Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner

Big news: Feds to consider allowing bikes on PCT

26K views 224 replies 49 participants last post by  TahoeBC 
#1 ·
For the last two to three years a small group of us has been working to get mountain bike access to non-Wilderness sections of the Pacific Crest Trail. (About 60% of the PCT lies outside Wilderness.)

We have convinced the Forest Service that its 1988 closure order requires reconsideration.

As a result, the Forest Service is going to begin a rulemaking procedure, probably in March of 2013, to consider making the non-Wilderness parts of the PCT multiuse. This will involve public notice and comment.

When something similar happened with the Continental Divide Trail about four years ago, the Forest Service received about 8000 comments. The PCT reconsideration can be expected to generate even more controversy.

If the Forest Service decides to keep bikes off the Pacific Crest Trail, we can expect that closure to stay in place for the rest of our lives and maybe those of our children. If the Forest Service decides to open it, it will be revolutionary.

Stay tuned. We'll be looking for your help in coming months.
 
See less See more
#182 ·
Latest update - We finaly received the letter from the USFS....and it was as we expected

THE LETTER HAS ARRIVED

As expected, we have received a letter from the USFS, which can be effectively summed up in two letters: "NO"

Although not what we were hoping for, none of us here at the PCTRI are even remotely surprised by this, as it has been the anticipated response since our initial meeting with them. Let us be clear, that we are not by any means considering this a defeat. Quite the contrary actually, as our movement is gaining momentum. We are currently in the process of planning our subsequent actions and will be updating our site as we march forward.

We're still in the process of digesting the information contained within the letter, but one thing is clear: the PCTRI and the USFS continue to disagree on several fundamental points, and it may take a much higher authority to formally sort out our differences. Whether or not we want to pursue such avenues remains to be seen.

At this point, we're still in the planning phases and are continuing to add supporters of our cause with each passing day. We hope that you all continue to spread the word about the PCTRI and as always, we welcome your thoughts, suggestions and ideas. A copy of the letter has been posted to our history page, and can be found there or by clicking here: USFS November 2013 Reply
bottom line...this is a stalemate.

USFS has no interest in changing, nor do they have any real interest in enforcement (my opinion only).

from the Sharing the PCT FB page Moderator:
The issue may be decided, for a fraction of the cost, if a Forest Service employee encounters a mountain biker on the PCT and cites her or him, and she or he decides to bring the citation to court and challenge the legality of the closure. This page has hypothesized before that the FS might even be looking to cite a mountain biker so as to get to court and have a court put an end to this morass, one way or the other. Judging by its recent letter to PCTRI, the FS appears not to be happy about those Unabomber-style threats on PCT-L (the PCTA-affiliated discussion group) to sabotage the PCT and/or assault mountain bikers.

As this page has stated before, however, don't make yourself a guinea pig for a citation. With modern computerization of criminal record systems, even a misdemeanor conviction can present problems, such as not being eligible for a job you want or being unable to visit the United Kingdom or Canada. The closure could be legally valid-the FS says it is, anyway-so people should not defy it.
For more up to date discussion you can visit the Facebook page on this subject:
https://www.facebook.com/SharingThePct
 
#183 ·
Please Humor this idea.

Has it ever been considered to ride the PCT with the intent of getting arrested. This would give us standing for a run at the Supreme Court. I believe we could make a strong argument for access. This would be a huge calculated risk but the outcome would be a game changer. Of course this would require tremendous preparation and deliberation prior to execution. We would also require financial and appropriate legal backing.

If this has been considered then never mind. If it has not then please don't dismiss without further thought.
 
#184 ·
Many folks have ridden the PCT with the understanding that they might be cited (arrested? Highly unlikely). For your scenario to play out someone would need to get cited and either 1) have deep pockets or 2) have a large group of riders willing to kick in to fund a challenge of that sort.

In the meantime, most folks will just keep riding the PCT because hiker encounters (at least in Norcal) are few and far between and ranger encounters are pretty close to the level of Sasquatch encounters.
 
#186 ·
Update:

response letter from the PCTRI quoted below from the "Sharing the PCT" Facebook page

Mr. Randy Moore
Regional Forester
U.S. Forest Service
1323 Club Drive
Vallejo, California 94592-1110

Re: Nonmotorized multiuse on the Pacific Crest Trail (PCT)-reply to your letter of Nov. 25.

Dear Mr. Moore:

Thank you for your letter of November 25.

We were disappointed, but not surprised, to read that you are not rescinding Regional Order 88-4 at this time. Still we are asking that USFS engage in a public process to consider an order or regulation that is consistent with current best practices and compliant with the Administrative Procedure Act. The 1988 closure order was created and signed by three Forest Service employees only after the Forest Service Chief declined to issue a regulation. We continue to believe that the Administrative Procedure Act calls for a public process to consider the regulation of trail use on the PCT.

The 1978 Code of Federal Regulations declaration, which provides that the PCT is primarily intended for foot and horse use, is not an impediment to reassessing the current use regime. We have no problem stipulating that the PCT is primarily intended for those historically established uses. As is the case with the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail, mountain biking can coexist alongside those primary uses. Mountain biking exists alongside horse and hiker use almost everywhere else, including on those tens of thousands of Forest Service trail and road miles to which your November 25 letter adverts.

Additionally, and beyond the questions of Administrative Procedure Act requirements and the application of the 1978 CFR provision, the Forest Service rightfully prides itself on its own participatory rulemaking processes. In the case of the PCT bicycle closure, there was not, nor has there ever been, a process that would meet Forest Service standards of practice. A cautionary, temporary rule has become established, but because of the lack of an adequate promulgation process, its legitimacy is tenuous.

We, like you, are saddened by the acrimony that has emerged over this issue. It continues unabated and no end to it seems in sight, judging by posts on the Internet. We pledge to you that for our part we will continue to conduct ourselves civilly and with a commitment to the community's good as we continue our advocacy.

We welcome the Forest Service's generous offer to "organize a professionally facilitated discussion in the coming year, with the goal of finding common ground for resolving disagreements" and your invitation to us to help locate a qualified facilitator. We are trying to find a facilitator that we can recommend, and we look forward to participating in the eventual conference or workshop. We will help create meaningful and productive dialogue at any meeting that does take place.

We feel very strongly that any such process should have clear goals, milestones and criteria toward planning and creating a national trails system that fairly and transparently reflects conservation and societal needs that have evolved since the current system and management practices were put in place.

Per your invitation, we will be in contact with [the] Regional Trails Program Manager, and/or [the] Pacific Crest Trail Program Manager, on these matters.

Sincerely yours,

PCTRI
 
#187 ·
#188 ·
Besides being a segment perfectly suited for cross country type bike riding much of the segment runs through Sierra Pacific property that they graciously provided
an easement for the PCT. While "Hiking" this segment last fall I could not help but notice the trees they had felled across the trail, which of coarse they would be
taking at a later point, but they had no problem driving there heavy machinery back and forth across the trail. God forbid a bike tire hits that dirt though.
I'm very curious on what kind of jurisdiction the forest service has on this segment though there property if any at all?
 
#190 ·
Please submit comments to the USFS

So the Pacific Crest Trail Association appears to be working with the USFS to gain more power, control and management of the PCT, by working with them to create a "Management Area" for three National Forests the trail currently goes through (Inyo, Sierra & Sequoia -- the "early adopters"... more to come). In theory, this is something anyone could support as it does help with permanently protecting the trail corridor from development and extraction. But, giving the PCTA and their anti-bike stance more power is no bueno. They could literally rule that no MTB legal trails can cross the PCT (or get near the trail)!

So it's time for mt. bikers to write the Forest Service again and oppose this "Management Area" portion of the proposed Planning Rule. It's also a great opportunity to let your voice be heard by the USFS about this ridiculous ban on bicycles on the PCT.

Make comments here: https://cara.ecosystem-management.org/Public/CommentInput?Project=3375 -- Do this by Sept. 27!

See the details regarding the PCT starting on page 59 here.

Here are a few letters other trail advocates have shared:

#1
"The conservation of the Pacific Crest Trail (PCT) is very important to me. For this reason, I take great interest in the current proposal to establish special management areas such as what might be created along the PCT corridor so as to better care for the trail. However, I am loath to support any proposal that may perpetuate the unfair, inappropriate and unnecessary exclusion from the PCT of trail users who would like to experience parts of the trail by bicycle.

The 1988 temporary Closure Order that is the basis for the bicycle exclusion is badly outdated; reflects 25-year-old management practice; never involved significant public input; does not serve the long-term conservation goals for the PCT; and unfairly prevents a significant segment of the public from accessing any part of the public trail in a safe and sustainable manner. Preserving a 2,650-mile public trail for the exclusive use of a relatively tiny segment of the public is bad policy and it erodes public support for the trail.

Until USFS agrees to a transparent, public review of the 1988 Closure Order, it is very difficult to support efforts that may perpetuate the plainly outdated ban on bicycle access."
#2
"To the Decision Makers addressing the Inyo, Sierra, and Sequoia National Forests Land Management Plans:

As an avid outdoorsman and a lover of the gorgeous Sierras, I am pleased to see efforts to sustainably manage this magnificent natural resource. However, I must strenuously object to the codifying of the ill-advised ban on bicycle across these portions of the PCT (as well as non-Wilderness areas across the PCT as a whole)

The 1988 temporary Closure Order that initiated the bicycle ban is outdated; reflects an incomplete management practice, failed to include significant public input, and most importantly does not serve the long-term conservation goals for the PCT. Preserving a 2,650-mile public trail for the exclusive use of one or two user groups at the expense of an equally low-impact user group bad policy and it erodes public support for the trail. Until USFS agrees to a transparent, public review of the 1988 Closure Order, it is very difficult to support efforts that may perpetuate the plainly outdated ban on bicycle access.

I have hiked portions of the PCT and cycled adjacent trails which cross the PCT. The portions I hiked were perfectly suitable and sustainable as cycling routes. Moreover, the wording in the plan that implies the possible further removal of cycling access to key trails which cross the PCT is particularly disturbing.

Hikers often cite bad behavior by cyclists as a reason to perpetuate the ban. However, hikers and backpackers are more likely to build illegal fire rings, smoke in high fire danger areas, relieve themselves within close proximity of water sources, and cut switchbacks, thus creating new avenues for erosion. The point is that no one user group has exclusive claim to either vice or virtue and it makes no sense to ban one but not the other. Where trails are sustainably built, multiple studies, including those commissioned by the USFS, demonstrate the impact of cycling and hiking to be roughly equivalent and both to be far less impactful than equestrian use, which is given top billing in the plan. Cyclists impact hikers, but hikers also impact cyclists; there is no basis for placing one above the other. If you're still concerned about protecting the hiking experience at the expense of cyclists, please consider that 1,000 miles of the PCT's 2,600 mile length passes through designated Wilderness, thus still providing hikers and equestrians with tremendous opportunity for a bike-free experience.

Bottom line: Cycling should be allowed where it can be done suitably and sustainably, which includes some portions of the PCT. There is simply no rational justification for a blanket exclusion on all portions of the PCT to preserve the elitist experiences of a highly vocal, but no more equally valid user group. Please reconsider the perpetuation of the unfair blanket ban against this low-impact, conservation minded user group."
#3
"Dear Sir or Madam:

"I cannot support any proposal that may perpetuate the unfair, unenforceable, and probably unlawful putative exclusion of bicycle riders on the Pacific Crest Trail (PCT). It's unclear to me whether this plan does this, but if it does, count me against it.

The August 31, 1988 closure order that is the basis for the bicycle exclusion is properly deemed temporary under the Forest Service's own rules and regulations, and it expired long ago. It was promulgated by three Forest Service field personnel who typed up the closure order after the Forest Service headquarters rejected a request for a bicycle ban in 1987. Thereafter, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act that the Forest Service is required by law to abide by, local Forest Service personnel let it become a permanent plan with no public notice or comment. And since the public wasn't aware that the plan was implemented with no opportunity for public input, it accepted it for the most part, until the Pacific Crest Trail Reassessment Initiative challenged it in 2010. (See Sharing the Pacific Crest Trail.) That Catch-22 (no notice, therefore no complaints until 2010) has been bad: bad for the law, bad for the PCT, and bad for public support for wildland conservation.

Additionally, the PCT bicycle ban is antiquated, reflects the minimal understanding of how to manage nonmotorized trails for multiuse of a quarter-century ago, does not serve the PCT's interests (the trail cannot be maintained with the small cadre of hiker volunteers who currently make themselves available), and unfairly prevents a significant segment of the public from accessing any part of the public trail in a safe and sustainable manner. Granting exclusive use of a 2,650-mile publicly funded trail mainly for the use of a few hundred through-hikers has resulted in public indifference about the trail, and its hundreds of miles of overgrown and poorly maintained sections are the proof of the pudding.

Until the Forest Service agrees to a thorough-going review of the 1988 closure order, one that complies with the Administrative Procedure Act by allowing public participation, attempts to put patches on the inadequate existing management scheme are a waste of time.

Certainly in the interim the Forest Service should direct its current and retired employees not to harangue mountain bikers who are on non-Wilderness PCT sections. Their presence there may be entirely lawful."
More chatter about this on the FB page: https://www.facebook.com/SharingThePct
 
#191 ·
So the Pacific Crest Trail Association appears to be working with the USFS to gain more power, control and management of the PCT, by working with them to create a "Management Area" for three National Forests the trail currently goes through (Inyo, Sierra & Sequoia -- the "early adopters"... more to come). .....

Make comments here: https://cara.ecosystem-management.org/Public/CommentInput?Project=3375 -- Do this by Sept. 27!
Thanks for the call to action, EB! Comments submitted.

-D
 
#192 ·
I'd proofread those carefully before sending. Sierra is always singular - there is never a "s" at the end, no matter what you read around here. Also how do hikers impact bikers, again? What proof do you have that bikers will be better at not popping near water or camping in improper sites? The letter should site studies to prove that bikes are less damaging than horses. You need hard facts not emotions, you're up against 150 years of tradition.
 
#193 ·
The big issue here is the PCTA will be given the right to say how trails are used withing the PCT Corridor, this is a "PRIVATE" lobbying group how is it that they get veto power over trails that intersect the PCT. This means no new bike legal trails that cross the PCT, a trail that cuts this state and in fact the whole west coast in half. We could even loose access to trails leading up to the PCT, if adopted in Tahoe this could potentially impact trails like the TRT out of Big Meadows, Sayles, Bryant Meadows, Pony Express, DLRT.

This is a ******** backdoor deal going down as a way to shut out bikes, I think any letters should really focus on not allowing the PCTL to have a final say on trails within the PCT "Corridor"
 
#196 ·
So what?? so your willing to give the PCTL final say on how trails can be used on publicly funded land? that's a little different that issuing a permit wouldn't you say?

"To maintain the outstanding primitive hiking and horseback experiences, new crossings of the PCT by trails for bicycles or other mechanized transport should be avoided except as mutually agreed on by the forest and the Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail Association"

I like how they don't even define how big the trail corridor is within the document either.

"The use of bicycles and other mechanized transport and motorized use is prohibited on the
PCT tread and within the trail corridor "
 
#198 ·
This is a fight we need to force to happen. If we as bikers don't fight this fight it will never happen. Ideally IMBA could identify a very passionate pro mt bike attorney that is willing to take this on. And someone that has the ear of one of our congressman & senators. The economic benefit is very real and measurable to small mountain towns such as Truckee, where mountain biking is seeing explosive growth.

When I recently wore to Congressman McCintock, I was very clear how an out dated forest service order is negatively impacting the local economy. While at the same time wasting gov't resources as there is talk of creating a parallel trail to the PCT around Donner Summit which would cost hundred of thousands of dollars. Which makes absolutely no sense when a perfect trail already exists and could be open with the swipe of a pen.

The whole concept of preventing bikes on the PCT in non wilderness areas is just outdated and wrong on every level. Not one legitimate argument exists.

Will it the PCT open to bikes in the next 20-30 years that I have left of being a mt biker? Odds are against it for sure but never say never..
 
#199 · (Edited)
I really don’t want to share it for a few reasons, one being that I think if to many come in looking alike possibly they are not valued as much, and sometimes I’m not that elegant in forming my thoughts in the most politically correct ways ;)

Personally I think we should focus less on asking that the PCT be opened to bikes and more on why a private organization is being given the right to say how publicly funded land can be utilized, I think we need to try and keep what we do have at this point. Many new restrictions are being proposed within the PCT corridor with no definition of how big the corridor is? The wording in the document carefully guided by the PCTA seems to override the temporary closure order and pretty much closes down the future of any potential access to the non-wilderness sections by bike. They seem to be getting carte blanch to reroute the PCT onto existing mutil-use trails if they choose. The PCT splits the entire west coast in half; it's not fair to limit any new crossings of the PCT by bikes.
 
#200 ·
it's not fair to limit any new crossings of the PCT by bikes.
This is 100% true but does not go far enough...not just crossings, the trail itself should be open to bikes. Bikers are not out destroying or negatively impacting anyone's experience any more than hikers or equestrians do..

We're talking about a trail that runs on federal and state land in non-wilderness areas...keep in mind that we all support and pay various aspects of this with our tax $$.

It would be another story if bikers were the enemy or evil but come on..we are stewards of the land as much as hikers and equestrians (except we don't sh*t on the trail)....
 
#201 ·
I completely agree, but I think the fight for access to the PCT is another one to be fought another day. If this goes though and is adopted by other regions in the future we are truly hosed. I think we have a somewhat better chance of effecting this proposal without demanding access to the PCT. Try to get all the bike related stuff out of it and removal of a Private Lobbying groups ability to have the final say of what happens is key IMHO.
 
#202 ·
Spot on, TBC. This is all about opposing the Management Area proposal at this time, which the PCTA so desperately wants. Submitting comments about why bicycling should be allowed aren't necessary here. This is the scoping phase of the process, and comments that disagree with the "proposed action" will keep us "at the table" as the forest plan revision moves along.

Here is the posted timeline for the entire process:

 Aug 2014 - Notice of Intent published in the Federal Register and 30-day scoping process starts. (Ends Sept. 29!)
 Sep 2014 - Tribal Forums and Public Workshops.
 Nov 2014 - Tribal Forums and Public Workshops.
 Apr 2015 - Notice of Availability of a draft EIS published in the Federal Register and 90-day public comment period starts.
 May 2015 - Tribal Forums and Public Workshops.
 Mar 2016 - Notice of Availability of a final EIS published in the Federal Register and 60-day objection filing period starts.
 Sep 2016 - Final decisions signed by Forest Supervisors.

Please get your comments in. They don't have to be verbose or show super understanding of the issues.... you're simply opposing the Management Area proposal and the authority it may give the PCTA to make management decisions.

Here's what the hub-bub is about (from the doc linked earlier):
Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail Corridor

Desired Conditions

1. The Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail (PCT) corridor is permanently protected to provide outstanding primitive hiking and horseback experiences:

• Roads and motorized trails, including snowmobiles, do not intersect the trail except at designated crossings which should be minimized, preferably fewer than one crossing per 5 miles of trail;
• Lands or interests are acquired where needed to protect the trail experience;
• Visitor use is managed to protect the experiences and other overlapping land management desired conditions.

2. The trail corridor provides panoramic views of undisturbed landscapes in a tranquil scenic environment, and features historic high country landmarks where they occur. The corridor is of sufficient width to encompass national trail resources, qualities, values, associated settings and the primary use or uses. This includes vistas (key observation points), campsites, water sources and other important resource values.

3. National Forest System lands within the PCT corridor meet or exceed a high scenic integrity objective, and those within the middle ground and background landscape distance zones meet at least a medium scenic integrity objective.

4. The emphasis will be on providing remote backcountry recreation settings in a predominately natural or natural-appearing landscape. Development levels and levels of use vary by location and do not detract from those experiences.

Strategies

1. Use partnerships to achieve the maintenance and management goals for the PCT. (IMBA could certainly be a partner)

2. Place priority on the purchase of lands or interest in lands necessary to protect the PCT experience as delineated in the PCT Land Acquisition Inventory.

3. Reconstruct or relocate existing portions of the PCT as needed to enhance the recreation experience and protect resources. Trail relocations will be evaluated using the optimal location review process in partnership with adjoining federal agencies and the Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail Association.

4. Establish key observations points along the trail corridor that will serve as monitoring points for proposed projects during the life of the plan to evaluate the condition of scenery resources.

5. Allow timber harvest, prescribed burning and wildland fire to manage vegetation consistent with desired conditions and setting for the PCT.

6. Wildfire suppression strategies will strive to minimize impacts on PCT values.

Standards

1. New recreation events such as foot races or horseback endurance events and fundraising events must be limited to designated crossings only.

2. New roads, permanent or temporary, are not permitted within the trail corridor unless required by law to provide access to private lands and documented as the only prudent and feasible alternative.

3. The use of bicycles and other mechanized transport and motorized use is prohibited on the PCT tread and within the trail corridor, except on trails designated crossings where such use is allowed.

4. Outside the proclamation boundary, PCT corridor lands with easements or outstanding rights will be managed consistent with deed transfer language and the PCT corridor direction.

5. The PCT is a concern level 1 travelway, and middle ground and background areas on National Forest System lands seen from the PCT must be managed to meet or exceed a scenic integrity objective of at least moderate for scenery in accordance with scenic integrity objectives identified through the scenery management system.

6. All management activities must meet a scenic integrity objective of high or very high.

7. For leasable minerals such as oil, gas and geothermal energy, PCT permits and activities within the trail corridor are available for leasing but must contain a "no surface occupancy" stipulation within the foreground and immediate foreground visual zones, based on the Forest Service Scenery Management System.

8. For mineral materials such as sand, gravel, pumice, cinders and other common variety minerals, extraction is prohibited within the PCT corridor. When existing permits terminate or expire, new permits will be changed to reflect this standard.

9. All mining claims pre-dating the congressional designation of the PCT are subject to valid existing rights. Any mineral exploration or extraction that causes surface disturbance within the trail corridor is prohibited, including recreational rock and mineral collecting.

10. Construction of new communication sites is prohibited within the PCT corridor.

11. Construction of new wind towers is prohibited within the PCT corridor.

12. New utility lines or rights-of-way are prohibited within the PCT corridor unless they represent the only feasible and prudent alternative to meet an overriding public need. Project design and mitigation will be sufficient to protect trail values. This includes required mitigation measures such as screening, feathering and other visual management techniques to mitigate visual and other impacts of new or upgraded utility rights-of-way. Mitigation measures apply to facilities as well as vegetation.

13. New buildings and structures associated with special uses that would be visible from the PCT are prohibited within the trail corridor.

Guidelines

1. To maintain the outstanding primitive hiking and horseback experiences, new crossings of the PCT by trails for bicycles or other mechanized transport should be avoided except as mutually agreed on by the forest and the Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail Association.

2. Road and utility corridors should cross at right angles to the PCT wherever possible to minimize scenery impacts.

3. To provide outstanding opportunities for primitive hiking and equestrians, apply Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) primitive class wherever possible, with a second preference for semi-primitive non-motorized within the PCT corridor. In locations where the existing condition is semi-primitive motorized or roaded natural, that ROS may be retained.

4. To minimize impacts to desired conditions for natural resources and visitor experiences, such as solitude, implement visitor use management strategies such as planning and managing visitor use and the recreation setting through education, site management, regulation and enforcement.

5. Management of overnight camping and recreation use should recognize different levels of use and desired recreation opportunities consistent with overall PCT desired conditions.

6. To enhance the recreation experience and protect resources, consider reconstructing or relocating existing portions of the PCT as needed. Trail relocations should be evaluated using the optimal location review process in partnership with adjoining federal agencies and the Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail Association.
---------

Note this is for the first 3 of 26 National Forests the PCT passes through. Let's get it right the first time.
 
#204 ·
It's worth repeating that this ludicrous proposal would allow the antibike PCTA to jointly decide with the Forest Service whether bicycles can be allowed on federal trails that cross the PCT! The PCT could become like an iron curtain that cuts off mountain biking across areas from San Diego County to Big Bear Lake to Tahoe to the area around Mount Shasta. Read the proposal to see for yourself how bad it is.

If everyone here will send in his/her comments on Plan #3375 (which should be renamed Plan 9 From Outer Space, for those who know what that is), others will be taking action with legal arguments to the Forest Service. If those fail and this plan is implemented, then it'll probably become necessary to sue the Forest Service and challenge the legality of the plan. That would take a lot of money. Does anyone know of any wealthy mountain bikers with lots of discretionary income?
 
#205 ·
Wow, well this is interesting: No bikes. But fracking is peachy-keen! WTF?!

7. For leasable minerals such as oil, gas and geothermal energy, PCT permits and activities within the trail corridor are available for leasing but must contain a “no surface occupancy” stipulation within the foreground and immediate foreground visual zones, based on the Forest Service Scenery Management System.
 
#208 ·
This will also screw runners, I noticed at least 3 races this summer that utilized the non-wilderness sections of the PCT around Echo summit, no more races on the PCT, as if it is not hard enough already trying to piece together routes with all the designated wilderness around.
 
#209 ·
Regardless of the usfs stance and elitist special interest groups that want to keep the trail closed, the real fact is that many miles of the trail are being lost due to lack of use, care and maintenance. The bulk of the trail is in these areas. Part of the irony, when the pcta and usfs have our local trail stewardship do maintenance on the trail.
 
#212 ·
They must have drank decades ago. They already issue permits and have a history as do packers. Mountain biking didn't exist when people were already through hiking the trail. It's simple: first come, first served. Mountain bikers need to offer something besides whinny letters if they want play.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top