Forum Index > Trail Talk > Electric bikes soon to be humming along national park trails
 Reply to topic
Previous :: Next Topic
Author Message
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostThu Dec 12, 2019 10:49 am 
Wilderness is about the absence of mechanized travel, not merely the absence of impacts. If it was about the absence of impacts, entrance would be banned to everyone. The reason for exclusion of motors in non wilderness areas was because of weight, exhaust, and noise. Those reasons do not apply to ebikes. Not accepting an argument is not the same as not getting one. These arguments have been made for 40+ pages so far.

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Tom
Admin



Joined: 15 Dec 2001
Posts: 17835 | TRs | Pics
Tom
Admin
PostThu Dec 12, 2019 11:19 am 
Comes down to rationale to designate non-motorized. Lawmakers have decided to differentiate ebikes from motor vehicles and provide exceptions on roads, sidewalks, and shared use paths. No reason similar exceptions can't be made where they don't conflict with the non-motorized rationale. Here is a list of rationales per one FS map: https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsbdev7_020727.pdf Code Rationale A Damage to soil B Damage to watershed and/or water quality C Damage to riparian resource D Harassment of wildlife and significant disruption of wildlife habitats E Damage to vegetation F Damage to cultural resources G Damage to other forest resource (natural or cultural) H Public safety hazard I Duplicate route J Conflicts between motor vehicle use and existing or proposed recreational uses K Conflicts among different classes of motor vehicle uses of NFS lands L Motor vehicle use not compatible with existing conditions in populated areas, taking into account sound, emissions, and other factors. N ROAD not needed N TRAIL not proposed by motorized users O Oil and gas lease access only U Road/Trail segment on private property or dead ends on private property X Land transfer (will be transferred) W Trail is in, close to, or leads to wilderness

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Brian R
Member
Member


Joined: 10 Feb 2018
Posts: 501 | TRs | Pics
Brian R
Member
PostThu Dec 12, 2019 11:33 am 
RandyHiker wrote:
Brian R wrote:
The problem is that even when road washouts occur, wilderness boundaries remain static. In most national parks, a "cherry-stem" exempts 50' on either side of the road from its center. In other words, the cherry-stem is a non-wilderness corridor surrounded by designated wilderness. Hence, when the river claims a section of road, a detour into designated wilderness becomes necessary. If you're on a bike, you are now SOL.
That's incorrect in a number of aspects. 1) The buffer zone around the road is a half mile not 50ft 2) Many of said roads were hastily built prior to the wilderness being designated in an attempt to prevent to entire valley around the road from being included in the wilderness. 3) The hasty road construction resulted in roads that were in poor shape very quickly. Two notable examples are the upper Middle Fork Snoqualmie river road and the Taylor River road, both of which have been abandoned for vehicle access, but converted to a trail for hikers and cyclists. Can you provide a specific example of a 100 foot wide strip as you described?
You are confusing the buffer zone along the outer boundary of a designated wilderness area--where non-wilderness activities can still be partly managed--with road stems. For clarity, 97% of MRNP is designated wilderness. So, by your belief, every road in the park would have a half mile buffer. And, hence, nearly 30% or more of the park would be non-wilderness. The CCC Road on the Middle Fork was built in the 1930s--The Wilderness Act was passed in 1964. Can you reexplain your premise? Yes, there were wilderness areas set aside before 1964--the first being Glacier Peak Wilderness in 1960.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Randito
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 9495 | TRs | Pics
Location: Bellevue at the moment.
Randito
Snarky Member
PostThu Dec 12, 2019 1:34 pm 
Brian R wrote:
The CCC Road on the Middle Fork was built in the 1930s--The Wilderness Act was passed in 1964.
The CCC road only reached to near the confluence of the Taylor and the Middle fork. The Taylor and Upper middle fork roads were built in the 1960s to access small timber sales far up those valleys. Prior logging practice was to sell timber adjacent to prior sales -- but these sales were many many miles upstream -- it was a brazen attempt to exclude these valleys from inclusion in the Alpine Lakes wilderness. Fortunately Congress saw through this and created "The Octopus" -- the half mile buffers around the roads are too small for timber sales. "Wilderness" designations in National Parks around park roads are created administratively -- they can also be revised administratively. Wilderness area boundaries that are created by Congress can only be revised by Congress. You didn't provide a specific example -- only a general idea. Name a specific road or trail that has a 50 foot buffer zone that can only be adjusted by an act of Congress.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Brushwork
Food truck



Joined: 18 Aug 2018
Posts: 508 | TRs | Pics
Location: Washington
Brushwork
Food truck
PostThu Dec 12, 2019 4:42 pm 
Actually, the upper Middle Fork Snoqualmie is not abandoned. It is driven (regularly) by those with mining interests.

When I grow up I wanna play.
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Randito
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 9495 | TRs | Pics
Location: Bellevue at the moment.
Randito
Snarky Member
PostThu Dec 12, 2019 4:58 pm 
Brushwork wrote:
Actually, the upper Middle Fork Snoqualmie is not abandoned. It is driven (regularly) by those with mining interests.
Road 56 past the Dingford gate is no longer maintained as a road by the USFS. Property owners for lands beyond the gate have keys and perform manintenance required for vehicle usage. I believe the most active mining claim in the Upper Middle Fork is for hot water at Goldmyer Hot Springs. http://goldmyer.org/ I don't think fluorspar claims near the Chain Lakes have been worked for decades. They were productive prior to 1901

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
jinx'sboy
Member
Member


Joined: 30 Jul 2008
Posts: 927 | TRs | Pics
Location: on a great circle route
jinx'sboy
Member
PostThu Dec 12, 2019 9:24 pm 
RandyHiker wrote:
"Wilderness" designations in National Parks around park roads are created administratively -- they can also be revised administratively. Wilderness area boundaries that are created by Congress can only be revised by Congress. You didn't provide a specific example -- only a general idea. Name a specific road or trail that has a 50 foot buffer zone that can only be adjusted by an act of Congress.
Wilderness - DESIGNATED Wilderness - are never created or revised administratively. Only Congress does that. AFAIK there is no standard ‘buffer’ on any road or motorized trail in any Act - for any Agency - establishing Wilderness. There isn’t any ‘standard’....not 100’, or 1/4 mile. Every Law establishing a Wilderness is different. Case in point. The 1984 Washington Wilderness Act specified additions - then known as the ‘Pasayten Rim’ - to the Pasayten Wilderness. That year, while working for the USFS I sat in a room in Okanogan while other folks were on a phone call with Regional and National FS people. I was just there to help draw a line on a map. The call included staffers from Senators Jackson and Dan Evans offices, during the mark-up of the bill that spring. The big-wigs in the FS, on the call, wanted the boundaries along the roads be placed 1/4 away from roads. The Senator’s staffers were adamant that they be closer. The FS countered with 100’; staffers held firm! That was a VERY contentious and hard fought battle for Wilderness designation. Today, the proclaimed Pasayten Wilderness Boundary along the Iron Gate road from the paved Toats Coulee road to the Iron Gate Trailhead is literally at the edge of the clearing of the road. Not 100’, not 50’....it is defined, in law, BY A LINE DRAWN on a map. Literally, if you leave the road there, jump across the drainage ditch and touch a tree, you are in the Pasayten. Here’s a link the language in the 1984 bill. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/98/s837/text/enr See paragraph (16) for description. Somewhere in the bowels of Congress or the USFS, that map exists, still. It IS the boundary. Notice that most of the other wilderness additions in the 1984 Act, were similarly described - by map, not by distance. Other Wilderness boundaries are drawn, or described; by elevation, by stream courses, by metes and bounds, etc.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Brushwork
Food truck



Joined: 18 Aug 2018
Posts: 508 | TRs | Pics
Location: Washington
Brushwork
Food truck
PostThu Dec 12, 2019 10:02 pm 
Re Middlefork. In fact, there are quartz claims and they are quite active. (Quite a bit of traffic). Including the old Bob Jackson claim area and other claims. They sometimes drive all the way to the Dingford Th. Goldmyer is not a mining claim, though they might use vehicles.

When I grow up I wanna play.
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Randito
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 9495 | TRs | Pics
Location: Bellevue at the moment.
Randito
Snarky Member
PostThu Dec 12, 2019 10:03 pm 
jinx'sboy wrote:
Today, the proclaimed Pasayten Wilderness Boundary along the Iron Gate road from the paved Toats Coulee road to the Iron Gate Trailhead is literally at the edge of the clearing of the road. Not 100’, not 50’....it is defined, in law, BY A LINE DRAWN on a map. Literally, if you leave the road there, jump across the drainage ditch and touch a tree, you are in the Pasayten.
For about a the last 1KM of a motor vehicle road to the trailhead and along a ridge -- so the scenario you outlined earlier about a washout blocking access is a bit ridiculous. Wilderness designation within National Parks is determined administratively (not generally by an act of congress) The policy for this is set forth in this document

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Randito
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 9495 | TRs | Pics
Location: Bellevue at the moment.
Randito
Snarky Member
PostThu Dec 12, 2019 10:12 pm 
Brushwork wrote:
Re Middlefork. In fact, there are quartz claims and they are quite active. (Quite a bit of traffic). Including the old Bob Jackson claim area and other claims. They sometimes drive all the way to the Dingford Th. Goldmyer is not a mining claim, though they might use vehicles.
GoldMyer is in fact a mining claim -- https://www.mindat.org/loc-23955.html
Quote:
William Goldmyer After hiking from California to Washington State, William Goldmyer (1843-1924) became the first settler of what is now the Sand Point neighborhood of Seattle in 1868. What is known as Goldmyer Hot Springs today was first developed by William as Crystal Hot Springs Resort in the early 1900's. William privatized the property as a patented mining claim (for hot mineral water) and ran a lodge in the early 1910's for miners and loggers in the valley. Access at the time was by primitive road, trail or railroad, which followed the Middle Fork Trail and ended about a mile west of the property. There are records of a Model T bus outfitted with railroad wheels making the trip from Seattle in less time than it takes today.
History I know someone that was once board president of the Goldmyer non-profit -- he has a key to the gate.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
jinx'sboy
Member
Member


Joined: 30 Jul 2008
Posts: 927 | TRs | Pics
Location: on a great circle route
jinx'sboy
Member
PostThu Dec 12, 2019 10:13 pm 
RandyHiker wrote:
jinx'sboy wrote:
Today, the proclaimed Pasayten Wilderness Boundary along the Iron Gate road from the paved Toats Coulee road to the Iron Gate Trailhead is literally at the edge of the clearing of the road. Not 100’, not 50’....it is defined, in law, BY A LINE DRAWN on a map. Literally, if you leave the road there, jump across the drainage ditch and touch a tree, you are in the Pasayten.
For about a the last 1KM of a motor vehicle road to the trailhead and along a ridge -- so the scenario you outlined earlier about a washout blocking access is a bit ridiculous. Wilderness designation within National Parks is determined administratively (not generally by an act of congress) The policy for this is set forth in this document
I did not “outline” anything earlier....don’t know what you mean about a ridge or a washout??? You are COMPLETELY wrong about the NPS ability to designate capital W Wilderness. Please cite even ONE instance of this IN LAW. What you posted is ‘policy’

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Brian R
Member
Member


Joined: 10 Feb 2018
Posts: 501 | TRs | Pics
Brian R
Member
PostThu Dec 12, 2019 10:29 pm 
Randy, while you're waiting for your prescription renewal, I suggest you find (and read) a copy of Windshield Wilderness: Cars, Roads, and Nature in Washington's National Parks, by David Louter. I think you would find it enjoyable and enlightening.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Logbear
Member
Member


Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 493 | TRs | Pics
Location: Getchell. Wash
Logbear
Member
PostThu Dec 12, 2019 11:54 pm 
From the National Park Website Many national park units have "other categories of wilderness" - lands not designated, but managed as wilderness per NPS policy. Together with NPS designated wilderness, this means over 80 percent of all NPS lands are managed as wilderness.

“There is no such thing as bad weather, only inappropriate clothing.” – Sir Ranulph Fiennes
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 12798 | TRs | Pics
Location: tacoma
Ski
><((((°>
PostFri Dec 13, 2019 1:11 am 
Brian R wrote:
Windshield Wilderness: Cars, Roads, and Nature in Washington's National Parks
How and why is this relevant to a discussion concerning ebikes in National Parks?

"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Brian R
Member
Member


Joined: 10 Feb 2018
Posts: 501 | TRs | Pics
Brian R
Member
PostFri Dec 13, 2019 11:41 am 
Ski wrote:
Brian R wrote:
Windshield Wilderness: Cars, Roads, and Nature in Washington's National Parks
How and why is this relevant to a discussion concerning ebikes in National Parks?
Wilderness and access. Very relevant--and a great book. Probably out of print, but still available at Abe.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
   All times are GMT - 8 Hours
 Reply to topic
Forum Index > Trail Talk > Electric bikes soon to be humming along national park trails
  Happy Birthday noahk!
Jump to:   
Search this topic:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum