You are here

Updated: Big Bend National Park Proposing To Cut Mountain Bike Trail, PEER, NPS Retirees Raise Objections

Share

Big Bend's Lone Mountain would be circled with a hiking and biking
trail under a proposed Centennial Initiative project. Photo by Jeff
Blaylock, used with permission.

The very purpose and role of national parks is being drawn into question over a proposal by Big Bend National Park officials to cut a dual-use mountain bike trail into a hillside near Panther Junction.

In some aspects, the proposal underscores the gist of a Traveler column from last month, one in which we broached the subject of the popularity of having a national park nearby but the often-resulting opposition to many of the rules and regulations -- and even restrictions -- that come with such an entity on the landscape.

At the heart of the issue, as opponents to the mountain bike trail note, is the role national parks were created and the mandate given the National Park Service to manage them. While public enjoyment and recreation are certainly key to the parks, resource management is foremost the role of the Park Service.

Against that mandate, questions are being raised over whether Big Bend officials are holding to that mandate, or bending over to placate a special interest group that already has more than 300 miles of mountain biking opportunities in the park.

Big Bend officials are preparing an environmental assessment into a roughly 10-mile-long network of trails that would be cut into an undeveloped part of the park. Part of the project would include parking for a trailhead and a picnic area near the Panther Junction Visitor Center, and a second trailhead near Grapevine Hills Road.

While the park describes this trail as an added recreational outlet for park visitors, members of the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees see it as little more than a "promotion of the mountain bike industry" and a move that facilitates "the regrettable trend toward parks becoming venues for extreme sports."

This project did not arise overnight. Indeed, back in 2007 it was seen as a "centennial project" by Interior officials under the George W. Bush administration. Back then, the International Mountain Bicycling Association was a strong proponent, and had promised to come up with half of the $12,000 cost then estimated for the project.

The proposed loop trail would start near the visitor center at Panther Junction, cross the Chihuahuan desert and wrap Lone Mountain while providing sweeping views of the Chisos Mountains, the southern-most mountain range in the country.

While Big Bend officials say the trail is simply another recreational outlet for park visitors, they do note that it's part of a deal IMBA struck with the National Park Service years ago to explore more mountain biking in the park system.

The purpose of the proposed project is to provide park visitors a trail-based recreational opportunity in an area of the park where none currently exists. The proposed action is in keeping with a 2002 Memorandum of Agreement between NPS and the International Mountain Biking Association that encouraged identifying mountain biking opportunities in the national parks, including new trail construction in appropriate areas. The primary objectives of the proposal are to: 1) create new recreational opportunities for park visitors, and 2) provide a trail-based recreational opportunity in the vicinity of Panther Junction.

   
That arrangement with IMBA is part of the issue cited by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility in their objections.

"The project is a collaboration between the south Texas national park and a private mountain biking group, raising disturbing “pay-to-play” questions about user groups carving out park lands for special purposes," the group said in comments it filed with the Park Service.
 
Most of the backcountry trail would be single-track – approximately the width of a bike, with one-way traffic moving counter clockwise.  Horses would be barred from the trail.
 
“Big Bend calls this a ‘multi-use’ trail but it is clearly designed for high-speed, high-thrill biking.  Any hikers foolish enough to venture on this path risk tread marks across their backs,” said PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch, noting that the EA dryly concedes “some visitors might not enjoy their experience sharing the proposed trail with mountain bikers.” 

“We are not anti-mountain biking," said Mr. Ruch, "but are concerned that scarce public dollars may be diverted to promote exclusionary recreation scratched out of national park backcountry.” 

In their comments on the proposal, members of the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees said Big Bend officials seem to be "pursuing an agenda not supported by law, policy and common sense."

"The mountain bike trail construction proposal for Big Bend NP raises serious questions regarding the purpose of National Parks. Through law, Congress and the courts have clearly established that resource protection must always come before visitor enjoyment," Rick Smith, who chairs the coalition's executive committee, wrote to the park. "While there may often be a tug of war between those who place enjoyment first and those who place preservation first, the law clearly states which of the interests has priority. 

"Further, NPS Policies articulate this legal precedence into coherent direction for the agency to place resource protection as the primary role of the agency in managing our parks," he added. "In the case of this EA we believe that single-track mountain biking may be enjoyable for the participants but we do not believe it is necessary or appropriate for experiencing the value and purposes for which national parks are set aside by Congress and construction of a single use trail certainly does not conform to the resource protection deference over public enjoyment the park must honor."

Carving this stretch of bike trail, wrote Mr. Smith, "provides no additional means of appreciating park wilderness beyond that available on existing backcountry roads, particularly on roads with very low speeds and levels of vehicular traffic."

"There is nothing about single-track mountain biking that adds a unique opportunity to appreciate the natural and cultural resources of this national park. On the contrary, the rough, rocky terrain combined with hazardous vegetation detracts from that opportunity. In addition there are hundreds of miles of single track opportunities on nearby private and state lands where mountain biking is being actively welcomed and promoted."

PEER's other concerns include:

*  This would be the first trail constructed from scratch on undeveloped park land to accommodate mountain bicycles.   A pending rule change, also supported by IMBA would open millions of acres of national park backcountry, including recommended wilderness, to mountain bike trails;

*  Big Bend already has 200 miles of trails and roads open to mountain biking and there are another 900 miles of bike-accessible trails and roads on state and private lands surrounding Big Bend;

*  This trail would be expensive to maintain and vulnerable to high erosion.  Yet Big Bend, like other national parks, has a sizeable backlog of maintenance needs on existing facilities, and;

*  While the proposed trail is not in designated wilderness, the project would likely preclude the land from ever being designating as wilderness.
 
“The plan at Big Bend is without precedent in the national park system,” added Mr. Ruch, who is urging members of the public to send comments to Big Bend National Park before the comment period on the park's Environmental Assessment runs out April 2.  “This is part of the steady degradation of our parks into settings for thrill sports rather than preserves for enjoyment of natural and cultural features.”
 
Currently, bicycles are allowed on park roads, dirt or paved, as well as on trails in developed areas, such as the South Rim Village at the Grand Canyon.  Backcountry trails are generally reserved for hikers and horseback riders. IMBA began its campaign to gain access to national parks trails in 2002.

A copy of the park's environmental assessment is attached below. To voice your opinion on this project, head to this site.

Featured Article

Comments

VPW "Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreation Area" is this not the real name? I use it for ACCESS. Not one over the other but simply ACCESS! Me using the name for that is like you ignoring it for the elimination of its true meaning.

"National Recreation Areas" are either urban lands with historic resources...

It really does not matter as the name is "Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreation Area" look it up and it means that the rules are...

" Within National Recreation
Areas, outdoor recreation shall be recognized as the dominant or primary
resource management purpose. If additional natural resource utilization
is carried on, such additional use shall be compatible with fulfilling
the recreation mission, and none will be carried on that is
significantly detrimental to it. "

And that is why we are still going to be recreating on the beach not matter how many closures you erect! So keep banging your head against the wall and touting your Organic act and EPA I will be on the beach!


here iis the article from 2007 on the same area from the same author and the same old arguements. We will never learn.

/2007/11/mountain-bikers-encouraged-seek-access-rocky-mountain-national-parks


The National Park Service disagrees with Matt. Cape Hatteras might, due to an oversight, have 'recreational area' tacked to the legal name of the park. The NPS includes CHNS as one of the 10 national seashores not one of the 18 recreational parks. 

Even if Matt might choose to ignore the Organic Act and the General Authorities Act, which require all parks to adhere to the Organic Act the enabling legislation for CHNS is specific about how recreation is to be conducted. There is recreation, and ORV access in CHNS right now.

CHNS enabling legislation:

”except for certain portions of the area, deemed to be especially adaptable for recreational uses, particularly swimming, boating, sailing, fishing, and other recreational activities of similar nature, which shall be developed for such uses as needed, the said area shall be permanently reserved as a primitive wilderness and no development of the project or plan for the convenience of visitors shall be undertaken which would be incompatible with the preservation of the unique flora and fauna or
the physiographic conditions now prevailing in this area . . .”


Matt, WHY?  ...the Organic Act is not perfect, but it's what grounds any NPS unit, recreation area or otherwise...it may suck, but those are the facts!  Touting the organic act is why you have a National Recreation Area, or national parks at all...


It is unfortunate that many hikers seem so adverse to sharing their trails with mountain bikers. The vast majority of mountain bikers are considerate to pedestrian traffic and equestrian traffic on mixed use trails. Then there is the mistaken perception that mountain biking is an "extreme" sport. Some of us can't hike that far and prefer to ride. Horse traffic has way more environmental impact than mountain bike traffic on these trails. The comments by the Retired National Park Service Employees merely show that they are quite misinformed regarding the majority of mountain bike use on mixed use trails.


Per the organic act section 3

"SEC. 3. That the Secretary of the Interior shall make and publish such rules and
regulations as he may deem necessary or proper for he use and management of the parks, monuments, and reservations under the jurisdiction of the National Park Service"

here is his letter to the director of the nps...

http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/anps/anps_1j.htm

Some pertinent excerpts area as follows...

SECRETARY LANE'S LETTER ON NATIONAL PARK MANAGEMENT
May 13, 1918(which was written before items we contest now were even invented)

"Every activity of the Service is subordinate to the duties imposed upon it to faithfully preserve the parks for posterity in essentially heir natural state. The commercial use of these reservations, except is specially authorized by law, or such as may be incidental to the accommodation and entertainment of visitors, will not be permitted under any
circumstances."

and...

Every opportunity should be afforded the public, wherever possible to enjoy the national parks in the manner that best satisfies the individual taste. Automobiles and motorcycles will be permitted in all of the national parks; in fact, the parks will be kept accessible by any means practicable.

All outdoor sports which may be maintained consistently with the observation of the safeguards thrown around the national parks by law will be heartily endorsed and aided wherever possible. Mountain climbing, horseback riding, walking, motoring, swimming, boating, and fishing will ever be the favorite sports. Winter sports will be developed in the parks that are accessible throughout the year. Hunting will not be permitted in any national park.

The educational, as well as the recreational, use of the national parks should be encouraged in every practicable way.

Automobile fees in the park should be reduced as the volume of motor travel increases.


Matt,
I honestly do not know what you are getting at with the previous post...but is cetainly easy to cherry pick things to meet your needs, so let me give it a try...from the Organic Act of 1916:
"Federal areas known as national parks, monuments, and reservations hereinafter specified by such means and measures as conform to the fundamental purpose of the said parks, monuments, and reservations, which purpose is to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations."


Gerald,

I'm not sure that many hikers are adverse to sharing trails with mountain bikes.  (I do both.)  I think most hikers are more than happy to share America's vast public lands with mountain bikes (National Recreation Areas, National Forests, BLM, and even the frontcountry of National Parks).  But with respect to backcountry wilderness, is it still backcountry wilderness with mountain bikes going through it?  If not, then there's no question of sharing, because that place no longer exists.  I like the experience of mountian biking, which some places provide, but I also like the serenity and solitude of backpacking provided by other places.


Add comment

CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.

The Essential RVing Guide

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

The National Parks RVing Guide, aka the Essential RVing Guide To The National Parks, is the definitive guide for RVers seeking information on campgrounds in the National Park System where they can park their rigs. It's available for free for both iPhones and Android models.

This app is packed with RVing specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 parks.

You'll also find stories about RVing in the parks, some tips if you've just recently turned into an RVer, and some planning suggestions. A bonus that wasn't in the previous eBook or PDF versions of this guide are feeds of Traveler content: you'll find our latest stories as well as our most recent podcasts just a click away.

So whether you have an iPhone or an Android, download this app and start exploring the campgrounds in the National Park System where you can park your rig.