moat mountaina123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic... · 2009-11-16 · moat mountain...

Moat Mountain Trail System Project

Scoping Report

Saco Ranger DistrictSeptember 2009

Whi

te M

ount

ain

Nat

iona

l For

est

For Information Contact: Lauren OswaldSaco Ranger DistrictWhite Mountain National Forest33 Kancamagus HighwayConway NH 03818Telephone: 603 447-5448 Ext 109FAX: 603 447-8405

United StatesDepartment ofAgriculture

Forest Service

EasternRegion

This document is available in large print.Contact the

White Mountain National Forest Supervisor’s Office

Phone: 603 528-8721TTY: 603 528-8722

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, and marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program infor-mation (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Printed on Recycled Paper

Cover: Mountain biker on a Moat Mountain trail. WMNF photo by Terry Miller.

Moat Mountain Trail System Project — Scoping Report

3

1 IntroductionThe Saco Ranger District of the White Mountain National Forest (WMNF) is seeking public comments on a proposal to formalize a network of non-system trails in the Moat Mountain area in the Towns of Albany, Bartlett, Conway, and Hale’s Location, New Hampshire. This document is your invitation to review the proposed action and, if interested or concerned, provide us your comments for consideration.This report includes the Existing Conditions, Desired Conditions, a description of the Proposed Action, a description of the Decisions to be Made, and informa-tion on How You Can Submit Comments to the Forest Service. The enclosed maps display the proposed project area and trail map.The project as proposed would add 11.9 miles of non-system trails to the National Forest System (NSF) in addition to 0.2 miles of trail on private land. Of the proposed network total of 12.1 miles, 11.8 miles of trail would be multiple-use trails with mountain biking as the Designed Use, while the remaining 0.3 miles will have hiking as the Designed Use. If these trails become part of the National Forest System, maintenance would be required to bring them to standard per Forest Service Handbook direction. Basic maintenance of these trails would include brushing, clearing blowdowns, and cleaning and improving drainage. Preliminary and occasional maintenance would include minor trail relocations to reduce the grade of the slope and mitigate wet or otherwise unstable areas, installation of unobtrusive drainage structures, and constructing an occasional bog bridge. Ground disturbance would be minimal; in fact, most trails currently exist and are well-used enough that they do not require tread work to establish the tread. Trails would be signed and marked, consistent with this standard.

2 BackgroundThe Moat Mountain Project Area is located on the eastern slope of the Moat Mountain Range in eastern-central New Hampshire within the White Mountain National Forest. More specifically, the area is bounded by the Moat Mountain Trail to the north, West Side Road to the east, Passaconaway Road to the south, and the mid-slope of the Moat Mountain Range to the west, as shown in Map 1. It also abuts local town lands, a New Hampshire State Park, and private lands.The existence and use of roads, trails, and travelways, as well as some user-created trails, in the Moat Mountain area by mountain bikers and other users has generated a need for management action. Located on the Saco Ranger District, this is one of the earliest instances of concentrated mountain bike use on the WMNF and resource concerns have attracted the Forest Service’s attention as an emerging management issue since the late 1990s.Because of its proximity to Conway, NH, this highly accessible area had received increasing amounts of biking use on Forest roads, skid trails, old farm trails, and abandoned railroad grades, as well as considerable cross-country use. The concentrated use, combined with the apparent development of an increasingly well-established system of beaten cross-country trails, has caused the District and Forest to focus attention on the area.

White Mountain National Forest — Saco Ranger District

4

Map 1. Moat Mountain Trail System Project Vicinity.

n¡

Ì

IA

High Street

West Side Road

Cathedral Ledge Rd

FR 380

FR 379

FR 379A

FR 379

Route 16

Swift River

Saco River

River Road

0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.20.15Miles

Legend

Non-System Trails

National Forest System Trails

Local Roads

Forest Service Roads

Moat Mountain Project Area

White Mountain National Forest

Echo Lake State Park

Echo Lake

Ì Moat Mountain Mineral Site

IA Parking

n¡ Trailhead

Moat MountainProject Area

.


5

The use of mountain bikes on the White Mountain National Forest has steadily increased since their advent in the mid-1980s. The 1986 Forest Plan acknowl-edged mountain bikes as a recreational opportunity on National Forest land, and allowed for their use on trails “unless posted closed to non-motor vehicle use” (USDA-Forest Service, 1986, LRMP p III-10).The growth of mountain biking since the first Forest Plan (1986 to 2005) caused them to receive greater attention as an issue during Forest Plan revision, which began in the late 1990s.The Saco Ranger District began to pro-actively address the situation with the publication of a 2004 study titled “A Case for Action — Recommended Strategies for Mountain Bike Trail Management in the Moat Mountain Area.” This report explained the circumstances leading to the study and suggested steps to be taken to gain a better understanding of the network of trails and travelways and work toward management solutions, with a focus on mountain biking as representing an under-served recreation user group. The document was used during Forest Plan revision to help define and clarify mountain biking concerns.The revised Forest Plan and Record of Decision (ROD) issued in 2005 eliminated the cross-country travel by mountain bikes, limiting their use to “designated Forest Trails” and “Travel Corridors.” Travel Corridors were defined to include “discernible routes not likely to recover naturally within one year,” such as skid routes, and temporary or abandoned roads. (USDA-Forest Service, 2005a, Glossary p 32)The 2005 Forest Plan called for, on an as-needed basis, the systematic review with public involvement of travel corridor areas, “with the goal of establishing a designated Forest trail system” (Forest Plan, p 2-22). The Plan further suggested that “incidental trails should be evaluated for eventual removal or inclusion in the Forest trail system” (Forest Plan, p 2-20).

Figure 1. Ledges on Upper Stony Ridge Trail.

Figure 2. Red Ridge and Middle Moat from Upper Stony Ridge Trail.

WMNF photos by Jana Johnson.


6

Map 2. Moat Mountain Trail System.

n¡

Ì

IA

¤

¤

¤

High School Loop

Upper Stony Ridge

Stony Ridge Lollypop

Lower Stony RidgeThompson

Falls Trail

High Street

Switchback Hill Trail

West Side Road

Birch Hill Development

Cedar Creek

Hale's Location Development

Electric Loop

100 Acre Woods Trail

Tent Boulder Trail

Bloody Arm Trail

Red Ridge Trail

Cathedral Connector

Moat Mineral Site Trail

White horse

Red Ridge Link

Carroll Reed Trail

Ledg

eTr

ail

Moat Mountain Trail

Way in the Woods Trail

Red's Snowmobile Trail

Hale's LocationSnowmobile Trail

Cathedral Ledge Rd

Woods Road

Moat Mountain Trail

FR 380

FR 379

FR 379A

FR 379

0 0.5 1 1.5 20.25Miles

Legend

Forest Service Roads

Local Roads

National Forest System Trails

Echo Lake SP Trails

Non-System TrailsNot Recommended

Recommended

Streams

Ì Mineral Site

IA Parking

n¡ Trailhead

¤ Gate

Echo Lake

White Mountain National Forest

.


7

3 Existing ConditionDue to the incidental nature of the trail system development in the Moat area during the 1980s and ’90s, it evolved without planning, analysis of effects, or coordination with other resource specialists. This may have resulted in unin-tended, undesired, or unacceptable effects on the physical resources and/or the social experiences available in the area.The Moat Mountain area presents both a need and opportunity:• The need is to address the existing and potential future environmental and

social impacts from managed and unmanaged trail use.• The opportunity is to formalize a public area where the soils and topography

appear to be well-suited for such use, and where management of such an area can occur with strong partner and volunteer support.

The Moat Mountain Project Area sees a wide range of public land uses. Activities include vegetation management, habitat management for fish and wildlife, and recreation uses including mountain biking, hiking, cross-country skiing, snow-mobiling, rock climbing, hunting, horseback riding, wildlife viewing, and hobby mineral collecting at a popular smoky quartz and amethyst site.While the area offers a broad range of recreation opportunities, it actually has a limited recreation infrastructure in that few official NFS trails traverse or enter the project area. Within the project area there are nine miles of NFS trail. Over two-thirds of these are trails with hiking as the Designed Use, less than one-third are snowmobile trails, and 0.5 miles of trail have mountain biking as the Designed Use. There are also several miles of hiking trails within the adjacent Echo Lake State Park.The non-system trails in the Moats, as shown in Map 2, follow a combination of Forest Service roads, hiking trails, abandoned town roads and farm paths, non-system historic logging roads, and old railroad grades. They also include trails that were established through repeated incidental use over time. Still others are the result of active construction, including vegetation cutting, tread work, and in some cases minor installations such as minor bridging.Trail-based recreation has a long history in the White Mountains, and many routes were constructed prior to the creation of the National Forest in 1914. As a result, many were laid out and constructed according to design standards that never considered uses other than hiking. Trails in the area historically climb steeply from valley bottom to ridgeline or summit, and often directly parallel the fall line of the slope. The steep, direct nature of these trails has not deterred foot travel over the years; however, they do not offer a desirable experience for wheeled vehicle or other uses. The combined effects of trail age, layout and design, use levels, and the naturally rough and rugged terrain is a trail system that is steep, rocky, and eroded, and requires heavily reinforced, constructed erosion control features for sustainability. Such a system is inherently heavily weighted toward hiking or backpacking uses, and largely unsuited for uses such as mountain biking, skiing, or horseback riding. This renders many NFS trails unsuitable for any significant amount of mountain bike use on a sustain-able basis.


8

3.1 Results of Trail InventoryFor the purpose of identifying and inventorying the trails, travel corridors, and travelways that exist on-the-ground and the condition of these routes, all known system and non-system trails have been inventoried with GPS and measuring wheel. A map of the project area and the trail network was created, as well as a trail log of each non-system trail (see Map 2; the trail logs can be found in the project record).The trail network has been divided into three primary categories, as described below, followed by a general description of the current condition of the trail system as a whole. A table displaying similar information in a more visual format, The Trail Recommendation and Condition Table, can be found in the Appendix.

Summary of Non-System Trails

There are 14.3 miles of non-system trails and travelways in the Moat Mountain Project Area. These trails can be roughly divided into three categories based on resource concerns and probability of inclusion into the official system of Forest trails:1. Most Sustainable Stable, well-designed, and suitable for mountain bike use; accommodating of

other uses; and complements the system of trails to be created. Well-suited for inclusion into the National Forest System (NFS) of trails in their current condition and location.

2. Moderately Sustainable Continuous segments of stable, well-designed, and suitable trail for moun-

tain bike use with moderate need of trail structures and/or minimal trail relocation needed to avoid problem areas such as steep grades and poorly drained soils. Moderately suited for inclusion into the National Forest System (NFS) of trails in their current condition and location.

3. Least Sustainable Substantial resource concerns present, such as poorly drained soils, exces-

sively steep grades, and lack of connectivity to those trails most suited for mountain bike use in the area. Not well-suited for inclusion into the National Forest System (NFS) of trails in their current condition and location.

Trail Log Summary

Of the 14.1 miles of non-system trails being considered for inclusion as NFS trails, and 0.2 miles of trail on private land in the Moat Mountain Project Area, 5.4 miles are categorized “Most Sustainable”, 7.9 miles are categorized with “Moderately Sustainable”, and 1 mile “Least Sustainable” (see the Trail Recommendation and Condition Table in the Appendix).The “Most Sustainable” trails are located on primarily flat terrain with well-drained, sandy soils, and are highly durable. These trails pose few problems from the perspective of trail design and management. There are virtually no erosion issues present, and only a few wet areas that can easily be mitigated


9

with minimal “bog bridging”. These trails wind through primarily hemlock forest, passing through both dense, dark stretches as well as expanses of open understory, and then travel through occasional areas of birch, beech, spruce and fir. In spite of the lack of topography, these trails twist and turn through the woods in such a way that hold the interest of the trail user.The trails that fall within the “Moderately Sustainable” category are largely stable and well-drained, with only occasional areas of erosion, excessive steep-ness, and/or poorly drained soils causing wet or muddy segments of trail. These trails would require minimal to moderate trail construction or reconstruction work to be brought up to standard. The most common issues encountered on these trails include short pitches of trail exceeding 20 percent grade that would require minor trail relocations between 60’ and 500’ in length. In nearly all cases, there is adequate ground on which to relocate. In others, tread work would be needed to keep the trail from migrating to avoid roots and wet areas.Those trails within the “Least Sustainable” category have one or more of the fol-lowing characteristics: sustained steep pitches, soils with high erosion potential, extensive and persistent wet areas due to poorly drained soils, or are otherwise poorly laid out. Some of these issues can be easily mitigated yet others present significant challenges whose mitigation is either cost or terrain prohibitive.

The Moats in Autumn. WMNF photo by Jana Johnson.


10

4 Desired Future ConditionTo determine the desired condition within the project area, current management documents were reviewed for direction specific to mountain bike use as well as for general recreation management direction. The on-the-ground network of trails in the Moat Mountain Project Area was studied as well.

4.1 Management DirectionAddressing the need to evaluate the unmanaged network of non-system trails, the Forest Plan Non-Motorized Dispersed Guidelines state that “Incidental trails should be evaluated for potential removal or inclusion in the Forest trail system.” (Forest Plan p 2-19)The Desired Condition of the Land regarding Recreation from the 2005 Forest Plan states that “Recreation opportunities will be diverse, including activities such as hiking, mountain biking, driving for pleasure, snowmobiling, hunting and fishing, roadside camping, and developed camping.” (Forest Plan p 3-3)The over-arching Recreation goal within the Forest Plan states that “The White Mountain National Forest will provide a range of quality recreation activities and opportunities.” The establishment of a system of trails with mountain biking as the Designed Use supports this statement by furthering opportunities for less dominant user-groups.Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines as they pertain to mountain biking are as follows (Forest Plan pp 2-21 to 2-22):• G-1 Existing travel corridors should be reviewed systematically, with public

involvement, with the goal of establishing a designated Forest trail system.Forest-wide Management Goals and Objectives (Forest Plan p 1-14):2. Conduct site-specific reviews of travel corridors for inclusion into the

trail system. These reviews will be guided by the recreation management approaches listed on page 2-17. Following appropriate analysis, corridors will be designated part of the Forest Trail System or closed to mountain bike use. Travel corridors designated as part of the forest Trail System are not considered in the 25 mile non-motorized trail constraint.

The Forest Plan provides overall management direction and establishes man-agement areas (MAs) to designate desired conditions and use appropriate to specific areas of the Forest. The east slope of Moat Mountain Range encompasses two MAs: MA 2.1 General Forest Management and MA 6.1 Semi-Primitive Recreation.The lower elevations of the project area and all of the proposed trails lie within MA 2.1 (Forest Plan pp 3-3 to 3-8), which emphasizes providing high quality saw timber in addition to meeting ecological, visual, and recreation objectives. Recreation opportunities will be diverse, including activities such as hiking, mountain biking, driving for pleasure, snowmobiling, hunting and fishing, roadside camping, and developed camping. The higher elevation east slopes of Moat Mountain lie within MA 6.1, where no mountain bike trails are proposed.During Forest Plan revision, in accordance with FSM 1909.12, an inventory of areas with “roadless” characteristics was conducted to identify potential


11

recommendations for Congressionally-designated Wilderness. Portions of the Moat Mountain Project Area lie within the 15,628-acre Table Mountain Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA) identified during that inventory.

4.2 Project Area ConsiderationsAs Forest Plan direction applies to the Moat Mountain Project Area, the desired future condition consists of a managed, sustainable network of multi-use trails with Mountain Biking as the Designed Use. It also includes a network that is sufficient in trail volume and range of difficulty to support trail users of varying ability levels and types seeking recreation opportunities, spanning a brief visit to an all-day excursion.Sustainable trails are those that pose minimal threat to trail tread sustainabil-ity and are laid out in a manner that reduces erosion potential and avoids excessively wet areas. They also result in a system that does not substantially compromise habitat for wildlife and plants in the area. Another component of the desired future condition is that all trails will be constructed and maintained according to FSH 2309.18 standards. This maintenance would improve drainage to reduce erosion and encourage trail tread stability, make minor trail reloca-tions to reduce steepness and erosion, and construct a minimum of structures such as bog bridges to mitigate wet areas. The trail system will also be signed and marked consistent with FSH direction.

5 Proposed ActionManagement RecommendationsExtensive research in the form of field visits, discussions with resource special-ists, working with the New England Mountain Bike Association (NEMBA), conversing with neighboring land owners, and talking with trail users has shaped the resulting network of trails recommended to be added as NFS trails with mountain biking as the Designed Use.There are 14.1 miles of trail being considered as part of the proposal to become National Forest System trails and 0.2 miles of trail on private land. Of these 14.3 miles, 11.8 are being recommended for inclusion into the system with mountain biking as the Designed Use and 0.3 miles with hiking as the Designed Use. There are 11.9 miles are on NFS land and 0.2 miles are on private land. To be included into the system means that these trails will be managed similarly to the current NFS trails and will receive maintenance and reconstruction typical of NFS trails. Basic maintenance of the trails will include brushing, clearing blowdowns, and cleaning and improving drainage; occasional maintenance will include minor trail relocations to reduce the grade of the slope or mitigate wet or otherwise unstable areas, installation of unobtrusive drainage structures, and constructing an occasional bog bridge.The recommendation includes establishing 11.9 miles of user-created trails as NFS trails, with an additional 0.2 miles maintained as trails on private land. As part of this recommendation, all trails will be signed consistent with FSH 2309.18 direction for Class 2 Trails and the sign standards followed for currently managed NFS trails on the WMNF.


12

The recommendation also includes closing 2.2 miles of non-system trail: Bloody Arm Trail, Cathedral Connector, Switchback Hill Trail, and Woods Road. Thompson Falls Trail would be added as an NFS trail for uses such as hiking, but will be closed to mountain bike use due to the steep nature of the trail and its propensity to erode.

Trail Name Length (miles) Recommended NFS Trail100 Acre Woods Trail 1.9 YesBloody Arm Trail 0.8 NoCarroll Reed Trail 0.4 YesCathedral Connector 0.1 NoElectric Loop 2.3 YesFire Line Trail 0.4 YesHigh School Loop 1.4 YesRailroad Grade and Connector 1.0 YesStony Ridge Lollypop Trail 0.4 (east side of loop) YesLower Stony Ridge Trail 0.6 (+ 0.2 miles on private land) YesUpper Stony Ridge Trail 1.2 YesSwitchback Hill 0.7 NoTent Boulder Trail 1.0 YesThompson Falls Trail 0.3 Yes, but closed to Mountain Bike

use due to excessive gradeWay in the Woods Trail 1.0 YesWoods Road 0.6 NoTotal Recommended Trail Mileage 11.9

6 Anticipated and Identified ConcernsField visits have been made by District and Forest specialists to identify potential resource concerns related to soil types, hydrology, wildlife, fish, fauna, cultural resources, and trail users. These have included discussions about resource con-cerns that exist within or near the recommended trails. Expressed concerns include increased winter use and the effects this may have on deer wintering in this primarily hemlock forest, and harmful disturbance to rare or uncommon plants found in the vicinity of trails within the network. Brook crossings and issues of trail stability when located adjacent to streams were also evaluated, and require only minor modifications. The soils in the area have a high sand content and are very well drained; however, there is minimal top soil and the trail layout should seek to preserve this resource through standard trail design. Modifications to the recommended trail network and mitigations for these issues were discussed. Consideration of these issues will be used to further define proposed alternatives.This area sees a multitude of trail users: walkers, runners, mountain bikers, skiers, and occasional equestrian use. While many of these uses are compatible or take place in alternate seasons, there is potential for conflict.Another concern is the anticipated increase in use resulting from a well- estab-lished trail system that is marked, signed, and mapped. All uses will likely


13

increase but the greatest anticipated increase is from mountain biking. The ease with which trail users of all abilities can navigate the trail system may invite a broader range of skill levels and higher use numbers, and this could lead to natural resource and social issues.Access to the network in the Moat Mountain Project Area also may present concerns. Currently there are only two trailheads that provide access in the vicinity of the recommended trail network; one on the National Forest at the end of High Street in Albany, and one at Echo Lake State Park. Because the trail network is adjacent to multiple housing developments and limited parking is available in the vicinity of the trail network, this may cause issues for adjacent landowners or civic bodies.Long-term maintenance of the trail system is also a potential issue. The WMNF hosts nearly 1,400 miles of trail, with approximately 475 miles on the Saco Ranger District. Currently, district recreation managers are hard-pressed to maintain the existing system of Forest trails to meet design and sustainability standards. Additions to the Forest Trails System may further tax the ability of the current and future workforce to meet maintenance and reconstruction needs for these trails. Volunteer adoption of most of the trails is expected from individuals and organizations who have an active interest.

7 What is the Decision To Be Made?An analysis will evaluate site-specific issues, consider possible alternatives to the proposed action, and analyze effects of the project on resources. Based on this analysis, comments from the public and contributions from an interdisciplinary team, the deciding official will make the following decisions:1. Whether or not the proposed action (or an alternative) would best move the

White Mountain National Forest toward the Desired Condition outlined in the Forest Plan, and best address the purpose and need identified for this project.

2. If the proposed action adequately addresses relevant issues raised by the public and the interdisciplinary team.

An Environmental Assessment will be completed for this project in the coming months which will be followed by a 30-day public comment period.


14

How Can You Comment?Comments should be addressed to Saco District Ranger Terry Miller as follows:Written comments must be postmarked by the Postal Service, e-mailed, faxed or otherwise submitted by 11:59 PM ET on Monday, October 5, 2009.Mail: Send to Lauren Oswald, Assistant Ranger, Saco Ranger Station, 33 Kancamagus Highway, Conway, NH 03818. Letters may also be hand delivered Monday, 9:00 AM – 4:30 PM and Tuesday through Sunday, 8:00 AM – 4:30PM.FAX: Send to Attn: Lauren Oswald at 603-447-8405.E-mail: Send to <[email protected]>, and must include an identifiable name. Comments submitted as electronic documents must be in plain text (.txt), rich text format (.rft) or Word (.doc) format. You should receive an automated electronic acknowledgement as confirmation of receipt of your comments. If you do not receive acknowledgement, it is your responsibility to ensure timely receipt by other means.Oral comments may be submitted Monday through Friday, 8:00am-4:30pm, by phone (603-447-5448 x109) or in person; and must be received by close of business on Monday, October 13, 2009.Comments should include the following information:• Your name, address, and if possible, your phone number and e-mail address.• The title of the project you are commenting on.• Your specific concern and reasons the concern may lead to environmental

effects.The purpose of soliciting your comments during this scoping period is to collect additional information and to identify any unresolved issues regarding the proposal. To make your comments substantive they should be specific to the proposed action. Be sure to provide supporting rationale for your comments, including concerns about environmental effects of the proposed project. Please be aware that your name, address and comments will become part of the public record and may be available for public inspection.Thank you for your interest in the management of the White Mountain National Forest.


15

Appendix — Trail Log Summary

Figure 4. Electric Loop Trail. WMNF photo by Jana Johnson.


16

Trai

l N

ame

Leng

th

(mile

s)Tr

ail S

us-

tain

abili

ty

Cat

egor

y

Man

agem

ent

Rec

omm

enda

tion

Cur

rent

Con

ditio

n /

Wor

k N

eede

dG

ener

al D

escr

iptio

n

100

Acr

e W

oods

1.9

Mos

t Sus

tain

-ab

leS

trong

ly R

ecom

-m

ende

d fo

r inc

lu-

sion

as

a S

yste

m

Trai

l

Soil:

San

dy lo

am, w

ell-d

rain

ed,

stab

le

Terr

ain:

Mos

tly fl

atEr

osio

n: M

inim

alSt

ruct

ures

Nee

ded:

Min

imal

–oc

casi

onal

bog

Brid

ge W

ork

Nee

ded:

Min

imal

m

aint

enan

ce/re

cons

truct

ion

Sign

ifica

nce

as p

art o

f the

trai

l ne

twor

k: H

igh

This

trai

l tw

ists

and

turn

s al

ong

the

flat,

wel

l-dr

aine

d so

ils o

f thi

s m

ixed

fore

st p

rimar

ily

mad

e up

on

Hem

lock

, Bee

ch a

nd B

irch.

Seg

-m

ents

of t

his

trail

pass

thro

ugh

an a

rea

that

ha

s se

en re

cent

dis

turb

ance

due

to p

resc

ribed

bu

rnin

g an

d tim

ber h

arve

stin

g. T

his

trail

is

stab

le w

ith v

ery

min

imal

pot

entia

l for

ero

sion

or

oth

er re

sour

ce c

once

rns

and

the

dyna

mic

la

yout

hol

ds th

e in

tere

st o

f mou

ntai

n bi

ke ri

d-er

s. It

is a

lso

frequ

ently

use

d by

trai

l run

ners

, w

alke

rs, a

nd s

kier

s.B

lood

y A

rm T

rail

0.8

Mod

erat

ely

Sus

tain

able

R

ecom

men

ded

with

si

gnifi

cant

mod

ifica

-tio

ns O

R n

ot re

com

-m

ende

d

Soil:

San

dy lo

am, m

oder

atel

y w

ell-d

rain

ed

Terr

ain:

Mos

tly fl

atEr

osio

n: M

inim

alW

ork

Nee

ded:

Min

imal

mai

nte-

nanc

e/re

cons

truct

ion

Stru

ctur

es N

eede

d: M

inim

al –

oc

casi

onal

dra

inag

e st

ruct

ures

and

st

ep s

tone

s at

2 s

tream

cro

ssin

gs

Sign

ifica

nce

as p

art o

f the

trai

l ne

twor

k: H

igh

This

trai

l util

izes

an

old

skid

road

that

con

-ne

cts

FR 3

79/R

ed’s

Tra

il (s

now

mob

ile tr

ail)

to

the

Moa

t Mou

ntai

n Tr

ail.

The

terr

ain

is m

ild a

s it

gent

ly d

esce

nds

tow

ard

2 sm

all t

ribut

arie

s of

Lu

cy B

rook

and

then

trav

erse

s ac

ross

the

flats

un

til it

reac

hes

the

Moa

t Mou

ntai

n Tr

ail.

Car

roll

Ree

d Tr

ail

0.4

Mod

erat

ely

Sus

tain

able

R

ecom

men

ded

for i

nclu

sion

as

a S

yste

m T

rail

with

m

odifi

catio

ns

Soil:

San

dy lo

am, m

oder

atel

y w

ell-d

rain

ed, s

tabl

e Te

rrai

n: o

ne s

teep

hill

follo

wed

by

rela

tivel

y fla

t ter

rain

Er

osio

n: M

inim

alW

ork

Nee

ded:

300

-500

ft R

eloc

a-tio

n St

ruct

ures

Nee

ded:

non

eSi

gnifi

canc

e as

par

t of t

he tr

ail

netw

ork:

Hig

h

This

brie

f tra

il pl

ays

an im

porta

nt ro

le in

ac-

cess

ing

othe

r tra

ils w

ithin

the

prop

osed

net

-w

ork.

The

trai

l beg

ins

on F

R 3

79 a

nd s

hortl

y th

erea

fter c

ross

es M

oat B

rook

. It i

s in

nee

d of

a

300-

500

foot

relo

catio

n to

miti

gate

the

stee

p sl

ope

it cu

rren

tly a

scen

ds im

med

iate

ly fo

llow

-in

g th

e br

ook

cros

sing

; thi

s w

ould

als

o ac

-co

mpl

ish

mov

ing

a po

rtion

of t

rail

from

priv

ate

land

ont

o N

atio

nal F

ores

t. Th

e br

ook

cros

sing

w

ould

als

o be

relo

cate

d 10

0 –

200

ft up

stre

am

to a

mor

e st

able

loca

tion.

Asi

de fr

om th

ese

mod

ifica

tions

, the

trai

l is

rela

tivel

y fla

t and

qu

ite s

tabl

e w

ith n

o ad

ditio

nal s

truct

ures

or

sign

ifica

nt m

aint

enan

ce o

r res

ourc

e co

ncer

ns.


17

Trai

l N

ame

Leng

th

(mile

s)Tr

ail S

us-

tain

abili

ty

Cat

egor

y

Man

agem

ent

Rec

omm

enda

tion

Cur

rent

Con

ditio

n /

Wor

k N

eede

dG

ener

al D

escr

iptio

n

Cat

hedr

al

Con

nec-

tor

0.1

Mod

erat

ely

Sus

tain

able

Rec

omm

ende

d w

ith

sign

ifica

nt m

odifi

ca-

tions

OR

not

reco

m-

men

ded

Soil:

San

dy L

oam

, wel

l-dra

ined

Terr

ain:

Fla

tEr

osio

n: M

inim

alW

ork

Nee

ded:

Inst

alla

tion

of 3

-5

drai

nage

dip

s St

ruct

ures

Nee

ded:

Non

eSi

gnifi

canc

e as

par

t of t

he tr

ail

netw

ork:

Mod

erat

e

This

is a

n ol

d w

oods

road

that

con

nect

s th

e M

oat M

ount

ain

Trai

l at D

iana

’s B

aths

to th

e C

athe

dral

Led

ge R

oad.

The

trai

l is

hard

ened

, fla

t and

wel

l dra

ined

but

cou

ld b

enefi

t fro

m

the

inst

alla

tion

of 3

-5 d

rain

age

dips

to k

eep

wat

er o

ff th

e tra

il. T

his

trail

prov

ides

a p

oten

tial

loop

opp

ortu

nity

by

conn

ectin

g to

Red

’s T

rail

(sno

wm

obile

trai

l) an

d th

e B

lood

y A

rm T

rail

on th

e no

rther

n en

d of

the

proj

ect a

rea.

Giv

en

the

high

use

of t

he a

rea

surr

ound

ing

Dia

na’s

B

aths

, the

incl

usio

n of

this

trai

l wou

ld c

ontri

b-ut

e to

the

alre

ady

ofte

n hi

gh u

se th

is s

egm

ent

of tr

ail s

ees.

El

ectr

ic

Loop

2.3

Mos

t Sus

tain

-ab

le

Stro

ngly

Rec

om-

men

ded

for i

nclu

-si

on a

s a

Sys

tem

Tr

ail

Soil:

San

dy lo

am, m

oder

atel

y w

ell-d

rain

ed a

nd s

tabl

e w

ith fe

w

wet

spo

ts

Terr

ain:

Fla

tEr

osio

n: M

inim

alW

ork

Nee

ded:

miti

gatin

g w

et

area

s St

ruct

ures

Nee

ded:

bog

brid

ging

Sign

ifica

nce

as p

art o

f the

trai

l ne

twor

k: H

igh

This

loop

pro

vide

s a

dyna

mic

and

inte

rest

ing

ride

for a

ll ab

ilitie

s. It

gen

tly b

obs

and

wea

ves

alon

g fla

t, w

ell-d

rain

ed te

rrai

n as

wel

l as

undu

late

s ac

ross

sm

all d

ips

and

rises

in th

e la

ndsc

ape.

The

re a

re fe

w w

et a

reas

cur

rent

ly

bein

g m

itiga

ted

with

tem

pora

ry s

truct

ures

that

w

ill re

quire

mor

e pe

rman

ent s

olut

ions

suc

h as

bo

g br

idgi

ng. T

his

trail

is a

lso

frequ

ente

d by

w

alke

rs, r

unne

rs a

nd s

kier

s, g

iven

its

gent

le

terr

ain

and

dyna

mic

des

ign.

Fire

Lin

e Tr

ail

0.4

Mod

erat

ely

Sus

tain

able

Rec

omm

ende

d fo

r inc

lusi

on a

s a

Sys

tem

Tra

il w

ith

mod

ifica

tions

Soil:

San

dy lo

am, m

oder

atel

y w

ell-d

rain

ed

Terr

ain:

Fla

tEr

osio

n: N

one

Wor

k N

eede

d: P

ossi

ble

rero

ute

past

wet

are

a St

ruct

ures

Nee

ded:

Non

eSi

gnifi

canc

e as

par

t of t

he tr

ail

netw

ork:

Low

This

trai

l was

cut

as

part

of th

e 20

09 T

imbe

r S

ale

in th

e ar

ea to

ser

ve a

s a

fire

brea

k be

-tw

een

the

pres

crib

ed b

urn

units

and

the

Ced

ar

Cre

ek h

ousi

ng d

evel

opm

ent.

It is

incl

uded

in

the

prop

osal

bec

ause

it is

now

an

esta

blis

hed

corr

idor

and

is w

ithin

the

proj

ect a

rea.

It is

no

t a d

ynam

ic tr

ail b

ut, f

or th

e re

ason

sta

ted

abov

e, it

is re

com

men

ded

for i

nclu

sion

as

a Fo

rest

sys

tem

trai

l.


18

Trai

l N

ame

Leng

th

(mile

s)Tr

ail S

us-

tain

abili

ty

Cat

egor

y

Man

agem

ent

Rec

omm

enda

tion

Cur

rent

Con

ditio

n /

Wor

k N

eede

dG

ener

al D

escr

iptio

n

Hig

h Sc

hool

Lo

op

1.4

Mod

erat

ely

Sus

tain

able

Rec

omm

ende

d fo

r inc

lusi

on a

s a

Sys

tem

Tra

il w

ith

mod

ifica

tions

Soil:

San

dy lo

am w

ith s

ever

al

seas

onal

wet

are

as, a

nd p

ocke

ts

of ro

tten

rock

Te

rrai

n: M

oder

ate

Eros

ion:

Mod

erat

eW

ork

Nee

ded:

Impr

ovin

g be

nch

trail

cons

truct

ion,

dra

inag

e di

ps

and

side

ditc

hing

, out

slop

ing

Stru

ctur

es N

eede

d: M

inim

al b

og

brid

ging

Si

gnifi

canc

e as

par

t of t

he tr

ail

netw

ork:

Mod

erat

e

This

trai

l mak

es a

loop

sta

rting

from

the

Moa

t M

iner

al S

ite T

rail

and

endi

ng o

n FR

380

, via

a

snow

mob

ile tr

ail f

or th

e la

st .7

mile

s of

the

loop

. It t

rave

rses

acr

oss

a se

gmen

t of o

ld s

kid

path

, thr

ough

a s

omew

hat r

ecen

t cle

arcu

t and

th

en b

egin

s to

asc

end.

The

trai

l clim

bs s

igni

fi-ca

ntly

in a

few

pla

ces

and

prov

ides

inte

rest

ing

terr

ain

whi

le m

aint

aini

ng m

ostly

sus

tain

able

gr

ades

. The

re a

re s

ever

al le

ngth

y st

retc

hes

whe

re o

utsl

opin

g an

d re

esta

blis

hing

the

tread

us

ing

benc

h co

nstru

ctio

n te

chni

ques

wou

ld b

e ne

cess

ary.

Thi

s w

ould

allo

w th

e tra

il to

dra

in

and

prev

ent “

tread

cre

ep” c

ause

d by

trai

l us-

ers

seek

ing

drie

r gro

und

adja

cent

to th

e ex

ist-

ing

wet

and

root

y tre

adw

ay. D

rain

age

dips

and

si

de d

itchi

ng a

re n

eede

d in

pla

ces,

as

wel

l as

an o

ccas

iona

l bog

brid

ge. T

his

trail

T’s

into

an

exis

ting

snow

mob

ile tr

ail a

fter c

ross

ing

434

feet

of t

rail

on p

rivat

e la

nd. T

his

appr

oxim

atel

y 0.

1 m

iles

of tr

ail o

n pr

ivat

e la

nd is

not

par

t of

the

curr

ent p

ropo

sal a

nd is

pen

ding

land

owne

r co

nsul

tatio

n.R

ailro

ad

Gra

de a

nd

Con

nec-

tor

1.0

Mod

erat

ely

Sus

tain

able

R

ecom

men

ded

for i

nclu

sion

as

a S

yste

m T

rail

with

m

odifi

catio

ns

Soil:

San

dy lo

am, i

mpo

rted

fill,

wel

l dra

ined

, sta

ble

Terr

ain:

Fla

t with

a m

oder

ate

desc

ent

Eros

ion:

Mod

erat

e on

Rai

lroad

C

onne

ctor

W

ork

Nee

ded:

Rel

ocat

ion

Stru

ctur

es N

eede

d: N

one

Sign

ifica

nce

as p

art o

f the

trai

l ne

twor

k: L

ow

The

Rai

lroad

Gra

de b

egin

s in

the

Ced

ar C

reek

ho

usin

g de

velo

pmen

t, im

med

iate

ly c

ross

ing

onto

WM

NF

and

is th

e lo

catio

n of

a p

revi

ousl

y us

ed ra

ilroa

d. T

he g

roun

d is

har

d-pa

cked

, w

ell-d

rain

ed a

nd s

tabl

e to

its

term

inus

at t

he

ston

e qu

arry

, the

last

100

0’ o

f whi

ch is

on

priv

ate

land

. Thi

s ap

prox

imat

ely

0.1

mile

s of

tra

il on

priv

ate

land

is n

ot p

art o

f the

pro

posa

l an

d is

pen

ding

land

owne

r con

sulta

tion.

The

fir

st 7

00’ o

f the

Rai

lroad

Con

nect

or d

esce

nds

som

e-w

hat s

teep

ly a

nd is

on

priv

ate

land

. To

redu

ce th

e cu

rren

t and

pot

entia

l ero

sion

, a

400’

relo

catio

n w

ould

be

nece

ssar

y. T

he tr

ail

beco

mes

flat

for t

he re

mai

nder

of t

he tr

ail

befo

re re

achi

ng th

e ju

nctio

n w

ith 1

00 A

cre

Woo

ds T

rail.

Trai

l N

ame

Leng

th

(mile

s)Tr

ail S

us-

tain

abili

ty

Cat

egor

y

Man

agem

ent

Rec

omm

enda

tion

Cur

rent

Con

ditio

n /

Wor

k N

eede

dG

ener

al D

escr

iptio

n

Ston

y R

idge

Lo

llypo

p Tr

ail

0.4

(eas

t si

de o

f lo

op

only

)

Mod

erat

ely

Sus

tain

able

R

ecom

men

ded

for i

nclu

sion

as

a S

yste

m T

rail

with

m

odifi

catio

ns

Soil:

San

dy lo

am, m

oder

atel

y w

ell-d

rain

ed, w

ith a

reas

of l

arge

ro

cks

and

boul

ders

Te

rrai

n: S

teep

gra

des

Eros

ion:

Mod

erat

eW

ork

Nee

ded:

min

or tr

ail r

eloc

a-tio

n, s

ever

al c

heck

dam

s or

sta

g-ge

red

step

s, s

hort

segm

ent o

f roc

k pa

ving

St

ruct

ures

Nee

ded:

4-5

sta

g-ge

red

step

s Si

gnifi

canc

e as

par

t of t

he tr

ail

netw

ork:

Hig

h

This

trai

l pro

vide

s va

riety

and

inte

rest

to th

e pr

opos

ed n

etw

ork

by o

fferin

g m

ore

tech

nica

l an

d ch

alle

ngin

g te

rrai

n. F

rom

the

uppe

rmos

t ju

nctio

n w

ith th

e U

pper

Sto

ny R

idge

Tra

il, a

t th

e he

ight

of l

and

on th

e lo

op, t

he tr

ail l

eave

s th

e sk

id p

ath

and

beco

mes

a s

ingl

e tra

ck

thro

ugh

a m

atur

e H

emlo

ck s

tand

. It t

rave

rses

m

ildly

in p

lace

s an

d di

ps s

teep

ly in

oth

ers

until

it re

ache

s th

e lo

wer

junc

tion

of th

e U

pper

S

tony

Rid

ge T

rail.

To

redu

ce th

e de

gree

of

slop

e an

d er

osio

n po

tent

ial,

a re

loca

tion

wou

ld

bene

fit th

is b

rief y

et s

teep

seg

men

t of t

rail,

as

wou

ld th

e in

stal

latio

n of

sta

gger

ed s

teps

. Lo

wer

St

ony

Rid

ge

Trai

l

0.8

Mod

erat

ely

Sus

tain

able

R

ecom

men

ded

for i

nclu

sion

as

a S

yste

m T

rail

with

m

odifi

catio

ns

Soil:

San

dy lo

am, w

ell-d

rain

edTe

rrai

n: fl

at to

mod

erat

eEr

osio

n: m

inim

al, m

oder

ate

in

plac

es

Wor

k N

eede

d: M

odify

ing

switc

h-ba

cks

to im

prov

e gr

ade,

min

or

tread

wor

k, s

tabi

lizin

g ba

nks

at

broo

k cr

ossi

ngs.

St

ruct

ures

Nee

ded:

Non

eSi

gnifi

canc

e as

par

t of t

he tr

ail

netw

ork:

Hig

h

This

trai

l lea

ves

from

the

Car

roll

Ree

d Tr

ail

and

mea

nder

s th

roug

h la

rge

boul

ders

as

it ap

-pr

oach

es M

oat B

rook

. The

trai

l cro

sses

ont

o pr

ivat

e la

nd a

nd p

aral

lels

the

broo

k hi

gh o

n th

e ba

nk fo

r sev

eral

hun

dred

feet

bef

ore

re-

turn

ing

to th

e W

MN

F. P

endi

ng la

ndow

ner a

p-pr

oval

, the

trai

l cou

ld b

e re

loca

ted

furth

er fr

om

the

bank

to e

nsur

e a

mor

e st

able

trai

l lon

g-te

rm. T

he tr

ail t

hen

gent

ly tr

aver

ses

in s

woo

ps

and

bend

s th

roug

h H

emlo

ck a

nd th

en m

ixed

ha

rdw

ood

fore

st b

efor

e be

ginn

ing

the

desc

ent

that

sw

itchb

acks

tow

ard

a lo

wer

seg

men

t of

Moa

t Bro

ok. M

odify

ing

the

switc

hbac

ks to

in

clud

e w

ider

turn

s an

d m

aint

ain

a re

ason

able

gr

ade

wou

ld b

enefi

t and

sta

biliz

e th

is s

egm

ent

of tr

ail.

The

trail

cros

ses

the

broo

k, a

nd la

ter

its tr

ibut

ary,

bef

ore

reac

hing

its

term

inus

at F

R

379.


20

Trai

l N

ame

Leng

th

(mile

s)Tr

ail S

us-

tain

abili

ty

Cat

egor

y

Man

agem

ent

Rec

omm

enda

tion

Cur

rent

Con

ditio

n /

Wor

k N

eede

dG

ener

al D

escr

iptio

n

Upp

er

Ston

y R

idge

1.2

Mos

t Sus

tain

-ab

leS

trong

ly R

ecom

-m

ende

d fo

r inc

lu-

sion

as

a S

yste

m

Trai

l

Soil:

Exp

osed

ledg

e, s

andy

loam

, w

ell-d

rain

ed

Terr

ain:

Mod

erat

e w

ith s

teep

gr

ades

in p

lace

s Er

osio

n: M

inim

alW

ork

Nee

ded:

Min

imal

trea

d w

ork,

a fe

w m

inor

relo

catio

ns –

ea

ch n

o gr

eate

r tha

n 30

0’ in

leng

th

Stru

ctur

es N

eede

d: 4

-5 s

tag-

gere

d st

eps

Sign

ifica

nce

as p

art o

f the

trai

l ne

twor

k: M

oder

ate

This

trai

l sta

rts fr

om th

e C

arro

ll R

eed

Trai

l an

d fo

llow

s m

oder

ate

terr

ain

and

a so

mew

hat

rece

ntly

use

d sk

id p

ath

as it

gen

tly a

scen

ds.

Pas

sing

the

uppe

rmos

t jun

ctio

n w

ith S

tony

R

idge

Lol

lypo

p Tr

ail,

the

trail

cont

inue

s its

gr

adua

l clim

b un

til it

cro

sses

the

Whi

teho

rse

Ledg

e Tr

ail,

a S

yste

m tr

ail p

rimar

ily u

sed

by h

iker

s. T

he tr

ail c

ontin

ues

to tr

aver

se th

e sl

ope,

clim

bing

ste

eply

in p

lace

s an

d tra

vel-

ing

over

ledg

es th

at p

rovi

de b

eaut

iful v

iew

s an

d m

ake

up th

e ex

pose

d cl

iffs

visi

ble

from

th

e va

lley.

In a

few

are

as th

e tra

il ex

ceed

s an

idea

l gra

de a

nd w

ould

ben

efit f

rom

sho

rt re

loca

tions

. The

re a

re a

lso

seve

ral l

ocat

ions

in

whi

ch m

inor

trea

d w

ork

is n

eede

d to

pro

vide

fo

r out

slop

ing

and

bette

r dra

inag

e.Sw

itch-

back

Hill

0.7

Leas

t Sus

-ta

inab

leR

ecom

men

ded

with

si

gnifi

cant

mod

ifica

-tio

ns O

R n

ot re

com

-m

ende

d

Soil:

Loo

se, “

rotte

n ro

ck”,

wel

l-dr

aine

d, h

igh

eros

ion

pote

ntia

l Te

rrai

n: M

oder

ate

-ste

epEr

osio

n: M

oder

ate,

with

hig

h er

o-si

on p

oten

tial

Wor

k N

eede

d: M

uch

of th

e tra

il w

ould

nee

d to

be

relo

cate

d St

ruct

ures

Nee

ded:

Non

eSi

gnifi

canc

e as

par

t of t

he tr

ail

netw

ork:

Mod

erat

e

The

trail

is re

lativ

ely

flat a

s it

leav

es th

e M

iner

al S

ite T

rail

and

then

beg

ins

its d

esce

nt,

mov

ing

from

a y

oung

Bee

ch fo

rest

to a

mor

e m

atur

e on

e w

ith la

rge

Hem

lock

. The

trai

l is

brus

hy a

nd n

arro

w to

sta

rt an

d th

en b

egin

s to

re

sem

ble

a ro

ad n

ear i

ts te

rmin

us. I

n pl

aces

th

ere

are

earth

en w

ater

bars

spa

nnin

g th

e w

idth

of t

he tr

ail/r

oad

that

was

onc

e us

ed a

s a

skid

pat

h fo

r a p

ast t

imbe

r sal

e. T

he s

oil i

s lo

ose,

gra

vel-l

ike

and

pron

e to

ero

sion

, and

ex

ceed

s an

acc

epta

ble

grad

e fo

r the

dur

atio

n of

the

low

er h

alf o

f the

trai

l.


21

Trai

l N

ame

Leng

th

(mile

s)Tr

ail S

us-

tain

abili

ty

Cat

egor

y

Man

agem

ent

Rec

omm

enda

tion

Cur

rent

Con

ditio

n /

Wor

k N

eede

dG

ener

al D

escr

iptio

n

Tent

Bou

l-de

r Tra

il1.

0M

oder

atel

y S

usta

inab

le

Rec

omm

ende

d fo

r inc

lusi

on a

s a

Sys

tem

Tra

il w

ith

mod

ifica

tions

Soil:

San

dy lo

am, w

ell-d

rain

edTe

rrai

n: M

oder

ate

with

few

sho

rt,

stee

p pi

tche

s Er

osio

n: M

inim

alW

ork

Nee

ded:

Con

stru

ctio

n of

se

vera

l sho

rt sw

itchb

acks

St

ruct

ures

Nee

ded:

Non

eSi

gnifi

canc

e as

par

t of t

he tr

ail

netw

ork:

Hig

h

This

trai

l tra

vels

thro

ugh

mix

ed h

ardw

oods

, H

emlo

ck, a

nd a

reas

of y

oung

Spr

uce/

Fir f

or-

est.

Ther

e is

mod

erat

e el

evat

ion

gain

and

loss

on

this

trai

l how

ever

it is

qui

te s

teep

in s

ev-

eral

loca

tions

and

the

cons

truct

ion

of s

ever

al

switc

hbac

ks a

nd m

inor

trai

l alte

ratio

ns a

re

nece

ssar

y to

brin

g th

is tr

ail t

o st

anda

rd. W

ith

the

exce

ptio

n of

thes

e st

eep

pitc

hes,

the

trail

is w

ithin

gra

de, o

n st

able

soi

ls a

nd is

app

ropr

i-at

e fo

r mou

ntai

n bi

king

, as

its d

esig

ned

use,

an

d ot

her u

ses

such

as

trail

runn

ing,

hik

ing,

an

d cr

oss-

coun

try s

kiin

g.Th

omp-

son

Falls

0.3

Leas

t Sus

-ta

inab

le

Rec

omm

ende

d w

ith

sign

ifica

nt m

odifi

ca-

tions

OR

not

reco

m-

men

ded

Soil:

San

dy lo

am w

ith s

ome

rotte

n ro

ck

Terr

ain:

Ste

epEr

osio

n: M

oder

ate,

hig

h lik

elih

ood

of fu

rther

sig

nific

ant e

rosi

on

Wor

k N

eede

d: M

ultip

le re

loca

-tio

ns, i

nclu

ding

sev

eral

sw

itch-

back

s St

ruct

ures

Nee

ded:

Min

imal

dr

aina

ge s

truct

ures

Si

gnifi

canc

e as

par

t of t

he tr

ail

netw

ork:

Mod

erat

e

This

trai

l’s m

ost n

otab

le fe

atur

e is

the

falls

fro

m w

hich

it g

ets

its n

ame.

It s

teep

ly a

scen

ds

from

the

gate

d fo

rest

road

(FR

379

), sh

arin

g a

porti

on o

f the

Low

er S

tony

Rid

ge T

rail

until

it

brea

ks a

way

afte

r sev

eral

hun

dred

feet

. Due

to

the

sust

aine

d gr

ade

of th

is tr

ail a

nd th

e cu

rren

t ero

sion

, all

indi

cato

rs s

ugge

st th

at th

is

trail

wou

ld b

e pr

one

to s

igni

fican

t ero

sion

with

in

crea

sed

use

and

less

than

idea

l opt

ions

for

relo

catio

n. A

fter p

assi

ng th

e fa

lls a

t rou

ghly

th

e tra

il’s m

idpo

int,

the

trail

cont

inue

s to

clim

b st

eepl

y an

d th

en m

ore

grad

ually

unt

il re

turn

ing

to th

e fo

rest

road

.W

ay in

the

Woo

ds

Trai

l

1.0

Mod

erat

ely

Sus

tain

able

R

ecom

men

ded

for i

nclu

sion

as

a S

yste

m T

rail

with

m

odifi

catio

ns

Soil:

San

dy lo

am, w

ell-d

rain

edTe

rrai

n: v

ery

mod

erat

e w

ith 2

sh

ort a

scen

ts/d

esce

nts

Eros

ion:

Min

imal

Wor

k N

eede

d: M

inim

al –

few

m

inor

relo

catio

ns

Stru

ctur

es N

eede

d: N

one

Sign

ifica

nce

as p

art o

f the

trai

l ne

twor

k: H

igh

This

is a

wel

l-des

igne

d, b

eaut

iful s

egm

ent o

f tra

il th

at c

onne

cts

Tent

Bou

lder

Tra

il to

FR

379

an

d pr

ovid

es a

dditi

onal

loop

opp

ortu

nitie

s in

th

e ar

ea. T

he te

rrai

n is

mod

erat

e fo

r the

dur

a-tio

n of

the

trail

with

the

exce

ptio

n of

one

ste

ep

desc

ent/a

scen

t tha

t lea

ds to

the

cros

sing

of

a pe

renn

ial s

tream

that

eve

ntua

lly fe

eds

into

M

oat B

rook

. Thi

s se

ctio

n m

ay re

quire

mod

i-fic

atio

ns to

redu

ce th

e po

tent

ial f

or e

rosi

on.

Ther

e is

an

addi

tiona

l cro

ss-s

lope

asc

ent t

hat

need

s m

odifi

catio

n to

less

en th

e gr

ade.


22

Trai

l N

ame

Leng

th

(mile

s)Tr

ail S

us-

tain

abili

ty

Cat

egor

y

Man

agem

ent

Rec

omm

enda

tion

Cur

rent

Con

ditio

n /

Wor

k N

eede

dG

ener

al D

escr

iptio

n

Woo

ds

Roa

d0.

6M

oder

atel

y S

usta

inab

leR

ecom

men

ded

with

si

gnifi

cant

mod

ifica

-tio

ns O

R n

ot re

com

-m

ende

d

Soil:

San

dy lo

am, w

ell d

rain

edTe

rrai

n: F

lat

Eros

ion:

Min

imal

W

ork

Nee

ded:

Non

eSt

ruct

ures

Nee

ded:

Non

eSi

gnifi

canc

e as

par

t of t

he tr

ail

netw

ork:

Mod

erat

e

This

follo

ws

an o

ld ro

ad th

at c

onne

cts

the

Ced

ar C

reek

dev

elop

men

t with

FR

379

. The

tra

il st

arts

on

priv

ate

land

for t

he fi

rst 0

.4 m

iles

befo

re c

ross

ing

onto

WM

NF

for t

he re

mai

ning

10

00’.

The

trai

l is

very

sta

ble

and

has

2 sm

all

broo

k cr

ossi

ngs.

Tabl

e G

loss

ary

Trai

l Sus

tain

abili

ty C

ateg

ory

1.

Mos

t Sus

tain

able

: Sta

ble,

wel

l-des

igne

d an

d su

itabl

e fo

r mou

ntai

n bi

ke u

se, a

ccom

mod

atin

g of

oth

er u

ses,

an

d co

mpl

emen

ts th

e sy

stem

of t

rails

to b

e cr

eate

d. W

ell s

uite

d fo

r inc

lusi

on in

to th

e offi

cial

syst

em o

f tra

ils

in th

eir c

urre

nt c

ondi

tion

and

loca

tion.

2.

Mod

erat

ely

Sust

aina

ble:

Con

tinuo

us se

gmen

ts o

f sta

ble,

wel

l-des

igne

d an

d su

itabl

e tr

ail f

or m

ount

ain

bike

us

e w

ith m

oder

ate

need

of t

rail

stru

ctur

es a

nd/o

r m

inim

al tr

ail r

eloc

atio

n ne

eded

to a

void

pro

blem

are

as

such

as

stee

p gr

ades

and

poo

rly

drai

ned

soils

. M

oder

atel

y su

ited

for i

nclu

sion

into

the

Fore

st tr

ail s

yste

m.

3.

Leas

t Sus

tain

able

: Sig

nific

ant r

esou

rce

conc

erns

pre

sent

such

as p

oorly

dra

ined

soils

, exc

essi

vely

stee

p gr

ades

, an

d la

ck o

f con

nect

ivity

to th

ose

trai

ls m

ost s

uite

d fo

r m

ount

ain

bike

use

in th

e ar

ea.

Not

wel

l-sui

ted

for

incl

usio

n in

to th

e Fo

rest

trai

l sys

tem

in c

urre

nt lo

catio

n an

d co

nditi

on.

Man

agem

ent R

ecom

men

datio

n

1.

Rec

omm

ende

d fo

r in

clus

ion

as a

Sys

tem

Tra

il. M

inim

al m

aint

enan

ce/r

econ

stru

ctio

n ne

eded

. Pr

esen

ts

min

imal

reso

urce

con

cern

s. C

ontr

ibut

es p

ositi

vely

to th

e gr

eate

r tra

il ne

twor

k w

ithin

the

proj

ect a

rea.

2.

Rec

omm

ende

d fo

r inc

lusi

on a

s a S

yste

m T

rail

with

mod

ifica

tions

. Mod

erat

e - e

xten

sive

mai

nten

ance

/rec

on-

stru

ctio

n ne

eds.

Min

imal

– m

oder

ate

reso

urce

con

cern

s. C

ontr

ibut

es p

ositi

vely

to th

e gr

eate

r tra

il ne

twor

k w

ithin

the

proj

ect a

rea.

3.

Not

reco

mm

ende

d fo

r inc

lusi

on a

s a S

yste

m T

rail.

Sub

stan

tial m

aint

enan

ce/r

econ

stru

ctio

n ne

eded

and

sig-

nific

ant r

esou

rce

conc

erns

pre

sent

and

/or d

oes n

ot co

ntri

bute

sign

ifica

ntly

to th

e gr

eate

r tra

il ne

twor

k w

ithin

th

e pr

ojec

t are

a.

moat mountaina123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic... · 2009-11-16 · moat mountain...

Documents