cxagent

Phone call finished up. They had addressed 2 of the 4 issues. The BCP staff will work on the third issue to improve my suggested wording. I am fine with a wording change if the keep the intent. My intent is to recognize there is a lot of data, including the BCP's own data, that shows that public access does NOT harm the endangered species (warbler in this case). Other species, like plants, may not have such a positive impact if the public allowed to use the tract. The forth issue is the toughest one. The current document defines 'authorized trails as trails shown on the map in the Tier III land management plan'. There is a problem with that statement - I can find only ONE Tier III land management plan that has a map at all. The 1999 Emma Long Tier III Land Management Plan contains the only trail map I can find. None of the 2007 Tier III plans include maps. BCP staff says they reference the 1999 plan for "background information". I don't think that reference carries any weight, it is only reference for "background information". Even the Emma Long 2007 plan (which could reference the 1999 plan and say it incorporated the same map), appears to indicate that no trails are authorized since there are no trails shown on the map. This kind of "confusion" has bit us several times in the past. We will meet again to try to hash this out. In the mean time I will prepare comments for the Coordinating Committee meeting that can be "recommend approval" or "recommend disapproval" depending on these final two issues. I will post more info late today. If you can attend the meeting on Friday - your voice will help. Remember, the trails you save may be your own.

Double check that time. Normally they do meet 10:00AM to 12:00PM. This meeting is scheduled for 1:00PM to 3:00PM according to the agenda that was just posted at http://www.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=310880

Please contact them if you have time. There has been a major management change at LCRA so I can't even point you the current Park manager. Keep in mind ARR spent a lot of time and effort to get this far and there is a lot of work ahead. Also keep in mind that big agencies like this are pretty risk adverse. That can change over time but it is a slow process.

I am posting to bring this thread back to the front page. Comments have been submitted by many people. BCP staff have been far better at addressing the comments than I have ever seen. But - and its a big but. I am down to four changes that have not been made that would mean I would NOT support this revision. The basis for the issue is the BCP assumes that any/all public access is harmful to the endangered species. Their own data shows that assumption to be false. There is a phone call on 12/3/18 to discuss why these changes have not been made. After that phone call I will be posting info so all can make their own decision. Why am I waiting? BCP staff has been much much better at trying to work thru issues and find compromises. I think it is only fair to give them a chance to work these last issues before unleashing the public on them. (I know - I am such a sucker.)

Only if you plan to walk some. Those first couple of gravelly climbs would make SS tough. There are some other places too. Most of it would be fine on a SS That said - if I don't know the trail I would default to a geared bike. Gears give me options. But that is just me.

Yes but not *useful* tools.

Back to McKinney Roughs - I thought your report was valid but missed some of the issues. The biggest issue is that LCRA has opened the area to MTB use. They got beat about the head and shoulders by the horse riders and such who don't want bicycles in THEIR park / trails. I give LCRA a lot of credit for starting the process to make McKinney Roughs a good MTB area. Even though it will take years. The 'main horse trails' like Youpon are beaten to death by the horses. The hoof prints in mud make the trail surface like riding post holes. That trail has potential as a MTB trail but it would need major work. And that work could be destroyed by horses. I would just leave most of that trail the horses. The area that Youpon loops around has major potential for great MTB trail. At the moment, I cannot connect the MTB trails into a loop. Some of the trails are closed to MTB because LCRA thinks they are too tough for MTB (e.g. closed section of Pine Ridge I agree that many people could get in big trouble on those sections). Another major connection is closed due to a washout of the trail in the floods a couple of years ago. LCRA is working to build a bridge across that area but it will be years if ever before that is done. The Ridge trail is closed to MTB because LCRA is reserving that one trail for ADA (wheelchair) use. It is easy to work around that one except for the Woodland trail which became 'hiking only' because Ridge is currently the only access. Some trails were clearly marked when we installed signs last year. Then in the spring, a BUNCH of brush was bull dozed and now I can't find a trail. It all looks like an open meadow with some brown sign post scattered about. I suspect this may change soon. Overall I look at McKinney Roughs as major potential. I could ride there if I wanted. But if I was going to drive that far and pay an entrance I would probably go on to Rocky Hill. Generally speaking, this is not currently a good MTB trail system. It does not form a loop I can ride. Most of the trails are either too easy for me to enjoy or too hard for a newer MTB'r to enjoy. Given time and incentive this could become a great riding area by building new trails.

I would say Barry nailed it. Grelle has some good trails but they are hard to access. I will say that Grelle has HUGE potential. There is a lot of area that desperately needs trail thru it (see map). Keep in mind that LCRA only recently opened McKinney Roughs, Grelle and Shaffer Bend to MTB. Allowing MTB is a good start but it does not by itself make for a great trail system. That takes time, effort and a lot of work. Generally speaking the existing trails are existing jeep roads, horse trails or hiking trails that LCRA will allow MTB to use. Each use has its own conflict with MTB use. Like horses digging up the trail tread. If you go ride Grelle, here are some tips - You can find a map at - https://www.lcra.org/parks/Documents/parkmaps/Grelle-Recreation-Area-Map.pdf Park at the Horse Trail Head (blue gate on the right before your get to Park Host trailer or main entrance). You have to ride Fox Run to get to the better trails. It is a gravelly jeep road with some large climbs. Before you get to the top of the 2nd / last climb, turn left onto Comanche Trail for the shortest entrance to good trail. Don't worry about that black diamond rating - it was for one marginal spot that has been "improved". But if your turn left at the next intersection, you might find some un-mapped trail that deserves a black diamond. Keep an eye out for some un-mapped trail that is REALLY good but dead ends at the moment. You don't want just anybody riding some of that. 😉 Don't try to ride Wild Turkey Trail from the lake. It is closed to MTB due to all the steps. It would be ridable by someone who can track stand to recover their balance before continuing the climb, but LCRA does not want it open to just anybody. We have cleared and marked a new connection from the camping area to the horse area that is beginner friendly. Unfortunately that dumps a beginner out at the gravel climbs of Fox Tail so a beginner-ish MTB ends up walking a lot to get to anything they might enjoy riding. Cottontail, Mustang Ridge and Overlook are the best MTB trails IMHO. Most of the rest are jeep roads or connections. That would be about 5 miles of good trail. So use the pass you paid for to stop at Muleshoe for a lap or two to get good ride for the entrance fee. They are on the same pass. But it is not the same pass as Pace Bend or Reimers Ranch.

HMMM. Two of us marked most of the trail. At the top of Well Worth It we pointed arrows across the jeep road and then one on the other side as confirmation. We may need to ride the trail just before to make sure there have not been some "tampering". Trail work is trimming face slappers and draining/filling mud pits on the trail. Pretty minor overall but important to open the trail quickly after a rain.

The big question is - is that generation ahead of us or behind us???

I voted for and against several of the bonds. Some I thought were appropriate ways to finance improvements. Unfortunately, the way they were mixed together appeared to be done intentionally to make them pass. Just some general comments - I would vote FOR items like buying land for parks, affordable housing, water quality protection. Every year that passes means there is less and less opportunities to capture that land. And the cost of the land will continue to rise. I would vote against "affordable housing" that was a "welfare handout". If 'we' give money today to a homeless person, they will need another handout tomorrow and next week and next year and next decade. And 'we' will need more and more and more money to pay for those handouts. Conversely, if we teach that person to earn a living, they can support themselves from now on. And that person will pay taxes to help pay for other improvements and infrastructure. And it quickly becomes clear who needs a hand up (education) and who wants a handout (welfare). One way to help with "affordable housing" would be to reduce the cost and red tape to build houses. When construction is shut down waiting weeks or even months for a City inspection, the cost is passed on to the consumer/buyer. Yes, I personally have experience with this problem. To keep this short, I waited six months for an inspection to be approved when the inspector was pulling requirements from a code the City of Austin had not adopted. I had to get an interpretation from the code writing body that the adopted code has no such requirement. Even that code body laughed at the inspector's "requirement" that duct smoke detectors were required in outdoor air ducts. And I sent an invoice for several thousand dollars to the building owner since I had to spend my time to "fix" the inspector's interpretation.

Does it work?

If you have to ride when it is wet - City Park is the place to do it. You won't hurt the trail any more than it is already being hurt. My biggest reason I don't ride it wet is I slip and fall too much on the wet rocks.

The public meeting location for today (10/24) has been announced - we’ll be convening at the cottage at Mayfield Park at 3305 W 35th St., Austin, TX 78703. Quoted from above - There is public review meeting from 6:00 PM to 7:30 PM on 10/24/2018. The location will be announced later.

Yes - repeatedly. And the answer is that "there are no changes, they just cleaned it up and made it clearer" and that they only quoted the Habitat Conservation Plan (founding document for the BCCP). Pam LeBlanc wrote a really good summary in the December 4, 2017 Statesman article. It highlights the differences in what staff said and what the public saw.

I have finished my review of the BCP public access land management plan. It is ugly. This "new" draft is a copy of the 2017 version with more "fluff" added. The 2017 draft removed 16 different statements that grandfathered use of parklands that were allowed to be placed in to the BCP with one statement that said [... Grandfathered uses allow continued public access at the same level as were occurring in 1996. However, as stated in USFWS (1996) "management plans for existing parks and preserves which will be included in the BCCP preserve system will need to conform with BCCP management guidelines, goals and policies."] (Square brackets used to indicate a quote itself since the quote included quotation marks) I am getting myself armed with lots of data, information and history. This looks like a repeat of the 2007 attempt by the BCP that was rejected. Then repeated in 2017 when the draft was so bad it never even went to a vote of the Coordinating Committee. There is a meeting next week with BCP staff to try to work out some of the issues and get corrections made. I will not release my comments to the public until after that meeting so the BCP staff has a chance to make improvements. If they do not agree to major improvements we will need anyone who wants to keep existing public access to dedicated parklands that were allowed to be put into the BCP to make their comments known. Those parklands include Emma Long, Barton Creek, Bull Creek, St Edwards and more.

I am going to have to use that one. Thanks mack_turtle!

I agree with you on this one cls. But others have their opinion on where / what / how to ride. I think everybody should be free to make their own mistakes^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H decisions. I tried earbuds once and only once. On a road bike on the sidewalk / urban trail. I doubt I made 1/4 mile before I took them out. I was getting ready for the MS150 where I thought I could listen to music or an audio book 'while the miles rolled by'. It just didn't work for me.

You asked what is rideable? At this point I would say the stationary bike.

I met the PARD District Manager for South Austin last night. The first question he asked me when he figured out who I was "Who built the trail behind the Circle C houses?" He 'reminded me' that any trail building is supposed to have permission from PARD or the land manager. I told him that some of us are building trails after we get permission but not everybody follows that method. And when it takes 5 years to get permission like it did for the main trail of the BCGB, I can understand why they feel that way. After working that out, we had a pretty good conversation. And surprisingly, the permission for maintaining the BCGB trail was emailed to me last night, Yes - the permission I have been working on since 2013.

Damn it Seth! Would you at least order and build both bikes at once???? This bike seems to have cause months worth of rain and you say you are about to order another one? We may never ride again! 😉 Sweet looking bike!

Land managers have that technology. Its called a fence. And they decide when, or if, it opens. People riding muddy trail will always be a problem. We can try all we want to educate people. And we need to try. But new people start riding. Or people move to the area. And some people don't care about the damage they cause. Some people think trails "just appear". They also think trails don't need to be maintained. My experience is those are the people that think it is "their right to ride anywhere and anytime they want". That said, anybody that rides much will end up riding muddy trails sometime. I rode St Ed's & Thumper in a downpour during the EB one year. I have ridden places where most of the trail was fine but one area was a mud pit. You do what you can to avoid trouble. My point is we should educate - not shame.

I am hopeful. But I have been hopeful before. Many years ago we thought we had provided documentation and worked out issues. The "someone behind the curtain" changed everything that was worked out. Similar on the 2017 draft rewrite. I will withhold my opinion until I see actual results. There may still be "someone behind the curtain" who changes everything.

Yes and Yes Both myself and ARRPrez were at the meeting. Because any government does not want to deal with each and every person/voter individually, they will try to deal with "groups". ARR is the only group they (or I) know of that represents mountain bikers in Austin / Travis County. That is not to say that another group could not exist or a new one form. But ARR is the mountain biking group that is recognized right now. Note that the BCP staff is trying to work with "groups" in hopes of actually getting issues resolved before throwing it open to the 'free for all" that open public meetings can turn into. My experience with open public meetings on some topics is they can turn into yelling matches where nothing is accomplished. I suspect that is the BCP staff reasoning also.