Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > Road to Green Mountain trailhead for high clearance only?
 Reply to topic
Previous :: Next Topic
Author Message
Backpacker Joe
Blind Hiker



Joined: 16 Dec 2001
Posts: 23956 | TRs | Pics
Location: Cle Elum
Backpacker Joe
Blind Hiker
PostSat Apr 05, 2008 9:10 pm 
Where'd you send the letter Tom?

"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
Quark
Niece of Alvy Moore



Joined: 15 May 2003
Posts: 14152 | TRs | Pics
Quark
Niece of Alvy Moore
PostSat Apr 05, 2008 9:14 pm 
touron wrote:
Nice pictures!! up.gif up.gif up.gif I wonder if it wouldn't hurt for nwhikers to become a some kind of official non-profit group so our opinion on things like this might carry more weight?
We already talked about the Washington Trails Foundation, remember? WTF? Thanks for those pics, Tom. I wear my heart on my sleeve about this area; my reactions exacerbated by the history I have been reading on it. I hate to be part of the sorry generation that allowed this rich area to be locked up. There's nothing wrong with a few roads closed here and there, and there's nothing wrong with roads open here and there. But Green Mtn road leads to the most popular trail in the District. The area on the N side of the Suiattle is still relatively wild - the south side, already inaccessible by the public, needs to rest. ...Which leads me to.............I was checking the map - and none of the roads on the s side of the River are accessible, but they're proposing a level 2 maintenance Straight Creek road to Circle Creek. Is it FS access only with tribal easement (or vice versa)? strange.gif Gonna see if I can get more information on what the deal is with the south side of the river. Boundary Bridge isn't even mentioned in the scoping letter, so I can only assume that since there are plans to maintain Straight Cr, there must be access to that area via some other way that's not public.

"...Other than that, the post was more or less accurate." Bernardo, NW Hikers' Bureau Chief of Reporting
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Quark
Niece of Alvy Moore



Joined: 15 May 2003
Posts: 14152 | TRs | Pics
Quark
Niece of Alvy Moore
PostSat Apr 05, 2008 9:16 pm 
Backpacker Joe wrote:
Where'd you send the letter Tom?
C'mon, BPJ, open the link and read the scoping letter. The email addy is in there.

"...Other than that, the post was more or less accurate." Bernardo, NW Hikers' Bureau Chief of Reporting
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Guiran
Member
Member


Joined: 03 Mar 2004
Posts: 621 | TRs | Pics
Location: University of Washington
Guiran
Member
PostSat Apr 05, 2008 10:04 pm 
I've definitely driven roads for "high clearance vehicles" in a low clearance vehicle, so I don't see the classification for Green Mtn. as necessarily being a deal-breaker for access. From what I recall, before the washout, Green Mtn. road was pretty rough compared to the Suiattle. I'm definitely much more bummed out about Tenas Creek, particularly because the plan is to fix the bridge to move in heavy equipment to decommission the road, then pull the bridge out. dizzy.gif This is one of my favorite access routes and easy enough for beginners to get into some spectacular high country. That being said, I worry that the Tenas Creek area with access to all those lakes has run the risk of being another Middle Fork with trip reports to the area generally including no information on the approach and (from time to time) with lake names disguised in order to prevent the area from being loved to death. I really worry that trying to "hide" areas like this ends up killing access exactly when a strong constituency is needed. I'll be writing a letter asking to keep Tenas Creek open, but I don't expect the FS to change its mind.

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
PostSat Apr 05, 2008 10:23 pm 
Quark wrote:
Backpacker Joe wrote:
Where'd you send the letter Tom?
C'mon, BPJ, open the link and read the scoping letter. The email addy is in there.
Well Im sorry. I didnt see the link.

"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
Backpacker Joe
Blind Hiker



Joined: 16 Dec 2001
Posts: 23956 | TRs | Pics
Location: Cle Elum
Backpacker Joe
Blind Hiker
PostSat Apr 05, 2008 10:25 pm 
Ive got no problems with high clearence vehicle roads. But bloody hell, keep the things at least open to those rigs.

"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
silence
Member
Member


Joined: 25 Apr 2005
Posts: 4420 | TRs | Pics
silence
Member
PostSun Apr 06, 2008 9:56 am 
Quark wrote:
such an original sentiment. rolleyes.gif So....this person does not mention high meadows. Guess with all that road walking on river roads, he has never had the time to go up and see one. hmmm.gif It's fine to experience the Dose and Sauk - but when roads close, there's no choice for the average voter/hiker to visit higher places.
Sorry, just had to break away fm taxes and pipe in for us guys .. the other perspective wink.gif And sorry for your pain Quark. Yeah, you’re right about the “green-bonding” ... as we’ll always need advocacy for our wild places (our last remaining) — to preserve and protect ... but roadless doesn’t mean stop, turn around, and stay out; and there are still plenty of relatively remote high country wheeled-access trailheads to enjoy .. so, let's not lose sight of that ... And, when roads close (like the Dose) they become trails ... sometimes even beautiful trails — BTW a great 1st-time backpack for kids to a wonderful base camp ... And, then those high meadows will remain .. wild and free as they should be .. from the car-tourist hordes (relatively speakin) who oft don't have the proper education and "skills" needed these days to rightly appreciate ... And, yeah, I lament for Green Mountain and beyond .. esp for ezier access to Glacier Peak .. and such, but look forward to the plannin and great adventure of gettin there, and the solitude, and the “untrammeled ground” I realize this discussion is a lot about funding right now .. since these roads are being closed for lack of, not for ideology or policy per se, and agree some should NOT be closed ... so plez do write on ...

PHOTOS FILMS Keep a good head and always carry a light bulb. – Bob Dylan
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!
PostSun Apr 06, 2008 1:47 pm 
Roads should only be closed if there is a good reason to close that particular road, and after extensive public comment that favors the closure. Closing roads simply because we are too cheap as a society to keep them open is a complete travesty IMO. Blame the people who are always shouting that they hate all taxes and want continual tax cuts. They are also the ones who decry any attempt to fund our parks and forests, and viciously attack anyone who attempts to do so. Funny how many of them are also the ones crying the loudest about the road closures..... huh.gif Reaping what you sow isn't always very pleasant, is it?

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Dayhike Mike
Bad MFKer



Joined: 02 Mar 2003
Posts: 10958 | TRs | Pics
Location: Going to Tukwila
Dayhike Mike
Bad MFKer
PostSun Apr 06, 2008 8:19 pm 
This is awful. Truly awful. I have not yet been up Green Mountain, but the proposed action for the road up Tenas Creek is really heartbreaking. I don't think 2660 (road to Boulder Lake trailhead) was high-clearance only before, was it? So this is also a big step backward (and a step toward ultimately closing the road completely). Lose enough access to the beauty of Washington, and people forget what it is they're protecting. I'll be writing them to ask for reconsideration as well. This just isn't a good move.

"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke "Ignorance is natural. Stupidity takes commitment." -Solomon Short
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Quark
Niece of Alvy Moore



Joined: 15 May 2003
Posts: 14152 | TRs | Pics
Quark
Niece of Alvy Moore
PostSun Apr 06, 2008 9:18 pm 
Yah; look at the map. There aren't a whole lot of roads on the north side of the river, so they oughta be happy about that. On the other hand, that Green Mtn road does take up a lot of mountain....and it does bring down a lot of debris each season during runoff. But I would think maintaining it would be healthier for the watershed than not maintaining it, no? 6 miles is a lot of road to maintain - but Green Mtn is the district's bread & butter, practically. Everyone loves it. I also fear the next step is closure. If that's the case, someone will just have to open up the original trail from the main road. hmmm.gif Link to trip report on what Green Mtn is all about.

"...Other than that, the post was more or less accurate." Bernardo, NW Hikers' Bureau Chief of Reporting
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
#19
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 2197 | TRs | Pics
#19
Member
PostSun Apr 06, 2008 9:38 pm 
Green Mountain LO is the start of the Buckindy High route. That's probably one that most of still have to do. I went up Green Mountain, early every spring, for my first 7 hiking years. This makes me sad and sick. Letter is one the way.

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 Apr 07, 2008 12:48 am 
Slugman wrote:
They are also the ones who decry any attempt to fund our parks and forests, and viciously attack anyone who attempts to do so. Funny how many of them are also the ones crying the loudest about the road closures..... huh.gif Reaping what you sow isn't always very pleasant, is it?
Who are 'they', Sluggo? Who decrys funding of parks and forests? Who *specifically*?

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
WTM
Member
Member


Joined: 03 Jul 2003
Posts: 231 | TRs | Pics
WTM
Member
PostMon Apr 07, 2008 1:46 am 
I notice this section on the bottom of page 4 and top of page 5 of the scoping letter:
Quote:
Preliminary Issues: The following preliminary issues have been identified by the interdisciplinary team and through plan-to-project dialogues with public groups. When finalized, significant issues from continued scoping and interdisciplinary work may be used to modify the alternatives or form a new one, develop management requirements and mitigation measures, or track environmental effects. 1. The retention of Road 26 and other open roads may have adverse effects to aquatic integrity, Riparian Reserve conditions, water quality, and fish habitat.
This seems quite ominous to me. I think Road 26 and all 'associated spur roads' are being set up for future conversion to Administrative and tribal access only. Could it be that the 'public groups' mentioned in the preceding quote are the ones that want the entire Road 26 system decommissioned?

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 Apr 07, 2008 12:29 pm 
Looking at my Topo program I can see that there is a Green Mountain trail that takes off from the Downey Creek trail head.... So if they close that road there will still be access to Green Mountain. I didn't see that trail the last time I was at Downey Creek.

"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
andrew e
Member
Member


Joined: 13 Feb 2006
Posts: 147 | TRs | Pics
Location: Seattle
andrew e
Member
PostMon Apr 07, 2008 12:34 pm 
Just wanted to say thanks for the good discussion and all the comments you've sent to the Forest Service, they do take into account public comments when making these decisions. And yes, funding is a big part of the equation. Congress is in charge of that, and we need to let our congressional delegation know that funding for repair of roads and trails is a priority for the citizens of this state. FYI, (and full disclosure, I work for WTA), WTA has been working hard with our Congressional delegation to make securing those repair funds a priority. Just a couple examples... http://www.wta.org/trail-news/signpost/federal-appropriations-paying-it-forward http://www.wta.org/trail-news/signpost/a-week-in-the-wilderness-of-dc

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 > Road to Green Mountain trailhead for high clearance only?
  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