Random Image

Browse...

You are hereForums / By Discipline / Mountain (off road) / By Location / Australia / NSW / NSW Trail Advocacy / NSW NPWS Sustainable Mountain Biking Strategy

NSW NPWS Sustainable Mountain Biking Strategy

Rob's picture

By Rob - Posted on 03 October 2011

Heads up... NSW NPWS have released their Sustainable Mountain Biking Strategy, check it out here:

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/parkmanagement...

‹ Lake Parramatta Reserve - Meeting to discuss action against possible closure by Parramatta Council Moto Trail Vandalism ›
Tags
nrthrnben's picture
Wow!
Submitted by nrthrnben on Mon, 03/10/2011 - 10:17.

Thanks for posting!

Lenny_GTA's picture
Had a chat and interview with
Submitted by Lenny_GTA on Mon, 03/10/2011 - 10:59.

Had a chat and interview with ABC Radio this morning about it, took me by surprise that it was out today. Got to say I hate doing radio interviews.

Pretty happy with the policy as a whole.

nrthrnben's picture
This is great news
Submitted by nrthrnben on Mon, 03/10/2011 - 12:09.

A very very good day for Mountain biking in National Parks, thanks to everyone involved in helping this this become a reality thus far!

After a quick look, found the following interesting:

1.5 Strategic approach

When planning and designing track networks, the NPWS will consider the requirements of particular
segments of the cycling community and will market the experiences accordingly.

A key strategy for reducing illegal mountain biking and unauthorised track creation will be for NPWS
to provide a small number of high quality single-track mountain bike experiences that will be clearly
signposted and designated one-way.

A key strategy for reducing illegal mountain biking and unauthorised track creation will be for NPWS
to provide a small number of high quality single-track mountain bike experiences that will be clearly
signposted and designated one-way.

Generally speaking the predominant unofficial single trails that pop up in National Parks are downhill or descending, unless they provide suitable and sustainable downhill or Gravity style trails(where there is a clear need), illegal construction will continue, its a no brainer.

Case study: Glenrock State Conservation Area
The NPWS has provided more than 14 kilometres of high quality legal single-track in Glenrock State
Conservation Area, which had experienced a rapid expansion of illegal mountain biking and track
construction over a six-year period.
The NPWS aim to minimise the negative impact of mountain biking and reduce illegal track creation by
providing authorised single-track, hiring internationally recognised mountain bike track designers to assist in
engaging local mountain bike riders in the design and upgrade of the network and training volunteers in
sustainable track construction techniques so they can undertake ongoing maintenance on a well-designed
track network they helped to create.
Results achieved to date indicate the success of this approach with a significant decline in the creation of
illegal tracks and the support of a highly engaged local mountain biking volunteer group.

NPWS with the help of GTA put in a cross country/AM trail, however unofficial DH trails are still popping up.
http://www.rotorburn.com/forums/showthread.php?2...
Thanks to Sammydog from GTA they are now in talks with NPWS to implement a descending(Gravity trail) into the park
http://glenrocktrailalliance.com/node/31427
http://glenrocktrailalliance.com/node/31542

The point is, this situation will be repeated over and over again unless descending trails or gravity trails are discussed on a case by case basis for suitability within the POM

Whether it be advantageous to implement Gravity straight away or down the track as Glenrock have done, it should be looked at on a case by case basis as every area/Park is different.

In certain limited instances, such as designated areas in Kosciuszko National Park, some specialist
styles of mountain biking such as Downhill (see Glossary and Appendix I) are provided and will
continue to be maintained. However, mountain biking styles evolve over time and recreational riding
is often a combination of several styles, so all proposed mountain bike experiences will be assessed
against the NPWS Cycling Policy criteria and approved through the POM process

This is good it leaves the door open to Downhill possibilities

Appendix I: Mountain biking styles
Downhill
Riding involves a point-to-point ride that is predominantly downhill. Tracks are usually single-track with
technical challenges. Downhill mountain bikes are generally too heavy for serious climbing, so riders
usually travel to the start of the descent by car or ski lift, requiring supporting infrastructure. Downhill
tracks generally require greater armouring and more frequent maintenance to protect the environment
than cross-country tracks as they descend more steeply. They also present a greater risk to participants
than cross-country tracks.

Whilst most of the above can be seen as true, I dont agree with this description of downhill, its written with negative connotations and half truths, something a little more positive and respectfull is needed.

All in all the policy is great for mountain biking, but needs tweaking just a little to really work and stop unofficial trail construction

Love the NPWS signs in: Appendix VI: Signage

Lenny_GTA's picture
NPWS with the help of GTA put
Submitted by Lenny_GTA on Mon, 03/10/2011 - 12:37.
NPWS with the help of GTA put in a cross country/AM trail, however unofficial DH trails are still popping up.
http://www.rotorburn.com/forums/showthread.php?2......
Thanks to Sammydog from GTA they are now in talks with NPWS to implement a descending(Gravity trail) into the park
http://glenrocktrailalliance.com/node/31427
http://glenrocktrailalliance.com/node/31542

The point is, this situation will be repeated over and over again unless descending trails or gravity trails are discussed on a case by case basis for suitability within the POM

Whether it be advantageous to implement Gravity straight away or down the track as Glenrock have done, it should be looked at on a case by case basis as every area/Park is different.

Ben, just to be clear because you seem to have the Glenrock story a bit mixed up with your posts around the place. DH is not suddenly back on the table because of that one illegal trail that was constructed. The DH discussion has never gone away, we have been talking since day one with the NPWS about the need for replacement DH trails. The corridor we have got support to use as a technical descending trail was originally flagged by NPWS a few years back. Its just taken until recently to really resolve some issues.

I do agree with your point on the need for the trails to be provided. I've been banging on about the burning social need for the trails with Councils, NPWS and SF for years. If they aren't provided yes they will be built. The burning question is what land tenure is best for them.

To be brutally honest with you, I am yet to see a DH trail (and I'm thinking back to when I used to do the State and National Series events) that is sustainable to the point of being suitable for most of the NP's I visit. This is one thing that hurts us. Even Awaba that is maintained heavily scares NPWS with some of the erosion in sections. We are using power easements to solve the problem in glenrock and I think its a workable compromise. Will riders see it that way, time will tell.

I have no doubt in the future we will see more adventurous trails appear in NP lands, we just need to be patient and build up to them. start small scale and build up. Thats how we went from band aid repairs in glenrock to wholesale closures and reroutes of trails. Start small, build trust and work up to it.

Honestly, while I don't agree entirely with not providing the trails, I can completely see the NPWS position.

Looking at the policy, I whole heartedly agree with this

Downhill tracks generally require greater armouring and more frequent maintenance to protect the environment than cross-country tracks as they descend more steeply.

I think you need to stop being hung up with the term DH, just lobby for technical descending AM trails and design in a return climb. Thats essentially where we are at with the Glenrock process. The trail will be no less technical that the existing DH trails (probably more so), but it won't be called a DH trail.

nrthrnben's picture
Hey Sammydog
Submitted by nrthrnben on Mon, 03/10/2011 - 17:56.

Yes, understand you guys have been onto it for years, and we all appreciate it. And from what i understand you started advocacy at Glenrock with DH as your motivation, it just seems recent events brought it back into the limelight, and my point was that this will be repeated if DH/Gravity/Tech decending trails are not provided where there is a local need.

From my post above:

The point is, this situation will be repeated over and over again unless descending trails or gravity trails are discussed on a case by case basis for suitability within the POM

As you can see im with you on the tech decending/am/gravity trails.

I too agree with that quote about DH, however more maintainence does not make a trail unsustainable, it just needs more TLC, of which volunteers as you know are only too happy totake care of.

I think we all have to be carefull of not mixing up:
Self-sustaining (Able to sustain itself independently)
Sustainable (the capacity to endure)
No trail will ever be self sustaining, unless its a natural cow trail meandering along a river bank Smiling

Thredbo DH, its sustainable been there for years, no major environmental disasters have occured due to DH trail being there Smiling

http://youtu.be/eLmrJPLS4vQ

Also this might be just the answer for NPWS

Copperhead @ MT buller is also one to keep an eye on

http://youtu.be/ZeFM6rxKniA

The Decending side of Stonelfly is not bad either

http://youtu.be/ZcDfCmiQnIU

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Best Mountain Bike