Next round of National Forest Plan Revision meetings

[Dan_Harrison]

This is a reminder that the Huron-Manistee NF starts the second (followup) round of public meetings in Cadillac on Feb 18. The full list of meetings is on their web page, along with background information about the process:
http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/hmnf/pages/planning.htm

This is a good thing to get involved in, even if only to lend your voice to a point that has already been made. The initial comments ran the gamut from NIMBY to eco-warrior. Under the "Trails" section of the "Issues Identified" document, you will find:
-Restrict or ban mountain biking
- Allow mountain bikes on trails
- No new trail construction
- No new motorized or bike trails
- Add a Cadillac to Traverse City trail
- Need more hiking, horse and ATV trails
- Develop a Forest trail access plan
- Utilize volunteers to build and maintain trails
- Consider multiple use of trails
- Allow off-trail events
- Use federal grants to fund new trails

Out of that, and many more comments, the revision team has drafted their proposed changes. Under "Trails," they read:

"Since the Forest Plan went into effect in 1986, there has been new demand for mountain bike trails on the Forests. The proposed change is to allow mountain bikes on trails unless posted closed.
The Forests are assessing if additional changes are needed to direction in the Forest Plan."

Sounds pretty good, doesn't it? Yes, but only if you don't understand the difference between *proposed* changes, and what finally occurs. This is no time to be complacent. Even if this change were to be implemented, it begs the question, "What trails will be posted closed?" If that were to include the currently bike-legal sections of the North Country Trail, mountain biking in Michigan will have suffered a catastrophic setback at the federal level. The wording of the Proposed Change means that the anti-bike activists will be fighting harder than ever to kick bikes off the NCT.

If you can possibly make it, attend a meeting and raise your voice in favor of adopting the Proposed Changes in the Revision Plan, and maintaining the status quo on the NCT. State your affiliation, and if you have logged hours as a volunteer, say so. You will be heard, have no fear.

Dan Harrison, MMBA President
PS: I'll be at the Dearborn meeting on Feb 27

[April]

I got my materials in the mail on Monday and was trying to decide if the statement

"Since the Forest Plan went into effect in 1986, there has been new demand for mountain bike trails on the Forests. The proposed change is to allow mountain bikes on trails unless posted closed. The Forests are assessing if additional changes are needed to direction in the Forest Plan."

was the final take and a good thing or not. I also read the portions containing the comments suggesting banning mtbs etc. I hope to make the Dearborn meeting again to hear where things are going.
I also echo Dan's statement that we can not just be idle and have no representation or say at the final review/planning meetings. If we don't speak up, someone else may and it may be in a negative way.

[Dan_Harrison]

"Open unless posted Closed" is a big improvement over "Closed unless posted Open." It places the burden on the anti-bikers to obtain closure orders, trail by trail. Which, in certain high-profile cases, they are determined to do. So, even if this were to be the "final take," (which it isn't), there's an ongoing need for involvement.

Which is why I urge mountain bikers to join and become active with the NCTA-- to raise the level of the voices of moderation. The leadership of the NCTA is charged with doing the will of the rank and file. In the long run, our best interests are served by showing that we can coexist and prosper: that it isn't "Us" versus "Them," it's all "Us."

No time for congratulations or complacency yet. Hope to see you at the Dearborn meeting.
Dan

[John_H]

Just a reminder - the Grand Rapids meeting is tonight.
Also, it sounds from the agenda that there isn't as much of an opportunity for public comments at this meeting as the last.

[Dan_Harrison]

At last night's meeting at U of M-Dearborn, April and I formed the single largest contingent. Until about a half-hour into the agenda, it looked like the feds were going to be outnumbered by the civilians.
The agenda was largely informational. Of particular interest was the "Recreational Opportunity Spectrum" (ROS) presentation. The Spectrum consists of 6 classes, covering a human activity continuum from Primitive to Urban.
The "Primitive" designation is characterized by "large, unmodified, natural setting; evidence of others is minimum; motorized use prohibited..." Permitted activities may include "hiking; horseback riding, camping, hunting, nature study, fishing, swimming, non-motorized watercraft, snowshoeing, xc skiing..." The intended recreational Experience: "extremely isolated, few sights and sounds of humans, closeness to nature, tranquility, self-reliance..."

At present, only the Nordhouse Dunes parcel of the Huron-Manistee NF is designated Primitive, at 3,400 acres.

The next class in the spectrum is "Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized" (SPN-M) Its setting is characterized as "Moderate to large, unmodified, natural setting; evidence of others is low; motorized use prohibited..." Permitted activities are same as Primitive, with the addition of Mountain Biking. The Experience differs from Primitive in being "*highly* isolated." There are 58,000 acres that are classed as "Aspiring" to SPN-M status.

Next is "Semi-Primitive Motorized" (SPM), where there is more evidence of others; use of motorized vehicles permitted (ORV/ATV, snowmobiles, watercraft). The H-MNF has 11,500 acres Aspiring to SPM status.

The largest category is "Roaded Natural," with 800,00 acres. Pleasure driving is added to the Activities, and the Experience involves more contact with humans and less with nature.

The Rural category (46,500 acres) comprises land that is substantially altered by man, permits intense motorized use, and offers a recreational experience that is not dependent on interaction with nature (playfields, for example). Over the past 16 years (since the last Forest Management Plan), the managers have seen substantial acreage change from Roaded Natural to Rural.

There are no parcels in the H-MNF in the sixth category- Urban.

Changing the "Aspiring" SPN-M and SPM areas to fully operational, will involve closing backroads and reclaiming them selectively as non-motorized trails and ATV/ORV trails, respectively. The areas are a patchwork, with extractive uses, recreational uses, and privately-owned parcels all together. Enforcement of both road closures and non-motorized status is extremely problematic, with human resources stretched thin.

During the comment period, I expressed the hope that in inventorying the parcels, and the backroads, for closure or reclamation, that they will think in terms ofcorridors that will isolate the recreational user from extractive activities. In other words, don't sign a timber lease that will fall across a trail-- something I've seen too often on state land.
I pointed to the river courses in particular as natural recreational corridors to be preserved in a natural state and recreational use. With the small but growing movement towards "water trails," the USFS will hopefully find itself in the near future at the table with other agencies and stakeholder groups, discussing this issue.

[Crispy]

If it is possible mountain biking needs to get back in the group with the "primitive" groups. How did biking get singled out? Any time there is seperation between biking & that other stuff(Hiking & Horses) it leaves us in an undesirble position. -C-

[April]

Yes I noticed that as well. I wonder if they consider this area as "no designated trails"- you go it alone on your own...over whatever you encounter. When you make a specific trail then you are not under the "evidence of others is minimum" guideline. I would say that we really wouldn't want to ride randomly though the forest. THey described the experience as one where you do not see anyone else the entire time and only notice evidence such as footprints. A specific trail would mean that people would/could be in the area on a regular basis. Maybe that is not correct but I think that is why they don't list biking. THe semi prim. areas are still rustic, quiet, narrow, etc. but you would know that you could see others on the same trail/or area at any point.
It would have been a good question Cris- Just showing that we need more heads/bodies/brains at meetings to have a more diverse group with varying questions to better understand the comments.
The meeting although open and very informal didn't lead to a lot of additional input for changes. It was more of an informational look at how they will make the changes using their own guidlines and classifications from the suggestions already submitted.
One important note is that they will be using Recreation Resources persons/groups. (I don't have my notes here to see the exact title) They will consult these people/groups that are very informed and knowledgable about their particular usage. I hope the MMBA is a consultant- Todd? Dan? do you know?
The Forrest Plan director Jim Schuller did come up to introduce himself to Dan & I before the meeting started and noted that there were a lot of mtbers at the prior meetings. He also stated that he had noticed several at the meeting in Lansing the night before. At least he knows we are interested. That's a good thing.

[Dan_Harrison]

I neglected to mention that while equestrians are nominally permitted in areas designated Primitive, the only Primitive area in the H-MNF is the Nordhouse Dunes, where the fragile dune environment makes use of horses extremely inadvisable. Actually, the same would go for bikes. "May be allowed" not the same as "Must be allowed." In all these decisions, the health of the ecosystem takes precedence over recreation.

I can't say whether bicycles ever were in the Primitive category. The FS designation "Primitive" may be patterned on the NPS "Wilderness" designation, which prohibits "mechanized transport." There was never any clear intent to apply that term to bicycles (the original legislation preceded the modern use of mountain bikes by many years), but it has been ruled that it does. IMBA is lobbying for a "Backcounty" designation that is very similar to the FS's "Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized" status.

While there are 17 TIMES more acres in "aspiring" SPN-M status than in Primitive in the Huron-Manistee NF, I don't yet know the numbers for the Hiawatha and Ottawa NFs in the UP. I will try to find out, however.

Dan

[scat silvurz]

perhaps a "weight limit" on sensitive primitive trails should be imposed.....that could keep heavy horses off those trails, if that is an objective we wish to introduce..

I cant stress the importance of the "trail closed unless posted open" vs "trail open unless posted closed" issue - this is a huge victory in the thought process of federal agencies with regard to land access for non-hikers. We have much more wiggle room when we don't have to deal with this illogical restriction any more...

Nice work!

[John_H]

I want to thank all the Grand Rapids area MMBA members that came to the meeting. We had about 15 people there - by far the largest user group there. There wasn't a whole lot of public comments - more informational. It was great when everyone got to stand up, give their name, and organization. Lots of looks from others when so many MMBA members were there. I hope we were able to make an impact just by showing up.
Thanks Again!

[Dan_Harrison]

John:
At the Dearborn meeting, I asked the White Cloud district forester if there had been a good MMBA turnout in GR. He grinned and said, "oh, yeah." Great work.
Dan