NPS GMP and New West Side Trails Proposal

[Gavin]

I approve - cautiously so - of the proposed trails. I was out climbing with John Miller over the Memorial Day weekend and was astonished by the number of visitors on the West Side. Lower lot, overflow and the visitors' center lot were all packed. A dozen cars were lined up waiting for a space of any sort when we left at two. Two dozen more passed us headed in. Folks who'd parked up above were walking down the road - a dangerous stroll. That road is not meant to be shared with pedestrians.

I agree with Clink that even more should be done. The route Jack and I took to Piedras Bonitas -along the fence line from the new visitors' center and up onto a ridge that leads to the High Peaks - would connect several places most elegantly with minimum disturbance of habitat.

I talked about the Piedras Bonitas option with James (before he left for J Tree). On a personal level, I'm a bit mixed about the idea of a trail out there, and possibly connecting up with the reservoir in a more formal fashion. Mainly, I really like that the Piedras Bonitas area is one of the few trail-less areas at Pinnacles that is accessible to visitors. Despite the large amount of federally-designated wilderness in the park, there aren't that many areas that are accessible without major chaparral bushwacking, where visitors can get to and see little to no signs of other people, structures, and trails. Again, on a personal level... I hope that the Piedras Bonitas and Upper Bear Creek areas do not get developed any time soon.

[mynameismud]

I cannot help but agree.  Do not go out there a lot but the times that I have I really liked was how quiet it was.  If a trail does goes out there it would definitely be popular.

[F4?]

Well if the trail "did" happen, then knuckle ridge would become a popular spot.
More bolts would be needed. Pink ones

[clink]

Again, on a personal level... I hope that the Piedras Bonitas and Upper Bear Creek areas do not get developed any time soon.

 I remember the days of having the whole West-side to myself without another car showing up. Many days without seeing another soul. I get it.

 Longboarding on a new paved access path in the predawn hour before the hordes arrive would be sweet too.

[F4?]

I remember Mungie and I camping on the W-Side.

The ranger at the time was so cool. We asked can we sleep in our trucks...her reply was "I don't care".
Sadly, I went back 2yrs later and got read the riot act for NOT stopping at the ranger station before parking (She used to let us do that as well).

[mynameismud]

Driving straight in then walking back to check in was a simpler solution.

[F4?]

Not bad if they can berm the corners for faster cornering.

[mynameismud]

Been up that creak area a few times, beautiful area.  Yellow would keep people from walking the road.

[mungeclimber]

I think green is a slap in the face of physically challenged individuals. Yeah, sure it's pretty view from that ridge, but if I were in a wheelchair I'd want to roll my wheels to the rocks so I could see them up close.

Maybe that's just me.

[clink]

Yeah, sure it's pretty view from that ridge, but if I were in a wheelchair I'd want to roll my wheels to the rocks so I could see them up close.

This can be accomplished from the existing WS parking to the Lamb.

[F4?]

Red- looks like a fast line on a Mtn Bike. Blue....too many sharp turns...Unless you could cut straight.

Progress, isn't is a bitch.

[JC w KC redux]

I was looking for the thread on the new trails proposal for the west side and ran across the one on the GMP - so I merged them and made them a sticky.
A new document is out there and open for comments/review - 21 days left for input.
It looks like they are still in favor of option B - which seems reasonable to me. A loop trail from the visitor center with a connector from that to overflow parking. The connector they favor is shaded, less steep and requires less switchbacks than option C. Option B also calls for two foot bridges across the creek. All work is to be done by hand - no power tools as set forth in the wilderness guidelines. There is also mention of up to 10 walk-in camp sites. You can comment but their disclaimer doesn't promise to keep your personal info private - not sure why they can't guarantee that.
I was a bit concerned that only 12 people attended the previous public meeting. It didn't help that it was midweek at a kooky time for working folks. There were 9 letters submitted.
Check out the current document - don't be put off by how long it is.

http://parkplanning.nps.gov/projectHome.cfm?projectId=12617