White River Greenwater USFS road closures - access travel mgt plan

[ElaphusElatus]

The USFS has issued a scoping notice for their Greenwater Access and Travel Management Project which describes potential road closures throughout much of the upper White River (GMU 653) landscape.

http://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=47991

The notice was issued 10/22/2015 and comments for this phase are due 30 days later.  The maps show a LOT of yellow suggesting that these roads are to be closed.
http://a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akamai.com/11558/www/nepa/102767_FSPLT3_2577917.pdf

The table in the above document link proposes to decommission 14 miles and close 160 miles, a net loss of open roads of 174 miles out of a total 259 miles.   This is a HUGE change if it occurs!

Voice your concern to the USFS about your favorite road if you want to keep it open.

[bigtex]

I think the first specific area map (http://a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akamai.com/11558/www/nepa/102767_FSPLT3_2577919.pdf) shows one of the problems with the USFS when it comes to $. You have USFS roads that aren't even on USFS property and in some cases, never even get to USFS property. Why then are they USFS roads? Why is it that the USFS has to pay for maintenance? On the map I provided you have FS 7125 which doesn't touch FS land except for one corner, that road is slated for closure. You then have 7120 which starts at SR 410 has a turn off for 7125 and then splits off into two private roads, 7120 never touches FS lands yet it's administered by the USFS.

Typically the reasons these roads are USFS roads is because either the USFS built them, or there used to be lands along those roads and the USFS sold/traded them away but retained the ownership of the road.

In some cases it does make sense where USFS to own these roads through the private areas. For example on the same map you see that the first several miles of FS 70 is private (formerly Hancock Timber not Muckleshoot land) well obviously we wouldn't want a private landowner to put a gate on FS 70 and essentially close off that whole system. But if you have a road that never touches USFS lands (such as 7120), or barely does (7125) why keep them as USFS roads, thus requiring the agency to maintain it?

I've always warned people that just because the lands one either side of a road are private it doesn't mean the road isn't a public road, especially the USFS. This map just shows that.

[ElaphusElatus]

Update:
EA is out for comments due back by 5/27.  Looks like they made significant changes from the initially proposed Alt 1 which is presented as Alt 2.
http://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=47991&exp=overview

[rosscrazyelk]

Maybe it's my phone and I can't see the whole map but how f of you close all of 70?

[Duckslayer89]

So if I'm reading it right the yellow roads will be closed? I think this is great personally. Less area for native road hunters. Possibly more walk in/mountain biking areas?

[netcoyote]

So if I'm reading it right the yellow roads will be closed? I think this is great personally. Less area for native road hunters. Possibly more walk in/mountain biking areas?

I would encourage you to please rethink your position. Here's why:

I've been following this since I learned about it just sometime early this year. I was surprsed to learn how extensive this road closure plan is, not just for the Greenwater area, but for ALL the national forest lands throughout the country. This is one of THE LARGEST land grabs in recent history. The NF system managed under the USDA is planning to restrict thousands of miles of access to land that is supposed to managed as a PUBLIC trust and for all US citizens. The larger goal is to reduce the amount of human activity in outdoor area by restricting access and making the remaining access so unfriendly that more and more people will decide that it's just not worth it anymore to try to escape the urban sprawl. The fewer people who enjoy the remaining outdoor experience, the fewer advocates there will be to resist further restrictions. It's a vicious cycle and a carefully planned one.
It's as if this is the last dying gasp of the Obama administration to limit any type of free travel and sense of solitude and independent thinking.

Duckslayer, you made a comment about this resulting in "less access for native road hunters". How do you know that? A large portion of the plan indicates that many roads will be maintained but gated. If you think tribal hunters will also be restricted, you have not been paying attention to what's been going on lately. Since the plan specifically stated that tribal input was a part of the planning process, I would bet that there is something more in it for them.

As for the comment, "Possibly more walk in/mountain biking areas". What's to stop the FS from limiting ALL access once gates are up and policies nailed down? You are making a huge leap of faith here. But a greater point is this; Because this is compatible with just YOUR style of outdoor access, it's ok with you to allow the government to restrict other outdoor users?
We are all in this together, my friend. If they come to take away my access today, what' to say they will not come for your access tomorrow. Please don't fall for this divide-and-conquer strategy.

I attended a meeting in Greenwater last Weds (5/11) where this was discussed and I can tell you there is a lot more attention to this as the plan moves forward. This affects ALL of us who love the outdoors, not just hunters, not just ORV users, not just berry pickers, etc. It's going to set yet another precedent that the government can just edict another restriction on our way of life.

This is a BFD people, please take heed and voice your concern during the open period, write the FS, write your Congressional representatives, speak up and resist this intrusion!

[netcoyote]

Here is the link to the entire Greenwater plan. Most important is to view Alternate 1,2,and 3.
http://www.fs.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsinternet/!ut/p/c5/04_SB8K8xLLM9MSSzPy8xBz9CP0os3gDfxMDT8MwRydLA1cj72BTUwMTAwgAykeaxRtBeY4WBv4eHmF-YT4GMHkidBvgAI6EdIeDXIvfdrAJuM3388jPTdUvyA2NMMgyUQQAyrgQmg!!/dl3/d3/L2dJQSEvUUt3QS9ZQnZ3LzZfS000MjZOMDcxT1RVODBJN0o2MTJQRDMwODQ!/?project=47991

[Duckslayer89]

So if I'm reading it right the yellow roads will be closed? I think this is great personally. Less area for native road hunters. Possibly more walk in/mountain biking areas?

I would encourage you to please rethink your position. Here's why:

I've been following this since I learned about it just sometime early this year. I was surprsed to learn how extensive this road closure plan is, not just for the Greenwater area, but for ALL the national forest lands throughout the country. This is one of THE LARGEST land grabs in recent history. The NF system managed under the USDA is planning to restrict thousands of miles of access to land that is supposed to managed as a PUBLIC trust and for all US citizens. The larger goal is to reduce the amount of human activity in outdoor area by restricting access and making the remaining access so unfriendly that more and more people will decide that it's just not worth it anymore to try to escape the urban sprawl. The fewer people who enjoy the remaining outdoor experience, the fewer advocates there will be to resist further restrictions. It's a vicious cycle and a carefully planned one.
It's as if this is the last dying gasp of the Obama administration to limit any type of free travel and sense of solitude and independent thinking.

Duckslayer, you made a comment about this resulting in "less access for native road hunters". How do you know that? A large portion of the plan indicates that many roads will be maintained but gated. If you think tribal hunters will also be restricted, you have not been paying attention to what's been going on lately. Since the plan specifically stated that tribal input was a part of the planning process, I would bet that there is something more in it for them.

As for the comment, "Possibly more walk in/mountain biking areas". What's to stop the FS from limiting ALL access once gates are up and policies nailed down? You are making a huge leap of faith here. But a greater point is this; Because this is compatible with just YOUR style of outdoor access, it's ok with you to allow the government to restrict other outdoor users?
We are all in this together, my friend. If they come to take away my access today, what' to say they will not come for your access tomorrow. Please don't fall for this divide-and-conquer strategy.

I attended a meeting in Greenwater last Weds (5/11) where this was discussed and I can tell you there is a lot more attention to this as the plan moves forward. This affects ALL of us who love the outdoors, not just hunters, not just ORV users, not just berry pickers, etc. It's going to set yet another precedent that the government can just edict another restriction on our way of life.

This is a BFD people, please take heed and voice your concern during the open period, write the FS, write your Congressional representatives, speak up and resist this intrusion!

Most of what you said is true and I agree with. I didn't think far enough into it to consider the tribes being apart of this and then still having access while the rest of us don't. I got caught up in thinking road closures would allow more game escapement from the tribal hunters frequenting the area. Well I wonder how far along this decision is and if it's to late to stop it?

[trophyhunt]

How did the meeting go???

[trophyhunt]

So, I see a few roads being maintained but gated, and we all know the natives will get keys to those gates.  That's our property!  What is the point of closing a FS road but still maintaining it?  Are they anti hunters? If they do this as planned and the natives get keys, we need to sue or go to war! 

[Green broke]

You guys on this forum really widen the gap and alienate possibly one of your only allies.  Your assumptions and claims are false and lack representation, however they do give me food for thought on avenues to pursue.

[bigtex]

So, I see a few roads being maintained but gated, and we all know the natives will get keys to those gates.  That's our property!  What is the point of closing a FS road but still maintaining it?  Are they anti hunters? If they do this as planned and the natives get keys, we need to sue or go to war!

This has nothing to do with hunting.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[netcoyote]

How did the meeting go???

There were  about 75-100 people in attendance at the meeting. There seemed to be a good mix of people and a lot of FS staff. I knew a few of them from previous associations;some were knowledgeable, some were seasoned, experienced folks but many were young and didn't know about the history of the area or prior FS land management practices. I asked one about the previous practice of posting carsonite signs at roads that were not planned for maintenance. They simply stated that the road would not be maintained by FS for vehicle travel. That sort of left it up to users of the road to decide if they wanted to maintain the road or let it go. That seemed reasonable to me.  If it lead to a worthwhile location, someone would probably take on the maintenance of it without FS expense. Seems like that sort of independent thinking is frowned on these days.

The meeting started out with a brief overview of what was being planned and the three alternatives that were being proposed. They were trying to make an effort to give the impression that they would be considering public input, but I got the impression that the deal was already done and this was just going to be for show, so that they could claim that they did get community involvement. That opinion seemed to be shared by others in attendance and there were a few hot-heads in the crowd that got pretty heated at times and actually downright obnoxious. Doesn't help our cause a bit. There were a few reps from local politicians, namely Dan Roach and a rep from Dave Reichert's office.

After the overview, the group was asked to split up into separate tables for small group discussion and comment with each table lead by a FS rep. Comments and notes were taken and at the end the table lead went over the list of comments. Several common threads came out of the small group discussion. It was clear to many that the designation of the existing roads left something to be desired. Roads that were listed as existing were some that clearly did not exist any more and a few other anomalies emerged. If they didn't get it right on some of the roads that people were familiar with, it tended to cast doubt on the whole project credibility. The subject of including the possibility of volunteer labor to maintain the roads seemed to not have even been considered. Not too surprising there.

A few roads were being set aside for elk migration but it was noted that they would cut off access to many other miles of roads.  A lot of the premise of the whole project seemed to be on the notion of "high density" of existing roads as well as fish habitat preservation. None were gone into in any detail. No proof was given that "high density" was necessarily a bad thing and when questioned about the volume of traffic on these high density roads, the FS clearly admitted that they had not studied the volume issue, just the number of miles of roads in a square mile. Likewise, the whole "salmon habitat" reason was left open ended and we were expected to take it as gospel.
Several comments were made about the lack of any places to pull off the main remaining roads if all the spurs were gated. This would leave the only camping opportunities to be along the side of the main roads, not very appealing to most of us.
One comment I made was that there would be some serious access limitations to one of the historical gems up there, the Naches Pass Trail #1175. The subject of limiting access for fire suppression was brought up but the FS didn't seem to think that was a priority.

The alternatives that were proposed seemed predictable for a government project. The first alternative was to do nothing and leave existing roads (approx 247 miles) open but maintenance would have to be reduced due to limited funding. It was not clear how the prioritization of limited funding would be allocated across the road system. The second alternative was the most draconian with 167 miles closed and 12 miles fully decommissioned. Alternative 3 would leave 151 miles open with some of the side spur roads open and still some closed for elk habitat. Check out the details for the alternatives in the link above.

Like I said before, this is real and the FS is being directed to do this, and do it soon. The time to act is NOW. Griping on a forum is good for generating discussion but it will mean nothing for stopping this land grab. Get your comments into the FS and write and call you your congress-critters as soon as possible.

[trophyhunt]

So, I see a few roads being maintained but gated, and we all know the natives will get keys to those gates.  That's our property!  What is the point of closing a FS road but still maintaining it?  Are they anti hunters? If they do this as planned and the natives get keys, we need to sue or go to war!

This has nothing to do with hunting.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

it is about access though to our lands, hunting just goes along with access for the most part.  Why are they closing roads and then gating them? That 7222 road is a big closure.

[netcoyote]

You guys on this forum really widen the gap and alienate possibly one of your only allies.  Your assumptions and claims are false and lack representation, however they do give me food for thought on avenues to pursue.

Could you be more specific?