Editor’s note: The tape malfunctioned during the public comment period of the August 13, 2019 Cook County commissioners’ meeting. Below are the comments delivered by Susan Schubert at that meeting that were unavailable for the public to watch and listen to.
Madam Chairman, Commissioners, County Administrator, County Attorney and Treasurer:
I am here at public mic today to express my concerns that the county board should weigh in on the proposed Border-to-Border route. A group of concerned constituents and myself submitted a petition in the paper recently stating our views. We also sent a petition of 158 local signers opposing the route last summer.
We had requested that the proposed route be brought to the board last June for agenda discussion and were told by the county administrator that he did not believe there was any immediate action about the proposed trail that would fall under the county’s jurisdiction. He also stated he did not think it would be appropriate to bring this up before the second public meeting with DNR on June 19.
Because the commissioners in Clearwater County had already taken action months earlier to oppose the route with an official resolution, the county administrator’s comments and refusal to put us on the agenda, did not make sense to us.
We had also read in the 2017 Forest Township annual meeting minutes that the DNR’s B2B point person, Mary Straka, had stated in a 2017 public meeting that townships could opt out of the route and that Long Lost and Forest townships had already voted to not be included.
Denny Fitzpatrick met with the county administrator.
The county administrator told him the Clearwater County Resolution of Opposition had been rescinded.
He also explained to Denny in an email that he did not know if this was an issue the board would ever take action on, but the DNR would not proceed without affirmation of the road authorities of the proposed route.
We called Clearwater County ourselves and were told the resolution was never rescinded and they sent us their Resolution to Oppose, which I forwarded by email to the commissioners and to the county administrator.
At the June 19 DNR meeting, Commissioner Doo-Kirk asked Denny to put his iPhone away for recording because the meeting was being recorded and would be posted like every other commissioner meeting. Denny obliged.
When we couldn’t locate the posting a week later, Denny emailed the county administrator asking where it was. The county administrator wrote Denny that unfortunately there had been a network malfunction and the meeting was not archived.
All of these experiences left us questioning the process of our local government and the realistic opportunity for constituents to get information, to be heard and to participate in decisions that both concerned them and that would directly impact them.
Therefore, I am here at public mic today, requesting that through some form of process the issue of the Border to Border route be brought before the county commissioners for a full discussion, with full input from the public and experts outside the county’s capability, that results in the commissioners weighing in on whether or not the Border to Border Route is an appropriate fit for Cook County.
A fully informed decision made by the commissioners, not a decision made by department heads, is in the best interest of the public. The public elected the commissioners, not department heads or county staff, to serve and represent their best interests and welfare.
We know that the route has not been finalized and yet there are already several groups that have expressed serious concerns and oppose it.
Clearwater and Pennington County oppose the route, Red Lake County we are told will follow suit, the Minnesota Association of Townships opposes the route, The Izaak Walton League and all 16 of its statewide chapters and the Minnesota Sierra Club oppose the route and the Grand Portage Reservation asked to not be included in the route out of concern for additional traffic on their forest roads and its impacts.
Although USFS roads are not a direct cost to the county, they are integral to life in our county and we need to make sure we can continue to use them and to use them safely.
The route would advertise nationally, inviting many four-wheel drive enthusiasts to visit our region to travel these roads. Proponents have said this will be the “next big thing” for tourism. Route planner Ron Potter stated in an MPR news piece on August 2, 2017 that phase two of challenge loops off the trail to attract serious road aficionados won’t happen for several years.
Do we want our county to be a destination for a designated, nationally advertised, signed and mapped route for highway licensed off road vehicles?
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service noted their concerns in a letter to the DNR in 2017 stating that designation of a trail has the potential to increase visitor conflicts by substantially increasing traffic and consolidating travelers into larger packs and caravans.
The proposed route in the Superior National Forest would cross 52 streams, 77 times, 36 of which are designated trout streams, all on gravel roads.
All vehicles that could use this proposed route, can already access every single road in a sustainable, dispersed manner.
As the board of commissioners continues to gather and receive input from the public and experts, I hope you will carefully review the potential of the long term, cumulative impacts of the proposed project on the well-being and property values of constituents on the route, the tax payer, the environment and on our silent recreator-based tourist economy, along with the fact that every vehicle that could drive this proposed route, can already drive on every single road proposed, in a sustainable, dispersed manner.
Thank you for listening and for your consideration.
Susan Schubert
Gunflint Trail
Leave a Reply