2010 Wasatch Area Trail Conditions and other Crap Thread

[Lonnie]

123,

First off, have you read subsection (a) to which the action of public notice is required? I haven't so I have no idea to what the rules apply to. It would also be nice if you provided the citation of what you posted there.

Second, as I said in an earlier post, every land management agency in existence has provisions for emergency action when a resource is threatened so they don't have do go thru a process such as the one above. If they didn't resources could potentially be damaged beyond repair before they could implement any changes. "Restoration projects" as have been mentioned earlier in this thread are typically reforestation, revegetaion, stream alteration or the like. I doubt this would fall under that category, so I doubt that the public notice requirements apply in this case. If you do, well then buck up and sue them for failure to follow due process.

However, even if you win, the point remains that the trail is still illegal.

[123ski]

123,

First off, have you read subsection (a) to which the action of public notice is required? I haven't so I have no idea to what the rules apply to. It would also be nice if you provided the citation of what you posted there.

Second, as I said in an earlier post, every land management agency in existence has provisions for emergency action when a resource is threatened so they don't have do go thru a process such as the one above. If they didn't resources could potentially be damaged beyond repair before they could implement any changes. "Restoration projects" as have been mentioned earlier in this thread are typically reforestation, revegetaion, stream alteration or the like. I doubt this would fall under that category, so I doubt that the public notice requirements apply in this case. If you do, well then buck up and sue them for failure to follow due process.

However, even if you win, the point remains that the trail is still illegal.

Yes I have read subsection A and it does apply to this. Basically what subsection A says is that this process applies to anything done under the Renewable Resources Planning Act. Which was enacted in 1974 but amended in 2000 and basically is an act to provide for the Forest Service, Department of Agriculture, to protect, develop, and enhance the productivity and other values of certain of the Nation’s lands and resources, and for other purposes. If you want to read the entire act it is clear that what they consider protecting the canyon is part of that act:

http://www.fs.fed.us/emc/nfma/includes/range74.pdf

I love how you ask me to give you links or citations to the Forest Service manuals that you obviously haven't read, while your post is full of speculation about policies which only exist in your own fantasies. The emergency closure requirements that the U.S. Forest Service has in place apply to actual situations of emergency There was nothing about the revegetation of this trail that could classify as an emergency. There are even rules in place about closing an area illegally if a certain species of animal or plant becomes endangered, but even closures in that case require a special process that takes longer than just cutting down a few trees. The Forest Service closed the lower trail as an emergency because it was dangerous for the public to be on after the flooding. It was not a permanent closure, but a temporary closure. If you cannot see the difference you are truly very dense.

What makes this trail illegal? You are so certain that it is illegal, you mention it in every post. The trail was built before the Forest Service was even established. It was built in a time when Congress was encouraging people to build highways through the west and was built legally during that time period. The Forest Service later was established in the Wasatch but as far as anyone know they never officially closed that trail. had they closed the trail they would have had to gone through the same public forums as they do now.

Just because the Forest Service says this trail is illegal does not mean that it is. How can a trail that they haven't ever closed be illegal. Show me when the Forest Service closed it after they took over that land. You need to wake up and stop believing every little thing that the government tells you. I am not anti government by any means. Our government has served us greatly, but many times our government is wrong due to the high level of bureaucracy that exists within it.

That is not to say that just because the Forest Service is wrong that we should go up there and cut up the trees that are blocking the path. But through proper legal channels and through the appeals process outlined above perhaps this decision can be turned around.

[cpj.slc]

I love how people like 123ski are actually citing government documents and Lonnie comes back with thinks like "I am sure blah blah blah" and "the trail is illegal".

[skifishbum]

Anybody know the status of the quarry trail itself. Doesn't seem like there is much flood restoration or much of an attempt going on to reopen it. Then again I have no idea how bad the damage was.

[drboudreaux]

appeal is not the only action possible - clearing the trees off the trail is possible.

I like this suggestion.

[Slaag Master]

i was on it up to the first bridge from the bottom back around july 10. at that time it was not ridable. looked like a boulder field. there was no sign of work being done.

[ectreeskier11]

rode the crest to mill d today for the first time. sure is beautiful, damn. still some flowers left, desolation lake is gorgeous! dirt was nice and tacky, that red stuff sure sticks nice.

[Dickeymotto]

Rode Northern Skyline for the first time this year. Super beautiful up there. My legs are sore.

[ectreeskier11]

had to post this one from i street tonight, from my buddy eric stoll. third time riding up there this year. maybe my 8th ride of the season, feels amazing to get back on the saddle after the injury this spring. first time off "style".

[Slaag Master]

"some babies never learn"

the way you youngsters SEND it. i will spectate in awe!

[ectreeskier11]

yeah, i'm not the sharpest tool in the shed. draper DH rode well today, hit everything in that line now too. more pissed everyday about LCC. nothing to progress on. oh well, headed home to NH in a couple weeks for my annual visit, will have to ride highland (stoked!), and plan on going to teton pass soon after coming back.

[JTrue]

Fun out and back with a loop thrown in yesterday. Everything is riding very well, not to dusty towards DV. Spiro, MM, Team Big Bear, Flagstaff Loop, Deer Camp, Nail Driver, MM, Spiro for the final descent.

[Touring_Sedan]

Took the long road to the arts fest in PC. Started @ Guardsman's







Finished at Spiro.

[pointedem]

third time riding up there this year. maybe my 8th ride of the season, feels amazing to get back on the saddle after the injury this spring.

good for you man. glad to hear it.

[powder4breakfast]

TAKE BACK UTAH - August 28th rally

Although there are people like Lonnie, who don't give a damn if the Federal Government does wrong... as long as they can see it coming first, there are many people who are disappointed with the Government's decisions to close access to OUR public lands.

I don't believe that OUR lands should be a free-for-all without management; however, I also don't believe that Government should be able to take OUR land away from us entirely. I believe that it is realistic to think we can balance and educate as opposed to having OUR land taken away.

This is relative to recent discussion in this thread regarding LCC, an area that was wrongfully taken away from us. If you now want to walk in the canyon from Granite to Alta, like Max Lundberg and others did back in the 60's, and like many others did all the way back to the 19th century, YOU CAN'T! While Lonnie doesn't care about politics and government bullying, myself and many others who grew up with access to this canyon do!

I also know there are many tree hugging hippies on this board who would rather have the entire state as wilderness area... we all have a right to our opinions.

For those who believe we should have access to OUR land and want to help take it back, read the text or follow the link for more info.

http://takebackutah.org/?utm_medium=...ebackUtahRally

Take Back Utah protects access to our public lands and defends the freedom of all American’s to explore and experience America’s Wild Places, while preserving America’s small town economies and rural lifestyles through responsible land use.



Aug 28th Rally
Last year, 4000 outdoor enthusiasts and multiple users of public land from around the country gathered in Salt Lake to march on the capitol in protest of land restrictions placed on Utah’s public lands by the federal government. The protest ignited a string of events that has changed the course and direction of local and state leaders regarding the importance of public land access in the state.

Just some of the direct results of our collective efforts led to renewed support from the state on protecting county rights of way with the federal government. Legislators were emboldened by that show of support to create, debate and pass legislation that challenges the fed’s authority over federal lands and gives the state the power of eminent domain. The light from that rally has also cast a beam of hope across the west to surrounding states who are now undertaking similar rallies on their home turf. But as far as we have come in one year, there is still much more to do to bring this cause to national attention.

“We now know these protests work, we just have to turn up the volume to make our case to the whole nation” Rick Whiteside president of Take Back Utah.
The 2010 parade and rally, scheduled for August 28th running from Liberty Park to the State Capital is in need of 10,000 people to show up in support of our cause, or face the fact that the current administration will substantially choke off our access to our historical lands in Utah and throughout the west.

Make Plans and tell your friends to clear their calendars and parade with us through downtown Salt Lake. It is the most important ATV / Jeep trip, horseback ride, mountain bike excursion you are likely to take in the next few years The parade is free to enter, and representatives from all groups that use public lands are encouraged to join us for this event. Showing up is the most important thing you can do. Staging begins at Liberty Park on the 28th at 6 AM. 10:00 to 12:00 will be the parade and 12:30 to 1:30 the rally.

[drboudreaux]

Plans for new trailside skills park in Park City/Snyderville Basin.

Thanks Rad Bob.

http://progressivetraildesign.files....ev111x16-5.jpg

[cpj.slc]

Plans for new trailside skills park in Park City/Snyderville Basin.

Thanks Rad Bob.

http://progressivetraildesign.files....ev111x16-5.jpg

That looks very cool. What is going on with Gorgoza? Getting close?

[JoshP]

That picture of the Trailside development has me all sorts of stoked.

[DerJaeger]

TAKE BACK UTAH
...snip...

I stopped reading at "responsible land use". When someone uses that phrase, it always, always means "so I can ride ATVs there".

Sure, I want more mountain biking -- but not if it means allowing more ATV access.

[SexFuck]

I stopped reading at "responsible land use". When someone uses that phrase, it always, always means "so I can ride ATVs there".

Sure, I want more mountain biking -- but not if it means allowing more ATV access.

I'de rather have an ATV on the trail than a granola munching hippy.

[powder4breakfast]

To each their own.

When I'm backpacking in the Uintahs, I don't want to see bikes, horses, atv's etc.
When I'm Mt. biking in Moab, I don't want to see jeeps, motorcycles etc.
When I'm riding my dirt bike in AF Canyon, I don't want to see horses, hikers, MTB's etc.
When I'm jeeping or on an ATV I don't want to see...

We all have a right to use trails and areas that are sanctioned for certain activities. I believe that I am considerate to other user groups when I come across them... because I am also one of them on a different day.

Yes, responsible land use "always" means ride a 4 wheeler wherever you want... or it could just mean using land responsibly in regards to whatever uses it is sanctioned for. I can tell you as one who participates in most outdoor activities from climbing and backpacking to dirtbiking and jeeping to water sports, both motorized and paddle powered, there are bad apples in every group. Many people who travel by foot into the outdoors have no knowledge of LNT or outdoor ethics. Hard to believe; but, not everyone that owns an ATV belongs to some secret club that encourages them to ride off desert trails tearing up sacred cryptobiotic soil crust.

No one should participate in said event if they don't believe in it's cause. I for one am simply against Federal Government taking away our rights to access our land. Especially in areas that foot traffic has been allowed for centuries and they now feel it needs to be reclaimed.

[powder4breakfast]

...and for the other reason for a recent revival of this thread. Rad Bob is awesome. Very exciting stuff in the future for the Wasatch. Thank you Bob!

[spintowin]

LCC update: A few weeks back, I sent a letter to the USFS in response to the closure and today I received this reply.

Thanks for your interest and concern about the route closure between White Pine trailhead and Tanner Campground in Little Cottonwood Canyon. The Salt Lake District of the Uinta Wasatch Cache National Forest heard from many trail users to include many from the mountain biking community. Below, you’ll find responses to your concerns, an in-depth look at the rationale behind the closure, and where we’ll go from here.

Let me address your concerns one-by one. First, why was it decided to reclaim this user created trail? In order to fulfill our responsibilities as public land-managers, the District is obligated to correct known safety hazards that affect our visitors and to support /improve important riparian habitat and watershed conditions as prescribed in our Forest Plan. (For those who many not know, forest plans are collaborative processes, developed over several years with extensive community involvement from diverse stakeholders. In our case, thousands of residents participated, which included members from the mountain biking community.)

The immediate need involved visitor safety where the user created trail used the same route that campers walk to enter a camping site. The route also passed through the heart of the campground. There have been many complaints from visitors frequenting the area who have been startled by fast moving cyclists using the same trail corridor as those hauling equipment to their site as well as upsetting other campers in the campground. Fortunately, there have not been any reported accidents and we chose not to wait until one occurred.

Second question, why not authorize a route in this area? In the year 2000, the idea to construct a trail from the top of Little Cottonwood Canyon all the way down to the mouth was explored by the Forest Service and local communities. The area was surveyed for a potential suitable location and field reviewed by agency resource specialists. The riparian area near White Pine was identified as one of the last secure places available in the canyon for wildlife habitat and additional impacts from even a properly built trail could add sedimentation that would affect aquatic habitat. The area also contains a substantial amount of important cultural artifacts. After this review, it was determined that between the human pressures already present throughout the canyon, including the presence of a heavily used state highway, that adding the intrusion of a trail, along with the potential sedimentation to the fish bearing stream and added effects to water quality would bring into this riparian habitat was not acceptable. Our 2003 Forest Plan standard prescribes that new trail construction in this area is not permitted.

Third, why didn’t we reach out to the mountain bike community before reclaiming the trail? We have met with leaders in the mountain bike community in the past about this section of trail and made it known that the area this trail was pioneered through was “a highly sensitive wetland.” This information was disseminated by the mountain bike community through various blog sites that asked riders not to ride or construct features in that area and to travel through the campground in a safe manner. This request was not honored. In fact, the route was used more, more features were built, and unsafe travel through the campground did not diminish. Meanwhile other government entities, as well as trail advocate groups, were complaining to the Salt Lake Ranger District to fulfill our responsibilities and forest plan direction to protect the watershed and riparian habitat in that particular area. The district reviewed our policy of potentially allowing such a trail however quickly was reminded that we had no option to adopt or construct a trail in this area. We needed to close the area before more damage and use continued.

Plain and simple, this was a fulfillment of a commitment to public land stewardship, there wasn’t an ability to do anything different.

Fourth, Why cut the trees to block the area, can’t you just sign it closed? You are causing more damage by cutting trees. It would be great if we could just put up a sign and people would respect the closure. We attempted that approach in the mid-2000s on the lower section of user-created trail. Not only were the signs removed and ignored, we attempted a similar closure approach of clogging the trail, only to have it unclogged and re-opened within a year or so. Our experience is that people do not think those signs apply to them… only someone else…. When we have to close a trail physically, we first look for natural barriers. We select trees in the area that are properly aligned with the trail portion we are trying to close, and we selectively thin out the forest in that area. Trees, as they lie on the ground, catch sediment which helps curtail erosion. As the trees decompose they provide soil and other plant nutrients.

Okay, so what’s next? We plan to continue discussions in the future with leaders in the trail user communities about their interests in trails and other opportunities. We have had discussions with our ski areas about the potential for developing appropriate trail systems at their resorts and have been researching, with the mountain bike communities, other existing programs at ski areas on National Forest System (NFS) lands as well as other developed biking trail systems. We commit to continuing this discussion and looking for realistic opportunities to address the biking community’s desire for this type of recreation in an appropriate setting. Are there other lands nearby with less sensitive ecosystems that can accommodate such use?

There are multiple demands on this highly valued and heavily used, but finite Wasatch Front. Mountain biking, in all its forms, is a valid use NFS lands. The questions are how much, what kind, and where is use sustainable in maintaining healthy watersheds and ecosystems, for which we and future generations want to enjoy, and depend on?

Cathy Kahlow

Salt Lake District Ranger

[ectreeskier11]

yeah that response email was WEAK.

[ectreeskier11]

interesting email chain going on haha...