The Canyon Creek road is washed out!!!!! Baker Ranger Station will decide if just snowmobiles only can bypass the washout if they get enough snow......rigs would park down lower and unload
Bear Paw closed!!!!!
- Thread starter SNOBI-WAN-KENOBI
- Start date
Washout ?
Where or how far up is the snow line from the washout ??
Where or how far up is the snow line from the washout ??
Anyone have any info on if sleds can get up the road? If so, how's parking with the low snow levels recently?
Any information on Bear Paw / Canyon creek FS road repair ? Be sad if we loose this area again.
Drove up there today 7/17
For info, you can safely drive around the washout (although it is not recommended as the road is "closed" even though there are no closure signs except at the entrance of Canyon Cr.)
Also, the Forest Service was given $$$ by another agency (i'll leave the name out for reasons) to fund the road project, but for whatever reason, they are dragging their feet to make the repair.
The road can easily be repaired, the berm can be dug out more and a retaining wall installed.
Again, the $$ is there, so, if you value this area, give your local representatives a call and express your concerns. Snowmobiling brings a lot of $ to the area..and we pay a lot of money to the state to ride!
For info, you can safely drive around the washout (although it is not recommended as the road is "closed" even though there are no closure signs except at the entrance of Canyon Cr.)
Also, the Forest Service was given $$$ by another agency (i'll leave the name out for reasons) to fund the road project, but for whatever reason, they are dragging their feet to make the repair.
The road can easily be repaired, the berm can be dug out more and a retaining wall installed.
Again, the $$ is there, so, if you value this area, give your local representatives a call and express your concerns. Snowmobiling brings a lot of $ to the area..and we pay a lot of money to the state to ride!
Here is what the FS has come up with for the future. Both riding areas (Canyon Cr and Grouse Ridge) get the shaft. Grouse access decommissioned. Canyon Cr past the Y (up to Bearpaw) classified as closed.
Contact Person who is responsible.
Erin Uloth, at the Mt. Baker Ranger District, by phone at (360) 854-2601, or by email to euloth@fs.fed.us.
Here is the whole enchilada, if you can keep from puking. http://a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/1155....com/11558/www/nepa/102294_FSPLT3_3817679.pdf
Contact Person who is responsible.
Erin Uloth, at the Mt. Baker Ranger District, by phone at (360) 854-2601, or by email to euloth@fs.fed.us.
Here is the whole enchilada, if you can keep from puking. http://a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/1155....com/11558/www/nepa/102294_FSPLT3_3817679.pdf
Last edited:
Canyon Creek
Page 18 of 28 makes it look like RD 31 and 3160 is OK?
http://a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558...T3_3817679.pdf
Page 18 of 28 makes it look like RD 31 and 3160 is OK?
http://a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558...T3_3817679.pdf
No, Yellow = closed. Roads to church lake 3160 and bearpaw lake 3170 closed. Only mainline to damfino open. Document states grooming will be allowed, however the roads need to be open and maintained for grooming. Plus parking is frequently above the Y late and early season. Access to grouse ridge will be prevented by obliterating the last mile. Grouse closed summer: tribal access only at Y. Wells creek closed tribal access only. (High alpine hiking access to cougar divide chowder ridge)
Citizens for forest roads has been working tirelessly to keep the roads open for all users by doing maintenance, identifying problem areas, writing grants for funding and proposing language to allow more volunteer efforts. Please email douglas.huddle@gmail.com to get on the list to be notified of action to challenge this decision.
Brady,
Roger Nichols, on behalf of CFFR, is drafting an administrative 'objection' response and we are assembling a political and legal plan of action to confront this.
He agrees with you that it looks as if snowmobile usage will be highly truncated if this is implemented in 47 days.
Please keep in touch, your thoughtful and reasoned approach is very valuable.
Doug
Brady,
Roger Nichols, on behalf of CFFR, is drafting an administrative 'objection' response and we are assembling a political and legal plan of action to confront this.
He agrees with you that it looks as if snowmobile usage will be highly truncated if this is implemented in 47 days.
Please keep in touch, your thoughtful and reasoned approach is very valuable.
Doug
Thanks Brady.
Objections can be filed, be sure to read 1-6 below...
Objections may be e-mailed to: objections-pnw-mtbaker-snoqualmie@fs.fed.us. Please put OBJECTION and the project name in the subject line. Electronic objections must be submitted as part of an actual e-mail message, or as an attachment in Microsoft Word (.doc), rich text format (.rtf), or portable document format (.pdf) only. For electronically mailed objections, the sender should normally receive an automated electronic acknowledgement from the agency as confirmation of receipt. If the sender does not receive an automated acknowledgement of the receipt of the objection, it is the sender’s responsibility to ensure timely receipt by other means. Objections may also be hand delivered to the Mt. Baker- Snoqualmie National Forest Supervisor’s Office, Attn. 1570 Appeals and Objections, 2930 Wetmore Ave., Suite 3A, Everett, WA 98201 between 8:00 AM and 4:30 PM, Monday through Friday except legal holidays. Objections may also be faxed to: Forest Supervisor, Attn. Objections at (425) 783-0141.
Objections must be submitted within 45 calendar days following the publication of notice of availability of this decision in the Skagit Valley Herald. The publication date in the newspaper of record is the exclusive means for calculating the time to file an objection. Those wishing to object should not rely upon dates or timeframe information provided by any other source. The regulations prohibit extending the time to file an objection.
The objection must contain the minimum content requirements specified in §218.8(d) and incorporation of documents by reference is permitted only as provided in §218.8(b). It is the objector’s responsibility to ensure timely filing of a written objection with the reviewing officer pursuant to §218.9. All objections are available for public inspection during and after the objection process.
At a minimum an objection must include the following (36 CFR 218.8(d)):
1. The objector’s name and address, with a telephone number, if available;
2. A signature or other verification of authorship upon request (a scanned signature for Email may be
filed with the objection);
3. When multiple names are listed on an objection, identification of the lead objector (verification of the
identity of the lead objector shall be provided upon request);
4. The name of the proposed project, the name and title of the Responsible Official, and the name(s) of
the National Forest(s) and/or Ranger District(s) on which the proposed project will be implemented;
5. A description of those aspects of the proposed project addressed by the objection, including specific
issues related to the proposed project if applicable, how the objector believes the environmental analysis or draft decision specifically violates law, regulation, or policy; suggested remedies that
would resolve the objection; supporting reasons for the reviewing officer to consider; and
6. A statement that demonstrates connection between prior specific written comments on the particular
proposed project or activity and the content of the objection.
Contact Person
For further information, contact Erin Uloth, at the Mt. Baker Ranger District, by phone at (360) 854-2601, or by email to euloth@fs.fed.us.
Objections can be filed, be sure to read 1-6 below...
Objections may be e-mailed to: objections-pnw-mtbaker-snoqualmie@fs.fed.us. Please put OBJECTION and the project name in the subject line. Electronic objections must be submitted as part of an actual e-mail message, or as an attachment in Microsoft Word (.doc), rich text format (.rtf), or portable document format (.pdf) only. For electronically mailed objections, the sender should normally receive an automated electronic acknowledgement from the agency as confirmation of receipt. If the sender does not receive an automated acknowledgement of the receipt of the objection, it is the sender’s responsibility to ensure timely receipt by other means. Objections may also be hand delivered to the Mt. Baker- Snoqualmie National Forest Supervisor’s Office, Attn. 1570 Appeals and Objections, 2930 Wetmore Ave., Suite 3A, Everett, WA 98201 between 8:00 AM and 4:30 PM, Monday through Friday except legal holidays. Objections may also be faxed to: Forest Supervisor, Attn. Objections at (425) 783-0141.
Objections must be submitted within 45 calendar days following the publication of notice of availability of this decision in the Skagit Valley Herald. The publication date in the newspaper of record is the exclusive means for calculating the time to file an objection. Those wishing to object should not rely upon dates or timeframe information provided by any other source. The regulations prohibit extending the time to file an objection.
The objection must contain the minimum content requirements specified in §218.8(d) and incorporation of documents by reference is permitted only as provided in §218.8(b). It is the objector’s responsibility to ensure timely filing of a written objection with the reviewing officer pursuant to §218.9. All objections are available for public inspection during and after the objection process.
At a minimum an objection must include the following (36 CFR 218.8(d)):
1. The objector’s name and address, with a telephone number, if available;
2. A signature or other verification of authorship upon request (a scanned signature for Email may be
filed with the objection);
3. When multiple names are listed on an objection, identification of the lead objector (verification of the
identity of the lead objector shall be provided upon request);
4. The name of the proposed project, the name and title of the Responsible Official, and the name(s) of
the National Forest(s) and/or Ranger District(s) on which the proposed project will be implemented;
5. A description of those aspects of the proposed project addressed by the objection, including specific
issues related to the proposed project if applicable, how the objector believes the environmental analysis or draft decision specifically violates law, regulation, or policy; suggested remedies that
would resolve the objection; supporting reasons for the reviewing officer to consider; and
6. A statement that demonstrates connection between prior specific written comments on the particular
proposed project or activity and the content of the objection.
Contact Person
For further information, contact Erin Uloth, at the Mt. Baker Ranger District, by phone at (360) 854-2601, or by email to euloth@fs.fed.us.
Canyon Creek FS 31, 3160 and 3170
Thanks for the clarification on what yellow means. This is a critical junction we need to get through to maintain our riding area. Has WSSA been notified?
I sent an objection to the address noted, cc Erin
Thanks for the clarification on what yellow means. This is a critical junction we need to get through to maintain our riding area. Has WSSA been notified?
I sent an objection to the address noted, cc Erin
Even if they don't close it, the FS has no plans of fixing the washout 5.5 up canyon cr. (which you can easily drive around)..and they may even put up a gate to block all vehicle traffic.
Canyon Creek FS 31, 3160 and 3170
Individuals, Groups, Clubs and the WSSA can have a strong influence on this one! We need to be persistent and objective.
My experience is the Forest Service supports Snowmobiling, even when they cannot expressly say so. Where there are forest users positively represented the Forest Service folks have their job to secure by servicing those users. Closures do not help them either.
Received this response from Erin:
At this time, we plan to leave Canyon creek road (31) open, but allow for “closure” of 3160 and 3170. What this means is, if/when the decision is final, the Forest Service has the authority to close those roads to public use. However, it doesn’t mean we will, and we definitely do not plan to close them right away. In fact, we won’t be closing any road until we have a chance to do work on them to be sure they don’t fail after we close them.
I recognize the importance of these areas for snowmobiling, which is why we kept canyon creek, as well as canyon ridge and grouse butte areas, open for snowmobiling use. We also can’t afford to maintain all of the roads we have, which is why we did this analysis, and why we’re on a trajectory to close and, in some cases, decommission roads.
I am open to more dialogue with user groups if there is enough interest in coming up with novel solutions for the problem, as I retain some level of discretion after the decision. However, these conversations will be tempered with the knowledge that I need to ensure maintenance of an entire system of roads that serve a broad array of functions. Unless something changes dramatically in our finances, I just can’t keep everything open for every use.
Individuals, Groups, Clubs and the WSSA can have a strong influence on this one! We need to be persistent and objective.
My experience is the Forest Service supports Snowmobiling, even when they cannot expressly say so. Where there are forest users positively represented the Forest Service folks have their job to secure by servicing those users. Closures do not help them either.
Received this response from Erin:
At this time, we plan to leave Canyon creek road (31) open, but allow for “closure” of 3160 and 3170. What this means is, if/when the decision is final, the Forest Service has the authority to close those roads to public use. However, it doesn’t mean we will, and we definitely do not plan to close them right away. In fact, we won’t be closing any road until we have a chance to do work on them to be sure they don’t fail after we close them.
I recognize the importance of these areas for snowmobiling, which is why we kept canyon creek, as well as canyon ridge and grouse butte areas, open for snowmobiling use. We also can’t afford to maintain all of the roads we have, which is why we did this analysis, and why we’re on a trajectory to close and, in some cases, decommission roads.
I am open to more dialogue with user groups if there is enough interest in coming up with novel solutions for the problem, as I retain some level of discretion after the decision. However, these conversations will be tempered with the knowledge that I need to ensure maintenance of an entire system of roads that serve a broad array of functions. Unless something changes dramatically in our finances, I just can’t keep everything open for every use.
Well that sounds like fairly good news!!! Thanks
There is potential that the Grouse access road will be decommissioned near the end and Bearpaw road will be closed from the bottom (the Y) if these plans progress.
In either case, grooming will not be allowed (taken from a message from Erin herself). Could be a few years time, but it's no time to be complacent.
This plan doesn't make since, since these end sections of these roads need relatively little maintenance compared to the usual storm damaged roads, which includes Canyon Cr mainline and Glacier Cr mainline, which the plan states, will be maintained at a high level of "user comfort". Also, MANY people are willing to help out to maintain ALL sections of these roads. AND, state snopark funds help to maintain the roads 4-5 mo. a year.
The plan is definitely aimed at reducing motorized use, NOT saving the forest service money, as she claims.
For those that say, "we will just find our own way in", sure, but next step could possibly be non-motorized classification. When I asked Erin in an e-mail if this could be her master plan, she has not offered a response...
In either case, grooming will not be allowed (taken from a message from Erin herself). Could be a few years time, but it's no time to be complacent.
This plan doesn't make since, since these end sections of these roads need relatively little maintenance compared to the usual storm damaged roads, which includes Canyon Cr mainline and Glacier Cr mainline, which the plan states, will be maintained at a high level of "user comfort". Also, MANY people are willing to help out to maintain ALL sections of these roads. AND, state snopark funds help to maintain the roads 4-5 mo. a year.
The plan is definitely aimed at reducing motorized use, NOT saving the forest service money, as she claims.
For those that say, "we will just find our own way in", sure, but next step could possibly be non-motorized classification. When I asked Erin in an e-mail if this could be her master plan, she has not offered a response...
Similar threads
