Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > Middle Fork Decision
 Reply to topic
Previous :: Next Topic

Do you support alternative E?
I support alternative E
22%
 22%  [ 9 ]
I support something other than alternative E
77%
 77%  [ 31 ]
Total Votes : 40

Author Message
Malachai Constant
Member
Member


Joined: 13 Jan 2002
Posts: 16088 | TRs | Pics
Location: Back Again Like A Bad Penny
Malachai Constant
Member
PostMon Sep 29, 2003 11:05 am 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- News Release USDA Forest Service Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Contact: Ron DeHart, 425-744-3573, Doug Schrenk, 425-888-1421 1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Middle Fork Snoqualmie River Area Decision Signed Mountlake Terrace: September 29, 2003 An environmental assessment has been completed for access, travel and recreation activities on national forest lands in the Middle Fork Snoqualmie River drainage in Northeast King County. The assessment’s decision document, signed by John Phipps, Forest Supervisor, Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest, allows a mix of recreation access opportunities and increased resource protection to control garbage dumping, vandalism and illegal shooting in the Middle Fork Valley. The action will result in improved water quality and better fish and wildlife habitat. Implementation of the decision (modified alternative E), one of five options examined in the assessment, addresses extensive public input which in the spring of 2002 generated more than 1,100 public responses, 78 percent of which supported the agency’s preferred action. The decision will result in: Public usage of about 20 miles of driveable roads, 28 motorized dispersed day-use campsites and more than 88 miles of trail (all open to hikers and llamas, 72.5 miles open for all stock animals, 39.6 miles open for mountain bikes) Decreased illegal dumping, off-road vehicle driving and firearm shooting through removal of 59 problem sites and decommissioning of more than 28 miles of road, more than a third of them in the Upper Middle fork and Quartz Creek drainages Key points in the decision, effective in 2004: Closes Road 56 at Dingford Creek Trailhead to motorized access and converts the last 7.6 miles of road to a trail for use by multiple groups; i.e., hikers, stock and mountain bikers. In-holders have opportunity to maintain motorized access through Special Use Permit authority Keeps Road 56 open for high-clearance vehicles from near the junction of Road 5640 to Dingford Creek Trailhead (6.4 miles) from April 15 to November 1. When closed, this segment of road would be used as a trail for hikers, stock and mountain bikers Opens the Middle Fork Snoqualmie Trail #1003 to mountain bike use for a three-year trial period. Seasonal-use restrictions would be placed on stock and mountain bikes Maintains the present closure of Quartz Creek Road system (5640) to motorized recreation access above the Snoqualmie Lake Trailhead at Taylor River Bridge Changes maintenance level of 3.7 miles of the Middle Fork Road (#56) to maintenance level 4 (gravel, double lane) in support of paving proposal for lower Middle fork Road under analysis by Federal Highway Administration Decommissions about 2.3 miles of Road 5600-05 and converts it to trail. The two trail segments would connect to the CCC/Taylor River Trail and link to the King County Regional Trail System and numerous western destinations including Burke-Gilman Trail in Seattle Forest managers also have begun environmental assessment planning steps for construction of a new campground in the Middle Fork Snoqualmie River drainage. Additionally, a road paving proposal is under review by the Federal Highway Administration to improve the physical and safety features of the Middle Fork Snoqualmie River Road from Valley Camp to the Middle Fork Trailhead (about 8.5 miles). To view the decision document online, go to www.fs.fed.us/r6/mbs/projects/mf_atm. The decision is subject to appeal (36 CFR 215.7). Appeals must be in writing and must be postmarked within 45 days of the date of the decision’s legal notice (September 30, 2003). rant.gif

"You do not laugh when you look at the mountains, or when you look at the sea." Lafcadio Hearn
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Backpacker Joe
Blind Hiker



Joined: 16 Dec 2001
Posts: 23956 | TRs | Pics
Location: Cle Elum
Backpacker Joe
Blind Hiker
PostMon Sep 29, 2003 11:13 am 
So it seems that 78% of the idiots that responded to this issue were/are FOR the closure of the road aye? I think that I'll give him a SURE BUDDY on that one. I don't know anyone that supported the closure of the road! down.gif TB

"If destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all time or die by suicide." — Abraham Lincoln
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Sore Feet
Member
Member


Joined: 16 Dec 2001
Posts: 6304 | TRs | Pics
Location: Out There, Somewhere
Sore Feet
Member
PostMon Sep 29, 2003 11:19 am 
Grr. I wouldn't have as much of a problem with closing the road at Dingford if they'd fix the road so that 2wd vehicles can make it without oilpanning. Wankers. vent.gif rant.gif mad.gif

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


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 5082 | TRs | Pics
Stefan
Member
PostMon Sep 29, 2003 11:27 am 
The only facilities change that actually happened with this = add gate. That is all they did.

Art is an adventure.
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Malachai Constant
Member
Member


Joined: 13 Jan 2002
Posts: 16088 | TRs | Pics
Location: Back Again Like A Bad Penny
Malachai Constant
Member
PostMon Sep 29, 2003 11:36 am 
Potential Blacklist for my contributions from report: The 30-day public comment period on the EA ran from April 9 through June 8, 2002. Of the 1,104 responses received, about 866 (78%) supported Alternative E, the Forest Service preferred alternative. It is estimated that about 85% of those who responded would support the Modified Alternative E. Supporters included the Alpine Lakes Protection Society; the American White Water Association; Back Country Bicycle Trail Club, East Lake Washington Audubon Society; International Mountain Bicycling Association; Issaquah Alps; King County Executive Ron Sims and King County Councilman Larry Phillips; King County Rural Forest Commission; Mountains to Sound Greenway Trust; Northwest Ecosystems Alliance; Pack and Paddles Canoe Club; Puget Sound Alliance of Retired Americans; Seattle Audubon Society; Washington State Department of Natural Resources; Washington Trails Association; Washington Wilderness Coalition, MidFORC, The Mountaineers, and 850 individuals (EA Appendix G, pages G-2 to G-5).

"You do not laugh when you look at the mountains, or when you look at the sea." Lafcadio Hearn
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Stefan
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 5082 | TRs | Pics
Stefan
Member
PostMon Sep 29, 2003 11:45 am 
I don't see NWHikers.net on that list.

Art is an adventure.
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Odonata
Member
Member


Joined: 14 Aug 2002
Posts: 306 | TRs | Pics
Odonata
Member
PostMon Sep 29, 2003 11:46 am 
I am for the closure. I have walked from Dingford to the Dutch Miller TH twice and spent the night next to the road once. Total nightmare from dumping to 4WD rowdies at all times of night/morning. The mice were the least of my concerns. I'm not all that excited about the horse trail. I hate the horse poop as much most hikers. The payoff is that a portion of the Wilderness will stay Wilderness and not become a trashed edge zone. It's not a total win situation, but I prefer it to the current situation. ~D

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


Joined: 07 Apr 2003
Posts: 2310 | TRs | Pics
Location: Seattle
kiliki
Member
PostMon Sep 29, 2003 11:53 am 
I totally agree, Sorefeet. Though I don't agree with the road closure, it isn't hard to see why so many groups did support it. The amount of illegal stuff going on back there (from dumping to meth labs) was really disheartening, and I imagine it made a lot of sense to a lot of people to just restrict access as much as possible. I am glad they are closing spurs-I think it will be harder for people to do illegal stuff with only one main road open. I think the campground is a good idea, too (though I'm sure I'll never use it)-it will be nice for families and day hikers to have a place in that area to camp, and that type of "good" use I think will help prevent some of the illegal uses. Maybe it won't be so bad. That recent trip report to Williams Lake, which reported mobs, garbage, human waste at the lake, etc, made me think it might not be such a terrible thing to make access a bit more difficult.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Backpacker Joe
Blind Hiker



Joined: 16 Dec 2001
Posts: 23956 | TRs | Pics
Location: Cle Elum
Backpacker Joe
Blind Hiker
PostMon Sep 29, 2003 12:00 pm 
Motorcycles are the answer! Around the gate, and then hidden at the trailhead. TB

"If destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all time or die by suicide." — Abraham Lincoln
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
H. Hound
Member
Member


Joined: 09 May 2003
Posts: 1205 | TRs | Pics
Location: Exit 32
H. Hound
Member
PostMon Sep 29, 2003 12:15 pm 
Did I read the “Final_Decision_Noitce” right? On page 4 there is this: Road 56 from Dingford Creek will be closed to motorized public recreation access. For the same rationale described above this closure will not be implemented until November 1, 2004. Does this mean we get 1 more year?

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
lopper
off-route



Joined: 22 Jan 2002
Posts: 845 | TRs | Pics
lopper
off-route
PostMon Sep 29, 2003 12:16 pm 
Motorcycles would be an option EXCEPT that the gate site is the Dingford Creek Bridge. Your cycle's gonna need wings. You've got to hand it to the USFS---at least they know how to select non-bypassable gate sites.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Slugman
It’s a Slugfest!



Joined: 27 Mar 2003
Posts: 16874 | TRs | Pics
Slugman
It’s a Slugfest!
PostMon Sep 29, 2003 12:38 pm 
I thought part of the deal was to make the road driveable to the gate. This option as listed stinks, if I still can't drive my car to the new trailhead. What a rip-off!

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Steve
Phlogiston Purveyor



Joined: 29 Jan 2002
Posts: 769 | TRs | Pics
Location: Bothell
Steve
Phlogiston Purveyor
PostMon Sep 29, 2003 12:41 pm 
On page 30 it says: Close Road 56 to motorized recreation access: November 2003. I wonder how this will affect Goldmeyer hotsprings. It sounds like they won't be able to function with the severly dereased amount of visitors one would expect. It sounds like the mine owners and GHS people could still get past the gate, but not us ordinary folks.

Despair is only for those who see the end beyond all doubt.
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostMon Sep 29, 2003 1:01 pm 
I like how they say it will become a "trail". Actually, it will remain a road, only one most people can't use. The only reason "roads to trail" conversions usually work is when they close the road, it grows back in. Continual vehicle usage, and the maintainance done to keep it drivable, will ensure this road is never a "trail". This closure is bogus in the extreme. As for the complaint about walking that stretch and vehicle use, one may as well park halfway up the icicle, chiwawa, little wenatchee, or any other access road, walk partway, and then complain about other users. There is *already* a completely vehicle free trail on the S shore of the river, where you never see or hear the road. Of course, now, to offset the closure, they're opening it to mtn bikes for a while. Now that makes sense.
Quote:
Additionally, a road paving proposal is under review by the Federal Highway Administration to improve the physical and safety features of the Middle Fork Snoqualmie River Road from Valley Camp to the Middle Fork Trailhead (about 8.5 miles).
So they're going to close roads to decrease impacts, then possibly pave the road to the area and doubtlessly increase usage by quite a bit, and concentrate it even more by reducing the dispersal area. Yes, these guys are right on top of it.

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
Steve
Phlogiston Purveyor



Joined: 29 Jan 2002
Posts: 769 | TRs | Pics
Location: Bothell
Steve
Phlogiston Purveyor
PostMon Sep 29, 2003 1:11 pm 
mad.gif rant.gif jab.gif curse.gif

Despair is only for those who see the end beyond all doubt.
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
   All times are GMT - 8 Hours
 Reply to topic
Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > Middle Fork Decision
  Happy Birthday speyguy, Bandanabraids!
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