USFS Plan Revision Trails Documents- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 5 of 5
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    239

    USFS Plan Revision Trails Documents

    The USFS plan revision draft documents are up here:
    Fall 2014 Plan Revision Meeting Documents

    A bigger concern than their zoning for logging, in my opinion, is their language around the transportation system (which includes trails). Take a look at the "Transportation Access and Trails" document. It looks like they took clues from the earlier "Trails Strategy" process to come up with gems like this:

    Trails Desired Conditions
    - Unsustainable trails are transitioned to a sustainable condition or decommissioned.
    - Unauthorized trails are not present on the forest.
    - Trail use occurs within the ability of the land to support it and with minimal conflict between users.
    - Access is designed to minimize conflicts between users.

    And from the Meeting Handout document:
    - Trail users generally wish to retain and increase trails miles for some uses, while the current trail system is in reality financially unsustainable.

    Personally, I think this is going to have a bigger impact on mountain biking than logging. I'm not yet convinced that the impact *has* to be negative, but it's going to take a lot more "wins" like last year's Black Mountain project to "bring trails to a sustainable condition" across esp. Pisgah. We need to see that kind of thing happen over, and over, and over again (under the "the sustainability of the trail network is supported by partner groups" bullet). Road to Trail conversion ALL THE THINGS.

    That was a big project, it was expensive, and it was not even universally supported within this community. The draft plan calls for closing trails as an alternative.
    Last edited by mtbwnc; 11-13-2014 at 06:55 AM. Reason: Added quote from meeting handout

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Snototter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    302
    Quote Originally Posted by mtbwnc View Post
    The USFS plan revision draft documents are up here:
    Fall 2014 Plan Revision Meeting Documents

    A bigger concern than their zoning for logging, in my opinion, is their language around the transportation system (which includes trails). Take a look at the "Transportation Access and Trails" document. It looks like they took clues from the earlier "Trails Strategy" process to come up with gems like this:

    Trails Desired Conditions
    - Unsustainable trails are transitioned to a sustainable condition or decommissioned.
    - Unauthorized trails are not present on the forest.
    - Trail use occurs within the ability of the land to support it and with minimal conflict between users.
    - Access is designed to minimize conflicts between users.

    And from the Meeting Handout document:
    - Trail users generally wish to retain and increase trails miles for some uses, while the current trail system is in reality financially unsustainable.

    Personally, I think this is going to have a bigger impact on mountain biking than logging. I'm not yet convinced that the impact *has* to be negative, but it's going to take a lot more "wins" like last year's Black Mountain project to "bring trails to a sustainable condition" across esp. Pisgah. We need to see that kind of thing happen over, and over, and over again (under the "the sustainability of the trail network is supported by partner groups" bullet). Road to Trail conversion ALL THE THINGS.

    That was a big project, it was expensive, and it was not even universally supported within this community. The draft plan calls for closing trails as an alternative.




    Unfortunately this is pretty much the facts. One day the WNC mountain bike community is going to get a wake up call with some of the trails we love.

    Now please excuse me while I go stick my head back in the sand.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    2,417
    "That was a big project, it was expensive, and it was not even universally supported within this community."

    The lower Black Mountain Trail project was not really about an attempt to please all mountain bikers. It was instead about protecting water quality, enhancing the relationship between PAS and the mountain bike community at large, and the relationship between PAS and the USFS, and enhancing the user experience for many mountain bikers. On the protecting the watershed front, we greatly reduced the impact lower black was having by greatly reducing run off and sedimentation into the nearby stream. Why was that so important, to protect native and some rare and endangered species:

    For many riders however, the feedback has been very positive. The latest Dirt Rag magazine had this to say:
    The bottom of Black Mountain Trail got overhauled. When I heard that last bit of news, a wave of fear reverberated down my spine. The bottom part has definitely changed, and in my opinion its been reworked perfectly- new undulations, better tracked berms, rollers, and a new bridge. We fly down the fast lower section and it seems as if its twice as long as it was in its previous life.

    Not bad, I think we did just fine on this project.

    Woody



    Quote Originally Posted by mtbwnc View Post
    The USFS plan revision draft documents are up here:
    Fall 2014 Plan Revision Meeting Documents

    A bigger concern than their zoning for logging, in my opinion, is their language around the transportation system (which includes trails). Take a look at the "Transportation Access and Trails" document. It looks like they took clues from the earlier "Trails Strategy" process to come up with gems like this:

    Trails Desired Conditions
    - Unsustainable trails are transitioned to a sustainable condition or decommissioned.
    - Unauthorized trails are not present on the forest.
    - Trail use occurs within the ability of the land to support it and with minimal conflict between users.
    - Access is designed to minimize conflicts between users.

    And from the Meeting Handout document:
    - Trail users generally wish to retain and increase trails miles for some uses, while the current trail system is in reality financially unsustainable.

    Personally, I think this is going to have a bigger impact on mountain biking than logging. I'm not yet convinced that the impact *has* to be negative, but it's going to take a lot more "wins" like last year's Black Mountain project to "bring trails to a sustainable condition" across esp. Pisgah. We need to see that kind of thing happen over, and over, and over again (under the "the sustainability of the trail network is supported by partner groups" bullet). Road to Trail conversion ALL THE THINGS.

    That was a big project, it was expensive, and it was not even universally supported within this community. The draft plan calls for closing trails as an alternative.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Snototter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    302
    Quote Originally Posted by Woodman View Post
    "That was a big project, it was expensive, and it was not even universally supported within this community."

    The lower Black Mountain Trail project was not really about an attempt to please all mountain bikers. It was instead about protecting water quality, enhancing the relationship between PAS and the mountain bike community at large, and the relationship between PAS and the USFS, and enhancing the user experience for many mountain bikers. On the protecting the watershed front, we greatly reduced the impact lower black was having by greatly reducing run off and sedimentation into the nearby stream. Why was that so important, to protect native and some rare and endangered species:

    For many riders however, the feedback has been very positive. The latest Dirt Rag magazine had this to say:
    The bottom of Black Mountain Trail got overhauled. When I heard that last bit of news, a wave of fear reverberated down my spine. The bottom part has definitely changed, and in my opinion its been reworked perfectly- new undulations, better tracked berms, rollers, and a new bridge. We fly down the fast lower section and it seems as if its twice as long as it was in its previous life.

    Not bad, I think we did just fine on this project.


    Woody

    That link to the video about the snot otters, I mean hellbenders, is pretty cool but also sad. While some mountain bikers moan about trail access, flow, technical, sanitizing, etc etc, that video really opened my eyes about how we use(and abuse) the forest and shows what the consequences are if we don't try to help manage trails that are bleeding into those pristine creeks and rivers.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    239
    Quote Originally Posted by Woodman View Post
    "That was a big project, it was expensive, and it was not even universally supported within this community."

    The lower Black Mountain Trail project was not really about an attempt to please all mountain bikers...Not bad, I think we did just fine on this project.

    Woody
    Oh, I totally agree - it was a great success, in my opinion. But it was also a massive undertaking. The only reason I mention that some vocal minority didn't like the finished product is because it makes it that much harder to get the kind of support we need to repeat it over and over and over again throughout the district to prevent trails from being closed.

Similar Threads

  1. Forest Plan Revision
    By SSweetleaf in forum New Mexico
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 06-26-2014, 08:58 AM
  2. Times Announced for Next Plan Revision Session
    By Logover in forum North & South Carolina
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-26-2014, 01:22 PM
  3. Replies: 29
    Last Post: 12-12-2013, 05:38 PM
  4. Oct. 5 Plan Revision Workshop Cancelled
    By mtbwnc in forum North & South Carolina
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 10-01-2013, 10:16 AM
  5. USFS Land and Resource Management Plan revision
    By Woodman in forum North & South Carolina
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 06-02-2013, 08:35 AM

Members who have read this thread: 0

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2019 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.