Okanogan County Outdoor Recreation Plan 2004

Okanogan County Outdoor Recreation Plan 2004

OKANOGAN COUNTY OUTDOOR RECREATION PLAN

COMMENTS

Jim Thornton / ·  OUTDOOR PARKS AND RECREATION PLAN
·  Summary - I think this is more of an introduction rather than a summary of the plan. I recommend that a synopsis or executive summary precede the Table of Contents.
·  Summary - Change language to be consistent with title change.
·  Summary - Change to “public” recreational facilities and “public” parks and recreation
·  Summary - I recommend including something about private sector recreation facilities and support for future growth in private sector recreational opportunities.
·  Page #6 - Population information may be more readable by putting it in a table.
·  Page #13 - Change to …and “other” countries…access “to” a wide array…
·  Page #13 - I would recommend that it also include parts of south central B.C. I also recommend that you divide the service area generally into two parts primary and secondary. Primary would be North Central Washington & South Central B.C. The Secondary would encompass Puget Sound/South West B.C. to the west and Spokane/N. Idaho/South East B.C. It would be helpful to have a map of the northwest with circles generally showing the service areas.
·  Page #15 - Change to … Other than the Fair grounds…”
·  Page #15 - Change to… “cross-country trail” grooming program is funded through the 1971 Snowmobile Act…
·  Page #15 – A Snowmobile Advisory Board…(Is this County or State?)
·  Page #16 – Change to “the Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the…” Change to “at least one sports playfield, with the …”
·  Page #16 – I recommend that you also include a discussion of the following: Significant historical tourist attractions including the museums in Okanogan and Molson and the Colville Tribal museum near Brewster. The major public events such as the Omak Stampede and the Chesaw Rodeo. Both of these events draw tourist from around the region and are really part of the recreational scene. A brief discussion on private recreational opportunities.
·  Page #18 – Goal #1 c) Emphasize the development of water-related recreation. Why? It seems that given all the other recreational opportunities in the County why is water-related being emphasized. Not that I disagree, but what is the rationale – is vastly underutilized relative to other opportunities or does it tend to have higher economic value as compared to other recreational opportunities.
·  Page #18 – Goal #1 d) New facilities should be accessible to the physically challenged. What about existing facilities – should not the objective be to provide access to existing facilities to the degree possible and ensure all new facilities re accessible to the physically challenged.
·  Page #18 – Goal #1 e) Change to… “Identify and inventory current resources inventory and, using …”
·  Page #18 – Goal #1 f) Change to… “Develop and implement a plan for existing (includes maintenance, etc.) and development of new facilities addressing routes, safety, travel modes, signage, and capacity issues for users for existing and planned new facilities.
·  Page #20 – Goal #5 b) This is a pretty ambivalent statement, should be worded stronger, it needs to be done to help justify grant monies.
·  Page #20 – Goal #6 b) Encourage and foster recreational development as an stimulus to the economy economic stimulus.
·  Page #21 – Goal #9 b) Identify alternative revenue sources such as taxes, gifts, user fees, grants, endowments, and other.
·  Page #29 – “…the County place a very high value on recreation, and have a strong desires for new and/or improved …
·  Action Plan – suggested making information a table with bold Project titles???
Jim Martin / ·  Page #29 - Third paragraph “It is probably not possible to build and maintain an indoor recreation complex…” Jim says is “non-sequitar”.
Rob McGaughey / ·  Add bike lanes from Brewster to Highway 20 along Old 97 and Highway 7 at Janis Bridge to Oroville, also on the Loomis Oroville Road from North end of Palmer Lake to Highway 7. Funding can come from Scenic By-ways.
Commissioner Dave Shultz / ·  Additional snowmobile trails and snowmobile parking
Daphne Cockle / ·  I did get a “brief” moment to look over the daft Okanogan County Outdoor Recreation Plan. Things look extremely well from my (Upper Columbia RFEGs) pint of view. My only concern, or question rather, is that the only projects listed are those with high priority status. Is there reasoning for this? Are there other projects that could later be added? Or is this list just a starting point, and those that are high priority are completed new ones will be added? I guess I just need some clarification on that issue. Overall the plan look great and addresses some major concerns that I think the communities agree on. UCRFED supports this plan, and are willing to help in any way that we can. Hopefully some of these projects are in the “realm” of our work area! I look to working with you further on this. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.
Ken Sletten / ·  Being seriously over-scheduled at the moment unfortunately limits the time I can spend commenting on subject plan right now. So I will be uncharacteristically terse, and make just a few quick comments:
·  1) Putting together a comprehensive, County-wide Outdoor Recreation Plan is a good idea that I support.
·  2) I encourage the subject plan and county officials to fully support expansion and maintenance throughout the County of Nordic Skiing / mountain bike trails, as summarized in subject plan “Action Area – Trails” Projects on pages 19 and 20. With properly developed and maintained trails, Okanogan County has the terrain and snow to be the best Nordic Skiing destination in the USA.
·  3) I encourage the subject plan and County officials to fully support expansion and maintenance throughout the County of snowmobile trails. Especially if recent ruling on severe restrictions on snowmobile travel in Yellowstone Parks “sticks” (unjustified, IMO; but their loss may be our gain), seems like if Okanogan County plays its cards right it might have a chance to attract more out-of-area snowmobiles; at least regionally.
·  4) I encourage the subject plan and County officials to fully support the “Action Plan – Roads” Projects on page 23; particularly the “Long Swamp / Thirty Mile connections”. No time to dig out right topo map right now, but I believe the “missing link” between USFS roads 5160 and 300 was less than two miles. Especially given this link was “roughed in” during the effort to halt the Farewell fire, this opportunity to complete a major link for snowmobiling in winter and other uses in summer should not be allowed to slip by.
Dale Bennett / ·  Interesting and generally very understandable document, I enjoyed reading it. Comments:
·  When the plan mentions, “trail projects”, it is often not clear from the document whether these are hose trails, dirt bike trails, hiking trails, cross-country skiing trails, or snowmobile trails. Given that some of these are incompatible, it ought to be spelled out in each case. (See p. 16 high priority for “new trails and linkages” – snowmobile? Ski? Hiking? Biking? Also action plan items, p 19).
·  The plan doesn’t say much about management of potential conflicts between motorized vs non-motorized recreation. Is this seen as an issue? Example of successful and not so successful experience in the Methow might be helpful – what lessons can be learned that will help the county or other parties in the future
·  Discussion of costs of potential projects? Potential funding sources? Responsibilities of each party and how those responsibilities are to be made concrete? Procedure for incorporating those projects for which the county will take responsibility into the County’s capital plan?
James R. Archambeault / ·  Page #16 - I gave the Draft Okanogan County Park and Rec Plan a very quick read (I just got a copy the other day). A couple brief comments: -Pg. 16: Recreation Use on the Okanogan NF was 390,000 visits in 2000. (‘visits’ are different than Rec. Visitor Days)
·  -several places reference is made to Loup Loup Ski Bowl operating under a FS Special Use permit. The same should e noted for MVSTA…I didn’t pick that up where MVSTA is referenced.
·  -Pg. 38. Discussion of tieing the Long Swamp road to the Chewuch River road “via a road that was roughed in during the farewell fire”. ???? I don’t think this could ever happen! It was maybe a pipe dream of someone in the 50’s or 60’s when the Long Swamp road was extended, but it isn’t anything the FS is planning, nor would I think we’d even want to seriously consider it.
·  -Pg. 35. Re-location of Yellow Jacket and boulder Creek snowparks is listed as “High priority”. Why? Where would they be moved?
·  I'll see if Methow of Tonasket RD folks have anything to add. Cheers
Jennifer K. Zbyszewski / ·  I also took the time to review the Park Plan, and just wanted to add something in addition to Arch’s comments:
·  Please add the “Okanogan National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, 1989”, and “Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact for the Interim Strategies of Management Anadromous Fish-producing Watersheds in Eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, and Portions of California, 1995” to the Comprehensive Plan list, and other places were the reference would be appropriate. The Okanogan national Forest is covered by the first document – I saw reference to the Wenatchee National Forest Plan, but not the Okanogan’s. The Okanogan Forest Plan was amended by the Northwest forest Plan (you have this one in the list already), PACFISH (the common name for the second title I mentions), and INFISH (I don’t have a copy of this, so can’t give you the official title). The boundary lines for these documents fit together like a puzzle to cover the entire Okanogan.
·  Also, my acreage figures are slightly different than yours. Wilderness: 627,992 Highway Corridor: 129,502. Some of these are in Skagit and Chelan counties, so that may account for the difference.
·  If you have any questions, please give me a call. Good luck wrapping this thing up!
Ardis Bynum / ·  I read the document quickly and these are the comments which resulted in “stoppers” as I read it. One of the recurrent themes in my mind is the treatment and/or inclusion/exclusion of public lands. I believe that most people think this plan covers private and local government lands but at least mot federal lands are not really covered---tho some things on some land seem to be. If the intent is to cover federal lands beyond those obviously connected/adjacent pieces, then more/different input is needed. For example, if this plan is inclusive, some mention of visitor info center at Washington Pass would need to be included. Some things that are “obvious” projects may really fall into the maintenance (albeit heavy maintenance) mindsets, …Like replacing some low country walk logs (e.g. @ rattlesnake trailhead of W. Fk Methow.)
·  Page 18 Objective c. Emphasize the development of water-related recreation…does this mean all forms of water --- lakes, rivers, snow? Is it an objective to include year round opportunities? ---- one of the wonders of the community trail is its role all year.
·  Page 21 Goal 9 ---- many of these projects will have to have partners and grants. Every one of those grants seems to be on a different cycle. How will the monitor, evaluate, and revise CIPs on an annual basis maintain that flexibility and assure that when an opportunity arises, the projects are well positioned.
·  Page 24 #3. Both the annual, semi-annual rodeoing participation and swimming on a monthly or more basis, made me ponder.
·  Action Plan Page 34 --- need to change the formatting to leave spaces between the items – it is a challenging read. While I acknowledge that most of the HIGHs have good support, I believe that the Medium and Lows really represent a mixed bag and it would be better strategically to list the HIGH and remain silent on the rest. Some of these “lower” priorities may move fast if a critical mass of support is obtained. I’m not sure what the Mazama to Lost River trail is. A trail that should be there is connecting the Community Trail from Mazama (already in W. Mazama) to the West Fork Methow trail. First I had heard of the Twisp to Loup trail, it would certainly open options.
·  Re: Relocating Boulder Creek and YellowJacket sno-parks. Boulder Creek is on state land and as the 206ers have moved north of there and want year round easy access, it was inevitable that that change would happen. I am not sure what the document’s agenda is for Yellowjacket. Not clear where the priority is to relocate Yellowjacket – it was predicted that the takeover of Goat Creed as a Sno-park would draw use from Yellowjacket.
·  Page 37 The concept of Recreation Districts is gaining momentum. Is there a proposal for an ORV park in the Okanogan Valley?
·  Projects…access routes to popular pubic destinations -----so is this to distinguish from county roads that only lead to/past people’s houses?
·  Is there momentum for the Long Swamp/30 mile connection? It would certainly link the Methow to Canada more easily.
·  Page 42 You may have talked to what constitutes a city or town earlier…but I believe that Mazama, Carlton and Methow (?) have their own zip codes…certainly Carlton has its own post office and Mazama used to.
·  Appendix C page 2 Bottom - Trails and Improvements from Oroville Public Meeting Some of these are shared access (Pasayten) with the Methow (e.g. Coleman Ridge), but I think that the notes from Methow got mixed in…I believe the following are Methow. Goat wall trail, Frog Pond trail, boat access to Weeman Bridge, improve cub creek trail
·  Appendix C page 3 I question the community trail from war creek to eagle creek to oval lakes? Connect MVSTA trails ----should be to West Fork Methow.
·  Thanks for the opportunity to comment
Snowmobile Advisory Board / ·  Put Falls Creek on this plan.

Bold = Add language