Mt. Shasta Conceptual Trails Plan

Transcription

MOUNT SHASTA – CONCEPTUAL TRAILS PLAN
Mt. Shasta
Conceptual Trails Plan
Funded by a grant from the Shasta Regional Community Foundation
November 2013
PREPARED FOR:
PREPARED BY:
Mount Shasta Trails Association
The International Mountain Bicycling Association
Trail Solutions Program
PO Box 7578
Boulder, CO 80306
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Mount Shasta Trails Association (MSTA)
Mount Shasta Mountain Bike Association (MSMBA)
Andrew Braugh, MSTA
Eli Newman, MSMBA
Carolyn Napper, US Forest Service
Arne Hultgren, Roseburg Resources
INTERNATIONAL MOUNTAIN BICYCLING ASSOCIATION – TRAIL SOLUTIONS
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................5
Overview .............................................................................................................................................................. 5
Benefits of Mountain Bicycling .................................................................................................................... 5
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS ....................................................................................................................7
Area Description ............................................................................................................................................... 7
III. CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES .......................................................................................8
Constraints .......................................................................................................................................................... 8
Opportunities .................................................................................................................................................. 10
IV. Ride Center Status ........................................................................................................................ 14
IMBA Ride Centers ......................................................................................................................................... 14
Mt. Shasta Ride Center ................................................................................................................................. 14
Tourism Benefits............................................................................................................................................ 15
IMBA Ride Center Success Stories............................................................................................................ 16
V. PROPOSED TRAILS AND FACILITIES ........................................................................................ 18
Trail Construction, Maintenance, and Reclamation Guidelines ................................................... 18
Sustainable Trails .......................................................................................................................................... 18
Existing Routes ............................................................................................................................................... 19
Proposed New Routes .................................................................................................................................. 20
High Priority Routes ..................................................................................................................................... 24
VI. Recommendations ........................................................................................................................ 28
Objectives ......................................................................................................................................................... 28
Recommendations ......................................................................................................................................... 28
Appendix A. CONCEPTUAL TRAILS LISTING............................................................................... 34
Appendix B. MAPS: PLANNING AREA ............................................................................................ 37
Appendix C. MAPS: PRIORITY ROUTES ........................................................................................ 38
Appendix D. MAPS: PLANNING ZONES ......................................................................................... 44
Appendix E. TRAIL CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES .................................................................. 54
Appendix F. Trail Difficulty Rating System ................................................................................ 60
Criteria to Consider ....................................................................................................................................... 61
Trail Rating Guidelines ................................................................................................................................ 62
Appendix G. PROFESSIONAL TRAIL BUILDERS ......................................................................... 64
Appendix H. SAMPLE AGREEMENTS ............................................................................................. 65
Memorandum of Understanding Between IMBA and the USFS ..................................................... 65
Memorandum of Understanding between Hood River County, Oregon and Private
Landowners ..................................................................................................................................................... 69
3
Appendix I. STAKEHOLDERS ........................................................................................................... 71
Appendix J. CONSULTED PLANS ..................................................................................................... 72
Appendix K. MOUNTAIN BICYCLING MARKET SEGMENTATION ......................................... 73
Appendix L. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT……………….……...75
4
I. INTRODUCTION
Overview
Located off of Interstate 5, the City of Mt. Shasta is an incorporated town in Siskiyou County in
the Shasta Cascades region of California, at the southwestern foot of Mount Shasta. The mission
of the City of Mt. Shasta is to maintain the character and resources of a “small town” community
while striking an appropriate balance between economic development and preservation of quality
of life. The Mount Shasta Trails Association (MSTA) approached the International Mountain
Bicycling Association (IMBA) for the creation of a conceptual trails plan and study of the area.
MSTA’s aim is to make the trails surrounding the City of Mt. Shasta an integral part of a healthy
active and economically vibrant community. This goal will be achieved by building relationships
with local land managers and developing a sustainable purpose-built mountain bicycle trail
system. With the proper investment, the Mt. Shasta has the opportunity to become an IMBA
Ride Center® mountain bicycling destination.
Benefits of Mountain Bicycling
IMBA works to assist local communities, primarily rural ones, in increasing mountain bicycling
tourism as a sustainable, renewable source of economic development. To support this effort, a
variety of studies and research have been aggregated to create an estimate of mountain bicyclerelated tourism expenditures. The sources for inputs into this model include reports by the
Outdoor Industry Alliance (“Outdoor Recreation Participation Report – 2009” and “Special
Report of Youth”), the Western Canada Mountain Bicycling Tourism Association (“Sea to Sky
Mountain Biking Economic Impact Study”), US Census data, tourism studies from across North
America (including the state of Michigan’s Tourism Economic Impact Calculator), and IMBA’s
own proprietary information about its approximately 33,000 members.
5
According to the Outdoor Industry Alliance,
mountain bicyclists represent approximately 3.4% of
the US population, or nearly 106 million participants.
IMBA’s own research indicates that enthusiasts, who
represent a portion of this overall number, travel
extensively within a four-hour range and will
typically devote one week per year specifically to
travel to reach mountain bicycling destinations.
Same-day visitors spend approximately $35 per day
in local communities while destination visitors spend
closer to $193 per day (due in part to lodging and
increased meal purchases). These numbers do not
include a multiplier factor so it is clear that the benefit
to local communities can be significant.
While mountain bicyclists are certainly willing to travel to ride they will only do so if their
destination contains a key ingredient: high-quality trails. These trails must be of a sufficient
length and contain a variety of experiences (e.g., traditional singletrack, bike optimized
singletrack, bike park, shuttle options) or they will not create the necessary draw. The
competition for these “destination-quality” locations is slowly increasing over time with some of
the best locations receiving designation as IMBA Ride Centers®.
Mountain bicycle trail systems have benefits to local communities beyond economic
development. Several studies on physical activity have indicated that proximity to recreational
facilities, such as trails, is a predictor for physical activity. To put it simply, if there are walking
and biking trails nearby then residents are more likely to use them and therefore be healthier.
Access to trails also correlates to a higher quality of life, thus making the community more
desirable.
6
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS
Area Description
The town of Mt. Shasta is placed on the southwest flanks of Mount Shasta and is surrounded by
rugged mountains. Because of the existing topography, the area has great potential for the
building of mountain bike trails. There are several miles of existing trails in the area, but
unfortunately many of them are illegally built, unsustainable, and in need of modifications or
rerouting. The existing trails draw hikers, mountain bicyclists, and off-road motorcyclists and are
located on Siskiyou County, on National Forest lands, and on private timber company lands.
The planning area covered by this document is depicted on the map contained in Appendix B
(Maps: Planning Area). It essentially represents the upper Sacramento River drainage flowing off
of the Trinity Mountains and the slopes of Mt. Shasta. The dominant community in the planning
area is the city of Mt. Shasta (described in more detail below), while the area also includes the
towns of McCloud, Dunsmuir and within proximity, Weed. All of these communities provide
tourism services, yet none of them are considered “thriving.” Weed has a forest products
processing facility, but Mt. Shasta and McCloud lost their forest products industry many years
ago. Dunsmuir is a historic railroad town (not forest products), but even that industry has greatly
diminished from its heyday.
Because the community is almost completely surrounded by National Forest lands, there are few
opportunities for economic growth other than timber harvest and recreation. However, timber
harvest is a shrinking industry in the region, which leaves recreation and associated activities as
one of the primary economic engines available for development. The area already attracts
visitors to the surrounding lakes and creeks for fishing, swimming, boating, kayaking, and standup paddling, among other activities. However, significant growth is possible with an increase in
high-quality trail based recreation. MSTA has been building a relationship with local US Forest
Service (USFS) officials, which has led to the creation of the Gateway Trails Network. This trail
system is helping to create trust and is an opportunity for the USFS to provide healthy
community recreation adjacent to the city as well as a sustainable economic benefit different than
the traditional resource extraction.
7
III. CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES
Constraints
Land Use Permitting and NEPA
When attempting to create new recreational trails on private, state, or federally-owned lands, a
number of environmental processes must be engaged. These generally require one to five years
dedicated to studies, documentation, decision-making, and public review. This incurs a
significant cost that could be funded by the agency, land owner, or in some cases by a user group
such as MSTA. Costs for these can range from $5,000 to $100,000 depending on the size of the
area analyzed, among other factors. The most common process is compliance with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for actions on federal lands, or actions funded with federal
funding. For actions on state and private lands, the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) is triggered. See Appendix L for more information on CEQA compliance.
NEPA consists of a number of different analyses that must be undertaken to ensure compliance
by the agency proposing a project. These include consideration of impacts to cultural resources,
water quality, and listed plants and animals and their habitats. NEPA can also be required for a
number of actions including timber harvest or forest restoration work. Sometimes it is possible to
utilize areas that have already been subject to NEPA analyses and decisions to simplify or
accelerate the process of approval for new trail actions.
Most of the lands surrounding the City of Mt. Shasta that are most likely to accommodate
mountain bike trails are administered by the USFS. The capacity and ability of the USFS to
undertake environmental analyses is limited by agency staffing and funding. For example, the
Gateway Trails Network project involved several years of environmental analysis, which cost the
USFS approximately $100,000. Thus, groups such as MSTA or MSMBA must be deliberate and
strategic is proposing trail development projects. They must also partner with the USFS via costshare agreements to assist in defraying the costs of NEPA compliance.
Trail Development on Private Lands
Developing trails on private lands will be necessary to fully develop the Conceptual Trails Plan
as envisioned in this document. Unfortunately, this can be a difficult task as most landowners are
hesitent to allow public access on their lands, let alone new trailbuilding. Instances of multiple
landowners within an identified area can also create a barrier. There are many laws and legal
precedents that can protect landowners but these are constantly being modified by caselaw, and
legal counsels may provide varying opinions to their clients. It is also not assured that the trail
constructed on private land will enjoy a long term existence. Most private land in the Mt. Shasta
area is used for timber harvest.
8
Mount Shasta Ski Park
The Mount Shasta Ski Park is currently working to build a lift access mountain bike park. In
2013 they added approximately 28 miles of new trails, including a flow trail from the top of
Marmet lift to the base lodge. This is becoming a popular trail that includes the addition of clay
soils and water to mitigate issues associated with the native volcanic soils. The Ski Park has a
downhill ride off its Douglas lift for advanced riders that are highly rated, and this trail is also
watered. Besides the use of water from its snowmaking system, the Ski Park is currently
working on creating a network of armored trails for beginners. Financially, the Ski Park has
invested over $30,000 and plans to continue improving the system in the future.
IMBA Trail Solutions program staff have made recommendations regarding the planning,
design, and construction of these trails, although trail development is being conducted by
untrained staff. Follow-up review of the new trails is needed to ensure that the Ski Park is taking
full advantage of specific user needs, materials, and techniques associated with state-of-the-art
trailbuilding.
Poor Soils
The soils in the Cascade Geomorphic Province area are predominantly loose sandy volcanic ash.
These soils require the use of gentler grades to minimize soil movement and erosion. The arid
climate with hot, dry summers results in minimal soil moisture, which makes soil compaction
difficult to achieve.To the west, in the Klamath Geomorphic Province, the soils have more clay
and silt content and are stony, but are also erodable. Recently completed trail projects such as
the Gateway Trail System, however, demonstrate that with proper design, construction, and
maintenance, the region’s soil offers adequate stability for building excellent, highly sustainable
trails.
Climate
The Mount Shasta climate is mediterranean with wet and cold winters, and dry and hot summers.
The area receives less than 10 inches of rain in the average spring through summer seasons. This
results in dry soils that resist compaction (as noted above). When rain does fall, it creates
significant erosion, especially near existing drainages and gulches on the slopes of Mount Shasta.
These flood zones are not optimal locations for the siting of trails and should be avoided if
possible. With careful planning, however, the region can build world class, sustainable trail
systems that can be used from as early as March or April all the way through Decemeber. Mount
Shasta’s climate, although not ideal for keeping soils moist, offers ideal riding conditions
throughout most of the year.
Harvest Practices on Forest Land
Both existing and proposed trails may be disrupted during timber harvesting, and may require
repairs, relocations, or reconstruction.
9
Illegal Trailbuilding
Currently many of the trails being used by mountain bicyclists are non-system trails on National
Forest lands. These trails were built illegally and have become a source for conflict between
users and land managers. The Forest Service has recently released Motor Vehicle Use Maps that
restrict or close the use of some low standard roads. While old roads are not favored by many
bicyclists, they do open up opportunities for “Easy” skill level rides or connector routes between
single tracks. In addition to illegal trails on public lands, there are indications that the pressure
for bicycle trails is also impacting some private lands, especially those owned by industrial
timber companies.
This report outlines a plan for redirecting users away from illegal, dangerous, environmentally
degrading, non-system trails and towards highly sustainable, professionally constructed, multiuse trails. IMBA’s experience throughout the country—on both public and private lands—
suggests that by offering superior, accessible (legal) trail experiences, users will gladly gravitate
away from non-system trails.
Another consideration of this report is the construction of a bike park, to be located within the
boundaries of Shastice Park. The concept is to build a variety of bike features that offer bike
tracks and trails, potentially including a pump park, dirt jump area, gravity flow lines, and
singletrack flow trails. Besides bulding skills for young riders, the intent is to also provide relief
from illegal trail building by providing a park with sufficient challenges close to town.
Opportunities
Community Support
MSTA has been instrumental in the effort to
increase the community’s economic health and
livability by building and maintaining trails. Their
stewardship of the Gateway Trails Network
construction process was instrumental in providing
convenient access to quality trails and in gaining
support from the USFS. The community
understands that a well-planned trail system can
provide a host of benefits and this has galvanized
their support for future trail development. There is
also meaningful support from key community
leaders to create a small bike park at Shastice,
including endorsement by Mt. Shasta Recreation
and Parks District Administrator Mike Rodriguez.
The Subaru/IMBA Trail Care Crew had a record attendance at their November 2011 Mt. Shasta
visit when local business owners, moms and dads, young gravity-oriented riders, trailbuilders,
land management agency staff, economic development professionals, ski areas, hikers, mountain
10
bikers, and equestrians agreed that more trails and a community of bike-minded people were
priorities for the growth of the community.
USDA Shasta-Trinity National Forest Partnership
MSTA is currently working with the USDA Shasta-Trinity National Forest (STNF) to identify
viable trail building opportunities, management strategies, and funding options. STNF believes
that multi-use trail development remains a compatible and desirable use for public lands around
Mount Shasta. Moreover, STNF agrees that legal trail development in the area would help boost
the local economy, protect natural resources, and inspire the local community to increase their
outdoor recreation activity.
Currently, STNF does not have the human or financial resources to commit to completing NEPA
or building new trails. Due to significant budget cuts over the last three years, STNF will
struggle to maintain their existing infrastructure and responsibilities. Consequently, STNF
suggests that MSTA should actively secure independent funding for future permitting (NEPA),
maintenance, and new construction. In the short term, STNF will continue to work with
MSTA—pending adequate resources— on general maintenance for existing trails, permitting for
future trails, and possibly some small additions to the existing Gateway System.
The Shasta-Trinity Forest also recently completed its Motorized Travel Management Plan
(MTMP) and the Mount Shasta Motor Vehicle Use Map. This MTMP proposes to close certain
locations mentioned in this report to motor vehicle use, which will improve safety by designating
specific trails as non-motorized.
Mount Shasta Ski Park
The Bike Park currently under construction at the Mount Shasta Ski Park has the potential to
attract thousands of users per year and help elevate the Mount Shasta region as a cycling
destination. Bike parks have been successful throughout North America and can help to create a
sustainable year-round income for the facility and the community. Richard Coots, manager for
Mount Shasta Ski Park, expressed support for creating trails that connect the Bike Park to trails
on surrounding National Forest property. This would have the effect of connecting the Bike Park
to the community.
Support From Roseburg Forest Products
During a meeting on August 7, 2012, Arne Hultgren from Roseburg Forest Products expressed
support for the concept of allowing trail construction on company lands. Roseburg Forest
Products’ commitment to the economic success of the community—and possession of lands that
are ideal for trail development—make them an invaluable partner for the creation of a trail-based
economy. In 2013, Roseburg included in their “Snowman Soda” Timber Harvest Plan (THP) the
Shasta Dunsmuir Link Trail. As a certified regulatory program under the CEQA, Public
Resources Code (PRC) 12 CCR 21080.5, the THP process is recognized by the State of
11
California as the functional equivalent of the CEQA EIR process. As such, the THP provides
analysis and full disclosure of environmental consequences of a proposed action, a cumulative
effects analysis, information for consultation with state regulatory agencies and describes
mitigations to lessen the environmental impacts of the action at hand sufficient to support a
negative declaration under CEQA. Roseburg’s willingness to partner with MSTA to build trails
and provide recreational access to private property presents a unique opportunity. IMBA
strongly recommends that MSTA continue to work with Roseburg on building the Shasta
Dunsmuir Link Trail and pursue funding from interested donors.
IMBA Chapter Formation
In 2013, IMBA helped the Mount Shasta region form a new IMBA Chapter: the Mount Shasta
Mountain Bike Association (MSMBA).
The chapter program is IMBA’s newest
initiative to create a unified voice for
mountain bikers. IMBA believes the
mountain bike movement is stronger
when local and national organizations
work in tandem to create great trail
experiences. IMBA has the professional
full-time staff, the database capabilities
and the national capacity to make a high
level impact, while local clubs have the
relationships and local knowledge
needed to get work done on the
ground. The formation of a local IMBA
Chapter greatly improves the capacity
and technical resources available for building trails in the greater Mount Shasta area.
Rails To Trails Route
A conceptual plan has been created to develop the 80+-mile Great Shasta Rail Trail utilizing the
retired McCloud River Railway Company right of way. This route will eventually connect
McCloud to Burney and provide access to a number of recreation sites and attractions. This route
will be an ideal conduit for connecting the community to its trail system. The rail line from Mt.
Shasta City to McCloud has not yet been abandoned.
Outdoor Recreational Activities
Mount Shasta offers myriad outdoor recreational opportunities across all seasons. Tens of
thousands of tourists already travel to the Mount Shasta area for mountain climbing, fly fishing,
12
hiking, running, adventure motorcycle riding, rafting and kayaking, road cycling, and more.
Shasta-Trinity National Forest Service surveys indicate that more than 40,000 people register at
the Bunny Flat Trailhead each year and more than 85,000 cars travel up Everitt Memorial
Highway annually (USDA Forest Service, 2009). Numerous events, races, and endurance rides
now attract thousands of users per year during all seasons. These events include but are not
limited to the Tin Man Triathlon, the Mount Shasta Summit Century (16,500 vertical feet and
139 miles), the Ski Park Volcano Mud Run and Downhill, the Fourth of July Fun Run (5,000
participants), and the new Headwaters 50 kilometer Ultra Marathon Run. Combined, these
events bring recreational tourists and potential trail users to the Mount Shasta area during
virtually every season. The Mount Shasta area currently does not offer adequate trail
opportunities to meet the demand presented by all these users.
Proximity To Major Metropolitan Areas
Located approximately four hours from the Bay Area, three hours from Sacramento, and five
hours from Portland Oregon, Mt. Shasta is a convenient getaway for residents of northern
California and Oregon. Caltrans calculates that more than 20,000 cars per day travel up and
down the Interstate 5 corridor (Caltrans, 2012). Because of its small town atmosphere and
beautiful surroundings, the city shows great potential for continued growth in its tourism sector.
Mountain biking and trail development offer one tangible way to significantly increase
recreational tourism in south Siskiyou County.
Topography
The Mount Shasta area offers almost unlimited possibilities for for the construction of
sustainable purpose-built mountain bicycle trails. The surrounding topography ranges from
elevations of 3,000 feet below the City of Dunsmuir to well above 8,000 feet near the Bunny
Flats trailhead on Mount Shasta. From the City of Mount Shasta, trail users can explore high
elevation mountain terrain in all directions: Mount Shasta, Castle Lake, Parks Creek Summit,
Gumboot Lake, and Mount Eddy. Additionally, excellent river trail development opportunities
exist along the Sacramento River near the City of Dunsmuir and above Lake Siskiyou on the
South Fork Sacramento. Few towns in California offer as diverse and ideal topography for trail
building as Mount Shasta.
13
IV. Ride Center Status
IMBA Ride Centers
One of the primary reasons
for completing this
assessment is to identify for
MSTA, the City of Mount
Shasta, and south Siskiyou
County potential steps for
transforming the region
into an official IMBA Ride
Center.
A “Ride Center”
designation represents
IMBA’s “Model
Destination Cycling Area”
recognition of large-scale
mountain bike facilities that offer something for every rider and attract tourists from all over the
world. Ride Centers provide the full range of riding experiences today's cycling tourist desire,
from long single-track journeys to family-friendly loops, bike parks with kid friendly skills
courses, to areas with expertly designed technical challenges for advanced riders.
Mt. Shasta Ride Center
By creating a high-quality purpose-built mountain bicycle trail system, Mt. Shasta has the
opportunity to become an IMBA Ride Center. This designation represents IMBA’s recognition
of large-scale mountain bike facilities that offer something for every rider. From backcountry
adventures to shuttle-served gravity trails, and from experts-only to family-friendly singletrack,
visitors can expect to encounter the best the sport has to offer.
Being designated as a Ride Center would clearly identify Mt. Shasta as one of the best mountain
bicycling destinations in the world. This means that the community will see an increase in both
visitors and improvements in quality of life for residents because of better opportunities for
outdoor recreation. As a committed partner, IMBA will promote the Mt. Shasta Ride Center
through its website and other communications (e.g., press releases, IMBA Trail News, eNews,
word of mouth, among others). The designation and rating is based on clear criteria that are not
always objective, and sometimes subjective, but in all cases that will relate to providing great
riding opportunities.
14
The City of Mt. Shasta already offers most of the services and amenities that are required in
order for a location to be considered a Ride Center. This includes bike shops, shopping, and a
variety of bike friendly lodging and eating establishments. A willing community is also required;
MSTA and the general community support the concept of becoming a Ride Center and are
committed to assist with the development and maintenance of trails. Engaging the local
economic development council, Chamber of Commerce, and other marketing agencies will be
necessary to build support and branding. The work of MSTA as a force that brings land
managers, users, businesses, and trailbuilders together will continue to be a vital component for
success.
The community could add to their Ride Center score by promoting mountain bicycle races,
festivals, trail work, or other bike-related social activities (e.g., fundraisers). The creation of a
community bike park at Shastice Park would also be a major amenity.
The Mount Shasta Ski Park could also play an
important role. Their plan to open a lift-accessed
mountain bicycling program would become a major
attraction and one of the centerpieces of the area. A
well-designed and properly constructed system
would provide visitors with a great riding
opportunity and add significant points in the Ride
Center criteria. It is highly encouraged that Mount
Shasta Ski Park look to a professional trail
contractor that specializes in bike park design and
construction for their future development.
The challenge of making Mt. Shasta an IMBA Ride Center is focused on the development of
new purpose-built mountain bicycle trails. Considering the amount of miles and different types
of riding experiences needed for a place to become a Ride Center, the existing trails in Shasta
would play a small role in achieving the desired status. In addition, many of the most popular
trails are non-system routes and need to be recognized and improved before they can be included
in the score.
Developing the trails and facilities that are required for Ride Center status are not insignificant.
In Mt. Shasta’s case, the costs will be considerable because of the current lack of legitimate
sustainable purpose-built trails. The Gateway Trails Network, Sisson-Callahan Trail, and the
Lake Siskiyou Trail are currently the only infrastructure that can be included in the Ride Center
assessment process. This leaves a significant balance of needed trails to achieve just Bronze Ride
Center status. Actual costs for constructing facilities to bridge the gap are estimated at $1.0 –
$2.0 million dollars over the next ten years.
Tourism Benefits
Ride Centers bring economic benefits to their host communities, most of which were detailed in
the introduction of this report. Given Mt. Shasta’s proximity to major population centers in
15
northern California and ease-of-access for the entire California marketplace, it is not
unreasonable to assume that the Mt. Shasta Ride Center could have, in the future, up to 130,000
– 150,000 visitors annually, who come for the purpose of riding area trails. It is assumed that
most of these visitors will be staying at least one to two nights.
IMBA Ride Center Success Stories

Park City, UT
Several years ago, IMBA was searching for the
ideal location to host the organization’s
biannual World Summit mountain bike
gathering. The winning candidate was Park City
because it offered a successful local mountain
bike community, diverse riding opportunities,
and jaw-dropping natural beauty. That was
2008, and since then Park City has continued
expanding and improving its facilities, so much
that IMBA enthusiastically awarded it the
highest level of Ride Center status. How did
Park City become a gold-level designation?
Through a combination of community support,
master planning, and detailed execution.
No location better exemplifies the Ride Center
ideal of offering great options for any level of
rider and any style of riding. From standout beginner-to-intermediate trails to technical
challenge and expert-only terrain, the options are expansive, and lift-served downhill runs
and community bike parks are quickly augmenting the trails.
Not surprisingly, Park City offers all the lodging and dining options you'd expect from a
world-class resort. At the heart of it all, the IMBA-affiliated Mountain Trails Foundation
pulls riders into a true mountain bike community and keeps them energized with new
projects. It all works together at Park City and has resulted in the resort being the “gold”
standard for mountain biking.

Oakridge, OR
The Oakridge Area Ride Center embodies the notion that the whole can be more than the
sum of its parts. It is an incredible place to ride, not just because of the gorgeous trails but
because the entire community supports the network of trails that has brought life to this
community.
When logging on federal lands decreased in the 1980’s, dozens of towns in Washington,
Oregon, and northern California became threatened. Many are former shells of
themselves, with mills shuttered and main streets vacant. Oakridge was in a similar
situation but a visionary group of citizens refused to give up on their hometown and
instead began to look to mountain bicycling as a niche activity to provide their livelihood.
16
Over many years and countless volunteer hours, the City of Oakridge has firmly
established itself as a
“must ride” stop for the
fat-tire crowd.
With this inspiring
backstory it is no surprise
that Oakridge is a silverlevel Ride Center. The
trails range from
adventurous backcountry
routes to close-to-town
loops, with the stunning
Cascades scenery as a
backdrop. Local
businesses have
responded by developing
bike-friendly lodging, a
brewery geared towards
hungry and thirsty riders, an extensive shuttle service to deliver the goods, and worldfamous races and events. With the upcoming addition of more purpose-built trails the
community is well on it’s way to being upgraded to gold-level Ride Center status.
That Oakridge is an international destination is not an exaggeration. Every year, visitors
travel from Canada, Europe, Asia, and Australia to ride the epic singletrack. The famed
Mountain Bike Oregon festival continues to be a mainstay of the town, providing
recreation-based employment opportunities for residents in a rural community that is
determining its own future.
17
V. PROPOSED TRAILS AND FACILITIES
Trail Construction, Maintenance, and Reclamation Guidelines
The following are guidelines for the construction and maintenance of existing and future trails in
and around Mt. Shasta. The natural environment is dynamic and unpredictable. The nature of
recreational trails and roads, the desired user experience, and the constant forces acting on
natural surface trails and roads make strict standards untenable and undesirable. As such, the
guidelines below are best management practices that should be followed within environmental
constraints.
Sustainable Trails
A sustainable trail balances many elements. It has little impact on the environment; resists
erosion through proper design, construction, and maintenance; and blends with the surrounding
area. A sustainable trail also appeals to and serves a variety of users, adding an important
element of recreation to the community. It is designed to provide enjoyable and challenging
experiences for visitors by effectively managing their expectations and their use. Following trail
design and construction guidelines allows for high-quality trail and education experiences for
users while protecting the sensitive resources.
For additional trail design, construction, and maintenance techniques, refer to Trail Solutions:
IMBA’s Guide to Building Sweet Singletrack. These guidelines are appropriate for any hiking,
biking, or equestrian trail.
18
Existing Routes
If executed in a consistent and well-planned manner, these prescriptions will lead to a worldclass mountain bicycling experience that can be sustainably managed. A well-managed trail
system can continue to be expanded or developed to meet the changing needs of users while
minimizing impacts upon natural resources.
Improve Existing Trails
It is recommended that the existing trails that are being used by mountain bicyclists be updated,
as they possess a number of negative characteristics. Some of these problems affect sustainability
and others affect safety and user interaction. Recommended changes are:




Re-route fall line routes to more sustainable grades or armor the tread to stabilize the soil
and prevent erosion.
Create clear sightlines to increase user safety
and decrease conflict. A crowded trail with a
mix of runners, dog walkers, and children needs
greater visibility. If the trail is smooth and wide,
mountain bikers may be tempted to ride too fast.
Keep some vegetation below waist level to
control trail width and anchor turns while still
allowing for clear sightlines. Do not remove
trees near the trail; instead, trim their branches
for visibility. Give special attention to
intersections and the many blind corners that the
existing trails possess. These areas have the
highest potential for conflict and injuries to
users.
Control rider speed by narrowing the tread,
roughening the trail surface via armoring, and
installing chokes. These solutions should be
combined to create narrow twisting trails that
are more challenging and require riders to
negotiate them at lower speeds. Once again,
special attention should be given to intersections
and the many blind corners, because these areas
have the highest potential for conflict and
injuries to users.
Correct the cupped tread that has developed along many of the trails. This cupping
focuses water down the trail, resulting in increased erosion. Removing the berm at the
outside edge of the tread will improve drainage and also defines the tread.
19
Signage
An enhanced signing system should be implemented for the area’s
trail network. It should guide users to an experience appropriate
for their desired activity, skill, and fitness level. IMBA has a
recommended trail-rating system that is available for immediate
implementation. Signs should include the following:







A map of trails and routes
Descriptions of the trail characteristics
Difficulty ratings for the trails
Risk and hazard warnings
Etiquette for trail users
Rules and regulations
Trail distances
Proposed New Routes
.
IMBA Trail Solutions spent approximately two weeks
during the summer of 2012 in the Mount Shasta Area
surveying topography and soils, speaking with local
riders, coordinating with resource managers, and
identifying opportunities to build world class trails
systems.
The zones outlined below reflect IMBA’s professional
opinion on how best to transform southern Siskiyou
County into a world class cycling destination. In
identifying these zones and systems, IMBA considered
multiple criteria that includes but is not limited to
following factors:
1. Accessibility and location to town
2. Slope, grade, soils, and sustainability
3. Environmental resources
4. Timber resources
5. Scenic value
6. Existing trailheads and parking areas
7. Connectivity to existing trail systems and towns
8. Multi-use opportunities
9. Public vs. private lands
10. Safety and fire prevention
20
Appendices A, B, C, and D provides a complete listing
of conceptual routes with maps of their locations. A
summary of each zone is provided below. From these
zones, IMBA then identify five “High Priority” trail
systems that if constructed, would have the greatest
recreation impact on the region.
Zone 1: Southwest of Siskiyou Lake
Develop a technical gravity trail network system that
utilizes Castle Lake Road and the South Fork Road for
shuttle access. The network will offer descents for
different skill level users, ranging from “More
Difficult” to “Most/Extremely Difficult.” The finished
network will connect to the All Mountain (AM) trails
from Second Bridge and also connect the trails network
to the Castle Lakes Nordic trail network.
Zone 2: Westside of Dunsmuir
Develop an AM trail network connecting Castle Lake Road to the west side of Dunsmuir. The
trail network will consist of a Cross Country (XC) descent from Castle Lakes Nordic Center to
the trailhead located at Railroad Park and a loop traversing south of Mount Bradley and
descending to a new trailhead located near the railroad park.
Zone 3: South Fork Trails
Develop a trail network with XC and AM trails. The network will have an AM trail beginning at
the Second Bridge descending to a new trailhead located near the Archery Range off of Red Hill
Road. An XC trail located at the north side of South Fork road will connect Second Bridge to
Sisson-Callahan trail paralleling the South Fork of the Sacramento River. A loop starting from
Second Bridge and circumnavigating White Ridge will also connect to Sisson-Callahan trail.
This network system will originate from a new trailhead at Second Bridge.
Zone 4: North Fork Trails
The trail network system will connect to the South Fork Trail network via two spurs, leaving
from Sisson-Callahan trail at its upper and lower ends. The Sisson-Callahan trail will be utilized
primarily as a climbing route to connect to the AM trails at the upper part of the network. The
AM routes will include a “Most/Extremely Difficult” trail descending the area near Dear Creek
Road and a backcountry-type trail circumnavigating Rainbow Ridge and finishing at North Shore
Road. The primary trailhead used for these routes will be the existing facility off of North Shore
Road near Lake Siskiyou.
21
Zone 5: Siskiyou Lake Trails
This network of trails will use the existing North Shore Road trailhead. Development of
additional beginner-level singletrack options for the Lake Siskiyou Trail will be a priority.
Improvement of signage on the trail, especially trough the campground area, is badly needed.
Develop an “Easy” level loop trail on the north side of North Shore Road.
Zone 6: East Dunsmuir Trails
Develop an XC and AM trail network descending
along Soda Creek Ridge from Snowman’s Hill Park
to the south end of Dunsmuir. The network will offer
trails for different skill level users, ranging from
“Easy” to “Most/Extremely Difficult”. AM trails
should be optimized for descending but nondirectional. XC trails should provide loop
opportunities. Development of a trail access in
Dunsmuir will need to be performed through a
cooperative agreement between the City of Dunsmuir
and Roseburg Resources.
Zone 7: Mount Shasta Ski Park Trails
Develop AM trails connecting Mount Shasta Ski Park to Mt. Shasta City, McCloud, and
Snowman’s Hill. These trails can be combined with the Great Shasta Rail Trail (rails-to-trails
project) to create large loops and even a connection to Dunsmuir. Develop a loop trail beginning
at the intersection of Road 31 and Ski Park Highway, connecting to the Gateway Trails network.
Zone 8: The Entertainer Trail Area
There are many existing sections of The Entertainer trail that are unsustainable or hazardous
because of a lack of maintenance. A new, more-sustainable alignment for the trail will be
created, descending from Red Fir trailhead to a new trailhead and safer road crossing point near
McBride Springs Campground. The trail will continue across Everitt Memorial Highway where
it will connect to the upper part of the existing sustainable sections of the Cliff Hanger Trail and
terminate in the Gateway Trails network near Shastice Park. This trail will incorporate
progressive trail features such as jumps, rock gardens, wall rides, and bermed turns. Whenever
possible, these features will be constructed from rock or treated lumber to minimize
maintenance.
Zone 9: The Gateway Trails
Develop a trail on the north side of the existing trails network, climbing to the rocky point
overlooking the City of Mt. Shasta and the forest plantations. This will also connect via a spur to
the new McBride Springs trailhead and create a loop. Create a connection on the Great Shasta
22
Rail Trail to the Shastice Bike Park. Develop XC loops on the north side of Everitt Memorial
Highway (when it is abandoned) starting at the McBride Springs trailhead. These trails will have
a flowing character that is appealing to all user groups and ability levels.
Shastice Bike Park
Shastice Park will be the main point of entry connecting the community to the trails near Mt.
Shasta. Establish a new trailhead for the Gateway Trails at Shastice. The area provides a
connection to a future potential rails-to-trails project. . MSTA should focus on two potential
areas for future bike park: a larger area directly east and above the skate park and another smaller
area south of the football field. The larger area has room for a beginner flow trail and an
intermediate-to-advanced loop, along with a skills area, pump track, and a progressive jump
track. The smaller area has enough room for a progressive jump park, a pump track, and a skills
area
23
High Priority Routes
Within the larger zones outlined above, IMBA recommends focusing in the short term on
building five priority trail systems. Together, these systems would add approximately 100 miles
of new multi-use trail to the Mount Shasta Area, provide world class riding opportunities for a
wide variety of recreational users, and put the town on the map as future destination ride center.
Five Priority Routes (see appendix C for maps of each route)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Snowman’s Hill to Dunsmuir Trail Network
Castle Lake to Lake Siskiyou
Ski Park to Town
Gateway Phase 2
Sission Callahan Loop
Snowman’s Hill to Dunsmuir Trail Network (see Map A)
Overview: This network of trails will create an unparalleled riding experience in Northern
California. Built in forested terrain that overlooks the Sacramento River, the trails will create
business opportunities for shuttle and guide services, as most of the routes will be optimized for
descending and will make use of Highway 89 and Interstate 5 to provide fast, efficient shuttles
for mountain bicycle riders. These trails will also create new ways for the communities of
Dunsmuir, Mt. Shasta, and McCloud to connect with one another as more trails are added to the
network. Most of the trails in this network will be AM style. AM trails are the most desired by
mountain bicycle riders. The flowing yet challenging nature of these routes keeps riders coming
back for more. The difficulty level of the planned AM routes will be “More Difficult.” The
balance of the routes will be more traditional XC style trails built with loop opportunities in mind
and will have a range of difficulty ratings from “Easy” to “More Difficult.”
Approximate Mileage: 14.1
Soils: Generally pumice-based near Snowman’s Hill, transitioning into more gravelly loam with
some clay and sand soils near Dunsmuir.
Ownership/Management: Primarily Roseburg with some National Forest lands at the south end.
Primary Access: From proposed new trailhead at Snowman’s Hill on north end and off of Soda
Creek Road on the south end.
Estimated Construction Costs: $225K - $300K
24
Castle Lake to Lake Siskiyou Trail (see Map B)
Overview: The Castle Lake Nordic area provides a perfect starting point for this shuttle access
AM descent. The higher altitude offers sweeping views of Mt. Shasta as the trail descends
through terrain above the south shore of Lake Siskiyou. This trail will create business
opportunities for shuttle and guide services. Riders will make use of Castle Lake Road and W.A.
Barr Road to provide fast, efficient shuttles. This trail will be AM style. AM trails are the most
desired by mountain bicycle riders. The flowing yet challenging nature of these routes keeps
riders coming back for more. The difficulty level of the planned route will be “More Difficult”.
As other trails are constructed nearby, this trail will form an essential backbone that creates a
strong network.
Approximate Mileage: 12.6
Soils: Generally loamy ash-based on the north end, transitioning into more gravelly loam soils
towards the south end.
Ownership/Management: Primarily National Forest with some Siskiyou County Water Bureau at
the north end.
Primary Access: From existing trailhead at Castle Lake Nordic Area on south end and from a
proposed trailhead near the archery range off of Red Hill Road on the north end.
Mount Shasta Ski Park to Mt. Shasta Trails (see Map C)
Overview: Mount Shasta Ski Park is currently developing trails that will be lift-accessed. This
new attraction will become a magnet for riders seeking gravity-fed riding opportunities. It will
also provide an excellent starting point for AM style trails to connect the ski area to the City of
Mt. Shasta. The planned Great Shasta Rail Trail (when it is able to extend from McCloud to Mt.
Shasta) will make it possible to create a large loop for riders who begin in town. This trail will
create business opportunities for shuttle and guide services. Riders will make use of Castle Lake
Road and W.A. Barr Road to provide fast, efficient shuttles. This trail will be AM style. AM
trails are the most desired by mountain bicycle riders. The flowing yet challenging nature of
these routes keeps riders coming back for more. The difficulty level of the planned route will be
“More Difficult” to “Most/Extremely Difficult.” As other trails are constructed nearby, this trail
will form an essential backbone that creates a strong network.
Approximate mileage: 19.5
Soils: Generally fine sandy/ash loam on the east end, transitioning into more gravelly sandy clay
loam soils towards the west end.
25
Ownership/Management: Primarily National Forest with the exception of the trailhead at
Shastice Park (City of Mt. Shasta).
Primary Access: From Mount Shasta Ski Park on the east end and Shastice Park on the west end.
Gateway Trail Network Phase 2 (see Map D)
Overview: The original Gateway Trail System was designed and constructed in 2011-12 to
provide the City of Mount Shasta with a multi-use trail system that could be easily accessed from
downtown. The existing system offers users a 10.76 mile network of professionally constructed,
intermediate level, cross-country single track. The Gateway System is located entirely on USDA
Forest Service lands, was constructed in partnership with MSTA, and was designed to
accommodate a wide variety of users including runners, hikers, mountain bikers, and more. The
Gateway Phase Two project will expand the highly successful and popular Gateway Trail system
adding an additional 17.39 miles for a total of 28.15 miles. Existing research and data from
around the country suggests that by building a 28 mile multi-use trail system within walking
distance of downtown, the City of Mount Shasta will attract over 20,000 users per year and
generate over a million per year in tourism dollars (Outdoor Foundation, 2011). The Gateway
Trail project area remains an ideal location for trail construction for the following reasons: 1) the
trail head is located just 1.5 miles from downtown Mount Shasta 2) an Environmental
Assessment was already completed for Gateway Phase One 3) NEPA was completed for the
entire project area as part of a past timber sale 4) the Gateway network will provide future
linkages between the Mount Shasta Ski Park, Dunsmuir, and the City of Mount Shasta 5) the
terrain offers excellent views, stable soils, and ideal cross-country single track trail opportunities.
Approximate Mileage: 17.39 miles
Soils: Generally fine sandy/ash loam on the east end, transitioning into more gravelly sandy clay
loam soils towards the west end.
Ownership/Management: Shasta-Trinity National Forest
Primary Access: USFS Gateway Trailhead on Everett Memorial Highway
Estimated Construction Costs: $255-300k
Sisson Callahan Loop Trail (see Map E)
Overview: The historic Sisson Callahan Trail was constructed by the US Forest Service in 1911
to link the forest headquarters in Sisson (Mount Shasta) with Callahan. Today, the lower half of
the trail—descending from the flanks of Mount Eddy to Lake Siskiyou—has evolved into one
26
the area’s best advanced, downhill mountain biking trails. The trail descends approximately four
miles down the north fork of the Upper Sacramento River ending at an ideal location on the
shores of Lake Siskiyou. The new Sisson Callahan Loop will expand the existing trail by more
than 20 miles, offering two potential loop options and a good climbing trail (the existing Sisson
Callahan Trail grade is too steep for uphill climbing on a mountain bike. This new system is
essential for the larger mountain bike vision in Mount Shasta because it provides users with
access to the west side of Lake Siskiyou where soils are optimum and views of Mount Shasta
stunning. The new trail has plenty of space for a new parking area/trailhead near Lake Siskiyou
and would utilize existing recreational infrastructure around the Lake such as restrooms and
good vehicle access roads.
Approximate Mileage: 22.27 Miles
Soils: Mt. Eddy is the highest peak in the Klamath Province made up of parent material that
includes Mesozoic ultrabasic intrusive rock, predominantly serpentinized peridotite (serpentine
soils). Soils are considered thin and gravelly.
Ownership/Management: Shasta-Trinity National Forest
Primary Access: Lake Siskiyou, multiple county parking areas around lake
Estimated Construction Costs: $350-400k
27
VI. Recommendations
Objectives
1) Develop sustainable, purpose-built mountain bicycle
trails that will meet the needs of current and future
mountain bicyclists.
2) Attract significant tourism opportunities to the area by
providing a high-quality mountain bicycling experience
to visitors.
3) Increase the health, quality of life, and overall wellness
of the local population by creating easy access for the
community to nearby purpose-built trails.
4) Improve relationships between user groups and land
managers.
5) Become an IMBA Ride Center.
Recommendations
Secure Funding
To develop the trails as indicated in this plan would cost approximately $4.4 - $5.8 million. The
approximate construction cost is based on Trail Solutions’ experience on similar projects. The
costs noted in this report are for construction only, and do not include planning, design,
permitting, easements/purchases, trailhead development, or project management. Costs vary
greatly based on a variety of factors, including the remote nature of the work, demand for trail
contractors in a given year, terrain, vegetation, and length of the build season.
The funding for these kinds of projects is a challenge for communities, but not insurmountable.
One of the most popular funding sources is the Federal Recreational Trails Program (RTP).
These funds are apportioned to each state, which use a mix of federal and state guidelines to
determine its dispersal. In California, federal RTP money is used to supplement other funding
sources, which can come from other federal, state, or private funds. For the state, the maximum
amount of RTP funds allowed for each project is 88% of the total project cost. The applicant is
responsible for obtaining a match amount that is at least 12% of the total project cost. Based on
experience with other projects a typical and realistic fundraising goal for projects of this type is
$300K - $500K.
Additional funding resources include:

BLM Grants and Programs
IMBA clubs that cooperate with their Bureau of Land Management (BLM) field office
are advised to discuss possible grant opportunities with local BLM staff under the BLM's
"Take it Outside" initiative to get more kids active on BLM trails.
28

National Park Service
Every year, the National Park Service helps hundreds of locally driven projects that
create opportunities for healthy outdoor recreation, connect youth with the outdoors, and
connect communities to parks. Rivers, Trails, & Conservation Assistance from the
National Park Service provides no funding, but experienced staff can help communities
plan for success.

U.S. Forest Service Programs
IMBA clubs that cooperate with their local Forest Service district are advised to discuss
possible Challenge Cost Share Agreements with their local district staff under the Forest
Service USDA. The US Forest Service has a partnership resource center describing other
opportunities.

National Forest Foundation (NFF)
The NFF provides financial support to qualified non-profit organizations and raises funds
to enhance contributions to local conservation initiatives. Opportunities exist throughout
the year for non-profit organizations to receive funding for stewardship projects or startup costs.

Bicycle Industry Funding
Various companies in the bicycling industry support IMBA by funding grants to improve
riding. These include the Trek Trail Building Fund and the Bell Built grant, among
others. The availability of these funds varies and the sources should be checked semiannually to identify potential opportunities.

Economic Development Grants
MSTA is already adept at identifying and pursuing grants intended to improve economic
growth, particularly in economically distressed rural areas. With the creation of this plan
it will be easier to pursue these types of funds.
Obtain Design and Construction Approval
Focus on obtaining permission and funding to develop the primary projects identified in section
“V. Proposed Trails and Facilities,” with an emphasis on routes marked as “High Priority.” This
will require coordination with land managers and/or landowners, and it is most efficient to
promote project areas that have already received necessary permissions. Utilizing the
information provided herein, identify possible routes with the help of a professional trailbuilder
or qualified land manager to flag a trail corridor that meets the desired user experience. Once
designed in accordance with this report, the trail should be advanced through the approval
process and prepared for construction.
As previously noted, the NEPA process can pose a considerable obstacle to the approval of new
trails on federal lands or with the use of federal funding. There are several successful models,
however, that may provide guidance to MSTA and the City of Mt. Shasta as they pursue
29
approval of individual projects. In all of the following instances IMBA created the mountain
bicycle master plans for the communities.

Community Funding of NEPA
The City of Cascade Locks, OR, is in the process of developing a destination-quality
singletrack trail system designed to attract the considerable number of mountain
bicyclists in nearby Portland, OR, as well as appeal to those riders who travel to Oregon
to ride the many other iconic trail systems (Post Canyon, Mount Hood, Bend, Oakridge,
Sandy Ridge, Ashland). Most of the proposed trails are located in the Columbia River
Gorge National Scenic Area (CRGNSA), which is managed by the USFS. With a
shrinking budget, the USFS was unable to dedicate funds to the NEPA review process.
Cascade Locks, supported by their local economic development agency, independently
obtained funds and hired consultants to perform the necessary groundwork. This
information was then transferred to the USFS for review, greatly reducing the agency’s
burden and expediting the process.

Utilizing the Transportation Management
Planning (TMP) Process
The Helena National Forest was undertaking a
large-scale TMP project that included an
analysis of motorized and non-motorized trails.
The City of Lincoln, MT, which is surrounded
by the Helena National Forest, used this
opportunity to propose a massive network of
interconnected mountain bicycle trails. As the
TMP already required the NEPA review
process, it was a minor effort to insert the
mountain bicycle trails master plan into the
overall action.

Utilizing the Forest-Wide Planning Process
The Allegheny National Forest was undertaking
a comprehensive forest-wide planning process
brought on by the boom in natural resource
extraction in northern Pennsylvania.
Recognizing that the economic impact of the
oil/gas extraction would be limited, members of
the local community lobbied for inclusion of a
mountain bicycle trails master plan in the
overall NEPA process and were thus relieved of
having to sponsor a separate action.
30
Hire a Professional Trailbuilder
Enlisting a professional trailbuilder to design and manage the construction of the trails will help
ensure funds that are well spent. Appendix G lists professional trailbuilders in the region. This
will provide the community with an onsite expert who can guide them through the more complex
aspects of trail system development. Oftentimes mechanized construction is the most efficient
and effective technique, especially when performing major tread work on fire roads or
firebreaks, and where more complex flow-based trails are being built. To prevent unnecessary
disturbance to the environment outside of the trail corridor, machinery operators should always
be trained and experienced mountain bicycle trailbuilders. To secure bids from a trail contractor,
prepare a detailed bid package with specifications for the trail. This should include:










Estimated length
Desired average width
Desired user experience
Skill level/description of features to be included
Specifications of any non-native materials to be used (aggregate, wood, etc.)
Erosion control or impact restoration requirements
Seasonal closures
Environmental, botanical or wildlife related issues
Construction method preferred (mechanized, hand, combination, etc.)
Level of finish
Conversely, if the funding source allows and the situation in amenable, a design-build contract
may be employed. A knowledgeable trailbuilder can advise MSTA on the relative benefits of
either course of action.
Create the Shastice Bike Park
The area near Shastice Park is ideal for the
construction of a community bike park. This idea was
supported by the Mount Shasta Parks and Recreation
District Director and should be a priority for
construction. This amenity can become a center of
activity for local and visiting cyclists. It also
establishes Shastice Park as a hub for future trailhead
access to the Gateway Trails. It is recommended that
a professional trailbuilder be enlisted to design and
manage the construction of the bike park. Afterwards,
attention should be given to training and paying a
local skilled builder/rider to inspect and maintain the
bike park on a regular basis. This will protect the
community’s investment and reduce risk for the bike
park users. The bike park should have a variety of
31
features including a pump track, skills area, and
graduated dirt jumps. It must be well signed, require
helmet use, and be in a defined area with limited
access.
Develop the Great Shasta Rail Trail
The Great Shasta Rail Trail should be used as a main artery that ties the communities, cyclists
and trails together. Cooperation between groups should be a priority to ensure that facilities can
be shared and that users have the best experience possible. Access for mountain bicyclists should
be established for the entire length of the route. This will guarantee access to existing trails and
expansion to future systems. Trails that intersect the rail route will need to enter at well-planned
junctions with clear signage.
Continue Developing Relationship with USFS
Sustained cooperation, similar to efforts at the Gateway Trails system, must continue and be
expanded if the conceptual trail plan is to come to fruition. An open dialogue between trail user
groups and local USFS managers should be sought with the main goal being the utilization of the
conceptual trail plan in planning efforts and documents. Regular communication with USFS staff
to discuss current issues affecting users, analyzing successful partnerships, and being involved in
upcoming planning processes will foster this positive relationship.
Improve Mount Shasta Ski Park Trail Development
MSTA should increase their level of involvement in the planning and construction of the bike
park trails being built at the Ski Park. Community pressure should be applied to request that
professional trail design and construction services be utilized. An agreement should be sought to
establish access for trails that connect the Ski Park with future trails that are listed in the
conceptual plan. This agreement should also establish trailhead access from the Ski Park.
Secure Private Land Access
Agreements should be sought to establish access for current and future trails that cross private
lands. MSTA will need to provide owners with reassurance about liability and risk management.
Trails that are built on private land will need to be as well built, properly signed, regularly
inspected, and maintained. The main target for an agreement should be a large landholder such
as Roseburg Forest Products, which has already expressed a desire for cooperation.
Track Economic Data
A program should be established for gathering local economic data related to trail based
recreation. This data should be gathered consistently so that a clear picture of economic impact
can be created. Cooperation and sharing of information should be established with the local
tourism board, chamber of commerce, lodging associations, outfitters, retailers, restaurants, and
32
economic development groups. This data can be used to direct development, secure funding, and
demonstrate value to the community, government, and partners.
33
Appendix A. CONCEPTUAL TRAILS LISTING
Route
#
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
3.10
3.11
3.12
3.13
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
Zone
Trail Name
Style
Status
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
AM
FR
FR
AM
FR
AM
AM
AM
AM
AM
XC
AM
AM
AM
XC
XC
XC
XC
XC
AM
XC
XC
AM
AM
AM
AM
AM
XC
XC
XC
AM
AM
Conceptual
Conceptual
Conceptual
Conceptual
Conceptual
Conceptual
Conceptual
Conceptual
Conceptual
Conceptual
Conceptual
Conceptual
Conceptual
Conceptual
Conceptual
Conceptual
Conceptual
Conceptual
Conceptual
Conceptual
Conceptual
Conceptual
Conceptual
Conceptual
Conceptual
Conceptual
Conceptual
Conceptual
Conceptual
Conceptual
Conceptual
Conceptual
Difficulty
Rating
Blue
Blue
Blue
Blue
Black
Blue
Blue
Black
Black
Blue
Blue
Black
Black
Black
Blue
Blue
Blue
Black
Black
Black
Black
Blue
Blue
Blue
Blue
Blue
Blue
Blue
Black
Black
Blue
Blue
Conceptual
Length
0.43
0.92
5.50
1.14
4.26
0.47
2.29
3.49
12.77
5.03
4.46
4.59
1.36
1.50
5.49
2.21
1.02
6.21
1.67
6.23
6.34
1.30
3.10
6.87
2.18
4.76
5.78
0.95
1.85
6.41
2.77
0.83
34
Route
#
4.9
4.10
5.1
5.2
5.3
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
6.6
6.7
6.8
6.9
6.10
6.11
6.12
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.6
7.7
7.8
7.9
8.1
8.2
8.3
8.4
8.5
9.1
9.2
9.3
9.4
9.5
Zone
4
4
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
9
Trail Name
Snowman to Dunsmuir
Snowman to Dunsmuir
Snowman to Dunsmuir
Snowman to Dunsmuir
Snowman to Dunsmuir
Ski Park to Town
Ski Park to Town
Ski Park to Town
Ski Park to Town
Ski Park to Town
Ski Park to Town
Style
Status
AM
XC
XC
XC
XC
AM
XC
XC
XC
AM
XC
AM
AM
AM
AM
XC
AM
AM
AM
AM
AM
AM
AM
Road
AM
XC
FR
FR
AM
AM
FR
XC
Road
XC
Road
AM
Conceptual
Conceptual
Conceptual
Conceptual
Conceptual
Conceptual
Conceptual
Conceptual
Conceptual
Conceptual
Conceptual
Conceptual
Conceptual
Conceptual
Conceptual
Conceptual
Conceptual
Conceptual
Conceptual
Conceptual
Conceptual
Conceptual
Conceptual
Conceptual
Conceptual
Conceptual
Conceptual
Conceptual
Conceptual
Conceptual
Conceptual
Conceptual
Conceptual
Conceptual
Conceptual
Conceptual
Difficulty
Rating
Blue
Blue
Green
Green
Green
Blue
Blue
Green
Green
Green
Blue
Blue
Blue
Blue
Blue
Black
Black
Blue
Black
Black
Blue
Blue
Blue
White
Blue
Blue
Black
Blue
Blue
Blue
Blue
Green
White
Green
White
Green
Conceptual
Length
1.65
0.79
0.77
1.53
2.91
6.45
3.19
2.16
2.15
1.82
0.75
7.21
3.82
2.69
4.78
5.78
17.04
5.48
4.78
3.73
4.30
1.57
11.13
15.79
6.57
1.42
6.43
5.06
2.94
2.14
1.82
0.52
1.33
0.41
0.75
2.16
35
Route
#
9.6
9.7
9.8
9.9
Zone
9
9
9
9
Trail Name
Style
Status
AM
XC
XC
XC
Conceptual
Conceptual
Conceptual
Conceptual
Difficulty
Rating
Blue
Blue
Blue
Black
Conceptual
Length
3.88
5.26
4.40
7.33
36
Appendix B. MAPS: PLANNING AREA
37
Appendix C. MAPS: PRIORITY ROUTES
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
Snowman to Dunsmuir
Ski Park to Town
Gateway Phase 2
Sisson Callahan Loop
38
39
40
41
42
43
Appendix D. MAPS: PLANNING ZONES
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
Zone 1
Zone 2
Zone 3
Zone 4
Zone 5
Zone 6
Zone 7
Zone 8
Zone 9
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
Appendix E. TRAIL CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES
This section describes the trail construction and maintenance
techniques that must be used to ensure that sustainable and high
quality trails are created. For more details regarding trail design,
construction, and maintenance, consult IMBA’s trailbuilding
book Trail Solutions (IMBA, 2004).
Choosing Terrain
The terrain in the planning area is highly variable and is a
complex mix of soils, geology and vegetation. After analysis of
existing trails, it was noted that certain terrain characteristics in
the Mount Shasta area tended to result in more sustainable trails.
Trails should be located in areas with as many of these
characteristics as possible:



Moderate side slopes of 15-30% to encourage drainage
Under tree cover to reduce soil temperatures
In clay-based soils to encourage compaction
Moderate Grades
One of the biggest trailbuilding mistakes is creating
trails that are too steep; these trails funnel water and
quickly erode. Because of the extremely loose soils in
the Mt. Shasta area, trails should be constructed with
an average grade of 5-7%. In some areas it may be
acceptable to create steeper grades if the tread is
armored with rock or constructed from pressure
treated lumber. Steep grades should not exceed 30
feet in length. A trail’s grade shouldn't exceed half
the grade of the hillside or sideslope that the trail
traverses. If the grade does exceed half the sideslope,
it's considered a fall-line trail. Water will flow down
a fall-line trail rather than run across it. Moisture does not tend to fall in the Mount Shasta area
during the months of July, August and September. These months should be avoided for trail
construction in areas that are primarily volcanic pumice soils, as they require moisture to achieve
compaction. When possible newly constructed trails should not be opened for travel until after
they have “seasoned” over the winter. This allows the tread to compact and stabilize under the
snows of winter. The result will be a more defined and durable tread.
Rollers
54
A roller is a constructed rise in the tread, without abrupt
edges, that adds interest for cyclists. Rollers can create a
brief weightless feeling on a bike and help riders to practice
bicycle-handling skills such as balance, body position,
braking, and shifting.
Rollers can range in height and width, and can be made to
accommodate occasional vehicle traffic. Rollers are typically
made using soil. Material for rollers can be harvested on site
from the construction of other tread and drainage features
(i.e. excavation of basins or knicks), or brought in from a
local construction site. It is important that soil chemistry be
considered in any large-scale import of material. Soil may be
mixed with crushed rock or other material to harden and this
may be a necessity in areas that are primarily volcanic
pumice soils.
Dimensions for rollers: Height range from 18-30”. Ratio of
length to height varies, ranging from 2:1 to 3:1 (3-8 lf).
Basin Construction
Basins, or sumps, are small, excavated areas adjacent to the
tread, used in flat, low-lying areas to provide drainage.
Basins should be gentle, shallow depressions that allow
water coming off the tread to percolate into the ground.
Material excavated in basin construction is often used to
raise the trail tread. Basins are typically 8-15’ in length by 38’ in width, depending upon the expected volume of water
and the natural topography. It is important that the basin act
similarly to a knick, in that the flow of water is dispersed
over a wide area and not forced into a gutter. The transition
from tread edge to the basin should be consistent but not
abrupt: it should encourage the flow of water toward the basin without creating a hazard for
users. Generally, it is recommended that the slope into the basin from the tread edge be greater
than 15% but not exceed 40%. The adjacent tread should outslope toward the drainage at 5-8%.
The minor undulations and topographic relief created by a
combination of basins and adjacent raised tread or rollers adds
interest to a trail and can be used to create singletrack within a
wider, flat corridor. This technique may be very useful in the flat
topography of the Plantation and Gateway areas north of Shastice
Park.
Knick
A knick is an earthen structure sculpted into existing trails to
55
Knick outslope
15% maximum.
improve drainage on trail grades less than 10%. At trail grades steeper than 10%, a rolling grade
dip should be used. Due to the lack of sideslope for drainage, this is a limited technique, but can
be employed in combination
with excavated basins.
Knick
Knick outslope
15% maximum.
5-10 Feet
Trail Choke or Corral
Chokes and Corralling
Trail chokes, corrals, or chicanes are used to help control the flow of trail users. Rocks, logs, or
other obstacles are placed within the trail corridor,
but not in the active trail tread. These techniques are
used in a variety of situations, such as:




5-10 Feet
To slow users near intersections with trails
or roads
To slow users along a wide, straight corridor
To make a trail section more interesting
To prepare users for a change in trail flow,
an approaching turn or technical challenge
Choke
Armoring
As described earlier, armoring is a term applied to
several techniques for hardening a trail, most
commonly by placing rock in the tread. Leaving
Corralling
some rocks “proud,” or relieved above the plane of
rocks.
the trail, will make the section more technical. The
preferred height of the proud rocks is based upon
the desired difficulty of the trail, and should be done
with a difficulty rating system such as IMBA’s,
shown in Appendix F.
New more
enjoyable trail.
Old straight trail.
An armored section can also be used as a choke, with a “smooth” line through the section, and more textured armoring
around it. A skilled trail user will be able to deftly negotiate the proper line, whereas a less-skilled user will intuitively
slow down before the section, in order to navigate the trail in a more deliberate manner.
56
Ensure that armored sections of
trail are sufficiently corralled
along their sides so that users
cannot cut around the
armoring. Because armoring can
be visually different than the
rest of the trail tread, and
because it can represent
increased technical difficulty,
less-skilled users may attempt to
go around the armored sections.
In most areas, the dense and
prolific vegetation adjacent to
many of the trails should help
to minimize this. In areas where
vegetation is less limiting, the
placement of rocks, logs, and
other natural materials along the
edge of the armoring will help
reduce trail widening.
These techniques can be employed to address several situations:



To reduce erosion along trail segments where alignment exceeds recommended
guidelines or due to non-cohesive soils and/or excessive grade relative to sideslope.
To provide technical challenge.
To slow riders before an intersection, technical challenge, or other situations of flow
transition.
Basic techniques for armoring trails are described below. For more details, see Trail Solutions,
Chapter 6.
Flagstone Paving
Large, flat-faced stones are placed directly on a
mineral soil base or an aggregate foundation (a
mixture composed of sand, gravel, pebbles, and small
rocks, which is devoid of organic material). Each
stone is placed with its largest and smoothest face up,
at grade, to form the tread surface. This is the most
common and simple armoring technique. This
technique is recommended in very sandy areas to
provide a stable tread surface. Porous pavers can be
used in combination with or instead of flagstone
paving (described below).
Stone Pitching
57
This is an ancient road-building technique in which medium-sized rocks are set on end, or
"pitched" up on their side, like books in a bookshelf, where only the spine is showing and the rest
of the book is hidden. The stones are hand-fitted tightly together, with aggregate packed into the
gaps to tighten the construction. Stone pitching can often be more efficient than flagstone paving,
depending on what rocks are available. This technique is recommended in areas where
muddiness is a problem.
Raised Tread
Rocks can be used to elevate the tread above especially
soft or wet terrain. First, a foundation of large rocks is
embedded in and on the sides of the tread. Medium
rocks follow and are locked into position. The tread is
capped by aggregate, or inch-to-dust stone material.
This will look like a turnpike made of stone.
Trailbuilders in Wales use the term "raised camber
construction" to describe this crowned tread that is
designed to shed water.
Armoring with Composite Pavers
Armoring with composite paving blocks, or
“porous pavers,” is similar to techniques used for
flagstone paving, with a few key modifications.
The area to be armored should extend 6-12”
beyond the active tread width. This allows the
pavers to be easily hidden and secured as
vegetation grows in the openings, and prevents an
abrupt edge between the paver and the tread.
Also, unlike rock armoring, pavers should be at or
slightly below grade. Pavers work best when
filled with native soil; they are also less obtrusive
when covered. In flat areas, a layer of soil can
cover the pavers and will hide them from view
while still providing a stable sub-surface. Pavers
can conform to many tread shapes and are
beneficial in wet or seep areas.
To install composite pavers, first excavate the area, accounting for paver depth and the entire
tread width, to create a smooth, compacted surface on which to lay the pavers. Remove any
58
organic material or large rocks from the area and place the pavers, starting from the lowest
elevation and working uphill. Pavers should be placed like bricks, with staggered seams and in
alternating rows to help lock them into place. Cut the pavers as needed to make a tight fit. Fill
the voids with native soil, and cap the area with ½-1” of soil to cover and fill the blocks. This
allows for compaction and hides the pavers. Plant seed along the tread edge and within the
pavers to encourage growth and keep users from going around the armoring. Finally, place
anchors and chokes around the pavers to keep users on the center of the tread and allow edges to
grow in.
59
Appendix F. Trail Difficulty Rating System
The trails around Mt. Shasta City should utilize a consistent rating system. This will provide for
a safer and more predictable experience for users. The IMBA Trail Difficulty Rating System is a
basic method used to categorize the relative technical difficulty of recreation trails and should
form the basis for a rating system in the Mount Shasta area.
60
The IMBA Trail Difficulty Rating System can:





Help trail users make informed decisions
Encourage visitors to use trails that match their skill level and desired experience
Manage risk and minimize injuries
Improve the outdoor experience for a wide variety of visitors
Aid in the planning of trails and trail systems
This system was adapted from the International Trail
Marking System used at ski areas throughout the world.
Many trail networks use this type of system, most notably
resort-based mountain biking trail networks. The system
applies best to mountain bikers, but is also applicable to
other visitors such as hikers and equestrians. These
ratings should be posted on trail signage at trailheads and
intersections, and in all maps and descriptions.
Criteria to Consider
Tread Width
Tread width is the average width of the active tread or
beaten path of the trail.
Tread Surface
The material and stability of the tread surface is a determining factor in the difficulty of travel on
the trail. Some descriptive terms include: hardened (paved or surfaced), firm, stable, variable,
widely variable, loose, and unpredictable.
Trail Grade (maximum and average)
Maximum grade is defined as the steepest section of trail that is more than approximately 10’ in
length and is measured in percent with a clinometer. Average grade is the steepness of the trail
over its entire length. Average grade can be calculated by taking the total elevation gain of the
trail, divided by the total distance, multiplied by 100 to equal a percent grade.
Natural Obstacles and Technical Trail Features
Objects that add challenge by impeding travel. Examples include: rocks, roots, logs, holes,
ledges, drop-offs, etc. The height of each obstacle is measured from the tread surface to the top
of the obstacle. If the obstacle is uneven in height, measure to the point over which it is most
easily ridden.
61
Technical Trail Features are objects that have been introduced to the trail to add technical
challenge. Examples include: rocks, logs, elevated bridges, teeter-totters, jumps, drop-offs, etc.
Both the height and the width of the technical trail feature are measured.
Trail Rating Guidelines
Rate Technical Challenge Only
The system focuses on rating the technical challenge of trails, not the physical exertion. It is not
practical to rate both types of difficulty with one system. Consider, for example, a smooth, wide
trail that is 20 miles long. The technical challenge of this trail is easy, yet the distance would
make the physical exertion difficult. The solution is to independently rate technical challenge,
and indicate physical exertion by posting trail length, and possibly even elevation change.
Collect Trail Measurements
Use the accompanying table and collect trail measurements for each criterion. There is no
prescribed method for tallying a “score” for each trail. Evaluate the trail against the table and
combine with judgment to reach the final rating. It is unlikely that any particular trail will
measure the same difficulty level for every criterion. For example, a certain trail may rate as a
green circle in three criteria, but a blue square in two different criteria.
Include Difficulty and Trail Length on Signs and Maps
Trail length is not a criterion of the system. Instead, trail length should be posted on signs in
addition to the difficulty symbol. A sign displaying both length and difficulty provides ample
information, yet is simple to create and easy to understand.
Likewise, elevation change is not a criterion. The amount of climbing on a trail is an indicator of
physical exertion rather than technical difficulty. Mountainous regions may consider including
the amount of climbing on trail signs.
Evaluate Difficulty Relative to Local Trails
Trails should be rated relative to other trails in the region. Do not evaluate each trail in isolation.
Consider all the trails in a region and how they compare to one another. This will help rank the
relative difficulty of each trail and will help trail users select an appropriate route. Trails will rate
differently from region to region. A black diamond trail in one region may rate as a blue square
in another region, but the ratings should be consistent locally.
Use Good Judgment
Rating a trail is not 100 percent objective. It is best to combine tangible data with subjective
judgment to reach the final rating. For example, a trail may have a wide range of tread surfaces:
62
most of the trail is easy, but some sections are more difficult. Use personal experience to
consider all elements and select a rating that best matches the style of trail.
Consider Other Trail Qualities
Don’t forget to consider trail qualities beyond the objective criteria. A wide variety of features
could contribute to a trail’s difficulty. For example, exposure (the feeling of empty space next to
and below the trail tread) provides an added psychological challenge beyond the steepness or
roughness of the trail. A three-inch rock seems like a boulder when a 50-foot drop looms on the
downhill side of the trail. Other qualities to think about are corridor clearance and turn radius.
Use Common Sense and Seek Input
No rating system can be totally objective or valid for every situation. This system is a tool to be
combined with common sense. Consider trails with a discerning eye, and seek input from trail
users before selecting the rating.
Remember, a diverse trail network with a variety of trail styles is a great way to ensure happy
visitors. Provide both easy and difficult trails to spread visitors and meet a range of needs. By
indicating the length and difficulty of trails with a clear signage system, visitors will be able to
easily locate their preferred trail experience.
63
Appendix G. PROFESSIONAL TRAIL BUILDERS









IMBA Trail Solutions
Bellfree Contractors Inc.
Casa Di Terra
Donald Hays Trail Contractor, Inc.
Hanford ARC
HILRIDE Progression Development Group
Old Julian Company, Inc.
Richard May Construction, Inc.
Trailscape, Inc.
Chris Bernhardt
Hans Keifer
Zachi Anderson
Don Hays
Doug Hanford
Rachel Lopes
Peter Schultz
Richard May
Randy Martin
64
Appendix H. SAMPLE AGREEMENTS
Memorandum of Understanding Between IMBA and the USFS
SERVICE-WIDE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
06-SU-11132424-076 between THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
FOREST SERVICE and THE INTERNATIONAL MOUNTAIN BICYCLING ASSOCIATION
This memorandum of understanding (MOU) is entered into by the United States Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service (FS), and the International Mountain Bicycling Association (IMBA).
A. PURPOSE
The purpose of this MOU is to continue to develop and expand a framework for the FS and
IMBA to plan and implement mutually beneficial programs, projects, and bicycling opportunities
at the national, regional, and local level.
B. AUTHORITY
The authority for this MOU is the Organic Act of 1897, 16 U.S.C. § 551.
C. STATEMENT OF MUTUAL BENEFIT AND INTERESTS
The FS manages National Forest System (NFS) lands for a variety of uses and activities,
including outdoor recreation. The FS is interested in providing a variety of mountain bicycling
opportunities that are environmentally sensitive and educational that support local and regional
economies and quality of life.
IMBA represents a major segment of the organized mountain bicycling public and is a
recognized leader in trailbuilding education and promoting mountain bicycling ethics, safety
standards, volunteerism, and appropriate use of federal and non-federal lands. IMBA members
desire to use National Forests for recreational purposes and through this MOU or subsequent
agreements may provide support, volunteer labor, or funds to the FS for accomplishment of
mutually beneficial mountain bicycling projects or activities.
The FS and IMBA seek to work cooperatively to encourage responsible use of federal lands by
visitors participating in mountain bicycling and recreational activities. The FS and IMBA have
an interest in disseminating information to the public regarding conservation, recreation, and
natural resource activities related to mountain bicycling.
D. THE FS SHALL:
1. Work with IMBA and its affiliates to identify appropriate cooperative opportunities (such
as trail projects, administrative studies, educational programs, tourism initiatives, and
special events). Contingent upon availability of funds and personnel, jointly pursue these
65
projects in conjunction with the mountain bicycling community and FS Ranger Districts
nationwide.
2. Make available to the public IMBA’s training and informational materials related to
mountain bicycling safety and ethics, trail construction and maintenance, and the
availability of mountain bicycling opportunities on NFS lands.
3. Encourage local FS officials to work with IMBA headquarters staff, representatives,
affiliates, and members to develop mutually beneficial projects, special events, and
activities.
4. Subject to applicable federal laws, regulations, land management plans, and other
management direction, make NFS lands and NFS trails available for mountain bicycling
and related activities.
5. Encourage management of mountain bicycling separate from motorized activities when
developing agency policy, land management plans, and travel management plans.
6. Utilize the technical expertise of IMBA and its affiliates in developing FS educational
programs related to mountain bicycling.
7. Utilize IMBA's technical expertise to address mountain bicycling management on NFS
lands, including but not limited to such documents as the Recreation Opportunity
Spectrum and the FS Handbook. (NOTE: Mountain bike use is not excluded from areas
inventoried as "primitive" in the ROS.)
8. Provide copies of IMBA’s “Rules of the Trail” at FS information centers, trailheads,
campgrounds, and other appropriate public sites on NFS lands.
9. Share with IMBA technical expertise with respect to mountain bicycling management on
NFS lands.
10. Consider the potential impacts of land management proposals on mountain bicycling
recreation.
11. Within the budget and resource capabilities of local FS staff, participate in projects that
develop mountain bicycling opportunities on NFS lands.
12. Work with IMBA and local FS staff to identify opportunities and areas for specialized
mountain bicycling in accordance with special use permit requirements and other
applicable legal requirements. Identify opportunities to promote the public health and
fitness benefits of mountain bicycling.
13. Provide information on completing job hazard analyses and conducting safety training for
IMBA projects and activities conducted on NFS lands pursuant to this MOU.
E. IMBA SHALL:
1. Work with the FS to identify appropriate cooperative opportunities (such as trail projects,
administrative studies, educational programs, tourism initiatives, and special events).
Contingent upon availability of funds and personnel, jointly pursue these projects in
conjunction with the mountain bicycling community and FS Ranger Districts nationwide.
2. Provide information compiled in IMBA programs, such as the IMBA Trail Care Crew,
trailbuilding schools, Trail Solutions trailbuilding services, IMBA Epic Rides, and the
National Mountain Bike Patrol program, available to the FS at no cost.
3. Encourage IMBA members and affiliates to work with local FS officials to develop
mutually beneficial projects, special events, and activities.
66
4. Provide technical assistance to FS managers and communities involved in developing and
implementing projects, educational activities, and mountain bicycling opportunities
pursuant to this MOU.
5. Encourage IMBA members to participate in local national forest planning that involves
mountain bicycling or recreation.
6. Provide training to IMBA members regarding the Rules of the Trail, Leave No Trace, and
Tread Lightly! ethics programs.
7. Work with FS staff to ensure that written materials and other media produced for
National Forest distribution are consistent with FS policies and guidelines.
8. Participate in projects that develop mountain bicycling opportunities on NFS lands.
9. When operators of ski areas on NFS lands allow summer mountain bicycling on their
trails, work with those ski areas to implement IMBA’s Rules of the Trail, trailbuilding
and signage guidelines, and management principles.
10. Encourage IMBA members to respect wilderness areas; comply with wilderness laws,
regulations, and policies; and abide by outdoor ethics principles, including Leave No
Trace and Tread Lightly!, on NFS lands.
11. Work with local FS staff to identify opportunities and areas for specialized mountain
bicycling in accordance with special use permit requirements and other applicable legal
requirements. Identify opportunities to promote the public health and fitness benefits of
mountain bicycling.
12. Complete job hazard analyses for IMBA projects and activities conducted on NFS lands
pursuant to this MOU, and conduct safety training prior to engaging in these projects and
activities. Address anticipated hazards and steps that should be taken to reduce the
hazards in these training sessions.
F. IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED BY THE FS AND IMBA THAT:
1. This MOU shall take effect when it is fully executed and shall expire five years from its
effective date.
2. Modifications to this MOU shall be made in writing and shall be signed and dated by the
FS and IMBA.
3. Either the FS or IMBA may withdraw from this MOU after 60 days written notice.
4. The principal contacts for this MOU are:
Jonathan Stephens, Congressionally Designated Areas and Trails Program Manager,
USDA Forest Service
Mike Van Abel, Executive Director, International Mountain Bicycling Association
Jenn Dice, Government Affairs Director, International Mountain Bicycling
Association
5. The FS and IMBA certify that the individuals listed as principal contacts are authorized
to act in their respective areas of responsibility on matters related to this MOU. The local
contacts for the FS are District Rangers, who may enter into subsequent agreements as
needed to implement this MOU.
6. The FS and IMBA shall handle their own activities and utilize their own resources,
including the expenditure of their own funds, in pursuing the objectives enumerated in
this MOU.
67
7. In implementing this MOU, the FS will be operating under applicable laws, regulations,
and policies, subject to the availability of appropriated funds.
8. Nothing in this MOU authorizes the FS to obligate or transfer funds. Specific projects or
activities that involve the transfer of funds, services, or property between the FS and
IMBA require execution of separate agreements and are contingent upon the availability
of appropriated funds. These activities must be independently authorized by statute. This
MOU does not provide that authority. Negotiation, execution, and administration of these
agreements must comply with all applicable law.
9. Nothing in this MOU is intended to alter, limit, or expand the FS’s statutory and
regulatory authority.
10. Nothing in this MOU restricts the FS or IMBA from participating in similar activities
with other public or private agencies, organizations, and individuals.
11. This MOU does not create any substantive or procedural rights that are enforceable at law
or equity against the United States or its officers, agents, or employees.
12. Any information furnished to the FS under this MOU is subject to the Freedom of
Information Act (5 U.S.C. § 552).
13. No member of or delegate to Congress may benefit from this MOU either directly or
indirectly.
_______
Mike Van Abel
Executive Director
INTERNATIONAL MOUNTAIN BICYCLING ASSOCIATION
Date
_______
Dale N. Bosworth Date
Chief
USDA, FOREST SERVICE
Date
68
Memorandum of Understanding between Hood River County, Oregon and
Private Landowners
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
This Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) entered into this ____th day of ______, 2013
between __________________ (hereinafter referred to as “Owner”) and Hood River County
(hereinafter referred to as “County”) gives to the County a license to maintain a forest recreation
Trail over the Lands described in the attached Exhibit A, subject to the terms and conditions
stated herein.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this MOU is to protect the Owner and to establish responsibilities of the County
while allowing public use of Trails over privately owned lands.
AGREEMENTS
In consideration for the promises and agreements of each party to the other, the County and the
Owner agree as follows:
A. The County agrees to:
1. Keep the trails in a safe, clean and environmentally sound condition pursuant to the Hood
River County Forest Recreation Trails Management Plan, attached as Exhibit B;
2. Designate a Trail Adopter, specifically for the Trail(s) covered by this MOU, to serve as
a liaison between the Owner and the County;
3. Perform organized Trail clean-ups at least twice per year;
4. Improve and maintain the Trails, as necessary, with Owner’s consent, at the County’s
expense;
5. Refrain from removing any trees from the Land without the consent of the Owner;
6. Post and maintain signage for the purpose of informing the public that the trails are on
private land and educating them as to proper use;
7. Execute standard fire prevention procedures, as the County deems necessary, during
periods of high fire danger;
8. Work with the Owner to relocate Trails if the County and/or the Owner determine it is
necessary.
9. Notify Owner of any Trail Committee Meetings or Board of Commissioner meetings
where trails covered by this MOU might be discussed;
10. Provide Owner with meeting minutes from Trail Committee Meetings where trails
covered by this MOU are discussed;
11. Give the Owner thirty (30) days written notice if it wishes to terminate this License and
the License will then terminate at the end of such thirty-day period.
69
B.
The Owner agrees to:
1. Grant the County the right to maintain the Trail(s) on his Land for recreational use by the
public;
2. Allow the public to use the Trail(s) for recreation purposes, free of charge;
3. Allow the County to post signs on the Land informing the public about proper and safe
use of the Trail(s);
4. Give the County thirty (30) days written notice if he wishes to terminate this License and
the License will then terminate at the end of such thirty-day period;
5. Inform the County if Owner intends to sell the Land.
GENERAL PROVISIONS
This MOU is valid from the date outlined above until revoked by either the County or the
Owner. This MOU is revocable by either party, for any reason, with 30 days written notice to
the affected party.
Lands including Trails covered by this MOU are subject to Oregon’s Public Use of Lands
Statutes, ORS 105.672 through 105.699, attached as Exhibit C.
__________________________
Name: Owner
__________________________
Signature: Owner
__________________________
Address: Owner
__________________________
Telephone/Email: Owner
__________________________
David Meriwether
Hood River County Administrator
Contact Info:
Hood River County Forestry Department
Brent Gleason
County Forest Manager
(541) 387-7090
brent.gleason@co.hood-river.or.us
70
Appendix I. STAKEHOLDERS
Primary
Contact
Email Address
Communication
Joe Wirth
joe@thewirths.net
Drew Braugh
drewbraugh@gmail.com
Eli Newman
warganicc@gmail.com
Meeting, Email
Meeting, Email,
Phone
Meeting, Email,
Phone
Jeff Williams
shastajeff@msn.com
Chris Bernhardt
chris.bernhardt@imba.com
Anna Laxague
anna.laxague@imba.com
United States Forest Service
Roseburg Forest Products
Mt. Shasta Ski Park
The EGG Ford Foundation
Leadership Group
Shane Wilson
Mike Rodriguez
Yvonne Malee
Carolyn Napper
Arne Hultgren
Richard Coots
George
Jennings
shane.wilson@imba.com
msrec@sbcglobal.net
msrec@sbcglobal.net
cnapper@fs.fed.us
ArneH@rfpco.com
richard@skipark.com
Natural Resource Geospatial
Siskiyou Land Trust
Mountain Wheelers
City of Mount Shasta
David LaPlante
Kathleen Hitt
Tom Chandler
Jeff Harkness
dave@nrg-gis.com
kathhitt@gmail.com
Organization
Mount Shasta Trail
Association
Mount Shasta Mountain Bike
Association
Association
Association
International Mountain
Bicycling Association
Mount Shasta City Parks
jennjenn01@sbcglobal.net
Meeting
Meeting, Email,
Phone
Meeting, Email,
Phone
Meeting, Email,
Phone
Meeting
Meeting
Meeting, Email
Meeting
Meeting
Meeting
Meeting, Email,
Phone
71
Appendix J. CONSULTED PLANS

Mount Shasta Bicycle, Pedestrian and Trails Master Plan (Alta Planning and Design,
2009)

Shasta Trinity National Forest Transportation System (USDA Forest Service, 2009)

IMBA Mt. Shasta Trails Assessment (IMBA, 2012)
72
Appendix K. MOUNTAIN BICYCLING MARKET SEGMENTATION
In the years since the late-1970s when the first mountain bicycles were put to use the market has
matured and diversified. The following riding styles and bicycles currently exist:
Cross-country (XC)
Characterized by the lightest-possible bicycles with a focus on pedaling efficiency over comfort
or control, XC riding is primarily the domain of racers who compete on less-technical trails and
for whom physical fitness is more important than riding skill.
Trail
Utilizing bikes with increasing amounts of front and rear suspension (4” – 5”), pedaling
efficiency is marginally sacrificed for more stability and comfort. Riders in this category
frequently endeavor themselves to long backcountry rides where solitude, challenge, and selfsufficiency are key.
All Mountain (AM)
Typically sporting between 5” – 6” of suspension travel in both the front and the rear of the
bicycle, the AM category rider prizes descending but expects to use his or her own power to gain
all or some of the necessary elevation. The trails most frequently used by AM bicyclists include
both multi-use trails and bike-specific trails that optimize the fun and efficiency of a bicycle,
particularly the ability to dynamically release kinetic energy. This is currently the largest portion
of the mountain bicycle market by volume of sales.
Freeride (FR)
With growing amounts of front and rear suspension, typically between 6” – 8”, freeride mountain
bikes focus on control and maneuverability in technically challenging conditions, including manmade and natural jumps, drops, rocky areas, and steep terrain. Almost all of the trails ridden with
FR bikes are gravity-fed, as the bikes are not designed for uphill trail riding efficiency. Riders
frequently wear more protective gear than those riders in previous categories, including full-face
helmets, goggles, and body armor.
Downhill (DH)
A longer wheelbase and up to 10” of suspension provide downhill bikes with stability at high
speeds. Used in the most technically challenging and fastest terrain, downhill riders and racers
also typically wear full-face helmets, goggles, and body armor. Terrain can be naturally
occurring or man-made.
73
Other Categories
Other styles of mountain bicycling with varying degrees of participation include dirt jumping,
slopestyle, four-cross, dual slalom, mountain-cross, and enduro. The continued evolution of the
sport ensures that categories will combine and as well as mutate, driven by the symbiotic
combination of improved technology, bicycle-specific trails, and athletes pushing the boundaries
of what is possible on a bicycle.
Skill Level
The ridership within each category can be divided into the following groups: novice, beginner,
intermediate, advanced, and expert. Using a basic bell curve distribution, it can be assumed the
majority of mountain bicyclists in any category and as a whole are intermediate riders.
74
Appendix L. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
As noted in the Conceptual Trails Plan under the section on Land Use Planning and NEPA there
is sometimes a need for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Since CEQA can be a critical constraint to getting a “green light” for on-the-ground trail
development, this appendix describes the process in additional detail.
The passage of the federal NEPA in 1969 convinced several states to legislate their own
environmental policy acts or mini-NEPAs. California is one such state and adopted the CEQA in
1970. CEQA does not directly regulate land uses, but instead requires the state government and
local agencies to follow a protocol of analysis and public disclosure of environmental impacts of
proposed projects and adopt all feasible measures to mitigate those impacts for actions on state
and private lands.
Each project has an assigned lead agency that is responsible for conducting the CEQA review
and has final approval of the project. The actual documentation may be done by the lead agency,
the applicant, or an environmental consulting firm. Other agencies with approval power (i.e.,
SHPO) over specific elements of the project are called "responsible agencies." The lead agency
has an obligation to consult with them to ensure their input is accounted for. CEQA has three
possible levels of environmental analysis and disclosure:
 Categorical Exemption
 Negative Declaration
 Environmental Impact Report.
Categorical Exemptions. Exemptions cover projects that do not pose a significant impact to the
environment and fit within the description of the established categories listed under Article 19.
A typical exemption category would be the maintenance of an existing facility. The lead agency
files a Notice of Exemption (NOE) before proceeding with the project.
Negative Declaration. For actions not subject to an exemption, the lead agency may prepare an
initial study to determine the level of environmental analysis and disclosure. The initial study
also allows the agency to modify the scope of the project as it is better understood. Upon
completion of the initial study, lead agency determines if the project could have a significant
impact on the environment. If there are none, then a draft Negative Declaration can be prepared
and published for review. If the lead agency finds significant impacts and sees that mitigation
measures could reduce any impacts to less than significance -- then a draft Mitigated Negative
Declaration is prepared. After comments are considered, the lead agency can 1) adopt the
document and file a Notice of Determination (NOD); 2) recirculate the document if public
comments required the project scope to substantially change; or 3) or prepare an Environmental
Impact Report if the agency presented with substantive information that shows evidence of the
project having a significant environmental impact -- even after mitigation measures are
exhausted.
75
Environmental Impact Report. When the lead agency determines the project clearly has
significant impacts – either directly or via an initial study – then the preparation of an
environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required. The EIR is the ultimate level of compliance
with CEQA. The EIR proposes mitigations and alternatives which may reduce or avoid the
environmental impacts. It also includes a “no project” alternative. The process begins with the
circulation of a notice of preparation (NOP) which informs the public, other agencies, and the
Office of Planning and Research that an EIR will be prepared. After preparation of the draft EIR,
a Notice of Completion (NOC) must be submitted to the Office of Planning and Research which
includes project location, location of review copies, and public comment review period
information. The lead agency must address comments on the draft EIR in its preparation of a
final EIR. Approval of the project is documented in a notice of determination (NOD) before
implementation may occur.
Any opportunities for appeals or litigation become available after issuance of the NOE or NOD,
for any of the levels of CEQA compliance. Also, regulations allow for the preparation of joint
NEPA/CEQA documents in cases where compliance with both laws must be demonstrated.
76

Mt. Shasta Conceptual Trails Plan

Transcription

Similar documents

Trail of Tears (Robert Lindneux in 1942)

The Supply Pond and Queach Preserves

MICHIGANDER BICYCLE TOUR 2016

Ribbon Cutting Ceremony - Great Rivers United Way

Palm Desert Hiking Trail Map

SSTF - TUHAYE.mxd - South Summit Trails Foundation

dickinson county recreational trails dickinson county recreational

Rannel`s Kettle Run Nature Preserve

Pooh Trail Brochure - Barrington Conservation Commission

In the News…… Sauratown Trails Association Sauratown Trails