-
Help Support Hardline Crawlers :
Washington State Trails Act
- Thread starter japerry
- Start date
Here is a brief overview of what I see in the version that was passed.
It instructs the DNR to use trail design that:
1. Causes the least impact on the land.
2. Provides environmental and water quality protection.
3. Maintains the lowest construction and maintenance costs reasonable.
4. Trails must be Department of Ecology compliant.
It says that the DNR should include existing user build trails if they comply with the trail building standards that the DNR choices to apply.
It recommends that the DNR follows USFS guidelines, but specifically also allows the DNR to make up their own when they want to.
Trail use policy and guidelines must be developed.
It directs the DNR to incorporate public input if it deems it appropriate.
Declares volunteers to not be considered DNR employees for liability purposes.
Directs the DNR to work with local governments to find efficiencies in the permitting process.
Not sure if it is written strongly enough to force the DNR to do anything different from business as usual.
It looks like every mandate has a loophole built into it.
It instructs the DNR to use trail design that:
1. Causes the least impact on the land.
2. Provides environmental and water quality protection.
3. Maintains the lowest construction and maintenance costs reasonable.
4. Trails must be Department of Ecology compliant.
It says that the DNR should include existing user build trails if they comply with the trail building standards that the DNR choices to apply.
It recommends that the DNR follows USFS guidelines, but specifically also allows the DNR to make up their own when they want to.
Trail use policy and guidelines must be developed.
It directs the DNR to incorporate public input if it deems it appropriate.
Declares volunteers to not be considered DNR employees for liability purposes.
Directs the DNR to work with local governments to find efficiencies in the permitting process.
Not sure if it is written strongly enough to force the DNR to do anything different from business as usual.
It looks like every mandate has a loophole built into it.
4) User built trails MUST be considered for inclusion.
When a trail system is being evaluated, any trail that otherwise fits the trail plan, should be incorporated. This should help us get some user-built trails re-included into the Rieter plan, it will also help get more trails at walker and Yacolt.It will also potentially allow unauthorized recreation areas to be added to a trail plan instead of being shut down
So does this mean areas like the capitol forest could get reopened? There are "unauthorized" trails allover that place. Plus I'm pretty sure in one of our(Oly4Wheelers) file cabinets there is a map showing old established trails that were shut down.
We fought for years to get something reopened. DNR had agreed to give us 1 mile of test trail at one point, we walked a couple areas out and GPS'd them and they came back with...naaa we changed our minds.
The capitol forest is an act of discrimination, there are horse/bike/hike and moto trails there but 4wheeling is forbidden. Mabey this gives some hope?
Stu
When a trail system is being evaluated, any trail that otherwise fits the trail plan, should be incorporated. This should help us get some user-built trails re-included into the Rieter plan, it will also help get more trails at walker and Yacolt.It will also potentially allow unauthorized recreation areas to be added to a trail plan instead of being shut down
So does this mean areas like the capitol forest could get reopened? There are "unauthorized" trails allover that place. Plus I'm pretty sure in one of our(Oly4Wheelers) file cabinets there is a map showing old established trails that were shut down.
We fought for years to get something reopened. DNR had agreed to give us 1 mile of test trail at one point, we walked a couple areas out and GPS'd them and they came back with...naaa we changed our minds.
The capitol forest is an act of discrimination, there are horse/bike/hike and moto trails there but 4wheeling is forbidden. Mabey this gives some hope?
Stu
My thoughts exactly.
The bill started out with much better language but like all bills got picked apart thru the process. Regardless of the language in the bill DNR still has to comply with the rules and laws from the dept. of Ecology and Fish and wildlife. These are the two agency's that keep most of the "user" built trails closed. It may though help keep them from wasting so much money on these "engineered" trails. Hopefully it doesn't tie their hands and give them the excuse that it cant be used if it doesn't meet the "standard's"
All said I appreciate the efforts' :awesomework:
doubtful Stu. The main reason they closed down are trails on the Capitol forest was due to unstable and poor soil conditions. The clay based soils in the areas promote rutting and increased runoff into streams that "may" have fish in them. The DNR has repeatedly rebuffed our efforts to even allow a 4x4 user onto the focus group panel
Toy4runner
Well-Known Member
From what I understand, it seems like the bill states, they have to build trails using the least amount of resources that is "reasonable" and follow USFS guidelines, but can make up their own if they want. That right there I guess means if they really wanted to they could go about building trails exactly how they have been since that could potentially be deemed the lowest they want to spend on building new trails. I hope they decide to use that money that would be spend on gravel trail beds and put it towards making natural built trails and potentially past user built trails more environmentally compliant with the use of bridges and such.
CHOP SHOP
Well-Known Member
Lets get the "222" added to the map at evans!
Evans is not State managed public land so this change in the law is not applicable.
Mark m.
Well-Known Member
Its on my map!
KarlVP
Love that TOYOTA
So we can have stream crossings and open back up the Lake Isabel trail? The stream crossings are hard rock bottom as is the trail. I will pay $1000 to anyone that can leave ruts in that trail that last a year.
Edit. You have to leave the ruts with a 4x4 vehicle with less than 44 inch tires. After you leave the ruts call me, and if I can't drive my 1998 red h2 recovery team jeep through on 28 inch tires you win.
Last edited:
Toy4runner
Well-Known Member
They should just bring back all the trails they can :awesomework:
crash2
-Oh no I picked a side-
You guys need to come back to reality :haha:
Toy4runner
Well-Known Member
Dreamsmasher! :fawkdancesmiley:. All joking aside it did say they should consider old trails so there is a maybe.
crash2
-Oh no I picked a side-
Hate to be the bad guy but not going to happen. The plan is in place and thats whats going to happen. The only thing we will see back is the rock garden and thats been in the plan since the beginning.
Only thing I am uncertain is with the rock base/gravel on the trail because whats deemed for stage one is all in the Sepa and regardless of this bill I believe they cannot deviate from the sepa. I could be wrong but I do believe we are locked in to what is being done.
japerry
Well-Known Member
Heh no booth this year, but I'm seeing about getting DNR a booth next year. It'd make sense for officials at DNR to connect with those who use their land. Great comments and questions as well, I don't want to get people too excited yet, but things are looking up for future trails. (Maybe not Reiter, but elsewhere)
However, there is a chance that after the motorized plan is complete, volunteers might be able to expand trail opportunities inside the motorized area. In theory, as long as the trail abides by the state-wide trail plan, it should be able to be built. (crosses fingers, sorta a fat chance but you can dream)
We're working on that :awesomework: -- the top officials at DNR know this law was originally conceived to basically force them to stop what they're doing with the rock. Too early to say right now how/when it'll happen, but SEPAs can be amended. There are other policies discussed in the SEPA that may also be not possible after we're done with the plan.
This is correct, for Reiter. The overall plan is in cement and the trails plan won't change the area in which motorized use will be allowed. So no OM, Issy, etc.
However, there is a chance that after the motorized plan is complete, volunteers might be able to expand trail opportunities inside the motorized area. In theory, as long as the trail abides by the state-wide trail plan, it should be able to be built. (crosses fingers, sorta a fat chance but you can dream)
We're working on that :awesomework: -- the top officials at DNR know this law was originally conceived to basically force them to stop what they're doing with the rock. Too early to say right now how/when it'll happen, but SEPAs can be amended. There are other policies discussed in the SEPA that may also be not possible after we're done with the plan.
The DNR supported the final version.
Would they have supported anything that forced them to do something that they did not want to do?
One point of concern that has either been glossed over or ignored is the mandate in section 2 to create an official recreational trail policy.
Nobody has explained how this will be funded.
It has to come out the DNR recreational access budget.
How much will it cost?
Will our Nonhighway and Offroad Vehicle Activities (NOVA) account funds be used?
For both motorized and nonmotorized areas?
If not, what other source of funding will the DNR be willing or able to tap, the $2.40 per pass that the DNR rakes in from the Discover Pass sales?
Not blaming anyone, just askin
Nobody has explained how this will be funded.
It has to come out the DNR recreational access budget.
How much will it cost?
Will our Nonhighway and Offroad Vehicle Activities (NOVA) account funds be used?
For both motorized and nonmotorized areas?
If not, what other source of funding will the DNR be willing or able to tap, the $2.40 per pass that the DNR rakes in from the Discover Pass sales?
Not blaming anyone, just askin
japerry
Well-Known Member
Exactly what I was just thinking Tod. The legislature loves to pass things without a funding plan in place. They will then (maybe) look for grants or hire a consultant to find a way fund a study on getting funding to implement such a program
