Little Naches Recreation Management Plan

[WATRD]

Is anyone else reading this?

LITTLE NACHES RECREATION MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/wenatchee/planning/little-naches-rmp/little-naches-rec-mgt-plan-ea.pdf)

It doesn't look like Ranger Randy is becoming any more fond of 4x4's in his old age... He throws us a bone here and there, but there's a lot of new restrictions and depending upon which plan wins out, a lot of closures in the Naches ranger district. Most of the motorized use improvements are for ATV's with 4x4's losing ground in every plan.

Anyway, the comment period is only open for a couple more weeks and I hadn't seen a single thread on here, so I thought I would throw one out for those who might take the time to get involved.

Written or oral comments will be accepted for 30 days following the publication of a notice for public comment in the Wenatchee World newspaper (the Forest’s Paper of Record). I expect the notice to be published on Monday, April 17, 2006. The notice will also be published in the
Yakima Herald.

[WATRD]

Here's the boundaries of the area affected by the changes proposed in this document. See anything you might miss if it were to be closed?

http://www.watrd.com/work/nachesrangerdistrict.jpg

[DeadSock]

Maybe I missed it, but scanning through that, I really don't see much 4x4 use "loosing ground" ...

The improvements to for the ATV users appears to be rational ... they need access from campgrounds to trails other than the main roads, and learner loops would be good for them too.

The closure until Dec 15 -> June 1 is sorta a bummer, but I'm not really surprised .

[Ben W]

Could you point out what you think is going to be closed? I scanned most of that document yesterday and I didn't see anything about closures, other than some non-system trails in the Powerline area. In fact I thought I saw a part that stated they would be adding 1.5 miles of 4x4 trail.

I may have misread it, that is a long, boring document. If you could give me the highlights (or lowlights) from your perspective, I would appreciate it.

[Ben W]

actually if you look at this table, we aren't losing really any ORV trails with alternative 2. They are eliminating ALOT of unauthorized trail, the large majority of which is motorcycle trail. They are also converting some of that in to ATV trail and creating other ATV trails.

http://webpages.charter.net/benw4x4/table1.JPG

The negative things I see in this doc -

1. Ending all cross-country travel (is this really a negative?)
2. closure until June 1. (Not losing much, most of the area typically isn't accessbile until mid-May anyway)

[Ben W]

Here's the boundaries of the area affected by the changes proposed in this document. See anything you might miss if it were to be closed?

http://www.watrd.com/work/nachesrangerdistrict.jpg

That map is inaccurate, this plan is for the Little Naches Basin specifically, not the entire district. Look at this http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/wenatchee/planning/little-naches-rmp/maps/map-1-2.pdf for the area in question. It is the area outlined by the heavy green line. The 4x4 trails within the area are Kaner (676), Lilly Pond (613), Milk Creek (866?), and Powerline/Ravens Roost.

[WATRD]

So how much of the background are you familiar with? Have we met at any of the planning meetings leading up to this document being released? If we have, I appologize, I am lousy about putting names with faces.

But, if you have been to those meetings, then you know that this document outlines Ranger Randy's plan for the district, even if it only encompasses the Little Naches Basin at the moment.

Randy is NOT a friend of motorized use, especially 4x4's. From those meetings there is no doubt.

When you look at the numbers, we are talking 24 miles of legal 4wd trails and closing 51.1+ miles of "unauthorized" trail. What is it you think that is good/okay about closing down 2/3 of the currently available trails? Do you really think that 2/3rd's is just spurs, switchbacks and stuff you won't miss?

[Ben W]

No I don't think I will miss any of that. The huge majority of that 51 miles is single track trail, not 4x4 trail. A good portion of it is being converted to ATV trail, so it is not all being lost. Specifically, which 4x4 trails do you think are going to be lost? I don't know of any 4x4 trails within that area that fall into the unauthorized group.

I did go to the first planning meeting, and I didn't get the impression that any of the rangers had an agenda against motorized recreation. I don't see how you can arrive at that conclusion based on this plan either. They are increasing the total authorized trail system mileage. I'm not saying this plan is perfect from the motorized recreation perspective, but I think it is a reasonable compromise.

[WATRD]

You are certainly welcome to your opinion. "Reasonable compromises" have been allowing our trails to be closed for decades. If you think that is just fine, then submit your feedback to that effect and don't whine when you find that a cool trail you used to enjoy is now closed. Or remain silent and do nothing, either will help the process of closing trails along.

Having attended more than one forest service meeting in that district, including three on this subject and having read the document through a couple of times, it's pretty obvious that there is a bias against motorized access in that district.

As a motorized user, none of the proposed alternatives are acceptable as is. Compromising on trail closures is what got us where we are today. It just baffles me that you can post that it's okay and you won't miss it because it's single track. How short sighted is that?

[Ben W]

I'm sure others will miss it, but I won't because I don't ride single track. Its a simple fact. In fact the MC guys are benefiting too, yes they are losing some unauthorized trail, but other sections of unauthorized trail is becoming ATV trail, and new ATV trail is being constructed too. Unless I am mistaken, MCs can ride ATV trail also. I don't feel bad for the MC guys because they have more trails than anyone else, yet all I see alot of them do is ride laps around campgrounds.

You still haven't named the specific 4x4 trails that are being closed. Put aside your grudge against Randal Shepard for a few minutes and read the plan with a clear head.

[WATRD]

It's not my job to spoon feed you, what's being closed is described to one degree or another in the plan. Go read the document, every word and break out a map to see what is being talked about. I am not going to waste more time with someone who's attitude is;

"I'm sure others will miss it, but I won't because I don't ride single track. Its a simple fact."

There are plenty of folks who don't ride single track but still understand that the future of their trails is the future of our trails. A closure for motorized use, regardless of the number of wheels, is a closure we all feel and all should do something about.

But thanks for the new sig line!

Regarding trail closures: "I'm sure others will miss it, but I won't because I don't ride single track." - Ben W

[Ben W]

Nice job taking quotes out of context. You asked if I would miss it, and I gave an honest answer.

I don't understand what problem you have with UNAUTHORIZED trail mileage being converted to AUTHORIZED trail mileage. The total mileage under Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 is virtually the same.

[Ben W]

Most of the motorized use improvements are for ATV's with 4x4's losing ground in every plan.


This was your original statement. I don't see 4x4's losing ground in any of the plans. You need to provide some facts to back this up.

[WATRD]

Out of context? How do you figure? You said it and I even prefaced it to place it in context. I think it pretty clearly illustrates your point in post #8 and post #10. I think the intention of you posts is clear.

Define "unauthorized" for me. For the forest service, that usually means they didn't survey it, didn't map it, don't maintain it and don't really want it. If we went with that definition everywhere and just went along with it like you seem to want to do, the entire Reiter Trails area, where motorized sports have been gaining ground, would be gone. Long established trails can fall under that definition as I am sure you heard at the meeting you attended, if the forest service doesn't "approve" of them for some reason...

So, I definately get the idea that you don't really care about the trails section of the plan, but you haven't even touched upon the camping restrictions... let me guess, that won't effect you either, because you would rather drive home to Yakima...

[DeadSock]

I'm with Ben on this ...

alt1 to alt2 is ... 50 odd miles of "unauthorized" trails being converted to 50 some miles of "authorized" ATV trails ... Little impact on existing 4x4 trails ...

What's the problem?

I especially like the "learner" loops for the ATV's, much better than having the young riders racing around a campground.

[Ben W]

What's the problem?


The problem is this guy has a major grudge against Randal Shepard because he shut down an UNAUTHORIZED :D orgainzed trail run WATRD was trying to put together awhile back.

[Ben W]

So, I definately get the idea that you don't really care about the trails section of the plan, but you haven't even touched upon the camping restrictions... let me guess, that won't effect you either, because you would rather drive home to Yakima...

The way you started this thread it looked like you wanted to talk about the trails stuff, so I haven't reviewed any of the camping info yet. You haven't touched on camping restrictions either, so I'll just assume you would rather drive home to Duvall. :confused:

[4TACXOMA4]

Taken from document...

Closing the remainder of the project area to motorized cross-country travel, including up to 32.7
miles of existing inventoried unauthorized (nonsystem) trails, 0.4 miles of system trail, 5.1 miles
of power line corridor and 3.0 additional miles of known but uninventoried unauthorized trail,
through a Forest Order.
This action right here is over 40 miles of trail, and I'm sure it is just a start to what they have in mind. Not to mention all the camping areas they are trying to close. If they start by closing ATV trails as you say this is all about, what makes you think they will stop there if they are successful? The naches area is probably my favorite place to wheel, and I would hate to see it disappear.

[chuck higglebot]

in 8 i worked in naches for 3 yearsd, biutiful land

[4TACXOMA4]

The problem is this guy has a major grudge against Randal Shepard because he shut down an UNAUTHORIZED :D orgainzed trail run WATRD was trying to put together awhile back.
I don't know if this is true or not, but what would that have to do with this? Rob has always shown concern for trails being shut down, so it is to no surprise that he is getting worked up over your "It doesn't affect me yet, so I don't care" attitude. Will you care when it does affect you (which I think it does right now if you would read the document), or will you sit back and say, "there's nothing I can do now"? Guess what, now is the time you can do something about it!

[midiwall]

Ben W;

One of the things that Rob asked is if you had been to any of the meetings that were held in preperation for this document being released. I didn't see where you had answered.

I've been to three of them, and they're _scary_.

Randy is out of control, and he's not listening to anyone about their wants. He VERY much sees this as "his" land to do with as he pleases. THIS is the main issue that many people have with Randy. He has completely forgotten that he is a public servant and a representative of the National Forest Service.

If you READ the document you'll find a lot of vague language dealing with what his "3 alternatives" entail. Even that summary that Rob posted is vague - note that it doesn't talk about WHAT he (Randy) is doing with the miles he's quoted. There are other charts in the document as well that are just as vague when he refers to acreage.

The point here is that Randy's looking for federal justification to do what HE wants to do with the land. There are NO checks & balances here. No one will fly out here to see if Randy closed the trails that he said, opened the miles that he claimed, or even create the ATV learner's loop.

Again... if you had gone to these meetings, you would get a clear understanding of why Rob is so passionate about this. It's not the document per se', it's the power infused in the man behind it.


You don't know me, and I don't know you, but I'm gonna go out on a limb and be blunt, which will surely come off as being rude.

If you don't comment on this document, and stuff starts getting closed down, then you have NO right to stand and bitch about it.

This is your ONE chance for the next few YEARS to at least be heard - and possibly make a difference.

If you don't want to, that's fine, but don't take pot shots at Rob just for sport. Understand the issues or move away from the podium so that other people can learn.

[GRNTACO]

Nice job taking quotes out of context. You asked if I would miss it, and I gave an honest answer.


This sport isn't about YOU it is about US as a whole. You arguing this point is bad for US. :lame:

[DeadSock]

brent,
This action right here is over 40 miles of trail,

But 35.7 miles is UNAUTHORIZED trail (32.7 which is inventoried).

Are you saying that we should fight to have that 32.7 be classified 4x4 trail? (since the doc quote was outta context, not sure what those miles are either).

I'm all for fighting to keep what we (aka 4x4's) have, and to "comment" at these appropriate times to perhaps have "unauthorized, but inventoried" trails classified into stuff we can use.

and I'm sure it is just a start to what they have in mind.
*I'm* not sure of that ... in fact, the transition to 50 miles of ATV use seems to me that they are actually TRYING to be responsive to motorized use ...

Not to mention all the camping areas they are trying to close.
the only camping ares I saw being "closed" would be "dispersed" use in unauthorized areas. In other words, no passing out by that bonfire in the middle of a meadow during fire season.

If they start by closing ATV trails as you say this is all about, what makes you think they will stop there if they are successful? The naches area is probably my favorite place to wheel, and I would hate to see it disappear.
they aren't closing ATV trails, they're adding 50 miles of them!

It just looks to me that this "plan" is aimed to provide 50 miles of ATV trails (and campground access for ATV's so they don't have to run down roads).

[jruz]

The problem is this guy has a major grudge against Randal Shepard because he shut down an UNAUTHORIZED :D orgainzed trail run WATRD was trying to put together awhile back.

Correction - the run was unofficially APPROVED by a Forest Circus employee - they stated no permit was needed. By the time it was too late to get the proper permit, Shepard made it publicly known anyone attending said gathering would be cited for lack of permit, etc. I'm sure this isn't the only reason for his dislike, but I believe it speaks loudly.

[4TACXOMA4]

I'm all for fighting to keep what we (aka 4x4's) have, and to "comment" at these appropriate times to perhaps have "unauthorized, but inventoried" trails classified into stuff we can use.
Then are you going to submit comments on this document?


*I'm* not sure of that ... in fact, the transition to 50 miles of ATV use seems to me that they are actually TRYING to be responsive to motorized use ...
I'm not sure how you can honestly say that. Reading through the document, granted I am only on page 26 of 268, it seems like although they are trying to make more ATV opportunities, the other opportunities are going down the shitter.

It just looks to me that this "plan" is aimed to provide 50 miles of ATV trails (and campground access for ATV's so they don't have to run down roads).
...and to close down miles and miles of other trails.

[DeadSock]

Then are you going to submit comments on this document?
yes, and comment #1 is that they need to "narrow" the focus of the "plans" to deal with single purposes ... aka a plan for ATV use, a plan for invasive plants, etc ...

the 268 page behemoth is NOT condusive to proper public comment ...

[midiwall]

the 268 page behemoth is NOT condusive to proper public comment ...Right... which I'm convinced is a conscious effort on Randy's part - as taught to him by years of federal goverment politics.

"Confuse thy enemy".


The ugly thing is that this is the only document that we have to comment on. It will not be changing just because people can't make sense of it.

Randy (and his croonies) have done the same thing in meetings. They're all VERY good at political doublespeak.

[DeadSock]

maybe my "comments" will be a few hundred pages too :)

[midiwall]

maybe my "comments" will be a few hundred pages too :)
:D like I do with junk snail mail... (send it all back to one of them in their prepaid envelope)

Interesting idea, and yes, as feds they're required to read it, but... being concise and to the point will be time better spent and have a better chance at being respected.

[4TACXOMA4]

yes, and comment #1 is that they need to "narrow" the focus of the "plans" to deal with single purposes ... aka a plan for ATV use, a plan for invasive plants, etc ...

the 268 page behemoth is NOT condusive to proper public comment ...
Although true, I doubt they are going to re-write it. Like Mark said, it was probably his intention to confuse people and discourage them from reading it. Good to see you plan on commenting though.

[WATRD]

http://www.yakima-herald.com/page/out/311111611977441

Major points of Little Naches plan

Trail system use

Trails would be open to foot travel only until June 1.

Trail system would go from 91 miles of single-track motorcycle (STM) trails, 0 ATV miles, 24 4WD miles and 51.1 miles unauthorized use to 90.6 miles STM, 50.5 miles ATV and 25.6 miles 4WD.

8.2 miles of one-way ATV "learner loops" at six dispersed camp areas.

Cross-country motorized use will be forbidden.

Lower portion of Powerline Corridor closed to motorized use; from the 1902-625 junction to Raven Roost, the corridor will be open to ATV and motorcycle.

Camping and parking

Within 1/2-mile of Forest Road 1900 (Little Naches Road), camping allowed only in designated camp areas.

Elsewhere, dispersed camping and parking allowed within 100 feet of system roads if meeting specified conditions regarding protection of riparian and other sensitive areas.

Review and comment

Online copy of Little Naches Recreation Management Plan Environmental Assessment available at: www.fs.fed.us/r6/wenatchee/projects

Paper copies available for review at Naches Ranger Station and at downtown Yakima Valley Library.

Comments should be addressed by mail to Randall D. Shepard, District Ranger, Naches Ranger District, 10237 U.S. Highway 12, Naches, WA 98937, or by e-mail to comments-pacificnorthwest-wenatchee-naches@fs.fed.us

Dates of note

May 2 — Trails and Wilderness Interest Group meeting, 7 p.m. Tuesday at Naches Ranger Station.

May 16 — Public comment period ends.

[Kimmy]

Thank you for sharing information and personal thoughts.

Personal attacks will not be tolerated. Grow up. Its this type of action that truly separates most of motorized from the non-motorized. The simple fact that we cant get along.

Personally responding and providing comments is great. How about going How many of you are members of Blue Ribbon Coalition? Americans for Responsible Recreation? Why not get some of the larger organizations involved and use their voice. Many clubs and individuals have worked with land matter issues in that district. Have you cross-posted your concerns?

Pointing fingers and attacking people will get you no followers here.

[archer1965]

For those of you who don't understand the 'significant' issue Randy has with 4X4 use: If he gets his way, "unauthorized" will be used to close any trail we currently use that is not posted with a formal trail sign and number.

This would include the ENTIRE Funny Rocks/Moon Rocks areas. I believe this is an excellent example of what we call 'trails' and what he calls 'unauthorized'.

What's taken away is rarely returned. You used to be able to wheel in the Naneum Basin areas as well. The trails there were jeep trails forged by many of my relatives in the era of horseback and then used as jeep trails beginning in the 20's/30's. The Forest Service closed all but a very few of those trails to motorized use using the same "unathorized" terminology; that was 20 years ago. This turned out to be great for hunters (like me) and a disaster for wheelers (like me).

Voice your concerns now, or you may be forced to forever hold your peace.

[midiwall]

As more evidence that we (the supporters of getting something said to the Forest Service about this "plan") aren't just blowing smoke - here's a thread from what's known to be the harshest 4x4 group on the 'net:

http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/showthread.php?t=470831