Another chance to comment on Middle Fork

[marylou]

Whatever your take on this, here is another chance to comment. Apologies if it's already been posted elsewhere on the site.

 

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 The 2002 EA and associated Decision Notice/Findings of No Significant Impact were withdrawn in December 2003 to allow additional time to resolve private land and mining claim access issues.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.

[Stefan]

My guess it that climbers will be mum on this issue as they usually are. Even those climbers who like to climb that route on Mt. Garfield.

[mattp]

There is nothing in the current plan that would affect the climb on Mount Garfield either way. However, there is quitoe a bit that is of interest (or should be) to climbers.

 

The current document does not address everything, but the big picture is that they are going to pave 13 miles of gravel road to serve a new campground they are building virtually at the foot of Mount Garfield and it will be operated by a private concessionaire; and during the Summer they are planning to gate the road six or eight miles beyond there, but during the winter it will be gated (I think) just past the campground. "Inholders" such as those with mining claims or the hot springs folks will be able to have keys to the gate, so this is not a net gain in wilderness or even wilderness experience, but a loss of access.

 

The result is that access to other peaks in the area is going to be reduced and things like Summit Chief Mountain are going to be out of reach for most weekenders.

 

They are going to decommission or block a number of other side roads in the area.

 

Mountain bikers and horseback riders and kayakers participated in the planning process. The hiking trail on the other side of the river is going to be open every other day to mountain bikers and horseback riders, and they are going to plan the roadway project such that it does not take away any traditional kayak put-in spots.

[chucK]

Do you have any possible comments climbers could make that would help our cause?

 

The way I see it, the only thing that would help climber access compared to the current plan is KEEP THE ROAD OPEN! Unfortunately, that is probably not going to happen.

 

I'm all for making my comments, but currently, all I can think of is saying the whole damn thing sucks. Which will probably be met by deaf ears.

 

So, I guess what I'm asking is, is there any way that climbers can positively contribute to the planning process? Is there anything reasonable that we can ask for?

[mattp]

I'm not sure what "our cause" is here, ChucK. If you want access to the mountains to go climb peaks back toward the top of the drainage like Big Snow Mountain or Summit Chief or whatever, it is obviously going to be a loss of access if they choose one of the options that provides for closing the road to public motorized use. Assuming that preserving automobile access to the upper valley is your goal, will writing letters saying you are unhappy with this part of the plan help? I don't know, but I don't see how it could hurt.

 

 

I haven't had time to look at how they've divided up the verious phases of the plan, and I haven't read the current document but I think it pertains to only the proposed road closure and the trail on the other side of the river, and maybe to some of the closure of spur roads as well.

 

I don't think they area asking for comments on the whole thing - the current document does not address the road paving or the campground - so maybe a comment such as "the whole thing sucks" would fall on deaf ears, but I suppose that in a sense I see nothing wrong with even that kind of comment because somebody WILL read it before they ignore it. I know some around here may be skeptical, but most of the Forest Service folks I talk to do actually care about trying to do the right thing and even if they are going to do what they are going to do, these comments matter at some level.

 

In order to significantly influence the planning process, you'll have to be willing to do more than fire off a snotty letter, though. It'd be cool if somebody wanted to take on the Middle Fork as their project and really get involved because even if we don't like what they are doing at this stage or what they've already decided, there will be more planning and management decisions in the future.

 

To be fair, too, we should consider one of the "plus" points for the development in the lower part of the valley: they hope it will reduce the incidence of crime like meth labs, vandalism at trailheads, and trash dumping and such. Also, I suppose it probably IS true that they need more campgrounds if you consider the fact that many campgrounds along the I-90 corridor are full in the Summer and if you assume that we should provide campgrounds to fill that "need."

[marylou]

The way I see it, the only thing that would help climber access compared to the current plan is KEEP THE ROAD OPEN! Unfortunately, that is probably not going to happen.

 

If you DON't comment, then there is a one hundred percent chance that they will not consider your opinion.

[Dave_Schuldt]

Keep in mind that the last few miles of road is expensive to keep open. A few years ago a big tree fell, they couldn't move it so they had to move the road. There is lots of great off trail hiiking up there. I hope the road stays open.......

[mattp]

Good point, Dave, that the cost of maintaining some of the roads we assume that we should be able to drive on may be way too high to justify their maintenance. Also, of course, there are those who argue that reduced access to the upper valley will enhance the wilderness experience there, and still others who probably argue that the area is over-visited.

 

I'm not psyched about either the major development they are imposing on the lower half of the valley or the reduced access to the upper half, but there are a lot of considerations involved here beyone keeping this area accessible for climbers and hikers or other non-motorized recreational users.

[chucK]

I like the idea of blocking off the spur roads, and just keeping the main road open to the end. Just gating it in the Winter would be a reasonable compromise in my mind (might be able to keep some long-term riff-raff out that way?)

 

I think this will be jist of my comment. I think it's important to write a letter like

 

"I like your plan. The part about the X, X , and X, are good ideas which I support. HOWEVER .... I want you not to do Y. The reason I don't want you to do Y is .... "

 

But you probaby knew that already. Letters which are basically votes are good. Ones that might possible convince are better.

 

Big Snow Mountain East Buttress

[Dave_Schuldt]

From what I saw this summer that area gets some people but I wouldn't say it's crowded. There is a bridge near lake Ivanho that can no longer support horses so the west side of Dutch Miller Gap doesn't get any. If that bridge gets fixed there will be some horse trafic. The bridge at Pedro Camp needs work, not shure how mutch longer it will last.

[Stefan]

The forest service is recommendatating the current scenario:

 

Gate at Dingford Creek trail for you and I, but the road will be open to the people who have private property beyond that. The forest service will maintain the road beyond Dingford as a trail, however the private people can maintain the road as a road up to level 2 of road maintenance so long as they pay for it.

 

Basically, it is very similar to the Monte Cristo road maintenance. Except you will not be able to ride your bike as freely or as easily as you can on the Middle Fork Road.

 

If you want to climb any north or northwest route from Lemah Mtn to Summit Chief you are looking at an additional 14 more miles because of the gate.

[RichardKorry]

The forest service is recommendatating the current scenario:

 

Basically, it is very similar to the Monte Cristo road maintenance. Except you will not be able to ride your bike as freely or as easily as you can on the Middle Fork Road.

 

If you want to climb any north or northwest route from Lemah Mtn to Summit Chief you are looking at an additional 14 more miles because of the gate.

 

Can you explain the issues with not being able to bike this road like Mt Cristo? Thanks

[Stefan]

They are offering mountain bike riders on the trail on odd number days only.

 

In addition, this road is not as flat as Monte Cristo, you have to push it to its end most of the way, but it will be better than Monte Cristo on the way back because it surely is downhill!

[catbirdseat]

Elevation gain from Dingford Creek to Goldmyer property is 400 ft in about 5 miles. After that it really gets steep.