Carver Trestle

[wastewaterguru]

I sent out quite a few emails over the last two weeks.

[goblueM]

Well I guess they reached the right ears, cuz we got pulled off of another project to get out there ASAP. Hope what we were able to do makes it a little better - at least hopefully its passable - although in my personal opinion you need some dynamite to take care of that mess. Its frustrating on our end when there's a huge logjam and you can't do too much work on it without huge safety risks

[DTro]

Thanks for the effort Blue, its appreciated and I understand about the safety risks. Like I said, some specialized equipment will probably be needed to clean it out properly.

I really think someone should be accoutable for the big piece of structure damming up the river.

[goblueM]

We talked to some guys launching a boat there, they said the railroad company used to hoist stuff from off the trestle. Don't know if they do that still or not.

I agree, I think there should be something done to keep the river clear - but I don't really know how you're gonna do that without endangering lives or spending quite a lot of money

[DTro]

From what I've been told the RR has officially abandoned the railroad and trestle maintenance.

[wastewaterguru]

That section of track was petitioned for abandonment this past December/January.

The last I saw from documents I found on the web was that the cities of Chaska and Carver along with the Carver County Railroad Commision and the Met. Council were forming a joint powers agreement to purchase the track and right of way from Union Pacific for future recreational use and utility corridors for water/sewer.

There was no mention of whether they were successful in acquiring it.

I was chased off the river a couple years ago below Chaska when they used to clear the logs. They had a track mounted crane that they would use to pick apart the jam one piece at a time. That night there were about 300 logs that all came down through Chaska at us at one time and we had no choice but to retreat down river.....

I know that the railroad is much more likely to have the equipment required to do that work than the city is.

If the land has in fact been purchased, I doubt that there were any provisions considered for the amount of expense it would take to clear that mess.

I'm guessing the railroad unloaded it in a hurry before too many people even knew what was going on. Hopefully the new owners understand the potential liability of that man-made impediment.

[Scott K]

I think with a few gallons of gas, and a match it would make a good camp fire to fish around and drink a couple beers

[harvey lee]

It's just too bad whomever is responsible does not deal with this hazard. One might think the DNR would address this issue since its in the river.

I'm going to call the DNR and see who might be the person to deal with to clean this up.

[goblueM]

Well Harvey, like you said earlier in the thread - "you couldn't catch me in that current with a chainsaw"

That's what limited us when we were there on Monday - fast current, high tension on all the logs, just like playing a very dangerous game of pickup sticks. We did manage a 10-15 foot clear-ish passage, better than it was. But its definitely not that great

I don't know what the DNR could do other than send us out like they did. Maybe they can (and I'm not speaking for them, mind you) get some sort of heavy equipment in there or something. But certainly chainsaws are too dangerous for those conditions

[aanderud]

Hey thanks blue for trying to clear that out. It's really bad down there.

Well, I think downstream from Jordan is about the only way people will be fishing upstream from Carver now. I walked the trail next to the river with the family tonight, and it looks pretty bad. With the low water, it looked like it'd be hard to get through there even with the path you cut. In fact, a little 12 foot jon boat went up from the landing and then turned around because they couldn't make it through. It was pretty bad. If people can't get through with 12 footers, doesn't seem like that leaves much chance for anything much bigger.

Then, to top it off, the sherriff stopped and gave some kids a ticket for walking across the bridge. I know a couple guys who got tresspassing tix last year for walking across it to fish. I have to say, the tresspassing law is pretty bad when there's no trains using the tracks...although, I can't imagine the liability the city or railroad would have if they actually let people walk across, with no hand/safety rails, big gaps between the ties, etc...too many lawyers to let it go I guess. One drunk person falls off and you've got a multimillion dollar lawsuit on your hands...just look at the amt of money the state is giving the victims of the 35w bridge...then imagine the 'negligence' that people could claim against the railroad if they were drunk and fell off the bridge..."there should have been a rail to save my stupid behind..." Right, well I'm veering off-topic as usual.

Thanks again for clearing some of it out, I'm sure it wasn't fun.

[Shack]

Thanks Blue for what you have done.

From a non water log cutting expert type of view, but from an avid chain saw cutting guy, could one go upstream threw the trestle bridge hang the dog leg left to the cotton wood. Position bow of the boat right up to the cotton wood (down stream side, with bow pointing up stream), tie off to the cotton wood (outward side), cut off a chunk with saw, let it go down stream, reposition boat again in same fashion closer to shore and repeat? Take her down in sections.

I would figure (after the rains we have), as long as to you tied tight to the cotton wood (if possible) and let the current glide under the boat, one could get to the bow and run a cut with a chain saw. Maybe you have done this all ready. This would take a good bow man and a steady throttle, like John and Dtro did to clear the little path.

Any way you look at it, it is going to tough with just a boat. Maybe it should just be an area we avoid and let it go. Might be the only option.

Maybe a call/e-mail to Dirty Job's could get it done

Thanks again

[harvey lee]

I would say the best thing to do as far as safety goes is to just stay away from that mess. There isn't a catfish worth my boat or worse, my life.

[ec30_06]

Plenty of river to fish other than above the tressle. Besides, you can just come down from jordan. The rapids are sometimes impassable, and no one talks about blowing them up to get a boat through.

[Scott K]

We can blow up rapids too , cool a trestle, rapids, any thing else we can blow up?

[ec30_06]

We can start using explosives to collect bait. Or next time you and Tom go out during low water just use dynamite to clear a deep clear path in front of the boat.

[DTro]

Plenty of river to fish other than above the tressle. Besides, you can just come down from jordan. The rapids are sometimes impassable, and no one talks about blowing them up to get a boat through.

I agree, however that is a natural occurence, not man made.

Also the Rapids are well documented and people can prepare for them. This is not.

I'm not talking just about fishing, there are plenty of other people that use the river,(canoers, kayakers, pleasure riders) and they should at least be forewarned about this mess.

[Scott K]

We can start using explosives to collect bait. Or next time you and Tom go out during low water just use dynamite to clear a deep clear path in front of the boat.

Now there's an idea we might even get a fish or 2 that way

[ec30_06]

Originally Posted By: ec30_06

Plenty of river to fish other than above the tressle. Besides, you can just come down from jordan. The rapids are sometimes impassable, and no one talks about blowing them up to get a boat through.

I agree, however that is a natural occurence, not man made.

Also the Rapids are well documented and people can prepare for them. This is not.

I'm not talking just about fishing, there are plenty of other people that use the river,(canoers, kayakers, pleasure riders) and they should at least be forewarned about this mess.

This could be something for the dnr to list as a hazard in the canoe trails information. They do list natural hazards already, so they might as well add this in there.

[goblueM]

Its actually in there already, i believe it says "at river mile 31.7, there is a large logjam at the railroad bridge" or something to that nature

[goblueM]

So today I learned that the railroad has filed for abandonment of the trestle, but didn't get it. Carver County, Scott County and some council have formed a board and are working for acquisition.

Apparently the trestle is so old there are structural issues, and any aquisition may or may not involve clearing the logjam.

Basically, its technically still under the railroad's jurisdiction, but they're unlikely to actually do anything about the hazard with all the red tape

[DTro]

Don't understand why anyone would want take acquisition of that.

Something will have to be done eventually.

[aanderud]

Maybe about the time they put that huge 400 million dollar bridge over the river they'll put in a pedestrian crossing there like they did over by bloomington ferry bridge. Hold your breath for the next 30 years or so.

[Da Beak]

Here's a pretty good read regarding the abandonment by UP.

http://www.stb.dot.gov/decisions/Reading...4d?OpenDocument

Also, from the Carver City Council meeting minutes...

"MINUTES – COUNCIL MEETING

JULY 7, 2008 – PAGE 5

b. Approve/Deny Proposal for Engineering Services for a Suitability Evaluation of a Proposed Pedestrian/Bicycle Trail for Abandonment of the Union Pacific Railroad’s Chaska Industrial Lead

Council was reminded that they are part of a Joint Powers Agreement and the members are in the process of acquiring the information necessary to negotiate for the acquisition of the Union Pacific Chaska Industrial Lead. It is necessary to acquire information related to the bridge structures on the line in order to assist in determining a reasonable value for the entire corridor, as well as the future costs associated with converting the corridor into a regional trail facility. The total cost of the proposal is $28,500. Of this amount there is approximately $8,000 worth of services that will be the sole responsibility of Scott County as they desired additional information related to the bridges on their side of the river. The remaining estimated $20,500 is associated with Bridge 36.17, which is the bridge that crosses the Minnesota River at Carver.

c. Determine if City will Cost-Share with Scott County on Item J of proposal

Item J is being contemplated primarily at the request of Scott County. Scott County is interested in much more detailed information that they can use for future budgeting and planning purposes. Carver County is not interested in obtaining this same level of detail in the analysis. Scott County has requested that the City of Carver consider cost-sharing with them on Item J since the City is also interested in the future upgrade of this facility into a trail section and connection across the river. The benefit in obtaining this information at this time is that it would be much less costly to do so as a part of the existing other work being completed and having the feasibility information available would provide us with needed information to apply for grant funds such as Transportation Enhancement Funds. Ms. Olness said that $5,700 is being requested from the City of Carver to participate and for their share.

MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER WEBB TO APPROVE THE PROPOSAL, NOT TO EXCEED $5,700. SECONDED BY MAYOR WEYGAND, ALL AYES, MOTION CARRIED."

[wastewaterguru]

The wash out on the down river side of the bridge is only 8 inches deep as of Tuesday night.......

Watched three boats "try" to get up it only to hear the grinding of gravel in their props and the immediate retreat of the boats.

Then if you can get past the washout, the new logs on the upstream side of the bridge are no longer passable. The chute that had been allowing us to continue to get through is not allowing us through any more.

There will be some virgin water between the rapids and the bridge since this area is no longer accessible.

[ec30_06]

[wastewaterguru]

I made a few more phone calls and sent a couple more emails today.....

Even a jet isn't getting through there without jumping a log or two.

[Shack]

You could always just do this:

I know you guys have seen this and I got it from the video forum, but it is cool!

[ec30_06]

A person could, but there are only 2-3 spots that I would want to fish between the rapids and the trestle right now anyway. Probably not worth it.

[BigGrassBass]

Not worth it, but fun as [PoorWordUsage] to try!!!

[wastewaterguru]

FYI....Here is the email thread between the mayor of Carver and I.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for the quick response. I know that the bridge originally only had two piers.......so that certainly sounds like a good option. I am all for using the railroad bridge and right of way for community improvement projects. I just want to make sure that the concerns regarding the log jams, sand bar, and navigation were taken into consideration. I am going to share your comments with the angling community at fishingminnesota.com to both educate and warn people of the potential dangers.

Again, please let me know if I can be of any assistance with getting the situation resolved.

John D. Kimble, P.E.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Jim Weygand [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2008 1:49 PM

To: Kimble, John D.

Subject: Re: Disturbing Situation

Dear Mr. Kimble,

The City understands your concerns and are in full concurrence. We had not given much thought to the boats trying to go up or downstream, but the City's concern has been with flooding, or a catastrophic failure of the bridge. We have a strong desire to see a bike trail follow the current rail route from Chaska to across the River. One of the issues that will have to resolved is the problem you have mentioned, and we have already raised it. We are aware of the pier shift. At this point Scott County and the City of Carver are supporting a study of the bridge. Unfortunately I believe in the end the current bridge will not survive as is. Possibly we can get by with some of the piers removed, if it is used just as a bicycle trail

Unfortunately I can not promise you anything in the near future. This year I believe Union Pacific sent a crane out for log removal, but they were not able to remove all the logs. No body wants to take ownership for the problem primarily because at the moment there is no good solution. Let me conclude we are aware of the issue, although boat traffic on the river is not necessarily a City issue. The Joint Powers Group which includes Carver, Chaska, Carver County and Scott County is looking for a solution.

Jim Weygand

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Kimble, John D.

Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2008 12:46 PM

To: '[email protected]'

Subject: Disturbing Situation

Dear Mr. Weygand,

I would like to express my disappointment that the river upstream of Carver is no longer accessible by boat. I have been fishing on that stretch of river (along with dozens of others) for more than a decade. The log jam in front of the rail bridge in Carver has come and gone nearly every one of those years. Several times I witnessed the railroad picking the logs apart to keep the river navigable.......this year however was different. Anglers (including myself) putting their lives at risk; equipped with saws and ropes are the only way the river has remained open as long as it has this year. Unfortunately, the situation is now beyond the ability of hand tools and small boats.

The abandonment of the bridge and track by Union Pacific is not well publicized and I could not find information on the current ownership of the railroad bridge in Carver. It is my current understanding that the cities of Chaska and Carver along with others have formed a joint powers agreement to attempt to acquire the track and right of way. I find it hard to believe that the railroad would be allowed to abandon and sell the bridge without taking steps to maintain the navigability of the river. I am hopeful that the City of Carver will take into consideration the fact that this maintenance NEEDS to be done at least once each year. I also want to point out that the second pier from the south has already shifted from the force of the water against the logs, and if left to gather more wood next spring.....the situation will only get worse.

There are pedestrians that use this bridge (even though it is illegal) and there are no handrails or toeboards. There are several discussions on local fishing websites where people are expressing their anger with the lack of maintenance.

As it stands, the Carver rapids are navigable only going downstream. To get over them, one has to take the motor out of the water. The Carver Rapids are a natural formation that anglers are aware of........the Carver bridge is not natural. Any boater coming down from Jordan is trapped once they pass the Carver Rapids. There is no way to come down through the Carver rail bridge......and no way to get back up to Jordan. At the very least, some communication boards at the Carver, Jordan, Belle Plaine, and Henderson boat ramps should be placed to inform boaters of the situation.

I have personally written to the state representative for the district, the Minnesota DNR, etc. and have expressed my concerns regarding the current situation and future use of the bridge and wanted to also bring these concerns to you. No one seems to want to take ownership and responsibility for this bridge.......but when something goes bad (and it will), the city is going to be held accountable. I have enough correspondence sent to various individuals and agencies that there will be no chance of anyone claiming they had no knowledge of the potentially life threatening dangers boats and canoes are exposed to as a result of that log jam.

I would greatly appreciate a response that I can share with fellow anglers regarding the situation. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance in getting the situation resolved.

Sincerely,

John D. Kimble, P.E.