Forum Index > Stewardship > Who gets to use the Teanaway Valley?
Previous :: Next Topic  
Author Message
Kim Brown
Member
Member


Joined: 13 Jul 2009
Posts: 5106 | TRs

Kim Brown
  Top

Member
PostMon Nov 05, 2018 9:31 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Token, are you angry at us for pointing out the cost of a bridge? Your tone is accusatory but I can't figure out what we're being accused of. No one's arguing about bridges or the cost.

I can't put my money where my mouth is; I don't have the money for a bridge for motorized use  in the Teanaway Community Forest.

Of course the money could be found, eventually. Salmon Recovery Board, the tribes, RCO, etc. etc.

--------------
" I'm really happy about this! … I have very strong good and horrible memories up there."  – oldgranola, NWH’s outdoors advocate.
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
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 27 May 2005
Posts: 9554 | TRs
Location: tacoma
Ski
  Top

><((((°>
PostMon Nov 05, 2018 10:41 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
huh.gif

Tom was right - it's cabin fever season.

Kim, I'm a little puzzled. The initial scoping and first comment period began in 2014.
Maybe this is wishful thinking, but after four years I would think they'd have formulated some sort of plan. Am I correct in understanding that the current plan is what is shown on those maps in the documents cited up-thread? If so, are they going ahead with those plans, or is this project still in the developmental stages?
Are we supposed to submit comment on the plan now?

Sorry, I'm confused here.

--------------
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. 
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
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
Token Civilian
Member
Member


Joined: 02 Sep 2010
Posts: 591 | TRs

Token Civilian
  Top

Member
PostMon Nov 05, 2018 1:19 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Angry?  Nope.  Pointing out that if moto is in scope of the Teanaway, AND there are issues with fish in those waterways, then the natural implication is that bridges are required, regardless of cost (although I also point out that in the scale of Government, the cost is at the round off level).

Lets review the facts of this thread:
Some apparent concern in re the Teanaway plan that an existing moto trail crosses a waterway, from Ski.  Randy chimes in, agreeing that Ski is in fact reading the plan correctly.  Kim quotes them in her reply on page 4 at 10:12am.

Quote:
I think Randy is exactly right. The alternative to leaving motorbike trails "as-is," is closing them. And that is a concern with motorized users, as stated in the article in the first post.

What the motorized community can do is continue their involvement, including sourcing funding to improve those existing trails and creek crossings to the benefit of environment. By doing this, the possibility of motorized trail closure would be reduced.

Quote:
I’m not arguing against motorized use

Ski in the next post states he understands now and

Quote:
What does not make sense is allowing gasoline-powered machines to cross through any body of water - stream or otherwise - if it is habitat for anadromous salmonids or resident bull trout.

there's more back and forth from Kim and Ski about stream work, how moto trails have been closed before, etc, etc, etc.

I then point out the obvious mitigation to the concern of existing moto trail crossing a waterway:  If, in fact, motos on these crossings are a problem, then bridges are in order. 

Snarky and dismissive comment from Ski follows. 

Kim appears to agree with snarky Ski comment, and appears to pile on with her own dismissive "don't you realize how EXPENSIVE bridges are" comment. 
Quote:
One  very small tiny minute one would probably cost 50,000, and that's a conservative number.

I then reply to the effect of "Yes, I know half a thing or so about trail bridges...in fact our crew just built a very nice one, thank you, that's how I know about them.  If fact, its quite possible to get a nice bridge at modest cost, if done in a manner than holds costs in check, like the one our crew JUST DID" and point out that the cost of trail bridges is, in fact, probably in the round off of the DNR budget.  If in fact there was a problem with existing moto trail crossing waterway, then finding "round off money" shouldn't be too big a deal to the DNR as part of the overall Teanaway Plan.  I further point out that actions with money show true intent, far more than words (in this context, supporting fixing the crossing to protect fish would demonstrate, by action, that posters really do support continued moto's on existing trails as part of the Teanaway Plan).

Kim comes back, accusing me of being angry for pushing back on Ski's and her snarky and dismissive posts. 

So, now that the review of the thread, from my involvement on page 4 to the top of page 6, is complete, together with the snark and dismissiveness from Ski and Kim, I'll return to the central point I made at my first comment:

If the plan for the Teanaway is for continued moto use on existing trails AND if there is a problem with the existing moto trail crossings of waterways THEN it naturally follows that one of the costs implicit in the plan will be to mitigate the moto stream crossings.  The obvious way would appear to be suitable bridge(s).

The money where the mouth is comment, to elaborate, is directed more toward the DNR, but also, to an extent, to the non-moto's on this thread that profess to not want to shut down motos at Teanaway.  If that sentiment were true (e.g. not wanting to shut them down) then the natural implication is to fully support the budget necessary to protect the fish (e.g. a bridge or other such suitable mitigation of existing moto trail crossings of waterways) as part of the overall Teanaway Plan.   Alternatively push for the Teanaway plan to be implemented in a manner that prioritizes the concern for fish by pushing for the crossing improvements in an earlier phase, even if that means delaying more hiker friendly parts of the plan until later.

To summarize:
I'm taking your words up thread at face value that one, you don't want to shut down motos, and two, that you have concerns about the fish due to the moto trail crossings of water ways.  I pointed out an obvious potential course of action consistent with these words.  I get snark and dismissiveness in return, plus being accused of being angry.

Angry?  Nope. 
Pointing out obvious implication of the existing Teanaway plan?  Yep.
Pointing out consistent words / actions?  Yep.

I'm looking forward to hearing how y'all are doing all you can to fully implement the Teanaway Plan, existing moto trails and all.
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
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 27 May 2005
Posts: 9554 | TRs
Location: tacoma
Ski
  Top

><((((°>
PostMon Nov 05, 2018 2:22 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
First of all, I'm not at all sure exactly what the plan is. As I noted just above, I'm really confused.
Second, sorry if you interpret my comment above as snark - maybe it is. I thought we were trying to discuss an issue that will affect recreational users for years. I'm not really interested in arguing back and forth about any facet of the project - I'm sure that's been done already by those on the planning commissions.
In regard to bridges: I have no idea what sort of bridge construction you were involved with. Was it a bridge that was designed to be used by motorized vehicles? Or just hikers? That's apples and oranges. Any bridge that's going to carry motorized traffic (even if it's just dirt bikes) is going to require a lot of paperwork up front - maybe an EA - I don't know.
I do know that even small bridges can be prohibitively expensive, and thus far there haven't been any numbers cited for funding allocations for this project.
I'm seeing three stream crossings on those maps. Again, I'm not really sure I'm reading the maps correctly - there may be more, there may be less.

As to "putting my money where my mouth is" - I don't have a dog in this fight. I'm just another "interested citizen" concerned about providing recreational opportunities for a variety of users over the long term. I'm not for or against any particular user constituency.

The people putting up the money would be the DNR. If you can find in any of the documents some dollar figures I'd appreciate seeing them. Maybe they have boatloads of money to work with. Maybe they have budget constraints that would make the construction of bridges a non-starter. Thus far none of us appears to know the answer to that question.

If they've got the money, then by all means go ahead and put bridges in if it's appropriate. Therein lies the crux of it: it could well be that it's not appropriate or practicable.

Andrea at WTA was kind enough to send me a link to their page which might provide a little more insight:
https://www.wta.org/news/signpost/meet-the-teanaway-community-forest-2
I haven't had an opportunity to look at it yet.

--------------
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. 
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
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
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 27 May 2005
Posts: 9554 | TRs
Location: tacoma
Ski
  Top

><((((°>
PostMon Nov 05, 2018 2:35 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Let me add:

RE: "drop in the bucket"

The little 30-foot-long steel bridge that jumps over Phelan Creek on the 2180-010 road was constructed in 2008 at a cost of approximately $30,000.00.
Because there were several agencies involved in the project - NPS, USFS, DNR, and QIN - the issue of who was going to pay for the bridge held the project up for nearly a year.

This is just a wild guess, but if there are three bridges required, the total cost is likely to be significantly more than that, and any sort of project of that nature cannot be done solely by DNR - it would also involve (at the minimum) USFWS, WDFW, and the Army Corps of Engineers.

--------------
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. 
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
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
Kim Brown
Member
Member


Joined: 13 Jul 2009
Posts: 5106 | TRs

Kim Brown
  Top

Member
PostMon Nov 05, 2018 2:42 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
???  confused.gif  I'm not about to read a Perry Mason episode script about who said what and when. Just having a convo about Teanaway Community Forest.

--------------
" I'm really happy about this! … I have very strong good and horrible memories up there."  – oldgranola, NWH’s outdoors advocate.
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
treeswarper
Alleged Sockpuppet!



Joined: 25 Dec 2006
Posts: 8657 | TRs
Location: Don't move here
treeswarper
  Top

Alleged Sockpuppet!
PostMon Nov 05, 2018 3:08 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
There are also fancy fish friendly culverts and arches.  I do not mean for fancy friendly fish, but fancy pipes and stuff.  Round pipes, square boxes, concrete arch pipes, baffles and all that.  Not sure, but it might be slightly less than a bridge but equipment needs access.

--------------
What's especially fun about sock puppets is that you can make each one unique and individual, so that they each have special characters. And they don't have to be human––animals and aliens are great possibilities
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Kim Brown
Member
Member


Joined: 13 Jul 2009
Posts: 5106 | TRs

Kim Brown
  Top

Member
PostMon Nov 05, 2018 3:13 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Ski wrote:
huh.gif

Tom was right - it's cabin fever season.

Kim, I'm a little puzzled. The initial scoping and first comment period began in 2014.
Maybe this is wishful thinking, but after four years I would think they'd have formulated some sort of plan. Am I correct in understanding that the current plan is what is shown on those maps in the documents cited up-thread? If so, are they going ahead with those plans, or is this project still in the developmental stages?
Are we supposed to submit comment on the plan now?

Yes, this is a comment period for the DRAFT plan. Going from a blank slate to a draft plan, and h DNR, WDFW and stakeholders all working on it - whew! I think taking the time to do it right is wise. I recall some confusion in the beginning as to what a community forest is. The locals didn't know, non-locals didn't know. There was some local concern that 206'ers would take over and they wouldn't be represented. I can't say I blame them, to be honest.  I think the Committee made the right choice in taking a lot of time on this.

--------------
" I'm really happy about this! … I have very strong good and horrible memories up there."  – oldgranola, NWH’s outdoors advocate.
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
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 27 May 2005
Posts: 9554 | TRs
Location: tacoma
Ski
  Top

><((((°>
PostMon Nov 05, 2018 7:06 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Going back to the beginning comments - they were all over the place, so it's understandable that it would take some time.

Moving right along here.... that link Andrea sent to me says "The recreation plan will guide recreation management and public access in the Community Forest for the next 15 years. The plan will proceed through a state environmental review process beginning on today, October 24, and will remain open for public comment for two weeks until November 7."

That's Wednesday. Today is Monday. No more time to argue. Just submit a comment.

I was working on another project anyway!

... and treeswarper: There might well be some fancy friendly fish up there. You'll never know until you get into the water and introduce yourself!  dizzy.gif

--------------
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. 
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
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
tod701
Member
Member


Joined: 28 Aug 2009
Posts: 144 | TRs
Location: Stanwood
tod701
  Top

Member
PostMon Nov 05, 2018 7:27 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Kim Brown wrote:
Token, are you angry at us for pointing out the cost of a bridge? Your tone is accusatory but I can't figure out what we're being accused of. No one's arguing about bridges or the cost.

I can't put my money where my mouth is; I don't have the money for a bridge for motorized use  in the Teanaway Community Forest.

Of course the money could be found, eventually. Salmon Recovery Board, the tribes, RCO, etc. etc.

NOVA and RTP too.
If the DNR would support it there are organizations that would apply for the grants to do it.

--------------
Tod
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
tod701
Member
Member


Joined: 28 Aug 2009
Posts: 144 | TRs
Location: Stanwood
tod701
  Top

Member
PostMon Nov 05, 2018 7:31 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Chico wrote:
tod701 wrote:
Ski wrote:
Unless I've been misinformed, that area historically saw significant use by motorized recreationists. Why weren't they at the table from the outset?

Good luck with getting an honest official answer, but I can provide an educated guess.

All previous land owners did NOT allow motorized use. (but it happened as it was difficult to prevent it.)

A lot of it happen, right in front of the land management staff.

The off the record discussions revolved around a paper ban to keep corporate lawyers appeased due to liability concerns versus on the ground land managers that were less concerned about that than the lawyers back at HQ.

--------------
Tod
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
tod701
Member
Member


Joined: 28 Aug 2009
Posts: 144 | TRs
Location: Stanwood
tod701
  Top

Member
PostMon Nov 05, 2018 7:34 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Kim Brown wrote:
local concern that 206'ers would take over and they wouldn't be represented.

Not sure where it stands today, but the original committee was heavily weighted to the 206.

--------------
Tod
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
tod701
Member
Member


Joined: 28 Aug 2009
Posts: 144 | TRs
Location: Stanwood
tod701
  Top

Member
PostMon Nov 05, 2018 7:39 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Ski wrote:
The people putting up the money would be the DNR

Current law allows ORV non-profits to get NOVA and RTP grants via the RCO.

At least two such organizations are ready to do so, but need the applicable land manager (DNR) to support their grant applications for them to be legally compliant.

--------------
Tod
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
RandyHiker
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 5880 | TRs
Location: Mobile
RandyHiker
  Top

Snarky Member
PostMon Nov 05, 2018 9:51 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
tod701 wrote:
Kim Brown wrote:
local concern that 206'ers would take over and they wouldn't be represented.

Not sure where it stands today, but the original committee was heavily weighted to the 206.

King county (area code 206 and 425) has 2+ million people.  Kittitas Country has 46,000 people.

Using the concept of one person one vote would not there be a 45:1 ratio between "206" representation and "local" representation?

If not guided by the principle of "one person, one vote"  What is your concept of fair representation?
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
treeswarper
Alleged Sockpuppet!



Joined: 25 Dec 2006
Posts: 8657 | TRs
Location: Don't move here
treeswarper
  Top

Alleged Sockpuppet!
PostTue Nov 06, 2018 6:09 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
RandyHiker wrote:
tod701 wrote:
Kim Brown wrote:
local concern that 206'ers would take over and they wouldn't be represented.

Not sure where it stands today, but the original committee was heavily weighted to the 206.

King county (area code 206 and 425) has 2+ million people.  Kittitas Country has 46,000 people.

Using the concept of one person one vote would not there be a 45:1 ratio between "206" representation and "local" representation?

If not guided by the principle of "one person, one vote"  What is your concept of fair representation?

And here is one of the big problems that stimulates the Cascade Curtain discussion.  Where is the popcorn emoticon?   You gots more bodies than them, therefore you control them, no matter that you are just playing "there" and they live there and have to put up with you.  Of course, I am thinking that Kittitas County is located too close to Seattle and therefore has a great number of recent immigrants from Seattle.  Any semi-rural area within a couple hours is fair game for that migration.  So, Kittitas is just a bastardized part of King County anyway.

--------------
What's especially fun about sock puppets is that you can make each one unique and individual, so that they each have special characters. And they don't have to be human––animals and aliens are great possibilities
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
  Display:     All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Forum Index > Stewardship > Who gets to use the Teanaway Valley?
  Happy Birthday Gabigabs, alpine964!
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