Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 101
  1. #1
    Ride Responsibly
    Reputation: LWright's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    1,946

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

    Last edited by LWright; 10-23-2012 at 01:41 AM.

  2. #2
    Paper or plastic?
    Reputation: zorg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    8,799
    Can't afford a 500 page report everytime they want to make a 3 mile long trail multi use.
    Faster is not always better, but it's always more fun

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Brewtality's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    5,658
    Cliff Notes please?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Its all Shits and Giggles until somebody Giggles and Shits

  4. #4
    Paper or plastic?
    Reputation: zorg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    8,799
    Quote Originally Posted by Brewtality View Post
    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: CEQANSC@parks.ca.gov (Subject Line: Statewide Trails)
    Fax: 916-445-9081 (subject line: Statewide Trails)
    Faster is not always better, but it's always more fun

  5. #5
    rho
    rho is offline
    Life is strange
    Reputation: rho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,846
    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.

  6. #6
    Wēk Ss
    Reputation: IAmHolland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    2,656
    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.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    4,126
    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.

  8. #8
    Ride Responsibly
    Reputation: LWright's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    1,946
    "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.
    Last edited by LWright; 10-16-2012 at 03:25 AM.

  9. #9
    Ride Responsibly
    Reputation: LWright's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    1,946
    Quote Originally Posted by Brewtality View Post
    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: CEQANSC@parks.ca.gov (Subject Line: Statewide Trails)
    Fax: (916) 445-9081 (Subject Line: Statewide Trails)
    Last edited by LWright; 10-20-2012 at 03:50 AM. Reason: Clifier!

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Brewtality's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    5,658
    Quote Originally Posted by IAmHolland View Post
    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
    Its all Shits and Giggles until somebody Giggles and Shits

  11. #11
    middle ring single track
    Reputation: Moe Ped's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    3,048

    Pictures are worth...

    <a href="http://s1042.photobucket.com/albums/b426/pliebenberg/Advocacy/?action=view&amp;current=P73.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://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="http://s1042.photobucket.com/albums/b426/pliebenberg/Advocacy/?action=view&amp;current=P374.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://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="http://s1042.photobucket.com/albums/b426/pliebenberg/Advocacy/?action=view&amp;current=P272.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://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!
    Content here does not officially represent the CA DPR.

    Windows 10, destroying humanity one upgrade at a time.

  12. #12
    Paper or plastic?
    Reputation: zorg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    8,799
    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...
    Faster is not always better, but it's always more fun

  13. #13
    Ride Responsibly
    Reputation: LWright's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    1,946
    I can live with pinch points!

  14. #14
    middle ring single track
    Reputation: Moe Ped's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    3,048

    Conspiracy

    Quote Originally Posted by LWright View Post
    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.
    Content here does not officially represent the CA DPR.

    Windows 10, destroying humanity one upgrade at a time.

  15. #15
    middle ring single track
    Reputation: Moe Ped's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    3,048

    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="http://s1042.photobucket.com/albums/b426/pliebenberg/Advocacy/?action=view&amp;current=P73.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://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.
    Content here does not officially represent the CA DPR.

    Windows 10, destroying humanity one upgrade at a time.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    4,126
    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.

  17. #17
    It's about showing up.
    Reputation: Berkeley Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,731
    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.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails DPR to streamline &quot;Change in Use Policy&quot;-121018diazridge_coyoteridgex.jpg  

    I don't rattle.

  18. #18
    Obi
    Obi is offline
    -_-
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    4,407
    Quote Originally Posted by pliebenberg
    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.

  19. #19
    It's about showing up.
    Reputation: Berkeley Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,731
    Quote Originally Posted by HarryCallahan View Post

    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.
    I don't rattle.

  20. #20
    Ride Responsibly
    Reputation: LWright's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    1,946

    Best brew for long reads??

    Quote Originally Posted by Berkeley Mike View Post
    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!

  21. #21
    It's about showing up.
    Reputation: Berkeley Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,731
    Quote Originally Posted by Obi View Post
    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
    Since you made the effort to read and assess the document, what issues do you see need to be ironed out?
    I don't rattle.

  22. #22
    Obi
    Obi is offline
    -_-
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    4,407
    Best discussed offline. Offhand, pages 4.10-19 through 4.10-24 comes to mind as there's an issue I see in acknowledging something that's used against our kind elsewhere. The following pages to those while spelling out specifics don't properly address all sides of the interest groups in (what I feel is) a fair and equitable fashion.

    Short Version: I ain't gonna goto that thar courthouse whilst I see the man putting up the gallows.
    Last edited by Obi; 10-20-2012 at 09:10 PM.

  23. #23
    It's about showing up.
    Reputation: Berkeley Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,731
    My eyes glaze over when I read this stuff. Anyone else with thoughts?
    I don't rattle.

  24. #24
    It's about showing up.
    Reputation: Berkeley Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,731
    Quote Originally Posted by Obi View Post
    Best discussed offline. Offhand, pages 4.10-19 through 4.10-24 comes to mind as there's an issue I see in acknowledging something that's used against our kind elsewhere. The following pages to those while spelling out specifics don't properly address all sides of the interest groups in (what I feel is) a fair and equitable fashion.

    Short Version: I ain't gonna goto that thar courthouse whilst I see the man putting up the gallows.


    There a lots of people who limit their participation in advocacy for their own reasons. In this case you seem to want a back room. I disagree: it's not like there are magic arguments or some secret strategizing to be used which lurkers from " the other side" will capture and undermine.

    Public expression of thoughts in this issue only benefit us by informing and creating interest. How do you see proper address?
    I don't rattle.

  25. #25
    Paper or plastic?
    Reputation: zorg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    8,799
    Interesting quotes from the Trail Use Conflict Study done by state parks (http://www.parks.ca.gov/pages/980/fi...nuse_draft.pdf)

    Interesting tidbits (just scanning it):

    1. Information on trail use conflict is primarily based on opinion; little data about actual user conflicts are available. (section 1.2.3)

    3. Actual incidents, including those involving accidents, between trail users are relatively rare.

    A survey conducted for the report, Perception and Reality of Conflict: Walkers and Mountain Bikes on the Queen Charlotte Track in New Zealand indicated that pedestrians who had not encountered any bicyclists had more negative perceptions of bicyclists than those who actually encountered them (Cessford, 2002).

    Incident Data
    While few of the agencies surveyed provided incident data, the majority of representatives responded that in their professional experience, actual incidents are uncommon. As shown in Table C-2, only eight of the agencies surveyed maintain incident data, and four of those reported no incidents. Santa Clara County Parks and Recreation provided data which indicate that eight to twelve incidents involving multiple uses occurred during 2008-2010 (four of the equestrian-related injuries did not provide information about what spooked the
    horse).
    Capital Regional District (CRD Parks) BC stated that, we have over 80 kms of Regional Trails in our region with over 2 million users per year. Based on that, the ratio of complaints we receive is very low.
    The one serious incident cited in the survey responses was in Santa Barbara (under the Front Country Trails Multi-Jurisdictional Task Forces jurisdiction). In 2006, a mountain biker and an equestrian were passing on a narrow trail without shoulders, and the horse fell off the trail, with ultimately fatal results to the horse. The incident prompted design and outreach responses from the management agency.

    USFS, Lake Tahoe basin
    Staff feel that trail design or layout can contribute to or resolve user incident issues, particularly short sight lines, confined areas, and over-steep grades. Other factors include differing user goals and knowledge, speed differential, and other site-specific factors. Perceptions of user conflict arise primarily from attitudes about sharing the trail and repeat offenders who are looking for a conflict. The Management Unit also views signage informing users of trail rules as an important avenue for educating users about trail sharing etiquette.
    Faster is not always better, but it's always more fun

  26. #26
    It's about showing up.
    Reputation: Berkeley Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,731
    Zorg; this is gold. It substantiates the WTF I feeling I get when people opposed to sharing get up on their hind legs and shake their bony knuckles. I have a kajillion hours in parks, as do my riding friends, and these incidents are not a part ofd our experience.

    It is important that this sort of information is presented live at the Walnut Creek SportsBasement meeting.

    Let's add this to our list.
    I don't rattle.

  27. #27
    Obi
    Obi is offline
    -_-
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    4,407
    Off Topic, aside from the opportunity for the venue hosting, has SB offered any internal support? Maybe Pros (pronounced Proz) and other's (Owner's or Employee) may or may not have a voice to express support for this.

  28. #28
    Paper or plastic?
    Reputation: zorg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    8,799
    Quote Originally Posted by Berkeley Mike View Post
    Zorg; this is gold. It substantiates the WTF I feeling I get when people opposed to sharing get up on their hind legs and shake their bony knuckles. I have a kajillion hours in parks, as do my riding friends, and these incidents are not a part ofd our experience.

    It is important that this sort of information is presented live at the Walnut Creek SportsBasement meeting.

    Let's add this to our list.
    Yeah, I thought so too. There is a lot to read in there, too much for me to read through in detail, but the gist of it vindicates our position that trail conflict is more perception than reality. And this comes from State Parks, not exactly a strong ally of the MTB community.
    Faster is not always better, but it's always more fun

  29. #29
    It's about showing up.
    Reputation: Berkeley Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,731
    A recent response from one of the the EBRPD exec's to a hikers usual overstated complaint letter about a mountain biker was really telling of the changing tide. Essentiallly he said, I understand but these events are very rare.

    I'll dig it up.
    Last edited by Berkeley Mike; 10-21-2012 at 06:05 PM.
    I don't rattle.

  30. #30
    Obi
    Obi is offline
    -_-
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    4,407
    Quote Originally Posted by Berkeley Mike View Post
    ..Essentiallly he said, I understand but these events are very rare.

    I'll dig it up.
    Please do because I'd love to read or have heard that. Add the ending of "..and we've found it to usually be the complaining party that amplified/exacerbated the situation." and we'll be good.

    Ultimately I am of the opinion I just want to see more visible chunks instead of cursory bits of change.

  31. #31
    It's about showing up.
    Reputation: Berkeley Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,731
    Quote Originally Posted by Obi View Post

    Ultimately I am of the opinion I just want to see more visible chunks instead of cursory bits of change.
    Obi, you are a true romantic.
    I don't rattle.

  32. #32
    mtb'er
    Reputation: Empty_Beer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,274
    Quote Originally Posted by pliebenberg View Post
    I'm a little disappointed that...
    ...this thread is wilting.
    Woah!! I saw the title of this thread and thought it had something to do with some rule changes for a local park (with the intials "DPR") in the Bay Area. Doesn't affect me. Whoops! This is BIG!

    Perhaps LWright can change the name of the thread to something more descriptive? A call to action? e.g. State Parks finally seeking input on trail usage -- Please provide comments by Dec. 4th!

    Now, I have some reading to do.. (I still don't know what DPR stands for)

  33. #33
    Obi
    Obi is offline
    -_-
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    4,407
    Quote Originally Posted by Empty_Beer View Post
    (I still don't know what DPR stands for)
    Does People's Ride? Deep Pockets Revealed?


    Seriously thoh, Dept of Parks and Rec: DPR Archaeological Reports

  34. #34
    middle ring single track
    Reputation: Moe Ped's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    3,048

    the new, improved DPR is....

    Quote Originally Posted by Empty_Beer View Post
    (I still don't know what DPR stands for)
    <a href="http://s1042.photobucket.com/albums/b426/pliebenberg/Advocacy/?action=view&amp;current=dpr.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i1042.photobucket.com/albums/b426/pliebenberg/Advocacy/dpr.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

    Sort of apropos this change of abbreviation, The "new" CSP is becoming officially rather toxic to the sport as we now know it.

    Here's a link;
    California Department of Pesticide Regulation Home Page

    Just back from a weekend of volunteering at Coe; next post will be back on topic!
    Content here does not officially represent the CA DPR.

    Windows 10, destroying humanity one upgrade at a time.

  35. #35
    PRETENDURO
    Reputation: Leopold Porkstacker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    7,235
    Irony: Sacramento. Flat.
    QUOTE from MTBR.COM: You have given Brewtality too much Reputation in the last 24 hours, try again later.

  36. #36
    middle ring single track
    Reputation: Moe Ped's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    3,048
    Quote Originally Posted by Obi View Post
    Best discussed offline. Offhand, pages 4.10-19 through 4.10-24 comes to mind as there's an issue I see in acknowledging something that's used against our kind elsewhere. The following pages to those while spelling out specifics don't properly address all sides of the interest groups in (what I feel is) a fair and equitable fashion.

    Short Version: I ain't gonna goto that thar courthouse whilst I see the man putting up the gallows.
    Those pages are about what is being used now anyhow so the inclusion of them into the PEIR really won't change the outcome of things; just speed it along. Don't lose focus that the PEIR is mostly about re-routes and changes in use; not new routes (trails) or new parks (projects).

    The PEIR allows the CSP formerly known as the DPR to skirt having to do a full blown EIR for every project that winds up in the "in box". It's all about the CSP staff that sign off on projects being able to declare a NOD or MND with the backing of the PEIR process.

    (Funny, 7 pages of abbreviations and while they have "NOD" they missed "MND")
    Content here does not officially represent the CA DPR.

    Windows 10, destroying humanity one upgrade at a time.

  37. #37
    PRETENDURO
    Reputation: Leopold Porkstacker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    7,235
    Quote Originally Posted by agctongdaihn View Post
    Up lên cho bác, chúc bác bán d?t h*ng.
    Hard to understand you with that cck in your mouth.
    QUOTE from MTBR.COM: You have given Brewtality too much Reputation in the last 24 hours, try again later.

  38. #38
    It's about showing up.
    Reputation: Berkeley Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,731
    [QUOTE=pliebenberg;9803361
    the inclusion of them into the PEIR really won't change the outcome of things; just speed it along. Don't lose focus that the PEIR is mostly about re-routes and changes in use; not new routes (trails) or new parks (projects).
    [/QUOTE]

    The EBRPD Master Plan Review is doing a similar thing. This is progress.
    I don't rattle.

  39. #39
    middle ring single track
    Reputation: Moe Ped's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    3,048

    "4.10 Hydrology,..." and elsewhere

    Quote Originally Posted by Obi View Post
    Best discussed offline. Offhand, pages 4.10-19 through 4.10-24 comes to mind as there's an issue I see in acknowledging something that's used against our kind elsewhere. The following pages to those while spelling out specifics don't properly address all sides of the interest groups in (what I feel is) a fair and equitable fashion.
    This is a minor part of the section Obi suggested focusing on but since it is repeated in all the chapters dealing with various "impacts" it is worth considering as a topic for submission as a comment. The CSP Trails Handbook is to be used in the PEIR process:

    <a href="http://s1042.photobucket.com/albums/b426/pliebenberg/Advocacy/?action=view&amp;current=410-20.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i1042.photobucket.com/albums/b426/pliebenberg/Advocacy/410-20.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

    What's wrong about this is that the CSP Trails Handbook is an 18 year old document and was written before it was understood how sustainable trails for use by bikes should be constructed. The IMBA Trails Solutions offers a much better guide for this purpose and should be leveraged to get the CSP to update their document.

    I still hope to create a separate thread discussing the CSP Trails Handbook but I have to go about this cautiously as it could imperil my standing as a CSP Uniformed Volunteer.

    (IMHO; that the CSP is relying on the archaic Trails Handbook has to do with that a significant portion of the CSP hierarchy does not want MTB park users to experience "fun and flow". This is an issue larger than the PEIR or the Trails Handbook separately or combined.)
    Content here does not officially represent the CA DPR.

    Windows 10, destroying humanity one upgrade at a time.

  40. #40
    It's about showing up.
    Reputation: Berkeley Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,731
    We should get Tom Ward, IMBA's California Rep, involved in this. He had a long career with the DPR. He is out of the country right now but I bet he has ideas and the right language.

    Karl Knapp is in charge of Trails Building with the Parks and I imagine he will take a great interest in this issue.

    Keep the ideas coming. The gathering of ideas is our first step, next clarifying the points, and then we figure out who says what so it all gets covered at the meeting.
    I don't rattle.

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    4,126

    Worth repeating!

    Quote Originally Posted by Berkeley Mike View Post
    We should get Tom Ward, IMBA's California Rep, involved in this. He had a long career with the DPR. He is out of the country right now but I bet he has ideas and the right language.

    Karl Knapp is in charge of Trails Building with the Parks and I imagine he will take a great interest in this issue.

    Keep the ideas coming. The gathering of ideas is our first step, next clarifying the points, and then we figure out who says what so it all gets covered at the meeting.
    Absolutely on all 3 points.

    I'd like to suggest getting Mr.Toad of MBOSC involved as well. He was away, but I think is back in the area. He was a key player in organizing the Zayante meeting I mentioned earlier.

    Speaking to Pliebenberg's points, if state parks is going to reference their trails handbook and make it part of the process, then IT MUST be available to the public. Saying it is an internal document and can't be released is a stall tactic, and quite possibly an abuse of authority by whomever made that claim. In this day and age, there are very few things that the public doesn't have a right to see, and a trail handbook doesn't seem like it would be one of them.

  42. #42
    It's about showing up.
    Reputation: Berkeley Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,731
    Quote Originally Posted by HarryCallahan View Post

    if state parks is going to reference their trails handbook and make it part of the process, then IT MUST be available to the public. In this day and age, there are very few things that the public doesn't have a right to see, and a trail handbook doesn't seem like it would be one of them.
    Another point but I doubt that they will let go easily. We might best simply posit IMBA Standards, but the trails at issue are for all user groups.
    I don't rattle.

  43. #43
    middle ring single track
    Reputation: Moe Ped's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    3,048

    Stall tactic and more...

    Quote Originally Posted by HarryCallahan View Post
    Absolutely on all 3 points.

    I'd like to suggest getting Mr.Toad of MBOSC involved as well. He was away, but I think is back in the area. He was a key player in organizing the Zayante meeting I mentioned earlier.

    Speaking to Pliebenberg's points, if state parks is going to reference their trails handbook and make it part of the process, then IT MUST be available to the public. Saying it is an internal document and can't be released is a stall tactic, and quite possibly an abuse of authority by whomever made that claim. In this day and age, there are very few things that the public doesn't have a right to see, and a trail handbook doesn't seem like it would be one of them.
    As a matter of fact the Trails Handbook can be obtained by the general public; I believe our Mr Toad has a copy (which he had to pay serious coin for). Perhaps he can take the risk and post a PDF of the 300+/- pages.

    There's a grey area here (we need a lawyer!); if a copyrighted document is used as a pretext for law (rules and regulations?) then it is in the public domain and can be freely copied and distributed. (there's an important case involving the Uniform Building Code that has set a precedence) But does the Trails Handbook qualify???

    I have a separate issue because I am limited as a CSP Uniformed Volunteer as to what I can disclose about CSP operations. (Am I in trouble for disclosing even that!?!?)
    Content here does not officially represent the CA DPR.

    Windows 10, destroying humanity one upgrade at a time.

  44. #44
    middle ring single track
    Reputation: Moe Ped's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    3,048

    "Trail Solutions" is top-notch...

    Quote Originally Posted by Berkeley Mike View Post
    Another point but I doubt that they will let go easily. We might best simply posit IMBA Standards, but the trails at issue are for all user groups.
    The Multi-Use Trail (MUT) construction techniques as proffered in IMBA's Trail Solutions are totally acceptable for all user groups and have roughly 1/4 the environmental impact than do the MUT's as mandated by the CSP Trails Handbook.

    Besides MTBing I hike a lot and also have 4 horses of which I occasionally ride; IMBA knows their stuff when it comes to MUT's.

    Go IMBA!
    Content here does not officially represent the CA DPR.

    Windows 10, destroying humanity one upgrade at a time.

  45. #45
    Like a boss.
    Reputation: Piranha426's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    659
    I've been traveling for the past few weeks but I was alerted during that time that this had been released. Now that I'm back, my plan is to review it line-by-line and consult with some of my CEQA colleagues. Off the cuff, I find the emphasis on pinch points interesting. I was speaking with a veteran trail advocate a few weeks ago about the proposed pinch points on Bill's Trail, and he made an excellent point - once the pinch points are in, you can't get equipment up there. No SWECOs, no ATVs, nothing. My primary issue with the pinch points is disturbance to the trail bed; I hadn't even considered about maintenance/emergency response access issues once they're installed. Can anyone point to local examples of where CSP has installed pinch points?
    Quote Originally Posted by jbt56
    Are you a whiny Marin liberal, or a hand-wringing Berkeley liberal?

  46. #46
    Medium?
    Reputation: Fast Eddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    6,723
    Quote Originally Posted by pliebenberg View Post
    (we need a lawyer!);
    :cough:Plim:cough: WG has direct access to some people as well. One of my buddies who's a fellow CSP Uniformed Volunteer is also a lawyer and sold his business, so not currently working. He's not a mtber, so I don't know how motivated he would be, but I'm sure he'd answer email questions.

    Quote Originally Posted by pliebenberg View Post
    There's a grey area here (we need a lawyer!); if a copyrighted document is used as a pretext for law (rules and regulations?) then it is in the public domain and can be freely copied and distributed. (there's an important case involving the Uniform Building Code that has set a precedence) But does the Trails Handbook qualify???

    I have a separate issue because I am limited as a CSP Uniformed Volunteer as to what I can disclose about CSP operations. (Am I in trouble for disclosing even that!?!?)

  47. #47
    Obi
    Obi is offline
    -_-
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    4,407
    Quote Originally Posted by pliebenberg View Post
    This is a minor part of the section Obi suggested...

    What's wrong about this is that the CSP Trails Handbook is an 18 year old document and was written before it was understood how sustainable trails for use by bikes should be constructed. The IMBA Trails Solutions offers a much better guide for this purpose and should be leveraged to get the CSP to update their document.

    I still hope to create a separate thread discussing the CSP Trails Handbook but I have to go about this cautiously as it could imperil my standing as a CSP Uniformed Volunteer.

    (IMHO; that the CSP is relying on the archaic Trails Handbook has to do with that a significant portion of the CSP hierarchy does not want MTB park users to experience "fun and flow". This is an issue larger than the PEIR or the Trails Handbook separately or combined.)
    ^That. I wasn't going to try and elaborate from my iPhone. I trusted you guys would get the inference. Anyone wanting to talk just give me a heads up. I'm out of the office more lately and home Internet sux because comcraptic is the provider. Antiquated ideals placed in new context don't always work. It's a blanket guide. Major revision is way overdue.

    Quote Originally Posted by Piranha426 View Post
    ..Off the cuff, I find the emphasis on pinch points interesting. I was speaking with a veteran trail advocate a few weeks ago about the proposed pinch points on Bill's Trail, and he made an excellent point - once the pinch points are in, you can't get equipment up there. No SWECOs, no ATVs, nothing. My primary issue with the pinch points is disturbance to the trail bed; I hadn't even considered about maintenance/emergency response access issues once they're installed. Can anyone point to local examples of where CSP has installed pinch points?
    Even I missed that part, as a responder who often pulls anchor or assist this is a critical error is overall logistics in regards to public safety. Which is easier, realistic controls or a helipad?



    Sent from my iPhone via big greasy thumbs.
    Last edited by Obi; 10-22-2012 at 04:57 PM.

  48. #48
    weekend worrier
    Reputation: sactojesse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    562
    Having a programmatic approach to streamline the change-in-use process seems like a great idea, but that cuts both ways in that changes to a less restrictive or more restrictive use policy for a particular trail will be easier to implement. I printed out the executive summary and project description chapters and will peruse them in my spare time.

  49. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    4,126
    Quote Originally Posted by Piranha426 View Post
    I've been traveling for the past few weeks but I was alerted during that time that this had been released. Now that I'm back, my plan is to review it line-by-line and consult with some of my CEQA colleagues. Off the cuff, I find the emphasis on pinch points interesting. I was speaking with a veteran trail advocate a few weeks ago about the proposed pinch points on Bill's Trail, and he made an excellent point - once the pinch points are in, you can't get equipment up there. No SWECOs, no ATVs, nothing. My primary issue with the pinch points is disturbance to the trail bed; I hadn't even considered about maintenance/emergency response access issues once they're installed. Can anyone point to local examples of where CSP has installed pinch points?

    It sounds like the pinch points are seriously flawed based on your points about safety and maintenance. There are other ways to control traffic speed, grade reversals, switchbacks, and probably a lot more I'm not familiar with.

  50. #50
    It's about showing up.
    Reputation: Berkeley Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,731
    The State wants to make the trails "bullet proof" against any usage and that is a direct quote from Karl Knapp.This includes durability against legal challenges as well. I doubt that disturbing the trailbed with pinch points is their concern. Pinch points are likely no less restricting than your basic lovely singletrack from where they stand. My call is that both points are likely to be seen as far too purest or picky, or yet another thing mountain bikers want for their special desires, but lets put them on the list.

    The greater point is to confront the fallacies traditionally used to keep us out; to resist and redirect the haters aways from influencing our future possibilities in the State Parks.
    Last edited by Berkeley Mike; 10-23-2012 at 08:02 AM.
    I don't rattle.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •