Re: What Would You Designate a National Park?

Pinnacles is a nice enough place to visit, but to slap on the label "National Park" seems a bit much to me.

The reason why it's a National Monument right now is that it can be designated as such solely by the US President - without an act of Congress

Quote
y_p_w
Pinnacles is a nice enough place to visit, but to slap on the label "National Park" seems a bit much to me.

The reason why it's a National Monument right now is that it can be designated as such solely by the US President - without an act of Congress

Park status does come with stronger protections. So why not?

Quote
eeek

Quote
y_p_w
Pinnacles is a nice enough place to visit, but to slap on the label "National Park" seems a bit much to me.

The reason why it's a National Monument right now is that it can be designated as such solely by the US President - without an act of Congress

Park status does come with stronger protections. So why not?

Pinnacles is rather small and has a limited number of features, and none of it is on a grand scale. It's certainly interesting, but not what I'd think of as "National Park Material". In addition, there is no road connecting both sections of the park. There are already wilderness protection for the park, and some feel that the bump in status might mean more visitation and visitation impacts.

The surrounding area isn't well set up for visitors. There are a few places to stay in King City or Soledad. The alternative is to stay in Salinas. It just doesn't seem like a National Park to me. I know there's a push to make Mt St Helens a National Park, and that seems to be stuck in neutral.

Quote
eeek

Quote
y_p_w
Pinnacles is a nice enough place to visit, but to slap on the label "National Park" seems a bit much to me.

The reason why it's a National Monument right now is that it can be designated as such solely by the US President - without an act of Congress

Park status does come with stronger protections. So why not?

Curious, eeek - Under the NPS, how is a NP more strongly protected than a NM, other than that it has the official blessing of Congress? I think the rules and regs are virtually identical...Of course, anything established by law rather than executive order/fiat will have more teeth to it if push comes to shove, maybe that's what you refer to.

In some modern NMs, of course, like Grand Staircase-Escalante and Sequoia and MSHNVM, some amount of resource use and extraction is permitted, but those are also USFS or BLM-managed and for political reasons were established with these concessions. Of course, fishing is allowed almost everywhere, Grand Teton NP also allows some grazing and hunting, and the Alaska parks permit hunting in many areas, so no entity is perfectly immune...

In general, I think Pinnacles, as a NPS unit, is well-served and protected as though it were already a NP. OTOH MSHNVM, a DoA Forest Service unit, has lesser protections right now, and placing it under NPS protection as a park (assuming the forestry and such were discontinued) would be a step up for it, one which I'd support.

Bruce Jensen



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/07/2009 10:49AM by bpnjensen.

I'd have to look it up but I think mining claims are one of the big things National Park status protects the land from.

Quote
eeek
I'd have to look it up but I think mining claims are one of the big things National Park status protects the land from.

There was that area completely within Grand Canyon NP that had an operational mine up to 1972. I think it was originally copper, but eventually they mined uranium starting in the 1950s. I think that place was allowed to stay in operation since it predated the park. If I recall correctly, there were also some private trails where the owners were still allowed to collect tolls - until they ceded them to the NPS.

If you want to see the difference between protected and commercially mined land, go to the Moab area. Arches NP and Canyonlands NP were pretty much protected. Arches was a NM for years and I think Canyonlands might have had some BLM protection before it entered the NPS. The BLM areas around town that were allowed to be mined are considerably different looking.

I was going to mention Mt St Helens as a National Park, if Pinnacles is one, St Helens should be one, too. I vote neither.

There is nothing wrong with National Monument status. The areas are protected pretty much equal to NP's. Just a slightly different level of funding (and quality of park rangers). In this age of budget watching, I think we're better off leaving things just the way they are.

Pinnacles, which I have not visited, does have a fascinating history, considering the other half of the volcano resides in Lancaster...

Quote
Vince
Pinnacles, which I have not visited, does have a fascinating history, considering the other half of the volcano resides in Lancaster...

What is left of the other half:
http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=982ca723-c7f8-4f0d-909a-fec81860fef1

The Pinnacles NM half has weathered approx. 5k from its original height. The eastern (Neenach Formation) half has undergone much more severe weathering, ostensibly because it was not partially protected by the tilting and folding of the earth around it:
http://msu.everything2.com/?node_id=1849821

Quote
szalkowski
The Pinnacles NM half has weathered approx. 5k from its original height. The eastern (Neenach Formation) half has undergone much more severe weathering, ostensibly because it was not partially protected by the tilting and folding of the earth around it:
http://msu.everything2.com/?node_id=1849821

The one time I visited I saw the rock. It was rather odd compared to the sandstone or granite that I'm used to in many NPS sites. It has some pale salmon color, but up close there seemed to be embedded gray colored stones.

I'm not sure what could be done to upgrade the status to give it more "teeth" when it comes to resource protection or funding. I don't think it qualifies for any of the other designations (most which require establishing legislation) except maybe National Recreation Area.

Quote
y_p_w

Quote
szalkowski
The Pinnacles NM half has weathered approx. 5k from its original height. The eastern (Neenach Formation) half has undergone much more severe weathering, ostensibly because it was not partially protected by the tilting and folding of the earth around it:
http://msu.everything2.com/?node_id=1849821

The one time I visited I saw the rock. It was rather odd compared to the sandstone or granite that I'm used to in many NPS sites. It has some pale salmon color, but up close there seemed to be embedded gray colored stones.

I'm not sure what could be done to upgrade the status to give it more "teeth" when it comes to resource protection or funding. I don't think it qualifies for any of the other designations (most which require establishing legislation) except maybe National Recreation Area.

From the NPS website

"Rhyolitic breccia is the rock that the High Peaks and other rock formations at Pinnacles are made of. Rhyolite breccia is composed of lava sand, ash, and angular chunks of rock that were explosively ejected from the Pinnacles Volcano."

and

"The Pinnacles Volcanic Formation formed approximately 23 million years ago as it was extruded and deposited atop the granitic basement. The magma that was the source of all the volcanics was rhyolitic in origin. The formation consists of rocks such as banded and massive rhyolite, some andesites and dacites and various pyroclastic units. "

I have a bunch of Pinnacles photos here with more to come:

http://www.panoramio.com/user/1314131/tags/Pinnacles

It's a wonderful place to visit. Roosevelt was right to designate it a NM early on under the Antiquities Act. We never miss a springtime day in March or early April to visit the high peaks, watch the condors, stroll/crawl through the caves and see the unbelievable bash-up of wildflowers (one of the best displays anywhere in California). Hugely photogenic, hugely rewarding. Still, it is small and certainly does not preserve anything like a complete ecosystem (although with the surrounding Federal Wilderness it may come close).

An official Congressional Act and the Presidents' signature would make it harder to reduce its area or protection as a NPS unit. There are other national parks perhaps less worthy of the status (Hot Springs and Acadia come to mind), but Pinnacles is probably not the equal of a place like Great Sand Dunes, which Bush made a NP along with Black Canyon and a couple of other sites in Colorado.

I have always felt that the magnificent and enormous Baxter State Park vicinity in Maine deserved maximum federal protection. I am apparently not alone.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/07/2009 11:57AM by bpnjensen.

As a nearby south SF Bay resident for decades, I have visited Pinnacles several times over the years, climbed through its dark labyrinths, and hiked many of its trails. Although I believe its unique features, especially due to its geology, ought to be preserved as parkland, I don't think its physical and scenic assets quite rise to the level of what I consider a national park ought to. That said, there are certainly other national parks in the system that have similar values and some even less that I would also argue probably should not have been included. Some of California's most scenic natural features are not in national parks though have managed to find other levels of protection or park status. For instance the most scenicly impresssive part of our grand Sierra Nevada outside the incomparable Yosemite Valley is arguable the Ritter Range. The fact that it became a wilderness however serves it well although I wish it had not been excised during Yosemite's making. Others like Lake Tahoe or the Monterey penninsula/Point Lobos could have become world-class acclaimed national parks if history had dealt with them differently before developers and greedy resource exploiters had their way. y_p_w added several comments I would agree lead towards my own opinion One I would add is that the Pinnacles, like much of lower elevation California, suffers in its pleasantness during the long dry hot period of June through October. In dim November it is simply dry and lifeless. Rains of December and January slowly awaken its green life that then brings a short period of spring glory for a mere three months much like Carrizo Plain NM further south. Although climbers may highly value Pinnacles anytime of year, for either of those parklands, there really isn't much to offer broadly to average people at a world class level during the hot dry months



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 08/07/2009 01:35PM by DavidSenesac.

Quote
DavidSenesac
As a nearby south SF Bay resident for decades, I have visited Pinnacles several times over the years, climbed through its dark labyrinths, and hiked many of its trails. Although I believe its unique features, especially due to its geology, ought to be preserved as parkland, I don't think its physical and scenic assets quite rise to the level of what I consider a national park ought to. That said, there are certainly other national parks in the system that have similar values and some even less that I would also argue probably should not have been included. Some of California's most scenic natural features are not in national parks though have managed to find other levels of protection or park status. For instance the most scenicly impresssive part of our grand Sierra Nevada outside the incomparable Yosemite Valley is arguable the Ritter Range. The fact that it became a wilderness however serves it well although I wish it had not been excised during Yosemite's making. Others like Lake Tahoe or the Monterey penninsula/Point Lobos could have become world-class acclaimed national parks if history had dealt with them differently before developers and greedy resource exploiters had their way. y_p_w added several comments I would agree lead towards my own opinion One I would add is that the Pinnacles, like much of lower elevation California, suffers in its pleasantness during the long dry hot period of June through October. In dim November it is simply dry and lifeless. Rains of December and January slowly awaken its green life that then brings a short period of spring glory for a mere three months much like Carrizo Plain NM further south. Although climbers may highly value Pinnacles anytime of year, for either of those parklands, there really isn't much to offer broadly to average people at a world class level during the hot dry months

A great and accurate assessment, thanks David. Its size and climatological limitations would seem to place it one scant notch below NP status. I too wish that the Ritter Range and the Postpile had been kept within Yosemite's boundaries.

I like the comments about the Ritter Range and the Postpile. The Ritter Range (including the Minarets) are all volcanic...part of the overlay of the granite that is now Yosemite that hasn't worn away over time. Amazing to think all that was once flat.

Volcanic stuff fascinates me...I'm due for a visit to Lava Beds National Monument at the beginning of Sept.

Quote
Vince
The Ritter Range (including the Minarets) are all volcanic

Really? The rock looks metamorphic to me:

Geologic Map

Minarets are volcanic.

Quote
Vince
Minarets are volcanic.

Really? Just what type of rock are they?

Quote
Vince
Minarets are volcanic.

I see your "facts" are up to your usual standards. The Minarets are granite porphyry of Shellenbarger Lake and similar rocks, i.e. plutonic not volcanic.

Quote
eeek

Quote
Vince
Minarets are volcanic.

I see your "facts" are up to your usual standards. The Minarets are granite porphyry of Shellenbarger Lake and similar rocks, i.e. plutonic not volcanic.

Wrong. The Minarets are basalt.

Quote
Vince

Quote
eeek

Quote
Vince
Minarets are volcanic.

I see your "facts" are up to your usual standards. The Minarets are granite porphyry of Shellenbarger Lake and similar rocks, i.e. plutonic not volcanic.

Wrong. The Minarets are basalt.

The USGS doesn't agree with your claim, Vince.

Sheesh. This conversation just took a nose dive! Based on the available information on the web, it seems to me that this "disagreement" of facts could be laid to rest, in a few seconds...Eeek, post the link to the geological survey so that I can read the same thing that you are reading.....same for Vince...I would love to read the orignal sources of info (I seem to recall some physics background, Vince? (Eeek I know for sure because we have already talked about favorite professors/physicists) So, knowing what I know about having a science background, we love to hide behind the facts)

B

thanks for the info, David. I will be going to a mixed area just as you have described, tomorrow. Andesite Peak/Castle peak and the whole surrounding area (Northern Sierra) is a mixture of volcanic and glacial/granite formations. Some of the upper peaks 9k+ are volcanic ramparts, while the lower valley areas are carved out granite.

Castle Peak -- 9K



Bee

The USGS has a G that rhymes with guess.

Quote
Vince
The USGS has a G that rhymes with guess.

Right, Vince. They're just guessing (from a field study no less) and you know it all. Please sure with us just how much college level education you've had and how much of that was geology. Hurry up, we're waiting to see how you can be so certain about rock you've never touched and the USGS can be so wrong.

Both of you are somewhat correct. I've had the set of California geological maps for many years and also picked up the USGS Devils Postpile 15' quad geological map. At least when those maps were made, the Ritter crest areas were considered Jurasic/Triasic metamorphosized volcanic rock and further to the east are bands of somewhat older metamorphosized sedimentary rock. The latter is especially evident on a line from the Shadow Lake outlet to areas downstream of 1000 Island Lake. I actually found an unmistakenable shell fossil in bedrock on the ridge between Garnet and 1000 I. Have seen some granite outcrops here and there too. Lower areas of the Minaret Creek drainage are buried in layers of pumice from Mammoth Mountain down of course to DP. Just to the east, recent volcanic's make up all of San Joaquin Ridge. For amature geology enthusiasts like this person, I would highly recommend exploring the andesite areas on slopes just east of Summit Lake and Clark Lakes. Some really impressive and colorfully bizarre formations.

Quote
DavidSenesac
Both of you are somewhat correct. I've had the set of California geological maps for many years and also picked up the USGS Devils Postpile 15' quad geological map. At least when those maps were made, the Ritter crest areas were considered Jurasic/Triasic metamorphosized volcanic rock and further to the east are bands of somewhat older metamorphosized sedimentary rock. The latter is especially evident on a line from the Shadow Lake outlet to areas downstream of 1000 Island Lake. I actually found an unmistakenable shell fossil in bedrock on the ridge between Garnet and 1000 I. Have seen some granite outcrops here and there too. Lower areas of the Minaret Creek drainage are buried in layers of pumice from Mammoth Mountain down of course to DP. Just to the east, recent volcanic's make up all of San Joaquin Ridge. For amature geology enthusiasts like this person, I would highly recommend exploring the andesite areas on slopes just east of Summit Lake and Clark Lakes. Some really impressive and colorfully bizarre formations.

Great post!

Apparently there's some talk about perhaps designating what's now Cedar Breaks National Monument as a National Park.

http://www.thespectrum.com/article/20090809/NEWS01/908090317/Commission+Meeting
http://www.ohranger.com/cedar-breaks/news/2009/cedar-breaks-america%E2%80%99s-next-national-park

I've been there. As it is now, it's a really small park although this proposed move would expand the size by adding what's now Forest Service land. It's fascinating (similar in some respects to Bryce Canyon on a smaller scale) but I'm not sure if it's "National Park" material. It's not open year round because of snow, but I would think that "National Park" designation would mean that they would plow during winter. It's near the ski town of Brian Head, so they probably wouldn't have to plow much more beyond what's currently done.

Quote
y_p_w
Apparently there's some talk about perhaps designating what's now Cedar Breaks National Monument as a National Park.
It's not open year round because of snow, but I would think that "National Park" designation would mean that they would plow during winter.

A high percentage (and in some cases, all) of the roads in Yosemite, Kings Canyon, Lassen, Grand Canyon North Rim, Bryce, Yellowstone, Glacier are not plowed... just to name a few.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/14/2009 04:38PM by szalkowski.

Quote
szalkowski

Quote
y_p_w
Apparently there's some talk about perhaps designating what's now Cedar Breaks National Monument as a National Park.
It's not open year round because of snow, but I would think that "National Park" designation would mean that they would plow during winter.

A high percentage (and in some cases, all) of the roads in Yosemite, Kings Canyon, Lassen, Grand Canyon North Rim, Bryce, Yellowstone, Glacier are not plowed... just to name a few.

Cedar Breaks only had one road going through the NPS land. The road passing through Cedar Breaks is maybe 6 miles long, so it's not as if they have a whole lot of road to plow.

Quote
y_p_w

Quote
szalkowski

Quote
y_p_w
Apparently there's some talk about perhaps designating what's now Cedar Breaks National Monument as a National Park.
It's not open year round because of snow, but I would think that "National Park" designation would mean that they would plow during winter.

A high percentage (and in some cases, all) of the roads in Yosemite, Kings Canyon, Lassen, Grand Canyon North Rim, Bryce, Yellowstone, Glacier are not plowed... just to name a few.

Cedar Breaks only had one road going through the NPS land. The road passing through Cedar Breaks is maybe 6 miles long, so it's not as if they have a whole lot of road to plow.

Doesn't look like an avalanche hazard area either.

Quote
eeek

Quote
y_p_w
Cedar Breaks only had one road going through the NPS land. The road passing through Cedar Breaks is maybe 6 miles long, so it's not as if they have a whole lot of road to plow.

Doesn't look like an avalanche hazard area either.

According to the Google Maps terrain view, however, that road is at 10.5k. (That's >2k higher than Bryce.)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/14/2009 07:55PM by szalkowski.

Quote
szalkowski

Quote
eeek

Quote
y_p_w
Cedar Breaks only had one road going through the NPS land. The road passing through Cedar Breaks is maybe 6 miles long, so it's not as if they have a whole lot of road to plow.

Doesn't look like an avalanche hazard area either.

According to the Google Maps terrain view, however, that road is at 10.5k. (That's 3.0k higher than Bryce.)

And how high is the juction of 143 and 148? It's plowed.

Quote
eeek
And how high is the juction of 143 and 148? It's plowed.

Pretty close to the same. Never been through there, but I'm guessing that the whole section of 143 through that area wouldn't be plowed if the town of Brian Head wasn't there.

Quote
szalkowski

Quote
eeek
And how high is the juction of 143 and 148? It's plowed.

Pretty close to the same. Never been through there, but I'm guessing that the whole section of 143 through that area wouldn't be plowed if the town of Brian Head wasn't there.

Oh, I quite agree. But Ceder Breaks wouldn't be all that hard to add.

Quote
y_p_w
but I'm not sure if it's "National Park" material.

National Park status affords higher levels of protection. So why not change?

Quote
eeek

Quote
y_p_w
but I'm not sure if it's "National Park" material.

National Park status affords higher levels of protection. So why not change?

There really isn't much recreation there. They've got about two or three overlooks, one campground, and one major road. I think there's only one trail, and you can't really hike in the hoodoos and formations at Cedar Breaks like you can at Bryce Canyon. They don't even have an entrance station. When I was there we presented a pass at the visitor center. Not only that, but the park headquarters are far away from the monument in Cedar City - abour 25 miles away.

I've heard that they used to have a lodge there designed by Gilbert Stanley Underwood for the Utah Parks Company division of the Union Pacific Railroad. Eventually it was torn down after the Utah Parks Company donated them to the NPS, and the protests over it kept the remaining lodges at Zion and Bryce Canyon from being torn down.

http://www.nps.gov/cebr/historyculture/cedar-breaks-historic-lodge.htm

I started thinking about it, and there are some places that could have come under the purview of the NPS had they either not been developed or there were some way to purchase the sites from private owners.

Meteor Crater in Arizona is one of those places. There's no doubt in my mind that Lake Tahoe would have been a prime site for a National Recreation Area or perhaps even a National Park. There apparently had been efforts to declare the Lake Tahoe Basin a National Park in the early 20th century - back when development was limited to a few vacation homes.

Back to the original thread question, the southern Sierra Nevada has Yosemite, Kings Canyon, and Sequoia national parks with much of the surrounding areas wilderness. Although I doubt the current mix of national park, federal wilderness, and national forest lands will ever change, I would prefer some boundary changes.

Yosemite should have included parts of Ritter Range from the earliest days and if it were, it would be the crown jewels of the park's high country. I don't think all of Ansels Adams need be included but rather say from Deadhorse Lake north, including all of Volcanic Ridge to Shadow Lake, then on a line to Two Teats north to Carson Peak then west along the divide to Island Pass and around the Rush Creek reservoirs and up to include the Lost Lakes to the current Yosemite boundary. The other part that ought be included is Lee Vining Canyon from the 9,000 foot elevation bend at Warren Fork and above. The reason is currently many people race their vehicles right through Lee Vining canyon thinking once they reach the Yosemite boundary they are going to be seeing much more magnificence. But surprise upon reaching western slopes its all lodgepole pine forest for miles. Ironically the northern aspects of Dana Plateau one sees from highway 120 in those areas are the only roadside views of Sierra Crest alpine craggy mountains one will see. Once in the park all that is left except for the much less spectacular brief section of Tenaya Peak above Tenaya Lake. If the park boundary were lower down below the pass, visitors would start looking at it for what it is, one of the more magnificent crest areas of the range. I'd bet were it a part of the park with a good trail, thousands would hike from the pass to Dana Plateau with its cloud level views down avalanche chutes to immense talus fields and out in the distance to Mono Lake, Mono Craters, and the east.

Further south between Yosemite and Kings Canyon, I think the crest from Red Slate to Four Gables/Royce Peak is solidly World class. A special wilderness national park that included the Silver Divide east of Graveyard Peak, upper Fish Creek from Virginia Lake basin south, McGee Creek above 8.2k, Rock Creek above Mosquito Flat, Pine Creek above the mine including the Royce Lakes, Mono Creek above Edison, Bear Creek above the diversion dam, would make one awesome backcountry national park wilderness. The John Muir Wilderness serves those areas well, however even without those sections it is still huge and gangly.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 08/26/2009 11:35PM by DavidSenesac.

Pssst, David: I liked having Dana all to myself a couple of weeks ago!

Bee

Quote
Bee
Pssst, David: I liked having Dana all to myself a couple of weeks ago!

Bee

Me too - I vote for keeping the rough route up Dana a rough route, and forget a nicely hewn switchback freeway.

Quote
bpnjensen

Quote
Bee
Pssst, David: I liked having Dana all to myself a couple of weeks ago!

Bee

Me too - I vote for keeping the rough route up Dana a rough route, and forget a nicely hewn switchback freeway.

I wouldn't want to be on the crew hewing those boulders into a trail.

Too late. Better to have 1 nicely hewn switchback route than 20 abuse trails.

(there's a trail to the top now already)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/01/2009 01:53PM by bill-e-g.

Quote
bill-e-g
Too late. Better to have 1 nicely hewn switchback route than 20 abuse trails.

(there's a trail to the top now already)

Yes, there IS a trail, but it is quite narrow and lightly trodded, and it is not ground down to the point of more accurately calling it a canal. The only place that I saw multi-aproaches was about 100ft from the summit, and at that point, it was just a matter of which boulders/tallis worked best. I beelieve that the real reason that Dana is not the pack train that it could bee is that it is hardly mentioned in any "official" trail books. As far as abuse goes, I think that lack of mention alone keeps the area from over abuse. So I vote to keep it that way. Shhhhhhh!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/01/2009 05:51PM by Bee.

Quote
Bee

Quote
bill-e-g
Too late. Better to have 1 nicely hewn switchback route than 20 abuse trails.

(there's a trail to the top now already)

Yes, there IS a trail, but it is quite narrow and lightly trodded, and it is not ground down to the point of more accurately calling it a canal. The only place that I saw multi-aproaches was about 100ft from the summit, and at that point, it was just a matter of which boulders/tallis worked best. I beelieve that the real reason that Dana is not the pack train that it could bee is that it is hardly mentioned in any "official" trail books. As far as abuse goes, I think that lack of mention alone keeps the area from over abuse. So I vote to keep it that way. Shhhhhhh!

I agree - the Dana route(s) are not a spiderweb of erosion, and no place on the use trail is a terrible mess.

Mt. Hoffmann, OTOH, at some places up the main slope are just a tangle of dozens of pathways that intersect and criss-cross. A beautiful walk up there, but this hill definitely needs a single trail.

They "built" a "real" trail up Hoffman this year. At least that is what I was told.
So maybe that mess will go away in some years...