Hey Peninsula MTN bikers,
The National Park Service (NPS) and the Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA) planners have finished making their restoration and trail plan document for Mori Point in Pacifica.
If the planners get their wish (i.e. if their “preferred plan” is ratified), mountain bikers will lose. We have until March 31, to submit our comments on the plan. I ask that you submit your comments showing support for Alternative 3.
The plan has four Alternatives, each containing a restoration, trail alignment, and trail use designation component:
Alternative 1: “Preferred” Alternative (NOT PREFERRED BY ME)
Hiker-only designations would be in effect on all segments through, or leading to, steep and erosion-prone areas. Multiple-use opportunities (hiking, bicycling, and equestrian uses) were identified on the California Coastal Trail (CCT) and its main connector routes.
Alternative 2: Limited Multiple-use (THE WORST OF THE ALTERNATIVES, IN MY OPINION)
Under this alternative, only Mori Road, the California Coastal Trail,and California Coastal Trail Connector near the “bowl” area are designated for multiple-use. All other trails would be hiker-only.
Alternative 3: All Multiple-Use (THIS IS THE BEST OPTION!!)
All trails would be designated multiple-use, with no restrictions on biking, hiking, or equestrian use.
Alternative 4: No Action
Under this alternative, the GGNRA would continue with the limited restoration activities currently authorized by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. No additional restoration, trail alignments, or use designation would occur.
The plan overview can be found here:
The plan details can be found here:
You should especially read Chapter 2 which describes the alternatives and has maps. Also read Appendix C, on the Trail Construction Methods.
Public comment is open until March 31, 2006.
The online comment form is found here:
A printable comment form is found here:
I urge you to submit your comments SUPPORTING ALTERNATIVE 3. !!!!!!!!!
The so-called “preferred” alternative (Alternative 1) will close many of the trails to bikes. We must state our opposition to Alternative 1 and 2.
We must inundate the planners with overwhelming support for Alternative 3!!!!
I’m also not particularly happy with their planned train construction methods which are classic GGNRA, as follows:
“New trails would be constructed so that they are outsloped from 2 to 5% to allow water to drain from the surface naturally. The CCT multiple-use alignment would be approximately six feet wide where feasible plus a one-foot shoulder on both sides. Other new trails would be approximately five feet wide, plus shoulders. Trail tread would be of a durable, appropriately colored material. Where trail alignments exceed a grade of 8-12%, construction of timber steps would be considered.”
Six feet wide trails!?!?!? Durable “appropriately colored” material!?!?! (Ummmm I prefer dirt color.) Timber steps!?!?!
Please, all you trail building experts need to refute the need to make six foot wide, orange paved trails with timber steps. It sounds like biking hell to me. (These horrible trail construction methods are standard procedure for GGNRA so I doubt we can change them.)
At the very least, please submit your comments supporting ALTERNATIVE 3, and please tell them that Alternatives 1 and 2 are BAD.
Aaron DelloIacono Thies adt at sfmtb.com