PDA

View Full Version : Input wanted for proposal on Loch Raven Master Recreational Plan


b1umb0y
May 5th, 2010, 03:11 PM
An Open Letter to the Loch Raven Trail User Community:


Dear Friends and Fellow Loch Raven Trail Users,

Pending long-term changes are coming to the trails around Loch Raven and this letter is to update you on recent happenings and to encourage you to provide us feedback. In the case of a reservoir like Loch Raven, one of the greatest threats to its role as a municipal water supply is sedimentation. Many factors associated with being in an urban environment contribute to sedimentation in the reservoir, and the forest buffer zone surrounding the reservoir is its last line of defense. The City is focused on improving this forest buffer with hopes to both reduce sedimentation and improve the water quality in Loch Raven. Baltimore City has recently hired a number of rangers for the City’s reservoirs, including Loch Raven. The rangers' primary role is the protection and enforcement of watershed regulations aimed at limiting the environmental impact to the buffer zone and the prevention of excess erosion.

Nearly a century ago, timbering regularly occurred around the reservoir land and many of these logging roads remain today, which the City now refers to as Woods Roads. These Woods Roads were built before sustainable trail design and with a goal to move timber, not to be a recreational trail system. As we see every time it rains, these roads, because of their poor design and sheer square footage of exposed soil, are often the muddiest, nastiest sections in the reservoir, in some cases likely delivering cubic yards of sediment directly to the reservoir.

The City engaged an outside expert to assess which of these Woods Roads are no longer needed for management of the land and which shall remain open. Closing some of these roads will undoubtedly have a positive impact on the reforestation effort. However, these closings will also have an impact on recreational use.

It is important to note that the land around Loch Raven is not a park; it is a buffer zone primarily for water quality that also allows passive recreation.

Additionally, and towards this reforestation effort, the City is assessing the user-generated trails, most often referred to as single-track, around the reservoir and plans to close an undetermined number of them. The mountain bike community has been in ongoing discussions with the City and the City has asked us for a trail proposal. However, we will not be the only user group affected by the pending changes.

Runners, equestrians, hikers, fishermen, geocachers, mountain bikers, nature photographers, and other trail users often attend one another’s trail work days, see one another frequently on the trail, and quite frankly get along well. If another trail group was given the opportunity to submit a proposal to the City, the mountain bike community would appreciate the ability to participate and we gladly want to reciprocate.

The City may decide to create an inclusive master plan affecting all users of the reservoir lands. In light of their request of us to submit a trail plan for the City’s review, we want to provide a proposal with your feedback. To that end, please share your thoughts, suggestions, concerns, and desires by replying below.

If there is interest in a public meeting, we are happy to facilitate and look forward to hearing from the trail user community.

In the end, we want to present a well-reasoned plan that is inclusive of all trail users such that we can both maintain sustainable recreational trail use at this natural treasure in Baltimore, while actively mitigating any detrimental environmental impact to the reservoir and the protective forest buffer.

We look forward to hearing your thoughts and concerns.

Best,
MORE – Mid Atlantic Off Road Enthusiasts

b1umb0y
May 5th, 2010, 03:20 PM
Please forward this link and letter to anyone you feel may be interested in offering up their input.

Thanks,
d./

30knots
May 5th, 2010, 04:54 PM
I have been a Towson resident for 16 years. I am a runner and mtn biker and I hope we can retain part of the single track system for all open space users. A combination of woods roads and singletrack would be a reasonable compromise assuming the trails are looped and offer some type of variety for those of us who frequent the area. A total removal of the single track trails from the trail system would be an unreasonable outcome.

superflyguy
May 5th, 2010, 05:10 PM
I certainly think there is a middle ground to be reached. Here is food for thought. I can understand, to a degree, that the area of singletrack around Sam's is the main focus. It is close enough to the water to have "some" impact? Why would the singletrack at providence to sanders corner be an issue? It is far enough away from the waterline to not have any impact on the water quality. There are houses that use lawn treatment right along some of the trails . I saw the "no trail tags" on the trees this morning. I say make the sams and singletrack that rolls right at the edge a no ride zone-even though Isabel is responsible for quite a bit of the erosion in some of the areas. Leave the area from prov-sanders open. Also, many people dont even ride the other side of loch raven. The cliffs area. It is legal fire road and very challenging. I rarely ever encounter anyone over there. You could also use the template that Tsali trail system in north carolina uses. http://www.main.nc.us/graham/hiking/tsali.html. It works great. It limits people to certain days and certain trails. They did an impact study a few years back and found that trail use was not causing the problems first thought. There needs to be some compromise that doesnt kick the mtb people especially to the curb. Anyway, that is my take.

KGnagey
May 7th, 2010, 10:10 AM
I would like to see something in the agreement that allows ALL trail users to help build/rebuild sustainable low impact trails. With what we now know regarding trail building and maintenance we should be able to correct the run off situations the DPW is so worried about. I feel that the main cause of sediment runoff is not due to the existing trail conditions caused by current users. Other factors are also at play here including local golf course run off and feeder streams that run through nearby farms and communities.

jrmillerjr
May 8th, 2010, 10:14 PM
I have been riding in Loch Raven for over 19 years. I can honestly say, that for 95% or more of the trails, there has been little change during that time. There are certainly more trails now than then, and more riders. The worst erosion occurs on the "woods roads" with most single track being quite stable. Very few of the trails are in a direct path of water flow to the reservoir. As noted by another poster, there are some trails that are too close to the water's edge and some that are eroding that need relocation or stabilization.

The mountain biking community is willing and able to help with trail maintenance. My observations are that the problems occur when problem spots show up due to wet areas or trees falling and riders start widening paths or creating new trails around the obstructions. If the rangers could alert us to these problems, we could quickly cut out fallen trees or fill in low, wet areas to avoid the expansion of disturbance. In my observation, this would have a huge impact. We could also monitor and educate the community to avoid the creation of new trails. There is a robust network in place and a commitment to avoiding expansion is reasonable. I'm also intrigued by the other poster's suggestion of a schedule for days when certain trails are open (odd day trails vs. even ones).

Finally, I have to question whether this whole thing has been completely blown out of proportion. As noted, in 19 years, I've seen little change inside the watershed. The surrounding areas and the amount of traffic and width of pavement on roads surrounding the watershed have changed. Did the application for Homeland Security money to protect the watershed really focus on erosion caused by mountain bikers? If so, we should contact our senators and representatives to protest. My guess is that the application focused on preventing terrorists from dumping toxins in the water. Now, with the rangers on board, the DPW has refocused their efforts elsewhere. Isn't a watershed with hundreds of eyes watching the activity going on better than one with a dozen eyes? I certainly don't approve of my taxes being spent on this kind of harassment.