Support Mountain Bikes on new Continental Divide National Scenic Trail / CO Trail

[thommy21]

Searched but couldn't find anything on this. I'll take it down if this is already out there. I know everyone has skiing on the brain now that we are getting a little snow, but some biking support is needed.

"The USDA Forest Service is taking comments on a plan to relocate approximately 32 miles of the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail (CDNST) by moving the route from Forest Service roads onto newly built singletrack. The current "preferred alternative" plan would not allow bicycles on the new singletrack. Instead, mountain bikers would be routed onto the existing roads. If you are in support of bikes on the new trail please write a letter or email to the Forest Service by next Monday, December 17th. Tell them that you support Alternative # 3 and you would like to see non-motorized cycling allowed."
You can also submit comments through IMBA http://www.imba.com/form/submit-your-cdt-comments

CDNST, USFS
2250 Hwy 50Delta, CO 81416
Fax comments to: 970-874-6698
Email comments to: comments-rocky-mountain-gmug@fs.fed.us

More info on the trail proposal here:
http://cbmba.org/
http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/fs-usda-po...?project=31283

[goldenboy]

Good call. I posted something on the CO trail thread a while back, but it got lost there.

Here's some good stuff from the FS: "Under Alternative 3 the trail would be designated as open for mechanized/mountain bike use. Mountain bike use on the trail would have environmental effects.
Mountain bikes affect trail tread. In situations where trails climb or descend over forest soils such as are found along the proposed trail alignment (any trail alignment in this area located off of gravel surface roads), through repeated digging of mountain bike tire tread, trails are entrenched over time. The tread loosens soils, and subsequent rains wash it, creating down-cutting. Also, where the trail created by hiker and horse use is more likely to have relatively flat walking surface, the “cross section profile” of the tread of a trail used by mountain bike traffic is often rounded, or open horseshoe shaped. The consequence of this to the hiker and horse is that with each step, the foot is placed on an inward slope, turning the ankle and knee, and even hip, in an unnatural fashion. Long hikes on this kind of trail can result in unusual soreness in hikers or horses, and simply be uncomfortable. This can affect user experience.
Another effect observed in mountain bike trails in certain circumstances of slope and soils is the creation of a washboard or hummocking effect. Going uphill, each power stroke of the rider places uneven force on the soils, and over time can result in a hummocking effect, not unlike washboarding of roads but with much longer distances between dips. The gentle slopes of the new proposed location would be susceptible to this effect over time. The result for the hiker or horseback rider is that they find themselves walking up and down these dips to stay in the trail.
The social effects of mountain bike use on the trail include encounters by hikers and horseback riders with mountain biking parties. Mountain bikers travel much faster than hikers and or horses, and often “appear” quickly, causing hikers and horses to have to quickly yield. In downhill (from bikers perspective) situations this can even lead to safety issues. A biker coming around a corner at high speed can come upon a hiker before either party is aware of the other.
In general terms, bicycle use on the CDNST is not consistent with the overall objectives for the CDNST."


It's as if they found the most rabid anti-mtb person out there to write this thing. Notice there are no citations for any studies proving this absurd stuff. Take 2 minutes and write a damn letter. It matters, don't let creaky fossil tell you otherwise. I put a few photos of the existing road (trail), along with a few points you might want to bring up in an entry on my website HERE. Some quality comments as well if you're looking for some points to make in a letter to the FS.

A huge THANKS to everyone who takes the time to write. Also a huge THANKS to the CO Trail Foundation, which unanimously voted in favor of alternative 3, allowing bikes. Great organization, if you're looking to do a year-end charitable donation, keep the CTF in mind.

[stuckathuntermtn]

Reminds me of some of the nice looking single track at Blue Mountain that nobody seems to use because bikes aren't allowed on it.

[tellybele]

Reminds me of some of the nice looking single track at Blue Mountain that nobody seems to use because bikes aren't allowed on it.

Yeah, isn't it rather...funny. The even funnier part is that they constructed new trail for bikers/hikers that lies inbetween the st you mention and the horse unloading zone. So what do they do? The horses pock mark the hell outa the other trails in the spring and most do not appear to even make it to their trail anymore...

Goldenboy...

Look at the specialist's reoprts as they relate to Altternative 3. The soils/hydro reports are a good start. Look at references and citations and see if they align well with their conclusions. Then provide input and reference the specialst input where you can to support your argument. Be active and vigilant, it is the only way..complaining w/out following up gets us nowhere. NEPA allows this and the public input carries weight. I do this kind of work and it important the public participates.

[stuckathuntermtn]

Telle, you talking about all the lower down single track? Yeah, it gets all pock marked bad. Guess who wears it smooth again? The mountain bikers.
The single track I'm thinking of is the one that runs along the main road, the one open to traffic. You get to the top of the hiking road near the moto trailhead, and there's that no bikes single track that looks unused. You continue up the main road and there it is occasionally on your right, going off to a beautiful view of the Missions.
Fucking morAns.

[brettf]

Submitted comments a while back. Important stuff, folks!

[NT]

Good call. I posted something on the CO trail thread a while back, but it got lost there.

Here's some good stuff from the FS: "Under Alternative 3 the trail would be designated as open for mechanized/mountain bike use. Mountain bike use on the trail would have environmental effects.
Mountain bikes affect trail tread. In situations where trails climb or descend over forest soils such as are found along the proposed trail alignment (any trail alignment in this area located off of gravel surface roads), through repeated digging of mountain bike tire tread, trails are entrenched over time. The tread loosens soils, and subsequent rains wash it, creating down-cutting. Also, where the trail created by hiker and horse use is more likely to have relatively flat walking surface, the “cross section profile” of the tread of a trail used by mountain bike traffic is often rounded, or open horseshoe shaped. The consequence of this to the hiker and horse is that with each step, the foot is placed on an inward slope, turning the ankle and knee, and even hip, in an unnatural fashion. Long hikes on this kind of trail can result in unusual soreness in hikers or horses, and simply be uncomfortable. This can affect user experience.
Another effect observed in mountain bike trails in certain circumstances of slope and soils is the creation of a washboard or hummocking effect. Going uphill, each power stroke of the rider places uneven force on the soils, and over time can result in a hummocking effect, not unlike washboarding of roads but with much longer distances between dips. The gentle slopes of the new proposed location would be susceptible to this effect over time. The result for the hiker or horseback rider is that they find themselves walking up and down these dips to stay in the trail.
The social effects of mountain bike use on the trail include encounters by hikers and horseback riders with mountain biking parties. Mountain bikers travel much faster than hikers and or horses, and often “appear” quickly, causing hikers and horses to have to quickly yield. In downhill (from bikers perspective) situations this can even lead to safety issues. A biker coming around a corner at high speed can come upon a hiker before either party is aware of the other.
In general terms, bicycle use on the CDNST is not consistent with the overall objectives for the CDNST."


It's as if they found the most rabid anti-mtb person out there to write this thing. Notice there are no citations for any studies proving this absurd stuff. Take 2 minutes and write a damn letter. It matters, don't let creaky fossil tell you otherwise. I put a few photos of the existing road (trail), along with a few points you might want to bring up in an entry on my website HERE. Some quality comments as well if you're looking for some points to make in a letter to the FS.

Well, on page 89, they go on to say that there has been no definitive study and that their field people don't find this to be the case:
"The mode of travel on a trail does have the potential to effect erosion potential. While there are those that would suggest some forms of travel such as mountain bikes have the ability to disturb and detach surface soils more readily than other non-motorized travel, there are no known studies that specifically address the erosion rates of horseback use compared to mountain bike use. Field observations by Forest Service personnel on the GMUG indicate that more critical than the mode of travel is the frequency and number of users on a trail. Trails experiencing high volumes of traffic from any form of non-motorized travel can experience down-cutting of the trail and increased erosion over those trail segments with less use. Development of the proposed trail using proper and recommended design elements that appropriately address grade and drainage would be expected to be able to adequately handle all modes of non-motorized trail without adverse impacts to the running surface of the trial or with increased erosion."

[goldenboy]

Well, on page 89, they go on to say that there has been no definitive study and that their field people don't find this to be the case:
"The mode of travel on a trail does have the potential to effect erosion potential. While there are those that would suggest some forms of travel such as mountain bikes have the ability to disturb and detach surface soils more readily than other non-motorized travel, there are no known studies that specifically address the erosion rates of horseback use compared to mountain bike use. Field observations by Forest Service personnel on the GMUG indicate that more critical than the mode of travel is the frequency and number of users on a trail. Trails experiencing high volumes of traffic from any form of non-motorized travel can experience down-cutting of the trail and increased erosion over those trail segments with less use. Development of the proposed trail using proper and recommended design elements that appropriately address grade and drainage would be expected to be able to adequately handle all modes of non-motorized trail without adverse impacts to the running surface of the trial or with increased erosion."

Good eye. They still chose to put it in an official document without any basis in studies, etc. Seems like something one would be more likely to read in a hiker forum than an official FS document. Regardless, there are 5 days left to comment and the favored alternative is still the one that bans bikes.

[tellybele]

Good eye. They still chose to put it in an official document without any basis in studies, etc. Seems like something one would be more likely to read in a hiker forum than an official FS document. Regardless, there are 5 days left to comment and the favored alternative is still the one that bans bikes.

You'd think eh? This is a great example of personal agenda driven policy. This part should be hit hard and heavy.

[tellybele]

Telle, you talking about all the lower down single track? Yeah, it gets all pock marked bad. Guess who wears it smooth again? The mountain bikers.
The single track I'm thinking of is the one that runs along the main road, the one open to traffic. You get to the top of the hiking road near the moto trailhead, and there's that no bikes single track that looks unused. You continue up the main road and there it is occasionally on your right, going off to a beautiful view of the Missions.
Fucking morAns.

That is a part of it. All of the trails north of the main road are closed to wheeled travel. I have run sections of the NRT(horse trail) a couple times the last couple years and it is amazing how overgrown and little use it sees now. The horses just use the new MTB trails. Closer to their trailers and good for them. I don't blame them a bit.

[Rontele]

Congressman Tipton has sent the Forest Service a very strong letter in support of the alternative which permits mountain biking.

[stuckathuntermtn]

That is a part of it. All of the trails north of the main road are closed to wheeled travel. I have run sections of the NRT(horse trail) a couple times the last couple years and it is amazing how overgrown and little use it sees now. The horses just use the new MTB trails. Closer to their trailers and good for them. I don't blame them a bit.

I know the minute I try to pedal, or even walk my bike, out to the lookout where you can see the Missions, let along ride down the single track, an FS employee will pop out of the bushes and confiscated my bike. I think they train them to be ninjas. I swear the minute you try to do something mildly illegal, someone will pop up from behind like "hi, how's it going, what you got going on there?"

[goldenboy]

Congressman Tipton has sent the Forest Service a very strong letter in support of the alternative which permits mountain biking.

Nice! thanks for your hard work

[406]

done, thanks for posting. CDT

[thommy21]

The decision was made to allow bikes on the new segment of CDNST. Thanks to those who voiced thier opinion to the FS.
http://gunnisontrails.com

http://a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558...T3_1424409.pdf

[ZomblibulaX]

Thanks to you for posting this back in december; i might not have heard about it otherwise. Glad to see a positive non-exclusive outcome.

[supermodel159]

Very cool.

[TahoeBC]

This is really huge, the forest service has made some hopefully precedent setting statements! and goes against many of the haters arguments against bikes and may help in the ongoing efforts to get legal bike access to other national scenic trails such as the PCT.

In 1968, Congress enacted the National Trails System Act (The Act) (P.L. 90-543) which established a nationwide trail system. The Act (16 U.S.C. 1242) describes that National Scenic
Trails “will be extended trails so located as to provide for maximum outdoor recreation potential and for the conservation and enjoyment of the nationally significant scenic, historic, natural, or cultural qualities of the areas through which such trails may pass.”

We believe “Maximum outdoor recreation potential for conservation and enjoyment... ” (16 U.S.C. 1242) is best met through the inclusion of bikes
in these multiple - use management areas

These multiple - use management areas are consistent with providing a broad range of recreation opportunities Including “semi -primitive non-motorized” uses. Bikes are considered a semi-primitive non-motorized use.

Most of our non-motorized volunteer groups in the
area are either mountain bike clubs or multiple-use advocates

"While we understand CDNST thru-hiker desires for exclusive use of the trail, exclusion of bikes (and for that matter horses), would not be an environmentally or fiscally responsible decision on our part.

Local communities rely on tourism generated by opportunities on federal lands. Rural communities would experience the largest economic benefit from the inclusion of all three user groups who would spend money on gas, food, lodging, supplies and equipment.

Effects on scenic, natural, historic and cultural qualities have been addressed in the EA. No
significant differences in effects have been described for any of the action alternatives that would indicate that a substantial interference with the nature and purposes of The Act has occurred through the inclusion of bikes.

[rideit]

Outstanding.

[406]

Yep, very cool. ~32 miles of new trail. Scary/interesting to read all the anti mtb comments in appendix c, all the same old anti mtb bs that some groups have been using for years. Looks like they got around 900 letters, I'm guessing lots of pro mtb otherwise this might have gone the other way.