Your thoughts on trail relocation??

[Rubicrawler]

The Area Rep from the Pacific Ranger Dist is concerned about the marshy section of the trail just beyond the granite bowl. There are numerous bypasses and a lot of errosion taking place. I have been told that there is an unused section of trail that can be used to bypass the marshy section but I have never personally been on it.

Does anyone have some details on the condition of this unused section of trail? Should we attempt to re-establish this section and block the entrance to the marshy section? Or do we attempt to drain the water and block the bypasses?

I'd like to hear your opinions on how we could deal with this best. We're looking for a long term solution on this issue that the USFS will support.

TIA for your thoughts!

Mark

[twn44s]

Are you talking about Dave Boyer?, The area does need some work, the water drained and the by-passes blocked.I'm in favor of fixing the regular trail.I hate giving up any amount of trail.

[Rubicrawler]

Originally posted by twn44s
Are you talking about Dave Boyer?, The area does need some work, the water drained and the by-passes blocked.I'm in favor of fixing the regular trail.I hate giving up any amount of trail.

No, Rich Platt. I'm not sure if we'd be loosing or gaining but I agree with you. I, personally, like that section of trail and would prefer to repair what's there

[Monkeyboy]

seems to me like that section of the trail is level with the res. at times.

How could we drain it off. We would have to drain the whole darn Res. or we could build a dike.

[Dan-H]

Mark,

I vaguely recall this discussion at the meeting in P-ville, but I'm not sure exactly where you are talking about.

From the perspective of heading in to spider,

is it between the the bowl and ellis?

(assuming yes) is it the stretch in the trees just after that down hill drop?

Maybe some more specifics, like, GPS coordinates of where the current trail would get blocked and where it would join back in.

[MikeCAjeeper]

Originally posted by Rubicrawler
The Area Rep from the Pacific Ranger Dist is concerned about the marshy section of the trail just beyond the granite bowl. There are numerous bypasses and a lot of errosion taking place. I have been told that there is an unused section of trail that can be used to bypass the marshy section but I have never personally been on it.

Does anyone have some details on the condition of this unused section of trail? Should we attempt to re-establish this section and block the entrance to the marshy section? Or do we attempt to drain the water and block the bypasses?

I'd like to hear your opinions on how we could deal with this best. We're looking for a long term solution on this issue that the USFS will support.

TIA for your thoughts!

Mark

I took what I think is the un-used route he is talking about last year. After you come out of Granite Bowl and go over the top of the ridge you drop down the approx 15 foot rock face area. At that point you can either drop straight down or there is a little loop bypass to the left. Once you go past that area the bypass route in question is just a little bit farther before you start in to the swap area. You hang a left and head up hill due east. This takes you over to the Wentworth Springs to Ellis Creek trail. There is more granite that way and avoids the swamp mud hole areas. I don't think it would take anything away from the Rubicon. Remember trail run off in to streams and lakes is the fastest way the greenies can get trails closed. We really need to survey the area and add up the +'s and -'s. The original Rubicon trail route that dates back to the 1850's went through Wentworth Springs to Ellis Creek route. Everyone today as well as me perfers to enter through the Gate Keeper and go through Granite Bowl because it's so bitchen. If the swamp area was blocked off the change would not effect either...

One option would be to just close the swamp route during wet times?

[Aggro]

We need to get together to ensure we all are on the same page. If it's the section I think you are talking about, like stated above it would be VERY difficult to repair and drain and keep it that way. I am all for the so called unused portion as I already use it exclusively!! I really wouldn't take that much work to get it up to par for the "masses". It is at a higher elevation too, so run off and water from pleasant lake would be way less of an issue.

[Jeepndel]

I am working with the USFS (Dave and Rich) to get their perspective on fixing that section of the trail. We should know more soon.
Del

[Rubicrawler]

Originally posted by Jeepndel
I am working with the USFS (Dave and Rich) to get their perspective on fixing that section of the trail. We should know more soon.
Del

Great Del! Take the lead and keep us posted

[cruzila]

There is a "corridor" of small trees just before this "left" turn. Right now if you turn left before that, it is kind of off track. There is a way through but it is not real clear. Any new route should turn left before those trees. In the spring, the drifts are so bad in the trees that most go "left" there anyway. This would not take anything from the trail but only add more rock and take away springtime "wet issues". This is what is at stake. In summer the ground dries out, mud holes flatten or taper the edges and it is not an issue.

Any partial closing of the trail would involve gates and THAT is what we are trying to avoid!

[rockwrangler]

seems to me like that section of the trail is level with the res. at times.

monkeyboy is right this mud hole is at the present water level of the reservoir at least it was on June 29

I work for a water district and work with creek and reservoir flows all day and I looked this area over on the way out after the June 29th work day, and you could pump this area all day and not dry it out. I beleave that most of the water in this mud pit comes thru the bank from the reservoir with maybe some from a spring uphill from the mud hole!
And with the closeness of the reservoir any pumping could cause turbidity (Silt-dirt) to enter the reservoir.

The ALT-trail maybe the best answer or bring in a LOT OF ROCKand make the trail here higher than the maximun reservoir elevation, or a elevation the matches the crest ( TOP ) of the reservoir spillway. At that level there should be little if any impact to the marsh area as long as people stay on the rocked area.
But we all Know how mud attracts some people

[twn44s]

I beleive it is worth trying to fix the area it is nice to have some by-passes on busy weekends . if it cannot be drained then let it dry out and then use it , again just hate giving up any section of trail.

[Aggro]

I think the area would likely take 20X the rock we placed after ellis for a decent repair. It is only a problem in the spring and late fall. During the summer it is dry and not an issue.

[ROCKLIMO]

If people would take the "real" Rubicon Trail(Wentworth Springs) and not the Loon Lake "bypass" there would be no problem. I say completly close the Loon Lake bypass and use the real trail......is not that what the goal is anyway?????

[Jeepndel]

Actually, I cannot seem to find anyone that really knows where the real trails are or are not. There's a lot of disagreement. So we're going to pull the old records (surveys), historical documents, and do a new survey. It's already started. We also have private property issues and easements in doubt.

Del