HomeAnza Borrego General

Anything about Anza Borrego that does not fit into one of the other forums.

Proposed closures in ABSP, read and act now Messages in this topic - RSS

sddarkman619
sddarkman619
Posts: 153


6/2/2016
sddarkman619
sddarkman619
Posts: 153
I definitely don't want this happening.
http://www.modernhiker.com/2016/06/02/proposed-restrictions-to-hiking-in-anza-borrego/
link
dsefcik
dsefcik
Administrator
Posts: 2469


6/2/2016
dsefcik
dsefcik
Administrator
Posts: 2469
He did a nice write up on it...I actually submitted my concerns a week ago or so and recommend everyone else do the same. Thanks for posting..

--
http://www.sefcik.com
http://www.darensefcik.com
http://www.carrizogorge.com
link
tommy750
tommy750
Posts: 951


6/3/2016
tommy750
tommy750
Posts: 951
Just read the ABDSP Cultural Preserve Management Plan ( http://www.parks.ca.gov/pages/21299/files/final_abdsp_cultural_preserve_management_plan_112612.pdf ) and it provides careful case-by-case recommendations for all the varying preserves. Don't have any problems with that but blanket prohibitions on all "off trail" activities in preserves is dumb. And, I sent an email to the State and ditto Daren's recommendation.
+1 link
surfponto
surfponto
Administrator
Posts: 1268


6/3/2016
surfponto
surfponto
Administrator
Posts: 1268
Thank for sharing that

--
http://www.anzaborrego.net/



link
Florian
Florian
Posts: 129


6/4/2016
Florian
Florian
Posts: 129
I rather like the idea of having certain areas where people can't go. Especially if they are ecologically or culturally sensitive.

-Florian
link
Borregolinda
Borregolinda
Posts: 69


6/4/2016
Borregolinda
Borregolinda
Posts: 69
Florian wrote:
I rather like the idea of having certain areas where people can't go. Especially if they are ecologically or culturally sensitive.

-Florian[/quote

That means, for instance, that people could no longer climb around on rocks or walk up a wash, canyon, or ridge in any of our 8 cultural reserves. Think of hiking in Cougar or Sheep Canyon, primitive camping in Blair Valley, or rock climbing in Culp Valley. We and our park visitors would not be allowed to experience this park the way we have been invited to do since the park's establishment. It is also a law that would be virtually impossible for park peace officer rangers to enforce in a park so open and large.

This might be fine for a small park but not for our park. We want visitors to have the whole experience and for the most part they are respectful.
link
dsefcik
dsefcik
Administrator
Posts: 2469


6/5/2016
dsefcik
dsefcik
Administrator
Posts: 2469
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2016/jun/03/borrego-park-regulation-trials-access/

--
http://www.sefcik.com
http://www.darensefcik.com
http://www.carrizogorge.com
link
Buford
Buford
Posts: 333


6/6/2016
Buford
Buford
Posts: 333
Thanks for posting this. I just sent in comments, for whatever it's worth. There must be a better way than banning all off trail access in these areas. Hard to define what an official "trail" is in some of these areas to begin with.
link
surfponto
surfponto
Administrator
Posts: 1268


6/7/2016
surfponto
surfponto
Administrator
Posts: 1268
Very well put.

Borregolinda wrote:
Florian wrote:
I rather like the idea of having certain areas where people can't go. Especially if they are ecologically or culturally sensitive.

-Florian[/quote

That means, for instance, that people could no longer climb around on rocks or walk up a wash, canyon, or ridge in any of our 8 cultural reserves. Think of hiking in Cougar or Sheep Canyon, primitive camping in Blair Valley, or rock climbing in Culp Valley. We and our park visitors would not be allowed to experience this park the way we have been invited to do since the park's establishment. It is also a law that would be virtually impossible for park peace officer rangers to enforce in a park so open and large.

This might be fine for a small park but not for our park. We want visitors to have the whole experience and for the most part they are respectful.


--
http://www.anzaborrego.net/



link
rockhopper
rockhopper
Posts: 560


6/8/2016
rockhopper
rockhopper
Posts: 560
Hmmm, A few bad apples causing this perhaps?
link
surfponto
surfponto
Administrator
Posts: 1268


6/8/2016
surfponto
surfponto
Administrator
Posts: 1268
Here is the response I received.

Hi Robert, I received your email and have included more information on the recent Proposed Rulemaking for Natural and Cultural Reserves and Preserves. The proposed amendment to the California Code of Regulations (CCR) would prohibit off-trail use only within park units classified as State Cultural or Natural Reserves and subunits classified as Natural or Cultural Preserves. Existing CCRs regulate trail use, but not off-trail use, which can be detrimental to natural and cultural resources. There are approximately 99 reserves and preserves, comprising about 140,000 acres (9%) of the total 1.6 million acres of the entire state park system. The proposed regulation would not affect any other units or subunits.

Reserves and preserves are set aside because they have highly sensitive cultural or natural resources requiring an increased level of protection, such as a Native American burial ground or a perennial wetland. The proposed amendment allows continued use of trails, boardwalks and designated routes of travel within these units. Typically, these are designated by signs or maps or a combination of both. In some case, they have been identified in management plans. The proposed CCR will allow the Department to protect sensitive resources in these units while continuing to provide public access.

A public hearing is planned for San Diego on June 22 and will be confirmed once the location is secured. The Department will take comments starting at 6pm with a question and answer period beforehand. The written comment period closed at 5:00 p.m. on June 6. However, additional written comments can be submitted at the hearing. For a copy of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Initial Statement of Reasons, Proposed Text of Regulations, and how to comment, visit http://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=27460.

Thank you for your interest in the Rulemaking Process,
Alexandra Stehl


Alexandra Stehl
California State Parks
Roads and Trails Program Manager
Facilities Management Division
704 O Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
916-324-0322
Alexandra.Stehl@parks.ca.gov


--
http://www.anzaborrego.net/



+1 link
herofix
herofix
Posts: 30


6/8/2016
herofix
herofix
Posts: 30
Thanks Bob for your efforts on ALL our behalf. Unless the state can point to specific negative impacts occurring in the proposed closure areas, there is no legitimate reason to close them at this time. We'll be out of town on the 22nd or I'd be there for the hearing to add my voice.
link
surfponto
surfponto
Administrator
Posts: 1268


6/9/2016
surfponto
surfponto
Administrator
Posts: 1268
Here is the info on the June 22nd hearing :

TITLE 14. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
Off-Trail Use Restrictions for Preserves and Reserves

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

The California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) proposes to adopt the regulations described below after considering all comments, objectives, and recommendations regarding the proposed action.

PUBLIC HEARING

DPR has scheduled a public hearing on this proposed action. The hearing will be held at the San Diego County Operations Center, Hearing Room, 5520 Overland Avenue, San Diego, CA 93123 on June 22, 2016 starting at 6 pm and ending when either testimony has completed or no later than 8 pm. The meeting room is wheelchair accessible. At the hearing, any person may present statements or arguments orally or in writing relevant to the proposed actions described in the Informative Digest. DPR requires that persons making oral comments at the hearing also submit a written copy of their testimony at the hearing. DPR reserves the right to place time limits on speakers if needed to provide an opportunity for all to have a chance to present their information. DPR staff will be available from 5:30 pm until the hearing commences to answer questions regarding the proposed regulations.

AUTHORITY AND REFERENCE

Public Resources Code Sections 5003 and 5008 authorize DPR to adopt these proposed regulations. The proposed regulations implement, interpret, and make specific Public Resources Code Sections 5003, 5008, 5019.50, 5019.65, 5019.71, and 5019.74.

INFORMATION DIGEST/POLICY STATEMENT OVERVIEW

This rulemaking action clarifies and makes specific the authority for regulating off-trail use in Natural Preserves, Cultural Preserves, State Cultural Reserves, and State Natural Reserves within the California State Park System. Specifically the proposed regulations would prohibit all public use in these areas unless such use is on a trail, boardwalk or other designated route of travel, unless approved by DPR. These regulations will make it possible to better protect sensitive natural and cultural resources.

If you questions regarding the proposed regulations or the public hearing, please email Alexandra Stehl at trails@parks.ca.gov or call 916-324-0370.

Copies of the proposed text (the “express terms”) of the regulations, the initial statement of reasons, the modified text of the regulations, if any, and other information upon which the rulemaking is based can be found online at www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=27460.

AVAILABILITY OF STATEMENT OF REASONS, TEXT OF PROPOSED REGULATIONS, AND RULEMAKING FILE

DPR will have the entire rulemaking file available for inspection and copying throughout the rulemaking process at its office at the above address. As of the date of this notice, the rulemaking file consists of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the proposed text of the regulations, and the initial statement of reasons. These documents are available on line at www.parks.ca.gov.

*****END*****
edited by surfponto on 6/9/2016
edited by surfponto on 6/9/2016

--
http://www.anzaborrego.net/





link
Buford
Buford
Posts: 333


6/9/2016
Buford
Buford
Posts: 333
I got the same notice in my email. I am likely to show up. I don't have much hope. These things tend to steamroll through unless there is significant public outcry. Even then sometimes they have already decided, public comment is just for show.

I found actual boundary maps of the current cultural preserves, I'll post them later.

I am guessing the reason for this is because of damage like at Carey's castle in JT. Some people are the reason we can't have nice things.

I bet if SDG&E/Sempra wanted to run a power line through some of these areas they could get approved.
link
Borregolinda
Borregolinda
Posts: 69


6/9/2016
Borregolinda
Borregolinda
Posts: 69
Joshua Tree is a National Park.

And SDGE tried to put the Powerlink through Anza Borrego and we successfully kept that from happening.
edited by Borregolinda on 6/9/2016
link
surfponto
surfponto
Administrator
Posts: 1268


6/12/2016
surfponto
surfponto
Administrator
Posts: 1268
I remember those days ;-)

http://www.anzaborrego.net/Travel/AnzaBorrego/post/2007/02/10/No-Sunrise-Powerlink-through-Anza-Borrego

http://www.anzaborrego.net/Travel/AnzaBorrego/post/2008/05/13/Sunrise-Powerlink-Final-CPUC-Hearing


Borregolinda wrote:
Joshua Tree is a National Park.

And SDGE tried to put the Powerlink through Anza Borrego and we successfully kept that from happening.
edited by Borregolinda on 6/9/2016


--
http://www.anzaborrego.net/



link
Buford
Buford
Posts: 333


6/13/2016
Buford
Buford
Posts: 333
The best maps I could find of the CPs were here:
http://www.parks.ca.gov/pages/21299/files/final_abdsp_cultural_preserve_management_plan_112612.pdf

The maps start at page 97. The thing that concerns me is the wording.

Boardwalks, roads, and trails are one thing; even if what constitutes a trail is somewhat hazy. What are "other designated routes?" Did anyone see that info anywhere?

http://www.parks.ca.gov/pages/1324/files/proposed_ccr_language_web.pdf

Is the way into Cougar Canyon classified as a trail? A "designated route?" Or would foot travel there be banned? What about Mortero Palms to the trestle? Smuggler Canyon to Whale Peak? Even if those "routes" and others like them stay open, losing the ability to just simply walk around and explore is a big loss.

They will probably say that the CPs are only 8% of the park area, but it is a big portion of the most interesting areas to explore.

I know JT is national park with different governance and rules than the state parks. They recently enacted foot traffic closures there, and I wonder if the cause of the closure, and potential reasoning behind them is the same in Anza-Borrego.

About the Powerlines, I know public outcry was the only reason the routing was better for the park. Sorry I didn't word that clearly at all.
link
Borregolinda
Borregolinda
Posts: 69


6/17/2016
Borregolinda
Borregolinda
Posts: 69
This just in! Good for ABDSP!

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2016/jun/17/borrego-park-regulation-change/
edited by Borregolinda on 6/17/2016
+1 link
tommy750
tommy750
Posts: 951


6/17/2016
tommy750
tommy750
Posts: 951
Borregolinda wrote:
This just in! Good for ABDSP!

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2016/jun/17/borrego-park-regulation-change/
edited by Borregolinda on 6/17/2016


Thanks for the update. Definitely good news. 👍
link






Powered by Jitbit Forum 8.3.8.0 © 2006-2013 Jitbit Software