implementing the rtmp

IMPLEMENTING THE RTMP

THE ROAD AND TRAIL PROJECT EVALUATION TOOL

C O M M U N I T Y W O R K S H O P

M A RI N H E A L T H & WE L L N E S S C E N T E R M A R CH 1 5 , 2 0 1 4 9 :0 0 A M -12 :3 0 PM

• Review types of comments received and

types of adjustments made to the RTMP

• Introduce evaluation tool and review

application to current road and trail

projects

• Understand process for community

involvement in implementation

• Review next steps and schedule

M E E T I N G O B J E C T I V E S

2.

• 9:00 am Doors Open – Refreshments

• 9:30 am Introductions, Ground Rules

• 9:45 am Recap, Comments Received,

Revisions to Plan, EIR Status

• 10:20 am Overview of Evaluation Tool,

Application to Projects, Q&A

• 11:20 am Community Involvement in

Implementation, Designating the

System, Project Proposal Process,

Q&A

• 12:15 pm Next Steps and Schedule

• 12:30 pm Adjourn

M E E T I N G A G E N D A

3.

• All participants, including the County, agree

to:

o show respect to all who participate

o listen to and hear all ideas with an open

mind

o separate individuals and/or organizations

from problems

o focus on interests rather than positions

o move forward – learn from the past, but

do not sacrifice future progress to it

o work toward solutions with integrity

o stay on topic

M E E T I N G G R O U N D R U L E S

4.

• Recap, Comments Received, Revisions to Plan, EIR Status

R O A D A N D T R A I L M A N A G E M E N T P L A N / E I R

• Designate a sustainable road and trail

system that requires less maintenance

• Achieve measurable reductions in

physical and environmental impacts

associated with the road and trail system

• Enhance visitor experience and safety

L O N G T E R M O B J E C T I V E S O F R T M P

6.

• Guidance Documents, Plans, Policies

• Vegetation Data (plant communities, habitat

types, special status species)

• Visitor Use Survey (opportunities and intensity)

• Community Input (workshops, comments)

B A S E L I N E D A T A A N D I N F O R M A T I O N

7.

• Vegetation Management Zones

o Legacy Zone

o Restoration Zone

o Enhancement Zone

o Highly Disturbed Zone

• Existing Conditions Report

o Locate and map roads and trails

o Describe each road/trail segment and its

physical condition

o Identify many trails not constructed,

managed, or mapped by MCOSD

B A S E L I N E D A T A A N D I N F O R M A T I O N

8.

• Visitor Use Management Zones

• Visitor Use Policies

• Access and use

• Environmental protections

• Decision making

• Role of social trails

• Trail safety

• Process

T Y P E S O F C O M M E N T S R E C E I V E D O N D R A F T R T M P

9.

• Now three Visitor Use Management Zones

o Zone 1: Sensitive Resource Area

o Low to moderate use

o Intact, high quality habitat

o 16% of total lands

o Zone 2: Conservation Area

o Moderate to high use

o Large natural areas, but not well

buffered


o Zone 3: High Use Area

o High level of use

o Easily accessed


A D J U S T M E N T S T O V I S I T O R U S E M A N A G E M E N T Z O N E S

10.

• Zone specific polices removed

• Systemwide Polices revised to integrate

zone-specific concepts

• Sensitive resource policies added

• Safety policies added

• Dog policies clarified

A D J U S T M E N T S T O P O L I C I E S

11.

• Many adjustments made to draft RTMP

• Changes in VUMZ and polices

• Detail on how road and trail system will be

designated

• Description of project evaluation tool

• Explanation of project proposal process

• Decision to recirculate TPEIR for 45 days

• Comments received will require formal

response

S T A T U S O F T P E I R

13.

• Criteria Driven Evaluation Tool for Road and Trail Projects


• Establish baselines for biological and

physical impacts

• Provide information about basic social

parameters affecting visitor experience and

safety

• Provide quantitative information to

compare and rank project proposals

• Monitor and measure progress towards

overall reduction in biological and physical

impacts

H O W E V A L U A T I O N T O O L W I L L B E U S E D

15.

• Existing Conditions Assessment (2011),

Vegetation and Biodiversity Management

Plan, Marin County sources

• Thousands of road and trail segments and

tens of thousands of data points

• Each road and trail segment scored on 23

biological and physical criteria, and 7 social

criteria

H O W E V A L U A T I O N T O O L W I L L W O R K

16.

• Sum of biological and physical scores

represent total biophysical impact of each

road and trail segment

• Segment scores can be added together to

measure and monitor impacts at the trail

and regional level

• Social scores provide another means of

comparing segments

H O W E V A L U A T I O N T O O L W I L L W O R K

17.

• Each criteria has a maximum score of 5

• Some criteria are weighted and have a

maximum score of 10

• Some criteria apply only to existing facilities

• Some criteria are modeled differently for

existing and proposed new facilities

B I O L O G I C A L A N D P H Y S I C A L C R I T E R I A

18.

• Vegetation Management Zones

• Stream Conservation Area

• Stream Intersections

• Fish Habitat Impact

• Northern Spotted Owl Zone

• Rare Plant Intersect

B I O L O G I C A L C R I T E R I A ( E X I S T I N G A N D N E W P R O P O S E D )

19.

• Wildlife Area Intersect

• Serpentine Area Intersect

• Wetland Area Intersect

• Weed Area Intersect

• Road and Trail Density

B I O L O G I C A L C R I T E R I A ( E X I S T I N G A N D N E W P R O P O S E D )

20.

• Hydrological Slope

• Directional Slope (Separate models for

existing and proposed new facilities)

• Trail Width

• Presence of Expansive Soils

• Erodibility of Soils (Separate models for

existing and proposed new facilities)

P H Y S I C A L C R I T E R I A ( E X I S T I N G A N D N E W P R O P O S E D

F A C I L I T I E S )

21.

• Average Road/Trail Drainage Condition

• Condition of Road/Trail Drainage Features

• Condition of Road/Trail Erosion Features

• Number of Surveyed Problem Sites

• Wet and Muddy Areas

• Tread Condition

• Maintenance Burden

• Resource Impact

P H Y S I C A L C R I T E R I A ( E X I S T I N G F A C I L I T I E S O N L Y )

22.

• Total Road/Trail Length

• Average Distance Between Road/Trail

Intersections

• Average Distance from Development

• Length of Sight Lines (under development)

• Vegetation Diversity

• Variability of Grade (under development)

• Connects to Regional Road/Trail or

Road/Trail on Adjacent Public Land (under

development)

S O C I A L C R I T E R I A

23.

`

25

Dawn Falls Trail Cascade Fire

Roy's Redwoods

Loop Trail

Biological Resources Scores-

VMZ Average 2 3 3

SCA Area Intersect 2 2 2

Stream Intersection 5 2 5

Fish Presence Impact 0 0 0

Spotted Owl Zones Intersection 10 0 10

Rare Plant Area Intersection 0 0 0

Wildlife Area Intersection 0 0 0

Serpentine Soils Area Intersection 0 0 0

Wetland Area Intersection 0 0 3

Weed Area Intersection 1 1 1

Trail Density Average 2 2 3

Total Biological - 22 10 27

Physical Resources Scores-

Hydrological Slope Average 2 3 2

Directional Slope Average 1 3 1

Worst Drainage Score (point data) 0 5 0

Worst Erosion Score (point data) 10 10 10

Number of Problem Sites (point data) 4 5 5

Erodibility (RUSLE Model) N/A N/A N/A

Expansive Soils In Development In Development In Development

Gradient Average (reach data) 1 2 1

Drainage Average (reach data) 1 4 5

Wet/Mud Average (reach data) 0 0 0

Trail Width 0 3 0

Tread Condition Average (reach data) 0 4 3

Maintenance Average (reach data) 1 3 1

Resource Impact (reach data) 2 4 4

Erosion Average (reach data) 0 4 3

Total Physical- 22 50 35

Social Resources Scores-

Total Trail Length 1 2 1

Average Trail Segment Length 1 1 1

Average Distance from Development 5 1 4

Length of Sitelines In Development In Development In Development

Vegetation Diversity 4 3 2

Variability of Grade In Development In Development In Development

Regional Trail/Public Land Connectivity In Development In Development In Development

Biological and Physical Subtotal 44 60 62

• Cascade Fire Road


Biological Resource Scores

Scores VMZ

Average

SCA Area

Intersect

Stream

Intersection

Fish Presence

Impact

Spotted Owl

Zones

Intersection

Rare Plant

Area

Intersection

Wildlife Area

Intersection

Serpentine

Soils Area

Intersection

Wetland Area

Intersection

Weed Area

Intersection

Trail

Density

Average

Cascade Fire

Road Before

Treatment 3 2 2 0 0 0* 0 0 0 1 2

Cascade Fire

Road After

Treatment 3 2 2 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0 2

Physical Resource Scores

Scores Hydrological

Slope Average

Directional

Slope

Average

Worst Drainage

Score

Worst Erosion

Score

Number of

Problem Sites

Erodibility

(RUSSLE

Model)

Expansive Soils Gradient

Average

Drainage

Average

Wet/Mud

Average

Trail

Width

Tread

Condition

Average

Maintenance

Average

Resource

Impact

Erosion

Average

Cascade

Fire Road

Before

Treatment

3 3 5 10 5 N/A In

Development 2 4 0 3 4 3 4 4

Cascade

Fire Road

After

Treatment

3 3 0 0 0 N/A In


C A S C A D E F I R E R O A D S C O R I N G

Biophysical Totals

Biological + Physical

Combined

Cascade Fire Road

Before Treatment 60

Cascade Fire Road After

Treatment 23

• Dawn Falls Trail


D A W N F A L L S T R A I L


Scores VMZ

Average

SCA Area

Intersect

Stream

Intersection

Fish Presence

Impact

Spotted Owl

Zones

Intersection

Rare Plant

Area

Intersection

Wildlife Area

Intersection

Serpentine

Soils Area

Intersection

Wetland Area

Intersection

Weed Area

Intersection

Trail

Density

Average

Dawn Falls

Trail Before

Treatment 2 2 5 0 10 0 0 0 0 1 2

Dawn Falls

Trail After

Treatment 2 2 5 0 10 0 0 0 0 1 2


Scores Hydrological

Slope Average

Directional

Slope

Average

Worst Drainage

Score

Worst Erosion

Score

Number of

Problem Sites

Erodibility

(RUSSLE

Model)


Average

Drainage

Average

Wet/Mud

Average

Trail

Width

Tread

Condition

Average

Maintenance

Average

Resource

Impact

Erosion

Average

Dawn Falls

Trail Before

Treatment 2 1 0 10 4 N/A

In


Dawn Falls

Trail After

Treatment 2 1 0 0 0 N/A

In


D A W N F A L L S T R A I L S C O R I N G

Biophysical Totals


Combined

Dawn Falls Trail Before

Treatment 44

Dawn Falls Trail After

Treatment 27

• Roy’s Redwoods Loop Trail


Click to edit Master text styles

38

R O Y S R E D W O O D S L O O P T R A I L


Scores VMZ

Average

SCA Area

Intersect

Stream

Intersection

Fish Presence

Impact

Spotted Owl

Zones

Intersection

Rare Plant

Area

Intersection

Wildlife Area

Intersection

Serpentine

Soils Area

Intersection

Wetland Area

Intersection

Weed Area

Intersection

Trail

Density

Average

Roy’s Loop

Trail Before

Treatment 3 2 5 0 10 0 0 0 3 1 3

Roy’s Loop

Trail After

Treatment 3 2 5 0 10 0 0 0 3 1 3


Scores Hydrological

Slope Average

Directional

Slope

Average

Worst Drainage

Score

Worst Erosion

Score

Number of

Problem Sites

Erodibility

(RUSSLE

Model)


Average

Drainage

Average

Wet/Mud

Average

Trail

Width

Tread

Condition

Average

Maintenance

Average

Resource

Impact

Erosion

Average

Roy’s

Loop Trail

Before

Treatment

2 1 0 10 5 N/A In


Roy’s

Loop Trail

After

Treatment

2 1 0 0 0 N/A In


R O Y ’ S R E D W O O D S L O O P T R A I L S C O R I N G

Biophysical Totals


Combined

Roy’s Loop Trail Before

Treatment 62

Roy’s Loop Trail After

Treatment 32

Q U E S T I O N S A N D D I S C U S S I O N

42.

• COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT AFTER PLAN ADOPTION


• Share biophysical baseline information for

current network of roads and trails

• Solicit input to inform outline of designated

road and trail system

• Solicit proposals for projects that will make

incremental adjustments to system over

time

I N I T I A L O U T R E A C H

44.

• Preserves clustered into Six Regions that will serve

as Planning Units

• Biophysical baseline scores monitored for both the

overall network of surveyed roads and trails and

the designated system

• Annually budgeted RTMP projects must show net

reductions in the baseline biophysical scores at the

regional level

B A S E L I N E M O N I T O R I N G

45.

P R E S E R V E S B Y R E G I O N

46.

• Starting point for discussion is the network of roads

and trails displayed on the MCOSD website

• Initial public outreach will change these maps (via

addition and subtraction)

• Inputs for changes to the current network include

roads and trails surveyed in the Existing Conditions

Report, and proposals for new trails or trail

segments

• Evaluation tool will inform decisions about what’s in

and out

• The ultimate outcome is a designated road and

trail system and new official maps

D E S I G N A T I N G T H E R O A D A N D T R A I L S Y S T E M

47.

W O R K S H O P S W I L L B E M A P F O C U S E D A N D D A T A D R I V E N

• Designated roads and trails are managed for

visitor use and may be maintained or improved

over time.

o Narrow: Pedestrian and equestrian use only

o Multi-use: Pedestrian, equestrian, and mountain

bike use

o Future multi-use: Not yet open to mountain

bikes (bike use subject to citation until trail is

constructed or designation is changed)

o Future single use or priority use: Current

management restrictions apply until trail is

constructed or designation is changed.

T Y P E S O F R O A D S A N D T R A I L S F O L L O W I N G D E S I G N A T I O N

O F T H E S Y S T E M

49.

• Non-designated improved roads and trails will be

decommissioned over time.

o Open to pedestrians until closed for restoration

• Unconstructed social trails are defined and

managed separately

o Not automatically slated for decommission

o Open to use by pedestrians unless closed for

restoration

o Unauthorized improvement will result in closure

T Y P E S O F R O A D S A N D T R A I L S F O L L O W I N G D E S I G N A T I O N

O F T H E S Y S T E M

50.

• Major modifications to existing roads/trails, and trail segments

o Reconstruction

o Re-routing

o Active decommissioning and restoration

o Active road to trail conversion

• New trails or trail segments

• Change of use may be a component of a proposed project

T Y P E S O F P R O J E C T S T H A T C O M P E T E F O R P R I O R I T I Z A T I O N

A N D B U D G E T

51

• Proposed changes in use should conform to:

o BMPs

o Design standards

o Safety standards

• Some relevant policies:

o Strive to prevent displacement of existing users

o Designate and manage for safety for all users

o Enhance connections for all users. New facilities developed for multi-use whenever possible

C H A N G E I N U S E A S A C O M P O N E N T O F A P R O P O S E D

P R O J E C T

52

• Proposed projects must show a net decrease in biophysical impacts at the regional level

• Proposed projects can be bundled to achieve this same result (e.g., new segment and decommissioned segment)

• Built-in bias in tool against projects affecting owls, serpentine soils, and streams.

• New trails = new impacts. Look to existing network for “raw material” as much as possible

• Project proposal form under development

P R O J E C T P R O P O S A L S S U B M I T T E D B Y P U B L I C

53

• Projects inconsistent with long-term

objectives and policies pre-screened out

• Adjusted annually based on public input

and new info

• Serves as dashboard for future work

• List of annually budgeted projects must

show reductions in the baseline biophysical

scores at the regional level

• Changes to the designated system tied to

on the ground implementation of projects

T H E P R I O R I T I Z E D L I S T O F F U T U R E P R O J E C T S

54.

1. Map of designated system (All roads and

trails outside of designated system, except

for social trails, will be decommissioned

over time)

2. Budgeted list of first fiscal year(s) projects

(3-4 per year?)

3. List of prioritized proposed projects to

inform future budget requests

R E C A P O F E X P E C T E D O U T P U T S F R O M I N I T I A L O U T R E A C H

55.

Q U E S T I O N S A N D D I S C U S S I O N

• Next Steps and Schedule


N E X T S T E P S : C U R R E N T Y E A R P R O J E C T S

• Spring 2014: Complete preparations for FY

14-15 projects

o Cascade Canyon Fire Road

o Dawn Falls Trail

o Roy’s Redwoods Loop Trail

• Summer 2014: Construction

o Cascade Canyon: July-Aug (approx. 3

weeks active)

o Dawn Falls: July-Oct (approx. 9 weeks

active, contingent on permits, owl

activity)

o Roy’s Redwoods: July-Oct (approx. 9

weeks active, contingent on permits, owl

activity)

N E X T S T E P S : R T M P / T P E I R

• Complete revisions to draft RTMP

• Recirculate draft RTMP/draft Tiered Program

Environmental Impact Report

• Review and formally respond to comments

on draft Tiered Program EIR

• Prepare final RTMP/final TPEIR

• Parks and Open Space Commission

consideration and recommendation

• Board of Directors consideration and action

S C H E D U L E : R T M P / T P E I R

61.

Spring Complete revisions to draft RTMP/draft

TPEIR; Complete Response to Comments

Summer Distribute draft RTMP/draft TPEIR

Summer 45 day public comment period

Fall Revise and prepare final RTMP/final TPEIR

Winter Parks and Open Space Commission

recommendation to adopt RTMP and

certify TPEIR; Board of Directors

consideration and action

Early 2015 Implementation begins

?

B U T … C E R T I F I C A T I O N O F 2 0 0 7 C O U N T Y W I D E G E N E R A L

P L A N T E M P O R A R I L Y V O I D E D B Y A P P E L L A T E C O U R T

62.

Thank you for coming!

Follow our progress at

www.marincountyparks.org

[email protected]

Carl Somers (415) 473-2820

© 2 0 1 1 M A R I N C O UN T Y P A R KS

http://www.marincountyparks.org/

mailto:[email protected]