This:
LETTER TO THE EDITOR Diana Mead, CORVA President
Last Friday, October 21st, the OHMVR commission for State Parks, unanimously approved the The General Plan and Environmental Impact Report, which includes conceptual direction for additional trails and areas open to motorized recreation in Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area.
This state park consists of approximately 4400 acres. The initial Carnegie SVRA General Plan was undertaken in the 1980's, and only included 1300 acres for motorized recreation access. During the 1990's, through a legislatively approved purchase of surrounding acreage, Carnegie SVRA expanded to 4400 acres. Since that time, motorized access was limited to the initial 1300 acres as plans to undergo specific analysis to the entirety of the acreage belonging to the park were put on hold a few times, because of various issues relating to state timing.
I have read in this newspaper that the adversaries of this project are already planning legal recourse to block this project. This is not a surprise. For these folks this is a clearly black and white issue. No OHV is the only option they have indicated that they will accept.
Again I offer the adversaries of the expansion an alternative. Become part of the solution. California State Parks, the United States Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management have developed suc- cessful models for how to manage an OHMVR area. This is best done with input from all stakeholders, including those who would prefer not to have any OHV recreation at all. The general plan calls for a park that is very, very different from the current acres in use today, primarily in San Joaquin county with a small piece in Alameda.
Yet, I have heard over and over, again, how this project will destroy what is a pristine, ecologically sensitive area. No mention is made of the Lawrence Livermore Area 300 test site across the street, the Stanford Research underground testing site between the current park and adjacent property on the south side, or the large weapon firing range, and the signifi- cant noise and earth shaking emanating from all. No mention is made of the turn of the last century mining operation contained within the new property and the waste and environmental mitigation that must take place. No mention is made of the ranching operations and the trampling of native oaks and associated pollution. No mention is made of the commute route, that is Tesla Road, or local ranch property fencing interfering with wildlife corridors today. No mention is made of the many archeological sites on the expan- sion property that have been identified and protected since the state purchase. No mention is made of the wildlife that is catalogued and protected in the current park. No mention is made of Hollister Hills SVRA has creating an incredible model of what an SVRA can
be for 4x4’s, side x sides, hikers and bird watchers. No mention is made of the disabled, elderly and very young, who will be able to have a back country camp- ing experience. No mention, or recognition of these facts except from proponents of the SVRA.
I urge you not to double down on the “no" OHV option. The land was for sale and it was purchased. At least one of our prime adversaries signed a document acknowledging what the purchase was designated for. Significant state investments have been made toward mitigation (can you say Hetch Hetchy?).
No public OHV recreation exists elsewhere in the greater bay area counties Contra Costa, Alameda, San Mateo, San Francisco, Marin or Solano. Nor does the largest bay area park district East Bay Parks, offer any OHMVR opportunity. This facility is needed and wanted by many citizens of our region.
We acknowledge there is a long road ahead of us, but this journey would be more rewarding and could offer a broader scope of opportunities with you work- ing alongside us in its design.
Thank you.
Last edited:
