Moose River Plains UMP Update Planned

[sick4surf]

Moose River Plains UMP update planned

December 05, 2014 8:05
The state Department of Environmental Conservation is planning to update its unit management plan for Moose River Plains to improve mountain bike trails. With an awesome new trail system in Johnsburg starting to gain momentum, another system in the southern/central Adirondacks could start turning the region into a destination for mountain bikers. Information is below.

DEC SEEKS TO AMEND MOOSE RIVER PLAINS MANAGEMENT PLAN TO IMPROVE MOUNTAIN BIKE TRAIL SYSTEM
Public Meeting Scheduled for December 18 in Raquette Lake
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) is seeking comments to amend the Moose River Plains Wild Forest (MRPWF) Unit Management Plan to improve its mountain bike trail system, Regional Director Robert Stegemann announced today.

“The 2011 Unit Management Plan called for DEC to create a working group consisting of mountain bikers, local governments and other interested parties to develop a comprehensive mountain bike plan for Moose River Plains,” said Director Stegemann. “A meeting of stakeholders in July 2013 resulted in DEC contracting with the International Mountain Bicycling Association to create a mountain bike trail system concept plan. The concept plan has been completed.”

The next step in the process to develop a high-quality mountain bike trail system in the Moose River Plains Wild Forest is to consider an amendment to the UMP.

DEC is initiating a public review to determine which elements of the concept plan to adopt in a UMP amendment, which will also define how a mountain bike trail system will be implemented on the ground. A public meeting will be held in the gymnasium of the Raquette Lake Union Free School, 115 State Route 28, Raquette Lake, on Thursday, December 18, beginning at 7 p.m. The school is wheelchair accessible. Please provide any requests for specific accommodation in advance to DEC at 518-897-1248.

DEC staff will provide a brief presentation on the proposals in the concept plan, identifying the proposals that may be acted on without amending the UMP; proposals that require a UMP amendment; and proposals that cannot be undertaken due to physical or regulatory restrictions. DEC will then seek thoughts and ideas from the public on the proposals in the plan.

Mountain biking has become a very popular activity in many places. Residents and local government officials in the communities around the Moose River Plains seek to improve their local economies by developing high-quality mountain bike trail systems to attracting mountain bikers to the area.

Comments may also be provided by January 30, 2015 in writing to McCrea Burnham, 625 Broadway, Albany, NY, 12233-4254 or e-mailed to: [email protected].

The Moose River Plains UMP and the mountain bike trail system conceptual plan can be viewed and downloaded at http://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/22571.html
_________________
Michael Vitti
CLIMB President
http://www.climbonline.org
Trips for Kids Affiliate
NY State Trails Council Member

[jamesframes]

this is a very cool area in the adk's---nice dirt/jeep roads there already, mtb trails would be a huge bonus
_________________
If I can bicycle, I bicycle.
David Attenborough




Support your LBS-Bicycle Depot New Paltz NY

[Jesse845]

All of the "mountain bike trails" that I have seen in Hamilton County are dirt roads that are suitable for my wife's Nissan Versa. A network or singletrack trails in MRP would awesome, but I'm not sure if that's what they are talking about. Mountain biking in the adirondack park is restricted to designated mountain bike trails only. They would have to build all new trails, or designate trails that are currently for hiking and / or snowmobiling. I'm interested to learn more about what they have in mind.

[sick4surf]

Look at the conceptual plan drawn up by IMBA. It has pump tracks and single tracks. Please support this as it will become a worthy destination.
_________________
Michael Vitti
CLIMB President
http://www.climbonline.org
Trips for Kids Affiliate
NY State Trails Council Member

[Jesse845]

Thanks, Mike. I didn't see the link. It looks awesome!

[sick4surf]

Comments are due by the end of January so please send in your comments. Here is what I sent in:

To:

[email protected]

Thank you for allowing comments towards the Moose River Plains UMP. I am very excited and support the inclusion of the mountain bike improvements plan. This will bring a much needed economic boost to the area.

Please add these comments to your general UMP for the Moose River Plains:

Appendix 9:

-Says IMBA "standards" and guidelines but they should just say guidelines as there are no "standards" yet.
-Says "no biking" signs will be posted on trails not specified for bike use but that is too strongly worded in a negative fashion. See below:

DEC revised its Conservation Law “Part 190” Regulations
(impacting lands outside of the Adirondack and Catskill Forest
Preserves). NYBC and the Trail Council’s vocal objections to
former drafts helped DEC adopt “user friendly”
regulations. Earlier versions prohibited bikes (in use or even being
pushed along) on all but the few trails that were “signed”
for bikes. The revised regulation now reads: bicycling is prohibited
(only) if the trail is signed as closed to bicycling. We thank DEC for
this reasonable approach and strongly request bicyclists stay off
trails closed to us. (Said trails likely have safety issues, specified
user conflicts or fragile habitats that require closure.) Fortunately,
this leaves the vast majority of DEC trails open for bike and other
users. As always, please be respectful of other users and make way for
hikers and equestrians when cycling on these trails.

- Keep new mountain bike trails below 2,000 feet? Is this going to be implemented for hiking trails as well? Runners travel the same speed as bikes. Hikers and bird watchers have the greatest impacts on birds. Bicyclists are predictable, they come and go with minimal impact according to studies done with nesting eagles in Colorado found within the report: Planning Trails with Wildlife in Mind. Hikers and bird watchers cause the most stress to birds because they hang around longer and use the same motions as a stalker or predator. See below for info on Bicknell's Thrush. I suspect folks are using the bird as a scape goat to discriminate against a certain user group. Trail groups could distribute informational pamphlets or use trail ambassadors during Bicknell's Thrush breeding season to explain about the need to be cautious and considerate towards the birds. Interpretive signs at the trailheads may also be used to increase awareness.

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

Appendix 11:

-Again with the under 2,000 feet ruling?
-Existing woods roads are not considered trails by outdoor enthusiasts. When mapping please indicate wether the trail segment is a woods road, double track or single track. This will help with trail planning for local user groups to determine their preferred routes and will help in assisting with the creation of a map for emergency responders when someone who may need medical help. They can determine which routes vehicles may use to reach the location where help is needed.
-Mentions trails should not exceed 10% grade but fails to recognize the need for a grade reversal every 50 - 75 feet.
-Mentions vegetate back slopes but that is not a best management practice. Blending in back slopes is the approved method and the back slopes will revegetate naturally.
-Plans are for just beginners to intermediates? What of the advanced riders? The rugged and wild nature of the environment is best suited to the advanced mountain biker. Beginners and intermediates may be fine with 8 - 16 miles of trails but advanced riders may want at least 30 miles per day of riding available to make it worthy of a destination.
-Erosion is caused by poor trail design not usage.
-If you make it a practice to not create new trails for mountain bikes above 2,500 feet you need to make it a practice to not develop new foot trails either. people running on foot trails travel at the same speed as bicycles. Additionally since no new trails for mountain bikers may be developed above 2,500 feet then the existing trails that are above 2,500 feet should be divided up into multi use trails 50-50 or closed down to be fair.

Why Do Mountain Bicyclists Prefer Single Track Trails?
Singletrack trails bring us closer to nature and increase mountain biking challenges even though they force everyone to travel at a slower speed. Think about how slow you have to drive your car in a narrow alleyway as opposed to a wider street. City planners use traffic calming techniques to slow drivers on wide boulevards. They add speed bumps, narrower intersections and create roundabouts to accomplish speed control. Mountain bike club professionals use a similar common sense approach to trail design and understand the psychology of the users. All the trial and error work has been done for you by IMBA. We prefer the scenic meandering route!

Singletrack trails also create less of an impact due to the minimal disturbance caused while creating a narrow trail. There are minimal effects from fragmentation since no trees are removed and there is little difference in light levels, which minimizes the creation of edge habitats and assures no loss of canopy. Additionally, current studies show that wildlife has a higher tolerance towards bicycle intrusion into their habitats. A bicycle moves in a predictable manner and leaves the habitat area fairly quickly, while humans on foot tend to hang around observing the wildlife and increasing their stress. See case studies from “Planning Trails with Wildlife in Mind” by Colorado State Parks.

Why Keep Mountain Bike Trails Under 2,500 Feet?
Please explain in layman's terms why hiking and running trails are allowed above 2,500 feet yet mountain bike trails are not? Also please support your decision with the scientific research papers you used to make this decision. Please bear in mind that runners travel almost the same speed as mountain bicycles.

In 2010 we submitted our first round of comments and in the first draft the DEC said that "IMBA" recommends that trails do not go above 2,000 feet for sustainability. Well, we asked to rescind that comment because it was untrue and in the current version (in appendix 9 & 11 and in the comments section) it states that mountain bike trails should be kept below 2,000 feet to protect the Bicknell's Thrush. "The DEC has made it a practice not to create new mountain bike trails above 2,500 feet."

I did some research and found that these birds are not ground nesting birds. They nest in spruce/fir trees that are near the tree line where the trees get reduced in height. So why the bias towards bikes? If there is a crucial period in the life cycle of the Bicknell's Thrush then perhaps all trails can be closed above 2,500 feet during that brief period. I suspect there are people who may have a cultural attitude towards a certain user group that are lobbying against bicycles and are using the Bicknell's Thrush as a reason to keep out a new minority of user group. There are ways to route trails that avoid the islands of habitat favored by the Bicknell's Thrush and thus minimize impacts. Additionally, current conservation action plan reports by the International Bicknell Thrush Conservation Group shows that trail use has a minimal impact on the bird's habitat and that would only be during breeding season. So why the year round ban on bicycles?

Are there roads or hiking trails above 2,500 feet and are there people running and hiking on those trails? Runners and hikers can cause the same if not more impact to these birds habitat. Runners travel almost the same speed as mountain bikes.

I believe in the book called "planning trails with wildlife in mind" they show that nesting eagles were less impacted by bicycles and vehicles because they traveled in a predictable manner while hikers and bird watchers caused the most impact because they acted unpredictably and hung around longer trying to get a peek at the birds and acting as predators would.

We need more studies and facts to prove this policy's merits as it will set a bad precedent if allowed to remain in the plan.

Thank you for your time and consideration.
_________________
Michael Vitti
CLIMB President
http://www.climbonline.org
Trips for Kids Affiliate
NY State Trails Council Member

[TriassicDoc]

I'm working on a response. I might borrow some of yours!

[sick4surf]

Thanks. One thing I forgot and that you can add is that the impact of trails noted in the Bicknell's Thrush conservation group report found a greater impact from recreational trails but upon further investigation, they were referring to ski resort trails which are as wide as a road and not to be confused with single track trails. You can copy and paste but please personalize your response.
_________________
Michael Vitti
CLIMB President
http://www.climbonline.org
Trips for Kids Affiliate
NY State Trails Council Member

[sick4surf]

Comments are due today. Thanks!

Just sent this addition:

Thanks for allowing comments to the Moose River UMP. One thing I forgot to add is that the impact of trails noted in the Bicknell's Thrush conservation group report found a greater impact from recreational trails but upon further investigation, they were referring to ski resort trails which are as wide or wider than a road and not to be confused with single track trails, which create the least amount of impact and do not disturb the canopy.

Also there are hiking clubs devoted to peak bagging trail-less mountain tops. They are devoted to bushwhacking their way up to the summits and they have canisters on the top where they sign in to prove they made it. The Catskill 3500 club and the Adirondack High Peaks club requires peak bagging for membership. I suggest that this activity causes more impact to Bicknell's Thrush. If you won't allow mountain bike trails to be built above 2500 feet then why allow bushwhacking? Surely a mountain biker sticking to an established trail that has been planned to avoid sensitive habitat has less of an impact than hordes of people bushwhacking through possible nesting sites?
_________________
Michael Vitti
CLIMB President
http://www.climbonline.org
Trips for Kids Affiliate
NY State Trails Council Member

[Tim845]

The "trail-less peaks" really irk me. Instead of having all users on a well planned trail, the result is many social trails all over the place. Very not "Leave No Trace."
_________________
Pedal, b*tches!!