Irvine Ranch Conservancy position on Santiago Oaks SORP 10 Trail

Received today from Dave at IRC re Santiago Oaks SORP 10 Trail:

Hello Irvine Ranch Conservancy staff and volunteers,

There has been some information circulating via e-mail that the Irvine Ranch Conservancy is responsible for the recommended closure of SORP 10 trail in Santiago Oaks. The individual that is circulating the information did call me and discussed the trail closure with me. However, this individual chose to only hear what she wanted to hear and has subsequently started spreading incorrect information.

I would like to openly and in writing give all of you the Irvine Ranch Conservancy’s position on SORP 10 trail:

We did: Openly back the County’s recommendation to close the trail. The reasons include the following:
The County considers SORP 10 an illegal trail
The trail was determined unsafe and unsustainable by an outside trail building contractor (hired by the County).
It is a duplicate trail causing habitat fragmentation.
More than 95% of the existing trails were to be adopted in Santiago Oaks
The trail is the entry point for numerous non-sanctioned trails and unmanaged access into Weir (this became very apparent after the windy ridge fire when the trails became exposed and the fence was repeatedly cut even after repairs)

We did not:
Become involved until the County asked us if we agreed with their closure recommendation. Recommended prior to our involvement.
Ask the County to close the trail

SORP 10 is a County trail in a County facility and the decision for open/closure of it is 100% a County decision. If the County recommends closure, the Irvine Ranch Conservancy supports that decision 100%. We did not seek that recommendation nor were we involved in it. We simply agreed with their recommendation.

Thank you.

Dave Raetz
Director, Public Programs
Irvine Ranch Conservancy

P.S. If any of you have received the e-mail chain with the incorrect information feel free to forward this e-mail to the recipients so they may also get the correct information.

 

Can someone clean this up so we can all read it!

 

Seems like some mixed messages being sent out there.

 

Sometimes I'm to bored for my own good.

 

What trail is it??? :?:

 

We use to call it Widow Maker...it is a steeper trail off the top that connects you to the back Weir Canyon Loop...most of us are asking for it to be reestablished.

 

IRC stating that SORP 10 is illegal

MAYBE THE IRC SHOULD DO SOME RESEARCH....IT WAS and IS NOT AN ILLEGAL TRAIL...IT WAS PART OF THE BARHAM RANCH AQUISITION. ROGER BELL MADE NOTE THAT IT WAS ILLEGAL BUT THE COUNTY NEVER SAID IT WAS ILLEGAL.

FYI: THE IRC FENCE LINE STRETCHES ALONG MOST OF THE TRAILS IN SANTIAGO OAKS....THERE ARE SEVERAL SPOTS THAT COULD ALLOW TRESPASSERS ONTO THEIR PROPERTY....MAYBE THEY NEED TO PATROL TO CUT DOWN ON THAT HAPPENING...HAND OUT A FEW SPENDY TICKETS AND I BET THOSE FEW THAT REFUSE TO FOLLOW THE RULES WILL THINK TWICE?

 

Oh! Dead kitty! Now I know... :beer:

 

Hi Sherry,

As a volunteer with IRC, I'm merely passing on their position and clarification re this trail.

I suggest you communicate your comments to Dave.

 

I have no problem with getting this info out to the public...I was actually happy to hear that they had not suggested it be closed since at past meetings with the County we were told it was the IRC requesting it...many users of the park do not feel they should be punished by having that trail taken out of the trail system because of those that choose to poach. Unfortuneatley, Poachers will Poach...unless there is some kind of enforcement. From what I understand Dave is and has been in contact with the issues at the park with Adam M., the rangers and Mark Denney.

The final report will be presented at the meeting on April 30th...at that point we will find out if we get to keep that trail or if it's being removed due to it's close proximity to the IRC fence line which has been being told at the meetings.

 

Another important reason to be at that April 30 meeting.

 

Do you mean people still poach there after pics were posted on STR outing the offenders?

How can that be?

Sarcasm aside, I will try to make the meeting.

C

 

Dave said they are patrolling it and are evaluating citations. People claim trespassing is not occuring here but the IRC staff doing the day-to-day work disagree. The trail is overgrown with Mustard now, but once it is dead, people will be back on it.

 

I have people come into my shop all the time talking about riding out there in the IRC....I tell them it's illegal and they are riding in the conservancy...that it is a BIG Fine if caught...but I have to say...most just smile and shrug me off...that is why I would LOVE for citations to be written and up the patrols! What upsets me the most is that we might loose a trail in a County park because of those Poaching the IRC....bummer for those of us that follow the rules!!!

 

I think it’s time to chip in and correct some miss-information.

The post is miss-leading and for some reason people seem to have the impression that the IRC drove the recommendation for the trail closure. This is not correct

The IRC simply answered a question posed by the county as to if they would be in support of the permanent closure of SORP 10 if that was the county’s final decision. Their support of the county’s decision may not be to the liking of some users, but it’s no reason for anger.

The county already had four reasons, and the IRC simply commented on a fifth reason; that the trail was a jump-off point for a number of detrimental non-sanctioned trails that traversed directly into the highly protected and recovering burn area of Weir, and a continual source of vandalism of fence-lines and signage.

People need to be aware that the acquisition of Barham Ranch by the county did not automatically guarantee the inclusion of every existing trail in the area. Just like Aliso-Woods, Laguna Coast, the City of Irvine Area……and now Santiago Oaks; whenever previously privately held property gets incorporated into public lands…..(especially if the area has been signed into the NCCP or similar habitat protection process); the existing trails are surveyed and determinations are made as to the final inventory of legitimate trails that are compatible with the area. This is all that is taking place at SORP….nothing more…..nothing less.

Long before Roger Bell was hired to survey the trails for the SORP, the county had already placed “closed” signs on that particular trail, so it appears that it was already deemed to be off the inventory by the county. The IRC simply supports that position and decision of the county.

I think the user groups really need to take a look at all of the successes in the various areas and realize that the vast majority of previously non-inventoried trails have been adopted into these areas…..and to expect 100% of the trails to be compatible with the area and to be adopted is unrealistic.

We need to simply look at more factual information and not resort to anecdotal comments. The SORP 10 trail had never been formally listed as an authorized trail and the county probably has several sound reasons for taking it off the proposed trail list. It does receive a lot of unauthorized use (even with the county “closed” signs, and even though with the short annual growth it does not appear to get much use……….look at the SC Single-Tracks for example), and people have vandalized the county “closed” sign in the past.

There are way too many positive things happening in all of the parks and wildlands that make this type of anger puzzling to me.

In the recent past:
Stairsteps was legalized
Laguna Ridge was legalized
Emerald Falls was legalized
Car Wreck is being considered
Corridor is being considered
Lizards is being considered
Stagecoach South from the Nix Center was added
Stagecoach South connector to Willow is in the process
Stagecoach North and the seven day connector to Serrano Ridge will soon be opened
Five out of the Six existing single-track in the City of Irvine Space were adopted (Rabbit Run, Fox Run, Cattle Crest, Ridge Route, and Shady Oaks)
The Quail Trail connector to Serrano Ridge was added
Probably 95% or more of the SORP trails will be adopted, and it appears that the technical alignments will be maintained.

The negativity puzzles me over one out of the dozen or so trails in SORP.

Everyone should clearly speak their mind at the afforded meetings, but just please be factual, leave the anger outside, and be reasonable if things don’t go according to your liking. No one will ever be 100% satisfied in these situations.

There are quite a few trails in O.C. that I would love to see opened, but since the county has deemed them to be not included in the trail inventory; I simply accept it and realize that the vast majority of trails have been approved, and more are being considered for the future; so I look at the positive and not the negative.

Just some thoughts

Thanks!

 

Wow that's hard to read.

 

Sorry......I fixed it as soon as I realized it #-o

 

Jamr - I don't want this to come off as a smartass response to your post. I truly respect the efforts you personally put forth to further mountain bike access in So Cal. I wish I could say I do a small fraction, but I can't help but feel there is a slight conflict of interest (that may be too harsh a phrase) given your position.

I suppose Rosa Parks should have been satisfied with a seat at the back of the bus and reflected on how fortunate she was to even have a seat. Clearly this is not a comparable analogy but I would hope that it illustrates the reality that we do not have to accept anything less than what we deserve. These are not the government's parks. They are yours and mine. These officials are accountable to us. Let's not forget that.

C

 

You lost me at the conflict of interest? Have no clue what you meant by that; unless you mean that in spite of my position or personal feelings on a particular trail, I'll still uphold the decision on that trail. That's just my personal standard. I may not personally like some particular trail closures, but I certainly won't just look the other way if I see people using them, or if I personally know someone using them. I have a few friends and acquaintances who can vouch for that.

I'm just pointing out some miss-conceptions and miss-statements showing up on the posts.

As far as "our parks"....yes, that's true; however these public wilderness parks that are signatory to the NCCP have guidelines that need to be followed and are accountable to local, state and federal agencies......so it's not always just as easy as what the user groups want that determines a particular trail. Basically the way the NCCP is written, the habitat protection is the first and foremost goal of the signatory areas; however it does allow for passive recreation where that recreation is not detrimental to the system.

Just trying to correct some statements that might be miss-leading people who may not know that particular area or trail.
The SORP 10 trail was previously signed Closed by the county prior to Bellfree being contacted to survey the system. Illegal trail might not the the best terminology, but it certainly was not an adopted trail that is now being taken away. It's basically an undertermined trail that apparently is leaning towards closure rather than adoption.....probably with sound reasoning behind it for several reasons.
The IRC did not generate a request for closure, they simply answered the question asked by the county on a trail already signed as closed, but did indicate their support for the restoration of that trail back to habitat.

Also, the idea that the trail was not getting used based on the current heavy brush is purely anecdotal. I've spent the last 6 weeks just trying to keep ahead of the mowing on ranch roads and trails. If we had not spent the entire week prior to the Irvine Open Space Wilderness Access Day mowing and brushing the trails....none of the single tracks would have been ride-able. The mustard bolts heavy and fast this time of year and can consume a trail in less than three weeks.

Just trying to keep in the forefront the successes that have occurred locally and the amount of great trails that are available for riding........and to point out that expecting 100% access to all trails is not realistic (it would be great, but not likely).

I basically just look at the averages and know that we have gained much more than we have lost in O.C., and more trails are still in the works to be potentially added in many areas.

It's just not an issue IMO that warrants anger or disrespect.

Again....just show up at the meetings, state your positions and be happy for your successes; but also be realistic in the knowledge that there will periodically be compromises and losses.

SORP is no different than any other area that has undergone a similar trail review.....Aliso-Woods is going through it, Laguna Coast went through it, Irvine Open Space Preserve went through it, etc.....and in every area there were trails gained and trails lost.

It's just a fact of life.....but it's how we handle those gains and losses that either gives us credibility as a group, or lessens us as a group.

There's nothing wrong with disagreement. It's just how we handle that disagreement that counts. I've said it many times on these posts....we can simply agree to disagree, but just do it with respect and without accusations.

Lots of good points are always brought to light on threads like these and people learn and grow from them.

We need to just focus on the positive also.....not just the negative.

Thanks Again!