Pinnacles Draft General Management Plan Release - Time to Comment

[mungeclimber]

Draft General Management Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Dear Friends of Pinnacles National Monument,


It is with great pleasure that we submit to you the Draft General Management Plan and Environmental Assessment of Pinnacles National Monument (GMP/EA). When completed, this plan will guide our management of the monument with a 15-20 year vision for its operation and protection.

However, before the GMP/EA can be completed, it is important that we receive comments on this draft. Please take the time to review the draft and provide us with any comments you may have.

The Draft General Management Plan offers four alternative approaches to public use and enjoyment of the monument, protection of natural and cultural resources, and the overall management of this unique unit of the National Park System. The environmental consequences section of the document provides an understanding of the effect each alternative may have on the environment.

This plan represents your involvement and input into planning processes. The preferred alternative addresses concepts many of you proposed or supported.

Your input into this plan is important and will make it a better guide for the monument's future. You are invited to attend public meetings where you can discuss with the planning team any questions you may have as well as provide public comments. Please see the meeting times and locations below.

You can download the Draft GMP/EA, submit comments, and receive updates on the GMP/EA online through the NPS Planning, Environment and Public Comment System (PEPC) at http://parkplanning.nps.gov/PINN. An electronic public comment form is provided through this website. The public comment period for this draft GMP/EA will extend through January 11, 2013.


If you choose not to submit comments online, please send your written comments to:
 

Superintendent


Pinnacles National Monument
5000 Highway 146
Paicines, CA 95043


Our planning effort has benefited from your participation and involvement. We thank you for taking the time to make this the best plan possible for such a special place.

Karen Beppler-Dorn Signature
Karen Beppler-Dorn, Superintendent
 
Links
 
Full Draft General Management Plan and Environmental Assessment (5 files)

Newsletter #4: Executive Summary (1.1 MB, PDF, English/Espanol)

Submit Online Comments

 
Public Meetings
 

Community BBQ/Potluck & Presentation

November 13, Tuesday, 5:30-8:00 PM

Jefferson School

221 Old Hernandez Rd

Paicines, CA


Community Breakfast with Pinnacles Superintendent Karen Beppler-Dorn

November 14, Wednesday, 7:30-9:00 AM

Flap Jacks

6881 Airline Hwy

Tres Pinos, CA
 

Presentation and Open House

November 14, Wednesday, 6:00-8:00 PM

San Benito County Library (Barbara Room)

470 5th Street

Hollister, CA


Presentation and Open House

November 15, Thursday, 6:30-8:30 PM

Soledad High School (Mission Room)

425 Gabilan Drive

Soledad, CA
 
Next Steps
 
November 2012 - January 11, 2013: Public Review of Draft GMP/EA.

Spring 2013: Prepare Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)

2013 and beyond: Begin to implement the plan as funding allows.
 
Contact Information
Mail: National Park Service, Park Planning, Pinnacles National Monument GMP, 333 Bush Street, Suite 500, San Francisco, CA 94104

Park Web Site: http://www.nps.gov/pinn
E-mail: pinn_gmp@nps.gov

[mungeclimber]

The Links...

http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001V-KjRvPECmvNDxOqb2YhDrxCneTquR4vwN4zeh6dbxb_qE59mnNtYP6I2LCA0tHmRWTLzewqxMnbqShoycU-mxUs9lUMX8RCRmKSI0-uhFe5icvX3-mjJ2MO7VeSdvbP

http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001V-KjRvPECmvj0PLWf70mZ_qXWOZm2pX8QjOjJzDSOuLLjiCeyggf58KLhQ5t1y6Beigti9i_CGp4MCtPGm39dGHhtSXC1_J-HpT5JZX06qOVucVSQAirSbtLHbBA1gQZ_6GRl9Nrmy8=

http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001V-KjRvPECmsI8qj2UyYBWExlFggIxFTBefQrlIIw__n9N1zpmd9IFLCsE-SCp_1uDdvK-tl3f7OszQ9090Xk8ERyHLscrYNKpfQ0fiFYpSyNSEg2BI3CcVfznRsUYIJhTlZ591pHrFACWMqQPKQ5vCg1mwBaNscunoa19HT9R6GWJrZbu1vtEAoNSMls9TNBMG6b7OavdFhjw5O1-sjF9w==

[Atomizer]

Having been an NPS ranger in Yosemite I can't stress how important it is for us to submit input in this process. You would be greatly surprised how few people take the time to do so, even in a place like Yosemite that sees over 4 million visitors a year. I was friends with one of the folks who ran this for Yosemite and she was extremely frustrated by the lack of input from the people that love the place the most.  That fact makes it even more important for us PinnHeads to speak up and make a difference.

[Brad Young]

Yes, Adam is right (I've heard the exact same thing from NPS people who work at Pinns itself). Munge, thanks for taking the time to post it all up.

I plan on carving out time tomorrow to respond in detail.

[joe]

having just reviewed the copy of this that I received in the mail, it seems that of the 4 alternatives proposed (5 if you include what is described as 'environmentally preferable alternative), the most noteworthy change being considered to me is alternative C which includes equestrian opportunities.  Personally, I think this would be a nightmare.  Alternative D is described as the 'preferred alternative' which does include new construction and access.

Interestingly, only in Alternative A (no action) is the specific word 'climbing' mentioned in the Draft General Management Plan.

Questions:
Is it in our best interest as a significant 'user group' to coordinate a response to this plan? 
If so, what should that response be? 

[F4?]

horses? The trails were not designed for horses...I don't think.
Maybe on some of the trails, but really?? There is so much foot traffic (seriously).


Who is going? I always wanted to eat there.....Mungie?

Community Breakfast with Pinnacles Superintendent Karen Beppler-Dorn

November 14, Wednesday, 7:30-9:00 AM

Flap Jacks

6881 Airline Hwy

Tres Pinos, CA

[mungeclimber]

what I got in the mail doesn't have much detail, just a summary. Need to deep dive.


I noticed the same thing Joe.

[mynameismud]

If they allow horses they better let me ride my bike.  Some of those trails would be fantastic.

[JC w KC redux]

i'd like to try my unicycle on pitch 4 of Old Original!

[F4?]

Okay Mungie, give us a book report tomorrow.

[mungeclimber]

 do your own homework.

[mungeclimber]

no thoughts so far?

holidays will sneak up on us, and the window will close in January

[Brad Young]

I reviewed the Pinnacles General Management Plan and Environmental Assessment. The entire document is over 300 pages and I didn’t even try to read it all, but I spent almost two hours in my review.  I also submitted my comments to the National Park Service (online).  Here are a few of my observations:

1.   The document has many excellent photos although only two are of rock climbing (actually, both are technically of rappelling and not climbing).  Two things about the photos: First, many of them are by Gavin and his photographs really are excellent; second, there are many historical photos that I have never seen before. These were of great interest.

2.   Climbing is generally mentioned in many areas of the plan, although most general mentions lump it together with hiking.

3.   Climbing is mentioned more specifically, as follows:

   a) Page 56:  The language on this page is encouraging: “Climbing use would continue in congruence with raptor advisory updates and voluntary closures.  The    monument would continue to work in close coordination with the climbing community, including the Friends of Pinnacles - an organization focused on climbing.  A Climbing Management Plan would be developed. Existing bolted routes would be allowed where critical resources are not adversely affected.”      

   b) Page 61 contains more, including the comment “Climbing use would continue to be managed through the Climber Access Plan and Raptor Monitoring Protocol until a Climbing Management Plan is completed.”  There’s nothing here that I didn’t like or at least expect.

   c)  On page 142, the plan states that 14 % of visitors use Pinnacles for   climbing. This seems low to me but I noticed that the survey on which this number is based consisted of just over 500 completed survey forms.  The survey    was conducted in 2002. 

   d)  On pages 143-144, there is a short description of rock climbing and of established routes.

4.   One key realization:  I became aware as I studied it that this plan doesn’t have much detail at all regarding climbing.  Instead an (intended) Climbing    Management Plan will be much more specific if/when it is completed.  This is the document climbers should be looking for.

5.   I couldn’t find any differentiation in this plan between “day-to-day” climbing    activities and the establishment of new routes.  In my view, future limitations are    more likely on new route establishment than they are on “day-to-day”    climbing of already existing routes.

6.   None of the four proposed management alternatives (“A” through “D”) would have much effect on climbing.  All state that it “would continue as a use.”  I    suspect though that under Alternative B, which emphasizes primitive or    wilderness protections, there could eventually be significant limitations on establishing new routes (at least in those areas that were primitive or wilderness).  I’m actually more concerned on this issue about comments made during a group telephone conference with Superintendent Karen Beppler-Dorn. She told us that there is now ongoing federal-level planning regarding climbing in all federal wilderness.  Upcoming federal decisions will likely affect the establishment of new climbing routes in wilderness everywhere in the United States (and Pinnacles will be bound by any such decisions in spite of anything that its own Climbing Management Plan may say).

[mungeclimber]

Thx for that.

I was recently reading about the existing camping restrictions and abandoned property rules. I thought this might play into establishment of aid climbs at Pinnacles. Since there are relatively fewer formations taller than 1-2 pitches, I probably don't have much support in the climbing community, but it occured to me that both hard multipitch aiding and also beginner overnight trips would be completely eliminated if existing rules are kept.

[F4?]

Gold Star for Brad

[Gavin]

I would tend to echo Brad's thoughts / findings with the draft GMP... Overall, I don't think any existing climbing routes will be altered or removed due to the management plan. I also agree with Adam that public responses to the draft GMP are important, and definitely factor into the process of the final direction the GMP will take.

Unofficially, I would guess that alternative D (the "preferred" alternative) will be chosen unless there is significant public outcry. Alternative B (the primitive/wilderness alternative) and Alternative C (the development alternative with potential equestrian trail use) are extremes that I would guess the majority of park visitors would reject. And by the way: equestrian trail development would potentially occur under Alternative C in the bottomlands along Highway 146, not on existing trails (...but I agree with Joe that this would be a very bad idea).

For climbing, I echo Brad's concern about the conference call we had. Evidently there is a federal-level review of wilderness management that would effect wilderness on all federal lands - national parks, forests, etc. We don't have any official word on these developments yet, but I'll keep folks posted on what I learn on this end.

[Atomizer]

In light of the recent actions to make Pinnacles a National Park, I'm wondering how this planning process will be affected. Will this GMP become outdated almost immediately with the potential increased demand on the resources. Is the Carrying Capacity for a resource considered when making a decision to make a NM a NP?

It seems to me like the only alternatives that would handle the increased demand would be Alternative C or D.

I am personally in favor of bringing a more diverse audience to the park and am not against further development. I would love to see backcountry camping sites made available to the public as well as a westside campground. One of the problems with the Pinns is that it is virtually a day use only area.

Now that this will be a National Park I think the 10 site walk in campground would be inadequately small to handle future needs. I want a larger camp that will actually be able to handle increased capacity so I'm not stuck without a site when I'm planning to have one.

I am also suggesting a ban on the sale of single use plastic waterbottles within the monument.

[Brad Young]

Adam, did you respond yet to their request for responses? The time is running out very quickly.

If you haven't, it would take five minutes to copy and paste your thoughts into their online form.

[Atomizer]

I have responded and I have been doing some outreach via social media.

I have also suggested a ban on rappel bolted routes within the park citing a degradation of park resources and protection for historical uses under the Antiquities Act.

I also brought up concerns of how a ten site camp would handle the increased use brought by NP status. I'm concerned  I would show up and it would be full most of the time. It seems like just adding the park to the map and saying there is camping on the Westside would make most NP passport stamp seekers go to the Westside instead of the east (which is can handle the increased load) is a potential problem with having camping there at all.

[mungeclimber]

crazy idea, but does a road on the north side of the monument that connects East and West make more sense IF there is increased load from the new status... over time?