Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 26 to 35 of 35
  1. #26
    loopy counter
    Reputation: knobs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    576
    Can't wait to bomb down that straight line section at high speed!
    Maybe I'll even get some air on that inslope.


  2. #27
    trail rat
    Reputation: slocaus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    7,693
    Quote Originally Posted by Diesel~ View Post
    There's a serious detachment from the realities of Coe going on in those "after photos".

    In the "before" picture, the trail still needs refinement (backslope, compaction, etc.), but in the after photos, two things jump out:

    1. The massive amount of soil that was needlessly excavated; minimal disturbance is clearly not a priority of the state.

    2. Even with outslope, that trail WILL trench down the center, once a user path is defined. Water has nowhere to go but further down the trail, and continual "maintenance" will now be required. Who is on the hook for that? Who suffers if it is not performed?

    Backslope looks nice, though.

    -D
    Amen brutha!

    The Coe Trails Coordinator is clinging to the 50 year old "outslope" theory that has been proven lacking and inadequate, and he is using his bureaucratic power to lord it over the volunteers. "Outslope" design worked when there was money for dedicated trail crews by the State Parks and USFS; those days are G-O-N-E.

    Coe is so far from the ocean that sediment load from trail erosion into creeks and subsequently into the ocean is not the pressure point from the Feds that some of us face. Our reroutes get approved since every one states: "Modern sustainable trail design that reduces coastal erosion and sediment transport via permanent and seasonal streams that terminate in the Pacific Ocean."

    Other CA State Parks employees have more open minds, and are willing to accept the proven changes to trail design and maintenance. Rolling drain dips, grade reversals are proven methods, unless you are a dictatorial bureaucratic power monger. Let that guy do it himself. Go find a land manager who appreciates the dedication you guys offer, for FRICKIN' FREE.

    Coe will suffer, but it has in the past. Someday, someone will get struck by modern trail design theory lightning, then you can come back.

    Follow Fast Eddy, walk away.

    We just built over 4 miles of multiuse trail, horses, bikes, hikers in six days. Compare this to the 8 foot wide erosion magnet in the pictures above.
    CCCMB web - Facebook
    SLO trail maps - conditions

    "The physician heals, Nature makes well" - real fortune cookie

  3. #28
    Is now still the time?
    Reputation: Sorcerer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    817

    Are trails like these a blight upon the landscape?

    Hi Slocaus.

    It sure would be nice if the staff at Montana d'Oro talked to the Monterey District about the success of progressive interpretation of CSP trail standards and how wrong headed our Supervising Ranger is about halting volunteer tread work.

    What were your comments on the Road and Trail Change in Use Draft PEIR?

    I criticize the Trails Handbook and the CSP overall approach to trails.

    The product on the little section that we worked on this Saturday is a typical example of the sort of Class 1 MUT that the CSP would deign appropriate. Here is an excerpt from my comment:


    Introduction: It would be reassuring to see some of the language from the mission statement and the Statement of Policy carried over into the introduction, such as (paraphrased from Policy Notice No. 2005-06):

    “The Department is directed to provide opportunities for high-quality outdoor recreation. Trails and roads are primary state park facilities that offer health-enhancing recreational opportunities, access to park resources for interpretation and education, and enhance community involvement.”

    [This content is present in 3.1, but the suggestion is to put this up-front for emphasis.]

    2.8: “Archaeological, cultural, and historical resources” or similar should be added to bullet list.(example in Table 2-1_4.6).

    Table 2-1_4.9-4: Presumably the design features and design criteria will be published in the forthcoming revised CSP Trails Handbook.

    3.3.6: The CSP Trails Handbook, published in 1994, is limited and obsolete. A revised and expanded handbook is forthcoming. I anticipate that the revision will be published subsequent to the ratification of the PEIR. It is my wish that this be disclosed in the PEIR.
    It will be the duty of the current Statewide Trails Coordinator to compose an appropriate preface to the next Trials Handbook. The language written by Charlie Willard still pertains, and would be appropriate to include here:

    “A well designed trail is a work of art for all to enjoy.”

    3.3.6: Furthermore it will help dispel objections if this sentence from the Trails Handbook introduction (1.1) were included here:

    “The Trails Handbook is not intended to be used as a universal guide to managing and operating trail systems.”


    3.3.11: You might consider making agencies like the National Park Service, the US National Forest, and the Bay Area Ridge Trail Council, included in this contextual list for many reasons, including connectivity and consistency.

    3.6.4: The Adaptive Use Management Strategy is practical. In order to function the Adaptive Management Report and Superintendent's Orders are crucial but will place a new duty and budget resource burden upon CSP resources.

    4.4-39 and 4.5-27 : It is a positive indication that night time hiking and biking are being included as legitimate activities.

    4.7-25 GEO-20:

    “When outsloping trail surfaces are not feasible, such as steep linear trail grades, construct rolling dips to direct runoff safely off the trail to prevent build up of surface runoff and subsequent erosion. Water bars will be used as a last resort if outsloping, rolling dips, or minor rerouting are not feasible, or on trails receiving minimal use. Waterbars will be constructed to divert water to controlled points along the trailand with rock armor at the downslope end for energy dissipation.”

    It is good to see it in writing that these types of erosion reducing techniques may be applicable on CSP trails.

    4.7-25 GEO-25: “Install 'pinch points' to reduce downhill bicycle speed and increase the line of sight at curves.” Again, it is good to see modern responses to modern uses. It may be pertinent to describe what pinch point is in slightly more detail. The photos do say something, but not all. There are different types of materials and construction methods of pinch points. There are a variety of tactical trail constructions besides pinch points that may be listed here, such as rolling drain dips, rough armor, and off camber turns, as well.

    4.7-26 GEO-29: Trail inspection after large rain events is routine on trails under construction. However it's not always practical on large trail systems in large parks.

    Project Design-Related Measures: I strongly support the recommendations made by the Bay Area Ridge Trail Council:

    “When analyzing existing trail conditions and possibilities to upgrade specific trail segments, wide variations in local conditions will be identified. This suggests it would be prudent to avoid rigid parameters for trail width, slope, rise, tread, etc. For example, Council guidelines for Ridge Trail dimensions include widths as narrow as 18 in. for narrow single track, and as wide as 20 ft. for ranch and fire roads. Survey of nearby trails that sustainably support the proposed additional use could help to determine appropriate design parameters.” (NOP Comment Letter O-10)

    Narrow trails cost less to build and maintain, plus they have a smaller footprint.

    13. 7-5, 7-6: Single-use Trails and Separate Trails Options. With some reservation, I concur with the discussion and conclusions you have made. However, there are and will be circumstances where these alternatives may indeed be the best option, in practical terms such as fiscal cost and resource costs. These alternatives should be on the table and always considered as last resorts.

    14: 8.3: The CSP position that “...CSP trails are not intended for or appropriate as active recreation attractions on their own.” is contradicted, and will continue to be contradicted, by modern common visitor practice and attendance in CSP. You can say that black is white, but black is black.




    Trails like the one above would spread like the blight of cancer upon the parks. The powers that be must laugh at our little squabbles.
    Last edited by Sorcerer; 12-11-2012 at 11:29 PM.
    SOrCerer

  4. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation: drew p's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    158
    Quote Originally Posted by slocaus View Post
    Amen brutha!

    The Coe Trails Coordinator is clinging to the 50 year old "outslope" theory that has been proven lacking and inadequate, and he is using his bureaucratic power to lord it over the volunteers. "Outslope" design worked when there was money for dedicated trail crews by the State Parks and USFS; those days are G-O-N-E.

    Coe is so far from the ocean that sediment load from trail erosion into creeks and subsequently into the ocean is not the pressure point from the Feds that some of us face. Our reroutes get approved since every one states: "Modern sustainable trail design that reduces coastal erosion and sediment transport via permanent and seasonal streams that terminate in the Pacific Ocean."

    Other CA State Parks employees have more open minds, and are willing to accept the proven changes to trail design and maintenance. Rolling drain dips, grade reversals are proven methods, unless you are a dictatorial bureaucratic power monger. Let that guy do it himself. Go find a land manager who appreciates the dedication you guys offer, for FRICKIN' FREE.

    Coe will suffer, but it has in the past. Someday, someone will get struck by modern trail design theory lightning, then you can come back.

    Follow Fast Eddy, walk away.

    We just built over 4 miles of multiuse trail, horses, bikes, hikers in six days. Compare this to the 8 foot wide erosion magnet in the pictures above.

    It pains me to see this happening. I ran the Ditch Witch skid-steer for most of the Montana de Oro project and would (grudingly) machine flatten/widen this trail rather than waste all your time and effort on it if that is what they are going to make you do. I think I have probably built more machine trail than most state park "operators" at this point (and probably more in a state park as well). Let me know if that is something you want to pursue.

    Tim - maybe you can share our Henry Coe friend's predicament with your State Parks contacts and they might have some ideas on how to stop this tragedy...

  5. #30
    middle ring single track
    Reputation: pliebenberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,616

    $$$

    Quote Originally Posted by drew p View Post
    Let me know if that is something you want to pursue.
    I know you've seen the whole route; roughly how much coin would machine+operator cost for the +/- 3 miles of trail?

    Do you have access to contractor's license so you could submit a bid?

    How was the process handled at MdO?

    PM if necessary or I'll see you at Pogonip.
    The views and opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not represent any policy of the CA Dept. of Parks & Rec.

  6. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation: drew p's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    158
    I don't know how they handled it at MDO. No contractors license either but I'd be happy to volunteer my time. We can talk about it Monday.

  7. #32
    middle ring single track
    Reputation: pliebenberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,616

    As you were saying...

    Quote Originally Posted by Diesel~ View Post
    There's a serious detachment from the realities of Coe going on in those "after photos".

    In the "before" picture, the trail still needs refinement (backslope, compaction, etc.), but in the after photos, two things jump out:

    1. The massive amount of soil that was needlessly excavated; minimal disturbance is clearly not a priority of the state.

    2. Even with outslope, that trail WILL trench down the center, once a user path is defined. Water has nowhere to go but further down the trail, and continual "maintenance" will now be required. Who is on the hook for that? Who suffers if it is not performed?

    Backslope looks nice, though.





    -D
    From yesterday:









    ...pretty much as was predicted. The State will next have us increase the out-slope (which will fail in time also); then they'll use mules or a helicopter to bring in crushed rock for armoring.

    Or...they'll let us put back in the rolling-grade dips as we had them!

    The next 4 photos show an area where the State had us remove 3 closely-spaced RGDs and sure enough the ruts are starting:







    (This was a section I had built so I'm taking it a bit personally!)

    This corner hasn't been finished to State standards yet but will become a maintenance headache regardless:


    Here's a newly formed bog on the upper JDT where VoCal worked:



    What's funny about this is that there's a pile of rock right at the site which could be used for armoring if only we were allowed to do tread work un-supervised!

    Here's a little creek running right down the trail in the State-supervised VoCal section:

    (Mudworm and Mud n Crud take notice!)

    The rest of the JDT (as of yet un-molested by State standards) was in fine shape and great to ride.

    Who's next to rant!?!?
    The views and opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not represent any policy of the CA Dept. of Parks & Rec.

  8. #33
    More Torque
    Reputation: Diesel~'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    1,806
    Quote Originally Posted by pliebenberg View Post
    From yesterday:

    ...pretty much as was predicted. The State will next have us increase the out-slope (which will fail in time also); then they'll use mules or a helicopter to bring in crushed rock for armoring.

    Or...they'll let us put back in the rolling-grade dips as we had them!

    The next 4 photos show an area where the State had us remove 3 closely-spaced RGDs and sure enough the ruts are starting:

    What's funny about this is that there's a pile of rock right at the site which could be used for armoring if only we were allowed to do tread work un-supervised!

    Here's a little creek running right down the trail in the State-supervised VoCal section:

    The rest of the JDT (as of yet un-molested by State standards) was in fine shape and great to ride.

    Who's next to rant!?!?
    That's really disgustingly sad. Most of those sections (other than the VoCal work area and the spot that you called out has having worked) show problem areas where I had built non-obtrusive grade reversals to deal with the hydraulic issues that are once again a reality. These former RGDs, which are widely accepted by many public land managers (other than CA state parks) as a vital tool for creating sustainable trails, had performed well for the duration of last year's wet season, and were maintenance free. Such a shame to see so many steps backwards at the expense of the park's health and volunteer labor + goodwill.

    -D

  9. #34
    Is now still the time?
    Reputation: Sorcerer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    817
    Hi All,

    I agree with Diesel as well. Just went on ride up and over Stevens Canyon coming down the Bella Vista Trail in the MROSD and Santa Clara County Park lands. The aptly named Bella Vista Trail features aggressive rolling grade dips and out-slope. Because of these maintained features, this trail was in good shape to ride, and ready endure more of the storms we've been enjoying lately. Craig Beckman and the MROSD trail crew know it works. Of course we can all complain about trail standards and techniques being used in California and the MROSD. The MROSD builds these features into the trails for sustainability and conservation. It's just a side effect that they make the trails more interestingand fun to ride.

    Okay. So now what? 2013 and some New Year's Resolutions, that's what!
    SOrCerer

  10. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    118

    Keep it up Sorcerer

    Keep up the good work at Coe Sorcerer. While your stories of DPR regs is torture, your stamina and dedication to the big picture are inspiration for all! I just wish I had your comments in hand when I wrote my response to the State Parks PEIR. Well done for sure. So, you are right, now for the resolutions. I resolve to ride Coe this year with you and some Freaks from my hood.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

Posting Permissions

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