Proposed Ban of Off-Trial Hiking in all CA State Parks

Here's what I've written--you're welcome to copy or modify these:


1. While some areas are likely to be incompatible with public access, this proposal abolishes reasonable and sustainable access and use of less sensitive areas included in these protected areas.
2. We need more public access to wild areas, not less. Sure, there are far more lands that would still provide for access than what would be closed through this amendment, but people need to experience these special areas too.
3. I would rather see increased efforts towards public education about how to experience these areas in a manner that is consistent with their protection than this blanket prohibition.
4. Please identify those areas that really are incompatible with unfettered public access; some may allow for limited access (eg via boardwalks or on a seasonal basis), while others may not allow for any.

Note that Public Resources Code, Section 5003 states that, “The department shall administer, protect, develop, and interpret the property under its jurisdiction for the use and enjoyment of the public.” Obviously, this does not mean “use and enjoyment” without regard to our responsibility to protect and manage these resources.

Grumbling, by the way, about having to walk a little further to access your local crag is hard to support! Just because we've trashed an area doesn't mean that restoration efforts are pointless.

Pete

This sounds like it had Centers For Biological Diversity written all over it.

Pete, solid contribution. I'll certainly incorporate some of that language in my response.

So, Having read the prosed amendment, statement of reasons etc. I have this to say

1) there are currently NO statewide rules about "off trail" activities in State Parks. There need to be some rules to set at least a baseline in all protected areas. They have protected status for a reason, to preserve them with minimal human disturbance for future generations.

2) the proposed rules as they stand are pretty limited. I have to seriously question anyone who goes off trail in a protected preserve or reserve. If off trail use is allowed, then what is the point of its protected status (outside of its status as a regular State Park)

3) I have seen enough damage from off trail activities in non-protected areas of State Parks to think that there definitely need to be some baseline rules in place, even in non-protected areas.

4) If you don't agree with the proposed language you should suggest changes to it. Don't just say that you don't like it say what you think would be more appropriate.

5) If you want to provide official comment for the rule making record email: trails@parks.ca.gov. While you are welcome to email you state representatives etc, this is not a proposed law, so the California Legislature has really nothing to do with it. It is a regulation that is adopted by DPR itself.

It is important to understand these processes bureaucratic though they may be. Working in the bureaucracy I can tell you that a bunch of flame mail without specific objections and suggestions will not mean much (it will all go into the record for consideration, but they can only substantively consider specific suggestions ).

Objectively, I don't think that just saying you don't want this rule will help much. There has been a determination that some rule(s) are needed. The open question during this comment period is what the specific language of those rules should be.

Grumpy Gym Climber wrote: 4) If you don't agree with the proposed language you should suggest changes to it. Don't just say that you don't like it say what you think would be more appropriate.

I think it would be appropriate to make no changes to the existing rules.

in reply to grumpy:

1. No statewide rule is needed. All preserves are not the same. All 30,000 acres of Coyote Canyon Preserve is not sensitive. All the acreage of the preserves in Red Rock Canyon is not sensitive. All 4757 acres of Blair Valley is not sensitive. All 1277 acres of Culp Valley is not sensitive. In fact the local experts on Culp Valley determined in the 2012 Cultural Preserve Mgmt Plan: " Rock climbing is popular here in the form of bouldering, which does not require permanent equipment mounted to the rock face. Bouldering activity has not shown evidence of impact to the cultural resources and appears to be an appropriate form of recreation within this cultural preserve zone, and will be monitored to regularly assess conditions." parks.ca.gov/?page_id=21314

2. If the point of a preserve were to make it off limits to humans, that would have been explicitly stated when these preserves were created. What is actually happening is a fundamental change to the rules on these areas hatched in a backroom scheme.

3. The land managers are already able to restrict use where they see a significant damaging impact. No new statewide rule is needed.

4. Yes please do comment.

5. Actually the legislature does have control over this issue. They passed the laws setting up these preserves and did NOT include a ban on off-trail use. This rule is an attempt to usurp the meaning and intent of the legislature.

6) This ill thought rule is NOT obviously determined to be needed. The reasons for it include such wildly wrong statements as:
"Changes to regulations regarding trail use in reserves and preserves will result in only minor changes in costs to the State Park System, and will not have any costs or savings to any business, individual or governmental organization." Obviously wrong since the cost to enforce this rule is enormous.
"Currently, the only way the Department can regulate off-trail use is by an order of the District Superintendent." Obviously wrong since many locations have their own management plans that determine where off-trail use is appropriate.

Is the source (person/persons) of this proposed rule change known and can it be published here so that these individuals may be engaged, their motivations better understood, the strengths or weaknesses of their proposal discussed directly?

bernard wrote:Is the source (person/persons) of this proposed rule change known and can it be published here so that these individuals may be engaged, their motivations better understood, the strengths or weaknesses of their proposal discussed directly?

I doubt you could discuss/argue with the individual state employees this proposal, but they have this comment period where you can, uh, comment. Here is the basis for the proposal:

parks.ca.gov/pages/1324/fil…

I'm a frequent user of our California State Parks. I've reviewed the proposals for changes to the rules regarding Off-Trail use in preserves and reserves in the state. While I understand and support the need to protect sensitive areas in the state, I feel the changes go much too far.

The decisions regarding which areas require a complete ban on off-trail access should be unique to each preserve and reserve and should be made following an analysis of the specific location and the impact of current use patterns in that area. Many of the preserves in the state have already done such analysis and concluded that off-trail use is not a threat to conservation efforts.

Reviewing the rationale from this document parks.ca.gov/pages/1324/fil… I have some more specific comments.

Currently, the only way the Department can prevent access to and provide protection of these resources is through an annual order of the District Superintendent. These orders are temporary and must be issued annually. Adoption of this regulation will permanently and more effectively prohibit off trail travel. Continued use of the annual District Superintendent order is both less effective and less efficient. The adoption of these regulations is the most reasonable approach to solve the problem of resource damage caused by off-trail use in these areas.

I specifically disagree with the rationale in this passage of the proposal. While I accept that some areas may require stricter protection than currently afforded by the current ruleset, I disagree that the proposed changes are "the most reasonable approach". A permanent restriction of off-trail use at ALL areas is an unreasonably strict solution. As the proposal mentions, Reserves and Preserves already have a tool for limiting off trail use, which is annual orders by the District Superintendent. Perhaps the DPR could look at which Reserves and Preserves have identified a need to limit off-trail use and are currently utilizing these annual orders. If the burden of annually re-issuing orders is too great, then the rules could be modified to allow the Superintendent to issue a 5 year order restricting off-trail use for a specific area. Preserves that have already done the analysis and concluded that off-trail use is not a significant threat to conservation should not be automatically blanketed in under this ruling.

No specific studies were completed for this proposed amendment process as the need for protection of the sensitive resources has been established as part of the unit classification process.

While the classification of an area as a preserve or reserve does establish the need for protection of the resources there, it does not follow that the best way to do so is to completely restrict off-trail use. If the point of a preserve were to make it off limits to humans, that would have been explicitly stated when these preserves were created. Adding restrictions to access does not need to be made on a state-wide level without regard for the unique aspects of each preserve and reserve.

Changes to regulations regarding trail use in reserves and preserves will result in only minor changes in costs to the State Park System, and will not have any costs or savings to any business, individual or governmental organization. The only costs will be for signing regarding the regulations, will be minimal and will come out of normal budgeted funds. These regulations do not change the cost of doing work in reserves and preserves, but merely make for best practices in managing the preserves and reserves for protection of resources and public enjoyment and education.

Finally, I do not agree that this change will be free. Enforcement of these rules would be difficult and costly, especially in the large desert preserves.

Thanks for you time, I hope you will consider these comments and suggestions

In the hopes that this might be helpful to others who are inclined to respond, I've pasted a copy of my letter sent earlier today. Good suggested language from everyone so far. I like to think that there are enough climbers out there nowadays to exert sufficient political will when organized. Let's see if we can muster enough comments to have an impact.

my letter

page 2

Pete.N wrote: Grumbling, by the way, about having to walk a little further to access your local crag is hard to support! Just because we've trashed an area doesn't mean that restoration efforts are pointless. Pete

I guess it all depends on how far you need to walk? So its not ok to grumble about a extra mile? How about 5 extra miles? How about 15 extra miles?

When is it OK to Grumble?????

but its OK to grumble, if you never get to trod on the sacred dirt again.

Here's the latest. There will be a public hearing on the matter: (DPR=Department of Parks and Recreation)

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.

Update: parks.ca.gov/?page_id=27460

The California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) has initiated a second public comment period for the draft California Code of Regulation regarding off-trail restrictions in preserves and reserves within the state park system. This proposed regulation was included in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published on April 8, 2016. Amendments have been made to the draft regulations based on comments received. The amended regulation is attached and also available on the DPR website at parks.ca.gov/trails.

In summary, amendments were made to proposed Section 4325, Title 14, Chapter 1 to clarify where the regulation will apply and the manner by which the Department will designate areas of Natural Preserves, Cultural Preserves, State Cultural Reserves, or State Natural Reserves open for off trail use.

Any interested person or their authorized representative may submit written comments relevant to the proposed regulatory action to DPR by email to trails@parks.ca.gov. Comments may also be submitted by facsimile (FAX) at (916) 324-0301 or by mail to:

Lisa Mangat, Director
California Department of Parks and Recreation
P.O. Box 942896
Sacramento, CA 94296

The comment period closes at 5 pm on Wednesday, January 18, 2017. DPR will consider only comments received at DPR offices by that time.

Inquiries may be made at trails@parks.ca.gov or by phone at (916) 324-0423.

http://www.parks.ca.gov/pages/1324/files/Revised%20CCR%204325.final.docx

Just got this email update as well..

"Proposed Amendment to replace repealed CCR Section 4325, Title 14, Chapter 1

Section 4325 Off Trail Restrictions - Preserves and Reserves

(a) No person shall leave designated trails or, board walks or other designated routes of travel in Natural Preserves, Cultural Preserves, State Cultural Reserves, or State Natural Reserves within the California State Park System, unless approved by the Department.

(b) Notwithstanding (a), the entirety or portions of Natural Preserves, Cultural Preserves, State Cultural Reserves, or State Natural Reserves may be open to off-trail access:
(1) on routes of travel that have been shown in a general plan or management plan or adopted in a similar process;
(2) in an area that has been designated open for off-trail use by the park unit’s general plan or a specific management plan;
(3) or, on a route of travel or in an area that the District Superintendent designates open for off-trail use by posted order after determining that off-trail use is important for public access and where it has been determined that impacts to the resources for which the park unit was established will not be significant.

(cb) Section (a) shall not restrict Department employees or their agents for the purpose of management, including but not limited to such as research, enforcement, rescue, or educational programs.

Note: Authority cited: Sections 5003 and 5008, Public Resources Code. Reference: Sections 5003, 5008, 5019.50, 5019.65, 5019.71, and 5019.74. Public Resources Code"

Edit: the formatting got lost. Click the attachment at the end of Allen's post above.

So.. if I'm reading correctly the amendments based our comments change basically nothing. Not very inspiring.

Nathanael wrote:So.. if I'm reading correctly the amendments based our comments change basically nothing. Not very inspiring.

No the text has changed significantly all of part (b) is new and gives the superintendent flexibility (3). As well as allows off trail in (1) and (2) via management plan.

IMHO the parks heard us and have added to the rule making. Folks should now be talking with the superintendent at specific locations about climbing and off trail usage.

Allen Sanderson wrote: No the text has changed significantly all of part (b) is new and gives the superintendent flexibility (3). As well as allows off trail in (1) and (2) via management plan. IMHO the parks heard us and have added to the rule making. Folks should now be talking with the superintendent at specific locations about climbing and off trail usage.

Thank you for clarifying this. I didn't realize part (b) was new, I though it was just the small corrections to part (a). I see now that giving the local superintendent some oversight/control is definitely a step in the right direction.

Although the text has changed, this is still an unacceptable means of accomplishing their stated goal.

It seems that the rational for this regulation is that the District Superintendent must annual issue an annual order covering the sensitive areas/parks. Doing so each year is requires little effort or change (except to the extent they wish to include new parks/areas). At most, this is an inconvenience, not a hindrance.

Now, each Park unit must prepare and issue (and presumably justify - is a EIS required?) a specific exemption to the general rule. Many Parks will determine that this will be expensive and time consuming to accomplish.

If each Park unit can be allowed to provide specific exemptions, why can't each park be empowered to create specific closures/restrictions?

This is a sledge hammer solution, where a more flexible and subtle approach will permit striking a more nuanced balance of interests.

Randy wrote:Although the text has changed, this is still an unacceptable means of accomplishing their stated goal. It seems that the rational for this regulation is that the District Superintendent must annual issue an annual order covering the sensitive areas/parks. Doing so each year is requires little effort or change (except to the extent they wish to include new parks/areas). At most, this is an inconvenience, not a hindrance. Now, each Park unit must prepare and issue (and presumably justify - is a EIS required?) a specific exemption to the general rule. Many Parks will determine that this will be expensive and time consuming to accomplish. If each Park unit can be allowed to provide specific exemptions, why can't each park be empowered to create specific closures/restrictions? This is a sledge hammer solution, where a more flexible and subtle approach will permit striking a more nuanced balance of interests.

Hey Randy,

There is no annual requirement in the text so I am not sure where you are reading that. I read it is that the superintendent can issue the order and it stands. In many ways this is good because doing a management plan as you note can take a long time.

It was vaguely explained at the public meeting in San Diego last summer that this issue started due to people not staying on the trail in the Hidden Divide Natural Preserve, which is only a 1 mile easy walk from the upper tram station on San Jacinto, where thousands visit each month.
Somehow people were able to claim their tickets for illegal hiking were invalid due to the yearly 12 month closure order not being proper.

The administration, legality, and enforcement of these orders must be found elsewhere in state law, which is what needs to be fixed, not these specific sections.
[edit:] It's probably similar to closures such as some in the national forests that have to be renewed yearly.

Now Cal Parks wants to reverse the situation.
The default status for all reserves and preserves will be no off-trail use.
[edit:] And each location not allowing off-trail use by a general plan may have to file a yearly exemption to allow any off-trail use, a process they have already admitted doesn't work properly. Many locations will just go with the default status: no off-trail use.