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

"Maybe we should simply reallow bikes in wilderness, like they were originally intended to be (google Ted Stroll for back up data) and that would really solve all our problems."

This is a tired argument and the wilderness act clearly prohibits any sort of mechanized modes of transportation in wilderness. Along these lines , the the wildness act also clearly states that managers will use the minumum tool necessary to manage wilderness, thus unless you can point to a good reason to have a wheel barrow, or a chainsaw, it is not allowed. The reason wilderness exisits is to give the American people an opportunity to get away from the overly mechanized society we live in (again, this is clearly stated in the wilderness act). However, this issue is not about wilderness.

I still am blown away about how ostracized hiking on two feet has become, when did this happen? Why is it that those that would prefer to be in a natural environment and relying on their own two feet are now the "bad guy", that is really weird to me.   Matt, you make a valid point about who the parks were established for, and I am sure there were many extraneous influneces that shaped the parks. One of the first NPS directors was all about building lodges and partnering with the railroads to bring the well to do out to Wyoming. BUT, that was 100 years ago, and I am sure you will not agree with me, but many of those intial uses were contradictory to the organic act, and that if we do not make the parks exceptions to modern mechinization, we will lose them, it is happening all over the world with parks being decommissioned.

One more quick point, I still 100% disagree with the parks losing relevancy because we will not let everyone do whatever they want. Mtn bikes have their place, just like hiking, or canoeing, or horseback riding. But the use needs to be in line with the reason the parks were established. To retain relevancy with the upcoming generation, as I said above, is not about allowing them to mtn bike, or use 4-wheelers, or segways, or hover-cars...we need to shift our thinking on the subject. What is popular now, will not be in 20 years, just as what was popular 20 years ago is not poular now. That is the beauty of the parks, they can be a bastion of sameness (as much sameness as one can have in a dynmaic environment). Get environmental education in the classrooms. Tell the lawyers to let teachers take kids on field trips again...these are the things that will keep the parks relevant!!!!


Kurt- "Mark from IMBA made quite clear that mountain bikers prefer thrills." = FALSE and MISLEADING
Mark said  "singletrack and the type of riding that mountain bikers prize" equating singletrack riding to "thrills"/freeriding/DH or any other label you want for the more aggressive types of mountain biking is the is the same as compareing hiking to mountaineering or rock climbing. They are totally different disciplines.
Some mountain biking is about thrills and speed. The trail design and terrain define the type of riding and this terrain and these trails are not the thrills & speed variaty. These trails are the kind that would allow my dad (63 and a biologist) to take my boys(9&7) out and teach them about the natural world but making more fun than a forced march.
I respect that you see things differently than we mountain bikers do, but please do not twist our words or try to flavor all mountain biking as Mtn. Dew.


Not sure why we're conflating wilderness with this proposal in Big Bend. Park staff, IMBA and conservation groups agree that the part of the park where this trail will be built should not be designated as wilderness.


"BUT, that was 100 years ago"

To this minute roads and trails are being cut into the national park systems to service whomever is in need. So you can remove the "was" from that statement.

"This is a tired argument and the wilderness act clearly prohibits any sort of mechanized modes of transportation in wilderness."

Please understand that this is a silly statement as there is every type of mechanized form of access available and in use by the NPS and visitors alike. So if this statement were true then I guess we can throw the book at any and all who enjoy the park.

Still looking for an answer to my previous questions and copping out with that was then is unacceptable as these laws and alegislations everyone quotes in just as old and outdated.


I am beginning to look at these issues with the National Parks from a different perspective.
We consistantly read 'You shouldn't be allowed to do this because the law says this or the original intent was that or it's environmentally this or that. With a few exceptions, If those were my motivation, I doubt I would bother to comment. What would be the point, everyone already knows that stuff from reading the articles. So what is the real reason for many of these comments. I contend that it is simply 'I don't want you to do that'. I would respect anyone that started their comment with that statement. I respect the people that tell you they are pro or con on an issue because it is the way THEY feel about it and not just give a multitude of reasons they read somewhere. All the laws, policies, intents and science associated with the parks can too often be interpreted to suit any given agenda. So, what is important to me is how do you feel about it. Thats what counts.

Ronnstral Woolf. 


This is one of the biggest issues facing mountain bikers and our national parks. This confrontation will come to a head eventually, but we all need to be educated about the issues first. Here is some extra reading: 
http://www.elevationoutdoors.com/blogs/master-of-none/another-round-in-t...
http://www.elevationoutdoors.com/current-issue/editors-letter/bike-to-be...


Matt,

"Please understand that this is a silly statement as there is every type of mechanized form of access available and in use by the NPS and visitors alike. So if this statement were true then I guess we can throw the book at any and all who enjoy the park."

I was refering to wilderness, and no mechnical acces is provide for wilderness areas in the NPS, BLM, FS, USFW...and if you think different please point the way to your line of thinking so I can learn.  But once again, this agrument is not about wilderness.

The point here is, do we need another intrusion into a park for one type of access (or any)?  And roads are NOT being built all over the park system, and if they are built, they have to go through a lenghty, exhauastive NEPA process before a shovel ever sees dirt.

Please, PLEASE, understand that inflamatory remarks do no good.  Do you know everything?  I guess no.  Do I, or anyone else on here know everything, no.  But try and peice together some information to make an informed decison, and refrain from simple attacks on people you don't know...I'm just saying.


Wow really I guess "the Wilderness" is a different set of regulations... Please point out this specific set of regs and what defines "the Wilderness" so we may see where this is.

Disclaimer: This is not a personal attack in any way, but a simple question based on statements made that are unclear. Any harm done was unintentional and a take permit will be applied for.


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.