Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner

Jim Donnelly enters rehab...

29K views 219 replies 42 participants last post by  Moe Ped 
#1 ·
...this thread is where you need to spew your concerns about the recent changes brought to manner in which the Jim Donnelly Trail (JDT) will be constructed.

Sorcerer and I joined with a couple of other Coe volunteers on a hike up the JDT with the DPR's Monterey District Trails Supervisor to learn about the offending "structures" and also to get correct info about trail work to be done on the upcoming VOCal event. It was a very cold, wet and windy hike up the JDT; we stopped frequently to discuss the issues that brought about the "stop work order".

It was too wet for me to take many photos, Sorcerer had a waterproof camera so hopefully he'll be able to post more. This one is from when we were nearly to the top and the rain was letting up:
Photobucket
The poppies were furled-up trying to stay dry!

Photobucket
Dmitry, Philip, Paul and John (DPR guy) break at the top for a snack. Not a very happy-looking lot but it was mostly that we were cold and wet!

We were very relieved to hear John say that he saw no "structures" on the JDT; but that there were some "features" that would have to be changed. He very thoroughly explained the whys and wherefores of the policies that the JDT has to be built to. John's a former DH'er who's raced at the collegiate level so he does have sympathies towards MTBing.

That being said; the manner in which the paperwork was filed for the JDT creates a rather strict set of guidelines to which the trail must be built. It seems that the size of Coe creates a circumstance to where the policies are defined unlike what we may see at another Park or in another District. Bottom line; no RGDs, no banked turns, no berms---48" wide full bench everywhere except at a few "choke points"

"Offending" features:
Photobucket
As silly as it may seem; this drain has a built-up portion so it must be removed. Drains dug down (called nicks or lenses) are OK. Anything built up like a RGD not. We'll be talking about the prejudice which lies herein later; but hikers complain about this "feature" and describe it as a "bike jump". I was happy that most of the "grade reversals" that we had put in passed muster.

Another view:
Photobucket
Silly, huh!?!?

Photobucket
Another goddamed "structure"!

Photobucket
This turn was unfinished but would have had a berm; it will be rehabbed to a plain out-sloped corner. I personally built 3 other corners on the JDT with some "banking"; they'll have to be changed also. The project's PEF only shows switchback turns; so that's only what can be built. Had something else been offered 5 years ago when the paperwork was started, we might have been able to build something else. We could try and force a new PEF but that could easily take another 5 years before we could continue the work.

Photobucket
Because the Sorcerer has taken the official DPR trail-building classes it's been said that he should have "known better"; hence he was required to wear a dunce cap at the end of the day.

Now it's his turn...
 
See less See more
7
  • Like
Reactions: mikemikemike
#4 ·
So...........

If I have diagrams, straight from the State Parks construction techniques handbook, of drain dips and switchbacks with 10% inslope, will that matter / help?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Moe Ped
#5 ·
Canaries in a Coe Mine


Paul, Phillip, and the Monterey District Trails Supervisor cross the Hunting Hollow Rubicon.

The Trails Supervisor praised our work and industry. The objections that the DPR has with the work performed are mostly related to the incomplete state of the construction. However, there are serious concerns which represent a large amount of work to satisfy. Most of that work is something we were anticipating anyway.

Tales of our adventures, struggles, successes, and tribulations with the JDT build-out, have apparently attracted the attention of the DPR to our humble efforts. The volunteers work in the open. We always obtain permission, keep staff informed of activities and invite staff to participate and evaluate our work. To my knowledge, up until a couple of weeks age (when the trails supervisor hiked it in preparation for the VOCal event, and not responding to an alleged complaint), staff has let the project go on without scrutiny.

We have enjoyed the experience. Our little comments clip-board up at the picnic table has given us positive feedback. The reprimand we received from the Supervising Ranger did not express any warmth or appreciation for our sincere hard work. His remarks speak to the quality his character. The Supervising Ranger accidentally used the word "structures", when he meant "features". This caused a little confusion and had me wondering whether in the two weeks since I had been up there some interesting things to ride might have sprung up.

From day 1, it was understood that the trail is to be a full 48" wide bench, with rare exceptions allowed for resource concerns,choke points and features. Presently we have few areas with a full bench yet. Over-all this requirement is the biggest piece of work to do. The equestrians really do need this width (and occasionally wider areas for turning around and dismounting). This requirement is inflexible and non-negotiable.


John critiques this armored drainage lens near the bottom of the trail. He says the rock is too small.


Dmitry wearing a lime green waterproof rip-stop nylon Campmor poncho follows the lads.
 
#8 ·
Very sad to see this, but somewhat understandable given the mechanics of a horse walking on the thing.

I'm very interested to see how this all shapes up and if future efforts of coe trail work will end up being more supervised or if a more cohesive plan with use and guidance requirements that are more clearly defined and accessible will be made available to workers/volunteers for future trail building efforts out in the park.
 
#9 ·
Horse friendly...

Very sad to see this, but somewhat understandable given the mechanics of a horse walking on the thing.
...assuming you're referring to the "Canary in a Coe Mine" corner; these photos don't show it but inboard there is a 2' wide path with little pitch and then a 2' wide camber for a total of that illusive 4' bench. The 2' wide inside is for horses and hikers to walk, the camber for bikes to roll. We were very careful to follow spec as close as we could when building this; we also asked the equestrian portion of Coe's volunteers for their appraisal---they gave us the thumbs up.

Again, the paperwork says it's supposed to be a switchback; the technicality on which a climbing turn is disallowed is that the local slope of the hillside is a couple of percent too steep. But mostly it looks like something a biker might have fun on; this got us busted.

I'm very interested to see how this all shapes up and if future efforts of coe trail work will end up being more supervised or if a more cohesive plan with use and guidance requirements that are more clearly defined and accessible will be made available to workers/volunteers for future trail building efforts out in the park.
We'll definitely be a lot more supervised in the near future. All parties understand that there was a massive failure to communicate coming from the DPR side of things; both internally and with the volunteers. We asked staff to come out and inspect our work many times; only the maintenance staff came out a couple of times---the rangers never..

I was finally offered access to the Trails Handbook today; this is a step in the right direction.
 
#12 ·
You guy's have the patience of saints. I feel for all of you fine folks who have put their blood, sweat & tears into that beautiful trail.

It's been said time and time again, but needs to be said more. The DPR is out of touch.

I would suggest/urge you guy's to corner the IMBA Rep's at Sea Otter and ask for their help/advice with this issue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Moe Ped
#19 ·
Yes but no...



So far this thread has been straight up in spite of today being April 1st. I don't agree with where the State is coming from but I sort of understand why.

Sorcerer and I have talked about writing a book because that's how long it would take to explain how (in our opinions) the situation got to where it is today.
 
#25 ·
When I see the level of nonsense in the park system, I almost wish they would close. Unfortunately, even if they close, the clowns that run the show won't lose their jobs. So, only the users will get screwed. Anyway, good luck to those who put up with that nonsense. If there is a list of e-mails where the user base can make their thoughts known, that'd be great.
 
#31 ·
Chainsaw for that low hanging tree branch? I have a 4' bucksaw that I picked up at a thrift store in logging country and had it sharpened. Just give me the go-ahead and I'll take care of that 10'
clearance issue myself.

I have used it to cut through 3' eucalyptus trees that had fallen across a certain private trail. Took a while, but sheesh, I enjoy the workout.

That low branch on JDT can be taken down in multiple cuts, and I will commit to it, assuming that tree 'pruning' is not going to be looked upon like I am killing all vegetation on the planet.

Hell, I'll even offer up some Pliney to helpers if this is OK-ed. (I might have to retract that since
it might be considered 'fun' to the DPR, and denied for that reason alone.)
 
#44 ·
I enjoy debating the Jim Donnelly unfairness in this forum, but what we need to do is take action and save that trail as currently, and expertly, constructed.

Here's what I'm going to do, and I would request that others do the same.

First, I'm going to email the State Parks employee who I gather issued the stop-work order. I believe that's Stuart Organo, email address sorgano@parks.ca.gov, Monterey District main phone number (831) 649-2836. (Someone correct me if I'm wrong, please.)

I'm also going to email my state legislators (senator and assemblymember) to complain. Who's yours? Here's the list, with contact information.

Space down to around No. 18 for assemblymembers and find the one geographically closest to you:

Members | Assembly Internet

For senators, space down to Nos. 10 through 13 and find the one geographically closest to you:

Senators | Senate Internet

After I write a message I'll post it on this thread in case people want to borrow from it.

We have to do this. People like Sorcerer can't. They are in too close a relationship with the state parks bureaucracy to be able to speak frankly to it or their state legislators. We who have less to lose have to do this. Thanks.
 
#48 ·
I sent this:

Dear Mr. Organo:

I'm a San José resident and regular paying visitor to Henry Willard Coe State Park in Morgan Hill-Gilroy.

I recently learned that you have ordered a stop to all volunteer-created improvements to the once-dilapidated Jim Donnelly Trail near the Hunting Hollow entrance to Coe. In addition, reportedly you want the volunteers who have performed this work to undo part of it.

This is extremely disappointing and a step backward for Coe. I trust that you're aware that the volunteers who are working on the trail, with State Parks authorization, are to some extent the same people who have saved the park rangers' jobs there. Had it not been for their private fund-raising efforts, I suspect the park would soon be closed and the rangers transferred to frigid Bodie or rainy and remote Sinkyone, if they managed to keep their jobs at all. This is unwarranted recompense to them for all that they've done.

Moreover, the efforts of these volunteers, involving probably thousands of hours of backbreaking labor (I did some of the work myself, admittedly only on one weekend, but enough that I saw how hard it is), are likely to attract many new users to Coe each year, with a near zero environmental impact. These people will pay fees that will further help to keep the park open.

These volunteers are led by highly trained trail-building experts and there's a broad consensus that their work is exemplary and in compliance with the highest standards of contemporary trail construction knowledge. To not only countermand it but order them to undo some of it is a mistake. This is all the more true when one looks at the woebegone state of Coe's existing trail network-trails that are overgrade, rutted, overgrown, and generally in a dilapidated state. The new Jim Donnelly Trail replaces the old one, which was so bad as to be unusable and had grown over for lack of use. The new one is extremely popular.

I respectfully request that your order be temporarily set aside for further consideration and examination and, if necessary, a public hearing following an opportunity for public comment. We who are the users of Henry Coe State Park should have a say in what we would like to see there. This new trail is exactly what we want to see more of.

I'm taking the liberty of including State Parks director Ruth Coleman and my elected representatives in this email so that they may be made aware of this situation. I realize that the order to drastically modify the work on Jim Donnelly may have come from a high level within the State Parks administration, and so calling their attention to the problem may prove efficacious in addressing it.

Sincerely,
 
#49 ·
Thank you for the compliments



Thanks for expressing terms of support for the trail work.

Two comments:

The Supervising Ranger's job doesn't necessarily hinge on the funding arrangement because his job oversees the many rangers in parks of the Monterey District.

If Coe were to close, staff could have positions made available in other units even if all 70 closure list parks would close (which is not happening). There are vacancies in the park system.

I went back to the pictures and now realize which tree this is. For some reason I thought it
was in a different spot with no obvious re-route. I agree, going around it is simple enough.
Nine, my posts about the tree do not adequately portray all of the factors that lead to the present circumstance. I knew full well that we really couldn't construct two trail benches, an alternate a, and an alternate b, around an obstacle because this is specifically not allowed by the standards. Even if we could have operated a chain-saw, and even though a hand-saw could do the job too, none of us would've cut the limb because of the already delicate situation with the alternate b line, the concern for the tree, the safety of the people cutting the limb, and the irreversible commitment of the cut. It was and still is important to keep our options open. I actually think we have done the right thing. As the Supervising Ranger pointed out, the situation triggers consultation. We've got it now. The bypass for the horses was intended to be a temporary thing, unless staff would approve (we did plan to bring it to their attention, but not as a surprise). We did not dig in a trail bench on the by-pass, but raked the path so as to be obvious. Later Pliebenberg took the initiative and made a couple of signs explaining the situation. The non-standard signs on an unsanctioned bypass were received poorly. There's more to this, and I wonder if someone else here will add more detail.

In practice there are many places in the park where multiple volunteer bypasses spring up from time to time for all kinds of reasons like fallen trees, rocks, slumps, wash-outs and other natural obstacles and alterations, or failures of artificial structures (such as the trail itself). These instances of entropy and unplanned bypasses are not DPR compliant, but acceptable due to their origin. However, the mechanical results are equivalent to what is happening on the JDT construction site on the JDT. I don't think the Superintendent's tenor is appropriate at all. The DPR does no trail work at all in Coe. It's all up to the volunteers to get anything done.
 
#109 ·
Tahoe BC and mudncrud, you both show good judgement of the situation.

That said, all of the switchbacks and climbing turns below the picnic table still need finish work. At a minimum, I would like to get these turns drainage into a more functional state before bigger rains arrive. That and more could have been accomplished by now.
 
#117 ·
Just read this epic and subscribed! Wow.
I work with State Parks (Sierra District) on trails stuff often. Cool to see Karl K's name. We laid out some sections of the Donner Lake Rim Trail almost 15 years ago! He was also very helpful in keeping a local trail around in Truckee.

Sorry to digress...

PS that CSP trails manual needs an updating for sure!!!!
 
#128 ·
I think it varies by agency and organization. I used to work for the UC system. You could accrue up to 2 years vacation, and then you topped out, were forced to take vacation days as they accrued.

The challenge is, you still have to get your vacation approved by supervision, and if your unit is short-staffed, either your vacation gets turned down or your work doesn't get done while you are out. I could see both these latter things happening in state parks.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top