Forum Index > Stewardship > Good news on the Middle Fork decision?
Previous :: Next Topic  
Author Message
Steve
Phlogiston Purveyor



Joined: 29 Jan 2002
Posts: 763 | TRs
Location: Bothell
Steve
  Top

Phlogiston Purveyor
PostWed Dec 10, 2003 9:46 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
I got this in the e-mail just now.

Dear Forest User:
I have withdrawn the September 26, 2003 Decision for the Middle Fork Snoqualmie River Access and Travel Management Plan.  My reason for this action is the need to complete special use agreements to specifically address the access rights of private inholders within the upper reaches of the Middle Fork.  The September 26th decision was appealed under the agency’s administrative appeal procedures.
I feel that the original decision is a good decision.  There is clearly a need, however, to address and resolve the issue of access for the inholders before we can implement the Decision Notice for this Plan.  Given the agency’s appeal requirements, it is not possible to proceed to address the inholders’ access rights within the prescribed timeframe, unless I withdraw the decision.
I believe necessary steps to complete this process within the scope of the original decision will be completed in the next few months.
I look forward to your continued interest and involvement with this project and will keep you informed of our progress.
Sincerely,


/s/ Y. Robert Iwamoto
Y. ROBERT IWAMOTO
Acting Forest Supervisor
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Malachai Constant
Member
Member


Joined: 13 Jan 2002
Posts: 13979 | TRs
Location: Back Again Like A Bad Penny
Malachai Constant
  Top

Member
PostWed Dec 10, 2003 9:48 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Just got the same message, Merry Christmas biggrin.gif

--------------
"You do not laugh when you look at the mountains, or when you look at the sea." Lafcadio Hearn
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Steve
Phlogiston Purveyor



Joined: 29 Jan 2002
Posts: 763 | TRs
Location: Bothell
Steve
  Top

Phlogiston Purveyor
PostWed Dec 10, 2003 10:05 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Reading the decision more carefully it still sounds like they intend to follow through with the plan they intended on implementing, however, they don't seem to have put much thought into how the inholders were going to get access.

Seems like another proof that the FS had a plan and were going to force it on everyone weather they/we liked it or not to save a few $.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Stefan
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 4440 | TRs

Stefan
  Top

Member
PostWed Dec 10, 2003 10:08 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Thanks to Goldmyer Hot Springs!

--------------
Art is an adventure.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Steve
Phlogiston Purveyor



Joined: 29 Jan 2002
Posts: 763 | TRs
Location: Bothell
Steve
  Top

Phlogiston Purveyor
PostWed Dec 10, 2003 11:02 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
I expect the most they can do is to forestall the FS action, but I have little doubt the gate will be up on the planned Nov 2004 date anyway.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 10749 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostWed Dec 10, 2003 12:40 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Now all we need to do is get *all* the owners of the property up the MFK designated as inholders so we can insure road access. After all, last time I looked the ALW was public property and I am a tax paying owner.

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Backpacker Joe
NWH Joe-Bob



Joined: 16 Dec 2001
Posts: 22983 | TRs
Location: Cle Elum
Backpacker Joe
  Top

NWH Joe-Bob
PostWed Dec 10, 2003 12:50 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAW!

I'm buying a ROUND for everybody at the GTG tomarrow!


This is wonderful news.  Sure they may infact decide to do this again, but it puts it off for YEARS!






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
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Tom
Admin



Joined: 15 Dec 2001
Posts: 15611 | TRs

Tom
  Top

Admin
PostWed Dec 10, 2003 12:52 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Maybe there is hope. hockeygrin.gif  BTW, I sent an email back asking them to monitor these public forums if they wanted to check actual pulse of the hiking community and get some authentic public comment instead of the mailbox stuffings they got during the "public comment period" from advocacy groups who put "the plan" together in the first place.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 10749 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostWed Dec 10, 2003 12:54 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
I'm not so certain about that, BPJ. They're pretty determined to do the gate and I'd guess that if they can possibly wrap it up in time for the scheduled closure, it will proceed as planned.

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Backpacker Joe
NWH Joe-Bob



Joined: 16 Dec 2001
Posts: 22983 | TRs
Location: Cle Elum
Backpacker Joe
  Top

NWH Joe-Bob
PostWed Dec 10, 2003 12:58 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Hey, stop being the GOAT that stole Christmas.  As it was this plan was set back to November '04.  Now at worst it'll be a year or two from that date.  That gives up time to MAKE TROUBLE!  By that I mean to write, call, and demonstrate if need be.  The trouble is that they don't see the real issue.  Not just what to do about the land holders and their need for access, but OUR need to access too.

Merry Christmas.

Hey Thomas, how about that Middlefork Ice Berg and Overcoat trip THIS summer?



TB hockeygrin.gif  hockeygrin.gif  hockeygrin.gif  hockeygrin.gif  hockeygrin.gif

--------------
"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
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Malachai Constant
Member
Member


Joined: 13 Jan 2002
Posts: 13979 | TRs
Location: Back Again Like A Bad Penny
Malachai Constant
  Top

Member
PostWed Dec 10, 2003 1:02 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Does anyone know for sure who filed the appeal? When I checked the property records on on the parcels up by Hardscrable a couple were owned by groups which support the closure and others were held by "enviornmental" groups I had never heard of. I know the patented claims at LaBohn Gap are owned by a Winatchee Lawyer who is trying to get the FS to pay big bucks for them in a greenmail attempt. Someone mentioned goldmeyer HS, has that been confirmed?

--------------
"You do not laugh when you look at the mountains, or when you look at the sea." Lafcadio Hearn
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
touron
Member
Member


Joined: 15 Sep 2003
Posts: 10298 | TRs
Location: Plymouth Rock
touron
  Top

Member
PostWed Dec 10, 2003 10:35 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Crystals from the Stobokor Claim.  See pages 24 and 25 for lists of mining claims.  There are still quite a few.  One as late as 11/15/2001?
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Oldtimer
Member
Member


Joined: 18 Dec 2001
Posts: 63 | TRs

Oldtimer
  Top

Member
PostFri Dec 12, 2003 11:13 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Malachai Constant asks "Does anyone know for sure who filed the appeal?" [snip]
______________________________________
Owners of mining claims appealed the Forest Service's plan. The FS plan would close the upper Mid Fork Road to motorized vehicles at Dingford Creek Trailhead and convert the rest of the road to trail for use by hikers, horses, and mtn bikers. Mining claim owners, and I suppose Goldmeyer HS, could maintain motorized access, but would have to pay for any road work beyond Dingford Creek. The appellants want the road to remain open to them, AND MAINTAINED AT PUBLIC EXPENSE. The law requires access to the property, but doesn't require the public to pay for it.

Someone acquired 20 acres of public land last year for a few dollars an acre by using the 1872 Mining Act. Now, if the mine claim owners have their way, the public--including you--will pay for access to the site. So, you're probably going to find the road gated at Dingford Creek, and pay to keep the rest of the road open for miners and Goldmeyer, unless you push for the alternative (E, I think) that gates the road at Dingford Creek and requires mine owners/Goldmeyer to pay for keeping the road open beyond the gate. In other words, unless the appeal is denied. Several organizations, including Sierra Club, ALPS, and WTA have formally intervened to oppose the appeal. Oldtimer (For my message, I "stole" bits of information from the Sierra Club's Cascade Checkerboard News, December 2003, p. 2)
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Tom
Admin



Joined: 15 Dec 2001
Posts: 15611 | TRs

Tom
  Top

Admin
PostFri Dec 12, 2003 11:52 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Typical BS advocacy spin by the Sierra Club and their pals.  Did they mention anything about the MFK being converted to a horse trail in their Checkerboard News?  Three cheers for whoever bought that land.

Pushing for alternative E ensures the MFK is gated at Dingford. down.gif
Pushing for alternative E ensures a priveledged few have access. down.gif
Pushing for alternative E ensures Dutch Miller becomes a horse highway. down.gif
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Sore Feet
Random Quippy Bit



Joined: 16 Dec 2001
Posts: 6188 | TRs
Location: I'm on a boat
Sore Feet
  Top

Random Quippy Bit
PostSat Dec 13, 2003 12:12 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Grr.  Goddamn politics.  The folks at Goldmyer are good people, but if they want the road paid for by the public, they damn well better push for the road to not be gated. vent.gif

--------------
Bryan Swan
Pictures - http://www.flickr.com/photos/bryanswan
Waterfalls - www.waterfallsnorthwest.com
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
  Display:     All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Forum Index > Stewardship > Good news on the Middle Fork decision?
  Happy Birthday kayakbear, DanG, The Angry Hiker, hitda peakz!
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
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
   Use Disclaimer Powered by phpBB Privacy Policy