• Story alerts
  • Letter to Editor
  • Pin it

“I don’t think there’s such a big schism between the cyclists and the horseback riders,” says Clews. She cites the presence of both cyclists and horseback riders on top of Del Mar Mesa already.

After various controversies over the trails in the planned new preserve erupted, the City set up a September 18 meeting to allow all parties to air their views. Representatives from both the California Department of Fish and Game and the San Diego Multiple Species Conservation Program came to express environmental concerns over allowing any recreational use of the area. Basil’s trails coalition and the San Diego Mountain Biking Association used their speaking time to present a joint-trails plan for the area. Rob Mikuteit, a member of both organizations, drew up the plan.

“I took the City’s [Multiple Species Conservation Program] map of ecologically sensitive areas in the new preserve,” Mikuteit tells me, “and overlaid it with a trails system.” The plan included the old interior trails network created by the migrant community.

I ask Mikuteit about the claim of some equestrians that bikes damage trails. “Research studies have shown,” he argued, “that bikes do no more harm than walkers. It’s not the trails that are at risk anyway, but the ecologically sensitive areas, such as vernal pools, which are abundant in the new preserve.” The idea of his plan, says Mikuteit, was “especially to keep the trails from coming too close to the vernal pools. To protect them, our plan completely eliminates or reroutes probably 70 percent of the old trails.”

Vernal pools are low spots in the ground that collect water during rainy periods. They are not connected to other water sources, such as streams or lakes. Their water usually evaporates when dry weather returns. But while they are wet, the spots exhibit scenes of teeming life. The San Diego fairy shrimp, on the federal list of endangered species, is perhaps the most renowned inhabitant of the local pools.

The pools also support amphibian life. One of the unique delights in the Carmel Mountain Preserve during springtime, says Mikuteit, “is that you’ll suddenly see hundreds of tadpoles in a vernal pool on a mesa very far from running water, and it’s really a fantastic thing to see how the life cycle works. That was one thing that thrilled my son, to see all these creatures coming alive and sprouting legs.”

Mikuteit is put off by visions of chain-link fences that might appear in the new Del Mar Mesa Preserve to keep people away from sensitive areas. He knows that something must be done and thinks that split-rail fences would be less obtrusive to the natural experience. Especially if they carry interpretive signs, as is already the case in Carmel Mountain Preserve, to explain to visitors the sensitivity of certain species and the vernal pools.

How people get in to enjoy the sights, however, has yet to be decided. The Multi-use Trails Coalition favors the most open access. But Mikuteit admits the problem is more complicated than it might first appear. People on foot, for instance, come in as both slow walkers and joggers. He takes into account the problem equestrians face from joggers and bikers who might spook the horses. Agreeing with Bunnie Clews, Mikuteit thinks the ultimate solution may be to divide trails according to the types of users.

For instance, the fact that horseback riders would find the low oak canopies in Deer Canyon difficult to ride under doesn’t mean others should be prevented from enjoying them. “I’ll tell you,” says Mikuteit, “when we ride our bikes through those tunnels, my son gets so energized he goes flying through. It’s a special experience.”

In the meantime, the Del Mar Mesa Community Planning Board is asserting its right to weigh in on the Del Mar Mesa Preserve. After the board’s November 13 meeting, its chairman Gary Levitt sent a letter to Chris Zirkle, director of open space for the San Diego Park and Recreation Department, stating the board’s position on the trails. In conformance with standards of the Multiple Species Conservation Program, the letter placed a high priority on protection of the ecologically sensitive lands in the preserve. It argued that “any expansion of trails beyond those shown in the draft resource management plan should be limited to establishing connectivity.”

By email, Levitt tells me that his board’s concern about additional trails does not refer to “those apparently originally established by the migrants.” Instead, he cites three main developments: first, “the significant increase in the use of some of those original trails” and the fact that these trails, which were quite narrow at first, “are now trail highways up to 3 ft wide or more in places”; second, brand-new trails have been established, creating linkages between older trails “or just creating trails in places which never had trails before”; and third, “that in many places man made jumps have been created through mounding up soil or even by building ramps out of wood, and in other places existing sandstone bluffs are now being used as jumps, damaging these natural features which have probably been there, undisturbed for thousands of years, till they were discovered in the last few years.”

The Peñasquitos Canyon citizens’ advisory committee was scheduled to approve or deny the final Del Mar Mesa Preserve resource management plan on December 20. On November 13, however, the Del Mar Times reported that the City had postponed the meeting until January 15. According to the paper, Chris Zirkle is deliberating “whether [the City] should close the canyon to recreational use or devise a trail plan that is the least disturbing to the biologically sensitive land.”

  • Story alerts
  • Letter to Editor
  • Pin it

More from the web

Comments

jSatch Dec. 10, 2008 @ 2:05 p.m.

I don't know, call me odd but I feel a little uncomfortable when a developer like Mr. Levitt speaks of a narrow 2 foot trail ever widening to, gee, 3 feet, and mounds of dirt piled up "damaging these natural features which have probably been there, undisturbed for thousands of years".

Golly, has Mr. Levitt found green living environmentalism as his new religion?

Probably not, here is an article referencing the board that Mr. Levitt now chairs, entitled "The Banana Republic of Del Mar Mesa". http://www.lisaross.com/html/CVNewsCols/dmmesa.pdf

Here are some excerpts: "in a surprise conspiratorial overthrow, highly regarded and long-time Del Mar Mesa Community Planning Board Chair Jan Hudson was replaced by a developer member during a vote laced with violations of city council policy and its own bylaws." and "The regime change has put a fox in charge of the chicken coop: a developer who does not live in the area but has major projects in front of this board now Chairs a city advisory body charged with making sure new projects conform to the community plan."

0

mikuteit Dec. 10, 2008 @ 3:40 p.m.

To clarify a couple of errors in the article:

FROM ARTICLE: “I’ll tell you,” says Mikuteit, “when we ride our bikes through those tunnels, my son gets so energized he goes flying through. It’s a special experience.”

CORRECTION: My son is only 4 years old and rides a bike with training wheels. He cannot ride on trails yet. I was referencing the HIKING we do together in this area. He gets so excited by the tunnel of trees around the trail, he runs through them like he's flying.

FROM ARTICLE: Agreeing with Bunnie Clews, Mikuteit thinks the ultimate solution may be to divide trails according to the types of users.

CORRECTION: This is opposite of what I believe. Shared multiuse trails are successful throughout Southern California, and this place should be no exception. I did state that dividing up trails according to use was a goal of certain other individuals.

0

williamtuft Dec. 10, 2008 @ 5:14 p.m.

I would urge those in positions of authority to avoid the temptation to simply close Del Mar Mesa Preserve to avoid damage to the environment. Certainly there must be sufficient expertise available to develop and implement a plan that would allow hikers, bikers, and horses to responsibly use this unique Preserve. It is a very special area and it would be a tragedy to simply close it off to all use. Everyone is going to have to make compromises to assure that this area can be enjoyed while still protecting the environment. And please, let's refrain from playing the blame game on who is responsible for the recent damage. Nobody knows for sure who caused it. Let's work together to eliminate damage in the future and look forward to enjoying the eco-friendly trail system that is to come.

0

ps4sdr Dec. 12, 2008 @ 1:59 p.m.

One of the primary reasons I live in San Diego (and Del Mar in particular) is because of the natural beauty and outdoor activities. Without getting into my car, I can surf, hike a canyon, mountainbike to Penasquitos, or jog through Torrey Pines. If I couldn't do those things, this would be just another suburb. It's what makes this place amazing.

I think we owe it to ourselves, our kids, and our neighbors to work out a way to share these killer outdoor resources. Horses, wildlife, bikers, and hikers can all get along.

Developers play a role too, but they have a fiduciary obligation to their shareholders and lenders first. Whatever allowances they make for the community and residents are often the minimum needed to make their businesses work. That doesn't make them bad people, it just means they have interests that conflict with ours.

I for one believe that we, the residents and lovers of this place, can and should work together. Even a small show of support helps. The many can be more effective than the few, especially in an educated and affluent community like this. See you at the next meeting :)

0

Turner Dec. 13, 2008 @ 8:02 a.m.

I've been trail riding in this area for many years now. To characterize the situation with the headline "Canyon Trails Traffic Jam" is way over the top, from both the standpoint of numbers of users and trail conflicts. Granted there are a few more bikers out there on a Saturday or Sunday morning, but just last Saturday afternoon I rode the entire trail system for a couple of hours and saw no one. Furthermore, I have never seen an equestrian either on the upper trails, nor in the Tunnels Trails. The only way an equestrian could maneuver in the Tunnels would be to illegally cut the canopy, which in fact happened this week in one of the closed Tunnels trails. This has now caused Parks & Rec to irresponsibly close the entire area to all trail users. The equestrian/s who did this should be laid out on the trail and run over repeatedly by the members of the "responsible" mountain biking community — the same community who pick up trash, trail build and work within the system to design plans for the area that not only preserve the trails, but for all users.

0

Geoffrey Dec. 14, 2008 @ 8:33 a.m.

The Del Mar Mesa Preserve consists of sensitive lands that have been set aside for protection as mitigation ("to make up for") resource damage in other nearby areas such as the Mira Mesa Marketplace development -- which destroyed a large vernal pool habitat in violation of federal law, and the SR56 project. Protected lands on Del Mar Mesa are managed by the City of San Diego, State of California, and the US Fish and Wildlife Service. The overriding mandate for the protection of these lands is the MSCP, or Multiple Species Conservation Plan, to which all the above-listed parties subscribe, in addition to other stakeholders including the development industry, environmental and recreational user constituencies. It is absolutely critical to the success of the MSCP, and to future growth in our region, that these highly senstive MSCP lands be protected. Once damaged or destroyed, whether it be by one or a hundred willful or unwitting actions on the part of preserve users, these sensitive resources will not bounce back. We support the recent administrative actions by the resource agencies to safeguard the Del Mar Mesa Preserve through a temporary administrative closure to recreational uses, at least until the publication and adoption of the Resource Management Plan which is currently under development and scheduled for review by the advisory committee in March, 2009. - Geoffrey Smith, Chairperson, Los Penasquitos Canyon Preserve Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC)

0

seahorse Dec. 15, 2008 @ 8:12 p.m.

Population growth occurs with increased density. More people, more competition for resources.

0

EBasil Dec. 16, 2008 @ 4:55 p.m.

Thanks to the Reader for covering the issues of habitat preservation and the public access intended by the Multiple Species Conservation Program.

Deer Canyon's evolution from a migrant community replete with trails, kitchens, latrines, laundries, farming, hunting and unrelated dumping of construction debris to one of passive trail use by hikers, runners and the cycling community has been storied and controversial. Some claim the land was pristine, untouched and completely pure prior to discovery by San Diegans seeking enhanced quality of life via our Open Space. Others have claimed that trail use by scores of San Diegans hasn't had any effect at all upon the habitat. Both are clearly mistaken.

Use over recent decades is established by media reports and the documentary, "The Invisible Mexicans of Deer Canyon". Impacts have been mitigated by trash removal and passive trail use by "stewards" for the open space. However, even a footprint is an "impact" and it's undeniable that migrant trails have been widened and used far more than they ever were before. When the RMP is complete, we'll have a plan to manage trails and control impacts.

Regrettably, vandalism in the "Hobbit Trails" was discovered last week & reported by locals. A stand of Nutall's Scrub Oak was destroyed to open up the trail to the sky for visitors that didn't previously "fit there" as noted above. The damage is horrendous.

This puts the land managers in a tough spot! They can rely upon the community's "patrols" to discover such damage, but how can they prevent it, outright? Although there were other options, the Parks Department has chosen to close the entirety of the singletrack trail network in Deer Canyon, pending further review. This is a great loss to the law abiding supporters of open space and responsible trail use that have been running, hiking and riding these trails for years, but one that we must now support and honor while we wait for the City Rangers to follow leads & witness reports.

The plan endorsed by the SDMBA and MTC called for closure and revegetation of over 65% of the trails in Deer Canyon. With further research into the trail that was vandalized last week, it's apparent that route will not be viable in the long term. The remainder of the trails proposed for management comprise about 20% of what's in the canyon. The Rangers have sent a clear message: hacking open the canopy won't get user groups "access" to trails because they now "fit" but will get the whole place closed, to the detriment of all San Diegans that value this beautiful and important natural resource.

We can all work together to ensure public access & quality of life aren't sacrificed or lost due to the despicable acts of a few and that the open space lands are preserved in a responsible and effective manner for the benefit of future generations of San Diegans. It's important that we do so.

Erik Basil Treasurer, LPCP-CAC

0

jSatch Dec. 18, 2008 @ 2:25 p.m.

Let’s do the math on this. I will preface this by saying that contrary to popular belief, a number of trail impact studies consistently find that cyclists have equal or less of an ‘impact factor’ than that of hikers, and far less than equestrians. http://www.imba.com/resources/science/index.html

Single-track bike trails, like those in Deer Canyon, average maybe 3 ft wide, and yes although this may be slightly wider than the original migrant walking trails, expansion is limited to the current size. So then, how many feet of trails approximately comprise the final plans proposed by SDMBA (SDMBA.com) and MTC (Multi-use Trail Colilition)?

Calculate the overall 'trail' area vs the overall ‘total’ area of Deer Canyon, etc. What percent will be used by trails?

Furthermore, as the only trails accepted in the final trail proposals were careful not to impede into environmentally sensitive areas, what can be considered the actual 'impact factor' to the region should the proposals be accepted, taking into account the above calculation?

As I suspect the total burden implied by the % area compounded by a very low impact factor on the environmentally sensitive areas would be quite small. So, how does it weigh against allowing or forbidding public access to the area?

What if we add to this the fact that SDMBA and MTC are established stewards of the land that organize volunteer trail maintenance and care for the parks throughout San Diego? And if we compound with this the fact that there will be several cyclists patrolling the area, and yes we are very protective and concerned about the care and maintenance of this preserve? It was one such cyclist that took the pictures and alerted the Rangers of the tree cutting in Deer Canyon by vandals. Had he not been there, the damage would very likely have been far, far worse by the time the authorities discovered it.

The other alternative is fencing the area off and forbidding public access. This has proven to not be a successful approach for the environment. Poachers will cut the fences and trespass. Unfortunately, this is apparent in the neglect of the ‘vernal pool’ area where dumped garbage, dirt bikes, 4x4s and parties did, and may still, frequent the area and damage the habitat. A less frequented, off-limits area would also be permissive for migrants to transiently inhabit the area again. It is an impossible job for the limited Ranger staff to care for the main park area and still patrol the borders of this large preserve.

These issues should be what the public and those who will determine the outcome of this area weigh into their evaluations.

0

Sign in to comment

Join our
newsletter list

Enter to win $25 at Broken Yolk Cafe

Each newsletter subscription
means another chance to win!

Close