticosterone metabolites (indicators of stress) detected in feces
before and during ski season. The results indicate that increased intensity of use is a stressor to
capercaille; other research indicated that the birds avoided high-intensity human use areas that
were otherwise ideal habitat.
Thurston, Eden, & Richard J Reader. 2001. Impacts of Experimentally Applied Mountain Biking
and Hiking on Vegetation and Soil of a Deciduous Forest. Environmental Management, vol.27
no.3, pp.397-409.
The authors constructed an experiment wherein mountain biking and hiking were applied to
adjacent, previously undisturbed sample plots in Boyne Valley Provincial Park in southern Ontario.
Uses were systematically applied at five different intensities, and changes in plant stem density,
species richness, and soil exposure were recorded before, shortly after, and a year after treatment.
The findings support the well-documented curvilinear response of soil and vegetation to
disturbance, and found little appreciable difference in the measured characteristics to the two
different types of recreational use. In general, recreational use of deciduous understory resulted in
100% removal of vegetation, and up to 54% increase in exposed soil.
Thurston, Eden. 1998. An Experimental Examination of the Impacts of Hiking and Mountain
Biking on Deciduous Forest Vegetation and Soil. PhD Thesis, University of Guelph. 150pp.
The PhD dissertation from which the previous citation originated. Aside from the research
described above, the author also measured changes in soil impaction (trail depth), and found no
appreciable difference between mountain bike and hiking applications, and indeed very little
change in trail depth for the different intensities of use applied in the study.
White, Dave D., M. Troy Waskey, Grant P. Brodehl, & Pamela E. Foti. 2006. A Comparitive Study
of Impacts to Mountain Bike Trails in Five Common Ecological Regions of the Southwestern U.S.
Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, vol.24 no.2, pp.21-41.
Mountain Biking: A Review of the Ecological Effects
38
A peer-reviewed article on the Southwest Mountain Bike Study described in the IMBA trail guide –
see Morlock et al citation above. Analysis was done on soil erosion characteristics (trail incision
(depth) and width) at sample plots on 163 miles of MTB trails over 5 distinct ecological regions in
the southwestern US. The authors found that degree of erosion varied between ecological region
and attributed this variability to characteristics of soil and vegetation typ ical to the local landscape.
Soil erosion increased with steeper slopes for all ecoregions studied. Intensity/level of use was
neither accounted nor controlled for in the study.
Wilson, John P., & Joseph P. Seney. 1994. Erosional Impact of Hikers, Horses , Motorcycles, and
Off-Road Bicycles on Mountain Trails in Montana. Mountain Research and Development, vol.14
no.1, pp.77-88.
A systematic study that compared the erosive (water runoff and sediment yield) impacts associated
with hiking, horseback riding, motorcycles, and mountain bikes at 108 sample plots along a trail
network in Gallatin National Forest, Montana. The main findings of this study suggest that foot-
powered use (horses and hikers) create more erosive potential than wheeled forms of recreation.
Case Studies – Sociological
Bowker, JM and Donald BK English. 2002. Mountain Biking at Tsali: An Assessment of Users,
Preferences, Conflicts, and Management Alternatives. USDA Forest Service, Athens, GA.
The authors, Social Scientist for the USDA Forest Service, report on the results of a 13-month
survey of MTB trail users in the Tsali Recreation Area in western North Carolina‟s Nantahala
National Forest. Findings focus on the demographics, behavior, trip profile, and attitude towards
user fees. Some brief mention (pp.10-11) of ecology-related trail management (horse/bike rotation,
trail surfacing, etc.). Survey questionnaires included as Appendix.
Cessford, Gordon. 2003. Perception and Reality of Conflict: Walkers and Mountain Bikes on the
Queen Charlotte Track in New Zealand. Journal for Nature Conservation, vol.11, pp.310 -316.
Also in Cessford, Gordon R. 2002. Perception and Reality of Conflict: Walkers and Mountain Bikes
on the Queen Charlotte Track in New Zealand. In Arnberger, A.,C. Brandenburg, & A. Muhar
(eds.). Monitoring and Management of Visitor Flows in Recreational and Protected Areas;
Proceedings of the Conference held at Bodenkultur University, Vienna. pp.102-108.
Following a brief review of the study of ecological and sociological impacts related to mountain
biking, the author reports results of a survey of 370 hikers on a trail in New Zealand that had
recently been opened to cyclists. A distinct difference was noted between the opinions of hikers
who had actually encountered a mountain biker (generally positive towards bikes and cyclists) and
those who had not (generally more negative).
Chavez, Deborah J., Patricia L. Winter, & John M. Baas. 1993. Recreational Mountain Biking: A
Management Perspective. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration vol.11 no.3, pp.29-36.
Mountain Biking: A Review of the Ecological Effects
39
Results of a survey of 40 recreational managers from the USDA Forest Service and the USDI
Bureau of Land Management. The survey focused on intensity of use and inter-use conflict, but
also recorded qualitative information on trail degradation related to mountain bike use.
Janowsky, Dagmar V., & Gero Becker. 2003. Characteristics and Needs of Different User Groups
in the Urban Forest of Stuttgart. Journal for Nature Conservation, vol.11, pp.251-259.
A combination of video capturing, expert interviews, and GIS modeling was used to profile
different user groups of an urban forest in Stuttgart, Germany, and to identify times and places with
the highest potential for user conflict. Optimal solutions also sought to minimize enviro nmental
damage from human activity.
Mann, Carsten, & James D. Absher. 2008. Recreation Conflict Potential and Management
Implications in the Northern/Central Black Forest nature Park. Journal of Environmental Planning
and Management vol.51 no.3, pp.363-380.
A quantitative study that assesses conflict in recreational use by six different user groups in the
Black Forest Nature Park in southwest Germany. Results from hikers and mountain bikers are
analyzed and compared in depth. The results elucidate some of the general cultural differences
between “nature-oriented” recreationists (hikers), and “activity-oriented” recreationists (mountain
bikers), and how each perceives infrastructural and social conflicts.
Mason, Peter, & Sarah Leberman. 2000. Local Planning for Recreation and Tourism: A Case
Study of Mountain Biking from New Zealand's Manawatu Region. Journal of Sustainable Tourism,
vol.6 no.2, pp.97-115.
User surveys and use monitoring are employed to assist in the identification of MTB rider
preference (terrain, duration of trip, etc.) and potential user conflict. An iterative approach to
planning mountain bike use in the Manawatu region of New Zealand is favourably compared to
the reactive, ad hoc approach that has been used more commonly in the past.
Mosedale, Jan. 2003. Planning for Appropriate Recreation Activities in Mountain Environments:
Mountain Biking in the Canadian Rocky Mountains. York University, Faculty of Environmental
Studies Outstanding Graduate Student Paper Series, vol.7 no.5. 114pp.
A review of the literature on ecological and social impacts associated with mountain biking. The
author assesses the current state of MTB activity in multiple areas (under different
jurisdiction/management) along the Rocky Mountains from Edson Alberta south to Fernie BC. Best
management practices are proposed and discussed.
Naber, Michael David. 2008. Integrating Trail Condition Assessment with Recreational Demand
Modeling of Mountain Bikers in the Research Triangle, North Carolina. PhD Thesis. North Carolina
State University. 119pp.
Solidly in the gray area between sociological and ecological aspects of recreation study, the author
models demand for mountain biking (recreation demand) on six trails in North Carolina, using
variables related to trail challenge (level of difficulty), degree of environmental degradation
(erosion, exposed roots, trail surface material, landform, etc. - variables mostly related to soils and
Mountain Biking: A Review of the Ecological Effects
40
vegetation), and extent of development of associated facilities/infrastructure. Condition of trails was
measured systematically. The findings of this study suggest that mountain bikers exhibit a strong
preference for trails that are technically challenging, that have well-developed facilities, and that
have a minimal amount of environmental damage.
Symmonds, Mathew C., William E. Hammitt, & Virgil L, Quisinberry. Managing Recreational Trail
Environments for Mountain Bike User Preferences. Environmental Management, vol.25 no.5,
pp.549-564.
An online survey was conducted in order to determine preferences of mountain bikers related to
environmental and landscape characteristics of trails (e.g. soil erosion and management thereof).
The survey was administered globally, with most responses coming from the US, UK, Australia and
New Zealand. Water bars were found to be a preferred erosion control technique, though many
respondents demonstrated a preference for heavily eroded (rooty, rocky, gullied) terrain.
Modeling Tools for Recreation Ecology
Bennett, Victoria J., Matthew Beard, Patrick A. Zollner, Esteban Fernandez-Juricic, Lynne
Westphal, & Cherie LeBlanc. 2008. Understanding wildlife responses to human disturbance
through simulation modeling: A management tool. Ecological Complexity (2008),
doi:10.1016/j.ecocom.2008.08.002.
An illustration of the use of a spatially explicit modeling tool called SODA (Simulation of
Disturbance Activities), using two case studies. SODA focuses on modeling the ecological impacts
of disturbance (recreational use) related to wildlife ecology and habitat. Parameteriz ation of the
model allows for consideration of different types of recreation. Some cited references may be
valuable for better understanding of recreation ecology.
Cole, David N., & Terry C. Daniel. 2003. The Science of Visitor Management in Parks and
Protected Areas: From Verbal Reports to Simulation Models. Journal for Nature Conservation,
vol.11, pp.269-277.
A study on the evolving science of monitoring type and intensity of human recreational use in
wilderness areas. The authors argue that traditional surveying methods do not provide an accurate
assessment of human recreation patterns, and that a more robust and defensible approach is
required. To this end they propose the use of travel simulation modeling approaches (e.g. Extend).
Itami, Robert, Rob Raulings, Glen MacLaren, Kathleen Hirst, Randy Gimblett, Dino Zanon, &
Peter Chladek. 2003. RBSim 2: Simulating Complex Interactions Between Human Movement and
the Outdoor Recreation Environment. Journal for Nature Conservation, vol.11, pp.278-286.
Introduction to a human recreational behaviour simulation modeling application, RBSim 2. The
application allows for the spatially explicit assessment of changes to use, behaviour, and
environmental impacts that could be expected to result from hypothetical changes to trails (or other
linear features) and associated infrastructure.
Mountain Biking: A Review of the Ecological Effects
41
General Recreation Ecology – Not Mountain-Bike-Specific
Bath, Alistair J., & Jody W. Enck. 2003. Wildlife-Human Interactions in National Parks in Canada
and the USA. Social Science Research Review, vol.4 no.1, 32pp.
A literature review that identifies the principle concerns and issues related to human-wildlife
interaction within national parks. Though a good general overview of the issues, there is no specific
mention of mountain biking, or comparison of the nature of human-wildlife conflict for cyclists as
compared to other uses.
Blumstein, Daniel T., Esteban Fernandez-Juricic, Patrick A. Zollner, & Susan C. Garity. 2005.
Inter-specific Variation in Avian Response to Human Disturbance. Journal of Applied Ecology,
vol.42, pp.943-953.
Using recorded data published between 1980 and 2003, the authors modeled behaviour of 150
avian species in response to human disturbance. The model suggests that detection distance is a
key factor explaining inter-specific variation in response to human disturbance, and that in general,
larger birds detect human presence at greater distance than smaller birds. Certain fitness-related
factors (e.g. quantity of food consumed) were found to be sensitive to detection distance,
suggesting the need for consideration of impacts on avian species when managing human activity
within their habitat.
Crealock, Anne G. 2002. The Role of Trails and Trail-Users in the Spread of Non-Native Plants.
MSc Thesis, San Jose State University.
Thesis that examines the role of human use trails as both habitat and vectors for spread of invasive
plant species. Studies are conducted in field and simulated situations that compare different types
of trail use, and conclude that non-native invasion is facilitated by all types of recreation, and that
different invasive species respond differently to different types/levels of use.
Hadwen, Wade L., Wendy Hill, & Catherine M. Pickering. 2007. Icons Under Threat: Why
Monitoring Visitors and Their Ecological Impacts in Protected Areas Matters. Ecological
Management & Restoration, vol.8 no.3, pp.177 -181.
The authors point to the threats of overuse at “icon sites” due to increased levels of human
recreational activity. They suggest current methods of collection and reporting of visitor data are
inadequate to answer important questions related to ecological impact and carrying capacity, and
make the case for more proactive, targeted visitor impact monitoring.
Hebblewhite, Mark, & Evelyn Merrill. 2008. Modelling Wildlife-Human Relationships for Social
Species with Mixed-Effects Resource Selection Models. Journal of Applied Ecology, vol.45, pp.834 -
844
A resource selection function (RSF) model is applied to demonstrate that behaviour of wolves
(Canis lupus) changes with proximity to human activity, and that different packs of wolves exhibit
different behaviour. Specifically, the authors report that in areas of elevated human activity, wolves
selected areas closer to humans (though they avoided humans during daylight).
Mountain Biking: A Review of the Ecological Effects
42
Knight, Richard L., & Kevin G. Gutzwiller, Eds. 1995. Wildlife and Recreationists: Coexistence
Through Management and Research. Island Press. 372pp.
A book dedicated to describing the current (1995) state of knowledge in the field of wildlif e
recreation ecology. Sections on general theory, specific case studies and examples, and
management implications are included. Very little specific reference to mountain biking and its
impacts on wildlife.
Liddle, Michael. 1997. Recreation Ecology: The Ecological Impact of Outdoor Recreation and
Ecotourism. Chapman & Hall. 639pp.
The standard recreation ecology textbook, and a good overview of the theory and underlying
principles of recreation ecology.
Marion, Jeffrey L. 1998. Recreation Ecology Research Findings: Implications for Wilderness and
Park Managers. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center. 6pp.
A brief summary of recreation ecology, including recommended further reading. Focus of section
on environmental impacts is on soils and vegetation.
Sun, D., & D. Walsh. 1998. Review of Studies on Environmental Impacts of Recreation and
Tourism in Australia. Journal of Environmental Management, vol.53, pp.323 -338.
A review of literature related to the ecological impacts of Australian recreation and tourism, with a
focus on vegetation and soils. Some inter-use comparison is attempted, but more informative
cross-use assessments can be found in other literature reviews cited herein.
Tempel, Douglas, Vita Wright, Janet Neilson, & Tammy Mildenstein. 2008. Linking Wilderness
Research and Management – vol.5. Understanding and Managing Backcountry Recreation Impacts
on Terrestrial Wildlife – An Annotated Reading List. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain
Research Station, Fort Collins, CO. 70pp.
An extensive annotated reading list of impacts of backcountry recreation on wildlife behavior and
habitat. Subsections include general concepts, specific examples, management policies and
practices, and other resources. No specific mention or citation of research related to mountain
biking.
Wagar, Alan. 1964. The Carrying Capacity of Wild Lands for Recreation. Forest Science,
Monograph 7. Society of American Foresters. 31pp.
Mostly of archival interest, Wagar attempts to la y some foundation for the future consideration of
ecological carrying capacity when managing for recreational use of public wilderness. Even in 1964
it was clear that both ecological and social costs and benefits need to be considered by land
managers.
Maintenance Practices
and Costs of Rail -Trails
2 / Maintenance Practices and Costs of Rail-Trails
Rails-to-Trails Conservancy
Northeast Regional Office
2133 Market Street, Suite 222
Camp Hill, PA 17011
Tel 717.238.1717 / Fax 717.238.7566
National Headquarters
2121 Ward Court, NW, 5th Floor
Washington, D.C. 20037
Tel 202.331.9696 / Fax 202.223.9257
railstotrails.org
TrailLink.com
Executive Summary .................................................................4
Methodology ..........................................................................7
Major Maintenance Tasks ........................................................8
Administration ....................................................................8
Vegetation – Grass, Trees, Herbicides and Invasives! ............9
Surface – Repair, Clearing, Snow .......................................14
Drainage ...........................................................................18
Trailhead Amenities ...........................................................19
Sanitation .........................................................................21
Signage ............................................................................22
Access Control ..................................................................23
Trail Features ....................................................................24
Other ................................................................................25
Conclusions ..........................................................................27
Appendix A: 2014 Survey Results ..........................................30
Appendix B: List of Participants ............................................42
ABOUT US
Rails-to-Trails Conservancy serves as the national
voice for more than 160,000 members and
supporters, 30,000 miles of rail-trails and
multiuse trails, and more than 8,000 miles of
potential trails waiting to be built, with a goal of
creating more walkable, bikeable communities
in America. Since 1986, we have worked from
coast to coast, supporting the development of
thousands of miles of rail-trails for millions to
explore and enjoy.
CONTENTS
Wallkill Valley Rail Trail, NY.
Produced by Rails-to-Trails Conservancy
Carl Knoch
Tom Sexton
June 2015
The team wishes to recognize and thank RTC staff and others who contributed to the
accuracy and utility of this report. Thanks to the trail managers and RTC staff who
contributed photos for this report.
This study was made possible by the generous support of the Pennsylvania
Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Bureau of Recreation,
Community and Conservation Partnership Program.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Rails to Trails Conservancy / 3
Allegheny River Trail, PA.
4 / Maintenance Practices and Costs of Rail-Trails
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
F or the past three decades of rail-trail development,
maintenance costs have generally been seen as being
expensive. These expenses, however, have remained
largely untracked on a state or national basis. Further, a
comprehensive breakdown and ranking of maintenance
priorities did not exist.
To better understand this issue, RTC conducted a
comprehensive survey of trail maintenance costs. Results
of this study show that, contrary to popular belief,
maintenance costs are not as high as many perceive them
to be. In fact, when taking into account for volunteers,
this study found that maintenance costs on average range
from $500 to $1,000 per trail mile per year depending on
surface.
In the 10 years that RTC’s Northeast Regional Office has
tracked technical inquiries, there has been a steady decline
in the number of maintenance-related request. There are
likely several reasons for this decline. Rail-trail managers
and others share maintenance methods through a variety
of networks, in addition to providing direct assistance
to one another. Earlier documents on maintenance best
management practices have also likely been helpful. In
addition, many individual trails have been combined into
larger systems, thus creating economies of scale. Volunteer
programs also have grown in size and dependability and
have taken on more responsibility.
Finally, it is evident that maintenance also has been
deferred.
Therefore, it is possible that although maintenance costs
have declined over time, perception of those costs has
remained the same.
Trail managers and local stakeholders often cite the need
for dedicated state or federal funding to help pay for trail
maintenance. Up to this point, RTC has lacked sufficient
data to make that case effectively to decision-makers
at the state or federal level. This study was initiated to
bring some clarity to this issue. Whether in a town hall
meeting or a discussion with a member of Congress about
the reauthorization of federal funding, more accuracy
regarding rail-trail maintenance costs is required.
Because funding for rail-trails is difficult to secure,
over-estimating maintenance costs can inadvertently
give opponents easy leverage to speak against rail-trail
development. In addition, funders often question if all
aspects of any community development project should
be funded by state and federal grants, particularly
maintenance-related costs, which are often perceived as a
“local issue.”
This study presents a more comprehensive understanding
of rail-trail maintenance, as has been done for other rail-
trail issues such as construction costs, economic impact
and rails-with-trails. Such an approach enables the rail-trail
community to focus its limited resources more effectively
on addressing the most critical issues.
St. John Valley Heritage Trail, ME.
Rails to Trails Conservancy / 5
Figure 1. Map of Trail Groups Participating in Study
This publication is the third in a series of similar works
prepared by the RTC Northeast Regional Office. The
first was released in 1996 in collaboration with a U.S.
Department of Agriculture AmeriCorps staff member
based in Fayette County, Pennsylvania. The second
was released in 2005 and, as with this document, was
made possible through a Growing Greener grant from
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of
Conservation and Natural Resources, Bureau of Recreation
and Conservation.
Each successive study has grown in size and scope and,
ideally, usefulness. The 1996 study contained 40 questions
and received responses from 60 rail-trail managers.
The 2005 study expanded to 70 questions and 100
respondents. This latest version asked 117 questions and
drew answers from 200 respondents.
Of all the 2014 participants, 37 percent represented rural
rail-trails, 14 percent urban, 13 percent suburban and 36
percent mixed. The mixed category contained primarily a
rural/suburban combination.
In addition to identifying the types and frequency of
maintenance tasks, this study sought for the first time to
secure data on the cost of rail-trail maintenance. Almost
50 percent of the 200 trail managers provided a total
maintenance cost, though far fewer had an actual budget.
With the help of several veteran trail managers, RTC went
a step further and prepared an additional 44-question
survey that broke down the cost of each task. Only 25
managers completed this survey, and many of these
required repeated follow-up by e-mail and phone.
6 / Maintenance Practices and Costs of Rail-Trails
State and county managers said that it was too difficult
to separate these costs from larger existing budgets. Small
entities and private nonprofits said they simply did not
have the capacity to track these figures.
If the need for maintenance funding is so critical, however,
it would stand to reason that this data would be more
available or that completion of the questionnaire would
Snow covered bridge on the Piscataquog Trail in NH.
have greater value. This research indicates that the more
likely explanation for why these costs are not tracked
more rigorously is that rail-trails do not require as much
maintenance as some fear or promote. This finding is
critical in the ongoing case for funding support for rail-
trails.
Rails to Trails Conservancy / 7
METHODOLOGY
T he comparisons illustrated in this study are mostly
between the 2005 and 2014 findings. The 1996
study contained too many “check all that apply”
questions, which resulted in multiple answers and thus
participation greater than 100 percent; comparison of the
latter two studies was more reliable, as the answers in each
added up to 100 percent. Further, not all the same trails
were surveyed in the three studies. Unfortunately, only
including those trails that participated in all three studies
would have yielded too low a number to be significant.
The 2014 study began with a review of the earlier studies
to determine which topics required updating. Our
technical assistance team provided additional insights of
the questions they typically are asked. We then did a review
to determine what, if any, recent literature addressed the
topics of trail maintenance activities and associated cost.
We then developed a survey instrument that would collect
as much information as possible regarding the most
important topics. During this process, we realized that
there were different sets of questions for different trail
surface types. This increased the number of questions in
the survey to an overwhelming 195, which could prove
prohibitive to trail managers.
This potential problem was solved by the decision to create
the cost survey in Survey Monkey. Using this vehicle, we
could provide trail managers with a link to the online
survey, and they could take the survey at their convenience.
This also enabled us reduce the number of questions by
utilizing the skip logic in Survey Monkey, the manager of
an asphalt-surfaced trail, for example, could “skip” all of
the questions not applicable to their surface type.
To make comparisons across the trails, we limited our
query to states with four seasons. We did not send
invitations to trail managers in the southern tier of states.
Links to the online survey were sent to approximately
300 trail management organizations contained in RTC’s
national trails database as of January 6, 2014. Reminders
to participate were sent to those organizations that did not
immediately respond.
Of the responding trail management organizations, 95
indicated that they had a trail maintenance budget. A
follow-up survey to gather more detailed maintenance cost
information was sent to these 95 organizations. This was
not an online survey but a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet,
with 48 maintenance tasks as rows. Columns captured
labor hours, hourly labor cost, volunteer hours, equipment
costs, material costs, contracted services and total cost.
Many follow-up emails, phone calls and personal pleas
were made over several months to encourage participation
in this phase of the study.
Trail side mowing along the Perkiomen Tail in PA.
8 / Maintenance Practices and Costs of Rail-Trails
MAJOR MAINTENANCE TASKSMAJOR MAINTENANCE TASKS
T he 2005 study indicated that trail group
volunteers performed maintenance tasks on 46
percent of the survey trails. In the 2014 study,
this percentage increased to 58 percent. Municipal
government was the second most cited entity for
performing maintenance tasks after trail-group volunteers,
at 32 percent in 2005 and jumping to 43 percent in 2014.
The percent of municipal governments owning trails
remained nearly the same in the two studies, at 30 percent
and 34 percent in 2005 and 2014, respectively.
Administration
Written trail maintenance plan
We were surprised that 60 percent of the responding
trail managers indicated they do not have a written trail
maintenance plan. A written maintenance plan will save
time and money and contribute to a better experience for
trail users.
Funding trail maintenance
In the 2014 survey, municipal government was the
leading funder of trail maintenance, mentioned by 42
percent of respondents. This is a significant increase from
the 2005 maintenance study, when 26 percent mentioned
municipal government funding. Funding by a nonprofit
fell slightly from 34 percent in 2005 to 32 percent in
2014.
Of the trail managers who indicated that they had a
budget specifically for trail maintenance, the figures for
that budget ranged from less than $500 to more than
$700,000. This range is nearly identical to that reported
in the 2005 study.
Tracking annual users
Although not strictly a maintenance issue, the number
of annual users of a trail does affect maintenance needs.
Fifty four percent of our respondents indicated that they
do not currently track the number of trail users; another
23 percent indicated that they guess or estimate. Of those
trail managers who do conduct user counts, 16 percent do
a manual count, and 23 percent conduct the count using
an automated counter of some type. The reported annul
usage ranged from 2,000 to more than 2 million.
Figure 2. Who Performs Maintenance (2014 Survey)
Figure 3. Trail Maintenance Funders (2014 Survey)
Figure 4. Tracking by Trail Managers (2014 Survey)
0%10%20%30%40%50%
Federal government
Other
State government
County government
Non-profit
Municipal government
2005
2014
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%
Federal government staff
Other
Non-profit paid staff
individuals with mandatory…
State government staff
County government staff
Community volunteer groups
Municipal government staff
Trail group volunteers
2005
2014
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%
Manual count
Automated counter
Estimate/guess
Do not track annual users
MAJOR MAINTENANCE TASKS
Rails to Trails Conservancy / 9
MAJOR MAINTENANCE TASKS
Mowing
Sixty percent of detailed cost survey
respondents reported that mowing
was a labor-intensive maintenance
activity and a significant component
of the annual maintenance budget.
We conducted a correlation
analysis to determine if there
was a relationship between labor
hours and the length of trails. The
graph below reveals that such a
relationship does not exist.
Based on the data provided in the
detailed cost analysis, it is apparent
that the amount of time and
expense associated with mowing is
really a function of how the trail was
designed. Some trails have a lot of
grassy areas on the shoulders of the
trail tread, while others have crushed
stone or other shoulder materials
that don’t require periodic mowing.
Vegetation –
Grass, Trees,
Herbicides and
Invasives!
Figure 5. Correlation analysis shows no relationship between labor
hours and length of trails.
Perkiomen Rail Trail, PA.
y = 0.1019x
R² = -0.113
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
Tr
a
i
l
L
e
n
g
t
h
i
n
M
i
l
e
s
Hours for Mowing
MOWING
Series1
Linear (Series1)
Hours of operation
Consistent with the 2005 trail
maintenance and operations study,
two-thirds of the trails surveyed in
2014 are open on a dawn-to-dusk
schedule.
10 / Maintenance Practices and Costs of Rail-Trails
MAJOR MAINTENANCE TASKSMAJOR MAINTENANCE TASKS
Perkiomen Rail Trail, PA
20 miles
Annual mowing costs $12,542
The Perkiomen Trail has a significant amount of grass along the
shoulders of the trail and fencing that needs to be cut around manually.
On the other hand, the Rio Grande Trail has more native vegetation or
stone shoulders that do not require frequent mowing.
Rio Grande Rail Trail, CO
20 miles
Annual mowing costs $2,112
MAJOR MAINTENANCE TASKS
Rails to Trails Conservancy / 11
MAJOR MAINTENANCE TASKS
Heritage Rail Trail County Park, PA
21.1 miles
Annual mowing costs $6,000
Lackawanna River Heritage Trail, PA
19.9 miles
Annual mowing costs $7,367
The mowing cost for these two trails is fairly close on a per mile basis.
The Heritage Rail Trail has a parallel rail bed along most of its length
that requires herbicide treatment but no mowing. The Lackawanna Trail
allows natural vegetation to grow along the shoulders or has placed
stone shoulders.
12 / Maintenance Practices and Costs of Rail-Trails
MAJOR MAINTENANCE TASKSMAJOR MAINTENANCE TASKS
Lititz-Warwick Trailway, PA
3 miles
Annual Hours mowing 240
Annual mowing costs $3,553
Oil Creek State Park Trail, PA
9.7 miles
Annual hours mowing 240
Annual mowing costs $3,739
The Lititz-Warwick Trailway has significant amounts of grassy areas
that require mowing along trail edges in a primarily suburban setting.
Oil Creek State Park Trail is more rural and relies on natural vegetation
along the trail edges that does not require much maintenance.
Surprisingly, however, both reported 240 hours was required for mowing
each year. This example appears to indicate that there is no correlation
between labor hours and costs.
MAJOR MAINTENANCE TASKS
Rails to Trails Conservancy / 13
MAJOR MAINTENANCE TASKS
Vegetation Management
We asked trail managers how much time they dedicate to
vegetation management along the trail because this work
is the second most labor-intensive, costly maintenance
item reported by respondents to the detailed cost analysis
survey. Of these respondents, 62 percent reported on this
maintenance activity. The amount of time reported on a
per-mile basis varied from as little as 0.25 hours per mile
to 106 hours per mile (most of this work is carried out by
volunteers).
We provided a list of 12 tasks to 2014 maintenance survey
respondents when asking about their management of trail-
side vegetation. More than 90 percent of our respondents
reported that they do litter cleanup, tree pruning, fallen
tree removal, tree removal as a safety issue, and mowing.
Removal of invasive tree species is becoming an
increasingly necessary maintenance task. In the 2005
report, 36 percent of respondents reported invasive species
removal as an important task; in 2014, almost 93 percent
reported it as a major activity.
In the 2005 survey, about a third of the respondents
indicated that they used a chemical herbicide to control
vegetation. That percentage increased to 55 percent in the
2014 survey. Seventy-five percent of 2014 respondents
reported that trail maintenance staff has responsibility for
application of the herbicide. This activity was contracted
out by only 14 percent of the respondents.
Tree down on Heritage Rail Trail County Park, PA.
Volunteers trimming brush, Three Rivers Heritage
Trail, PA.
On average, respondents said they spent 13.5 hours per
mile on vegetation management. The cost of vegetation
management varied widely, from less than $100 for a four-
mile trail to more than $55,000 for a 24-mile trail. Much
of this work is carried out by trail management staff or
volunteers, although some trail organizations do contract
out this type of work. Volunteers should have some degree
of training and supervision, especially when working with
an herbicide.
Tree Removal
Tree removal was a significant maintenance task reported
in our detailed maintenance cost analysis survey. Most of
the reported costs were in excess of $1,000. Forty percent
of the reporting trails indicated that they contracted out
this activity. There are a number of reasons stated for
removing trees. In some cases storms cause tress to block
the trail. In others, a dead tree presents a potential hazard
to trail users and is removed before limbs come crashing
down on the trail.
14 / Maintenance Practices and Costs of Rail-Trails
MAJOR MAINTENANCE TASKSMAJOR MAINTENANCE TASKS
In the 2014 study we asked respondents to identify the
predominant trail surface material based on six choices:
asphalt, concrete, crushed stone, original railroad cinders,
dirt/soil and boardwalk. The number of responses for
concrete, railroad cinders, dirt and boardwalk were so small
(seven or fewer) that analysis was not possible. Therefore,
we concentrated our analysis on asphalt and crushed stone.
In the 2005 study, 45 percent of respondents indicated that
their trails were composed of asphalt, and 41 percent said
crushed stone. In 2014, asphalt increased to 52 percent,
and crushed stone decreased to 34 percent. This increase in
asphalt could either be because of increased use of asphalt
surfaced trails or the samples included in the survey. In
some cases, state policy dictates that trails must have an
asphalt surface.
Maintenance of Non-asphalt Trails
The labor hours and resulting cost of repairs to non-asphalt
trails varied widely among survey respondents. Labor
hours reported for repairs ranged from 0.2 hours per mile
for an 11-mile trail in Pennsylvania to 9.3 hours per mile
for a three-mile trail in Massachusetts. The total cost of
making repairs varied from a low of $31 to a high of nearly
$13,000.
Not only did these costs vary widely across our sample,
but they also varied widely from year to year. The major
cause of damage to non-asphalt trails was because of water
erosion, as reported by 55 percent of survey respondents.
The second biggest cause for repairs is because of
vegetation, as reported by 25 percent of survey
respondents. This can be caused by grass growing through
non-asphalt trail surface, vegetation encroaching on trail
edges or proliferation of invasive species. Controlling
damage caused by vegetation encroachment is manageable
with a program of regular, scheduled inspection and
preventative maintenance.
Surface – Repair, Clearing, Snow
Uncontrolled weed growth through trail surface.
Beaver caused erosion damage, Ashuelot Rail-Trail, NH.
Figure 6. Predominant Trail Surfaces (2014 Survey)
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%
Other
Crushed stone
Asphalt
2005
2014
MAJOR MAINTENANCE TASKS
Rails to Trails Conservancy / 15
MAJOR MAINTENANCE TASKS
Regrading of some or the entire surface is another
requirement in non-asphalt trail maintenance. The amount
of labor hours involved to perform this task varied widely,
from 14 hours to regrade a three-mile trail to two hours
to regrade a 10-mile trail. The nature of the re-grading
process and the type of equipment used contribute to this
variability. A good estimate of the average, based on those
reporting this activity, is two hours per mile for re-grading
a non-asphalt surface trail.
Maintenance of Asphalt Surfaced Trails
New to the 2014 were questions regarding causes of
damage to asphalt trails. Survey respondents could list
multiple causes of damage. As shown in Figure 7, tree
roots are by far the leading cause of damage to an asphalt
trail surface at 63 percent. The frost/freeze cycle and water
erosion rank second and third, at 44 and 43 percent,
respectively.
Respondents to the detailed maintenance cost survey
submitted significant costs for repair of asphalt-surfaced
trails. Examples include $9,600 for a 71-mile trail; $7,350
for a three-mile trail; and $7,200 for 39-mile trail. Only 30
percent of trail managers reported any asphalt repair. Only
eight percent of managers of asphalt-surface trails reported
that they seal-coated their trail. On a three-mile trail, the
cost of the sealant material was $4,000 and the labor to
apply it took 24 hours, or three work days.
Another task required for maintenance of asphalt trails is
crack sealing. The Willard Munger State Trail in Minnesota
reported spending 240 hours sealing cracks on the 71-
mile trail. That’s $5,760 in labor costs and $2,500 in
material costs. Similarly, the Oil Creek State Park Trail in
Pennsylvania had labor costs of $935 and material costs
of $1,500 to seal cracks along the 9.7-mile asphalt trail.
Lack of a crack-sealing program can lead to vegetation
growing up through the cracks, and this will contribute to
deterioration of the asphalt surface.
Tree root damage Manhan Rail Trail, MA.
Figure 7. Sources of Surface Damage (2014 Survey)
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%
Vegatation (grass, weeds
Sub-surface failure
Water erosion
Frost/freeze cycle
Tree roots
16 / Maintenance Practices and Costs of Rail-Trails
MAJOR MAINTENANCE TASKSMAJOR MAINTENANCE TASKS
Maintenance of crushed stone
More than one-half, or 56 percent, of 2014 respondents
with a predominantly crushed stone surfaced trail
reported that their trail had been resurfaced since original
construction. This is a decrease from two-thirds in the
2005 study. In 2014, the most mentioned interval for
resurfacing was 10 years or longer, compared with nine
years in the 2005 study.
Consistent with the 2005 study, 71 percent of respondents
indicated that crushed surface trails are primarily repaired
manually, with a rakes, shovels and other hand tools. Light
duty power equipment such as a Bobcat was used to repair
damage by 42 percent of the respondents, and 32 percent
responded that they utilized heavy equipment such as
a grader. The type of equipment used is dictated by the
severity of the damage to the crushed stone surfaced trail.
Forty-four percent of our survey respondents indicated that
their crushed stone trail had been regraded since its original
construction. This maintenance activity is carried out on
an as-needed basis by 70 percent of the trail managers.
Water erosion is the most frequently mentioned cause of
damage to a crushed stone surfaced trail, with 77 percent
of respondents reporting it the 2014 study.
Vegetation encroaching through the trail surface was the
second most common cause of damage to a crushed stone
trail, with one-third of respondents citing this cause. Less
than 2 percent of respondents indicated tree roots as a
cause of damage to a crushed stone surface trail.
Erosion damage to stone dust trail.
Surface Clearing of Trail
For the purpose of the survey, trail clearing was defined
as the removal of material such as leaves, sticks and stones
from the trail surface. A third of the respondents to our
detailed cost survey indicated that time was spent clearing
the surface of the trail. This activity was mostly confined
to asphalt surfaced trails. On average, surface clearing took
3.5 hours per mile, at an average cost of $22.25 per hour.
Figure 8. Sources of Damage to Crushed Stone Surface
(2014 Survey)
0%20%40%60%80%100%
Tree roots
Sub-surface failure
Frost/freeze cycle
Other
Vegatation (grass, weeds)
Water erosion
Water erosion is the most
frequently mentioned cause
of damage to a crushed stone
surfaced trail.
MAJOR MAINTENANCE TASKS
Rails to Trails Conservancy / 17
MAJOR MAINTENANCE TASKS
Maintenance of Pavement Markings
Pavement markings are generally associated with asphalt-
surfaced trails. This study found that a painted center line
was the most common type of pavement marking. Other
pavement markings are safety or instructional in nature.
Some markings are painted on the trail surface, while
others are applied thermally. The detailed cost analysis
revealed that this activity, while not reported by many
respondents, varied in cost from $19 per mile to $140 per
mile.
Winter use of the Torrey C. Brown Trail, MD.
Pavement markings, Hanover Trolley Trail, PA.
Snow Removal
In the general maintenance study, 33 percent of
respondents reported that they removed snow from
portions of the trail, and 9 percent reported that they
remove snow from the entire length of the trail. Generally,
full or partial snow removal was more common on trails in
urban or suburban areas.
According to respondents to the detailed cost study who
reported snow removal (25 percent), the time and cost
of snow removal varied widely. Time spent ranged from
500 hours on the 71-mile Traverse Area Recreation Trail
in Michigan to 15 hours on the 24-mile Three Rivers
Heritage Trail in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. This activity
varied widely from year to year based on the frequency and
amount of snowfall.
Some trail managers who did not report clearing snow
from the trail surface did report that they cleared snow
from trailhead parking lots. Trails can get a great deal of
winter use if potential trail users have a place to park. Cross
country skiing is a popular activity on many rail-trails in
snow country. The Heritage Rail Trail County Park in
Pennsylvania spent $600 clearing trailhead parking lots
for skiers but does not clear the trail surface. In 2014,
63 percent of respondents reported doing trailhead snow
removal, compared with half that number in 2005.
18 / Maintenance Practices and Costs of Rail-Trails
MAJOR MAINTENANCE TASKSMAJOR MAINTENANCE TASKS
Drainage
Maintenance of drainage areas is critical to helping
minimize the damage to both asphalt and crushed stone
surfaced trails caused by water erosion. As we found in the
2005 survey, this activity is primarily carried out manually
with the use of rakes and shovels. In both surveys, this
manual activity was reported by 70 percent or more of the
respondents.
Culvert failure, Allegheny River Trail, PA.
Culvert failure, Manhan Rail Trails, MA.
Figure 9. Drainage Activities (2014 Survey)
Clearing of drainage swales and culverts
Periodically investing several hundred or even several
thousand dollars in maintaining trail drainage systems and
culverts can prevent catastrophic damage to a trail when a
major water event occurs.
Forty-one percent of
respondents to the detailed
cost analysis survey
reported spending staff and
volunteer hours on this
task. A quarter of those
reporting indicated that
this activity was carried out
entirely by volunteers.
Volunteers on the four-mile
Greater Hazelton Rails to
Trails in Pennsylvania spent
60 hours on this task.
Of those trail management
organizations that reported
carrying out this this
activity, the cost varied
from $85 per mile to $350
per mile. Cost depended
0%20%40%60%80%
Flush with water
Other
Self-cleaning design
Power equipment
Manual (rake, shovel, etc.
2005
2014
MAJOR MAINTENANCE TASKS
Rails to Trails Conservancy / 19
MAJOR MAINTENANCE TASKS
Drainage swale in need of cleaning.
Trailhead Amenities
Between 2005 and 2014, dramatic changes were made
in the types of facilities that trail managers provide at
trailheads.
In 2005, only 58 percent of the survey respondents
indicated that they provided an information kiosk at the
trailheads. In the 2014 survey, however, 83 percent of
respondents indicated that an information kiosk was part
of the trailhead facility.
Availability of a permanent restroom facility increased from
25 percent in 2005 to 43 percent in 2014. Availability of
portable toilet facilities at trailheads increased from 33
percent in 2005 to 45 percent in 2014, and the availability
of trash receptacles increased from 42 percent to 61 percent
over the decade between surveys.
Down East Sunrise Trail, ME.
on the type of drainage system used along the trail, the
number of culverts that required cleaning and the method
used to clean drainage swales and culverts.
The Montgomery County Pennsylvania Regional Trail
maintenance schedule requires that drains, pipes, culverts
and inlets are cleared out three times per year and must be
checked after all heavy rainfalls. All leaf litter, branches and
other debris are required to be removed at inlets and along
drainage swales.
The West Penn trail maintenance plan calls for clearing
drainage swales twice a year or as needed. Most of this
work is done with rakes and shovels. Some larger ditches
may require the use of a backhoe.
20 / Maintenance Practices and Costs of Rail-Trails
MAJOR MAINTENANCE TASKSMAJOR MAINTENANCE TASKS
In 2005, 51 percent of the respondents reported trailheads
featuring picnic tables and benches; that number increased
to 73 percent in 2014. Telephones at trailheads fell from
13 percent in 2005 to 3 percent in 2014, consistent with
an overall decline in public phones in the United States.
In 2005 only 43 percent of survey respondents reported
the availability of picnic tables and benches along the trail.
Today, 76 percent of trail managers’ report that picnic
tables or benches are provided along their trails.
Trailheads
Respondents were asked to provide a detailed cost for
several aspects of trailhead maintenance, including
landscaping, toilet facilities and kiosks. For the majority
of those reporting, landscaping at trailheads was carried
out by volunteers. Volunteer hours annually ranged from
as few as eight to as many as 500. The largest cost item
at trailheads was maintenance of restroom facilities. The
lowest cost item was maintenance of informational kiosks
at the trailhead.
Amenities
The cost of maintaining amenities such as picnic tables and
benches varied among trail managers reporting detailed
cost information. It was most strongly correlated to the
length of the trails, as longer trails required more benches
and picnic tables to maintain. For example, the 71-mile
Willard Munger State Trail in Minnesota spent $1,260 on
maintenance of amenities, while the eight-mile section of
the Ghost Town Trail in Pennsylvania spent only $25. This
type of maintenance spending likely also varies on a year to
year basis.
Figure 10. Trailhead Features (2014 Survey)
Trailhead signage, Youghiogheny Rive Trail, Great
Allegheny Passage, PA.
0%20%40%60%80%100%
Vending Machines
Telephone
Commercial consessions
Other
On street parking
Shared private/commercial…
Potable water
Shared public parking lot
Permanent toilet facility
Portable toilet facility
Trash receptacles
Picnic tables/benches
Parking lot just for trail users
Information kiosk
2005
2014
Between 2005 and
2014, dramatic
changes were made in
the types of facilities
that trail managers
provide at trailheads.
MAJOR MAINTENANCE TASKS
Rails to Trails Conservancy / 21
MAJOR MAINTENANCE TASKS
Sanitation
Litter Clean-Up
More than half of the trail managers who responded to
the detailed trail maintenance cost survey reported on the
number of hours spent cleaning up litter. Although the
amount of time spent on litter removal is greater along
urban trails, rural trails also require this task. Friends of
the Riverfront, which manages the 24-mile Three Rivers
Heritage Trail system in Pittsburgh, spends 2,000 hours
annually on litter control. The 56-mile Trail of the Coeur
d’ Alenes in Idaho spends 300 hours on litter cleanup.
Restroom Maintenance
Maintenance of restroom facilities, whether at trailheads
or along the trail, can be an ongoing annual expense.
Respondents to the detailed cost analysis survey provided
information about maintenance of both permanent
facilities and portable toilets. Costs varied widely. The
Heritage Rail Trail County Park in Pennsylvania has both
permanent and portable toilets at trailheads along the
21- mile trail. Maintenance costs for these facilities were
reported at more than $14,000 a year.
Cub Scouts help with litter clean-up on the Heritage
Rail Trail County Park, PA.
Permanent toilet facility along the Pine Creek Rail
Trail, PA.
Earth Day trash pick up along the Capital Greenbelt,
Harrisburg, PA.
22 / Maintenance Practices and Costs of Rail-Trails
MAJOR MAINTENANCE TASKSMAJOR MAINTENANCE TASKS
Signage
The 2014 survey revealed that trail managers are increasing
the number and types of signs along trails, which adds to
the need for maintenance. Posted trail identification signs
increased from 75 percent in 2005 to 91 percent in 2014.
More trails have mileage markers as well, an increase from
55 percent in 2005 to 74 percent in 2014. The placement
of interpretive signs has also grown substantially, from
31 percent in 2005 to 57 percent in 2014. All of this
additional signage helps to provide a better trail experience.
However, 76 percent of trail managers reported that their
signs were subject to vandalism.
Repair and Maintenance of Signage
Another major maintenance task is the repair and
maintenance of trail signage. More than 40 percent of
respondents reported this as a significant maintenance
activity. In this case, trail length is correlated with cost:
typically, the longer the trail the more signs that need to be
maintained and the more time and cost is involved.
The four-mile Path of the Flood Trail in Pennsylvania
reported spending two hours on signage repair and
maintenance, and the 26-mile Catskill Scenic Trail in New
York reported spending 135 hours on this work.
More than 75 percent of the respondents to the general
maintenance survey reported that vandalism was the major
cause of damage requiring signage repair and maintenance.
Welcome sign, Ashuelot Rail Trail, NH.
Greenline Trail sign used for target practice.
MAJOR MAINTENANCE TASKS
Rails to Trails Conservancy / 23
MAJOR MAINTENANCE TASKS
Access Control
Maintenance of Gates and Bollards
Gates and bollards are used to keep automobiles and other
motorized vehicles off of trails that are intended only for
non-motorized use. While maintenance costs associated
with gates and bollards were reported by only 15 percent of
detailed cost analysis respondents, most indicated costs of
between $2,300 and $5,000.
Bollard at intersection, Bruce Freeman Rail Trail, MA.
Fencing
A majority of the respondents to our survey, 51 percent,
indicated that they had some type of fencing along their
trail. Most common was split rail wooden fencing, which
was mentioned by 45 percent of the respondents. Over
time this becomes a maintenance issue, as posts and rails
rot or become damaged in some way.
Fencing generally is deployed along trails to protect trail
users from a potential danger, such as a steep slope, or to
prevent them from entering adjacent properties. In the
detailed cost analysis, we looked at three types of typical
trail side fencing: wooden, chain link and vinyl.
Of these three types, wooden fencing was reported to
require the most maintenance. Thirty percent of the
detailed cost survey respondents reported time repairing
wooden fencing. This maintenance can take the form of
replacing fencing that had rotted or fencing that had been
damaged by accident or acts of vandalism. Only 8 percent
of respondents reported repairs to chain link fence. No
respondents reported repairs to vinyl fencing.
Damaged split rail fence along the Pine Creek Rail Trail, PA.
24 / Maintenance Practices and Costs of Rail-Trails
MAJOR MAINTENANCE TASKSMAJOR MAINTENANCE TASKS
Split rail fencing, Pine Creek Rail Trail, PA.
Scott Glen Bridge, Ghost Town Trail, PA.
Trail Features
Bridges
A full 88 percent of the trail managers indicated that
they have at least one bridge along their trail. The most
common — 61 percent — are original railroad bridges.
The second most common type of bridge is new bike/
pedestrian bridges with vehicle capacity. Surprisingly, 43
percent of respondents indicated that their bridges are
not inspected on a regular basis by a certified inspectors
or professional engineers. Fortunately, the number of
trail managers reporting that their bridges are inspected
increased from 33 percent in 2005 to 57 percent in 2014.
The most frequent interval for bridge inspections reported
in 2014 was two to three years, which is a shorter interval
than that reported in 2005.
MAJOR MAINTENANCE TASKS
Rails to Trails Conservancy / 25
MAJOR MAINTENANCE TASKS
Cleaning-up illegal dumping along the Hanover Trolley
Trail, PA.
Tunnels or Culverts
Tunnels are one of the most distinctive features of many
rail-trails. In our 2014 survey, 41 percent of the surveyed
trails reported that they had a tunnel on the trail, an
increase of 14 percent from those reporting in 2005. Forty
percent of the tunnels are illuminated, mostly on a dusk-
to-dawn basis, with lighting triggered by a light sensor and
powered by a municipal utility.
Other
Vandalism and Illegal Dumping
A third of the respondents to our detailed cost analysis
survey reported that they spent time repairing trails due
to acts of vandalism or dumping along the corridor.
Managers of four trails between 21 and 26 miles long
in predominantly suburban/rural environments spent
between 40 and 150 hours repairing trails after acts of
vandalism or illegal dumping.
Average Labor Rate
Fifty nine percent of the respondents to the detailed
maintenance cost survey reported labor rates for various
trail maintenance activities. The rates ranged from a low of
$10 per hour to a high of $75 per hour. Most labor rates
were clustered around $25 per hour plus or minus $5. The
average labor rate for all activities was $22.25.
Contracted Services
Many trail maintenance activities were carried out by trail
management organizations and volunteers. Some, however,
are better performed by outside contractors. In the survey,
activities most commonly reported as being completed by
contractors included tree removal, restroom maintenance,
herbicide application, bridge inspections and clearing of
drainage culverts and mowing.
Volunteers painting over graffiti.
26 / Maintenance Practices and Costs of Rail-Trails
MAJOR MAINTENANCE TASKS
Howard Tunnel, Heritage Rail Trail County Park, PA.
MAJOR MAINTENANCE TASKS
Rails to Trails Conservancy / 27
CONCLUSIONS
To better understand this issue, RTC conducted a
comprehensive survey of trail maintenance costs.
Results of this study show that, contrary to popular belief,
maintenance costs are not as high as expected. Per mile
yearly average costs for rail-trail maintenance assessed in
this study ranged from $1,000 to $2,000, depending on
whether the trail was asphalt or stone dust. This assessment
supports the findings of the more detailed budgets that
a few dozen trail managers provided, which averaged
$2,026 per mile per year. This figure includes the value of
volunteer service, which was assigned an equivalent hourly
rate. When compared against the finding that 58 percent
of trails reported using volunteers, both of the annual cost
figures may decrease significantly.
Several additional significant findings from this study are
summarized below.
Damage to asphalt trails from tree roots is
significant and growing.
More than 60 percent of asphalt trail managers reported
tree roots as the major source of trail damage. Clearly, as
more asphalt trails are being built rather than stone dust
trails (as required by some departments of transportation
and metropolitan planning organizations); the true
costs of these facilities needs to be better understood
and shared. Replacing asphalt after several years is costly
and frequently becomes a rebuild that is often funded
by Transportation Enhancement (TE) programs or
Transportation Alternatives Programs (TAP). This costly
maintenance requirement might be prevented with better
construction standards and possible use of root barriers in
certain segments of a trail or periodic trenching to cut root
growth. The removal of healthy trees several years after the
trail is built is not the only option.
As an additional way to save money, several trail groups
could work together to purchase materials or share
equipment. State Departments of Natural Resources
might use Recreation Trails Program funding to purchase
equipment that can be used by any trail.
Invasive species concerns nearly tripled in
importance from 2005 to 2014.
Some invasive species can be disproportionally destructive
compared with native vegetation because natural control
mechanisms do not exist in their new environment. This
study found an increase in herbicide use, which is needed
to control some invasive species. As a secondary issue,
because trail groups rely heavily on volunteers and only
contract out a small percent of herbicide application to
professionals, it is logical to question if volunteers are
adequately trained. Municipal workers, who would have
adequate training, may be doing most of the herbicide
application; however, this potential safety issue may
warrant further examination.
Tree pruning even occurs in the dead of winter, Three
Rivers Heritage Trail, PA.
28 / Maintenance Practices and Costs of Rail-Trails
CONCLUSIONS
Source Asphalt
Surface
Non-Asphalt
Surface
RTC Maintenance &
Operations Report -
2014
$1,971/mile $1,006/mile
RTC Maintenance
& Operations 2004
Report
$1,458/mile $1,478/mile
Table 1. Estimated Costs Per Mile
Surprisingly, the survey found that
60 percent of rail-trails do not have
maintenance plans.
This is surprising not only from a management perspective,
but from a liability standpoint. All trail managers should
have proof that they exercise a reasonable amount of
due diligence to ensure that the trails are safe. Many
government-owned and maintained rail-trails are included
under larger park or civil works maintenance schedules.
As a result, managers may believe that specific safety
assurance for trails is not required. However, any trail that
is owned, maintained or operated by a private, nonprofit
organization should have a detailed safety management and
maintenance plan with a schedule of tasks and inspections
of related structures and facilities.
Estimating per-mile costs.
A total of 95 survey respondents provided an annual
budget amount required to maintain their trail
representing 40 percent of the trails included in the survey.
Using the interquartile range (IQR) of those 95 trails gave
us a total annual budget amount for maintenance. We
determined that, of the sample group, annual maintenance
cost per mile in 2013–2014 averaged $1,006 for a
crushed stone trail and $1,971 for a paved asphalt trail.
These figures do not include any extensive or exceptional
repairs and are assumed to include only the most basic
maintenance tasks needed to keep the trail usable.
Maintenance Activity Percent of
Budget
Surface clearing of trail 10.8%
Mowing 12.0%
Vegetation management (leaf clearing,
pruning, etc.)11.2%
Keep trail-side land clear of trash and
debris 11.5%
Whole tree removal 5.4%
Application of herbicides or pesticides 2.3%
Clearing of drainage channels and
culverts 5.4%
Surface maintenance of parking areas 2.7%
Litter clean up, trash cans 2.7%
Maintenance of toilets at trailheads 13.0%
Maintenance of toilets along the trail 1.2%
Trailhead parking snow removal 1.1%
Repair/maintenance of signs 6.3%
Recovery from illegal acts of
vandalism/dumping 5.3%
Other trail maintenance activities 9.1%
Table 2 Typical Maintenance Budget
Cost per activity.
Based upon the detailed cost analysis survey, we were able
to determine the percentage that each activity represents
in a typical trail maintenance budget. Data on asphalt and
non-asphalt surfaces have been combined.
Rails to Trails Conservancy / 29
CONCLUSIONS
Summary
Trail managers and local stakeholders often cite the need
for dedicated state or federal funding to help pay for trail
maintenance. Up to this point, RTC has lacked sufficient
data to make that case effectively to decision-makers at
the state or federal level. This study was initiated to bring
some clarity to this issue. Because funding for rail-trails is
difficult to secure, over-estimating maintenance costs can
inadvertently give opponents easy leverage to speak against
rail-trail development. In addition, funders often question
if all aspects of any community development project
should be funded by state and federal grants, particularly
maintenance-related costs, which are often perceived as a
“local issue.”
Volunteers clear storm damage along trail in Heritage Rail Trail County Park, PA.
This study presents a more comprehensive understanding
of rail-trail maintenance, as has been done for other rail-
trail issues such as construction costs, economic impact
and rails-with-trails. Such an approach enables the rail-trail
community to focus its limited resources more effectively
on addressing the most critical issues.
30 / Maintenance Practices and Costs of Rail-Trails
2014 SURVEY RESULTSAPPENDIX A
Please answer the following questions as completely
and accurately as possible. If it is necessary to have
more than one person in your organization answer
different questions based on their personal areas of
experience and expertise, please do so.
Please provide accurate information about the
person to be contacted if any follow-up information is
needed.
1. Please provide you name and contact information
Name
Title/Agency
Email
Phone
2. What is your Trail Name and state:
Trail name
State
Mileage
ADMINISTRATIVE
3. What is the trail surrounding Environment (check
all that apply):
37% Rural
12% Urban
13% Suburban
38% Mixed
4. What are the permitted uses on your trail? (check
all that apply)
3% ATV
99% Bike
79% Cross Country Skiing
Fishing
40% Horseback Riding
56% Inline skating
66% Mountain Biking
16% Snowmobile
100% Walking
86% Wheelchair Access
5. Who owns the land under the trail? If more than
one, please indicate an approximate percentage.
23% Federal government
43% State government
34% Municipal government
42% County government
31% Railroad
9.9% Single private owner
46% Non-profit entity
21% Utility
12% Multiple private owners
6. On a general basis, who PERFORMS maintenance
of the trail? If more than one, please indicate an
approximate percentage.
58% Trail Group Volunteers
39% Other volunteer community groups (please specify)
13% Individuals with mandatory community service
4% Federal government
21% State government
33% County government
43% Municipal government
12% Non-profit entity (paid staff)
12% Other (specify)
7. Do you have a written Trail Maintenance Plan?
40% Yes
60% No
8. Who FUNDS maintenance of the trail? If
more than one, please indicate an approximate
percentage.
6% Federal government
31% County government
32% Non-profit entity
25% State government
42% Municipal government
14% Other (specify)
Rails to Trails Conservancy / 31
Rail-Trail Maintenance and Operations
9. What is the annual maintenance budget for this
trail? (Average for all respondents that provided a budget.)
$66,430
9.a. If known, please provide the dollar amounts
for the following within your maintenance program.
(Insufficient data)
Labor
Equipment
Supplies
10. How is the maintenance funded?
7% Federally legislated (REC Trails funding)
24% State Budget
49% Municipal Budget
9% Unique funding streams or fees collected through the community (e.g. hotel tax)?
39% Local Fundraising activities (please describe)
29% In-kind Donations
11. Is the trail covered by liability insurance?
77% Yes (If yes go to 12)
23% No (If no go to 15)
12. What is your coverage amount ?
Most indicated $1 - 2 Million
13. Who is your carrier?
Various
14. What is your annual cost?
Various
15. In what year was the trail first opened for public
use?
Various
16. How do you track annual users:
54% Do not currently track the number of annual users (Skip to 18)
23% Estimate / guess
16% Manual count
23% Automated counter
17. How many users does your trail have on an
annual basis?
Varied
18. What are the hours of operation of your trail?
63% Dawn until dusk
30% Open 24/7
7% Other
SURFACE - GENERAL
19. What is the average width of your trail?
6% 6ft.
16% 8ft.
60% 10ft.
15% 12ft.
3% Other (specify)
20. What surface material exists on any sections of
your trail? (check all that apply)
76% Asphalt
7% Concrete
55% Crushed Stone
9% Cinders
21% Dirt/ Soil
8% Other (specify)
32 / Maintenance Practices and Costs of Rail-Trails
2014 SURVEY RESULTSAPPENDIX A
21. Please indicate any reused or recycled materials
used in the surface of your trail?
69% None
1% Tires or other rubber
0% Glassphalt
19% Asphalt / pavement milling
2% Coal ash (cinders)
8% Quarry waste from stone/rock processing (tailings, etc.)
5% Other (specify)
22. What is the predominant surface material on
your trail?
52% Asphalt (Go to 23)
2% Concrete (Go to 35)
40% Crushed Stone (Go to 43)
4% Original railroad cinders (Go to 53)
4% Dirt / Soil (Go to 59)
0% Boardwalk (Go to 65)
5% Other (specify) (Go to 72)
SURFACE - ASPHALT
23. Has your trail been repaved or resurfaced since
the original paving construction?
35% Yes (If yes go to 24)
65% No (If no go to 29)
24. At what frequency (in years)?
45% Recurring
3% 3 to 5
7% 6 to 10
45% 10 plus
25. Has your trail been seal-coated since the original
paving?
25% Yes (If yes go to 26)
75% No (If no go to 27)
26. At what frequency (in years)?
41% Recurring
27% 3 to 5
23% 6 to 10
9% 10 plus
27. Do you have a crack sealing programing?
35% Yes (If yes go to 28)
65% No (If no go to 29)
28. At what frequency (in years)?
78% Recurring
13% 3 to 5
9% 6 to 10
0% 10 plus
29. What are the major causes of damage to your
asphalt surfaced trail?
43% Water/erosion
63% Tree roots
20% Vegetation (grass, weeds)
25% Sub surface failure
44% Frost/freeze cycle
30. Is snow removed from your trail?
9% Yes, fully
33% Yes, partially
58% No
31. How is the surface of your trail kept clear of
trash and debris? (Check all that apply)
9% Street sweeper
18% Rotary brush
65% Blower
58% Manual (broom, rake, etc.)
7% Other (specify)
Rails to Trails Conservancy / 33
Rail-Trail Maintenance and Operations
32. Does your trail employ pavement markings?
(Check all that apply.)
51% No (if no skip to 72)
49% Yes
33. Do you indicate a Center Line of the trail?
44% Yes
24% Painted
4% Thermal transfer
51% No
34. Do you employ other safety markings?
61% Yes:
35% Painted
14% Thermal transfer
35% No
SURFACE – CONCRETE
35. Have sections of your trail been re-poured or
resurfaced since the original paving construction?
25% Yes (If yes go to 36)
75% No (If no go to 37)
36. At what frequency (in years)?
Recurring
3 to 5
6 to 10
10 plus
37. What are the major causes of damage to your
concrete surfaced trail?
67% Water/erosion
33% Tree roots
0% Vegetation (grass, weeds)
0% Sub surface failure
33% Frost/freeze cycle
33% Other
38. Is snow removed from your trail?
33% Yes fully
0% Yes partially
67% No
39. How is the surface of your trail kept clear of
trash and debris? (Check all that apply)
33% Street sweeper
33% Rotary brush
100% Blower
0% Manual (broom, rake, chainsaw, etc)
Other (specify)
40. Does your trail employ pavement markings?
(Check all that apply.)
67% Yes (if yes go to 41)
33% No (If no go to 72)
41. Do you indicate a center line of the trail?
100% Yes
0% Painted
0% Thermal transfer
0% No
42. Do you employ other safety markings?
100% Yes:
0% Painted
0% Thermal transfer
0% No
SURFACE – CRUSHED/GRANULAR STONE
43. How was trail surface applied?
60% Paving machine
21% Box spreader
23% Tailgate from dump truck
11% Bucket spread from loader
0% Wheelbarrow or other manual
8% Other (specify)
34 / Maintenance Practices and Costs of Rail-Trails
2014 SURVEY RESULTSAPPENDIX A
44. Has your trail been re-surfaced since the original
construction?
56% Yes (If yes go to 45)
48% No (If no go to 46)
45. At what frequency (in years)?
32% Recurring
3% 3 to 5 years
21% 6 to 10 years
44% 10 years or longer
46. How is the surface material compacted?
14% Not
38% Steel drum roller (static)
47% Steel drum roller (vibratory)
5% Rubber tired roller
0% Rammer
7% Vibratory plates
10% Other (specify)
47. If applicable, please indicate the size of
aggregate used for your trail surface.
40% Unknown
10% 1A
0% 1B 3% 2A
0% 2B 2% 2RC
30% AASHTO #10
2% DSA
18% Other (specify)
48. Do you use any type of soil or aggregate binder?
97% No
3% Yes
49. What are the major causes of damage to your
crushed stone surfaced trail:
77% Water/erosion
2% Tree roots
2% Vegetation (grass, weeds)
3% Sub surface failure
17% Frost/freeze cycle
27% Other (specify)
50. How are damages to your trail surface repaired:
32% Grader or other heavy equipment
42% Light duty power equipment
40% Dragging
71% Manual (rake, shovel, etc.)
13% Other (specify)
51. Has your trail been re-graded since the original
construction?
44% Yes (If yes go to 34a)
54% No (If no go to 36)
52. At what frequency (in years)?
74% Recurring
4% 2 to 3 years
4% 4 to 5 years
19% 6 to 10 years
SURFACE – ORIGINAL RAILROAD CINDERS
53. How was the surface prepared after removal of
the rails and ties
56% Grader or other heavy equipment
11% Light duty power equipment
33% Dragging
11% Manual (rake, shovel, etc.)
22% Other (specify)
Rails to Trails Conservancy / 35
Rail-Trail Maintenance and Operations
54. How was the surface material compacted ?
20% Steel drum roller (static)
80% Steel drum roller (vibratory)
0% Rubber tired roller
0% Rammer
0% Vibratory plates
0% Other (specify)
55. What are the major causes of damage to your
cinder surfaced trail?
87% Water/erosion
0% Tree roots
25% Vegetation (grass, weeds)
13% Sub surface failure
50% Frost/freeze cycle
56. How are damages to your trail surface repaired?
63% Grader or other heavy equipment
63% Light duty power equipment
25% Dragging
50% Manual (rake, shovel, etc)
Other (specify)
57. Has your trail been re-graded since the original
construction?
71% Yes (If yes go to 58)
29% No (If no go to 65)
58. At what frequency (in years)?
100% Recurring
0% 2 to 3 years
0% 4 to 5 years
0% 6 to 10 years
SURFACE – DIRT/SOIL
59. How was the surface prepared?
43% Grader or other heavy equipment
43% Light duty power equipment
15% Dragging
29% Manual (rake, shovel, etc)
Other (specify)
60. How was the surface material compacted?
20% Steel drum roller (static)
20% Steel drum roller (vibratory)
20% Rubber tired roller
20% Rammer
20% Vibratory plates
40% Other (specify)
61. What are the major causes of damage to your
dirt/soil surfaced trail?
71% Water/erosion
14% Tree roots
14% Vegetation (grass, weeds)
14% Sub surface failure
29% Frost/freeze cycle
43% Other (specify)
62. How are damages to your trail surface repaired?
29% Grader or other heavy equipment
71% Light duty power equipment
0% Dragging
71% Manual (rake, shovel, etc)
0% Other (specify)
63. Has your trail been re-graded since the original
construction?
50% Yes (If yes go to 64)
50% No (If no go to 65)
36 / Maintenance Practices and Costs of Rail-Trails
2014 SURVEY RESULTSAPPENDIX A
64. At what age / frequency (in years)?
33% Recurring
0% 2 to 3 years
33% 4 to 5 years
33% 6 to 10 years
SURFACE – BOARDWALK
65. Does you trail contain any segments of
boardwalk?
18% Yes (If yes go to 66)
82% No (If no go to 53)
66. How long is the boardwalk segment of your trail?
0 % 10 feet or less
23% 10 to 50 feet
19% 51 to 100 feet
29% 101 to 500 feet
8% 501 to 1,000 feet
19% 1,001 feet or more
67. How wide is the boardwalk segment of your trail?
28% 5 to 7 feet
37% 8 to 10 feet
28% 11 to 12 feet
6% Greater than 12 feet
68. What is the decking material of the boardwalk?
6% Wood ( pine, oak, et.) not pressure treated
0% Wood (teak, red wood, etc.)
84% Wood – pressure treated
3% Synthetic wood (Trex, NewTechWood, ArmorGuard etc.)
0% Concrete
7% Other
69. How old is the boardwalk segment of your trail?
23% 1 to 3 years
42% 4 to 9 years
26% 10 to 20 years
10% More than 20 years
70. Has your boardwalk been re-decked since its
original construction?
33% Yes (If yes go to 71)
67% No (If no go to 72)
71. At what frequency has re-decking occurred?
11% 2 to 3 years
0% 4 to 5 years
22% 6 to 10 years
67% More than 10 years
ADJACENT LAND AND VEGETATION
72. Does annual or perennial vegetation grow along
your trail?
97% Yes (if yes go to 73)
3% No (if no go to 75)
73. Do you use any herbicides or pesticides in your
trail maintenance?
45% Yes (If yes go to 73a)
54% No (If no go to 75)
If yes, please list:
74. Who is responsible for herbicide/pesticide
application (check all that apply)
77% Trail maintenance staff
20% Volunteers
14% Contractor
Rails to Trails Conservancy / 37
Rail-Trail Maintenance and Operations
75. Do trees grow along your trail?
100% Yes
0% No
76. If planting new trees, what is the distance
between the trees and the edge of the trail?
15% 8
7% 10
6% 12
5% 20
7% other?
77. Please indicate any activities that are performed
relative to trail side vegetation. (Check all that apply.)
93% Litter clean-up
91% Tree pruning
30% Tree and shrub planting
90% Tree removal - Safety
44% Tree removal - Health
93% Tree removal - Fallen
26% Tree removal - Aesthetics (improve view shed)
92% Mowing
40% Leaf removal
62% Invasive species removal
27% Flower and ground cover planting
3% Other (specify)
78. How is drainage accommodated? (Check all that
apply.)
80% Trail surface is crowned or sloped
76% Trail-side drainage channels (ditches, gullies)
72% Culverts
5% Other (specify)
79. How are drainage areas kept clear? (Check all
that apply.)
56% Power equipment (backhoe, etc.)
76% Manual (rake, shovel, etc.)
3% Flush with water
25% Self-cleaning design
5% Other (specify)
PARKING, TRAILHEADS, and SANITATION
80. How many trailheads are there along your trail?
5% None
26% 1-3
28% 3-5
26% 5-10
12% 10-15
4% Other (please specify)
81. Please indicate the features of your trailheads.
(Check all that apply.)
78% Parking lot just for trail users
22% Shared private/commercial parking lot
43% Permanent toilet facility
83% Information kiosk
31% Potable water
5% Any other commercial concession
3% Telephone
43% Shared public parking lot
45% Portable toilet facility
17% On-street parking
61% Trash receptacles
3% Vending machines
73% Picnic tables/benches
13% Other (specify)
38 / Maintenance Practices and Costs of Rail-Trails
2014 SURVEY RESULTSAPPENDIX A
82. What is the primary surface material for your
trailhead parking area(s)?
53% Asphalt
38% Crushed Stone
0% Cinders
6% Dirt / Soil
3% Other (specify)
83. Is snow removed from your trailhead parking
lots?
63% Yes
37% No
84. Aside from trailheads, are any of these
amenities provided along your trail. (Check all that
apply.)
22% Permanent toilet facility
52% Informational kiosk
24% Potable water
7% Any other commercial concession
62% Interpretive signage
22% Portable toilet facility
43% Trash receptacles
1% Vending machines
76% Picnic tables/benches
8% Other (specify)
SIGNS, ACCESS CONTROL AND PUBLIC
SAFETY
85. What types of signs do you use? (Check all that
apply.)
91% Trail identification sign (“welcome to ABC Trail”)
74% Mile marker
6% Quarter miles
7% 1/10 mile
77% Traffic control for trail users (stop, yield)
60% Traffic control for cars at crossings
75% Trail rules and regulations
25% Property boundary sign (no trespassing)
57% Interpretive signs
28% Wayfinding on trail
20% Wayfinding (off trail)
2% No trail specific signage
12% Other (specify)
86. Do you experience vandalism of your signs?
76% Yes
24% No
87. Please indicate any techniques you use to
separate users by direction of travel or use? (e.g.
pedestrian vs. bicycle) Check all that apply.
68% None
13% Pavement markings
23% Signs
3% Physical separation
3% Different surface type
4% Separate tread (Bridle or carriage path)
3% Other (specify)
88. Is your trail patrolled by any professional policing
authority?
65% Yes (If yes go to 89)
35% No (If no go to 90)
89. Police agency type:
5% State police or state sheriff
42% Municipal police
33% Park or trail rangers
20% Other (specify)
Rails to Trails Conservancy / 39
Rail-Trail Maintenance and Operations
90. Is your trail patrolled by a volunteer or a non-
police group (e.g. crime watch)?
30% Yes
70% No
91. Do you have an on-going problem with any of the
following activities on the trail? (Check all that apply.)
49% Dumping
12% Crimes against persons
28% After hours use
17% Trespass
71% Vandalism
21% Crimes against property
22% Other (specify)
92. Are your trailheads lighted?
16% Yes (If yes go to 93)
84% No (If no go to 96)
93. During what times?
75% Dusk until dawn
25% Other
94. How are the lights controlled? (Check all that
apply.)
13% Always on
4% Manual switch
25% Clock / timer
75% Light / dark sensor
4% Motion sensor
18% Other (specify)
95. How are the lights powered?
96% Municipal power supply
4% Solar panel
0% Battery
96. Do you have emergency call boxes on along your
trail or trailhead?
3% Yes
97% No
97. How is vehicular access to your trail controlled?
(Check all that apply.)
22% Vehicular access is not controlled
45% Gates
26% Fixed bollards
54% Removable bollards
11% Other (specify)
98. Do you use fencing along your trail?
64% Yes (if yes go to 99)
36% No (if no go to 101)
99. What types of fencing do you use?
18% Chain link
45% Split rail
7% Woven Wire
3% Stockade
27% Other (specify)
100. What is the average height of the fence (in
INCHES)?
48 “ most common
40 / Maintenance Practices and Costs of Rail-Trails
2014 SURVEY RESULTSAPPENDIX A
101. In what areas have you made accommodation
for ADA standards or handicapped accessibility?
78% Parking
50% Restrooms
35% Picnic tables
12% Visitor’s Center
15% Interpretive areas
75% Grade of trail
61% Grade of access to trail
67% Trail Surface
3% Our trail has specific features for individuals with sight, hearing, or other impairments.
5% Other (specify)
BRIDGES, TUNNELS and ROAD CROSSINGS
102. Do you have any bridges on your trail?
88% Yes (If yes go to 103)
12% No (If no go to 109)
103. What types of bridges do you have?
61% Existing railroad bridge
33% Pre-Fabricated
9% New Bike/Ped (no vehicular capacity)
40% New bike/ped (with vehicle capacity)
16% Small foot bridge(less than 5’ wide)
8% Other (specify)
104. What is the deck material on your bridges?
(Check all that apply.)
74% Wood
9% Synthetic lumber
1% Rubber
11% Metal
16% Asphalt
36% Concrete
11% Stone/dirt/cinders
Other (specify)
105. Do you have railings on your bridges?
97% Yes (If yes go to 106)
3% No (If no go to 109)
106. What is the height of the fence/railing (in
INCHES)?
48” most common
107. Are your bridges inspected on a regular basis by
a certified inspector or professional engineer?
57% Yes
43% No
108. At what frequency (in years)?
0% Recurring
66% 2 to 3 years
23% 4 to 5 years
11% 6 to 10 years
109. Do you have any tunnels or culverts for user
passage under roads etc.
41% Yes (If yes go to 110)
59% No (If no go to 114)
Rails to Trails Conservancy / 41
Rail-Trail Maintenance and Operations
41 / Maintenance Practices and Costs of 200 Rail-Trails
110. Are your tunnels lighted?
40% Yes
60% No
111. During what times?
31% 24/7
61% Dusk to dawn
8% Other (please specify time of day/night)
112. How are lights controlled?
23% Always on
0% Manual switch
31% Clock / timer
46% Light / dark sensor
0% Motion sensor
Other (specify)
113. How are the lights powered?
92% Municipal power supply
8% Solar
0% Battery
0% Generator
114 Do you paint/stain/treat bridge structures or
decks, tunnel/underpass walls, etc?
45% Yes (If yes go to 115)
54% No (If no go to 116)
115. At what frequency (in years)?
68% Recurring
0 % 2 to 3 years
10% 4 to 5 years
23% 6 to 10 years
116. How are at-grade crossings of roads controlled?
(Check all that apply.)
89% Stop sign for trail users
17% Yield sign for trail users
17% Traffic signal (red, yellow, green)
69% Ped /bike crossing sign
17% Stop sign for road users
20% Yield sign for road users
30% Pedestrian crossing signal (walk)
51% Road striping
Other (specify)
42 / Maintenance Practices and Costs of Rail-Trails
APPENDIX B LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
Trail Name State Opened Mileage Surface
Tahoe City Public Utility District Multi-use trails CA 1991 20 Asphalt
Bizz Johnson National Recreation Trail CA 1983 25.4 Ballast, Gravel
Fort Collins City Trails CO 1998 36 Concrete
Rio Grande Trail CO 1987 42 Asphalt
Middlebury Greenway CT 2008 5 Asphalt
Sue Grossman Still River Greenway CT 1995 3 Asphalt
Trumbull Rails to Trails CT 2006 7 Crushed Stone
Farmington Canal Heritage Trail CT 2010 56 Asphalt
Metropolitan Branch Trail DC 2000 3.5 Asphalt
Prairie Farmer Recreational Trail IA 1999 22 Asphalt
Raccoon River Valley Trail IA 1990 89 Asphalt, Concrete
Gay Lea Wilson Trail IA 2000 17 Asphalt, Concrete
Ashton-Tetonia Rail Trail ID 1913 30 Crushed Stone
Latah Trail ID 1984 16 Asphalt
Trail of the Coeur d’Alenes Recreational Trailway ID 2006 73 Asphalt
Wood River Trail ID 1990 22 Asphalt
Route of the Hiawatha ID &MT 1986 15 Ballast, Dirt, Gravel
George Rogers Clark Discovery Trail IL 2010 9.2 Concrete
Forest Preserves of Cook County IL 2009 100 Crushed Stone
Burnham Greenway IL 2004 2.5 Asphalt
Millennium Trail and Greenway IL 2003 8 Crushed Stone
Great Western Trail IL 1990 12 Crushed Stone
Illinois Prairie Path IL 1966 62 Crushed Stone
DeKalb Nature Trail IL 1985 1.2 Asphalt
Oak Savannah Trail IN 2010 8 Asphalt
Nickel Plate Trail IN 2012 35 Crushed Stone
Pumpkinvine Nature Trails IN 1996 20 Asphalt
Delphi Historic Trails IN 2008 10 Crushed Stone
Zionsville Rail Trail IN 1997 3.75 Asphalt
Monon Trail IN 1997 9 Asphalt, Crushed Stone
Brighton East Rail Trail KY 1998 2 Asphalt, Crushed Stone
Narrow Gauge Rail Trail MA 2010 3 Crushed Stone
Bruce Freeman Rail Trail MA 1992 6.8 Asphalt
Cape Cod Rail Trail MA 2011 22 Asphalt
Methuen Rail Trail MA 1995 2.4 Crushed Stone
Danvers Rail Trail MA 1994 4.3 Crushed Stone
Old Colony Rail Trail MA 1992 3 Asphalt
Southwick Rail Trail MA 1994 6 Asphalt
Springfield Riverfront Bikeway/Walkway MA 1994 3.7 Asphalt
Ashuwillticook Rail Trail MA 2003 11 Asphalt
Gwynns Falls Trail MD 2005 15 Asphalt
Rails to Trails Conservancy / 43
Trail Name State Opened Mileage Surface
Jones Falls Trail MD 2006 9.1 Asphalt
Herring Run Trail MD 1978 2.5 Asphalt
Stony Run Trail MD 2013 2.9 Asphalt
Three Notch Trail MD 2013 7 Asphalt
Gilchrest Trail MD 2011 1.2 Asphalt
Broadneck Trail MD 2000 6.6 Asphalt
Washington, Baltimore & Annapolis Trail MD 1983 10.25 Asphalt
Baltimore Washington International Airport Trail MD 2013 12.5 Asphalt
Torrey C. Brown/Northern Central Railroad Trail MD 1984 20 Crushed Stone
Baltimore & Annapolis Trail MD 1991 14 Asphalt
Catonsville Short Line Trail MD 2013 3.5 Dirt, Gravel
St. John Valley Heritage Trail ME 1998 29 Crushed Stone
Bangor Aroostook Trail & Aroostook Valley Trail ME 1999 61 Gravel, Dirt, Soil
Aroostook Valley Trail ME 1991 28 Crushed Stone, Dirt
Polly Ann Trail MI 1998 30 Asphalt, Crushed Stone
Riverfront Trail MI 2005 2.25 Asphalt
Kalamazoo River Valley Trail MI 1999 17 Asphalt
Clinton River Trail MI 2004 1 Crushed Stone
Flint River Trail MI 2009 20 Asphalt
Leelanau Trail MI 1987 20 Asphalt
I-275 Metro Trail MI mid-1970’s 30 Asphalt
Conner Creek Greenway MI 2009 9.5 Asphalt
Traverse Area Recreation Trail MI 1831 10.5 Asphalt
Little Traverse Wheelway MI 1996 26 Asphalt
Dakota Rail Regional Trail MN 2002 12.4 Asphalt
Rocori Trail MN 2005 12.9 Asphalt
Paul Bunyan and Cuyuna State Trails MN 2004 128 Asphalt
Kenilworth Regional Trail MN 2005 0.15 Asphalt
Central Lakes State Trail MN 1986 55 Asphalt
Willard Munger State Trail (Gateway Segment)MN 1993 18 Asphalt, Crushed Stone
Bruce Vento Trail MN 2010 23 Asphalt
Willard Munger State Trail (Matthew Lourey State Trail)MN 1980 80 Asphalt, Crushed Stone
Cannon Valley Trail MN 1986 20 Asphalt
Dairyland Trail MN 1995 6.2 Crushed Stone
Lake Wobegon Trail MN 1999 54 Asphalt
Sakatah Singing Hills State Trail MN 1980 38 Asphalt
Duluth Winnipeg and Pacific Trail MN 1985 8 Gravel
Douglas State Trail MN 1974 26 Asphalt
MKT Nature and Fitness Trail MO 1982 8.9 Concrete, Crushed Stone
Northern Rail Trail NH 1995 23 Crushed Stone
Sugar River Trail NH 1997 9 Dirt, Soil
44 / Maintenance Practices and Costs of Rail-Trails
APPENDIX B LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
Trail Name State Opened Mileage Surface
Goffstown Rail Trail NH 2005 5.5 Crushed Stone
Windham Rail Trail NH 2000 4 Asphalt
Winnipesaukee River Trail NH 2005 7.9 Crushed Stone
WOW Trail NH 1990 1.3 Asphalt
Derry Rail Trail NH 2004 4.5 Asphalt
Gloucester Township Health & Fitness Trail NJ 2001 2 Asphalt
Henry Hudson Trail NJ 1995 24.5 Asphalt
Delaware and Raritan Canal State Park NJ 1980 80 Crushed Stone
Barnegat Branch Trail NJ 1971 15.6 rushed Stone
Middlesex Greenway NJ 2006 3.1 Asphalt
Columbia Trail NJ 1990 7.5 Crushed Stone
Paulinskill Valley Rail Trail NJ 1992 27 Cinders, Dirt, Grass, Ballast
Traction Line Recreation Trail NJ 1986 3 Asphalt
Dutchess Rail Trail NY 1991 13.5 Asphalt
Oswego County Recreation Trail NY 1979 24.35 Original railroad cinders
Joseph B. Clarke Rail Trail NY 1998 2.5 Asphalt
Ontario Pathway NY 1992 23.5 Cinders, Grass, Gravel
Town of Ballston Veterans Bike Path.NY 1960 3.6 Asphalt
Auburn Trail NY 1993 10 Crushed Stone
Clarence Bike Paths NY 2004 10.2 Asphalt
Hudson Valley Rail Trail NY 1824 3.6 Asphalt
Pat McGee Trail NY 1987 13 Crushed Stone
South Hill Recreation Way NY 1988 3.4 Crushed Stone
Wallkill Valley Rail Trail NY 2000 24 Asphalt, Cinders, Gravel
Harlem Valley Rail Trail NY 1978 17 Asphalt
Genesee Valley Greenway NY 1992 90 Original railroad cinders
Catskill Scenic Trail NY 1990 26 Original railroad cinders
Catharine Valley Trail State Park NY 2002 10 Crushed Stone
Ballston Veterans Bike Path NY 1994 20 Asphalt
Vestal Rail Trail NY 2002 5 Asphalt
Heritage Trail NY 1996 11 Asphalt, Crushed Stone
Hockhocking Adena Bikeway OH 1990 21 Asphalt
Kokosing Gap Trail OH 1982 13.5 Asphalt
4-C Bicentennial Trail and Peace Path OH 1972 2.5 Asphalt
Fairfield Heritage Trail OH 1999 9.3 Asphalt
Infirmary Mound Park trails OH 1991 7 Asphalt, Dirt
Taft Reserve Trails OH 1992 8 Asphalt, Dirt
Lobdell Reserve Trails OH 1992 8 Asphalt, Dirt
Holmes County Trail OH 1995 15 Asphalt
Richland B&O Trail OH 1999 18.4 Asphalt
Lebanon - Countryside YMCA Trail OH 2011 8 Asphalt
Rails to Trails Conservancy / 45
Trail Name State Opened Mileage Surface
Cleveland Metro Parks OH 1990 250 Asphalt, Crushed Stone, Dirt
Heart of Ohio Trail OH 1989 16 Asphalt
MetroParks Bikeway OH 1990 11 Asphalt
Bike & Hike / Towpath / Freedom OH 1966 60.4 Asphalt
Simon Kenton Trail OH 2003 18 Asphalt
Alum Creek Trail OH 2010 20 Asphalt
Hock-Hocking Adena Bikeway OH 1992 22 Asphalt
Slippery Elm Trail OH 1995 13.5 Asphalt
Creekside trail and others OH 2005 62 Asphalt. Concrete
Deschutes River Railbed Trail OR 2008 16 Dirt, Soil
Deschutes River Trail (some surfacing cut off)OR 1989 24 Crushed Stone. Asphalt,
Ballast, Cinders
OC&E and Woodsline State Trail OR 1994 108 Woodchips
Panhandle Trail in Allegheny County PA 1999 7.5 Crushed Stone
Chester Valley Trail PA 2007 11.5 Asphalt
Capital Area Greenbelt PA 1978 22 Asphalt
Five Star Trail PA 1990 7.75 Crushed Stone
McClintock Trail PA 1996 3.5 Asphalt
Trout Island Trail PA 1980 2.5 Asphalt
Greater Hazleton Rails to Trails PA 2011 6 Crushed Stone
Steel Valley Trail PA 1988 19 Asphalt
Warren/North Warren Bike/Hike Trail PA 2011 3 Asphalt
Allegheny River Trail PA 1983 34.2 Asphalt
Sandy Creek Trail PA 1998 12 Asphalt
Great Allegheny Passage (Yough River Trail)PA 2000 185 Crushed Stone
Path of the Flood Trail PA 2012 9 Asphalt, Ballast
Luzerne County National Recreation Trail PA 1989 1.8 Crushed Stone
Ghost Town Trail PA 1992 18 Crushed Stone
Stavich Bike Trail PA 1983 7 Asphalt
Swatara Rail Trail PA 1994 10 Crushed Stone
Roaring Run Trail PA 2005 5 Crushed Stone
Clarion-Little Toby Trail PA 1994 18 Crushed Stone
Lebanon Valley Rail-Trail PA 1987 15.5 Crushed Stone
Lehigh Gorge Trail PA 1994 26 Original railroad cinders
Queen City Trail PA 2008 1 Asphalt
Montour Trail PA 1985 47 Crushed Stone
Pine Creek Rail Trail - Tioga County PA 2001 27 Crushed Stone
Great Allegheny Passage - Somerset County Segment PA 2001 42 Crushed Stone
Butler Freeport Community Trail Council PA 1997 20.4 Crushed Stone
Warwick Trial system PA 1992 6 Asphalt
Perkiomen Trail PA 2010 20 Crushed Stone
46 / Maintenance Practices and Costs of Rail-Trails
APPENDIX B LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
Trail Name State Opened Mileage Surface
Lackawanna River Heritage Trail PA 1986 35 Crushed Stone
Oil Creek State Park Bike Trail PA 1998 9.7 Asphalt
Great Allegheny Passage PA 1996 150 Crushed Stone
Delaware Canal State Park PA 2003 60 Crushed Stone
West Penn Trail PA 1991 15 Crushed Stone
Three Rivers Heritage Trail PA 1986 24 Asphalt
D&H Rail-Trail PA 1997 38 Original railroad cinders
York County Heritage Rail Trail PA 1999 23.5 Crushed Stone
The Lower Trail PA 1998 17 Crushed Stone
Redbank Valley Trail PA 1999 51 Crushed Stone
Armstrong Trail PA 1992 36 Crushed Stone
Plainfield Township Trail PA 1991 6.7 Crushed Stone
Pine Creek Rail Trail - Lycoming County PA 1992 38 Crushed Stone
Blue and White Trails PA 2002 2 Asphalt
Delaware Canal State Park Towpath PA 1940 60 Crushed Stone, Dirt
Coal and Coke Trail PA 2007 5 Asphalt, Crushed Stone
Five Star Trail PA 1997 7.5 Crushed Stone
Ironton Rail Trail PA 1995 9.2 Asphalt
West Penn Trail PA 2002 15 Crushed Stone
Panhandle Trail - Washington County PA & WV 1999 17 Crushed Stone
William O’Neill/South County Bike Path RI 2013 8 Asphalt
Shelby Farms Greenline Trail TN 1966 6 Asphalt
High Bridge Trail State Park VA 2007 30.9 Crushed Stone
Virginia Capital Trail VA 2005 16 Asphalt, Boardwalk
Southern Tip Bike & Hike Trail VA 2008 2.6 Asphalt
New River Trail State Park VA 2007 57 Asphalt
Virginia Blue Ridge Railway Trail VA 1987 7 Crushed Stone
Dahlgren Railroad Heritage Trail VA 1998 15.7 Dirt, Soil
Washington & Old Dominion Trail VA 2001 45 Asphalt
Burlington Bike Path VT 1987 25 Asphalt
Klickitat Trail WA 2002 31 Gravel, Dirt
Ozaukee Interurban Trail WI 1963 29.5 Asphalt
Hank Aaron State Trail WI 2006 14 Asphalt
Gandy Dancer Trail WI 2001 20.3 Crushed Stone
Badger and Glacial Drumlin State Trails WI 1984 60 Crushed Stone
Southwest Path WI 2010 4.5 Asphalt
Mon River WV 2008 6 Crushed Stone
Caperton Trail WV 1999 6 Asphalt
Deckers Creek Trail WV 1999 19 Asphalt, Crushed Stone
Pine Creek Trail, PA.
Rails to Trails Conservancy / 47
National Headquarters
2121 Ward Court, NW, 5th Floor
Washington, DC 20037
tel 202.331.9696
railtrail@railstotrails.org
railstotrails.org
www.TrailLink.com
Receipt#: 112894
CVE
CRV Not Required
Transfer En tered
Exempt from Tax
Retu mto :
OLD REPUBLIC • MPLS
400 SECOND AVENUE SOU TH
MINNEAPOLIS MN 55401
CONSERVATION EASE MENT
$46.00
1194266
IH II 1111111111
Certified Filed and/or r ec o r ded o n:
9/22/2009 11 :47 AM
1194266
Certificate#: 22102
Offic e o f the Reg istrar o f Titl es
Prope rty Records & Taxpa yer Servic es
Washington County , MN
Kevin J Corbicl County Recorder
I I'
Receipt#: 106429
EAS
CRV N ot Required
Transfer Entered
Exempt from Tax
Return to:
OLD REPUBLIC • MPLS
400 SECOND AVENUE S OUTH
MINNEAPOLIS MN 55401
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
$46.00
3749285
Certified Filed and/or recorded on:
7/10/200 9 8·19 AM
3749285
Office or the County Recorder
Property Records & Taxpayer Services
Washington County, MN
Ke,,in J Corbid, County R erorder
T hi s is a CONSERVATION EASE M ENT granted by the City of Lake E lmo, a political
subdi vi s ion under the laws of th e State of Minneso ta , (th e "Owner") to the Minnesota Land
Trust, a non-profi t corporation organized and exi stin g und er the laws of the State of Minnesota
(the "Land Trust".)
RECITALS:
A. OWNE R . T he Owner is the current owner of approximately 256 acres of real property
located in Washington County, Minnesota. That real propert y is more fully described b elow
as the "Protected Property."
B . PROTECTED PROPERTY. The Protected Property is that r eal property l egally described in
Exhibit A and generall y depicted on the "Property Map" in Exhibit B. Both exhibits are
attached to this conservation easem ent and incorporated by this reference.
The P rotected Property, known to area residents as "Sunfish Lake Park," consists of
approx imately 173 acres of rolling forest land that includes a number of hardwood tree
species such as oak , mapl e, birch, and cherry. The Protected Property also consists of
ap prox imate ly 2 acres of woodland, 25 acres of grass land, 20 acres of wetl and , and 4 ac r es of
op e n water ponds . Sunfi sh Lake , whi ch is c lass ifi ed by th e M innesota Department of Natural
Resources as a natural environm en t lake, covers approx i mately I 7 acres of the easte rn
portion of th e P rotected Property. Approximately 15 acres of the site consists of cultivated
fields currently planted in com.
Two clustered residential developments with open space protected by conservati on
easements are lo cated adjacent to th e Protected Property, cont ributing to a la rger expanse of
open space.
Sunfish Lake Park is part of t he Lake Elm o park system, and it has been used primarily as a
passi ve park for activiti es such as walking, hiking, cross country ski ing, ho r se b ack r iding,
solitud e, and nature observation. The Protec ted Property has an unimproved divided access
road and p arkin g area, barbeque grills, a portable toilet, and fencing. A po wer line traverses
the western portion of the Protected Property. No other structures or improvements currently
exist on the Protected Property.
C. MINNESOTA LAND TRUST. The Minne s ota Land Trust is a non-profit corporatio n
organ ized and operated exclusively for charitable and educati onal purposes, including the
preservation and protection of land in its natural, scenic or other open sp ace conditio n. The
Land Trust is a public charity as defined in Section s 50l(c)(3) and 509(a) of the Internal
Revenue Code and an organi zation qualified to hold conservation easements under
Minnesota law and Section l 70(h) of the Internal Revenue Code and related regulation s.
D. CONSERVATION VALUES. The Protected Property has the following natural , scenic and
open space qualities of s ignificant importance:
• T he Protected Property in cludes nativ e upland aspen-oak and up l and hardwood
fore sts, which provide habitat for a variety of spec ies in g reatest conservation need as
establi s hed by the Minnesota Department of Natural R esources in Tomorrow 's
Ha bitat for the Wild and th e Rare: An Action Plan for Minnesota's Wildlife,
Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy, 2006.
• The Protect ed Property also is a component of a regionall y si gni ficant wildl ife
corridor and project focus ar ea identified b y the Minneso ta Department of Natural
Resources an d the Metropolitan Con servation Co rri d ors Partnership, a collaboration
of public and private conservation entiti es funded in part by M inn esota Laws 2007,
Chapter 30, Section 2, Subd.4(c).
• The undeveloped sh o reline along Sunfish Lake h elps maintain the water quality and
near-shore aquatic habi tat of the lake.
• The Protected Property provides outstanding opportunities for the public to
experienc e, appreciate an d l earn ab out the natural and scenic env ironm ent through
low-impact outdoor re c reation a nd ed ucational activiti es.
Co ll ectively, these outdoor r ecreati onal and edu cational , natural , sceni c and open space
qual ities of the Protected Property compri se its "Conservation Values."
2
These Conservation Values have not been and are not likely to be adversely affected to any
substantial extent by the continued use of the Protected Property as described above or as
authorized below or by the use, maintenance, or construction of those structures and
improvements that presently exist on the Protected Property or that are authorized below.
E. CONSERVATION POLICY. Preservation of the Protected Property will further those
governmental policies established by the following:
• Minnesota Statutes Chapter 116P, which establishes the Environmental and Natural
Resources Trust Fund, and Minnesota Laws 2008, Chapter 367, Section 2,
Subdivision 3(a), which provides funding from that Fund to accelerate programs for
the purposes of planning, restoring, and protecting important natural areas in the
metropolitan region and portions of the surrounding counties.
• Minnesota Statutes Chapter 103A, which promotes protection of Minnesota's waters
and their adjacent lands and Minnesota Statutes Section 103A.206 in particular,
which recognizes the economic and environmental importance of maintaining and
enhancing the soil and water resources of this state and role of private lands in these
conservation efforts.
• Minnesota Statutes Section 103A.201, which specifically promotes the protection of
wetlands and Minnesota Statutes Section 103A.202, which specifically declares that it
is in the public interest to preserve the wetlands of this state to conserve surface
waters, maintain and improve water quality, preserve wildlife habitat, reduce runoff,
provide for floodwater retention, reduce stream sedimentation, contribute to improved
subsurface moisture, and enhance the natural beauty of the landscape.
• Minnesota Statutes Chapter 84C, which recognizes the importance of private
conservation efforts by authorizing conservation easements for the protection of
natural, scenic, or open space values of real property, assuring its availability for
agriculture, forest, recreational , or open space use, protecting natural resources, and
maintaining or enhancing air or water quality.
• City of Lake Elmo 2030 Comprehensive Plan, which outlines a city-wide planning
policy to "evaluate available options to increase the long-term viability of its park
system in an environmentally sensitive manner" (Chapter II, Page II-5), and more
specifically, sets out goals to "have recreational and natural parks available to all
residents" and to "prevent use of parkland for non recreational or non-conserving
purposes." (Chapter IX, Page IX-2)
F. CONSERVATION INTENT. The Owner and the Land Trust are committed to protecting
and preserving the Conservation Values of the Protected Property in perpetuity.
Accordingly, it is their intent to create and implement a conservation easement that is binding
upon the current Owner and all future owners of the Protected Property and that conveys to
3
the Land Trust the right to protect and preserve the Conservation Values of the Protected
Property for the benefit of this generation and generations to come.
CONVEYANCE OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT:
Pursuant to the laws of the State of Minnesota, and in particular Minnesota Statutes Chapter 84C,
and in consideration of the facts recited above and the mutual covenants contained herein and
as an absolute and unconditional gift, the Owner hereby conveys and warrants to the Land Trust
and its successors and assigns a perpetual conservation easement over the Protected Property.
This conservation easement consists of the following rights, terms, and restrictions (the
"Easement"):
1. CONSERVATION PURPOSE. The purpose of this Easement is to preserve and protect in
perpetuity the Conservation Values of the Protected Property identified above by confining
the development, management and use of the Protected Property to activities that are
consistent with the preservation of these Conservation Values, by prohibiting activities that
significantly impair or interfere with these Conservation Values, and by providing for
remedies in the event of any violation of this Easement.
The terms of this Easement are specifically intended to provide a significant public benefit
by:
• Providing an opportunity for the public to learn about, experience , and enjoy the out-
of-doors in a significant and relatively undisturbed natural setting .
• Protecting natural habitat that contributes to a larger complex of protected forest and
wetlands that support a variety of wildlife and plants, both terrestrial and aquatic .
• Protecting the water quality and near-shore aquatic habitat of Sunfish Lake by
restricting development of the lakeshore of the Protected Property.
2. LAND USE RESTRICTIONS. Any activity on or use of the Protected Property that is
inconsistent with the purposes of this Easement is prohibited.
This prohibition specifically includes any intrusion or future development that would
interfere with the essential scenic quality of the Protected Property or the visual enjoyment of
the open and natural character of the Protected Property by the general public.
Except as specifically permitted in section 3 below and without limiting the general
prohibition above, restrictions imposed upon the Protected Property expressly include the
following:
4
2.1. Industrial and Commercial Activity. No industrial or commercial use of the Protected
Property is allowed except for that agricultural use, forest or habitat management, or
minimal commercial recreational use specifically permitted in section 3 below.
2.2 . Agricultural Use. No agricultural use of the Protected Property is allowed except as
specifically permitted in section 3 below.
2.3 . Residential Development. No residential use or development of the Protected
Property is allowed.
2.4. Rights of Way. No new right of way shall be granted across the Protected Property
by the Owner in conjunction with any industrial , commercial, or residential use or
development of other land not protected by this Easement without the prior approval
of the Land Trust under the provisions of section 7. 7 of this Easement. This provision
does not affect any rights of way existing at the time of conveyance.
The Owner may, however, grant an easement to the Commissioner of the Minnesota
Po11ution Control Agency as needed to permit the location, operation and
maintenance of a monitoring well or well s on the Protected Property.
2.5. Division of the Protected Property. The Protected Property may not be divided,
subdivided, or partitioned. The Protected Property may be conveyed only in its
entirety as a single parcel under single ownership (joint or undivided) regardless of
whether it now consists of separate parcels, was acquired as s eparate parcels, or is
treated as separate parcels for property tax or other purposes.
This provi s ion does not, however, prohibit:
• Th e divi s ion of the Protected Property when a portion of the Protected
Prop erty is being conveyed to a conservation organization defin ed in section
7.1 below .
• The correction or adjustment of boundary lines to resolve an ownership
dispute.
2.6. Development Rights. No portion of the Protected Property may be used to satisfy
land area requirements for other property not subject to this Easement for purposes of
calculating building density, lot coverage, open space, or natural resource use or
extraction under otherwise applicable laws, regulations , or ordinances controlling
land use. The development rights that have been encumbered or extinguished by this
Easement may not be transferred to any other property or used to obtain any
regulatory mitigation credits .
2 .7. Structures and Improvements . No temporary or permanent buildings , structures,
utilitie s, roads or other improvements of any kind may be placed or constructed on
the Protected Property except as specificall y authorized in section 3 or as set forth
below:
5
a. Utilities. Utility systems and facilities may be installed, maintained, repaired,
extended, and replaced to serve only uses and activities specifically permitted by
this Easement.
Permitted utility systems and facilities include, without limitation, all systems and
facilities necessary to provide on-site power, fuel, water, waste disposal, and
communication but do not include communication towers, wind turbines, or
similar structures without the prior approval of the Land Trust.
Permitted utility systems and facilities shall be installed or constructed with
minimal grading and disturbance to vegetation. FolJowing installation or
construction, the surface shall be restored in a timely manner to a condition
consistent with the purposes of this Easement.
b. Signs. No billboards or other signs may be placed or erected on the Protected
Property except for small signs for informational or interpretive purposes. These
permitted small signs include signs necessary for monitoring, safety, and security
purposes in conjunction with those recorded easements and agreements between
the Owner and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
Additionally, the Owner may also construct and maintain a park entry monument
and signs as permitted in section 3.5 below. With the Owner's permission, the
Land Trust may place signs on the Protected Property identifying the land as
protected.
c. Roads and Parking Areas. The existing park access road and parking area may be
maintained and improved but may not be widened, enlarged , or relocated without
the prior written approval of the Land Trust.
No other roads or paved areas may be established or constructed on the Protected
Property without the prior written approval of the Land Trust.
d. Trails. Unpaved paths or foot trails, including necessary footbridges and
boardwalks, may be established and maintained for non-motorized recreational
uses. Paved trails may be established and maintained only within Area 2 of the
Protected Property, which is generally depicted on the Property Map attached as
Exhibit B. Paved trails may be allowed in Area I of the Protected Property, as
generally depicted on the Property Map, only as necessary to meet requirements
of the American with Disabilities Act and only with advance written approval
from the Land Trust. Trails shall be established, maintained and used in a manner
that does not result in significant erosion or have an adverse impact on the natural
and scenic quality of the Protected Property.
e. Fences. Fences may be constructed, maintained, improved, replaced or removed
to mark boundaries, to secure the Protected Property, or as needed in carrying out
activities permitted by this Easement and by recorded documents between the
Owner and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, including those documents
specifically referenced in section 7 .5.
6
f. Outdoor Lighting. In order to minimize sky glow or light pollution originating
from the Protected Property, no permanent outdoor lighting is permitted within
Area 1 of the Protected Property. Any outdoor light fixtures within Area 2 must
minimize light emitted above the plane of the horizon of the fixture through the
use of earthward directed or full cut-off fixtures or lamps with single or minimal-
color light sources, or other equally effective fixtures designed to minimize light
pollution.
2.8. Dumping. No trash , non-compostable garbage , debris, unserviceable vehicles or
equipment, junk, other unsightly material or hazardous or toxic substances may be
dumped or accumulated on the Protected Property. This does not prohibit burning or
composting of excess brush or other plant material resulting from activities permitted
by this easement.
2 .9. Mining. No mining, drilling, exploring for , or removing any minerals, sand, gravel,
rock, or fossil fuels from the Protected Property is allowed.
2.10. Topography and Surface Alteration . No alteration or change in the topograph y or the
surface of the Protected Property is allowed. This includes no ditching, draining or
filling and no excavation or removal of soil or other material , except as incidental to
activities or uses specifically permitted by this Easement.
Any permitted alteration shall be undertaken with minimal grading and disturbance to
vegetation and with the surface restored in a timely manner to a condition consistent
with the purposes of this Easement.
2.11. Water. No alteration or manipulation of natural watercourses, lakes, shorelines,
wetlands or other surface or subsurface bodies of water or creation of new wetlands
or water bodies is allowed except to restore or enhance wildlife habitat or native
biological communities or to improve or enhance the function and quality of existing
wetlands or water bodies. Any alteration or creation of wetlands or water bodies
must be undertaken in accordance with a habitat management plan approved by the
Land Trust under section 3 below.
No activities on or uses of the Protected Property that cause significant erosion or are
seriously detrimental to water quality or purity are allowed.
2 .12. Vegetation Management. No removal, cutting, pruning, trimming or mowing of any
trees or other vegetation, living or dead, and no introduction of non-native species is
allowed except as follows:
a. In conjunction with agricultural use and forest or habitat management as
specifically permitted in section 3 below.
b. As reasonably required to construct and maintain permitted buildings, structures,
roads, trails and other permitted improvements and provided that vegetation shall
be restored by the Owner following any construction to a condition consistent
with the purpose of this Easement.
7
c. As reasonably required to prevent or control insects , noxious weeds, invasive
vegetation, disease, fire , personal injury, or property damage.
d . Landscaping in areas immediately adjacent to permitted buildings, within the
divided entry road corridor, or as specifically authorized in section 3 below.
2.13. Vehicles. Motorized vehicles may not be used on the Protected Property except on
roads or parking areas permitted under this Easement or in conjunction with
construction and maintenance of permitted buildings, structures, roads, trails, or other
improvements, forest or habitat management, agricultural use, or in conjunction with
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency permitted activities including those permitted
under the recorded documents specifically referenced in section 7.5 below. Use of
motori zed vehicles shall not result in significant erosion or have an adverse impact on
the natural and scenic quality of the Protected Property.
3. RESERVED RIGHTS. The Owner retains all rights associated with ownership and use of
the Protected Property that are not expressly restricted or prohibited by this Easement. The
Owner may not, however, exercise these rights in a manner that would adversely impact the
Conservation Values of the Protected Property. Additionally, the Owner must give notice to
the Land Trust before exercising any reserved right that might have an adverse impact on the
Conservation Values of the Protected Property.
Without limiting the generality of the above, the following rights are expressly reserved and
the Owner may use and allow others to use the Protected Property as follows:
3.1. Right to Convey. The Owner may sell, give, lease, bequeath, devise, mortgage or
otherwise encumber or convey the Protected Property. This right to convey the
Protected Property is subject to the following :
a. Any conveyance or encumbrance of the Protected Property is subject to this
Easement.
b . The Owner will reference or insert the terms of this Easement in any deed or other
document by which the Owner conveys title to the Protected Property. The
Owner will also specify to what extent reserved rights have been exercised, if at
all, and are no longer available for use by the new owner and which reserved
rights are specifically allocated to the property being conveyed in accordance with
other provisions of this Easement.
c. The Owner will notify the Land Trust of any conveyance within fifteen (15) days
after closing and will provide the Land Trust with the name and address of the
new owner and a copy of the deed transferring title.
d. If the Protected Property is owned by a trust, business entity or any common or
jointly held ownership, the Owner shall designate a representative authorized to
receive notice on behalf of the owner and provide the Land Trust with the name
and address of the designated representative. The Owner shall notify the Land
8
Trust of any change in the designated representative and provide the Land Trust
with the new name, address and other contact information .
The enforceability or validity of this Easement will not be impaired or limited by any
failure of the Owner to comply with this section 3.1.
3.2. Agricultural Use. Agricultural use of the Protected Property is limited to only that
area designated as Cultivated Land on the Property Map attached as Exhibit B. If this
area is restored to forest or grassland, then no further agricultural use is permitted.
3 .3. Forest and Habitat Management. The Protected Property may be used to create,
maintain, restore, or enhance habitat for wildlife and native biological communities in
accordance with a restoration or habitat management plan approved in writing by the
Land Trust. The Owner may remove timber and other wood products and otherwise
manage the vegetation on the Protected Property in accordance with this approved
plan.
3.4. Recreational and Educational Uses. The Protected Property may be used for hiking,
cross-country skiing, horseback riding, nature observation or study, and other non-
intensive recreational and educational programs or activities that have no more than
minimal impact on the Conservation Values of the Protected Property.
3.5.
The Protected Property may not be used for more than minimal commercial
recreational purposes.
Recreational and Educational Structures. Minor rustic structures such as tents , trail
barriers, boardwalks, overlook decks, footbridges , benches, birdhouses, and
informational kiosks may be placed on the Protected Property in conjunction with
permitted recreational and educational activities.
Additionally, the Owner may choose to use and develop Area 2 of the Protected
Property, or a portion of it, as an educational, outdoor recreational , nature observation
or interpretive center. Such use must be consistent with and must not interfere with
the Conservation Values and purposes of this Easement. The size, location, and
characteristics of the buildings and structures, as well as all necessary utilities,
driveways, parking areas, and all other improvements associated with the facility or
the uses described in this section, including a park entry monument and signs, must
be in accordance with a park concept plan developed by the Owner and approved in
writing by the Land Trust. All buildings, structures and improvements must be
designed and constructed so as not to detract from the natural and scenic character of
the Protected Property. Review and written approval of architectural plans by the
Land Trust is required prior to commencing construction.
The Owner will request and obtain approvals and give the Land Trust notices as set
out in section 7.7 of this Easement before beginning any construction permitted
under this section.
9
4. LAND TRUST'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES. In order to accomplish the purposes of this
Easement to preserve and protect the Conservation Values of the Protected Property, the
Land Trust has the following rights and remedies:
4.1. Right to Enter. The Land Trust has the right to enter the Protected Property at
reasonable times and in a reasonable manner for the following purposes:
a. To inspect the Protected Property and to monitor compliance with the terms of
this Easement.
b . To obtain evidence for use in seeking judicial or other enforcement of this
Easement.
c. To survey or otherwise mark the boundaries of all or part of the Protected
Property if necessary to determine whether there has been or may be a violation of
this Easement. Any survey completed under this provision will be at the Owner 's
expense.
d. To otherwise exercise its rights under this Easement.
4.2. Right of Enforcement. The Land Trust has the right to prevent or remedy violations
of this Easement, including prohibiting the construction of buildings or
improvements, through appropriate judicial action brought in any court of competent
jurisdiction against the Owner or other responsible party.
a. Notice. The Land Trust may not initiate judicial action until the Owner has been
given notice of the violation, or threatened violation, of this Easement and a
reasonable opportunity to correct the situation. This provision shall not apply if,
in the sole discretion of the Land Trust, immediate judicial action is necessary to
prevent or mitigate significant damage to the Conservation Values of the
Protected Property or if reasonable, good faith efforts to notify the Owner are
:unsuccessful.
b. Remedies. In enforcing this Easement, the Land Trust has the right to:
• Temporary or permanent injunctive relief for any violation or threatened
violation of this Easement.
• Require restoration of the Protected Property to its condition at the time of this
conveyance or as otherwise necessitated by a violation of this Easement.
• Specific performance or declaratory relief.
• Recover damages resulting from a violation of this Easement or injury to any
Conservation Values associated with the Protected Property.
These remedies are cumulative and are available without requiring the Land Trust
to prove actual damage to the Conservation Values of the Protected Property.
IO
The Land Trust and the Owner agree that the damages created by a violation of
this Easement may be determined by calculating the cost of acquiring a
conservation easement over similar property. The Land Trust and the Owner also
recognize that restoration, regardless of cost, may be the only adequate remedy
for certain violations of this Easement.
The Land Trust is entitled to seek expedited relief, ex parte if necessary, and shall
not be required to post any bond applicable to a petition for such relief.
c. Costs of Enforcement. The Owner shall be responsible for all reasonable costs
incurred by the Land Trust in enforcing this Easement, inciuding without
limitation costs of suit, attorneys' fees, and expenses related to restoration of the
Protected Property. If, however, the Owner ultimately prevails in a judicial
enforcement action, each party shall be responsible for its own costs and
attorneys' fees.
d. Discretionary Enforcement. Enforcement of the terms of this Easement is solely
at the discretion of the Land Trust. The Land Trust does not waive or forfeit the
right to take any action necessary to assure compliance with the terms of this
Easement by any delay or prior failure of the Land Trust in discovering a
violation or initiating enforcement proceedings. The Land Trust shall not be
barred by any applicable statute of limitations in bringing any action to enforce
the term of this Easement.
e. Acts Beyond Owner's Control. The Land Trust may not bring an action against
the Owner for any change to the Protected Property resulting from:
• causes beyond the Owner's control such as changes caused by fire, flood ,
storm, natural deterioration or the unauthorized acts of third parties, or
• reasonable actions taken in good faith under emergency conditions to prevent
or mitigate damage resulting from such causes.
Actions by the Owner's lessees, agents, employees or contractors are not
considered unauthorized acts of third parties.
This section does not preclude the Owner or the Land Trust from recovering
damages or bringing an action against any third party for trespass or other
violation of their respective rights in this Easement or in the Protected Property.
f. Right to Report. In addition to other remedies, the Land Trust has the right to
report any environmental concerns or conditions or any actual or potential
violations of any environmental laws to appropriate regulatory agencies.
g. Enforcement Rights of Others. Nothing in this Easement is intended to create any
right to enforce this Easement in any third party where no such right otherwise
exists under this Easement or under law.
II
4.3. Limitation on Rights. Nothing in this Easement gives the Land Trust the right or
responsibility to exercise physical control over day-to-day operations on the Protected
Property or to become involved in management decisions involving the use or
disposal of hazardous substances or to otherwise become an operator of the Protected
Property within the meaning of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act, the Minnesota Environmental Response and
Liability Act, or other similar successor federal, state or local statutes or laws
regarding responsibility for environmental conditions associated with contamination.
5. PUBLIC ACCESS AND USE. The public shaiI have the right to use the Protected Property
and any trail established on the Protected Property for low-impact recreational and
educational purposes, subject to the restrictions set out in this easement and subject to any
reasonable use restrictions established by the Owner.
6 . DOCUMENTATION. The current uses of the Protected Property, the state of any existing
improvements, and the specific Conservation Values of the Protected Property that are
briefly described in this Easement will be more fully described in a property report on file at
the office of the Land Trust. The Owner and the Land Trust acknowledge that this property
report will accurately represent the condition of the Protected Property at the time of this
conveyance and may be used by the Land Trust in monitoring future uses of the Protected
Property, in documenting compliance with the terms of this Easement and in any
enforcement proceeding. This property report, however, is not intended to preclude the use
of other information and evidence to document the present condition of the Protected
Property in the event of a future controversy.
7 . GENERAL PROVISIONS.
7.1. Assignment. This Easement may be assigned or transferred by the Land Trust only to
a conservation organization defined as a qualified organization under Section 170(h)
of the Internal Revenue Code and related regulations and as an authorized
conservation easement holder under Minnesota law. Any future holder of this
Easement shall have all of the rights conveyed to the Land Trust by this Easement.
7.2.
As a condition of any assignment or transfer, the Land Trust will require any future
holder of this Easement to continue to carry out the purpose of this Easement in
perpetuity.
The Land Trust will notify the Owner of any assignment within thirty (30) days of the
assignment and will provide the Owner with the name and address of the new holder.
Amendment. Under appropriate circumstances, this Easement may be modified or
amended. However, no amendment or modification will be allowed if, in the sole and
exclusive judgment of the Land Trust any of the following apply:
• The amendment does not further the purposes of this Easement.
12
7.3.
• The amendment will adversely impact the Conservation Values of the Protected
Property.
• The amendment affects the perpetual duration of this Easement.
• The amendment affects the validity of this Easement under Minnesota law or the
status of the Land Trust under Sections 50l(c)(3) and l 70(h) of the Internal
Revenue Code.
Any amendment or modification must be in writing and recorded in the same manner
as this Easement.
Termination. This Easement may be terminated or extinguished only as follows:
• The Owner and the Land Trust recognize that circumstances may arise that make
continued use of the Protected Property in a manner consistent with the purpose
of this Easement impossible or impractical. In this event, this Easement may be
extinguished through judicial proceedings.
• This Easement may be extinguished pursuant to the proper exercise of the power
of eminent domain.
7.4. Proceeds. Following any extinguishment or termination of this Easement in whole or
in part, the Land Trust shall be entitled to a portion of the proceeds from any sale,
exchange or involuntary conversion of the Protected Property.
The Land Trust's share of the proceeds shall be an amount equal to the fair market
value of this Easement at the time of the extinguishment but not less than an amount
equal to the proportionate value that this Easement bears to the value of the Protected
Property as a whole at the time of this conveyance ( excluding the value of any
permitted improvements made after the conveyance of this Easement.)
The value of this Easement shall be calculated by the method required by the Internal
Revenue Service for calculating an income tax deduction for the charitable donation
of a conservation easement.
The Land Trust will use its share of any proceeds in a manner consistent with the
purpose of this Easement.
7.5. Warranties. The current Owner represents and warrants as follows:
a. The Owner is the sole owner of the Protected Property in fee simple and has the
right and ability to convey this Easement to the Land Trust.
b. The Protected Property is free and clear of all rights, restrictions and
encumbrances other than those subordinated to this Easement or otherwise
specifically agreed to by the Land Trust.
13
c. A portion of the Protected Property is subject to the terms and restrictions of the
following documents:
• Landfill Cleanup Agreement by and between Washington County,
Ramsey County, the City of Lake Elmo and the Commissioner of the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency dated November 21, 1995, recorded
December 14, 1995, as Document Number 866611;
• Easement in favor of the State of Minnesota dated November 13, 1995 ,
recorded December 14, 1995, as Document Number 866615; and
• Declaration of Restrictions and Covenants dated November 13, 1995,
recorded December 14, 1995, as Document Number 866619.
d. The Owner has no actual knowledge of any use or release of hazardous waste or
toxic substances on the Protected Property that is in violation of a federal, state, or
local environmental law and will defend, indemnify and hold the Land Trust
harmless against any claims of contamination from such substances.
7.6. Ownership Responsibilities, Costs and Liabilities. The Owner retains all
responsibilities and shall bear all costs and liabilities of any kind related to the use,
ownership, and maintenance of the Protected Property.
a. Taxes. The Owner shall pay all real estate taxes and assessments levied against
the Protected Property, including any levied against the interest of the Land Trust
created by this Easement. The Land Trust may, at its discretion, pay any
outstanding taxes or assessments and shall then be entitled to reimbursement from
the Owner.
b. Regulatory Compliance. All activities or construction permitted by this Easement
shall be undertaken in accordance with applicable federal, state and local laws,
regulations and ordinances and nothing in this Easement shall be construed to
exempt the Protected Property or the Owner from otherwise applicable laws or
regulations.
The Owner is solely responsible for obtaining any required governmental permits.
c. Indemnity. The Owner shall defend, indemnify, and hold the Land Trust
harmless from any and all costs or liability for any loss, damage, or personal
injury occurring on or related to the Protected Property or the existence of this
Easement, except to the extent attributable to the negligence of the Land Trust.
d. Insurance. The Owner will name the Land Trust as an additional insured on any
general liability insurance policy carried by the Owner with respect to the
Protected Property.
e. Future Environmental Condition. The Owner is solely responsible for Owner's
use or release on the Protected Property of any hazardous or toxic substances as
14
defined by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act, the Minnesota Environmental Response and Liability Act, or other
similar successor federal, state or local law or regulation regarding responsibility
for environmental conditions associated with contamination. The Owner shall
take all steps necessary to assure any needed containment or remediation resulting
from any release of such substance.
7.7. Notice and Approval. Any notice or request for approval required by this Easement
must be in writing and is subject to the following:
a. Delivery. Any required notice or request for approval must be delivered
personally or sent by first class mail or other nationally recognized delivery
service to the appropriate party at the following addresses ( or other address
specified in writing):
To the Owner:
City of Lake Elmo
3800 Laverne Avenue N.
Lake Elmo , MN 55042
To the Land Trust:
Minnesota Land Trust
2356 University Avenue West
St. Paul, MN 55114
b. Timing. Unless otherwise specified in this Easement, any required notice or
request for approval must be delivered at least 30 days prior to the date proposed
for initiating the activity in question.
c. Content. The notice or request for approval must include sufficient information to
allow the Trust to make an informed decision on whether any proposed activity is
consistent with the terms and purposes of this Easement. At a minimum, this
should include:
• The location, nature, and scope of the proposed activity.
• The proposed use, design, and location of any building, structure or
improvement.
• The potential impact on the Conservation Values of the Protected Property.
d. Approval. The Land Trust may withhold its approval if it determines that the
proposal is inconsistent with the terms or purposes of this Easement or lacks
sufficient information to allow the Land Trust to reach an informed decision. The
Land Trust may condition its approval on the Owner's acceptance of
modifications, which would, in the Land Trust's judgment, make the proposed
activity consistent with the Easement or otherwise meet any concerns.
15
7.8.
Approval of the Land Trust must be in writing to be effective.
Binding Effect. This Easement creates a property right immediately vested in the
Land Trust and its successors and assigns that cannot be terminated or extinguished
except as set out herein.
This Easement shall run with and burden the Protected Property in perpetuity. The
terms of this Easement are binding and enforceable against the current Owner of the
Protected Property, all successors in title to the Protected Property and all other
parties entitled to possess or use the Protected Property.
If at any time the Land Trust or other holder of this Easement becomes the owner of
all or a portion of the fee interest in the Protected Property, this Easement shall not be
deemed to merge with the underlying fee interest but shall remain in force and effect
unless otherwise terminated or extinguished as set out herein.
7.9. Definitions. Unless the context requires otherwise, the term "Owner" includes,
jointly and severally, the current owner or owners of the Protected Property identified
above and their personal representatives, heirs, successors and assigns in title to the
Protected Property. The term "Land Trust" includes the Minnesota Land Trust and its
successors or assigns to its interest in this Easement.
7. I 0. Termination of Rights and Obligations. A party's rights and obligations under this
Easement terminate upon the transfer or termination of that party's interest in this
Easement or the Protected Property, provided, however, that any liability for acts or
omissions occurring prior to the transfer or termination will survive that transfer or
termination.
7.1 I. Recording. The Land Trust will record this Easement in a timely manner in the
official records for the county in which the Protected Property is located. The Land
Trust may re-record this Easement or any other documents necessary to protect its
rights under this Easement or to assure the perpetual enforceability of this Easement.
7.12. Interpretation. This Easement shall be interpreted as follows.
a. Controlling Law and Construction. This Easement shall be governed by the laws
of the State of Minnesota and construed to resolve any ambiguities or questions of
validity of specific provisions in favor of giving maximum effect to its
conservation purposes and to the policies and purposes of Minnesota Statutes
Chapter 84C.
b. Severability. A determination that any provision or specific application of this
Easement is invalid shall not affect the validity of the remaining provisions or any
future application.
16
c. Captions. Captions have been inserted in this document solely for convenience of
reference and shall have no effect upon interpretation or construction.
d. Future Economic Condition. In conveying this Easement, the Owner has
considered the possibility that uses of the Protected Property prohibited by this
Easement may in the future become more economically valuable than uses
permitted by this Easement and that neighboring properties may be put entirely to
such prohibited uses. Such changes alone are not deemed to be circumstances
justifying the extinguishment of this Easement as otherwise set forth above .
7 .13. Additional Documents. The Owner agrees to execute or provide any additional
documents reasonably needed by the Land Trust to carry out in perpetuity the
provisions and the intent of this Easement, including, but not limited to any
documents needed to correct any legal description or title matter or to comply with
any federal, state, or local law, rule or regulation.
7.14 . Entire Agreement. This document sets forth the entire agreement of the parties with
respect to this Easement and supersedes all prior discussions or understandings.
7 .15. Signatures. This Easement may be completed with the signatures of the parties to this
Easement executed and notarized on separate pages which when attached to this
document shall constitute one comp lete document.
The remainder of this page has been intentionally left blank.
17
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Owner has voluntarily executed this Conservation Easement on
the .-t)fY'I day of OUJY\L. , 2009.
OWNER:
Mayor
State of MINNESOTA )
. ) ss
County of WashvVt~ )
The foregoin g instrument was acknowledged before me t hi s ~ay of J'~, 2009, by
Dean Johnston and Craig Daws on, the Mayor and the City Administrator, respectively, of the
City of Lake E lmo , a municipal corporation in the State of Minnesota, on behalf o f the City.
~-<N~ot==ar_.,y~~~u~bl~ic~::,,_~--t-:.:::µ._~===':?~==-~
My Commission Expires:
18
ACCEPTANCE
The MINNESOTA LAND TRUST hereby accepts the foregoing Conservation Easement
effective as of the~ day of J t...l..N\...L_, , 2009.
State of MINNESOTA )
) ss
MINNESOTA LAND TRUST
By:cs__,,,~---S-: d -
Title: /}-esic/e-n r
Countyof ~ )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ~day of Jl<.A"LL-
2009 , by Jane Prohaska, the President of the Minnesota Land Trust, a non-profit corporation
un der the laws of the State of Minnesota, on behalf of said corporation.
This document drafted by:
Minnesota Land Trust
2356 University Avenue West
St. Paul, MN 55114
~__;,__'==""""'~~~~~a --~==--.......
Notary Public
My Commission Expires:
G SARAH STROMMEN
Notary Public
Minnesota
M Commission Ex ires Janua
19
Exhibit A
Legal Description of the Protected Property
The Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (NW 1/4 of NW 1/4) of Secti on Fourteen (1 4),
Township Twenty-nine (29), Range Twenty -one (21), and the West Thirty-three (33) feet of the
Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarte r (SW¼ of NW¼) of Section Fourteen (14),
T ownship Twenty-n ine (29), Range T wenty-one (2 1), Wash ington County, Minnesota.
AND
That part of the No rth east quarter of the Northwest quarter of Secti on 15 , Township 29, Range
2 1, Washington County, Minnesota, described as commencing at the Northeast comer of said
Northeast quarter of Northwest quarter; thence South 0° 51' 45 " East, assume d b earin g, along
the East line thereof, 50 1.27 fee t t o the South li ne of the North 30 acres of said Northwest quarter
and to the actual point of b egi nning of th e land to be h erein after d escr ib ed ; thence South 89 ° 0 1'
54" West along said South lin e ofNorth 30 acres 800 feet ; thence South 0° 51' 45" East 73 4 .30
feet; thence North 89 ° 0 I' 54" East 800 feet to th e East line of said Northeast quart er of the
North west quarter ; thence North 0° 51 ' 45 " West along said East line 734.30 feet to the actual
point of beginning.
AND
The Northwest quarter of th e Northeast quarter , the Northeast quarter of the Northeast quarter,
th e Southwest quart er of th e North east quarter, the North three-qu arters of the South east quarter
of the Northeast quarte r and that part of the East 87 feet lying South of th e North three-quarters
of th e Southeast quart er of the Northeast quarter all in Section 15 , Township 29, Range 2 1.
AND
The east 87 feet of th at part of the Southeast quarter of Section 15 , Township 29, Range 21, lying
Northerly o f the Northerl y right of way line of State Highway #212, s u bject to the ri ght of way
Stillwater Lane (formerly State Highway #2 12).
AND
~
The Southwest Quarte r of the Northeast Quarte r of the Northwest Quarter (SWI/4 of NE¼ of
NW¼) of Secti on Fourteen (14), Township Twen ty-nine (29) North, Range Twenty -one (2 1)
West, Washington Coun ty, Minnesota.
AND
,{
The North Thr ee (3) rods of th e Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest
Quarter (NW 14/ of SE¼ of NWI/4) of Secti on Fourteen (14), Township Twenty-nine (29),
Range Twenty-o ne (2 1), Washington County, Minne so ta.
20
AND
The South Forty ( 40) acres of Government Lot Five (5), Section Ten (10) and the Southeas t
Quarter of the Southwest Quarter (SE ¼ of SW ¼) of Section Ten (10). AND the North Thirty
(30) acres of the North one-half of the Northwest Quarter (N ½ of NW ¼) of Section Fifteen
(15), all in Township Twenty-nine (29) North of Range Twenty-one (21) West, containing 110
acres more or l ess.
EXCEPT:
All that part of the South 40 acres of Government Lot 5, Section 10, and the Southeast Quarter of
the Southwest Quarter of Section 10, and the North 30 acre s of the North One-Half of the
Northwest Quarter of Section 15, all in Township 29 North, Range 21 West, Washington
County, Minnesota, described as follows:
Beginning at the northwest comer of said Section 15, thence South 00 degrees, 18 minutes, 30
seconds West, bearings are based on the Washington County Coordinate System NAD83, along
the west line of said Section 15, a distance of 501.27 feet to the south line of said North 30 acres
of the North One-Half of the Northwest Quarter of Section 15, thence North 89 degrees, 51
minutes, 00 seconds East, along said south line, a distance of 1808.59 feet, thence N orth 00
degrees, 02 minutes, 32 seconds Wes t and parallel with the east l ine of said Northwest Quarter of
Section 15, a distance of 501 .26 feet to the north line of said Section 15, thence South 89
degrees, 51 minutes, 00 seconds West, a long said north l_ine a distan ce of 105 .52 feet, thence
North 00 degrees, 53 minutes, 2 1 seconds West and parallel with the west line of said Section 10,
a di stance of 650.00 feet, thence South 89 degrees, 51 minutes, 00 seconds West and parallel
with the south line of said Section 10, a distance of 200.00 feet, thence North 00 degrees, 53
minutes, 21 seconds West and parallel with the west line of said Section 10, a distance of 656.24
feet, to a point on the north line of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section
10, thence South 89 degrees, 45 minutes, 24 seconds West, a long said north line, a distance of
193 .17 feet to the northwest comer of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, thence
North 00 degrees, 42 minute s, 39 seconds West, along the east lin e of said Government Lot 5, a
distance of29.52 feet to the northeast comer of said South 40 acres of Government Lot 5, thence
South 89 degrees, 5 1 minutes, 00 seconds West, a long the north line of said South 40 of
Government Lot 5, a distance of 706.92 feet , thence South 00 degrees, 53 minutes, 21 seconds
East and parallel with the west line of said Section 10, a distance of200.00 feet, thence South 50
degrees, 54 minutes, 08 seconds West, a distance of 127.25 feet, thence South 89 degrees, 51
minutes, 00 seconds West and parallel with th e north line of said South 40 acres of Government
Lot 5, a d istance of 500.00 feet to the west line of said Section 10, thence South 00 degrees, 53
minutes, 2 1 seconds East along the west line of said Section 10, a distance of 1055 .45 feet to the
point of beginning, containing 65. 9 acres, more or less.
AND ALSO EXCEPT:
All th at part of the South 40 acres of Government Lot 5, Section 10, Township 29 North, Range
21 West , Washington County, Minnesota, described as fo ll ows:
21
Commencing at the southwest comer of said Section I 0, then ce North 00 degrees, 53 minutes, 21
seconds West along the west line of said Section 10, a distance of 1055.45 feet to the point of
beginning, thence continuing North 00 degrees, 53 minutes, 21 seconds West along the west line
of said Section 10, a distance of280.00 feet to the northwest comer of said South 40 acres of
Government Lot 5, thence North 89 degrees, 51 minutes , 00 seconds East along the north line of
said South 40 acres of Government Lot 5, a distance of 600.00 feet, thence South 00 degrees, 53
minutes, 21 seconds East and parallel with the west line of said Se c tion 10, a distance of 200.00
feet, thence South 50 degrees, 54 minutes, 08 seco nd s West, a distance of 127 .25 feet, thence
South 89 degrees, 51 minutes, 00 seconds West and parallel with the north line of said South 40
acres of Government Lot 5 , a distance of 500.00 feet to the point of beginning, containing 3 .8
acres, more or less.
22
==.~:~=~==~='=~~~"".~~~-
• ~. t
~''.
J: •1
-.:' ·'
--~ _\, -'"-.:~: f ~~],~r:t~1-~--::. _;,, -"·
._ ' ·,sectioii._fs '.._ .. ,
.,/ .... , w • ,, ;";,.:
;•(:, \
.. ~~-""'°"'if QE r-~-
• •
:,/ ,, ., ·':'
··.'t •'.
I ")
;_,:_~-~-~~-: s;o,,'
Legend
-Protected Property
--• Section Lines
===• Area Boundaty Line
• Building~
=== Driveways and Mlnor Roads
~Roads
1 Oft Contours
~ Parkin9 A;ea ·
C ultivated Land
.. Grasslands
r-:--..,... .. -...
/;,'!'_,"':~·'
. .., ·, -~
:l: q
Exhibit B: Property Mrln ·7
·~ • ~ #
Ill
hr.•· • JI ·:n
II ·.·11
, :·11 ..
~'tp---·-
__ ;·_·~-·+·. __ j',: ..
_-:}:{.:11:·,
. 1/··· . -~.
~:\-: :~ .. _·: .. :_:· .. ~i
~
l
1-
. 970 '
~
.,
• •
• 1'
tf
_:"(
1 • •
f
t • .. , ,~
Section 11
,. ------.... --....... -
Section 14
' }c;., <, .· i f~-t.:."ji ~ ,', :IC~:.~ ~lk _~\\ ~
• • 96 0'
\
x,1\~ll1iia:'t,~rt;;;~f~~~ ':~. ,. t/, ~~ °"\\ .
,, ·,\ '. ;i:W,r << '.i ff:t~~~~j , !!L • t, c~ . ~q'@,;,,, \
::,:"}--.. ,.,·.> __ ::,:~:::.-.::/ __ .·. • ... •< : •·icr .••·,': ;.· ····._;;~~-~ . . • •y-~.>) 0v ~-~
.J.,., ... ,,., .. ,. ··. J A, ea 11 11 -~,, -" .,,, i.
--,~ :f !J:~; . . e i}~ij 2 ·l~ :·. . c;? . I} :A~s::\ 7 '"'~ \ ~
J
j _,., .--;~ .-· .. -·-v--~:
' • 1... • '
-~--~ < ) :-i .. '·' .. ' . '
.. 'I~-I , ~. '. ·. · .. -·>-:"'~i i)'_.:-' '
· ··, ]111., ss0 ,
•
I ·.. •_ ·•
·.1 ,· · u ""''•
'I • ' · 11 · fl -· I l\
/J . "';:;:.•-·, . . ·-·-ll ·~ .,.,.,, -1<:,il ·:~·. ' )..-•:
L:'..._j Forested
c---------,
L_:,__J Woodlands
., ·, ··--,,:--1111. ':,
\ •-·· -·-r~ ., , ~-----., ' =· ·--!11·•~-, • _. .. !I .. -------~·-·,It;,:~•-•. ·
I -' . U 11 · , ,. ·:. • • • . ·, -' ,, •..... : . -. ·.:_ J ·,~-'II "' ·--· -~--_ '" --.· ~ ~ . , :n I_ • • • ··' • .. -': ..• ---_· . .•~ • _.,. . . ,.1···,··.·.,·· .. :·· . .-~·,,_ .·
·1 ., . ' ' . • . ' . . . ., I ,•:· --. , . , .-" .. . . ,
£:::}wetlands
[ ___ :Water
• ., ··•_, IL ; ;
. ___ .-,-~:-__ r.:--_c;; <JI ;_·" _., • -' -. ·: . ...:._: __ ~ ~ •• -: ;:;~~~-~~ ,.d..._~ .. ' : .·: .. -=-=k I l ·:.:.::-::-.
M.lp Created: October 81 2008
'I '
Map Resource Information
Pfot!<:ted Plopaty, Section L~. Ase.-Boundary Une, Buik:1ing$. Ro.ads.
O'fl,'e-.wy• & Minoc Roadit. 1()..foqt"Cclntoors. P atvl_g Area. CUt!Nated lard
Gr.i,:~nds. F=orect1,, l.hbodiands • .VVettanc!,. and Water cfei'lled by
Conmunity GIS Se4-w\cH Inc
USotf-s: cA this~ ll'ilf_.arid ~g.that G,ornnunity 01S 5-fviCltS Inc,
3nd tha M~ta LaM. Trustcanndbc hold liable fo,, accu1acy of GIS m.1teri.-il
p-CNided. GIS materials shol.id not be re&od:upon to fft.,abli~ legal tide. bounda,y
liilws, OJlocationtof_tnprOl4Ufien4.
---;.-.. '. .. --' ·'---~----
, \I, ,,
Site: Sunfish Park -Tract: City of Lake Elmo
~\
corn!:!.~t i,!t,.~~. Washington County -Twp. 29 N Rng. 21 W Sec. 10, 14 & 15 MINNESOTA
LANO TRUST 800
Scale:
1"=800'
400 0
I\
\\A~F j;(r
' 800
Feet
Request for Proposals on Mountain Bike Trail Construction
City of Lake Elmo
Sunfish Lake Park
Proposals Due: 3-30-20XX
Address Proposals to:
Attention: Ben Prchal - City Planner
3880 Laverne Ave. N.,
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
Phone: 651-747-3911
Email: bprchal@lakeelmo.org
Table of Contents
PART A: GENERAL INFORMATION
SECTION 1: PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE
1.0 General Project Description
1.1 Site Conditions
1.2 Project Scope
SECTION 2: CONTRACTOR QUALIFICATIONS, REQUIREMENTS AND
RESPONSIBILITIES
2.1 Experience and Portfolio
2.2 Insurance
2.3 Workman’s compensation
2.4 Tools
2.5 Mechanized equipment
2.6 Meetings and progress reviews
2.7 What contractor provides
2.8 Timetable
2.9 Guarantee and Warranty
SECTION 3: FINAL INSPECTION
3.1 Final inspection
SECTION 4: TIMELINE AND SCHEDULE
4.1 Pre-bid site visit (Optional)
4.2 Proposal submission deadline (March 30, 2018)
4.3 Work Complete (October 12, 2018)
SECTION 5: PROPOSAL SUBMISSION PACKAGE
SECTION 6: BASIS FOR AWARD AND RIGHT OF REJECTION
6.1 Basis for award
6.2 Right of rejection
6.3 Qualifications and experience
6.4 Additional information
SECTION 7: BID WORKSHEETS
7.1 Bid Worksheet A
PART B: PROJECT DETAIL
SECTION 8: FINISHED TRAIL CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE GUIDELINES
8.1 Trail Design
8.2 Bike Specific Trail Flow
8.3 Trail Construction Best Practices
8.4 Corridor clearing
8.5 Trail Flagging
8.6 Debris
8.7 Rocks
8.8 Woody material
8.9 Fall Zone Clearing
8.10 Backslope
8.11 Trail, Finished Condition
8.12 Spoils Stabilization
8.13 Turns
8.14 Grade reversals
8.15 Above Grade Earthen Structures
8.16 Water diversions
8.17 Invasive species
8.18 Filter Strips
8.19 Mechanized Equipment Best Practices
8.20 Preservation of Vegetation
8.21 Ground Disturbance
SECTION 9: MAPS
9.1 Field Design- Draft Trail Map
9.2 Site Topography
9.3 Soil Analysis
9.4 Access, Supply and Staging
PART A: GENERAL INFORMATION
SECTION 1: PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE
1.0 General Project Description
The City of Lake Elmo is seeking a contractor to provide labor, supervision, materials (as
necessary) and equipment to perform specified trail construction for a cross country/flow single
track mountain bike trail system within Sunfish Lake Park.
Sunfish Lake Park is located in Lake Elmo Minnesota, which is 25 minutes from downtown St.
Paul. The park consists of 268 acres of mature woodland and rolling hills. The City would like
the accepted contractor to review the trail design and make adjustments to the design where
appropriate, to help mitigate erosion, environmental impacts, and increase the user
experience. Though the City is developing mountain bike trails within the park, preservation of
the existing features is a priority and an environmentally conscious design and build is
expected. There is a conservation easement over the property that is monitored by the
Minnesota Land Trust. Because of this, most areas of the trail will need to be built by hand.
Throughout the whole build, the City expects the selected contractor to use best practices and
follow the International Mountain Bicycling Association guidelines (IMBA).
The City would like to see a flowing trail through the park that will appeal to the majority of
riders. The intent is to create a trail system that is dynamic and can create an intimate
experience that allows the rider to enjoy the aesthetics of the park. At this time the City does
not want to see features that are technically challenging on the main trail. However, those
features are not intended during this stage of the trail development. The trail should only be as
wide as necessary to safely use the trail. The intent is to keep a low profile and to minimize
disturbance to the park and its natural features.
1.1 Site Conditions
The terrain is hilly and forested, with elevation ranging from 920 ft. to 978ft. The City
Recommends that the prospective builders visit the site as well as review the soils on the USDA
Web Soil Survey. A soils map has been attached but please perform more research as
necessary. The characteristics of the soil are listed as being somewhat limited. The USDA
further indicates that the limitations can be overcome with appropriate trail design and
installation.
1.2 Project Scope
The City has reserved funding to help support the project and the project’s scope of work
includes at least 22,158 feet of new construction. There is an existing trail system within the
park and appropriate slowing methods will need to be used to aide in safety at those crossings.
Completed work must meet the specifications outlined in “Part B Project Details.” Our
preference is to have work start as soon as possible to have the build done in 2019 to
summer of 2020.
SECTION 2: CONTRACTOR QUALIFICATIONS, REQUIREMENTS AND
RESPONSIBILITIES
2.1 Experience and Portfolio
The Contractor shall have demonstrable experience in building sustainable cross country/flow
single-track trail on terrain and/or soil characteristics similar to that of Sunfish Lake Park. The
Contractor shall provide a portfolio showing work accomplished and references from 3 past
comparable or relevant projects. The City also wants the contractor to be able to provide a GIS
file of the final trail.
2.2 Insurance
The Contractor will provide the City of Lake Elmo with a copy of current insurance
policy and will show the City as additional insured and showing the type, amount,
class of operations covered, effective dates, and dates of expiration of policies.
2.3 Workman’s compensation
The Client reserves the right to request proof of compliance with workmen’s compensation
laws.
2.4 Tools
The Contractor shall perform the required work using hand tools and/or small mechanized
equipment that is a maximum of 50” in width. Equipment with adjustable width tracks should
be able to reduce track width to less than 50” for building the new trail. Some sites may not be
suitable for equipment this large and other sites may not be suitable for any mechanized
equipment regardless of size due to terrain and environmental constraints. Permanent
modification of trail outside the scope of work to accommodate equipment access is not
desirable and must be approved by the City before building the modification.
2.5 Mechanized equipment
All mechanized equipment shall be in good mechanical condition, free of any fluid leaks. All
equipment will be clean and free of debris before introduced to work site. Equipment is
subject to inspection at the start and during the project. Any equipment that appears to not
meet these criteria shall be removed from the project site at the request of the Client’s
representative and at no additional cost to the Client.
2.6 Meetings and progress reviews
The Contractor shall meet with City Staff as necessary or as otherwise agreed upon by both
parties to review progress and project expectations throughout the build.
2.7 What contractor provides
The Contractor shall provide the necessary supervision, labor, equipment and tools to perform
specified trail construction on identified trails and sites, including fuel for any mechanized
equipment or tools and any and all personal protection and safety equipment that may be
required.
2.8 Timetable
The Contractor shall provide an approximate timetable and schedule detailing how all project
work will be met.
2.9 Guarantee and Warranty
A one (1) year guarantee and warranty will be provided by the Contractor on all work of this
project. Any portions needing replacement or repair within one (1) year from the date of
written acceptance by the City shall be completed by the Contractor at their expense, within a
time frame agreed upon by the City.
SECTION 3: FINAL INSPECTION
3.1 Final inspection
At the conclusion of the work, the contractor shall demonstrate to the City that the work is fully
complete and in compliance with contract specifications. Any deficiencies shall be promptly and
permanently corrected by the contractor at the contractor’s expense prior to final acceptance
of the work. The City also expects the contractor to provide a GIS file to be provided of the
final trail route.
SECTION 4: TIMELINE AND SCHEDULE
4.1 Optional Pre-bid Site Visit
A site visit may be arranged with the project manager prior to bid submission. Please contact
Ben Prchal at bprchal@lakeelmo.org to arrange a visit.
4.2 Proposal submission deadline (March 30, 2018)
Proposals must be submitted to City Hall - bprchal@lakeelmo.org no later than April XXX,
20XX to be considered.
4.3 Work Complete (October 12, 20XX)
The City of Lake Elmo would like to begin the project as soon as conditions will allow and
achieve a completion date of Fall 2020.
SECTION 5: PROPOSAL SUBMISSION PACKAGE
Each bid proposal must be delivered via email to bprchal@lakeelmo.org by March 30, 20XX.
The proposal package must contain each of the following in the order which they are listed.
•Complete the bid worksheet. If more space is needed, please provide a separate sheet
and indicate that a separate sheet is being used on the form.
•A recommended project schedule and timetable.
•Three references from previous trail construction projects.
•Portfolio containing descriptions and pictures of at least three past projects similar to this
project. Project descriptions shall include short explanation of work performed, client,
project location, dates, and duration.
•As estimation of future annual trail maintenance costs including materials.
•The Contractor shall include in the proposal price the cost to provide the following:
o Letter of Surety, stating ability to obtain a Performance Bond, and Labor and
Material Bond for 100% of the project amount.
Any and all questions or clarifications shall be submitted via email to the project contact no
later than March 22, 20XX. All questions, comments and answers provided shall be
distributed via email to all respondents who requested a copy of the RFP package.
SECTION 6: BASIS FOR AWARD AND RIGHT OF REJECTION
6.1 Basis for award
The City reserves the rights to eliminate from consideration for award any or all offers at any
time prior to the award of the contract; to negotiate with bidders in the competitive range;
and to award the contract to the bidders submitting the bid determined to represent the best
values.
6.2 Right of rejection
The City reserves the right to waive any informality in any bid, to reject any or all bids in whole
or part, with or without cause, and/or to accept the proposal that in their judgment will be in
the best interest of the City of Lake Elmo and its Citizens.
6.3 Qualifications and experience
The qualifications and experience of the Contractor in completing similar work will be given
equal weight to price of the bids in determining value of qualified bids. It is considered in the
best interest of the City to allow consideration of award to the lowest bidder or most qualified
bidder regardless of cost.
6.4 Additional information
The City reserves the right to request that the bidder supply additional information prior to
the award of the contract should such action be deemed in the Client's best interest.
SECTION 7: BID WORKSHEETS
7.1 Bid Worksheet A (Please know an overflow sheet may be used. Is used indicate so on the form)
Company name:____________________________________________
Contact person:____________________________________________
Contact person’s phone number:______________________________
Contact person’s email:_____________________________________
Company address:___________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
Statement and Detailed Approach to the Project:
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________
References- Please insert names, address, phone numbers and description of similar projects
completed.
1.____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
2.____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
3.____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
Provide a detailed list of likely project team members, including skill sets and relevant
experience.
Provide a list of the equipment and tools intended to be used in completing the scope of
work.
Provide a recommended schedule/timetable that allows for work completion per the
specified schedule.
Provide a list of other certifications or memberships, such as the Professional Trail
Builders Association (PTBA).
7.2 Bid Worksheet B
●Quantities for each Trail are estimated. Final quantities may change, but the unit price
will be fixed.
●Feature types (as defined in section 9.2) should be separated into individual line items.
●Feature quantities shall be determined by Contractor.
●Provide cost for one round trip mobilization and associated contractor travel fees.
Sunfish Lake Mountain Bike Trail
Type of Work: Unit of Measure: Price/Unit: Est. Cost:
_________ _________
linear feet _________ _________
_________ _________
Est. Quantity:
22,158
22,158
1
1
Subtotal: ___________
Field Layout/
Flagging Tread
Construction
Mapping File
Mobilization
linear feet
_________ _________
_________ _________
_________ _________
_________ _________
___________
PART B: PROJECT DETAIL
SECTION 8: FINISHED TRAIL CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE GUIDELINES
8.1 Trail Design
The construction of this trail must be guided by the sustainable trail principles promulgated by
accepted resources such as the current editions of the Trail Solutions; IMBA’s Guide to Building
Sweet Single-track, Managing Mountain Biking; IMBA’s Guide to Providing Great Riding, Bike
Parks; IMBA’s Guide to New School Trails, and the USDA’s Trail Construction and Maintenance
Notebook.
8.2 Bike Specific Trail Flow
The bike trails proposed for Sunfish Lake would be narrow trails called single-track. Once
established, single-track trails average 18-24” in width, are not paved, reach a broad range of
riders and are designed to flow through natural areas with gradual inclines and declines in
topography. The City is hopeful of modern trail design and construction uses sustainable trail
building techniques. The City would like the Contractor to build single-track trails that can have
minimal impact on the environment, resist erosion through proper design, construction and
maintenance, co-exist with the natural environment and blend with the surrounding area:
· Synergy with the landscape: Making the most of what the natural terrain contours present.
· Opposition to user forces: Flow trails maximize the efficiencies afforded by using a bicycle,
and are designed to counteract forces that direct a user off the trail. Bermed turns and
cambered tread surfaces, for example, promote traction, safety, sustainability and enjoyment.
·Conservation of momentum: the ideal trail avoids “flow killers” such as sharp turns,
incongruent features and disjointed climbs and descents. Instead, it utilizes undulations and
cambered turns to reward smooth, deliberate riding and maximize forward motions. A flow
trail encourages a better understanding of the bicyclist/bicycle interface, allowing riders to
reach that unique sensation of floating through the landscape
· Leading the user forward: A sense of discovery, combined with a design that maximizes a
rider’s forward momentum, helps to draw the user forward. The trail is never repetitive or
predictable, nor is it “awkward”, with a variety and innovation combining to create an intuitive
feel.
8.3 Trail Construction Best Practices - Staff would like the contractor to pay attention to the
graphics page following the descriptions.
To satisfy erosion and sediment control requirements, the trail must be finished as the project
advances. Ideally, all roughed-in corridor will be finished the same day. Any segments
requiring delayed finishing should be planned out in advance to finish as quickly as possible.
8.4 Corridor Clearing
Corridor clearing shall be confined to within five (5’) feet of the trail and back-slope edges. The
City may expect wider clearing where the mountain bike trail crosses over an existing walking
trail.
8.5 Trail Flagging
A flag line or marked line will be pre-installed by the Contractor (at a minimum of every 50
feet) marking the desired corridor, but only suggests the tread location based on the Master
Trail Plan. The actual tread location depends on finer analysis and will need to be laid out using
pin flags at a minimum of 20 ft. intervals.
8.6 Debris
Cut and scatter all branches and brush cut as part of the trail development. No debris shall be
left within ten (10) feet of the trail. Butt-ends of any sawed limbs must face away from the trail.
8.7 Rocks
All rock embedded in the trail surface should be stable. When used in structures, care will be
taken to match construction rock to rocks native to the area. Non-native rock may not be
imported into the park or work area without approval of the City.
8.8 Woody Material
Woody material such as stumps, logs and brush shall be removed from the trail tread. No
stumps less than twelve (12”) inches in diameter shall be left within five (5’) feet of the trail
tread.
8.9 Fall Zone Clearing
Areas adjacent to dynamic trail segments where visitors have a greater potential to exit the
immediate trail corridor will be cleared of impact focusers; butt-end branches, stumps and
rocks under six (6) inches in diameter.
8.10 Back-Slope/ Out-Slope
Back-slope of trail should be graded to three-to-one (3:1) slope or until it matches the existing
slope. In areas where the back-slope has the potential to become part of the active tread it
must be finished to trail tread specifications.
Out-slope should range between 3-5% towards the downhill side of the trail.
8.11 Trail, Finished Condition
Hand finishing and grading of the trail tread, back-slope, down-slope spoils, and drainage
features shall result in a surface that matches the texture of the surrounding forest floor while
enabling water to drain off the trail.
8.12 Spoils Stabilization
All excavated material not used in the trail tread or other trail structures must be stabilized.
Spoils shall be distributed in a thin layer adjacent to the trail tread. When possible, spoils
should be mulched with native materials to discourage erosion while native seed stocks
reestablished.
8.13 Turns
All turns are in-sloped or "bermed" where appropriate. Use generally acceptable values for
turn radii and grades across the turns. All turns must include an entrance and exit rolling grade
dip.
8.14 Grade Reversals
A designed grade reversal or constructed rolling grade dip should occur as often as necessary.
Any grade reversal must be strongly anchored to discourage short cutting. The uphill and
downhill cuts of the trail also should not exceed more than 10% of the slope of the hill/
elevation.
Grade reversals also double as flow elements: rollers and pump/rhythm sections. In this
context, grade reversal shape, size and placement should reflect its placement within the
system. Specific details will be determined by the contractor in partnership with the City.
8.15 Above Grade Earthen Structures
Any portion of trail above the grade of its surroundings must be approved by the City in terms
of design and material before construction.
Fill structures must have a fill slope of at least two-to-one (2:1) or the angle of repose of the
local soil, whichever is greater. A retaining wall may be substituted for a fill slope with prior
permission of the City. Fill structures must be completely stabilized and compacted.
Acceptable techniques include track-packing or compaction via a dedicated tamping unit.
Raw soil faces that do not become tread must be mulched and seeded in the same fashion as
spoils and satisfy the terms of the project erosion control methodologies.
Examples of above-grade earthen structures include grade-reversals (“rollers”) and turn pads
on in-sloped switchbacks.
8.16 Water Diversions
The majority of the tread should be out-sloped. When not possible or desirable due to
purpose-built in-sloping, resource concerns or obstruction, water can be directed down the
trail for up to six (6) feet before a water diversion location (grader reversal).
8.17 Invasive Species
To reduce the spread of invasive plant species, the following protocols are required:
1 All hand tools and mechanized equipment must be free of invasive seeds and clean of any
dirt and mud when entering the project site.
2 Consideration should be made while trail clearing and construction through areas occupied
by invasive species (such areas to be identified by the client) as to not propagate as
construction progresses.
3 Imported surface/organic material is prohibited.
8.18 Filter Strips
Filter strips are vegetated areas down-slope of the trail corridor intended to treat sheet flows
coming off the tread. Filter strips function by slowing down flow velocities, filtering out
sediments and providing an opportunity for infiltration into the underlying soils. Properly
mulched spoils may be designated as part of the filter strip. Filter strips shall not be used as
regular travel-ways for equipment and materials. Areas with inadequate filter strip capacity
above water-ways may require installation of formal erosion control measures to satisfy
erosion and sediment control methodologies.
8.19 Mechanized Equipment Best Practices
All track marks will be raked smooth. Affected area will be finished to have a natural shape,
spoils piles rounded, smoothed and cleared of significant brush, blade edges blended, etc. A
spill kit suitable for five gallons of fluid will be onsite and within 200 yards of mechanized
equipment whenever equipment is being operated.
8.20 Preservation of Vegetation
The Contractor shall exercise care to preserve the natural landscape, including trees and
shrubs, and shall conduct construction operations to prevent any unnecessary
destruction, scarring, or defacing of the natural surroundings in the vicinity of the work. Except
where clearing is required for permanent works or excavation operations, all trees, native
shrubbery, and vegetation, shall be preserved and protected from damage by the Contractor's
construction operations and equipment. The City would not like to see trees larger than 8
inches in diameter removed.
All unnecessary destruction, scarring, damage or defacing of the landscape resulting from the
Contractor's operations, shall be repaired, replanted, reseeded or otherwise corrected as
directed by the City and at the Contractor's expense.
After completion of the work, all areas disturbed by construction that do not require
landscaping or planting, shall be scarified and left in a condition which will facilitate natural
vegetation, provide for proper drainage and prevent erosion.
8.21 Ground Disturbance
The grading limits along the trail corridor are defined by the approved tread width plus
additional width defined by the required back-sloping, unless further excavation is required for
prescribed features, as approved, and performed according to 8.20. Rutting should be avoided
outside grading limits along the corridor, by limiting traffic intensity and avoiding wet soil
conditions, and corrected as per 8.20.
3-5%
SECTION 9: MAPS
9.1 Field Design - Site Topography
9.2 Soil Analysis
●Map with Soil Types
9.3 Access, Supply and Staging
155D
1040
302C
896D
1847
896D
155C
49B
454D
302C
452
120
452
W
155C
155C
454F
302C
W
302B
49C
301B
W
W
507
1055
449
W
454D
W
155C
49C49B
155C
301B
302B
302C
49B
49C
1040
449
452
454D
454F
507
1055
1847
896D
W
Soil Classifications 9.2
DATA: USDA , Washington County
³
Sunfish Lake ParkSoils Map
Please reference the list of soils that outlines their characteristics.
Off-Road Motorcycle Trails—Washington County, Minnesota
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
2/5/2019
Page 1 of 7
49
8
2
7
0
0
49
8
3
0
0
0
49
8
3
3
0
0
49
8
3
6
0
0
49
8
3
9
0
0
49
8
4
2
0
0
49
8
2
7
0
0
49
8
3
0
0
0
49
8
3
3
0
0
49
8
3
6
0
0
49
8
3
9
0
0
49
8
4
2
0
0
49
8
4
5
0
0
505700 506000 506300 506600 506900 507200 507500 507800 508100 508400
505700 506000 506300 506600 506900 507200 507500 507800 508100 508400
45° 0' 50'' N
92
°
5
5
'
4
4
'
'
W
45° 0' 50'' N
92
°
5
3
'
3
1
'
'
W
44° 59' 48'' N
92
°
5
5
'
4
4
'
'
W
44° 59' 48'' N
92
°
5
3
'
3
1
'
'
W
N
Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 15N WGS84
0 500 1000 2000 3000
Feet
0 150 300 600 900
Meters
Map Scale: 1:13,300 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet.
MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION
Area of Interest (AOI)
Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
Soil Rating Polygons
Very limited
Somewhat limited
Not limited
Not rated or not available
Soil Rating Lines
Very limited
Somewhat limited
Not limited
Not rated or not available
Soil Rating Points
Very limited
Somewhat limited
Not limited
Not rated or not available
Water Features
Streams and Canals
Transportation
Rails
Interstate Highways
US Routes
Major Roads
Local Roads
Background
Aerial Photography
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at
1:15,800.
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
measurements.
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL:
Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator
projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts
distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the
Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more
accurate calculations of distance or area are required.
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as
of the version date(s) listed below.
Soil Survey Area: Washington County, Minnesota
Survey Area Data: Version 14, Oct 9, 2018
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales
1:50,000 or larger.
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Jul 1, 2013—Sep 13,
2016
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor
shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.
Off-Road Motorcycle Trails—Washington County, Minnesota
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
2/5/2019
Page 2 of 7
Off-Road Motorcycle Trails
Map unit
symbol
Map unit name Rating Component
name (percent)
Rating reasons
(numeric
values)
Acres in AOI Percent of AOI
12D Emmert gravelly
loamy coarse
sand, 15 to 25
percent slopes
Somewhat
limited
Emmert (90%)Too sandy (0.50)2.1 0.3%
49 Antigo silt loam,
0 to 2 percent
slopes
Somewhat
limited
Antigo (80%)Dusty (0.00)18.5 2.2%
Billyboy (8%)Dusty (0.00)
Sconsin (5%)Depth to
saturated zone
(0.50)
Dusty (0.00)
Rosholt (3%)Dusty (0.00)
Brill (2%)Depth to
saturated zone
(0.50)
Dusty (0.00)
49B Antigo silt loam,
2 to 6 percent
slopes
Somewhat
limited
Antigo (80%)Dusty (0.00)74.1 9.0%
Billyboy (5%)Dusty (0.00)
Sconsin (5%)Depth to
saturated zone
(0.50)
Dusty (0.00)
Rosholt (5%)Dusty (0.00)
Brill (3%)Depth to
saturated zone
(0.50)
Dusty (0.00)
49C Antigo silt loam,
6 to 15
percent slopes
Very limited Antigo (85%)Water erosion
(1.00)
18.0 2.2%
Dusty (0.00)
Ossmer (2%)Depth to
saturated zone
(1.00)
Dusty (0.00)
120 Brill silt loam Somewhat
limited
Brill (90%)Dusty (0.01)15.5 1.9%
153B Santiago silt
loam, 2 to 6
percent slopes
Somewhat
limited
Santiago (90%)Dusty (0.01)84.8 10.3%
155B Chetek sandy
loam, 0 to 6
percent slopes
Somewhat
limited
Chetek (90%)Dusty (0.00)3.8 0.5%
Off-Road Motorcycle Trails—Washington County, Minnesota
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
2/5/2019
Page 3 of 7
Map unit
symbol
Map unit name Rating Component
name (percent)
Rating reasons
(numeric
values)
Acres in AOI Percent of AOI
155C Chetek sandy
loam, 6 to 12
percent slopes
Somewhat
limited
Chetek (90%)Dusty (0.00)71.5 8.6%
155D Chetek sandy
loam, 12 to 25
percent slopes
Somewhat
limited
Chetek (90%)Dusty (0.00)133.4 16.1%
177B Gotham loamy
sand, 1 to 6
percent slopes
Somewhat
limited
Gotham (90%)Too sandy (0.57)30.7 3.7%
177C Gotham loamy
sand, 6 to 12
percent slopes
Somewhat
limited
Gotham (90%)Too sandy (0.57)0.3 0.0%
264 Freeon silt loam,
2 to 6 percent
slopes
Very limited Freeon (80%)Depth to
saturated zone
(1.00)
6.6 0.8%
Dusty (0.01)
Magnor (10%)Depth to
saturated zone
(1.00)
Dusty (0.01)
Capitola (3%)Depth to
saturated zone
(1.00)
Ponding (1.00)
Dusty (0.01)
Freeon, very
stony (2%)
Depth to
saturated zone
(1.00)
Large stones
content (0.50)
Dusty (0.01)
266 Freer silt loam Very limited Freer (90%)Depth to
saturated zone
(1.00)
6.2 0.8%
Dusty (0.01)
301B Lindstrom silt
loam, 2 to 4
percent slopes
Somewhat
limited
Lindstrom (90%)Dusty (0.01)5.3 0.6%
302B Rosholt sandy
loam, 2 to 6
percent slopes
Somewhat
limited
Rosholt (80%)Dusty (0.00)43.4 5.2%
Scott Lake
(10%)
Dusty (0.00)
Antigo (5%)Dusty (0.00)
Chetek (3%)Dusty (0.00)
302C Rosholt sandy
loam, 6 to 15
percent slopes
Somewhat
limited
Rosholt (85%)Dusty (0.00)67.9 8.2%
Chetek (7%)Dusty (0.00)
Scott Lake (2%)Dusty (0.00)
Off-Road Motorcycle Trails—Washington County, Minnesota
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
2/5/2019
Page 4 of 7
Map unit
symbol
Map unit name Rating Component
name (percent)
Rating reasons
(numeric
values)
Acres in AOI Percent of AOI
342C Kingsley sandy
loam, 6 to 12
percent slopes
Not limited Kingsley (90%)0.7 0.1%
367B Campia silt
loam, 0 to 8
percent slopes
Somewhat
limited
Campia (90%)Dusty (0.01)2.7 0.3%
449 Crystal Lake silt
loam, 1 to 3
percent slopes
Somewhat
limited
Crystal Lake
(90%)
Dusty (0.01)2.6 0.3%
452 Comstock silt
loam
Somewhat
limited
Comstock (90%)Depth to
saturated zone
(0.44)
21.2 2.6%
Dusty (0.01)
454B Mahtomedi
loamy sand, 0
to 6 percent
slopes
Somewhat
limited
Mahtomedi
(90%)
Too sandy (0.72)4.3 0.5%
454C Mahtomedi
loamy sand, 6
to 12 percent
slopes
Somewhat
limited
Mahtomedi
(90%)
Too sandy (0.72)5.6 0.7%
454D Mahtomedi
loamy sand,
12 to 25
percent slopes
Somewhat
limited
Mahtomedi
(90%)
Too sandy (0.72)25.4 3.1%
454F Mahtomedi
loamy sand,
25 to 40
percent slopes
Somewhat
limited
Mahtomedi
(90%)
Too sandy (0.72)3.8 0.5%
Slope (0.22)
456 Barronett silt
loam
Very limited Barronett (85%)Depth to
saturated zone
(1.00)
2.7 0.3%
Ponding (1.00)
Dusty (0.01)
507 Poskin silt loam Somewhat
limited
Poskin (90%)Depth to
saturated zone
(0.44)
13.2 1.6%
Dusty (0.01)
896D Mahtomedi-
Kingsley
complex, 12 to
25 percent
slopes
Somewhat
limited
Mahtomedi
(60%)
Too sandy (0.72)62.7 7.6%
1029 Pits, gravel Not rated Pits, gravel
(100%)
5.7 0.7%
1033 Udifluvents Not rated Udifluvents
(90%)
0.5 0.1%
1040 Udorthents Not rated Udorthents
(90%)
58.7 7.1%
Off-Road Motorcycle Trails—Washington County, Minnesota
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
2/5/2019
Page 5 of 7
Map unit
symbol
Map unit name Rating Component
name (percent)
Rating reasons
(numeric
values)
Acres in AOI Percent of AOI
1055 Aquolls and
Histosols,
ponded
Very limited Histosols,
ponded (50%)
Depth to
saturated zone
(1.00)
1.5 0.2%
Organic matter
content (1.00)
Ponding (1.00)
Dusty (0.01)
Aquolls, ponded
(50%)
Depth to
saturated zone
(1.00)
Ponding (1.00)
Dusty (0.01)
1847 Barronett silt
loam, sandy
substratum
Very limited Barronett, sandy
substratum
(85%)
Depth to
saturated zone
(1.00)
17.6 2.1%
Ponding (1.00)
Dusty (0.01)
W Water Not rated Water (100%)16.2 2.0%
Totals for Area of Interest 827.0 100.0%
Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI
Somewhat limited 692.6 83.7%
Very limited 52.6 6.4%
Not limited 0.7 0.1%
Null or Not Rated 81.2 9.8%
Totals for Area of Interest 827.0 100.0%
Off-Road Motorcycle Trails—Washington County, Minnesota
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
2/5/2019
Page 6 of 7
Description
Off-road motorcycle trails are intended primarily for recreational use. They
require little or no site preparation. They are not covered with surfacing material
or vegetation. Considerable compaction of the soil material is likely.
The ratings are based on the soil properties that influence erodibility, trafficability,
dustiness, and the ease of revegetation. These properties are stoniness, slope,
depth to a water table, ponding, flooding, and texture of the surface layer.
The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Rating class terms indicate the extent
to which the soils are limited by all of the soil features that affect the specified
use. "Not limited" indicates that the soil has features that are very favorable for
the specified use. Good performance and very low maintenance can be
expected. "Somewhat limited" indicates that the soil has features that are
moderately favorable for the specified use. The limitations can be overcome or
minimized by special planning, design, or installation. Fair performance and
moderate maintenance can be expected. "Very limited" indicates that the soil has
one or more features that are unfavorable for the specified use. The limitations
generally cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, or
expensive installation procedures. Poor performance and high maintenance can
be expected.
Numerical ratings indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are
shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations
between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the
use (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (0.00).
The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying
Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil
Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen. An aggregated
rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit
are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit. The
percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to
help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the
rating presented.
Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit. The
ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be
viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil
Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to
validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given
site.
Rating Options
Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition
Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified
Tie-break Rule: Higher
Off-Road Motorcycle Trails—Washington County, Minnesota
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
2/5/2019
Page 7 of 7
Stillwater Boulevard.
DATA: USDA , Washington County
³
Sunfish Lake ParkTopography Map
Elevation Map at 2 ft. Contour Intervals
Proposed Mountain Bike Trail
Proposed Walking and Bike Trail
Existing Trail
Stillwater Boulevard.
14
42nd
K
e
l
v
i
n
34th
33rd
34th
Ja
m
a
c
a
³
Sunfish Lake ParkStaging Map
Proposed Mountain Bike TralWalking and Mountain Bike TrailExisting Multi Use TrailWetlands
Staging Area
Access and Staging Map
Stillwater Boulevard.
STAFF REPORT
DATE: May 20, 2019
ITEM #:
TO: Parks Commission
FROM: Kristina Handt, City Administrator
AGENDA ITEM: 2020-2024 Parks CIP
REVIEWED BY: Ben Prchal, Planner
Marty Powers, Public Works Director
BACKGROUND:
A Capital Improvement Program, or CIP, is a multi-year (typically 5 years) capital expenditure plan
for a City’s infrastructure (such as streets, parks and utility systems), and equipment and public
buildings. It identifies the major projects needed and desired by the community, their potential costs
and how they would be financed. A project identified and budgeted through the CIP does not commit
the city to that project. The City Council must specifically authorize each one, and the associated
funding before any project may proceed. When the CIP is reviewed (ideally annually, in conjunction
with the budgeting process) projects may go forward as planned, advance ahead of schedule, be
removed entirely, or new projects may be added, these adjustments are dependent upon changes in
circumstances and priorities.
The Minnesota Land Planning Act requires that the implementation plan portion of the
Comprehensive Plan include a CIP for major infrastructure needs (transportation, wastewater, water
supply, parks and open space) for a five-year time period. Cities often expand the scope of their CIPs
to include other capital needs (major equipment replacements, for example) and sometimes look
beyond the five-year time period, up to 20 years in the future for some projects. Such projects
represent more of a “wish-list” that can be evaluated each time the plan is updated.
As a part of the Comprehensive Plan, the CIP has some legal standing. Minnesota Statutes Chapter
473.865 provides that “a local governmental unit shall not adopt any official control or fiscal device
which is in conflict with its comprehensive plan.” A fiscal device includes a budget or bond issue; so
it is important that the plan and CIP be kept up to date and in synch with city budgets.
The primary benefit of a CIP is as a financial planning tool, to help the city plan for the impact of
capital needs on future budgets and property taxes, and to help forecast the need for borrowing to
undertake major projects. The information developed as part of the capital planning process can help
document the need for various projects and help the City Council sort out competing priorities.
Lake Elmo’s CIP includes all capital projects that cost at least $25,000 and have a useful life span of
five years or longer.
ISSUE BEFORE COMMISSION:
What parks improvements should be included in the 2020-2024 CIP? When should they be completed?
PROPOSAL DETAILS/ANALYSIS:
Included in your packet is a document listing all of the City parks and trail projects staff is aware of at this
time. Note that we have reduced the amount shown for the Central greenway Corridor only because of the
five year limitation. It has been aligned to coincide with projects that Washington County has in their
2019-2023 CIP. More costs will be added as more segments of the trails are planned. City costs for the
full build out may be around $3 million depending on grants, development and county cost share.
The commission may also want to consider putting a place holder in the CIP for improvements needed to
other city trails throughout the community. Public works staff will be working over the summer to
review all city trails and develop a maintenance plan and long range improvement plan that could be
included next year in the 2021-2025 CIP.
Other Items? Any other items the Parks Commission would like to see in the 2020-2024 CIP need to be
identified. Each member should come prepared to identify their top 5 priorities for the next 5 years.
The commission can then also assign a priority to each project based upon the following framework:
1. Critical or urgent, high-priority projects that should be done if at all possible; a special effort
should be made to find sufficient funding for all of the projects in this group.
2. Very important, high-priority projects that should be done as funding becomes available.
3. Important and worthwhile projects to be considered if funding is available; may be deferred to a
subsequent year.
4. Less important, low-priority projects; desirable but not essential.
5. Future Consideration
Items Scheduled for 2019. There are projects scheduled for 2019 that have been planned for but the
funds have not been spent yet. Those projects are listed below.
- Lions Park – about $93,000 more related to the improvements in the Old Village Phase 4 project
- Village Preserve/Wildflower Park-about $105,000 for new park
- Pebble Park- no bids but budgeted amount is $65,000 for paving the parking area, development of
two volleyball courts and lighting and security features. Resurfacing of tennis courts and
basketball court. It is unlikely that all of these improvements can be completed with the stated
budget. As we have seen, volleyball courts alone cost about $10,000 apiece. The parking lot was
not able to be paved with the road project in the area. The parking lot at the library for example
cost about $75,000. Adjustments will need to be made to the budget or the project scope.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The fiscal impact is dependent upon project selection and available funds. The City’s parkland dedication
fund as of 5.3.2019 is $667,191
2019 Expenses still to come:
Village Preserve/Wildflower $105,000
Lions $93,000
Pebble Park $65,000
TOTAL 2019 Expenses $263,000
Incoming Funds in 2019:
Phase 3 of Royal Golf $140,767 For Park Dedication and tree mitigation. Funds may not be received
until 2020 due to final plat extension. There will likely be one more phase of the
Royal Golf development that will bring in a similar amount of funding post 2020.
The $1 million dedicated to ballfields is required with Phase 3 which could come
in either 2019 or 2020.
Bentley Village Will be required to pay 10% of land value with each phase expected to begin in
2019 (estimate $280,000).
Continental Apts Will be required to pay 10% of land value. One phase expected in 2019
(estimate $140,000)
Legacy at Northstar City will receive payment for the equivalent of about 3 acres in future
phases. Estimate is $60,000 post 2020.
Wyndham $75,000 in 2019. Expected to complete all in one phase.
Expected Fund Balance as of 12/31/2019 - $822,958
2020 Projected Project Cost(s)
Inwood Park $150,000
Sunfish $120,000
Proposed Budget for 2020 $270,000
OPTIONS:
1) Commission identifies additional projects to add to the 2020-2024 CIP
2) No further projects are added so just the previously-identified projects would be forwarded on in the
review process by Finance and Council.
ATTACHMENTS:
• 2020-2024 Draft Capital Improvement Plan for Parks
Capital Improvement Plan - 2020 - 2024
City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota
PROJECTS BY FUNDING SOURCE
2020 2024thru
TotalSourceProject #Priority 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Grants/Donation
PR-017 1,000,0001,000,000New or Refurbished Ballfields 1
1,000,0001,000,000Grants/Donation Total
Park Dedication Fund
PR-007 210,000120,000 90,000Sunfish Lake Park Improvements 3
PR-009 50,00050,000Central Greenway Regional Trail 3
PR-018 150,000150,000New Park Development 4
PR-019 25,00025,000Dog Park 4
435,000270,000 90,000 75,000Park Dedication Fund Total
Vehicle Replacement Fund
PR-015 90,00090,000Dump Truck 3
PR-020 37,00037,000Utility Vehicile/Trail Groomer 3
127,00090,000 37,000Vehicle Replacement Fund Total
1,562,000270,000 90,000 1,090,000 75,000 37,000GRAND TOTAL
Wednesday, May 15, 2019Produced Using the Plan-It Capital Planning Software
Capital Improvement Plan - 2020 - 2024
City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota Contact City Administrator
2020 2024thru Department Parks and Recreation
Description
(2020)
Development of 4 miles of mountain biking trails at $30,000 per mile per Trail Source
(2021)
Paving of trails
Cost estimate:
Improve trails to ADA standards in Area 2 (prairie area): $90,000 for 6 foot wide asphalt 1 mile trail
Project #PR-007
Priority 3 Important
Justification
Explore Mt biking at direction of Council (10/17)
ADA trails consistent with Development Guide for Sunfish Lake Park as approved by MN Land Trust
Budget Impact/Other
Useful Life
Project Name Sunfish Lake Park Improvements Category Park Improvements
Type Improvement
Status Active
Total20202021202220232024Expenditures
210,000120,000 90,000Construction/Maintenance
120,000 90,000 210,000Total
Total20202021202220232024Funding Sources
210,000120,000 90,000Park Dedication Fund
120,000 90,000 210,000Total
Wednesday, May 15, 2019Produced Using the Plan-It Capital Planning Software
Capital Improvement Plan - 2020 - 2024
City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota Contact City Administrator
2020 2024thru Department Parks and Recreation
Description
Central Greenway Regional Trail beginning at CSAH 19 and I-94, traveling through Lake Elmo Park Reserve, east along Stillwater Bvld to
Manning Ave and then north to TH36.
Project #PR-009
Priority 3 Important
Justification
Trail would address the following community needs:
-Deliver students safely to school
-Bring people to our downtown
-Bring people to our parks
-Provide safe recreation
-Trail Diversity-Provide feel of Lake Elmo
-Omit need to bike down Hwy 5/CSAH 14
-Compatibility with public grant opportunities
-Compatibility with private funding opportunities
Feasibility of land acquisition will be a consideration
Trail likely to be built in segments in conjuction with county road projects and as funding allows through Met Council or other state grants
Budget Impact/Other
Additional trails to maintain-labor and materials for snow removal if desired by city
Trail construction cost may be as high as $12 million. City would expect cost share with county as well as grants to offset costs.
2023 costs are for trail through new roundabout at CSAH 19 and CSAH 10
Future costs will be added as they are known
Useful Life
Project Name Central Greenway Regional Trail Category Park Improvements
Type Improvement
Status Active
Total20202021202220232024Expenditures
50,00050,000Construction/Maintenance
50,000 50,000Total
Total20202021202220232024Funding Sources
50,00050,000Park Dedication Fund
50,000 50,000Total
Wednesday, May 15, 2019Produced Using the Plan-It Capital Planning Software
Capital Improvement Plan - 2020 - 2024
City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota Contact Public Works Director
2020 2024thru Department Parks and Recreation
Description
550 dump pickup with hook replaces 2009 vehicle. Truck will have interchangeable boxes and flat beds for multiple uses.
Project #PR-015
Priority 3 Important
Justification
End of Useful life
Budget Impact/Other
Useful Life
Project Name Dump Truck Category Vehicles
Type Equipment
Status Active
Total20202021202220232024Expenditures
90,00090,000Equip/Vehicles/Furnishings
90,000 90,000Total
Total20202021202220232024Funding Sources
90,00090,000Vehicle Replacement Fund
90,000 90,000Total
Wednesday, May 15, 2019Produced Using the Plan-It Capital Planning Software
Capital Improvement Plan - 2020 - 2024
City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota Contact City Administrator
2020 2024thru Department Parks and Recreation
Description
New ballfields to be constructed or refurbished after Tartan ball fields are no longer used by the public
Project #PR-017
Priority 1 Critical
Justification
Replacement of some of the fields at Tartan Park lost to development of Royal Oaks Golf Course Community
Budget Impact/Other
Funding to be provided from developer in development agreement with Royal Golf. Funds to be used for acquisition of land, if necessary, and
builidngor refurbishing of (a) new ballfield(s).
Useful Life 40 years
Project Name New or Refurbished Ballfields Category Park Improvements
Type Improvement
Status Active
Total20202021202220232024Expenditures
1,000,0001,000,000Construction/Maintenance
1,000,000 1,000,000Total
Total20202021202220232024Funding Sources
1,000,0001,000,000Grants/Donation
1,000,000 1,000,000Total
Wednesday, May 15, 2019Produced Using the Plan-It Capital Planning Software
Capital Improvement Plan - 2020 - 2024
City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota Contact City Administrator
2020 2024thru Department Parks and Recreation
Description
New park to be developed in the Wildflower/Village Preserve area in 2019 and in Inwood in 2020
Project #PR-018
Priority 4 Less Important
Justification
Areas identified during development as a park search area to provide recreational opportunities to new residents.
Budget Impact/Other
Useful Life 40 years
Project Name New Park Development Category Park Improvements
Type Improvement
Status Active
Total20202021202220232024Expenditures
150,000150,000Construction/Maintenance
150,000 150,000Total
Total20202021202220232024Funding Sources
150,000150,000Park Dedication Fund
150,000 150,000Total
Wednesday, May 15, 2019Produced Using the Plan-It Capital Planning Software
Capital Improvement Plan - 2020 - 2024
City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota Contact Public Works Director
2020 2024thru Department Parks and Recreation
Description
Parks commission recommended the search and planning for a dog park somewhere near the denser developments
Improvements would be minimal such as fencing
Project #PR-019
Priority 4 Less Important
Justification
Residents on small lots in denser developments need a place to take their dogs for exercise.
By providing a dog park those who let their dogs run off leash in other parks can be redirected
Budget Impact/Other
Useful Life 25 years
Project Name Dog Park Category Park Improvements
Type Improvement
Status Active
Total20202021202220232024Expenditures
25,00025,000Construction/Maintenance
25,000 25,000Total
Total20202021202220232024Funding Sources
25,00025,000Park Dedication Fund
25,000 25,000Total
Wednesday, May 15, 2019Produced Using the Plan-It Capital Planning Software
Capital Improvement Plan - 2020 - 2024
City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota Contact Public Works Director
2020 2024thru Department Parks and Recreation
Description
Replaces 2014 Kubota
Project #PR-020
Priority 3 Important
Justification
End of Useful Life
Budget Impact/Other
Useful Life 10 years
Project Name Utility Vehicile/Trail Groomer Category Vehicles
Type Equipment
Status Active
Total20202021202220232024Expenditures
37,00037,000Equip/Vehicles/Furnishings
37,000 37,000Total
Total20202021202220232024Funding Sources
37,00037,000Vehicle Replacement Fund
37,000 37,000Total
Wednesday, May 15, 2019Produced Using the Plan-It Capital Planning Software
Capital Improvement Plan - 2020 - 2024
City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota Contact City Administrator
2020 2024thru Department Parks and Recreation
Description
(2020)
Development of 4 miles of mountain biking trails at $30,000 per mile per Trail Source
(2021)
Paving of trails
Cost estimate:
Improve trails to ADA standards in Area 2 (prairie area): $90,000 for 6 foot wide asphalt 1 mile trail
Project #PR-007
Priority 3 Important
Justification
Explore Mt biking at direction of Council (10/17)
ADA trails consistent with Development Guide for Sunfish Lake Park as approved by MN Land Trust
Budget Impact/Other
Useful Life
Project Name Sunfish Lake Park Improvements Category Park Improvements
Type Improvement
Status Active
Total20202021202220232024Expenditures
210,000120,000 90,000Construction/Maintenance
120,000 90,000 210,000Total
Total20202021202220232024Funding Sources
210,000120,000 90,000Park Dedication Fund
120,000 90,000 210,000Total
Wednesday, May 15, 2019Produced Using the Plan-It Capital Planning Software
Capital Improvement Plan - 2020 - 2024
City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota Contact City Administrator
2020 2024thru Department Parks and Recreation
Description
Central Greenway Regional Trail beginning at CSAH 19 and I-94, traveling through Lake Elmo Park Reserve, east along Stillwater Bvld to
Manning Ave and then north to TH36.
Project #PR-009
Priority 3 Important
Justification
Trail would address the following community needs:
-Deliver students safely to school
-Bring people to our downtown
-Bring people to our parks
-Provide safe recreation
-Trail Diversity-Provide feel of Lake Elmo
-Omit need to bike down Hwy 5/CSAH 14
-Compatibility with public grant opportunities
-Compatibility with private funding opportunities
Feasibility of land acquisition will be a consideration
Trail likely to be built in segments in conjuction with county road projects and as funding allows through Met Council or other state grants
Budget Impact/Other
Additional trails to maintain-labor and materials for snow removal if desired by city
Trail construction cost may be as high as $12 million. City would expect cost share with county as well as grants to offset costs.
2023 costs are for trail through new roundabout at CSAH 19 and CSAH 10
Future costs will be added as they are known
Useful Life
Project Name Central Greenway Regional Trail Category Park Improvements
Type Improvement
Status Active
Total20202021202220232024Expenditures
50,00050,000Construction/Maintenance
50,000 50,000Total
Total20202021202220232024Funding Sources
50,00050,000Park Dedication Fund
50,000 50,000Total
Wednesday, May 15, 2019Produced Using the Plan-It Capital Planning Software
Capital Improvement Plan - 2020 - 2024
City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota Contact Public Works Director
2020 2024thru Department Parks and Recreation
Description
550 dump pickup replaces 2009 vehicle. Truck will have interchangeable boxes and flat beds for multiple uses.
Project #PR-015
Priority 3 Important
Justification
End of Useful life
Budget Impact/Other
Useful Life
Project Name Dump Truck Category Vehicles
Type Equipment
Status Active
Total20202021202220232024Expenditures
90,00090,000Equip/Vehicles/Furnishings
90,000 90,000Total
Total20202021202220232024Funding Sources
90,00090,000Vehicle Replacement Fund
90,000 90,000Total
Wednesday, May 15, 2019Produced Using the Plan-It Capital Planning Software
Capital Improvement Plan - 2020 - 2024
City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota Contact City Administrator
2020 2024thru Department Parks and Recreation
Description
New ballfields to be constructed or refurbished after Tartan ball fields are no longer used by the public
Project #PR-017
Priority 1 Critical
Justification
Replacement of some of the fields at Tartan Park lost to development of Royal Oaks Golf Course Community
Budget Impact/Other
Funding to be provided from developer in development agreement with Royal Golf. Funds to be used for acquisition of land, if necessary, and
builidngor refurbishing of (a) new ballfield(s).
Useful Life 40 years
Project Name New or Refurbished Ballfields Category Park Improvements
Type Improvement
Status Active
Total20202021202220232024Expenditures
1,000,0001,000,000Construction/Maintenance
1,000,000 1,000,000Total
Total20202021202220232024Funding Sources
1,000,0001,000,000Grants/Donation
1,000,000 1,000,000Total
Wednesday, May 15, 2019Produced Using the Plan-It Capital Planning Software
Capital Improvement Plan - 2020 - 2024
City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota Contact City Administrator
2020 2024thru Department Parks and Recreation
Description
New park to be developed in the Wildflower/Village Preserve area in 2019 and in Inwood in 2020
Project #PR-018
Priority 4 Less Important
Justification
Areas identified during development as a park search area to provide recreational opportunities to new residents.
Budget Impact/Other
Useful Life 40 years
Project Name New Park Development Category Park Improvements
Type Improvement
Status Active
Total20202021202220232024Expenditures
150,000150,000Construction/Maintenance
150,000 150,000Total
Total20202021202220232024Funding Sources
150,000150,000Park Dedication Fund
150,000 150,000Total
Wednesday, May 15, 2019Produced Using the Plan-It Capital Planning Software
Capital Improvement Plan - 2020 - 2024
City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota Contact Public Works Director
2020 2024thru Department Parks and Recreation
Description
Parks commission recommended the search and planning for a dog park somewhere near the denser developments
Improvements would be minimal such as fencing
Project #PR-019
Priority 4 Less Important
Justification
Residents on small lots in denser developments need a place to take their dogs for exercise.
By providing a dog park those who let their dogs run off leash in other parks can be redirected
Budget Impact/Other
Useful Life 25 years
Project Name Dog Park Category Park Improvements
Type Improvement
Status Active
Total20202021202220232024Expenditures
25,00025,000Construction/Maintenance
25,000 25,000Total
Total20202021202220232024Funding Sources
25,00025,000Park Dedication Fund
25,000 25,000Total
Wednesday, May 15, 2019Produced Using the Plan-It Capital Planning Software
Capital Improvement Plan - 2020 - 2024
City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota Contact Public Works Director
2020 2024thru Department Parks and Recreation
Description
Replaces 2014 Kubota
Project #PR-020
Priority 3 Important
Justification
End of Useful Life
Budget Impact/Other
Useful Life 10 years
Project Name Utility Vehicile/Trail Groomer Category Vehicles
Type Equipment
Status Active
Total20202021202220232024Expenditures
37,00037,000Equip/Vehicles/Furnishings
37,000 37,000Total
Total20202021202220232024Funding Sources
37,00037,000Vehicle Replacement Fund
37,000 37,000Total
Wednesday, May 15, 2019Produced Using the Plan-It Capital Planning Software
STAFF REPORT
DATE: May 20, 2019
ITEM #:
TO: Parks Commission
FROM: Kristina Handt, City Administrator
AGENDA ITEM: Stantec Grant Proposal for Sunfish Lake Natural Resource Management
REVIEWED BY: Ben Prchal, Planner
Marty Powers, Public Works Director
BACKGROUND:
George Johnson mentioned at the March meeting that he had been in contact with city staff about a
proposal from Paul Bockenstedt with Stantec to apply for a grant for buckthorn removal and forest
management in Sunfish Lake Park. Mr. Bockenstedt did provide a letter proposal to public works
last fall. A copy of that letter is included in your packet. Given that bike trails in Sunfish Lake Park
had been given a higher priority for staff time and the possibility of coordination between these two
efforts, staff did not support bringing this proposal forward until this time. Also the grant referenced
is mostly funded in September of each year so there wasn’t an urgency to bring this issue forward
any sooner.
The 2018 budget had included $7,000 for forest management activities in Sunfish Lake Park. The
previous public works director had applied for a grant with Great River Greening in spring 2018.
That proposal did not receive state funding but would have included the following:
Focus on the northeastern side including area right off the main entrance.
$62,000 - Woody invasive removal (Buckthorn and exotic honeysuckle). Could be accomplished
through cut/treat and burn piles or forestry mowing w a follow up foliar treatment of resprouts and
seedlings)
$20,000 - Removal of dead down material. Some of this could be mowed up with a forestry mower,
pile burned or hauled off.
$13,000 – Project management (RFP writing and release through public bid process, hiring
contractor and overseeing all aspects of on the ground work making sure work being done is
compliant to specifications in RFP, Grant administration and reporting)
$95,000 total budget
$88,000 (grant ask from the state)
$7,000 (City cash match)
Since that grant application was not successful, staff instead directed those 2018 funds to weed
treatment and a prescribed prairie burn completed by MN Native Landscapes in the fall.
ISSUE BEFORE COMMISSION:
Would the Commission like for Mr. Bockenstedt to prepare a detailed work plan for consideration in
grant applications related natural resource management at Sunfish Lake Park?
PROPOSAL DETAILS/ANALYSIS:
Stantec has offered to write the grant for no charge and suggests the MN DNR Conservation Partners
Legacy Grant (CPL). FAQs about the grant requirements is attached.
The next steps would be to develop a detailed work plan to include with a grant submission later this
summer. Paul’s suggestions include:
• 10 acres of disturbed pioneer forest restoration (including invasive buckthorn removal, native
woodland seeding, and follow-up treatments)
• 30 to 40 acres of management of oak forest areas (including invasive buckthorn/brush
management and follow-up treatments)
• 5 acres of prairie/pollinator habitat restoration (including site preparation, prescribed burn,
pollinator seeding and grow-in maintenance).
Staff would need to receive more details on the specific tasks and location of tasks proposed above to
render a recommendation. Staff would recommend that any treatments be coordinated with the new bike
trail proposal.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The CPL grant requires a 10% local match. The 2019 parks budget included $10,000 for forest
management at Sunfish Lake Park.
OPTIONS:
1) Motion to seek a detailed proposal from Stantec
2) Motion to recommend to the City Council not to move forward with pursuing a grant
3) Motion to recommend to the City Council that goats be rented for buckthorn removal in Sunfish Lake
Park.
ATTACHMENTS:
• October 28, 2018 Stantec Letter
• CPL FAQs
Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
2335 Highway 36 West, St. Paul MN 55113-3819
October 28, 2018
Attention: Mr. Rob Weldon, Public Works Director
City of Lake Elmo
3445 Ideal Avenue North
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
Dear Rob,
Reference: Sunfish Lake Regional Park Natural Resources Management
Thank you for the opportunity to meet with you and George Johnson recently to learn more about Sunfish
Lake Regional Park and the Sally Manzara Interpretive Nature Center. After learning more about your goals
for the site and the resources you currently have committed to natural resources management at this site, I
am providing a recommendation for the City of Lake Elmo to consider.
After walking Sunfish Lake Park and reviewing existing natural resources information, it’s clear to me that
the site has a great deal of potential for achieving and sustaining gains from active ecological restoration,
including activities such as invasive brush (buckthorn) management, pollinator habitat restoration in
grassland/reconstructed prairie areas, restoration of pioneer/disturbed forest areas, and others.
It is my understanding that the City of Lake Elmo currently has $10,000 dedicated toward natural resources
management at Sunfish Lake Park. Based on the observations I’ve made in the field and the things I’ve
learned from discussing goals for the site with you, I recommend that the City consider utilizing the $10,000
as matching funds for a grant application to accomplish on-the-ground ecological restoration at the site.
While there are number of suitable grants available to accomplish restoration at the site, I would suggest
considering a Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Conservation Partners Legacy (MN DNR CPL)
Grant application. The MN DNR CPL Grant requires a 10% cash and/or in-kind match. This means that the
$10,000 in funds currently set aside by the City could secure an additional $90,000 of CPL funds. As well,
the nature center has a strong volunteer program to conduct activities such as buckthorn management -
that would allow their dedication to be utilized as in-kind matching effort to secure additional CPL funds.
It is my opinion that Lake Elmo is very well situated to secure grant funding to conduct ecological
restoration at Sunfish Lake Park.
I am willing to assist the City on my own time and at no charge with developing a work plan and submitting
a grant application that would be anticipated to total approximately $100,000 to $125,000. I would work
closely with you to develop a detailed work plan and budget that is a good fit for the City and grant program.
I would recommend seeking approval from the Park Commission to utilize the $10,000 in funding currently
allocated for matching grant funds and to proceed with development of a draft grant work plan that could
later be presented to the commission prior to being submitted to a grant program.
October 28, 2018
Mr. Rob Weldon, Public Works Director
Page 2 of 2
Reference: Sunfish Lake Regional Park Natural Resources Management
While the details of a work plan would still need to be defined, I would anticipate that a grant application
work plan would enable initial intense restoration activities and three years of follow-up management for
approximately:
10 acres of disturbed pioneer forest restoration (including invasive buckthorn removal, native
woodland seeding, and follow-up treatments)
30 to 40 acres of management of oak forest areas (including invasive buckthorn/brush
management and follow-up treatments)
5 acres of prairie/pollinator habitat restoration (including site preparation, prescribed burn, pollinator
seeding and grow-in maintenance).
Specifically related to the MN DNR CPL Grant program, the historic application period is September of each
year with a potential second round of applications in January if funds remain from the initial round. If the
City chooses to move forward with making an application to CPL, a potential application could be made in
January 2019 or September 2019.
Again, thank you for the chance to learn more about Sunfish Lake Park and the City’s goals for the site. I
am excited about the potential to help Lake Elmo secure grant funding and look forward to the potential to
help you reach your goals. Please let me know if you have any questions or need additional information.
Regards,
Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
Paul Bockenstedt
Ecologist/Project Manager
Phone: (651) 604-4812
Fax: (651) 636-1311
Paul.Bockenstedt@stantec.com
Attachment:
c.
bp document2
Conservation Partners Legacy Grant Program
Frequently Asked Questions
Applicants
I am a new applicant and don’t have a lot of grant writing experience. Is there anyone that can help
me with the application process?
• The How to Apply webpage is a great place to start. This page will walk you through the process.
• Use the grant cycle comparison chart to see what type of project you should aim for. Then see
details for Traditional, Metro, and Expedited projects. For Traditional and Metro grant requests
under $25,000 the application is streamlined.
• If you have questions, CPL staff are available to help. Applicants are strongly advised to contact
staff before beginning an application to determine whether your project will be eligible and
competitive in the CPL program.
• For small organizations it is often useful to have partners to help with both applying for a grant
and managing a project.
Who can apply for a CPL grant?
• Applicants can include government agencies (cities, counties, conservation districts) that are a
subdivision of the state of Minnesota, federal agencies, federally recognized tribal governments,
and registered 501 (c) 3 nonprofits.
• Private individuals and corporations are not eligible.
Who should fill the different roles in the application?
• Project Manager: This person applies for the grant, is responsible for the project, must be
affiliated with the grantee organization, and will be the main contact.
• Land Manager: This person manages or owns the land where the project is located. The Land
Manager and Project Manager cannot be the same person.
• Fiscal Contact: This person generally manages the grant funds, pays bills, makes payment
requests, etc. The Project Manager and Fiscal Contact can be the same person.
Can work on private lands be funded?
• Work on private lands is only eligible if there is a permanent conservation easement on the
project lands.
Can I use quotes from contractors to estimate my project budget?
• Yes. This is a good way to show that budget details are realistic. We suggest getting multiple
quotes from contractors that specialize in the work you will require. Please note that pre-award
planning cannot be reimbursed. If needed, quotes from contractors outside your local area can
be used to ensure reasonable prices for work are being given.
What insurance documents are required?
Page 1 of 5
Conservation Partners Legacy Grant Program
• Grantees are required to carry insurance that meets or exceeds the requirements of the
landowner whose land they will be working on. Insurance requirements are available on the CPL
website. Applicants should investigate the cost of insurance before submitting an application.
I don’t have access to the Natural Heritage Database system. Can someone review this for me?
• Typically CPL staff will be able to do a Heritage review for applicants who don’t have access to
the database. However, to ensure the review can be completed in time, it must be requested at
least 10 days prior to the application deadline. Accurate maps and a description of project
methods and goals will be required. There is no charge to the applicant if the applicant works
directly with CPL staff for the review.
Can someone review my application before I submit it?
• Yes, CPL staff can do a brief administrative review to ensure your application is complete and
eligible for funding. Please request this at least one week before the application deadline or
staff may not have time to complete your request.
For acquisition projects, is a prior agreement with the current land owner required?
• An agreement is not needed, but a letter of support from the land owner could be an important
supporting statement during the review process.
For acquisition projects, can I get an appraisal before applying for funds? Will the appraisal be
reimbursed?
• An appraisal is helpful to show the actual value of the property, and to provide an accurate
grant proposal budget. However, if an appraisal is done before applying for funds, the cost
cannot be reimbursed. The cost of an appraisal can be used as match if the project is funded, as
long as the appraisal is less than 12 months old.
I’m having trouble obtaining the 10% matching funds, is there any way to avoid this requirement?
• No, 10% matching funds from a non-state source are always required. This helps to encourage
community participation and partnerships among organizations. In addition, there is high
demand for CPL funds, and having a strong match can make a proposal more competitive.
What types of activities are not eligible for CPL funding or match?
The most common ineligible costs include:
• Indirect or overhead costs for basic operational functions (utilities, rent, office supplies)
• Work on sites not approved in the work plan, unless approved in writing from CPL staff prior to
the work being done
• Research
• Education, interpretive signs, outreach, fundraising
• Planning and survey work
• Parking
Page 2 of 5
Conservation Partners Legacy Grant Program
• Capital equipment (e.g., vehicles, trailers, chainsaws, sprayers, etc.)
• Acquisition of land already owned by the state or a subdivision of the state
• Activities on conservation easements that are the responsibility of landowners under terms of
the easement
Are engineering and design costs eligible?
• These costs are not eligible for reimbursement, but may be used for pre-award match if incurred
within 18 months prior to the application deadline. Please see the RFP for details.
Can we get more time to complete our project?
• Most projects will have 3-3 ½ years for completion, depending on when the contract is
executed. Although restoration and enhancement projects often take more than 3-4 years to
complete, CPL contracts cannot be extended. If you anticipate a longer time scale for your
project, we suggest breaking the project into clearly defined phases and using CPL funds for one
phase.
Grantees
When can I start work on my project?
• No work can begin until the contract has received final DNR signatures and you have been
contacted by CPL staff stating that the contract has been executed. This typically happens within
a month after the grant is awarded, but depends largely on how quickly the grantee submits
required documentation. Costs occurring before the grant execution date are not reimbursable.
When are annual reports due?
• Annual Accomplishment Reports are due at the end of the calendar year, but if annual work is
complete, reports may be submitted early.
• Reports should be cumulative, so new information can simply be added to the prior report in
consecutive years. This will make final reporting easier as well.
How do I report acres completed?
• Generally acres completed should be counted only once during the grant period, even if
multiple treatments or activities occur on the same land. Your work plan should reflect this so
final acres are comparable to proposed acres.
Do I need to put up CPL signs at my project sites? How many signs will I need to put up?
• Yes, signage is required by law. Signs display an 18” tall x 9” wide Legacy Logo and are shipped
for free to grantees. CPL staff will contact the project manager to determine how many signs are
needed. CPL staff typically coordinate one sign order for the entire program in the fall of each
year.
Page 3 of 5
Conservation Partners Legacy Grant Program
• We generally suggest having a sign at the major access point(s) to a project area, though the
number is up to the discretion of the land manager. This may be one sign for a small site with
one access point, such as a trailhead or parking lot, or may include many signs for large project
areas with many access points. If you’re unsure how many signs are needed, please contact CPL
staff.
Can I hire new staff to work on my project?
• No, the grantee organization cannot hire new staff (either permanent or temporary) using CPL
funds. Existing paid staff can be reimbursed for up to 7.5% of the grant amount for project
management. Of this amount, 2.5% may be used for grant administration. Personnel costs
beyond 7.5% can be used for in-kind match.
Reimbursements and Payment Requests
Please see the Payment Manual for details regarding reimbursements.
Who submits payments?
• The project manager or financial contact should submit all payments, not the land manager or
contractors. CPL staff can only reimburse the grantee, and grantees are responsible for paying
the contractors.
Where do I submit payments?
• Please submit all payments directly to CPL staff or the general CPL email, not to DNR accounting.
The preferred method of submitting payments is via email.
Can I request reimbursement at any time, or do I need to wait until the end of the grant period?
• Reimbursements can occur at any time and can include some or all of the grant costs. For the
final payment request, the Final Accomplishment Report is required and 5% of the grant amount
will be held back until all match is submitted.
How do I report personnel costs?
• Required documentation includes name of employee(s), dates of work, hours worked, a brief
description of work, and the hourly rate. Supporting documentation for each employee should
include either paystubs, payroll records, or a signed supervisor letter stating that the hours and
rates are correct. The documentation is required for both grant and match funds.
• Personnel rates can include only hourly wage and fringe (FICA/Medicare, retirement, health
insurance).
• Personnel rates cannot include overhead, bonuses or other indirect costs.
• Personnel costs may not exceed 7.5% of the grant amount. Of this amount, up to 2.5% may be
used for grant administration costs. Personnel costs beyond 7.5% of the grant amount may be
used for match.
Page 4 of 5
Conservation Partners Legacy Grant Program
How much can I claim for volunteers?
• As of August 1, 2015, the standard hourly volunteer rate is $20.
• Volunteers providing skilled labor or services may use current market wages if proof of wage can
be provided.
Who do I contact if I have payment questions?
• CPL contact information can be found here.
General Questions
I use a Mac and have trouble using the Adobe pdf fillable forms, what should I do?
• Mac defaults to its own “Preview” program for pdfs, which sometimes doesn’t work for filling in
text boxes. Save the form to your computer and open it in the Adobe platform.
I forgot my password for the grant website. Can I have this reset?
• Try resetting this by clicking on “Forgot My Password” on the application page. Contact CPL staff
if this does not work.
Page 5 of 5
PARKS COMMISSION COMMUNICATION
DATE: May 20, 2019
REGULAR
MOTION
AGENDA ITEM: Sally Manzara Interpretive Nature Center Patio Addition
SUBMITTED BY: Ben Prchal, City Planner
REVIEWED BY: Kristina Handt, City Administrator
BACKGROUND:
At its December 2016 meeting, the Parks Commission reviewed the Draft Sally Manzara Interpretive Nature Center
Development, Lease, License and Operating Agreement (Agreement) between the City and the Friends of the Lake Elmo
Sunfish Lake Park (Friends) for the City to lease an acre of Sunfish Lake Park (Park) to the Friends for the purpose of
constructing the Sally Manzara Interpretive Nature Center. Since then the Nature Center has held several classes and
invited many groups out to the Park. Tony Manzara recently approached the City with hopes to build a patio south of the
Nature Center building.
ISSUE BEFORE COMMISSION:
Would the Commission like to recommend approval of the Construction of the proposed Patio?
PROPOSAL DETAILS/ANALYSIS:
Land Trust Review:
Being that the Land Trust has some jurisdiction over the park, the Nature Center needed to run their proposal past them
and receive approval as well. They submitted their proposal to the Land Trust and have received approval from the Land
Trust. The approving letter has been included as an attachment. The Land Trust believes that the improvement to the
property is in line with their values and does not conflict with the conservation easement over Area 2.
City Review:
From Staffs perspective, the City Code doesn’t necessarily provide specific language to indicate one way or another as to
if a patio a patio should or should not be allowed. Because of this, Staff is reviewing it from the perspective that it would
be allowed because a patio is allowed in any other district so long as the setbacks could be maintained and the impervious
surface allowance is not exceeded. The portion of the park that the patio will go on is 151 acres and the percentage of
impervious surface that is being applied to the property is a severely small number. The proposal consists of a 15 ft. by 35
ft. patio area which measures out to 525 sq.ft.
Regarding the setbacks, the graphic that has been provided is not necessarily helpful in obtaining an accurate setback
distance but Staff can reasonably deduce that there is a sufficient setback. The code for the Public Facility setback is listed
as 50 ft. for accessory buildings. Staff was able to reasonably figure out that the patio would be +/-160 ft. from the property
line.
The next item that Staff would review is the distance to the septic tanks and drain field. Washington County requires a 5
ft. setback from sewage tanks and a 10 ft. setback from drainfields. The patio is setback a sufficient amount from both
features. The blue represents the patio.
Staff recently visited the site and noticed there was still some landscaping/site work around the building that needed to be
finished. Touching up site work can be expected following a new build but Staff will be recommending that the site work,
primarily on the north side (entrance) and the east side of the building be finished up.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Staff does not foresee a fiscal impact for the City.
OPTIONS:
1) Recommend approval of the Sally Manzara Nature Center patio.
2) Recommend denial of the Sally Manzara Nature Center patio.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff views the patio as an improvement to the Nature Center and the park but will be recommending that the remaining
to finish the remaining site work prior to the release of the permit for the patio.
“Motion to recommend approval of the patio as presented subject to the site work being completed”
ATTACHMENTS:
• Patio Proposal
• Land Trust Letter
Patio
— M
April 15, 2019 MINNESOTA LAND TRUST
Kristina Handt, City Administrator
City of Lake Elmo
3800 Laverne Avenue North
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
Re: Sunfish Lake Park (City of Lake Elmo)
Washington County
Our Project File ID #: 2009-387
Patio plan for Sally Manzara Interpretive Nature Center
Dear Ms. Handt:
The Minnesota Land Trust has reviewed the plan submitted by Tony Manzara to construct a new
stamped concrete patio measuring 15 feet by 35 feet, to be located on the south side of the
existing Sally Manzara Interpretive Nature Center building at Sunfish Lake Park. The plan for
the patio is described in an exchange of emails between the City, the Land Trust, and Mr.
Manzara.
Both the nature center and the proposed patio are in "Area 2," as described in Section 3.5 of the
conservation easement protecting Sunfish Lake Park held by the Land Trust.
The proposed patio is consistent with the conservation easement and by this letter, the land trust
hereby approves the plan to construct the patio.
Thanks very much.
Sincerely,
,ns Lars(
Executive Director
cc: Ben Prchal, City Planner
Tony Manzara
2356 University Avenue West I Suite 240 I St. Paul. Minnesota 55114
www.mnland.org I 651-647-9590 I Toll Free: 1-877-MLT-LAND