NWHikers.net

It is not easy to give the status of the Middle Fork Road. You are right that the western section is a King County road which ends about a mile or so short of the new Middle Fork Campground. The rest is presently a Forest Service road and will be until the decision is implemented and the gate is locked. At that point the portion from Dingford east will remain a FS road and the portion east of the gate will become a trail with inholders having a right to enter into an easement to drive and maintain the road portion. The FS will maintain the trail portion of the road width. At that point it becomes complex and involves complex issues of mining law. At the point where the gate is locked some holding under the mining laws, with a perfected mining claim who own their land outright, will have a right to enter into an easement and pay an annual fee to the FS and maintain their portion of the road. Other people have mining claims but do not own their land outright. They have a right to drive over the road area without an easement and without paying an annual fee. I am not sure which if any miners (or mineral collectors as they prefer to be called) will enter into an easement. Goldmyer will enter into an easement and pay the annual fee. I don't pretend to know much if anything about mining law so my description of the various rights under mining law may be off a bit.

Regarding pavement of the road, I still can't figure that out. It is a Federal Highway project, which Slade Gordon sneaked into an appropriation bill years ago. It has taken on a life of its own and with little recognition of what happens after the end of the paved portion which is close to the new Middle Fork Campground. It certainly is not moving quickly.

Chuck

It has been interesting to read this thread and see a lot of misinformation, but a lot of correct information. As a Board Member and attorney for Goldmyer and Northwest Wilderness Programs, I have been involved in a lot of the issues. The email from Doug Schrenk, quoted by Art Not, is basically what we understand also. I personally don't see much of a chance that the bridge is going to be completed by November, and as indicated by Doug, it will probably be finished next Spring depending on weather. I understand that the decommissioning work is funded and should start fairly soon. The decommissioning work will not do anything to make it impossible for inholders to drive on the road. Goldmyer is particularly concerned to maintain access for disabled, elderly, youth groups, etc. and the easement and road agreement as drafted, but not yet signed, provides for reasonable access for such groups through the gates and to the bridge. The Forest Service personnel we have dealt with, including Doug Schrenk and the Chief Ranger, Jim Franzell, have been very reasonable and have kept all their agreements. I don't know what some lower level receptionists or person answering the phone may have said, or for that matter what a caretaker at Goldmyer may have said. The above is fact and not based on speculation.

Chuck

I did not mean to suggest in my comment that there was some small group which had some secret agenda they were trying to accomplish. What I meant was that the Forest Service, by not distributing the information widely, could not rely on comments from those who did answer as being representative of the users of the area. However some groups did a good job of getting their members mobilized. Some of them wanted the gate at Taylor River, which in my opinion would have been a lot worse. Some of the groups which did make comments were Sierra Club, MidForc, WTA, Cascade Bicycle Club, NWWP, and others. I am a member of several of these groups and certainly do not intend to blame them for getting the troops out. The Forest Service treats the comments as being representative of "the general public" or "all users of the area", when in reality it is more like the opinion of a small number of special interest groups.

Chuck

Kat:

I agree with you about the notice given by the F.S. In fact I stated such in my comment which I filed to the EA, where I said:

"We feel the comment period for this EA should be extended at least 120 days. This comment deadline was put in place with very little public notice and done during a time of the year with little public use of the valley. This left a large number of the public out of the process.

This EA was based on the desires of too small a group given the wide spread public use of this area. This EA will have an effect on a large number of public users of the upper valley and they are not being allowed to have a say given the short comment period."

However to give the F.S. credit, they did post signs along the road in the lower valley. The signs lasted about a day at most. I suspect the same would be true about any signs by the gate. That does not mean they should not put up the signs or put notices up on their web site.

Chuck