[Ski]

yeah, but Tom... would you not agree that it would be best if the entire district didn't end up like the lower end of Oak Creek did? just sayin' bk

[Kim Brown]

[RodF]

Reminder - open houses this week Tuesday, June 17 4:00 – 7:00 p.m. Port Angeles – Clallam County Courthouse, County Commissioner’s Meeting Room • 223 E 4th St. Thursday, June 19 4:00 – 7:00 p.m. Forks – Olympic Natural Resources Center, Hemlock Forest Conference Room • 1455 S Forks Ave. Wednesday, June 25 4:00 – 7:00 p.m. Quilcene – Quilcene School, Multi-purpose Room • 294715 U.S. 101

[Jeff Chapman]

While there are similarities to the recent MBS planning, there are differences with the ONF...and I worry about too many projections from one to the other. This current review the ONF is not new as there was an extensive study in 2002 of every road segment under their Access and Travel Management objectives which identified road segments for decommissioning, for converting to trail, and for those that would remain with a Maintenance Level of 1-4. There was a full public comment period which many of us locals (and Seattle area folks) gave input on. A number of road segments were removed. One thing that some of us came up with was what we called the "Mt Zion Recreation Area" which would be to convert many road segments in the northeast corner of the Olympic Mtns/Peninsula into a large network of loop trails that could be a destination for recreationists and a big boost to the economy from Quilcene to Sequim. Being in the rainshadow, closest to Seattle, and the largest non-designated gentle sloping public lands area on the Peninsula, it made perfect sense. It still does. It was in our later Dungeness Watershed Study as well, as Rod knows. But nothing happened. Except for this new ATM update of the 2002 study which will review the same roads that weren't decommissioned last time but left in the system as Level 1-4. I'd still like to see some recreation planning on the ONF like DNR does. Do it from a landscape approach evaluating what today's users want in active outdoor recreation. Put in a couple of campgrounds. I've been at this in this corner of the universe for 40 years (including years spend working for the ONF). ...........I suppose we can close some more roads, and then patiently wait for the next 2026 study to close more. We might still be alive to discuss whether the Dose Road should be fixed..........or at least our grandchildren will. I still have all of my 2002 comments, and surprisingly, many of them are still timely to submit again.................

[trestle]

Wait... you mean you've been at this for years and what we're seeing is a rehash of something previously done? No way. And still we wonder why no one has any faith in government or its attendant bureaucracies....

[Kim Brown]

Government and private industry; they all have their silliness. There are new people who are interested in the area who might not see the humor in a planning process they didn’t participate in. ONF could resurrect the comments from 2002 and go with that without doing another public process, but that was over a decade ago, and a lot has changed; folks might have different ideas now. The loop trails and recreation idea is a good one; there was no funding then and there isn’t any funding now, and not likely to be in the future; so like 12 years from then, so it will be 12 years from now. It’s annoying, and a daunting task for a “friends of” organization to help with funding sources and get legislature on board with it, but perhaps 12 years from now there will be a funding source to at least begin. So keep copies of those comments for future copy-and-paste jobs. Jeff, this comes from the same mandate all other forests have, the Travel Analysis Process. I don’t see how ONF’s direction from the USFS is different from MBS’s direction – to analyze the entire forest. MBS benefitted from many different organizations and a university to develop their process, but the goal is the same. There’s no funding for decommissioning roads as a result of this process, is there Jeff? I don’t think there’s any special funding to go through the actual process, let alone implementation.

[trestle]

No offense Kim, for you're far more prepared and invested than most, but often these posts come across as an excuse for the inefficiencies and unnecessary redundancies of government process. I know you're not excusing them per se but there's nothing wrong with a little pointed criticism.

[Ski]

I think the attempt was "explanation" more than "excuse" there. I don't believe you're going to find many here who would argue in favor of "inefficiencies and unnecessary redundancies". I think we would probably all agree that they are part of the process, but focusing on them doesn't really address the task at hand.

[Kim Brown]

[RodF]

[Kim Brown]

This mandate is from the 2005 Rule; if not for that MBS wouldn't do a forest wide process. It sounds like it’s just dumb luck that ONF did this in 2003, because another one is required under a different rule, different mandate. In that light, MBS is ahead of this particular mandate. I don’t think ONF would be doing this if they didn’t have to. What did they say when you talked to them about the redundancy? I’m curious to know why they didn’t use the last input and plug it in the template.

[jinx'sboy]

[Kim Brown]

Yeah, I saw that the other day, but it made me tired just looking at it; haven't read it yet.

[RodF]

Olympic NF's total road maintenance budget fluctuates between $350-500,000/year. Most of that is project-related; the base budget is only about $100,000/yr. The cost ranges from $1000-2500/mile/yr for maintenance level 4 (ML4 paved, for passenger cars) down to $150-250/mile/yr for ML2 (gravel, high clearance vehicles, graded only every other year, brushed every few years, culverts replaced every 30-40 years). To maintain the entire road system of over 2000 miles would require $1.5 to 2 million/year, roughly 4 to 5 times what's available. Of the roughly 500 miles of roads which Olympic NF planned to decommission or convert to trails in the 2003 ATM, only about 50 miles have been completed. (Another roughly 100 miles were decommissioned before the 2003 ATM.) So the 2003 ATM is only about 10% completed.

[Kim Brown]

Cool, Rod. Thanks. 2,000 miles of road for a forest of 618,000 acres is a lot of road. This process isn't quite an ATM, where there’s a specific plan for the road and trail system. This is a Travel Analysis Plan; a framework providing guidance on specific plans, including ATMs. Those forests who have done ATMs recently, ONF and MBS (N Fk Sky, Suiattle, Mid Fk Snoqualmie ATM’s) have tightened up some of their road system, which is good, because that part that was implemented means those roads or spurs don’t need analysis.