Gila River Canyons re-route

[garyc57]

First off, I'm a newbie on the AZT, so take my thoughts and comments with a huge grain of salt...

I've known about the re-route of the Gila River Canyons passage (#16) for months, if not a year or more now. While reading about the GET (Grand Enchantment Trail), it hit me that the re-route bypasses the only reliable water supply in the whole area - the artesian well in Walnut Canyon(?). I realize that the new route allows bike riders to ride this passage... but to intentionally bypass the water??? I don't understand.

My idea. (Probably not an original idea, but hey...) In the same way that the AZT offers two routes in the Flagstaff area, (Passage # 33 which goes thru Flagstaff, vs. Passage # 32, which goes around Flagstaff) why not offer two routes here? One for bikers and others that don't need the water, and the other for hikers and equestrians that want the water. Kinda like Arizona State Highway 89 thru Page and 89a thru Jacob Lake.

PROS:
1. A reliable water re-supply point.
2. A shorter route. (7 miles shorter!)

CONS:
1. Yet another trail to maintenance - it is in a remote area.
2. Confusion by users - taking the wrong route.

I'm sure there are other pros and cons that I haven't thought of. Please feel free to add to the list.

What do ya'll think? Would it be worth the effort?

Gary

[Nighthiker]

Would mining in the Cooper Butte Area cause the reroute ?

[Sredfield]

Would mining in the Cooper Butte Area cause the reroute ?

Yup. That's why the reroute, that and the wilderness ban on bikes.
Also, the Gila River is said to be safe to drink, with filtering/treatment. And there should be cache boxes out there before too awful long for users or their angels to leave water.

[blisterfree]

Hey there Gary-

Actually, there is sometimes (frequently?) more water along the new route than just the Gila River. I haven't yet personally hiked the finished Gila River Canyons passage, but mtb'er Scott Morris has been through at least twice and reported a small spring / seep in a roadcut somewhere near the dogleg turn (where eastbounders approach the Gila River for the first time).

Even so, the new route is substantially longer. Scenery is said to be comparable along either route. The possibility of encountering OHV's is probably increased along the old route. So there are pros and cons to each.

Hikers and equestrians prefer wilderness areas where available. Cyclists enjoy uninterrupted access to the trail where available. So I agree that there are virtues to both routes, depending on one's point of view and mode of transportation. The old route was never officially maintained as the Arizona Trail (due to BLM's concerns over endorsing the wilderness route as the AZT, I believe) although it did and I believe continues to have occasional wooden posts with AZT blazes as well as labelled carsonite posts. The best compromise solution would be to let these old markers stand, for the benefit of those who would prefer to continue using the old route. And perhaps an intrepid hiker or horse-person could continue to perform unofficial maintenance and flagging on the old route, too. It's always been a very rough, rocky, vague and brushy affair even in the height of its use.

The new Arizona Trail topo map CD shows both the old and new routes in this area. So the legacy of the WCW route is being kept alive cartographically, if not in guidebook form at this point.

The Copper Butte mining patents are a long-range concern only.

[blisterfree]

On a tangent, I wonder what hikers and equestrians happen to think of the new, lower, non-wilderness route around Kachina Peaks. Could this be an area worthy of two designated routes for the AZ Trail?

[garyc57]

On a tangent, I wonder what hikers and equestrians happen to think of the new, lower, non-wilderness route around Kachina Peaks.

Uh... AZT newbie here... Kachina Peaks? Which passage is that on? Thanks! And where do I find out more about this new route?

[chumley]

Uh... AZT newbie here... Kachina Peaks? Which passage is that on? Thanks! And where do I find out more about this new route?

Kachina Peaks is the name of the official federally-designated Wilderness Area on the San Francisco Peaks north of Flagstaff. Segment #34.

This map shows the two routes. One being in the wilderness area, and one outside of it where biking is allowed.
http://hikearizona.com/map.php?QX=2083

[writelots]

I like the new route, personally. It's beautiful, quiet and some of the fanciest trail I've been on ever.

[blisterfree]

I like the new route, personally. It's beautiful, quiet and some of the fanciest trail I've been on ever.

The new Gila River Canyons section does look beautiful and fancy - no question there! I think the question some may be asking is more along the lines of "at what cost" for such an experience. Thru-hikers, in particular. Which isn't to level criticism at any party, but only to highlight the value of keeping both options viable to future trail users.

I think two things might change the dynamic: Reliable, developed water along the GRC route, perhaps in the form of a solar well, to be located just above the Gila River flood plain, north side of the river, and accessible in the construction phase from Florence-Kelvin Highway (as a ford during times of low water). That, and the deterioration of the old route through WCW, either through loss of the use trail through lack of use / upkeep, active mining at Copper Butte with secondary impacts to the trail corridor, increasing OHV use and abuse (wilderness incursions and so forth), or a combination of any of these. As it stands, though, the old route will continue to be favored by thru-hikers for its shorter distance and better water. The "shorter distance" thing might seem oxymoronic, since long-distance hiking is, on its face, about hiking long distance (and an eagerness to see new things). The reality, though, is that it's also about being in survival mode to a certain extent, and the path of least resistance is often all but impossible to resist. (Especially when it also rewards along the way.)

[Sredfield]

Uh... AZT newbie here... Kachina Peaks? Which passage is that on? Thanks! And where do I find out more about this new route?

Kachina Peaks is the name of the official federally-designated Wilderness Area on the San Francisco Peaks north of Flagstaff. Segment #34.

This map shows the two routes. One being in the wilderness area, and one outside of it where biking is allowed.
http://hikearizona.com/map.php?QX=2083

Officially, the non-wilderness route is the Arizona Trail. The Forest Service takes exception to calling the Kachina trail the AZT. The AZT is multi-mode--bikes, hikers and equestrians--which is not consistent with the Wilderness designation. AZT hikers can, of course, hike their own hike.

[blisterfree]

Thanks Shawn! Anyone know the latest on the push to build a non-wilderness AZT route for cyclists over the Catalinas? The current Pusch Ridge Wilderness route option would remain, right? And by "option," I mean the route would presumably still be endorsed by ATA and USFS, described in the guidebook, etc.

Just my personal opinion, but in some cases there are "existential" benefits to endorsing and maintaining two official routes - by pleasing (thrilling) all trail users equally and by continuing to surround the AZT with sort of the high-minded mystique and allure of officially-designated wilderness that tends to bring support and attention from more distant corners, and not necessarily just trail users per se. Wilderness boosts a trail's street cred, so to speak. In that respect, I think it would be an asset, rather than a liability, for the Coconino NF folks (and ATA) to have the AZT moniker on the Kachina Peaks Wilderness. Most trail users follow the rules of the road, especially now that the non-wilderness mtb-allowed route has been established around Kachina. It seems like a win-win to me.

[Sredfield]

There is a complete route, assembled from several existing trails, and a new one constructed last year. ATA is working with the FS to get it signed.