Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > MF Snoqualmie River Road Statement from FS
 Reply to topic
Previous :: Next Topic
Author Message
Steve
Phlogiston Purveyor



Joined: 29 Jan 2002
Posts: 769 | TRs | Pics
Location: Bothell
Steve
Phlogiston Purveyor
PostWed Jan 19, 2005 8:53 am 
File Code: 1950 Date: January 13, 2005 Revised Middle Fork Snoqualmie River Watershed Access and Travel Management Environmental Assessment Dear Reviewer: The Revised Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Middle Fork Snoqualmie River Watershed Access and Travel Management Plan is now available on the Forest’s website, www.fs.fed.us/r6/mbs/projects/. Alternative maps are 11”x17” and may be difficult to download and print at a readable size. In-office review copies of the complete EA are available at the Supervisor’s Mountlake Terrace Office and the Snoqualmie Ranger District Office in North Bend. We are requesting your review and comments on this plan. A 30-day comment period has been established. The period for comment is January 20 – February 22, 2005. The EA revises the March 2002 Middle Fork Snoqualmie River Access and Travel Management Environmental Assessment. The 2002 EA and associated Decision Notice/Findings of No Significant Impact were withdrawn in December 2003 to allow additional time to resolve private land and mining claim access issues. The revised EA proposes to decommission about 30.6 miles of National Forest System road no longer needed for administrative management of National Forest lands within the Middle Fork Snoqualmie River watershed. About 7.6 miles of these roads (Road 5600 from Dingford Creek to its terminus) would be decommissioned to a low-maintenance multi-use trail/private road and about 2.3 miles (Road 5600-50) would be decommissioned and converted to a multi-use trail open for hikers, pack and saddle and mountain bikes. Additionally, the proposed action would open the Middle Fork Trails 1003, 1003.01, 1003.1 and 1003.2 (about 13.8 miles) for mountain bike use on odd-numbered days on a seasonal basis, for a three year trial period. Five site-specific alternatives are analyzed in this EA. Alternatives include the No Action Alternative and four action alternatives. Alternative E is the preferred alternative. I believe it best meets the, purpose and need for the project, which includes: 1. Decommissioning roads no longer needed for administrative management of National Forest System lands within the Middle Fork Snoqualmie River watershed; 2. Providing more mountain bike user trails in the watershed. Through the analysis presented in the revised EA, we have determined that Alternative E would not be a major federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the human environment; therefore, an environmental impact statement is not needed. This determination was made considering the factors of significance, as defined in 40 CFR 1508.27 (Council of Environmental Quality Regulations for Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act). Please send your written comments to Doug Schrenk, Attention: MF ATM, Snoqualmie Ranger District, 42404 SE North Bend Way, North Bend, WA 98045. Oral, FAXED and email comments will also be accepted. If you wish to submit oral comments call (425) 888-1421, extension 233. Comments can also be FAXED to Doug Schrenk at (425) 888-1910 or emailed to dschrenk@fs.fed.us. For further information, please contact Doug at (425) 888-1421 extension 233, or e-mail at dschrenk@fs.fed.us. Comments on this document need to be postmarked by Thursday February 22, 2005. Sincerely, JIM FRANZEL District Ranger Snoqualmie Ranger District Please note: comments received in response to this solicitation, including names and addresses of those who comment, will be considered part of the public record on this proposed action and will be considered part of the public record on this proposed action and will be available for public inspection. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered; however, those who submit anonymous comments will not have standing to appeal the subsequent decision under 36 CFR Part 215. Additionally, pursuant to 7 CFR 1.27(d), any person may request the agency to withhold a submission from the public record by showing how the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) permits such confidentiality. Persons requesting such confidentiality should be aware that, under the FOIA, confidentiality may be granted in only vary limited circumstances, such as to protect trade secrets. The Forest Service will inform the requester of the agency’s decision regarding the request for confidentiality, and where the request is denied, the agency will return the submission and notify the requester that the comments may be resubmitted with or without name and address within 14 days.

Despair is only for those who see the end beyond all doubt.
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
PostWed Jan 19, 2005 10:25 am 
Thanks Steve. Im going to comment on it alright. 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 Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Tom
Admin



Joined: 15 Dec 2001
Posts: 17835 | TRs | Pics
Tom
Admin
PostWed Jan 19, 2005 4:16 pm 
Whatever your position, PLEASE make a difference by writing a letter and voicing your opinion. If not, this thing will be rubber stamped thanks to a stuffed ballot box from our local (non) advocacy organizations. My personal opinion is that closing the road at Dingford will do nothing but add an additional and unnecessary 15 miles (round trip) to hiking destinations in the vicinity of the Dutch Miller trailhead. In the road is closed, this area will be lost forever to the vast majority of hikers and unnecessarily sacrificed to a limited and privileged few, e.g. 1) horsemen 2) mountain bikers 3) those with private access to the road The only new "trails" that will be created by the 7.5 miles of road closure will be trails adjacent to the 7.5 miles of road relatively devoid of views and of little interest to hikers (or horsemen and mountain bikers for that matter). I am somewhat resigned to the reality the road will close thanks to our local "advocacy" organizations that are pushing hard for closure. In my opinion these organizations are not acting in the interests of hikers and are turning a blind eye to common sense. What they claim is being "protected" will essentially be lost to all of us. What sense does that make? It will truly be a shame if decisions are ultimately made based on a stuffed ballot box rather than the voice of the outdoor community. Again, whatever your position, PLEASE make a difference by writing a letter and voicing your opinion.

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
PostWed Jan 19, 2005 4:33 pm 
here we go again! dittos, Tom.

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
Damian
Member
Member


Joined: 18 Dec 2001
Posts: 3260 | TRs | Pics
Damian
Member
PostWed Jan 19, 2005 4:58 pm 
Amen. Speak up.

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
PostWed Jan 19, 2005 6:25 pm 
Double dittos Mr. Davenport. 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 Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Allison
Feckless Swooner



Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 12287 | TRs | Pics
Location: putting on my Nikes before the comet comes
Allison
Feckless Swooner
PostWed Jan 19, 2005 6:29 pm 
Closing the road and not making the "cherry stem" part of the Wilderness is dangerous because many less people will visit this area, and then there will be no one to fight for its protection when someone wants to develop or log it. Are there any advocacy groups looking into buying out the inholders so the whole thing can become Wilderness? That's my preference.

www.allisonoutside.com follow me on Twitter! @AllisonLWoods
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Kat
Turtle Hiker



Joined: 05 Oct 2003
Posts: 2560 | TRs | Pics
Kat
Turtle Hiker
PostWed Jan 19, 2005 7:14 pm 
I will again, for what it's worth. I still find it appalling that the USFS does not have to post a SIGN on a road to advise users they want to close it. Simply posting it on their web site IS NOT ADEQUATE PUBLIC DISCLOSURE, and I want them to know it. I am positive a LOT of folks have absolutely no idea this crap is going on... how could they?

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Kat
Turtle Hiker



Joined: 05 Oct 2003
Posts: 2560 | TRs | Pics
Kat
Turtle Hiker
PostWed Jan 19, 2005 7:18 pm 
And let me continue ad nauseum! It is UNFAIR to residents along the I-90 corridor to be deprived of day hike, or single overnight access to the area when Hwy 2 residents RETAIN that. The USFS is unfairly discriminating against residents residing along I-90, vs Hwy 2.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
jimmymac
Zip Lock Bagger



Joined: 14 Nov 2003
Posts: 3705 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lake Wittenmyer, WA
jimmymac
Zip Lock Bagger
PostWed Jan 19, 2005 7:29 pm 
Kat, What you say is very true. But not just for I-90 folks. Everybody who doesn't have three or four days to take off work is affected. I guess we can enjoy the new campground and asphalt.

"Profound serenity is the product of unfaltering Trust and heightened vulnerability."
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Nomad
Member
Member


Joined: 03 Mar 2004
Posts: 283 | TRs | Pics
Location: Auburn WA
Nomad
Member
PostWed Jan 19, 2005 7:51 pm 
You may get a better response if you make it easy for people. Someone should post a sample letter that can be cut and pasted in an email or printed and mailed. I would do it but I’m lazy – and I already sent in my opinion.

"Of all the fire mountains which, like beacons, once blazed along the Pacific Coast, Mount Rainier is the noblest." - John Muir "If the path be beautiful, let us not ask where it leads." - Anatole France
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
PostWed Jan 19, 2005 7:55 pm 
Kat wrote:
The USFS is unfairly discriminating against residents residing along I-90, vs Hwy 2.
Huh??? Where'd you come up with that? This has nothing to do with discrimination. The FS wants to close a road that they feel is costly and difficult to maintain and police. Some of 'em high up in power with the FS don't even know where the Mid Fk Road is, let alone make decisions to discriminate, if they wanted to do so. Place your anger where it would reasonably make an impact. Your accusation the FS of sitting around saying, "Hey, let's close the MidFK road so people who live along the I-90 corridor won't get as much hiking in as the people along Highway 2." The official official reading the letter would say to himself - "WTF....???" before deep sixing it. Of course you're free to write what you wish, but if you bring that issue up that in your letter, it would likely not be considered at all, even if it has good points. Regarding letters: Folks, they're picky about those letters. Don't go off into a tangent - they don't have time to read accusatory tangents, so they don't read accusatory tangents. Keep sentence structure simple. One page. Get in there, say what you want to say, then get the hell out. There are samples of various letters to write on advocacy websites. Check The Mountaineers, WTA, Sierra Club. If you don't agree with the posture of that group, tailor their sample letter to say what you want to say - but those groups lobby with governmental agencies for a living, and know what styles of letters work.

"...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
Kat
Turtle Hiker



Joined: 05 Oct 2003
Posts: 2560 | TRs | Pics
Kat
Turtle Hiker
PostWed Jan 19, 2005 7:57 pm 
Don't we have any hiking lawyers that can legally protest the lack of public disclosure?? Come on people, come forward!

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Kat
Turtle Hiker



Joined: 05 Oct 2003
Posts: 2560 | TRs | Pics
Kat
Turtle Hiker
PostWed Jan 19, 2005 8:00 pm 
Quark wrote:
Kat wrote:
The USFS is unfairly discriminating against residents residing along I-90, vs Hwy 2.
Huh??? Where'd you come up with that? This has nothing to do with discrimination. The FS wants to close a road that they feel is costly and difficult to maintain and police. Some of 'em high up in power with the FS don't even know where the Mid Fk Road is, let alone make decisions to discriminate, if they wanted to do so. Place your anger where it would reasonably make an impact. Your accusation the FS of sitting around saying, "Hey, let's close the MidFK road so people who live along the I-90 corridor won't get as much hiking in as the people along Highway 2." The official official reading the letter would say to himself - "WTF....???" before deep sixing it. Of course you're free to write what you wish, but if you bring that issue up that in your letter, it would likely not be considered at all, even if it has good points. Regarding letters: Folks, they're picky about those letters. Don't go off into a tangent - they don't have time to read accusatory tangents, so they don't read accusatory tangents. Keep sentence structure simple. One page. Get in there, say what you want to say, then get the hell out. There are samples of various letters to write on advocacy websites. Check The Mountaineers, WTA, Sierra Club. If you don't agree with the posture of that group, tailor their sample letter to say what you want to say - but those groups lobby with governmental agencies for a living, and know what styles of letters work.
Quark, I came up with the discrimination factor by simple mileage. If I want to hike into La Bohn, I currently can do this as a dayhike or an overnighter. When the USFS gets their way, it turns into 2 or more nights. Check your geography, gal. EDIT: Not to MENTION the time it takes me to drive to the HWY2 trailhead, OK? Like 2 hours. actually more.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
gj
Member
Member


Joined: 01 Nov 2003
Posts: 78 | TRs | Pics
gj
Member
PostWed Jan 19, 2005 8:02 pm 
I agree, whatever your position, make it known to the Forest Service. Personally, if it will make the wilderness deeper, I say close the road. I don't mind walking a few more miles. I like the Middle Fork Trail. I always felt wilderness is something you earned.

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 > MF Snoqualmie River Road Statement from FS
  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