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.
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
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.
Lets get the "222" added to the map at evans!
Its on my map!Lets get the "222" added to the map at evans!
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.
You guys need to come back to reality :haha:
Dreamsmasher! :fawkdancesmiley:. All joking aside it did say they should consider old trails so there is a maybe.
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.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.
the top officials at DNR know this law was originally conceived to basically force them to stop what they're doing with the rock.
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
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![]()
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.
Not blaming anyone, just askin