(Photo by J. Maus/BikePortland)
A memo released today by Commissioners Amanda Fritz and Nick Fish, laid out a new future for River View Natural Area.
And that future, we’re sorry to report, does not include mountain biking.
The City of Portland does not think that mountain bike riding is compatible with their conservation goals and says all biking at River View must cease on March 16th. This is a stunning blow to off-road bicycling advocates who had set their sights on River View as a key trail-riding area that would also feature a family-friendly skills course.
The memo references several environmental concerns that led to the decision, including endangered fish species that rely on the 146-acre parcel’s seven streams that flow into the Willamette River.
Here are the key parts of the memo:
Advertisement
Deferring advocates to the Off-Road Cycling Plan isn’t likely to assuage their frustration — especially since many of them see the plan itself as nothing more than a stall tactic that is unlikely to result in new singletrack riding opportunities.
The Portland Parks & Recreation bureau (which Fritz heads up) and the Bureau of Environmental Services (run by Fish), teamed up to buy the 146 acre wooded parcel in May 2011. Since the day the sale went through, off-road biking advocates have assumed the area would be developed to include bike trails. People have been riding the dirt trails at River View for several decades, and it seemed that, especially after being snubbed at Forest Park, mountain biking would be a natural fit at this location.
Even city staff were publicly open to the idea. In August 2012, Emily York, a policy coordinator for Commissioner Fish, said biking and conservation efforts could co-exist. “Our team is open to those two things happening at the same time,” she said, “they’re aren’t mutually exclusive.”
Portland’s legions of off-road biking lovers have been pushing the city for years to provide more access to close-in trails that don’t require local residents to drive up to an hour away just to ride.
To help make the case that mountain bike access should remain once River View got developed, volunteers have donated many hours of their time at several work parties to clean up the area and restore and maintain existing trails.
Just last year, the Northwest Trail Alliance came out with a plan to build six new bike trails and a family-friendly skills area.
We’ll have more on this story later this week. Download the memo here (PDF).
– Learn more by browsing our River View Natural Area story archives.
Thanks for reading.
BikePortland has served this community with independent community journalism since 2005. We rely on subscriptions from readers like you to survive. Your financial support is vital in keeping this valuable resource alive and well.
Please subscribe today to strengthen and expand our work.
Coastal run fish. HA!
Does anyone know how much the ticket/fine is if you get caught riding on closed trails?
According to the Oregonian BES dumped 300,000 gallons of chlorinated wastewater in October and was fined $25,000 by the state government. According to the article “”Chlorine is highly toxic to fish and aquatic life at very low concentrations,” DEQ said in a press release.” Great work protecting coastal fish runs BES!
http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2015/03/portland_fined_25000_for_dumpi.html
I guess it should be closed to all human access then.
I think it should be closed to all dogs unless a disabled person truly needs it to access the bus service on SW Terwilliger or Highway 43.
A disabled person needs to climb a steep dirt/mud 400 foot hill?
Is anyone in the area actually using these trails for accessing the bus (disabled or not)?
No community outreach/engagement around this? Seems odd to have a decision that impact a change to current users come out in a memo…
Not to mention the fact that the Public Advisory Committee that was set up to help facilitate the process was totally abandoned in favor of a top-down, unilateral approach after the PAC had already spent hours of their own lives volunteering to participate in said process. Total incompetence and disregard.
Didn’t they cancel the open houses?
Here are Amanda Fritz’ own words concerning the futility of public input in governmental decision making, as published on her personal blog in 2007:
“after I had given my three minutes of input, I had driven home exhausted, and read that the committee had voted contrary to the urging of all those testifying, I realized it had, in fact, been a Fake Public Hearing. The votes had been lined up ahead of time, and ten times the testimony would still not have made any difference. “Why don’t they just post ‘Token Public Hearing’ on the announcement, so working people don’t waste their time going?”, I muttered to my friends.”
I wonder how she feels about those words now that she’s in a position of power and is instituting the same policies that exasperated her back then?
That sounds like most of the “outreach” things city hall is doing in Portland!
Well yeah, when nothing is legally binding! Democracy doesn’t work by putting in the minimum of effort, folks. Thats just the way things work.
Hilarious. Hiking and salmon-> ok. Cycling and salmon-> not ok. Wildlife viewing -> ok for wildlife. Cycling -> not ok for wildlife. The anti-mtb bias continues.
How about the off-leash dogs?
Hell, I’ll add the on-leash dogs too. The decision-makers must be dog owners.
I think a number of us saw this coming, but it’s still a huge disappointment.
Way to go City of Portland, you continue to disappoint me and my fellow citizens who really just want a fair shake at recreational opportunities inside my city.
I challenge Amanda Fritz to go one month with out her car! And lets see how she gets to her beloved “hiking only” trails then? by Bike? doubt it…she’d probably call a limo service before actually using her feet!
she is to much of an ***portion of comment deleted – no name calling please*** ! She needs to go the way of the DoDo!
dinosaur?
Bikers, we have been bamboozled.
I would like to call on all of you to come to the River view area on Sunday March 15th for the “RVNA Freedom Ride!” Come and enjoy the last day to legally ride the steep, narrow, Ivy laced trails. Take it all in, because you are no longer welcome!
But really, Bikers, its your own fault, you ruffians.
Your terrible rubber tires, energy drinks and incessant “whooping!” and “Gnar!” calls pollute the serene fish tributary waters that are so incredibly important to the fish that are yanked out of the river ever year by hoards of “Sportsmen” in boats. Just look at what MTB’s have done to the creeks in the Sandy Ridge Mountain biking area. Just look in those streams, past the crystal clear waters and you will see…ummm, well something bad I am sure!
But what about the multi-year construction project that is rebuilding the Sellwood Bridge just yards away? Well, your bikes are much worse than any multi-gazillion dollar river bank construction project could ever do! So dont even go there!
The advanced technology in trail construction techniques just does not exist in a way that makes it possible to build trails in sensitive areas without utter destruction all around. I mean, we are talking advanced stuff here, like rocks, dirt and sticks and water. Imagine the horror a trail can do to the surrounding wildlife! Slugs would be found dead on the trail, spider webs forcefully removed by smiling faces, and the bunnies! oh lord, the bunnies!
So there, put away your fish habitat destroying 2-wheeled full suspension destruction weapon and get out your walking stick, binoculars and AARP membership card and enjoy the freaking forest in a quiet, civilized manner. You ruffians!
Is there something bad about walking trails?
Well, it’s approximately 26lbs less bad than riding trails…so there’s that.
Unless you’re carrying your toddler in one of those kid-carrying backpacks. Then it’s all out the window. Especially if you scuff your feet.
I would be totally stoked if my bike was down to 26lb….
I call on everyone to come join my group ride on March 16 for some good old fashion civil disobedience. Just ride the trails anyway. Nothing will get fixed until there is a confrontation. I’ve been riding in those woods for 26yrs. Portland open up some MTB trails.
Love this idea. It will take some effort to get it off the ground. I am hopeful people will rally and make it happen, in a big way.
I’m in but need details. I say we do it in Forrest Park though. We shouldn’t give up until we get 15miles min in Forrest Park
I notified KGW about the proposed rides on the 15th and 16th.
Matt Zaffino and storm team 8 will be there in full spandex to tell the story as it unfolds.
That would be awesome. I would watch our local news team just to see them in spandex.
Emily Roth is the project manager for this, and she was the project manager for the NOPO Greenway trail. For both projects, she appeared very dismissive of the recreational needs of bicyclists. For the NP Greenway project she advocated for a route along Greeley, and a route behind the MODA center in the face of pleanty of objections and without bothering to address those objections. IMO, she does not value bicycling as a means of transportation or as a recreational activity. I have had a few conversations with her, and the repeated impression I get is she is a strident environmentalist (a keep people out-type) who does not value getting more people into our natural areas within the City, doing more types of activities, to foster a love of the environment and sense of stewardship among a broader spectrum of people. I have concerns about mt biking, and I have had some unpleasant encounters, but I am positive that biking and hiking trails can coexist with healthy streams and healthy forest eco-systems with careful planning, designing, construction and maintenance.
It is the job of the PM to implement the requirements (and priority) of the project as determined by the stakeholders. They don’t assign their own values to what makes up a project. Expecting a PM to have the same emotional values as you is not productive.
I am not expecting her to share my values, but as a stakeholder, I do expect her to address my concerns (and the shared concerns of dozens of other stakeholders). Concerns about the route changes that challenged the direction the design team had chosen were routinely swept under the rug, not addressed, and in many cases not even printed in the summaries even though they were submitted orally, in writing AND via email.
They don’t what?!!!! This story is all about staff implementing personal agendas using the city as a front, from the top all the way down to PPR and BES PMs; its been going on for like … ever.
I think what some of you are missing is that the City has a legal obligation to protect salmon and watersheds within City limits. In this case, that trumps having bikes in a natural area.
Please direct us to the science that supports the view that off-road cycling has a differential or disproportionate impact on wildlife and ecosystems compared to all the other trail uses that the city is approving.
I could understand them waiting a few months until summer before opening the park back up (rainy season exacerbates erosion). They are ripping out tons and tons of plants, which will cause erosion when the roots are gone before the new plantings take hold. However… reading other posts on this thread sound discouraging, and Fritz has a terrible bike track record.
The report that the City cites to remove access for mountain bikes puts dogs above even the few cyclists who are riding off the allowed trails in the hierarchy of impacts, but they are banning all cyclists including the ones following the rules about staying on trails, while allowing people to continue to bring their dogs. To me that makes it quite clear that this move isn’t about the legal obligation to protect salmon and watersheds.
no wheelchairs either, I assume
Access Recreation wouldn’t want that on ADA trails, if possible.
“Passive recreational uses are allowed including hiking, wildlife viewing, stewardship activities, environmental education, and research.”
“Why is mountain biking no longer an allowed use?
In order to protect RVNA’s sensitive natural resources, the Commissioners of PP&R and BES have decided to limit uses to passive nature recreation.”
From the January project advisory committee:
“The top disturbances (identified by the TAC) in order are:
1) Dogs on and off-leash
2) Off- trail use by cyclists and pedestrians”
Platinum!
World Class!
How is hiking is considered a passive activity? Does their idea of hiking involve watching a nature show on TV?
Barefoot hiking would be OK. Vibram-soled boots and Goretex, no way.
If the problem is off trail use then why not get more agressive about enforcing off trail use rather than banning what is not even listed as a problem, on trail mountain biking. I don’t know about you but when I ride my mountain bike I never intentionally go off the trails.
Sad…nowadays you may as well not even own a mountain bike in PDX. They seem as well received as a Chevy Suburban around here.
One step forward and two steps back….Outdoor recreation options are needed for a healthy community! Come on Fritz, leave a legacy…
She is certainly leaving an anti-bike legacy…
“The city recognizes the existing and growing need for nature based mountain bike experiences within the City park system”
Horse manure.
Hiking is “passive”? Surely there are studies out there about the damage done by hiking access versus mountain bikes?
https://www.imba.com/resources/research/trail-science/natural-resource-impacts-mountain-biking
Many old lumber steps in and around Portland for walking trails are still in use and holding up well.
Good decision on the part of Fritz and Fish, but it should be balanced with enhancing MTB opportunities in Forest Park. Also, does this mean the area will be closed to dogs? Since dogs are the primary disturber (above hiking/biking), dogs should also be prohibited from this parcel. If not, then the city isn’t serious about their conservation goals and this would appear to be a punitive measure against the MTB community.
It’s not necessary to provide for every use at every natural area. Forest Park already has use areas for biking and dogs as well as hiking, and despite the efforts of local residents to shut them out, those uses should be maintained – Forest Park is a *park*, after all, and the conservation aspect *should* be balanced with recreational use. Natural areas, OTOH, should have preservation and conservation as the primary focus with recreational concerns secondary.
Let’s see more mountain biking in Forest Park, and Gateway Green, and Powell Butte.
River View provided recreation long before it was a “natural area”. When acquired they made it a “natural area” for exclusion purposes. We don’t expect to be included, we’ve been told all along that we WOULD be included. Then they just pulled it right out from under us… I guess mtb’s are the new Native American…?
Regardless of the fact I agree with your assessment of the current situation concerning access to River View, your “new Native American” comment is absolutely disgusting.
As someone with a Native American background, I agree with Matt.
Same here being of Navajo origin. Sorry my Caucasian brothers, we don’t need you to speak for us. We are not that thin skinned.
Aah, its the old government switch-aroo.
Yeah, you totally have it rough. I don’t know how you have the strength and courage to deal with this.
“…Forest Park already has use areas for biking…” picio
Road areas, not trail areas, as should likely to continue to be the condition for use of bikes in Forest Park.
Yes – it really is a wise decision to only allow them there, an area with the potential for the highest speed, most crashes and conflict with other users. The fire roads are also a really great area – roads that run straight down the hill, full of ruts that are completely environmentally unsustainable.
Also, there actually are trail areas where cycling is legal. If you want me to go over them again for you wsbob, let me know, I would be happy to.
How is this a good decision? I am asking this out of pure curiosity. Did they city any science in this decision or what specifically makes you think this was the right thing to do?
It’s a natural area now – the focus should be on preservation. There should be some areas which are hiker-only, without MTB access. I think it’s a good decision – and as it is my opinion, that statement stands. I respect that many (most?) mountain bikers won’t agree with me, and that’s fine. I respect that, even if I don’t agree.
And exactly would a small number of sustainably built bicycle-friendly trails interfere with preservation in a way that hiking and dogs would not?
And exactly how…
“It’s not necessary to provide for every use at every natural area.”
No, but a reasonable park system in a supposedly “park nirvana” city would have at least some access to mountain biking in all corners of the city (esp. when there has already been mountain biking in/on some of these parcels for decades). For people who live in SW, the three options you outlined aren’t very helpful. Would they rather ride on the road for 45 minutes to get to riding or just hop in the car for 45-60 and get on better trails?
I agree completely on all points – and there should definitely be an area for mountain biking in SW. I would get behind any effort to convert public space for mountain biking use if that space is approved for / focused on recreational use. There are still a lot of parcels which meet that criteria.
I hear this occasionally: that there should be places for mtb use, but this isn’t the right place. Since the anti-mtb people say things like this all the time, there still won’t be any place to ride.
I’ve read that Washington and California have some great MTB trails!
Need to develop the access road/trail in place from skyline to springville under the power lines. Great opportunity for a flow trail with minimal impact!
In case you want to share your concerns (as I did):
Commissioner Nick Fish
(503) 823-3589
nick@portlandoregon.gov
Commissioner Amanda Fritz
(503) 823-3008
Amanda@portlandoregon.gov
I sent:
“I am shocked and completely disappointed to see the press release today that River View will not only not have improved bike access, but will be closed to bikes completely in two weeks. After the mountain bike community helped you attain this property in good faith that they had a seat at the table over the project, you have slapped them in the face (after canceling open houses and not actually utilizing a SAC that you set up), and yet again shown the Portland is a city that has no respect for or interest in off road cycling. Mountain bikes and riders aren’t going away. If you continue to not give them any respect or actual place to ride in Portland, the environmental impacts are likely to be worse, as many will not stop riding, but will take to poorly built hiking trails.
This is a sad day for Portland Parks and a city that supposedly values health and outdoor recreation.”
I wrote to them — what an unfortunate decision by them
I would encourage folks to call and discuss your concerns with the commissioners if desired, but they are probably only tangentially involved in the planning, design and public process. Contacting Parks Director Mike Abbate about your concerns with the process and outcome may be beneficial in pushing for another look at the plan and might influence how the actual process would work the next time around. He has more knowledge of how the process is supposed to work and probably has a better base to process the technical requirements a plan needs to address.
I am not a mountain biker or even a cyclist, but I do recognize there is real need for trails that Portland folks can access easily and use. Mountain bikers are not going anywhere (except downhill) and they need facilities to use, just like every other recreational user group. I don’t know if Riverview was the right or wrong area to do that, but Parks should be making strides to accommodate this user group throughout the city.
I believe that mountain biking, dogs, horses or other things that have a higher impact on wilder areas can be designed in a manner to be compatible with other user groups and sensitive areas. I don’t like the term Natural Area because these areas are located in the city and need to address multiple issues.
Mike Abbate
director.abbate@portlandoregon.gov
503-823-7529 – this number goes to Portland Parks, I don’t know his direct
Waitwaitwait
Did anyone actually do a study, or did they just go SALMON? (and the wrong salmon at that)
We’re talking about the same lower Willamette that they had to be dragged kicking and screaming by the EPA to stop dumping sewage? The same one that has multiple superfund sites, industrial areas, and active mining on Ross Island with barge wakes up and down the channel. With people living and disturbing the east bank?
The lower Willamette is not spawning habitat, and fish above the falls never existed before the fish ladder went in in the 50s.
I think that’s the one, yeah.
I wouldn’t be at all surprised if they were talking about salmon spawning in the creeks located withinthe RVNA. It certainly looks to me as if the invocation of the salmon gods in the press release is meant to conjure that very image in the minds of the people reading it.
Salmon can’t get into the RVNA. Highway 30 culverts are blocking there migration, not to mention that the streams in the RVNA are not suitable for spawning. The value is the cold water from the streams as it enters the Willamette.
And why can’t that still happen with mountain biking? They have these things call bridges.
The science behind this sounds really fishy to me…..
So 7 streams drain down a really steep hill into a massive freshwater river. The fish can’t actually access these streams due to the highway and steepness. What is the problem here?
We’re not going to help the cause for mtb by dumping on salmon and being inaccurate. Salmon certainly went over Willamette Falls before the fish ladder went in. It was a historical fishing site because they would pool there waiting for the right river level to pass. And it is highly likely that there were salmon there before the culverts went in, most likely juveniles seeking protection.
Ok, winter run fish did go over the falls. Thats during winter, with high water events, so thermal issues are not as important. We now stock several other kinds that are probably more vulnerable due to running in the higher temperatures.
Do they want to restore habitat? If we fixed all the culverts and banned people all together, would we have any meaningful number of fish heading up there? Its not exactly the Clackamas, or even its tributary, Eagle Creek.
What does that have to do with Riverview (which is almost 10 miles downstream)?
Industry and commerce my friend. When we pander, we pander to the important people like Pamplin, not a bunch of burned out stoners on bikes. Would write more, but need to get back to building my bridge so people from Clackamas county can continue to dodge taxes, but still get the good paying jobs in Multnomah county. Take care of them fishes. Get off your bike and into your car. Go green!!!
So – there is NO active mining at Ross Island today. They process aggregate from other sites on Hardtack Island. The big pipe was built per an agreement from the Oregon DEQ – not the US EPA. There is a Superfund site in Portland Harbor that will be seeing cleanup actions shortly, with a Draft Cleanup Plan from the US EPA due in about mid 2016. The City has done a ton to restore habitat, and curb storm water to protect water quality and fish – and they are under a legal obligation to do that. **sentence deleted – hey, Mark, please keep it civil. Thanks. -ma**
The falls are upriver from this location, which is just south of to the Sellwood Bridge west landing. Also, fish were accessing the upper Willamette River for millions of years before the dam was built in OC.
This is total BS! Well done anti-MTB contingency…well done. 🙁
This location would be good for Mountain biking. I don’t mountain bike, and I do hike, watch wildlife and I don’t like erosion, so it is with some background that I would have endorsed this location for Mt. biking. The site is already severely impacted with noxious weeds. for mt. bikers to use close in, natural locations, that would take pressure off high value natural areas farther out into the country. The City should have opened it up on a provisional basis to do studies on the impacts of mt. biking and to allow mt. bikers to demonstrate if they are capable of good resource stewardship. I have no dog in this fight, but I think mt. bikers got a raw deal.
Also, ask us to pony up to provide cash for stream crossings that are wide enough to allow natural stream flow. Pay up to pay for a study on trail placement to avoid erosion run off into streams. Had they actually been strategic, rather than just figuring out how to put the smack down on MTB, they could have actually had a better natural area with more attention to consevation. I know when we have a chance for access as close at riverview, we pay up with people power and dollars.
Seems like a missed opportunity.
Amanda Fritz has been anti bike at every opportunity that she has had as far as I can tell, from scuttling bike share due to “safety” concerns, to blocking mountain biking in the city. I hope that someone runs against her now that she is plotting a third term because we need to get her out of there if we have any hope of getting any improvements to mountain biking within the city limits.
Absolutely livid. I’m a neighbor & have a little visibility into the politics of how this parcel was acquired. Early concepts included housing developments at both the bottom and top of the parcel — and it was a few prominent local MTB personalities who convinced the cemetery and college to donate the entire parcel and not just the unbuildable middle portions.
If it weren’t for the MTB community, this might be more Dunthorpe McMansions, sorry salmon!
So !@#$ pissed. Same as with Forest Park in 2009: I (and many other IMBA/NWTA members) volunteered to remove ivy, improve trails, and plant native flora. All with the good faith that by being Good Citizens we could sway hearts and minds. I involved my kids with this process, for example my son and I planted vine maples along Palatine Hill road last winter (https://www.flickr.com/photos/axoplasm/12549475044/in/photolist-pgXQtf-k7XkHo-k7UPrM-k7UNpM-k7Vwie) He was REALLY EXCITED to ride here — that’s why he bought a mountain bike, and indeed he talked me into NOT selling mine, so we could ride together on the trails almost literally out our back door! Sorry little buddy, you can’t ride here anymore either.
I put literal blood and sweat (no tears yet…) into showing that I’m a good guy and can I please have a little singletrack? Well, sorry, chump!
For 20 years I’ve recommended this course of action: work within the system, be a good citizen, etc. vs poaching trails. I feel like a sucker. You can see where that will get you.
“Platinum.”
Agreed.
Unfortunately, I think that the line in the sand has been drawn with this one. Disallowing access to the *only* trail worth a damn in the entire city may very well be the catalyst to conflict we have managed to avoid up this point. If the two biggest problem areas are 1. dogs and 2. hiking and mountain biking off-trail (who mountain bikes off trail?!?), and the only banning is *on-trail* mountain biking, we have a problem. Good luck with the next steps.
Fritz hates bikes and cyclists. Fish is 100% political and feels fewer cyclists will vote against him than hikers will vote for him. Perhaps we can prove him wrong next time he has a real opponent. Both think Gateway Brown gives them the political cover they need to screw us repeatedly. Fritz and Emily Roth are also tight with Audubon, so they get more say than mere citizens who own the property in these matters. It becomes hard to view their rules as having any legitimacy.
Yeah, I want them both out. I never liked Fritz, but have been thoroughly disappointed by Fish.
Are they saying that bikes could be allowed pending the completion of the City-Wide Off Road Cycling Plan? Or that bikes are off the table (or trail) for good at this site?
Portland WILL NEVER HAVE SINGLE TRACK within the City LIMITS, NW rich people have their awesome “PRIVATE” woods Forest Park, NOW SW does too!!!!!! So rich old people can go watch birds and talk to the salmon’s. I AM GLAD that ridiculous sign “AMERICA”S BIKE CAPITAL” its gone. Our “Platinum” certification should be a “BROWN” certification!!!!! WHAt A JOKE its Portland Park and Rec. SAD indeed!!!!!
Bash the rich and throw a bit of ageism in there too.
You’d actually have a point if it weren’t for the fact that rich old people are the problem.
didn’t you know? in bikeportlands own version of the godwin’s law, sooner or later everything on this site falls in to 4 categories:
1. car’s vs bikes
2. rich vs. poor
3. white vs everyone else
4. male vs. female
Ageism is creeping in too. ….everybody fighting about who’s lawn who should get off of.
Im glad hyperbole doesnt win the day with your comments!
Cyclists should vote against Amanda Fritz when she seeks a third term. She occasionally says something vaguely hopeful about cycling, but when it comes time for decisions, she has never missed a chance to show her disregard for those of us who ride bicycles for transportation or recreation.
Voting against her is not enough, we need to actively campaign for whoever runs against her and give money to an opposition campaign. I don’t even care who her opponent is at this point, it is unlikely that they could be worse than she is.
That’s why I voted against the Parks bond. She has pretty much made me anti-park.
Or at least anti- her Parks dept.
Soooo, what about the group(s) of trail runners that use that “preserve”? Making a non-educated guess, I’d say that a large group of runners wearing gnarly bottom trail running shoes are about as “disruptive” as mtn bikers, especially when the trails are soft. I really think we should be told EXACTLY what they’re afraid of a mtn bike doing to the eco system of the park. Is it loosing soil that then gets moved into the streams. Is it riders actually riding into and through the streams, do the big bad bikes actually scare the little fish as they cruise by, what is it that literally makes riding a mtn bike in a park on dirt non-passive and endangers fish? And again, how is it that all the trail runners who use the park are “passive” users and mtn bikers are not?
We need a “Razzie” award equivalent for worst bicycle advocacy decisions each year. We can call it the “Fritz”.
I think the only thing politicians listen to is money coming out of Lake Oswego.
Interesting that Fritz and Fish felt it necessary to ban mountain biking, yet say nothing about dogs, which their own project committee has stated is the number one threat to habitat.
The committee also made it very clear that off-trail use, by foot or bike, is second, with no distinction between them. And that trails could be constructed for either hiking or biking, without concern for erosion.
In other words, this was political decision without regard to facts.
I smell the Audubon Society of Portland working the backroom. That is what happened at Forest Park and Powell Butte.
Baseless conjecture. BUT now (just like with Fox News) it can be said: “Some people say Audubon has made back room deals…..”
Not really…have you been involved with mountain bike access for many years? Based on your comment you seem like an armchair critic who hasn’t put in time nor followed what has actually happened.
If you had proof you would have provided it. I am reading that we should blame Audubon, the rich, the old, the salmon, people from Clackamas, industry…….. Frankly I am a critic of the decision. I think that this would be a good location for mt. bike use, The Mt bike stakeholders are just weak as a group and they are blaming others cause they cant get stuff done. Run for office, engage in a hunger strike, organize, have a sit-in, camp in a tree, become an editorial writer. Any of these would be more productive than random rancorous blaming of others.
Yeah, those damn sneaky people who want to protect habitat for birds, fish, and other wildlife. Sinister Audubon! 😉
The problem is not that the Audubon Society wants to protect wildlife, but that it gets involved in the City’s policy making in such a way as to negate established forms of input. For example, *after* Powell Butte had been worked over for years by a committee, which decided to make all trails multi-use, the A.S. anti-mtb crowd convinced the Parks to close some of the trails. The problem is this: “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”
Last year when they counted there were 60 separate homeless camps dumping garbage into streams and rivers along the springwater corridor, and the city does nothing, Fritz’s comment was “there is no where else for them to go” but they are all over banning cycling on traditional mountain bike trails. Maybe if homeless people were more into singletrack she’d be falling over herself to get some more trails put in.
There were homeless camps in the RVNA. Not as numerous or sprawling as on the Springwater, & the folks there were quiet neighbors, most of us around there didn’t know anyone was living in there. One of the first moves after the purchase was to tear down the camps, along with hauling away tons of decades’ worth of garbage. This was seriously degraded land 4 years ago. Glad I could help clean it up…
I wrote emails to Fritz and Fish, autoreply from Fritz claims that because of her husbands death (over 5 months ago) she is 2000 emails behind and not to expect a timely response. It seems to me like maybe she should be considering stepping down rather than running again if she can’t keep up with the job.
No time to respond to emails, but plenty of time to shut down biking in any way possible. Thanks for making this the city that works Amanda Fritz!
This is utterly disappointing. Their memo implies that mountain biking at Riverview would have a negative impact on Salmon but provides no data to support this argument. The whole thing comes off as disingenuous.
You don’t actually expect them to write an environmental report now, do you? Thats like… work! And science! Facts!
Fritz don’t do them facts.
Let’s ALL COME OUT THIS WEDNESDAY and LET THEM KNOW WHERE WE STAND!!!!
Please note: The next Parks Board meeting will be held on:
Date: Wednesday, March 4th, 2015
Time: 8:00-9:30 AM
Location: Lovejoy Room, 2nd Floor, City Hall, 1220 SW 4th Ave
With this, can we have as much info as possible tomorrow and wends?
Everyone should show up on a MTB bike too.
If these guys want to help salmon and water quality in the Willamette, they should be pursuing a plan to sue Lake Oswego for illegally impounding, heating and polluting the water to create their lake!
And once again, I’m so happy to have moved myself and my business out of Portland. MTB access and attitudes towards it were no small part of my decision.
I certainly hope that everyone in the mountain bike community realizes that there is no hope for a better situation “from inside the system” and takes to a tactic of outward civil disobedience until things improve.
You’re all getting screwed, stop taking it lying down.
At the very least, I think it’s open season on “No bikes” signs in city parks.
Amen. It is insane at how passive the Portland MTB scene is and how the anti-MTB groups have the ears of the politicians. Very frustrating – I am pretty much looking to move away at this point as it is becoming a less enjoyable city to live in.
I’m right there with you, Alex. Camas(smell aside) is looking more enticing. At least they have trails in the city!
So, as I read their reasoning, they believe this is a critical aquatic habitat area for salmon. Would love to see a picture of one of those lovely fish in that area. They have pictures, right?
Or are they honestly saying they are going to “restore” it. That I have to see.
Small creeks aren’t typical spawning habitat anyway. Look where chinook spawn on the Sandy, its still 200 feet wide.
There are cutthroat in Forest Park and Tryon, so we shouldn’t trash it, but using solid trailbuilding I’m sure we can ride bikes and have salmon (and trout!) too.
small creeks that run up 400 foot hills even less so I’m guessing.
So legally speaking, how does one get this new policy changed? Referendums, filing lawsuits, voting folks out of office, etc. I’m ignorant of how local politics in PDX work (yea, yea…) but generally there are ways to fight this kind of idiot bureaucracy.
Write emails first (both commissioners are linked above), and vote them out. Get involved with NWTA. Get on your Neighborhood Association and let them know this is important to you.
Keep in mind that there is almost no enforcement of park rules. I have never in my 25+ years in Portland seen a ranger stop someone for having a dog off leash. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a ranger in Forest Park, Marshal park, mt. Tabor, etc. So, if the city is never going to allow bikes on single track there is no reason to worry about following the rules. What is the city going to do – ban bikes from single track? They already have done that so I think the message is ride wherever you want and bet that you will never get a ticket.
They are going to have their hands fulling enforcing the no smoking in parks rule they just passed!
I often see many off-leash dogs at THPRD, Portland public school, and Beaverton public schools, along with many private schools.
The Raleigh Park public school on SW 78th Ave bans all dogs on their campus. One of the recent principals did this after a slew of dog poop and urine.
Can someone write a guest article on Salmon? They’re a big issue whenever we talk about a project near a river, or any time we’re talking off road.
I like rivers, and even try to occasionally catch one of these things, but I don’t understand the nuance, and historical part of it. Were there salmon up there before the culverts? Are we really worried about just feeding cold water to the Willamette for runs that didn’t exist before the fish ladder? Any historic runs were in the winter, with high, cold flow to get over the falls.
If anyone has seen the White River, you know there is plenty of run off from the volcano (and uncovered dirt roads mere yards from it), so is there any merit to all the claims about the potential sediment from Timberline if we all did our best to make as much as possible?
I think we need to keep in mind that this is a political decision not a scientific decision. From a land management perspective there are probably many ways to build sustainable trails that don’t affect water quality or forest health. But in Portland bikes don’t fit into the paradigm of responsible land management, so they are banned outright without a hard look on the impacts bikes may or may not cause.
The efforts of NWTA have been substantial but haven’t changed the convinced the City of Portland that bikes belong. Its time to look beyond the City of Portland (Beaverton, Gresham, Happy Valley) for tracts of land that could be used for mountain biking and start to realize the community benefits that biking provides.
Yes, but they’re saying it is a science decision.
We should know the science better than them so that we can refute them until it is understood they’re being political.
“runs that didn’t exist before the fish ladder….”?? What fish ladder are you referring to. All of the streams coming off the West Hills, and throughout the entire Willamette system had either spawning activity by native fish, or cooler water that provides key habitat. Again, it would be great if you’d do a tad bit o research before you make statement on a public forum.
That’s why his post is mostly full of questions.
Any fish that went over the Willamette Falls did so at high water levels. We have begun stocking fish that go over at low water levels where they could not naturally get over the falls.
“Before development, Willamette Falls presented a seasonal natural barrier to migrating fish. Spring chinook salmon and winter steelhead were the only two species that could ascend the falls in later winter and early spring.
In a letter to the editor of The Oregonian on Aug. 12, 1870, a writer suggested that the Legislature build a fishway over the falls. He wrote that “salmon are found in all the waters of Oregon except those of the upper Willamette.” In 1885 the first fish ladder was excavated out of the solid rock. Though primitive, this ladder did help fish move above the falls. Technology and knowledge of fisheries advanced over time, and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife designed the current fish ladder, which was completed in 1971.”
https://www.portlandgeneral.com/community_environment/initiatives/protecting_fish/willamette_river/default.aspx
We should demand that Hales take Parks away from Fritz.
She does the bidding of the Green Mafia (FP Conservancy and Audubon) and shows no respect for citizens, cyclists, or the public process.
We can’t just keep taking it.
She must go. Now.
Dog poop left behind along with all of the dog urine has a much worse impact upon Portland area creeks than mountain biking on trails.
i have no qualms about poaching these trails.
ARE YOU KIDDING?????????????? They’d better ban people hiking and people walking dogs, too, otherwise this is just more evidence of plain old animus. They just don’t like bikes. Trail use of any kind does not harm fish, otherwise the Columbia River would be fish-free in the Gorge. SO PISSED.
Dog poop does horrible things.
Totally ridiculous. Totally unacceptable. This is a huge step backward and a huge blow to all mountain bikers in Portland. Mountain biking should allowed in Riverview, should be part of the long term plan there, and mountain bikers desires to ride trails in town should not be dismissed. Portland’s MTB policies make us look like a joke compared to every other major city on the West Coast.
Fritz should actually spend time talking to the people she represents instead of simply issuing memos like a coward.
She has helped to get fields in outer parts of Portland turned into legit parks.
She (and her Parks dept) also canceled open houses for this very project.
I’m fairly familiar with her previous work. I’ve continuously tried to give her the benefit of the doubt, but a few years of good deeds doesn’t excuse this behavior, in fact the opposite is true: this is such a brazen slap in the face that it erases anything good she’s done. Issueing a memo that claims mountain biking bad for the environment and dog waste isn’t, is so insulting that she shouldn’t be taken seriously ever again.
Commissioner Fish,
Years ago, after the Forest Park Singletrack Committee’s ultimately fruitless effort to meet demand for mountain bike trails in Forest Park, I wrote you an intemperate email, blaming the final non-decision on your “political cowardice.” Your response was surprisingly reasonable, and you asked me to “keep the faith.”
All of these years, I have waited for any positive development on this issue; keeping the faith, as you say. You’ve disappointed me, yet again. Your political decisions have yet again eroded my faith in evidence-based, responsive local government.
With this in mind, I’m writing again to you, to tell you that specious concerns about fish habitat in the Riverview Natural Area are a mere cover for the lack of political will that you have again demonstrated.
I have several questions for you:
1. How are salmon in the Columbia harmed by cyclists riding the trails in the Natural Area? I’d like to see some peer-reviewed science on this, too, and not just quotes from local anti-mtb activists.
2. How is the current trail system, consisting of poorly built, fall line trails, preferable to a sustainably built trail system created by volunteer mountain bikers, free of charge?
3. How is it better for the environment that residents of this close-in neighborhood are forced to drive their car many miles just to ride a bicycle on a dirt trail, when emissions from fossil fuel powered vehicles are a leading contributor to global warming? Global warming, I unfortunately feel the need to point out, is a leading cause of temperature rise in creeks, while bicycles on dirt trails doesn’t even figure into the equation.
4. Given that dog use was listed (by the TAC) as the leading cause of disturbance, why is dog use is not disallowed concurrently with mountain bike use?
5. Can you tell me the difference between hiking and biking, considering the fact that the announcement claims that cycling is active and hiking is passive? Can you define “active” and “passive”?
If you cannot explain these inconsistencies, then I must again tell you, your decision reflects political cowardice at the very least, or, at the worst, animus against the activity of mountain biking entirely. It’s particularly galling that, given that dog use is listed as the leading cause of disturbance, you would continue to allow that activity. I think this is the best evidence of cowardice: surely banning dogs would be unpopular with the many dog owners of Portland, but keeping bikes out only affects a few of us.
I’m tired of this. Your decisions as Commissioner have consistently set back years of hard work that would have a positive benefit for this City. You’ve permanently lost a supporter.
Thanks for your time,
Charley Reneau
I’m impressed you were still even willing to supporter before this.
But well written!
For anyone who still has faith in the Off-Road cycling master plan, good for you. For everyone else, can we start riding Forest Park now and maybe even start to build some illegal trails? After this many years, I would like to be able to enjoy nature while not hurting the planet.
To call mountain biking at odds with the environment is offensive and has no backing in science. I would certainly love to hear who they are citing as their resources (Houle anyone?).
Right. Citizen peaceful protesting by non-compliance! I like it.
I thought the city would sign off on use of the Riverview land, for mountain biking. It’s a rather small piece of land, not having already been designated a nature park, so I figured the city would feel the compromise would be acceptable.
Question of the day for bikeportland, and its readers: How many people does the word ‘legion’, refer to? Notice that bikeportland’s Jonathan Maus in his story above, chose to use that word to suggest how many mountain bikers there are in Portland:
“…Portland’s legions of off-road biking lovers…” maus/bikeportland
Figure there may be one or two thousand mountain bikers in Portland, to the extent that the petition that the NWTA circulated in the last few months or so, is an indication. However many more mountain bikers in Portland than this there may be, they don’t appear to have made much of an effort in the way of requesting other lands than that in Forest Park, be assigned to use for mountain biking.
They also don’t appear to have made an effort to put their interest in having a vote for acquisition of land within the Portland area or the greater Metro area, other than that already assigned to mountain biking, put on the ballot for a city wide or metro wide election.
This not having happened, may be due to there possibly not being anywhere near the number of people in the Portland area interested in mountain biking, and in using land within city and metro area for mountain biking, as mountain bike enthusiasts may think there are.
Either way, if there really aren’t that many of us, what’s the harm to open up some of these areas? If there are that many of us, obviously there is a demand and some of these areas should be opened to mountain bike use.
It’s also hard to gauge the numbers since so many of us are disillusioned and have abandoned participating in the process. Instead, we get in our cars and drive to those communities that welcome mountain biking.
And it is those communities that we will spend our discretionary dollars.
“Either way, if there really aren’t that many of us, what’s the harm to open up some of these areas? …” CharlieB
It’s mountain biking that mountain bike enthusiasts are asking the use of natural lands within the city for. Outside of mountain bike enthusiasts, among city residents, there apparently is very little interest in opening up these lands to be used for mountain biking. If you believe the situation is to the contrary, show something to establish that.
Mountain biking enthusiasts not knowing, or having at least some idea of how many enthusiasts there are in the city, is a major handicap against securing land within the city for mountain bike use. No numbers, no clout. No support, no clout.
I’ve been over this again and again, as stories about the quest for land to be used for mountain biking have come up on bikeportland. Always boils down to the fact that the quest appears to basically be limited to a relatively small number of people. Until some significant level of citywide or countywide support develops, it to me, does not seem likely that land to be used for mountain biking within the city will be arranged for by the city or Metro.
“Always boils down to the fact that the quest appears to basically be limited to a relatively small number of people.”
I wonder how, just up the street, Tryon Creek State Park managed to get so many equestrian riders to support access to the park? Or archers in Washington Park? Disc golf all over the place? Dog parks?
It seems to me that Portland supports a number of special interest groups in our parks that, I seriously doubt, include as many people as mountain bikers (dog owners being the exception).
WSBOB has stated here in the past that a ballot measure is needed to decide if we should allow bikes on any single track in portland parks, if that gives you any indication of his willingness to promote senseless time-wasting strategies and resources in order to promote his extreme bias.
And how exactly, are you thinking a vote would be a waste of time? Especially if the vote turned out in favor of what mountain bike enthusiasts seek?
Because we don’t have open votes on every item of business the city does.
They’re expensive and time consuming.
“I wonder how, just up the street, Tryon Creek State Park managed to get so many equestrian riders to support access to the park? …” Jeff M
Instead of just wondering, why not ask park officials about that? Maybe they, or equestrian riders have some ideas that would help you with what you seek.
They aren’t deciding to “not open up the land to mountain biking” they are taking one of the very few places to mountain bike in the city and removing the access.
WSBOB nails it. The small group of mountain bikers is further divided into the BP crowd and the people with bike racks and small trucks who like
to ride out of town (me and Mamacito). So the constituency for risking the salmon habitat for a very small group- white and male- is not making a compelling story.
I spend a lot of time outdoors, and a I have witnessed dog owners encouraging their canines to recreate in delicate areas. MT Bikes- not so much but the risk is there. I have fat tires and yes, the damage potential is there.
Your plans to get the park rangers out by zoo-bombing around River View
could backfire awesomely. A part of me wants you to try your stupid plan
and get in trouble by the MultCo Sheriff & the park rangers, Or, trail poaching could elicit a home grown vandal response- stuff in the trail.
“So the constituency for risking the salmon habitat for a very small group- white and male- is not making a compelling story.”
That’s the point of many commenting here. Where is the data that mtb’ing impacts the salmon habitat (and other wildlife habitats) while other users do not, justifying the exclusion? Also, my wife mountain bikes. And so does my five year old, but then again, he’s white and male.
I stand by my point that you are part of a small group. Took my kiddos out on trails too- but we are not the majority. I admit to being part of a small interest group. There are no “legions” of mountain bikers here. And yes, we are largely white and middle class, and predominently male. No big deal if I can’t ride to a mountain biking site. Just seems like more selfishness on the part of the already entitled minority.
What does being a small group have to do with it? Parks and Rec resources are used all the time for minority groups in our community. Your point is irrelevant to the discussion.
By that standard there should be no bike facilities at all in America, since cyclists are such a small percentage of the population.
Bike facilities- sure. For the masses. But the number of people affected in this case is frankly, pretty small. And it occurs at a time when Portland has gone over the cliff in terms of ignoring the majority of Portlanders and their needs and their preferences. Sorry if I upset some by pointing out that you are mostly empowered white male elites. But that is why the cause of mountain biking within city limits is a big ho-hum for everyone else. Portland doesn’t owe you a race track or mountain biking trails.
No one’s saying they’re owed anything. In this case it’s more “keep letting us do what we’ve been doing for 30 years, as you’re just made up a fake excuse as justification”.
RE: Mamacita: “Bike facilities- sure. For the masses. But the number of people affected in this case is frankly, pretty small…”
Now you’re doublespeaking. (road) bike facilities are for the masses but (mountain) bike facilities are for white elites? Anyone can participate in either. I’m pretty sure you describe any road bike facilities in inner portland as for white elites. We’re just going to ignore that now since we’re pitting road vs mountain, eh?
I don’t disagree with your description of how people feel about mountain bikers’ woes at all. It’s not a very empathetic position to be in because at the end of the day, it’s for physical and mental health. That’s not really a top tier issue from a public perception stand point. But the way you just reach for any convenient excuse and shift to another when your original point doesn’t hold water is laughable.
Oregon Mama: The thing is, the close-in dirt riding is crucial not so much for us empowered white males; we can drive to the far venues if we really want to. Rather, it’s the up-and-coming kids, both boys and girls, of all skin colors, that stand to benefit most — because they would then be able to discover and sustain, all on their own, an exciting pastime that serves them well for exercise, stress relief and social backbone all through their lives. (Much the way skateparks can be.) Not to mention the generational continuity of young folk and old folk being out at the same place having similar experiences together somewhat spontaneously (and not comprised of shopping), without the friction of a bunch of logistics planning.
Surely that’s better than conceding a little more of kids’ fate to their various electronic screens, awaiting the onset of acquired diabetes and what-not.
There are more mountain bikers than skateboarders in Portland and look at the resources being poured into that.
I’m confused about the “risking” part. People have been riding this land, on worse trails for decades. With better built, more sustainable trails, I don’t possibly understand how it could be any riskier for fish (if that even is a real issue) than it has been for years and years. Or how other forms of recreation aren’t just as (if not more so) risky.
There is no previous baseline data to suggest there has been an impact. There is no science to exclude.
Racist.
http://bikeportland.org/2014/12/03/road-biking-supporters-pack-metro-meeting-tualatin-mtns-project-114220
146 acres is 6,359,760 sq ft. It’s about 2800 feet from top to bottom. If there were four twisting trails of about 5600 feet each and they each were four feet wide, that would be 89,600 sq ft or 1.4 percent of the area. I bet these incredible fish hiking the 30 percent slopes (has anyone ever seen one?) would be alright sharing two percent of the hillside.