b1umb0y
June 4th, 2010, 01:20 PM
The 'status' at Loch Raven is a very confusing matter and I am even on the task force that is working towards equal access for all trail users. Long story short, DPW wants to enforce the Mountain Bike Plan from 1998 which limits mountain biking to just under 12 miles of Woods Roads (these are fire roads to you and I) at Loch Raven and other City owned reservoirs.
History:
In 1996, DPW intended to close Loch Raven to mountain biking due to their concerns over increased sedimentation which would in turn have a negative effect on water quality at the reservoir. The mountain biking public united and fought against this closure, with the end result being the 1998 Mountain Bike Plan. The plan, which was prepared by the Mountain Bike Task Force in 1998, intended to maintain mountain bike access at Loch Raven with the idea that it would eventually be expanded as specific guidelines were met. These guidelines looked at whether or not cyclists restricted their activities, provided the necessary educational and volunteer hours, and whether the Woods Roads degraded in condition. However, after 12 years, the plan was never reviewed to measure the guidelines, and clubs like MAMBO (folded into MORE in 2008) and MORE have continually met or exceeded the goals of the plan. Seeing it as our duty, as a member of the task force, we said we would do the work, and we have done just that year after year. We are the only members of the task force to follow through on our commitments.
Now, this plan was written in a time when sustainable trail design and maintenance techniques were in a nascent state and differences in impact between different trail users was not readily known.
So, fast forward to 2010, over a decade later...
Enforcement:
DPW has hired several watershed rangers to patrol Loch Raven, Liberty, and Prettyboy reservoirs due to an increased availability of funding. They have also revamped the regulatory side which enables them to issue civil citations as opposed to criminal citations so to more effectively enforce watershed regulations.
Road/Trail Conditions:
For twelve years, the Woods Roads have continued to degrade as many of them are constructed on the fall-line (run straight up and down the hillside) which enables water to run, unabated, down the hill. We have all witnessed the cycle of erosion rut formation followed by heavy machinery which re-establishes the Woods Road to a usable condition only to see that many of these roads are heavily 'cupped' when compared to the adjacent landscape, only to focus the water even more. The results of this design and management style is particularly evident in the run-off that is visible across roads around the reservoir after heavy rainfall. We have also noticed that, by and large, the singletrack that has been present throughout this 12 years (and many for much, much longer) have largely sustained themselves even in a complete absence of official maintenance, despite unmanaged use by all user groups. (NOTE: Don't get me wrong, there are trouble spots and signs of erosion throughout the singletrack, but none of it compares to the contribution of the Woods Roads.)
Collateral Damage:
We have all seen the dry stream beds which manage the runoff from the various housing developments around the reservoir, most becoming 6’-10’ wide erosion ruts, that rarely receive maintenance or remediation of any kind. We see the City-owned golf course spray pesticides throughout the fairways and greens that drain directly into the reservoir and clear-cut brush at the water's edge to promote a view of lake. We witness countless cars driving around and over the lake, even on bridges that are comprised of steel grid work (grating) allowing antifreeze and oil and all sorts of cast off debris to enter the reservoir with relative ease.
Science:
Bathymetric studies of Loch Raven have shown that the major contributions to sedimentation have been farming and development. Much of this is visible from the Warren Road steel bridge. The resolution of the data from these studies cannot even ‘see’ recreational activity, let alone mountain biking.
The City’s own water quality studies of Loch Raven indicate that water quality has remained static or improved over this same time frame.
Current scientific literature shows that there isn't a significant difference in impact between a mountain biker and a hiker. I could go on and on about this topic, ad nauseum.
The Confusion:
Recently, you have probably noticed the new trail blazes on the Woods Roads and small signs stating that most singletrack trails are not to be used by mountain bikes or equestrians.
Currently, rangers are making an effort to ‘educate’ mountain bikers as to which trails they are allowed to use at Loch Raven and which ones are not allowed due to current regulations. The rangers are stopping mountain bikers along the singletrack and directing them towards the Woods Roads. No citations are currently being issued, thanks in part to the newly formed Mountain Bike Task Force. We ask that, if approached by a ranger, you are courteous and abide by their instructions.
All this comes twelve years after the original mountain bike plan. In that time, due to a lack of enforcement and signage and despite our educational efforts, trail users have continued to use the singletrack. Many of us have been using these trails, sometimes daily for the past fifteen years, and some for upwards of thirty-plus years!
DPW constantly cites that the reservoir serves a primary goal as part of the municipal water supply that provides water for all of Baltimore City and its surrounding counties, and that it is not a park. However, they do allow a surplus of recreational activity on this property they are tasked with managing. And yet, they have no readily apparent management plan nor do they have a consistent plan that addresses equal use between user groups with an equivalent ecological footprint. Clearly, it is used like a park as evidenced by the shooting ranges, fishing (both boat and shore), golf courses, hiking, running, biking, geo-caching, bird-watching, horseback riding, etc. The near constant battle of semantics is an injustice to the situation. How much sense does it make to vehemently exclaim that it isn’t a park, when the citizens of Baltimore City and Baltimore County (and the public in general) are allowed to recreate on its premises? No matter how you look at it, this property, while willfully allowing recreational activity, should be managed like a recreational area. A park, if you will. To spend the last few decades proclaiming that it isn’t a park has done little to mitigate the erosion issues that could have been addressed decades ago with a more open and cogent mindset.
Many wonder why mountain bikes are being targeted when they have no more impact than a hiker/walker/runner.
We are told that the singletrack causes erosion that threatens the health of the reservoir and that these trails illegally exist within the 100’ stream buffer which is forbidden, yet there are so many bigger issues according to their own research that appear to receive significantly less attention. And, when it comes to use of the singletrack, they aren’t targeting any other user group, yet. So, if they kick us off the singletrack that they say is contributing to erosion (despite their bathymetric findings), the impact from the presence of the trail would still exist. What sense does this make? If less impact is the goal, surely there is a more universal and well reasoned way to achieve it, all the while having a content recreational user population. That way this Watershed Ranger staff can focus on more important issues pertinent to the reservoir.
We are told that we can ride on the Woods Roads which are in the worst condition throughout the reservoir when compared to the singletrack. These roads are poorly designed and maintained. They traverse some of the largest grades with absolutely no grade reversal to break-up water flow. Countless times, I am asked why it is OK to ride these roads when they have greater erosion issues and a greater impact to the forest health. This type of hypocrisy only serves to dissuade reasonable compliance.
Mountain bikers provide the greatest number of volunteer trail maintenance hours to Loch Raven, yet they are also one of the most restricted user groups. We are more than willing to provide even greater volunteer hours aimed at creating/helping to maintain a sustainable trail system for all trail users which would promote a healthy forest buffer, if we could be treated with equality. It is perplexing to see that those user groups that do far less get greater access. It is difficult to understand that while we volunteer all this time towards this invaluable resource, we rarely see DPW on our workdays nor do we ever receive much feedback.
The Final Analysis:
In the end, we are trying to promote a partnership with DPW that supports:
1. Stewardship of this invaluable resource.
2. A transparent plan that outlines recreational activity at the City owned reservoirs through a recreational master plan.
3. A sustainable trail network that has equal access to all users.
However, the disparities listed above should be reconciled in order to promote willful civil compliance to a master recreational plan which restricts in the name of environmental sustainability, based on contemporary scientific facts.
Activities that can help our situation at Loch Raven:
Trail maintenance is our greatest asset. If you can join in, the volunteer numbers only bolster our efforts, I strongly encourage it. When people on the task force hear that we have put in nearly 700 hours of volunteer work this year at Loch Raven, most are simply amazed. And, in the end, it makes DPW's job to defend their perspective that much more difficult.
Activities that can damage our situation at Loch Raven:
Building new trails.
Building stunts.
Riding when the trails are wet.
Performing unauthorized trail maintenance.
Being disrespectful or discourteous to the Watershed Rangers.
These activities only serve to derail our efforts.
Where is the task force at?
While it is highly unlikely that we could gain legal access to all available trails at Loch Raven, we are currently assembling a thorough and cogent plan to submit to DPW that will attempt to both reduce the impact of mountain biking while maintaining as close to the same experience as we’ve all come to expect. This process is timely by nature as we are assembling a comprehensive inventory of the trails, associated problems, and solutions.
History:
In 1996, DPW intended to close Loch Raven to mountain biking due to their concerns over increased sedimentation which would in turn have a negative effect on water quality at the reservoir. The mountain biking public united and fought against this closure, with the end result being the 1998 Mountain Bike Plan. The plan, which was prepared by the Mountain Bike Task Force in 1998, intended to maintain mountain bike access at Loch Raven with the idea that it would eventually be expanded as specific guidelines were met. These guidelines looked at whether or not cyclists restricted their activities, provided the necessary educational and volunteer hours, and whether the Woods Roads degraded in condition. However, after 12 years, the plan was never reviewed to measure the guidelines, and clubs like MAMBO (folded into MORE in 2008) and MORE have continually met or exceeded the goals of the plan. Seeing it as our duty, as a member of the task force, we said we would do the work, and we have done just that year after year. We are the only members of the task force to follow through on our commitments.
Now, this plan was written in a time when sustainable trail design and maintenance techniques were in a nascent state and differences in impact between different trail users was not readily known.
So, fast forward to 2010, over a decade later...
Enforcement:
DPW has hired several watershed rangers to patrol Loch Raven, Liberty, and Prettyboy reservoirs due to an increased availability of funding. They have also revamped the regulatory side which enables them to issue civil citations as opposed to criminal citations so to more effectively enforce watershed regulations.
Road/Trail Conditions:
For twelve years, the Woods Roads have continued to degrade as many of them are constructed on the fall-line (run straight up and down the hillside) which enables water to run, unabated, down the hill. We have all witnessed the cycle of erosion rut formation followed by heavy machinery which re-establishes the Woods Road to a usable condition only to see that many of these roads are heavily 'cupped' when compared to the adjacent landscape, only to focus the water even more. The results of this design and management style is particularly evident in the run-off that is visible across roads around the reservoir after heavy rainfall. We have also noticed that, by and large, the singletrack that has been present throughout this 12 years (and many for much, much longer) have largely sustained themselves even in a complete absence of official maintenance, despite unmanaged use by all user groups. (NOTE: Don't get me wrong, there are trouble spots and signs of erosion throughout the singletrack, but none of it compares to the contribution of the Woods Roads.)
Collateral Damage:
We have all seen the dry stream beds which manage the runoff from the various housing developments around the reservoir, most becoming 6’-10’ wide erosion ruts, that rarely receive maintenance or remediation of any kind. We see the City-owned golf course spray pesticides throughout the fairways and greens that drain directly into the reservoir and clear-cut brush at the water's edge to promote a view of lake. We witness countless cars driving around and over the lake, even on bridges that are comprised of steel grid work (grating) allowing antifreeze and oil and all sorts of cast off debris to enter the reservoir with relative ease.
Science:
Bathymetric studies of Loch Raven have shown that the major contributions to sedimentation have been farming and development. Much of this is visible from the Warren Road steel bridge. The resolution of the data from these studies cannot even ‘see’ recreational activity, let alone mountain biking.
The City’s own water quality studies of Loch Raven indicate that water quality has remained static or improved over this same time frame.
Current scientific literature shows that there isn't a significant difference in impact between a mountain biker and a hiker. I could go on and on about this topic, ad nauseum.
The Confusion:
Recently, you have probably noticed the new trail blazes on the Woods Roads and small signs stating that most singletrack trails are not to be used by mountain bikes or equestrians.
Currently, rangers are making an effort to ‘educate’ mountain bikers as to which trails they are allowed to use at Loch Raven and which ones are not allowed due to current regulations. The rangers are stopping mountain bikers along the singletrack and directing them towards the Woods Roads. No citations are currently being issued, thanks in part to the newly formed Mountain Bike Task Force. We ask that, if approached by a ranger, you are courteous and abide by their instructions.
All this comes twelve years after the original mountain bike plan. In that time, due to a lack of enforcement and signage and despite our educational efforts, trail users have continued to use the singletrack. Many of us have been using these trails, sometimes daily for the past fifteen years, and some for upwards of thirty-plus years!
DPW constantly cites that the reservoir serves a primary goal as part of the municipal water supply that provides water for all of Baltimore City and its surrounding counties, and that it is not a park. However, they do allow a surplus of recreational activity on this property they are tasked with managing. And yet, they have no readily apparent management plan nor do they have a consistent plan that addresses equal use between user groups with an equivalent ecological footprint. Clearly, it is used like a park as evidenced by the shooting ranges, fishing (both boat and shore), golf courses, hiking, running, biking, geo-caching, bird-watching, horseback riding, etc. The near constant battle of semantics is an injustice to the situation. How much sense does it make to vehemently exclaim that it isn’t a park, when the citizens of Baltimore City and Baltimore County (and the public in general) are allowed to recreate on its premises? No matter how you look at it, this property, while willfully allowing recreational activity, should be managed like a recreational area. A park, if you will. To spend the last few decades proclaiming that it isn’t a park has done little to mitigate the erosion issues that could have been addressed decades ago with a more open and cogent mindset.
Many wonder why mountain bikes are being targeted when they have no more impact than a hiker/walker/runner.
We are told that the singletrack causes erosion that threatens the health of the reservoir and that these trails illegally exist within the 100’ stream buffer which is forbidden, yet there are so many bigger issues according to their own research that appear to receive significantly less attention. And, when it comes to use of the singletrack, they aren’t targeting any other user group, yet. So, if they kick us off the singletrack that they say is contributing to erosion (despite their bathymetric findings), the impact from the presence of the trail would still exist. What sense does this make? If less impact is the goal, surely there is a more universal and well reasoned way to achieve it, all the while having a content recreational user population. That way this Watershed Ranger staff can focus on more important issues pertinent to the reservoir.
We are told that we can ride on the Woods Roads which are in the worst condition throughout the reservoir when compared to the singletrack. These roads are poorly designed and maintained. They traverse some of the largest grades with absolutely no grade reversal to break-up water flow. Countless times, I am asked why it is OK to ride these roads when they have greater erosion issues and a greater impact to the forest health. This type of hypocrisy only serves to dissuade reasonable compliance.
Mountain bikers provide the greatest number of volunteer trail maintenance hours to Loch Raven, yet they are also one of the most restricted user groups. We are more than willing to provide even greater volunteer hours aimed at creating/helping to maintain a sustainable trail system for all trail users which would promote a healthy forest buffer, if we could be treated with equality. It is perplexing to see that those user groups that do far less get greater access. It is difficult to understand that while we volunteer all this time towards this invaluable resource, we rarely see DPW on our workdays nor do we ever receive much feedback.
The Final Analysis:
In the end, we are trying to promote a partnership with DPW that supports:
1. Stewardship of this invaluable resource.
2. A transparent plan that outlines recreational activity at the City owned reservoirs through a recreational master plan.
3. A sustainable trail network that has equal access to all users.
However, the disparities listed above should be reconciled in order to promote willful civil compliance to a master recreational plan which restricts in the name of environmental sustainability, based on contemporary scientific facts.
Activities that can help our situation at Loch Raven:
Trail maintenance is our greatest asset. If you can join in, the volunteer numbers only bolster our efforts, I strongly encourage it. When people on the task force hear that we have put in nearly 700 hours of volunteer work this year at Loch Raven, most are simply amazed. And, in the end, it makes DPW's job to defend their perspective that much more difficult.
Activities that can damage our situation at Loch Raven:
Building new trails.
Building stunts.
Riding when the trails are wet.
Performing unauthorized trail maintenance.
Being disrespectful or discourteous to the Watershed Rangers.
These activities only serve to derail our efforts.
Where is the task force at?
While it is highly unlikely that we could gain legal access to all available trails at Loch Raven, we are currently assembling a thorough and cogent plan to submit to DPW that will attempt to both reduce the impact of mountain biking while maintaining as close to the same experience as we’ve all come to expect. This process is timely by nature as we are assembling a comprehensive inventory of the trails, associated problems, and solutions.