Editorial counterpoint: Border-to-border 'adventure' route poses significant risks

I was both surprised and disappointed to read the May 21 Star Tribune editorial "Let wheels turn on 'adventure' route." Clearly the Editorial Board thought it had done sufficient environmental research and was informed enough about the proposed border-to-border (B2B) route to justify concurring with the DNR that the route should proceed without an environmental assessment worksheet (EAW).

Anyone familiar with the route who read the official Minnesota Department of Natural Resources summary report on the proposal in May 2020 knew there was a problem with omissions and misrepresentations. Some misstatements were very blatant — for instance, that the route would cross "several" trout streams, when in fact it would cross 27 designated trout streams 61 times, all on unpaved roads, in one county alone.

An EAW is the most basic of reviews to assess impact risk to sensitive areas and to look at substituting or avoiding areas to protect valuable natural resources and prevent degradation and impacts to aquatic life and wildlife.

What the DNR proposes and what the editorial opinion supports is that it's OK to do damage first then attempt to repair it later, at the taxpayer's expense.

Just because some version of an unpaved road exists and doesn't need to clear brush or trees doesn't automatically mean it's without significant environmental impact risks. The citizens' petition that the DNR recently denied showed this with photos, studies, maps, and federal and state agency reports. The increase in traffic from a nationally advertised, designated route on unpaved roads for high-impact vehicles has the potential to significantly compound impacts to sensitive resources. This is not speculation. There is a huge body of research that supports this data that is known to the DNR.

The Sierra Club, the Izaak Walton League, Northeastern Minnesotans for Wilderness and the 2020 legislative House chair of the Natural Resources and Policy Committee all wrote to DNR Commissioner Sarah Strommen asking for an EAW.

The Minnesota Association of Townships opposed the route using township roads; a U.S. Forest Service staff memo listed a concern that five cars would be a big impact to some of these roads; Clearwater County and others opposed the route, as did the Grand Portage Reservation due to impact concerns to hunting and fishing. This is documented in the citizens' petition.

The DNR decision estimates 15 vehicles per week will use the route, with no analysis or methodology given to derive that number.

One of the rationales for the route is the public good it would provide by boosting economies of northern Minnesota communities. Fifteen vehicles per week won't improve rural coffers. To date, the DNR has spent $527,000 — for 15 vehicles per week?

We all know caravans are popular with the sport. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service addressed this caravan concern in a letter to the DNR.

The DNR hired Ron Potter of the National Off-Highway Vehicle Conservation Council, based in Montana, to locate the route's roads. Potter is also a Polaris consultant. An MPR News print story quoted Potter saying phase two for challenge loops to attract serious road aficionados won't happen for several years.

Many of the roads selected are single-lane, primitive and unmaintained, cleared almost 100 years ago for timber haul or firebreak roads. Some are classified for no passenger cars. These are historically low-volume traffic roads in low-density population areas, which explains why sensitive resources along these roads have remained pristine.

The route crosses "exceptional" and "prohibited protection" waters, the highest-quality streams in the state, all ranked by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.

In watershed reports, the MPCA states that these "outstanding resource value waters" should be prioritized for special protection strategies.

Crossing them with high-impact vehicles, on unpaved roads, with a designated signed and mapped route that has the goal of "generating traffic from near and far," as the editorial states, is not prioritizing their protection.

We are asking for an EAW to assess impact risks and make changes where needed now, to prevent degradation. In the end, this can only benefit nature, aquatic life and wildlife, future generations and the taxpayer's wallet.

Bill Pollnow lives in Shoreview and was a signatory to the citizens' petition seeking an environmental assessment worksheet for the proposed border-to-border touring route.