[tod701]

[Kim Brown]

hmm.... Sounds like there was at least this one guy.No one else stepped up? The coalition was begging for committee applicants. The report says new motorized trails were considered, but decided against pursuing ( for reasons cited earlier in this thread). No snowmobile reps ?

[Ski]

Wouldn't be the first time I've seen no representation from a user constituency during the initial planning phases of a project, only to have individual members of that same user constituency cry "foul" later when they didn't get their piece of the pie. Unless I've been misinformed, that area historically saw significant use by motorized recreationists. Why weren't they at the table from the outset?

[Randito]

The history of the Advisory Committee meetings is enumerated here: https://www.dnr.wa.gov/managed-lands/forest-and-trust-lands/teanaway/teanaway-community-forest-advisory-committee/teanaway Many of the meetings have a "Public Comments" link to a PDF with a summary of comments made. I spot checked a couple of meeting notes -- A number of comments called for a complete ban of ORV usage in the entire Teanaway Community Forest. As well as comments from ORV users wanting no changes to current usage. I think the current plan is a classic committee produced plan than nobody is completely happy about.

[Kim Brown]

Thanks Randy. I was looking for something like this link the other day but got distracted and didn't get back to it. I can't imagine a plan everyone would be happy about. Not sure it exists. (this isn't limited to recreation plans)

[Ski]

[Randito]

[Ski]

From the descriptions of the damage being done by some of the commenters, it would be easy to understand why a private land owner would want to get rid of it. I didn't read through all of the comments. I started with the oldest and worked my way up the list. From what I was able to figure out, it sounds as though there are a few private property owners who are surrounded by the Teanaway Community Forest, and there are roads and trails within the TCF that connect to roads and trails on other public (USFS) lands. Candidly, it looks a bit more "can of worm-ish" than I would have originally thought. There were a lot of comments in support of motorcycle and ORV (and "OHV") use, but I only saw a few comments (again, from just the early comments) supporting snowmobile use. The "cows in the river" thing disturbs me. I have personal experience with that issue. Cows have no place in streams - ever.

[treeswarper]

[tod701]

[tod701]

[tod701]

[Randito]

Reading through the plan and the notes, I'm not understanding what areas and trails previously open to ORV usage are being closed to ORV usage. It would useful if ORV riders familiar with area could weigh in on which trails and areas are now restricted.

[Chico]

[Token Civilian]

Yes, I realize how "expensive" bridges are. Our crew just put one in on the PCT. It was funded by a private donor - at least the NEPA and engineering work was. Nearly everything else was volunteer. 25k for a 40', 5 stringer, decked bridge with gabion footings. If the fish are so important, finding 75-150k is entirely possible (the new PCT bridge cost 3x or Kim's number, 3x). Put ones money where their mouth is, or quit griping about the moto trail crossing the creek. In the realm of Government, a trail bridge is a drop in the bucket. Its barely a rounding error in budget totals. 285.55 million was their spending in 2017. Add those bridges and it would be 285.70. Most people would call it 286 million budget, either way.