[LWright]

CSP to streamline "Change in Use Policy" Free Beer!

Go State Parks

http://www.parks.ca.gov/pages/980/files/V1_CSP_R&T_ChginUseProgramEIR_10.5.12.pdf

 

[zorg]

Can't afford a 500 page report everytime they want to make a 3 mile long trail multi use.

 

[Brewtality]

Cliff Notes please?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[zorg]

Cliff Notes please?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Affected agencies, organizations, and the public are invited to Public Hearings to be held at the following dates, times, and places. These hearings also meet the requirements in Section 15087(i) of the State CEQA Guidelines.

Saturday, November 3, 2012
2:00 to 5:00 pm
Sports Basement
1881 Ygnacio Valley Road
Walnut Creek, CA 94598

Public Review Period: The Draft Program EIR is being circulated for public review and comment for a period of 60 days, beginning October 5, 2012. Written comments should be submitted no later than December 4, 2012, to the following address:

Environmental Coordinator
California Department of Parks & Recreation
Northern Service Center
One Capitol Mall - Suite 410
Sacramento, CA 95814
Email: [email protected] (Subject Line: Statewide Trails)
Fax: 916-445-9081 (subject line: Statewide Trails)

 

[rho]

While I wish I had time to sift through a 430 page document, and then look up all the other, presumably huge documents, that this one references... I simply do not, and this is getting to be too much like my day job to warrant me wanting to do it with out being paid.

However it does look like some nice light reading for a Saturday night over a strong beer... I just hope that it turns out that we're not getting screwed in the end of it all and that EIR's are less of a thing that the state gets sued for all the time.

 

[IAmHolland]

read table 2.1, and section 2 if you want, but table 2.1 is a good summary of what the proposal is about.

the rest, some nerd and lawyer got together and gave birth.

 

[HarryCallahan]

Is this the statewide standard process there has been talk of for a few years now? If so, the idea is to make the process less arbitrary from one area to another.

 

[LWright]

"Is this the statewide standard process there has been talk of for a few years now? If so, the idea is to make the process less arbitrary from one area to another."
YES, and now is the time to read it and mail in comments.

One of the points I like is that it states (somewhere in there) that most "trail conflict" is a "social matter" and is outside the jurisdiction of CEQA.

 

[LWright]

Cliff Notes please?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY
of the
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
California State Parks Road and Trail Change-in-Use Evaluation Process



1.4.2 WRITTEN COMMENTS
Comments on the Draft Program EIR may be made either in writing before the end of the comment period (December 4th, 2012) or orally at the aforementioned public hearings. Written comments should be mailed or e-mailed to the address provided below. After the close of the public comment period, responses to the comments received on the Draft Program EIR will be prepared and published, and together with this Draft Program EIR will constitute the Final Program EIR.
Please mail, e-mail, or fax comments on the Draft Program EIR by the deadline to:
Environmental Coordinator
California State Parks
Northern Service Center
One Capitol Mall, Suite 410
Sacramento, California 95814
Email: [email protected] (Subject Line: Statewide Trails)
Fax: (916) 445-9081 (Subject Line: Statewide Trails)

 

[Brewtality]

read table 2.1, and section 2 if you want, but table 2.1 is a good summary of what the proposal is about.

the rest, some nerd and lawyer got together and gave birth.

I found 2.2 to be very informative.
To my layman's eye, this looks like a great thing. If pushed through as it is proposed, this would give a lot of flexibility to the park supervisors.
Two benefits come to mind right away.
First is the possibility of gaining access to trails that are currently off limits. Case in point would be Western States Trail in the ASRA.
Another benefit would be easier to perform trail maintenance and repairs. Trail work days could be something better than simply cutting some new drainage nicks. Wholesale reroutes of trails would be possible with fewer headaches.

I expect we can see opposition to this from environmental groups, trail user groups looking to protect their fiefdoms, and whatever engineering unions currently conduct the EIRs for the state.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Moe Ped]

Pictures are worth...

<a href="https://s1042.photobucket.com/albums/b426/pliebenberg/Advocacy/?action=view&current=P73.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="https://i1042.photobucket.com/albums/b426/pliebenberg/Advocacy/P73.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>
How it should work; sort of how it works now when a project is not so obviously big that it requires an EIR.

Those of us who have been doing volunteer trail work at Henry Coe SP have been waiting to see this ever since we got slapped down on our efforts on the JDT. Staff had related that "things could get easier" relating to the many re-route (what the JDT is) projects "waiting in the wings" at Coe.

I've made it through the whole 430 pages (glancing at; not reading word-for-word) but for those interested in the condensed version do a search for mountain bike and you'll come up with pages 32, 46, 72, 139, 180, 181, 210, 281, 296, 297, 342, 357, 374, 375, 379, and 410~412. Those are definitely worth reading if you're interested in trail advocacy for MTBing. In a nutshell, page 374 spells out why "fun" trails will never happen in State Parks (policy highlighted by me):
<a href="https://s1042.photobucket.com/albums/b426/pliebenberg/Advocacy/?action=view&current=P374.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="https://i1042.photobucket.com/albums/b426/pliebenberg/Advocacy/P374.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

This could be a talking point for a comment to the PEIR but IMHO the above attitude is so deeply entrenched it's a battle not worth fighting. (Changing some SP units to SRA's is worth the fight but that's a good topic for another thread)

On a brighter note; the CSP (new acronym for the DPR; DPR is the Department of Pesticide Regulation) is finally recognizing "grade reversals" and "rolling grade dips" (RGD's) in IMBA-speak as viable trail features; CSP is calling them "drainage dips" and "rolling dips" instead. (Perhaps "grade" is a dirty word???) Also "climbing turns" are more prevalent in the vocabulary. Get used to "pinch points"; any CSP trail that has MTB use will have them incorporated as a mitigation feature:
<a href="https://s1042.photobucket.com/albums/b426/pliebenberg/Advocacy/?action=view&current=P272.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="https://i1042.photobucket.com/albums/b426/pliebenberg/Advocacy/P272.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

The "pinch points" make the CSP trails crews all "wet and happy"! They love falling trees or moving boulders to make these things---good employment insurance!

 

[zorg]

Pinch points will be another source of user conflict (see picture above) as users will need to wait for each other to pass, and somebody will get mad if nobody waits...

 

[LWright]

I can live with pinch points!

 

[Moe Ped]

Conspiracy

I can live with pinch points!

A trail that is laid out to take advantage of naturally occurring pinch points is a beautiful thing.

The CSP acknowledges this but they go the step further to rely on imported materials for pinch point construction; this tends to look contrived at best and downright ugly at worst.

From what I've seen so far the CSP is promoting the concept in the field but not providing guidelines as to the exact design and placement of these trail features (leaving this to the judgement of the local trail crew?) To truly slow down expert and ambitious riders pinch points will need to be extreme and frequent. (should they be called Stravstacles???) When this is done and becomes generally understood that it's "to control biker's speed" this will increase the already considerable ire towards bikers in the hiker and equestrian user groups. And then the subject of this thread; the "Road and Trail Change-In-Use Process Program EIR", will be used remove the pinch points and then eliminate bike use. This PEIR is that sword that can cut both ways.

Which leads to my conspiracy theory; there are those in the CSP that want MTB's to have a bad name; they wish to turn back the clock to a time when MTB's didn't exist.

 

[Moe Ped]

I'm a little disappointed that...

...this thread is wilting. This PEIR can become a very strong tool for the CSP in regards to how trail access is managed. It will make it both easier to gain MTB trail access as it will be to take away access. Our user group needs to help fine tune this draft so it's more of the former and less of the latter.

I'll keep it bumped by showing an issue that I'll be formally commenting on (feel free to join in!); notice that in this flowchart:
<a href="https://s1042.photobucket.com/albums/b426/pliebenberg/Advocacy/?action=view&current=P73.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="https://i1042.photobucket.com/albums/b426/pliebenberg/Advocacy/P73.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>
Notice that the "Gather input from local trail user..." balloon comes only AFTER the CSP has decided whether or not to proceed with a project. WTF??? Is this just a graphic artist's goof or is this truly how this process will be handled? (It's how it's been working in some Park Units presently)

The "Gather input from local trail user..." balloon should be inserted in that flowchart at every step in the process IMHO.

 

[HarryCallahan]

Pliebenberg,thanks for bumping this up. I agree with you on the input issue. And I'm sure you are right that there are those within the bureaucracy that will try to defeat this. It's ironic, because the stated intent is to make the decision making process less arbitrary. Folks from state parks said this to a whole room full of folks at a meeting in the Zayante fire house a few years ago.

I will say the use of imported materials for pinch points is positive in one way that I know of: Back in the day, I was involved in a discussion over solving an ongoing trail problem at Wilder Ranch, and one of the bottlenecks was that state parks wouldn't allow imported materials.

We exchanged messages a while back over issues at Coe, and you pm'ed me your e-mail. Would you send me that again? It seems a whole bunch of my pm's vanished in some mtbr upgrade.

 

[Berkeley Mike]

We will get more response about beer than this issue. But you have to accept that, as you well know.

Our recent/current work with the 6 EBRPD Master Plan Review meetings and comment period shows a fairly mild support for the work of advocacy by the mtb community. There are a lot of reasons for this; burn-out, cynicism, lack of attention, limited access to good devices, or just wanting to ride the bike. All good.

Yet things are happening now that show real promise for us; it's just that our public can't see it. Well guys, it is up to us to keep this issue visible and provide methods for particiption that fit in the lives of our riding friends. At the same time we have to keep our expectations reasonable.

plie, your diagram and synopsis is gold. Just as with any issue it takes organiztion and leadership to make it work. so lets get going.
1) PM me your email address so I can use your work to send to may membership.
2) Stickies get ignored. Let's keep this issue moving up to the top of the page.
3) Let's start conceptualizing the kinds of ideas we need to send to the state.

This can work but we need to help our community to do it.

 

[Obi]

Conspiracy...

My concerns exactly, I actually (stupidly) read the entire document. There is a slippery slope that needs to be addressed with this. I see to many subtle contradictions in there. People need to give feedback if willing on it. Iron it out without the loopholes aimed directly at us first then maybe I'll consider it a valid step in the right direction.

Call me burnt-out cynic now, but it's another leaf instead of an olive branch.

 

[Berkeley Mike]

the stated intent is to make the decision making process less arbitrary. Folks from state parks said this to a whole room full of folks at a meeting in the Zayante fire house a few years ago.

Okay, so this is one of the comments what needs to be properly formed.

The other is about the timing of public comment in the process, yet, just as with EIRs for every issue, constant public comment will gum up their works. So we comment now.

Another is to focus on the moribund nature of old arguements against our presence.

Keep thinking.

 

[LWright]

Best brew for long reads??

We will get more response about beer than this issue. But you have to accept that, as you well know......
Yet things are happening now that show real promise for us; it's just that our public can't see it. ....
This can work but we need to help our community to do it.

This is proof that putting in the hours does pay off, eventually!

And some day I will learn to lead my post with a poll about which beer is best to read a long document like this!