MR: Santiago Oaks Trails Assessment

[JamR]

A few other comments from the IMBA site on the importance of creating partnerships with the land managers and keeping level heads.

I think it would be a good idea for everyone to read over all the information from the 2006 World Mountain Bike Summit. There's a lot of very pertinent information on precisely the type of issues taking place at the Oaks.

If we want to be recognized as a credible group, we need to act as a credible group.

Again...from the IMBA Site:

Creating Strong Partnerships for Trails

Presented at the 2006 IMBA Summit/World Mountain Bike Conference

Speakers: Jim Hasenauer, Professor of Communication Studies at California State University at Northridge; Tom Ward, IMBA California Policy Advisor
Early land management decisions were based on a perception of mountain bikers as "strangers" - different, unknown, alien, and perhaps dangerous. They didn't know what to expect from us. As mountain bikers organized we took our place at the table with land managers and other user groups. We were admitted to the public policy process and acknowledged as "stakeholders", but questions of what we wanted and how compatible it was with land manager and other user group's values was still not known. Now, we are often full partners with a sense of clear responsibilities and a shared commitment to an ongoing relationship. While we should be extremely proud of our contributions to date, partnerships are difficult and require certain kinds of communication. We need to constantly learn from our experience.
Tips for Building Partnerships

• Patience is Vital: Land management decisions and processes are often slow. A partnership relationship requires staying power and a commitment to work things through to completion.
• Be Civil: Partners often disagree, but they handle their disagreements with respect for the other. On the practical side, it's likely that you or other mountain bikers will be working with that land manager in the future. Don't burn bridges.
• Strive for Clarity: Both sides need to communicate clearly. From our earliest days, mountain bikers have asked for equity in terms of trail mileage and diversity of experience; generally open, shared-use trails, and fact-based decision making.
• Understand the Needs of Others: We have a great deal to offer land managers, besides our sweat equity we can work together on super-ordinate goals, those that require the cooperation of both parties. These include: environmental awareness and protection, health, opportunities for family recreation, political support constituency for public lands and economic development.
• Success Breeds Success: Small accomplishments add up and create new, larger opportunities. It's just like riding. Forward momentum keeps us moving.

There are specific challenges to participating in partnership relationships. These include:

• Finding the right person to represent mountain bikers. The need for good communication and long-term commitment in public policy work is not for everyone. We need to cultivate leadership.
• Bureaucratic turnover. Often land manager leave or take new positions. It's important to work on smooth transitions where the positive working relationship is effectively transferred.
• Adapting to change. As goals and needs change, (for example our emergent need for technical features on trails) our partnerships need to adapt.

We share many values with land managers and we should seek out opportunities to partner to help them, to accomplish our needs and to achieve our goals.

[JamR]

Originally Posted by DISCO

I had planned on going, but had to prioritize homework. It is not a fight against one engineer. As a publicly funded project theoretically the community will have the final say. There are some excellent points regarding sustainability but until someone takes the time to counter the arguments presented by Mr. Bell, and present it to the ranger district. We are at the mercy of the most logical plan.

Good points....but too many people seem be taking it as a fight against one engineer or the County, and are not heeding the very nature of the assessment or the opening comments from the O.C. Parks Director.

This is just the starting point and very beginning of the public comment period.

Again......it is such an early time in the entire process that much of the anger is out of place, and is not representing the group in a credible fashion.

As in my earlier posts.......everyone just needs to take a deep breath, and use this opportunity to make their comments in writing to the County and state their opinions without some of the disrespect and sarcasm that's been occurring so far.

[JamR]

A few more links.

There is a ton of information out there on precisely the issues being experienced here.

I might suggest that one of the best moves to make would be for everyone to take a little time and read as much of the related research as possible. That way you will be more able to articulate your thoughts and comments to the land managers in these situations instead of depending on anecdotal comments that hold less weight than comments that can be substantiated by proven history from experts in the field.

Some IMBA links:

Thanks

http://www.imba.com/resources/trail_...le_trails.html

http://www.imba.com/resources/organi...tnerships.html

http://www.imba.com/resources/trail_...ent_trail.html

http://www.imba.com/resources/conser...servation.html

http://www.imba.com/resources/bike_m...ed_trails.html

http://www.imba.com/resources/organi...al_acumen.html

http://www.imba.com/resources/trail_...ive_areas.html

[Waldo]

Maxwell - glad you were able to put my comments to use.

JamR - were you at the meeting? I was hoping to get there early enough to meet a few folks, but work kept me late and forced me to leave quickly (before the trail naming part).

I was actually impressed at the relatively level heads in the room. It was clear that emotions were high, but users of all types kept the majority of comments focused on legitimate issues. There were few personal shots taken.

Your posts actually emphasize something missing from Bell's proposal and commentary. You mention the standards for slope and note the exceptions of using natural rock or rock structures when the slope exceeds sustainable limits. Fine! Let's do it! But contrary to those IMBA guidelines, Bell rejected such steep slopes and and rock structures entirely. I'll repeat again his response to a suggestion for routing trails down rock slopes: "That's the last thing I'd do."

I'm not rejecting Bell's experience or ability to build sustainable trails. But it was clear to me that there was a profound disconnect between his recommendations and philosophy and the preferences of a large number (I'd guess it was the majority) of people in attendance.

I do believe there are compromises possible, and they may involve some closures, reroutes, different approaches to maintenance of the existing trails, or other options. The thing I find most disturbing in this process so far is that the park management seems to have jumped so dramatically from a fairly hands-off approach to proposing such dramatic changes. I deeply hope they will attempt a maintenance plan (including volunteers), combined with long-term objective monitoring/study, before taking such drastic steps.

[dstepper]

I ride many areas in many different states. I have noticed that much of the soil in Orange County Parks do not hold up to a lot of traffic and many steep dirt trails just don’t seem to be sustainable. It is just a fact that we have to accept. When I look at the work, and the way they built the Tahoe Rim Trail I am totality impressed. They try to keep the grade below 10% and when they can’t the armor the trail with rocks and steps...they do it in a way that blends in with the natural lay of the land. When they are done with a trail it looks like it has always been there. Tahoe armoring and steps are great fun to go down but very difficult to climb but that is what is needed to build a sustainable trail.

Our topography here in OC is not Mt. Wilson, South Mountain, Gooseberry or Sedona were the rock ground supports steep trails. With all that said there are a few trails in OC that can support steep trails that come down rock faces, we have a few of them here in Laguna. I don’t ride The Oaks much and really don’t have a dog in this fight but I do see both sides concerns and hope an equitable solution can be reached.

Dean

[Kid A]

Originally Posted by JamR

Tips for Building Partnerships

• Patience is Vital: Land management decisions and processes are often slow. A partnership relationship requires staying power and a commitment to work things through to completion.
• Be Civil: Partners often disagree, but they handle their disagreements with respect for the other. On the practical side, it's likely that you or other mountain bikers will be working with that land manager in the future. Don't burn bridges.
• Strive for Clarity: Both sides need to communicate clearly. From our earliest days, mountain bikers have asked for equity in terms of trail mileage and diversity of experience; generally open, shared-use trails, and fact-based decision making.
• Understand the Needs of Others: We have a great deal to offer land managers, besides our sweat equity we can work together on super-ordinate goals, those that require the cooperation of both parties. These include: environmental awareness and protection, health, opportunities for family recreation, political support constituency for public lands and economic development.
• Success Breeds Success: Small accomplishments add up and create new, larger opportunities. It's just like riding. Forward momentum keeps us moving.

There are specific challenges to participating in partnership relationships. These include:

• Finding the right person to represent mountain bikers. The need for good communication and long-term commitment in public policy work is not for everyone. We need to cultivate leadership.
• Bureaucratic turnover. Often land manager leave or take new positions. It's important to work on smooth transitions where the positive working relationship is effectively transferred.
• Adapting to change. As goals and needs change, (for example our emergent need for technical features on trails) our partnerships need to adapt.

We share many values with land managers and we should seek out opportunities to partner to help them, to accomplish our needs and to achieve our goals.

Perhaps a rep from IMBA could/should get involved here. I've been a "paying" member for years and know others are/have been as well. While I am not hugely active they certainly seem to get involved in 'saving" other trails. Maybe time to step up and lend a hand here to ensure the mtb community in represented well in socal

per imba website looks like these are our guys
California Contacts - California IMBA State Representative

Tom Ward - California IMBA office
tom@imba.com

Daniel Greenstadt - South
daniel@SDMBA.com