MTB TASK FORCE SUBCOMMITTEE 2ND MEETING MINUTES
March 31st 2010 6:00pm – 9:30pm
Adopted and Approved April 28, 2010
Location: Ashburton Water Filtration Plant
Attendees:
Patrick Miller MORE
Paul Kovalcik MORE
David Blum MORE
Rick McClain MORE
Gary Nusinov Concerned Citizen/Save the Raven
John Markley Baltimore County DEPRM
Martin Roberge Towson University
Kishia Powell Baltimore City DPW
Clark Howells Baltimore City DPW
Kurt Kocher Baltimore City DPW
Luke Brackett Baltimore City DPW
The first act of business was the approval of the meeting minutes from the first meeting. This was completed with slight amendments by Clarke Howells. The changes were accepted and the minutes were formally adopted.
Kishia Powell stated that we need to work on the red-lining of the 1998 Mountain Bike Plan, pooling data, and looking at maps. She stated we need to understand a fundamental starting point. Any activity causes impact. DPW has a recreational strategy and that it is not going to be lead by the mountain bike effort. The reservoir is used for drinking water for 1.8 million people. DPW is not working towards creating an amusement park and not going to feel obligated to give the best exposure. It may not be possible to make everyone happy.
Patrick Miller said thank you for the intro. He agreed we need to work on red- lining the plan but the issue is access. He stated that the group spent the last meeting talking and that MORE was told access was not going to happen. He stated that when MORE had the meeting with the former Mayor, she stated that single-track was on the table.
Kishia stated that MORE went to City Council to say that the plan was outdated and is now asking for something besides a revised plan.
Patrick asked if Kishia was willing to talk about access.
Kishia said a starting point is figuring out how to eliminate most of the singletrack trails in the buffers and curb night riding that was still happening. She stated if we took the time to work on the plan then we would talk about access. She stated she would like to look at what is there now. She also stated she did not know how we got the data if the data is from illegal trails.
Patrick stated there are no signs so nobody could even know that it was illegal. Pat asked if the plan was posted.
Kurt Kocher said it used to be in Kiosks.
Clark Howells said they just took all the Kiosks down.
Kurt said the group should look at what we have and go from there. The bikers should get out of the sensitive areas and that the Mountain Bike Plan should be put in place. Kurt talked about budget issues and needing MORE but that it is unreasonable for MORE to reach for the sky.
Clark asked what would be a good way to distinguish single-track trails and "Woods-Roads" trails when referring to a trail as a "trail". "Woods-Roads" were created and the others were created through misuse.
It was determined we would call "Woods-Roads" Woods-Roads and "User Generated Trails" User Generated Trails.
Martin Roberge asked if there are any Woods-Roads sanctioned by the city that were too narrow for a vehicle.
Clark said that the point of the roads were for emergency vehicles.
Patrick asked if there will be access to the user generated trails.
Kishia said that we could speak about that as a secondary task. We could talk about loops as closed trails but she did not want anything in the riparian buffers.
Patrick said thank you, if there is an opportunity for new user generated trails.
Kishia said that there will not necessarily be singletrack unless it is approved by them.
Rick McClain asked where is the science that is supposed to be shared between DPW and MORE.
Kurt said we should red-line the old plan first.
Clark stated that the group should just move through this and address access next.
MORE members stated that as long as single-track access is still on the table then we could move through the plan since most of the red-lines are just small changes and that access was the biggest issue.
Dave Blum read through MORE's proposed red-line of the 1998 Mountain Bike Plan.
Topics brought up included using metrics to qualify success of the plan, the possibility of a third-party assessment, the importance of a partnership, changing the names of the groups involved as listed throughout the plan, the need for educational materials and resources, the ability of each party to update information, effectiveness of the rangers.
After the red-lines were talked about it was determined that DPW would draft the new plan to include MORE's recommendations. MORE would have a chance to add to the draft as needed.
Kishia asked if the City had a ranger force when the first plan was implemented.
Clark stated that they did, but were ineffective. He also added that he wanted to rely on MORE's opinion as to what the issues at the reservoir are because MORE has a strong community relationship.
Kishia asked for a proposed schedule of events.
Paul Kovalcik said that the community and MORE are committed to helping. A mutually beneficial relationship can be established and a list can be made of what to look out for in the reservoir.
John Markley asked about the nature of enforcement in the reservoir.
Luke Brackett said that the regulations now are more civilly oriented and that tickets can now be written where as before all infractions were enforced through arrest.
Kishia said we have to review the grace period of no enforcement.
Clark stated that after this whole process of negotiation was over that this topic should be kept alive in the reservoir coalition meetings.
Clark stated that the timeline needed to be discussed.
The discussion on the red-lines terminated.
John Markley asked if the trails that are legal for bikes are any fun.
MORE stated that they were not fun and they were also not in good shape.
John Markley asked when the original plan was discussed who decided that the "Woods-Roads" were the place where bikers should go.
Gary Nusinov stated that biking members of the original task force were not asked their opinion on this topic. They stated that the maps were made by DPW without their input and that they were never told that single-track was not going to be allowed. It was stated that the the group only walked through a very small section of trail near Providence Road. The plan took nearly three years to make and the maps were added at the end without consent from the biking community or their representatives within the task force.
John stated that if the approved Woods-Roads were not any fun then the user groups will move off trail to seek out the better experience. He stated that the burden will be keeping the community in the proper areas. He stated that even if more access was granted that there may still be a problem.
Kurt said there would need to be a review of the bikers' activities.
Clark said that implementing the old plan would be a proof of concept and if the bikers cant demonstrate compliance then there could be no expansion.
Martin said that this would be a lot of work and that all users would have to be responsible.
Clark said that many things have changed in respect to the management of the reservoir. He stated that they now have the tools to enforce the rules. He stated that he was working on a recreational strategy for all user groups and he is confident that there will not be the same failures as last time. He stated they will ultimately gain compliance.
Martin stated that people do things for a variety of reasons. He stated that even education will not fix all of the problems. There will still be many violations from people that are not seen. There will always be a constant source of uninformed people visiting the trails.
John asked if the strategy is to use enforcement.
Clark stated that they are developing a strategy and plan that will incorporate all user groups that he will not discuss publicly. He stated that his bosses may not even know of this plan.
John asked when this would be done.
Clark said ASAP and it will involve rules for all user groups including mountain bikers.
John asked if this also meant hikers and fishermen.
Clark said it would.
John asked how would he make the changes effective.
Luke stated that it would be easier than before. Education would make it easier. He stated that before there had been not proper education to hold people responsible.
John said it seemed like DPW knows their problems and has the information on how to work on them.
Kishia stated that DPW has been progressing in their managements practices. She talked about the forest conservation plan, deer strategies, and now a recreational strategy.
Luke stated that hunting the deer has been the most successful strategy implemented to date with a noticeable difference able to be seen in the forest.
Kurt stated that they used to have guides for boating and that they need to get signs for the reservoirs.
Martin said it is nice hiking when there are signs that are very clear. Signs such as "this way" or keep out"
John talked about how signs can add value to the recreational experience.
Luke stated that the first step was the small yellow signs posted at the main entrances to Loch Raven Reservoir. He also stated that some of the Woods-Roads have been blazed. He said going beyond that is premature. He stated that signs give the user an opportunity to comply.
John stated that there are so many issues.
Paul said that a Mountain Bike Plan should be included in the master recreational plan.
Kishia said yes and that there should be a plan on use of the entire property.
John stated that is has to be a manageable plan.
Gary said that earlier in the meeting it was brought up how DPW could be good at enforcement and how MORE has community relationships. He said that this was an opportunity for DPW to work with MORE because they have the most experience in managing trails. He stated that MORE worked in more than thirty parks in the region. He also stated that when he visited these other well constructed trails that illegal trails are rarely ever seen because the trails are built to include the recreational experience that mountain bikers are looking for.
During these statements, John Markley agreed that when you offer good recreational alternatives people will be less inclined to go off the the legal trails.
Paul then stated that if the Mountain Bike Plan is rolled into a larger trail plan then grants could become available. He told the subcommittee that the Recreational Trails Program offers grants for the type of work that MORE wants to do.
John asked if DPW envisioned closing any of the current fireroads.
Clark answered yes and that they have recommendations from DNR. He also stated that user generated trails were not part of the firewatch.
A member of the group asked what the next steps would be.
John suggested a formal statement should be made to the public.
Rick stated that MORE has already started educating the public as to what is happening.
Kurt said he thinks the problems come from an unknowing public.
Kishia stated we would first draft a plan, work on science at the next meeting and then work on trails.
Patrick asked how we can make sure that other user groups will not be impacted by DPW's decisions.
Kishia said that DPW will not favor one group over another. Efforts are underway to try and discuss issues that have been brought up. We need to review the original effort and institute the timing of the plan.
Patrick stated that MORE does not mind this process taking longer so that the entire public can be properly informed.
Kishia again talked about the need for a timeline and the grace period of no enforcement. She stated that she is sure that there are things happening in the watershed that can not be dealt with because of the current grace period.
Kurt stated that when MORE puts the maps on the tables they need to tell DPW why the trails are there, the reason people use these trails, and how to narrow the impact of the user generated trail system.
Clark said they do not have a copy of the map even though he has asked for it since the original subcommittee meeting.
Paul stated the need to step back and consider the conceptual idea of a trail system and the needs for designated loops in specific areas, because looking at a map of the trails may just look like spaghetti on paper. He said that it would be good to look at the trail system similarly to a transportation project. We need to field truth the maps and note areas of ecological importance, historic significance and bad sections of trail.
Patrick said we could look at the maps again and share information about the trails.
Kurt mentioned that we should update the full Mountain Bike Task Force in order to inform them as to what our progress has been.
Patrick gave Kishia a book about managing mountain biking so that she could get a better understanding of what the sport is and how the trails can be maintained and managed.
Kurt mentioned that DPW will be having a "Drinking Water Week" sometime in May and would like MORE to be a part of that event. He also talked about other events that DPW envisions having at the reservoir such as fundraisers, a Valley Rally, and a Dam Jam.
The meeting then concluded.
MTB TASK FORCE SUBCOMMITTEE 1st MEETING MINUTES
March 10th 2010 6:00pm – 9:30pm
Adopted and Approved
As the subcommittee entered the room a friendly talk about zebra mussels was underway.
The committee arrived at six pm. and since some of the people in the room were fresh faces, we had a brief introduction session. The sub-committee members were: Ralph Cullison, Clarke Howells, Don Outen, Luke Brackett, Rick McClain, Patrick Miller, Paul Kovalcik and David Blum. Dr. Martin Roberge attended as a neutral observer. Penny Troutner attended as a concerned business owner and city resident. Gary Nusinov was secretary.
Committee members Cullison, Howells, Brackett and Outen were representing the interests of the Baltimore City Government and Baltimore County Government.
Committee members McClain, Blum, Kovalcik and Miller represented MORE a Mountain Bike enthusiast’s non-profit organization.
It was brought up by Dr. Roberge that we had discussed the possibility of the Memorandum of Understanding at the previous meeting. Ralph stated that he felt it was not necessary as it would be a document of limited scope and only serves as a method of evaluation.
Patrick Miller said that this meeting could be a new genesis, we could talk about recreational use and build on that idea and drive the discussion with ideas
Ralph stated that he was charged by Kishia Powell to start with the document (1998 mtb plan), revisit the areas of failure, restructure the plan, and talk about compliance of the users of the trail (mtb’s). In talking about this compliance Ralph stated that the grace period of the old plan was a good idea and that would continue after the initiation of a new plan. We would discuss duties, theirs and ours, self policing and maintenance.
Patrick Miller stated that the plan was limited in scope. It was stated that negotiations for trail access should be the topic of priority because this is what MORE clearly stated was the greatest concern to all user groups. It was stated that the other issues including education, maintenance and enforcement can easily be accomplished but should be addressed after trail access was clarified to include a revision of the 1998 plan.
Ranger Luke Brackett stated that we could look at a change in the plan.
Patrick re-affirmed the position that the subcommittee should address equal access first as a key aspect of the revised plan as MORE’s participation in the revised plan hinges on the issue of trail access.
Ralph Cullison said “no” and that Kishia stated “just before the meeting” that the trails were to remain the same as they were in the original 1998 Mtb plan. The City assumes that people knew/know the plan and it would be fair to implement the 1998 plan and then review its progress and then possibly expand.
Questions from around the room then ensued. The number one concern from MORE at this time was that both the Mayor’s office and the City Council had determined that the 1998 Mtb plan needed a clear revision to meet the modern day needs of both the City and the citizens. It was stated by the secretary that Kishia Powell’s exact word was “framework”. We were to use the plan as framework, not a starting point in execution. It was also asked as to why the mountain bikers were seemingly the only group restricted.
A discussion about restrictions revealed that restrictions are placed on boaters, and at one point there was a one year suspension of boating activities all together. The committee was told that there will be restrictions for bank fishermen and that they would only be allowed to fish from the bank in certain areas. MORE was told that perhaps there could be a discussion for an allowance for their activities.
DPW stated that the majority of the shore is off limits and this will be enforced in the near future. They want to fight the perception that the reservoir is a park and they are not interested in developing the buffer and never have been. Ralph stated that it was always believed that the buffer land should never be developed for any purpose. It was also said that hikers are not prohibited from the very same single-track trails that mtb’s will be prohibited from using. When asked if there was any science based background to this decision it was stated that they always thought the reservoir could handle the foot traffic.
Another discussion was quickly underway about why all users were not going to be restricted if the decisions were really supposed to be in the interest of maintaining the buffer lands. Clarke quickly asked if that is what we wanted. As a whole, the MORE members answered “no”. The group then touched on who created these trails and it was determined that that information is not available and blame cannot be specifically placed.
Dr. Roberge in talking about trail creation and problems with the reservoir stated that the real issues affecting the reservoir stem from the increases in population and the development surrounding the reservoir. The point was made that there is a general increase in usage of the reservoir and that all of these increases were also happening as mountain bikes were invented and becoming popular so to place blame on one group is not fair. Informal trails are created by a variety of people. He then suggested creating an area of compliance.
Ralph Cullison stated that the only reason people would comply is because they were given something. He stated we should initiate the old plan, follow the rules and see where we go from there.
Penny Troutner reiterated the fact that Kishia said we were to use the old plan as framework and that the only discrepancy was in access. We should figure out which specific sections of trails are eroding, figure out how to make them sustainable, and come away from the meeting believing we have a start to a coordinated effort.
Ralph again said that we were to start with the old trail system.
Clarke stated that the trail experience that MORE is looking for is only relevant to them. He stated that there are plenty of people who enjoy only the fire-roads. Members of MORE and Dr. Roberge felt differently. Dr. Roberge stated that when he would walk with his daughter, they too would use the single-track trails in hopes of making a big discovery; an exploration for just them.
Patrick Miller asked what the big disconnect was and asked if we need to bring in other user groups to act as decision makers.
Ralph stated that perhaps now would be the time to take a step back and create a full recreational plan.
Patrick agreed and said that is a good idea.
Don Outen stated that he liked the idea of taking a step back. His idea was a little different in that he stated closing the reservoir for a year to all users while the forest regenerated was a good idea. He stated that perhaps a plan can be made in that time.
Don Outen also stated that if Baltimore County were managing the reservoir buffers that they would be in favor of closing the buffer to all recreational activity. Don stated that access is restricted within the county parks and that city managers allow much more access then would be allowed for instance at Oregon Ridge Park.
Penny Troutner stated that doing nothing as suggested is worse than if MORE used its vast resources to help create sustainable trails.
Dr. Roberge told a story of an old carriage road that is no longer used but was left behind from an old farm on a steep hillside. He told of the horrible erosion that occurred because it was just left alone.
Clarke then stated that steps were in place to restore the land with or without MORE or their members. He then stated that any person on these trails after the Mtb Plan was implemented could be guilty of trespass.
Luke stated that a reclamation plan was underway and one of the volunteer groups would be the Civil Justice Core. He also stated they really want to work with MORE.
MORE members asked for clarification of the reclamation plan. They asked if there were other intentions that DPW was not sharing. DPW did not share any further information.
Don Outen stated that in the County it is standard practice to not even consider development in a bufferland. He told a story about Towson Nurseries filing a lawsuit because they were not allowed to develop their land. Don stated that it was not in the best interest of the reservoir. Clarke then stated that part of the reason that he could not approve expansion of any singletrack use is because it was determined to not be in the best interest of the bufferlands.
Gary Nusinov stated that in his use of the term expansion the committee has to realize that the trails already exist, that MORE is looking to reduce the number of trails, and reroute unsustainable areas of other trails. Gary and Ralph agreed that this word expansion is based on terminology and definitions from the original 1998 mtb plan and did not actually mean creation of new trails.
Clarke then brought up that the greatest need from DPW is for the public to comply. Various members of the group including Dr. Roberge agreed that compliance could be nearly impossible. The group agreed that even if only one or two percent of people did not comply, then they could cut the new trails and cause new damage anyway. Dr. Roberge and members of MORE stated that if the user is not given a positive alternative then they will venture off to create their own experience. Dr. Roberge also asked how could MORE be held responsible for the public at large. Sure the group could be controlled, but there are many bikers that are not a part of any group. He stated that there can be a responsible way to do this.
Penny talked about compliance. She gave a story about how bicyclists used to get tickets for riding on the promenade downtown because they were not aware of the rules. How can the public all of the sudden be made to comply with a “plan” that was never put in place? Don’t make the situation about compliance if we are supposed to be talking about water quality.
Dr. Roberge again asked how we would stop people from going off trail.
Clarke stated that DPW will gain compliance through the implementation of the Mtb Plan.
Luke and Clarke talked about using the old plan as a proof of concept in that if they blaze the trails then most people may follow the rules. If they did not follow, they would revisit the plan and ask why it did or did not work.
Don said that he thinks the best idea is closing the area and then reopening it at a later date.
Penny stated we cannot go back in time.
MORE members brought up other user groups again and Dr. Roberge talked about how there has to be a compromise out there somewhere. He talked about getting the public involved as a whole. You cannot just blame or restrict one group because sometimes a person may be a walker or a hiker or a birder or a biker; an amorphous mass of the public. He also talked about an area out West that had horrible disobedience problems until one day a formal trail was negotiated and it stopped most of the off trail use by motorcycles. Why couldn’t we do that?
Luke again talked about review periods and the old plan saying that we should try the old plan and then see what and what does not work. MORE members felt like the review period is up and that the metrics and the science exist and have been created since the old plan was written. Decisions based on modern day science would be the best step forward.
Since one thing that was repeated throughout the night was the fact that DPW does want to work with MORE and feels that they do need MORE, Penny asked how could there be a partnership if everything is negotiated but trail access.
Don stated that biking is not allowed in any Baltimore County Park. State Parks, regional parks, and other parks throughout the area, yes, but not in their parks. Not based on science, based on what they think a park should be and what the mission is.
Gary stated that the most frustrating part of the night was that in the prior meeting the committee was told that the old plan was framework. He also stated that the agenda of the meeting was to red-line the old plan, pool scientific data and maps, and negotiate on a newly updated plan including trails. He mentioned all of this was prepared and present in the room, and that since in every meeting prior the subcommittee meeting the group was told they would have a negotiation, they wanted a negotiation. When Clarke said the negotiation was between zero access or the old plan, it was stated by MORE members that is not a negotiation, or a compromise or why we were here tonight.
MORE members stated that maps are available for review and can be put on the table so maybe we could come to a compromise. It was now 9:20 pm.
Once the maps were put on the table Clarke stated that he knew of these trails and all of these trails are going to disappear. He asked what MORE’s proposal was and MORE stated that they did not have a proposal because we hoped that we could work together with them. Clarke showed the group a series of maps that outlined slopes and bufferlands and stated that no trails will exist in these areas. When askedby MORE if a sustainable trail could exist in these areas, no answer was given. MORE directly asked Clarke if hikers would be restricted from these same trails. Clarke said he would not comment on other user groups. Penny asked specifically what we could propose and received no reply. Rick asked if it would be out of the question to create a proposal including 20 miles of multi-use trails.
Rick also asked if DPW had any intention of allowing any of the existing trails to be on the mtb plan. Ralph answered “no”. Rick asked if such a proposal would be a waste of time to which Ralph’s answer was “yes”.
At that point it was determined to be an impasse. Dr. Roberge stood up and stated he could not believe that after nearly four hours of discussion that we were getting up and leaving after hearing just one word. Ralph then asked was it one word “no” or two words “20 miles”?
Gary stated that this was just the end of the meeting, not the end of the negotiation.
This was the official end of the meeting at roughly 9:30.