Motorized Use of State Parks Long-Distance Trails Public Comments--August 27-October 20, 2015

1 AS an infrequent but supportive equine user of the JWT, I strongly support local agricultural use of the JWT as needed. 2 Trails like "John Wayne" looks like a dirt roads. But I think allowing motorized use will make them unsafe for other users : hikers, runners, bikers, climbers, dog walkers e.t.c

I have experience of hiking/running on trails for dirt bikes and I can say:

- motorized use destroy trails;

- motorbikes produce a lot of dust;

- if trail is not technical (like John Wayne trail), the only fun for biker is to go really fast - which mean very unsafe for others; 3 I am against allowing recreational use of the long distance trails with motorized vehicles. If someone needs to access their property periodically then they could do so with writting prior permission.

Long-distance trails are heavily used by hikers, cyclists, skiers, equestrians and rock climbers accessing climbing areas. Non-motorized uses should continue to be the primary focus of long distance trails. Recreational and concessionaire motorized use should not be permitted for long- distance trail use.

The size and type of vehicles that may be authorized should not prevent safe passing of/by hikers, skiers, bicyclists or equestrians.

A consistent permitting process should be used for evaluating applications for motorized agricultural use. This process should include a public comment period on each permit application.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Regards, 5 When and where is motorized use of the trail surface reasonable and appropriate?

When motorized use is allowed, what limitations should be enforced?

The size and type of vehicles that may be authorized should not prevent safe passing of/by hikers, skiers, bicyclists or equestrians.

What kind of monitoring is needed to ensure state property and facilities are protected?

A consistent permitting process should be used for evaluating applications for motorized agricultural use. This process should include a public comment period on each permit application.

What fees are appropriate? (How much should a permit cost? How should trail damage be addressed?)

A permit fee should be charged that is sufficient to cover the costs to State Parks for both the evaluation process and ongoing inspection to ensure compliance with permit requirements. In addition, as part of the permitting process, permittees should be held fully responsible for all costs associated with repair to any damage that is done to the trail. 6 Please keep our trails quiet and not motorized. Nearby I - 90 provides plenty of noise to disrupt quiet travel on our Mountain Greenbelt. 7 Adding my comment that I would not like to see motorized use on the trails you are considering it for. Thanks! 8 I would like to see the John Wayne trail stay a trail where motorized vehicles are banned, with the exception of designated wintertime snowmobile use. I enjoy the trail through out the Ellensburg and South Cle Elum area.

I also walk up in the Hyak area. One of the reasons I enjoy the trail is the fact of no motorized vehicles. I thought the Green Dot system was in place for ATV's and dirt bikes. Please allow the trail to be as serene as possible, with out additional noise traffic. Thank you. 9 Please keep motorized vehicles off long distance trails. It will provide a safer environment for current teal users. If you open it up to one groip of users others would also try to take advantage of it I don't think their would be adequate resources to monitor usage. 10 1st of all This proposal addresses use of WA St. Park Trails by adjacent land owners. We are adjacent land owners and we did not receive any notice from WA St. Parks or anyone that this proposal was being considered. It was only by chance that we received notification that it was even being considered.

We think it is only appropriate that all adjacent land owners be notified directly of this comment period. What appears to be taking place is that WA St. Parks is trying to sneak something through without notifying those directly involve that a comment period is even being offered.

We have only learned of this comment period today, Sept. 12 which appearantly ends on Sept. 15.

STOP! Don't Do anything until you have contacted each and every adjacent land owner directly!!!!!!!!!!!!

I hope you will delay the comment period until you have properly notified all adjacent land owners and provided adequate time for them to make educated comments. 11 I am opposed to motorized use of long distance trails to access private property. The specific concern I have is the Willapa Hills Trail west of Chehalis. I think it is fine to cross the public trail but to use the public property for private use is not in keeping with the State Parks mission. This section of trail in question near Ceres Hill Road in western Lewis County is a lovely stretch of pathway that is about to become much more heavily used by recreational walkers, cyclists and others that seek to have a safe place to walk, run or ride.

The agricultural entities that are currently using the trail are not the owners of the agricultural ground that lies adjacent to the Willapa Hills Trail. The owner of the land is absentee and purchased the land to hunt ducks. The agricultural land lease is to a neighbor that hasn't historically farmed that ground. There are other ways to access the property although not nearly as convenient.

I'm not willing to sacrifice my safety or especially the safety of the children who are sure to use this stretch of trail when the bridge is replaced across the Chehalis River. The trail will get a lot more recreational use with the new bridge and there will be many conflicts with the heavy equipment traffic on a narrow stretch of rail bed with steep drops on either side. I would hate to see someone get hurt when it could be prevented. The only benefit to anyone in allowing motorized use of this trail is a matter of convenience for one person who leases the land. The risks are many and great. A simple risk/reward computation would tip the scales heavily in favor of the exclusive use of recreational trail users. 12 I am opposed to motorized vehicles using State park trails for property access.

It is a complete contradiction to the purpose of these trails and destroys the safe and calm atmosphere for which we visit these trails.

I am specifically concerned with a manure hauling use on Willapa hills trail past Adna near Ceres hill road in Lewis county. This operation has left wheel ruts in the trail surface and dripped manure on a beautiful trail along the Chehalis river. This motor vehicle user is completely incompatible with growing pedestrian and bicycle use on this trail section. Please restrict this user to only crossing Willapa trail and using the accessed property's original ingress route via an adjacent forrest road.

Thank You 13 Yes we want motorized use long distance trails in WA. I love what we have, but to be able to connect them across the state would be legendary. I support open to all motorized uses. 14 All trails capable of supporting motorized use should be allowed. There are many who can only explore away from general tourists via motorized means due to injuries or other handicaps. There is responsible Tread Lightly motorized exploration and this should be encouraged. 15 Please do no allow motorized use of the John Wayne Trail in Lower Kittitas County. The farmers already have access to farms that they need to reach via the trail, but if you give them the right to ride ATV and trucks on the trail, there will be a problem. There are many of us who use the trail as a place for exercise and quiet. Having to avoid being hit by a truck driven by someone who won't be worried about being caught driving without regard for the rules is a scary thought. How in the world will you begin to patrol the length of the John Wayne in the lower valley alone? Who is going to pay for the patrol? And for people who have residences backing up to the trail, now they may have traffic on two sides of their property. Please NO MORE MOTORIZED TRAFFIC ON THE JOHN WAYNE! 16 None, please! When these were railways there was no perceived need to drive down them, since they weren't for cars, trucks, or ag equipment. And they still aren't for those things. 17 Please do not allow motorized use of long distance trails in WA. I am an avid hiker with many long distance miles under my feet. The distribution these motorized vehicles will have on the trail violates the sanctity of the forest. We excape to the woods to get away from motorized traffic, buildings, and even crowds. Any allowance of vehicles on the trails (excluding the occasional/rare - occasional/rare being key - crossing) disregards this escape and lessens the appeal of these trails. Thank you. 18 I do not believe this is a good idea in the long run! I think these are wonderful entry level biking trails and wonderful walking and running trails. Safe and easily accessible. I would be very disheartened to see these opened to any type of motorized use with exception to general trail maintance. There are very few trails like this. I think they should remain the way they are. Thank you for your time and interest in the public opinion! 19 Farming, a true foundation of our heritage, along with farmlands are becoming candidates for the endangered species act. Access to these properties must continue to be allowed. Declaration of a piece of land as a state park or a state trail should not and must not prohibit a farmer from making a living. 20 As a very active Washington outdoors enthusiasts I encourage the parks to not allow motorized use of our long distance trails. There is a large diversity of non-motorized uses for the trails that would be disrupted by allowing vehicles of any size. I am, for example, concerned about the safety of a child on the trail when a four-wheeler comes racing along. Thank you for taking my concerns into consideration. 21 Having just returned from the Paiute Trail System in Utah, I saw first hand the benefits of a long distance trail system for motorized recreation. The Paiute trail system is fueling the local economy in cities such as Marysvale, Circleville, Richfield and more. This increased recreational opportunity will promote the local economies boosting hotels, fuel, and food services. Also, motorized recreation groups are excited to volunteer to help maintain trails. Thanks for considering. 22 I believe it is very important to not to take away long term private rights of farmers and that motorized vehicle uses should be maintained if there is a history of use and it is necessary for continued farm use. This is a big issue for farmers the the government should not ignore. I do not believe that a government agency should just be able to take away the historical uses as farms or their rights. Charge for the motorized rights or do not take them away. 23 I disagree with any motorized use of long-distance trails.

Most trails that allow motorized use are noisy, and dangerous for other users. People don't go hiking to hear loud quads, bikes, etc... they go for solitude and to enjoy nature. Ecosystems are destroyed when motorized use is allowed.

If, despite the fact that you aware this is dangerous and detrimental to the ecosystem yet you choose to allow it-

When motorized use is allowed, what limitations should be enforced?

The size and type of vehicles that may be authorized should not prevent safe passing of/by hikers, skiers, bicyclists or equestrians.

What kind of monitoring is needed to ensure state property and facilities are protected?

A consistent permitting process should be used for evaluating applications for motorized agricultural use. This process should include a public comment period on each permit application.

What fees are appropriate? (How much should a permit cost? How should trail damage be addressed?)

Thank You, 24 The John Wayne Trail is a gem as it is, and (at least the portion from Ellensburg to its west end in King County) should NOT be opened to motorized traffic. One of the great attractions of the trail is how peaceful it is: just hikers, horses, and bikes. Allowing motorized traffic would change that dynamic completely. In the Snoqualmie corrider, there are already options available for motorized traffic: I-90 and the various forest service roads. These serve motorized users very well, and the John Wayne Trail is the only non-motorized corridor. Besides the peacefulness of the John Wayne Trail, keeping motorized and non-motorized traffic separate contributes to the safety of all trail users. Thank you. 25 I support agricultural access to non-motorized trails such as the John Wayne Trail with a request to develop this policy carefully. I am a horseback rider. Many horseback riders will have a problem when encountering farm equipment if their horses are not familiar with the equipment and will potentially spook/bolt/buck, etc. and possibly unseat their riders leading to injury and/or loose horse. 26 Motorized vehicles, particularly off-road vehicles such as motorcycles, ATVs, 4x4s and snowmobiles, have no place on long-distance trails managed by Washington State Parks. The John Wayne Pioneer Trail that follows the route of the former Milwaukee Road rail right-of-way and passes through the Hyak Tunnel underneath Snoqualmie Pass would be negatively affected by allowing motorized vehicles to use it. Off-road vehicles would create a safety hazard for hikers, bicyclists, and equestrians on long-distance trails. The peace and solitude that one can find while partaking of 'muscle-powered' recreation would be forever ruined and the experience of the wild lands around linear parks severely impacted if motorized off-road vehicles are allowed on these long-distance trails.

Short segment use of such trails by agricultural operations that border these linear park lands could be allowed under certain conditions. These areas would tend to be in more built up areas outside of the mountainous regions where users' expectations tend to be different. Access use by small motorized carts and utility vehicles could be restricted to no more than a mile or two of continuous travel on the trail and confined to weekdays only with recreational use of the trails is less. This kind of special use should also be restricted to locations where topography or ownership patterns make alternative access routes infeasible.

The long-distance trails in the State Parks system should be managed for non-motorized use in a nature discovery and human-speed enjoyment setting. These long trails provide opportunities for enjoyment by hikers, bicyclists, and equestrians without conflict by loud, polluting, and fast motorized machines. I urge you not to introduce off-road motorized vehicles to such areas as the John Wayne Pioneer Trail. 27 I would hate to see expanded motorized use of hiking trails. I remember hiking in the Olympic Mountains a scout in the 70s and having the serenity of our experience constantly being interrupted by motorcyclists. We also had to make way for them whenever they passed us, which was dangerous as well as being annoying.

Please keep motorized activity away from the tranquility of hiking trails.

Thank you. 28 I am opposed to motorized vehicles being able to have access to the long distance trails that have been primarily designed for hikers, runners, horse back riders, bikes etc.

I do alot of hiking in the Teanaway area and I hate to use the motorbikes that share the trails and ruin the environment and the hiking trails by having access to them.

Its only a matter of time before someone gets hurt if they have access to these bigger trails as well. All it takes is a motor bike to scare a horse with a rider and an accident occurs.

I am fine with motorized vehicles crossing over the trail in designated areas only and spaced many miles apart but I am afraid that this access will be abused and they will begin to ride the trails if the trails are not monitored. It might be better to just deny access all together than to have limited access. Limited access leads to abuse of the system vs no use at all.

THere are many logging roads that the motorized vehicles such as motor bikes can have access to, let them have those areas and leave these other people flat trails for everyone else. 29 Please don't add motorized use to the long-distance state parks, specifically the rail trails. Much of the trail has steep embankments. If there is a problem, there is no place to go but over the bank ... often dozens of feet down. Sure there may be speed limits, but one must be realistic. There are a lot of adrenaline junkies out there. 30 Motorized vehicles don't belong on these long trails. They are loud, cause major damage to ground, cause pollution. The trails are meant for piece & quiet. Please don't allow. I think it would prove to be a disaster! Thank you! 31 Long-distance trails are heavily used by hikers, cyclists, skiers, equestrians and rock climbers accessing climbing areas. Non-motorized uses should continue to be the primary focus of long distance trails. Recreational and concessionaire motorized use should not be permitted for long- distance trail use.

The size and type of vehicles that may be authorized should not prevent safe passing of/by hikers, skiers, bicyclists or equestrians.

A consistent permitting process should be used for evaluating applications for motorized agricultural use. This process should include a public comment period on each permit application.

permit fee should be charged that is sufficient to cover the costs to State Parks for both the evaluation process and ongoing inspection to ensure compliance with permit requirements. In addition, as part of the permitting process, permittees should be held fully responsible for all costs associated with repair to any damage that is done to the trail

Your consideration is appreciated. 32 No motorized use. People use the long distance wilderness trails as a means to escape the busy tussle of everyday life. Trails are preserved through minimal environmental impact and through various conservation efforts and projects. Motorized use would severely degrade the environment and the enjoyment of persons using the outdoors 33 Please keep the trails safe for hikers, horseback riders, bicyclists, and skiers by maintaining these trails for non motorized users. As a hiker and cross country skier, I look forward to the peace and quiet using these trails affords. We have personally nearly been run over by people riding on snow mobiles as we skiied along a trail near Lake Kachess. We don't have people walking in streets (except to cross them), nor do we have horses riding in streets.. so why would we allow motorized vehicles such as to mix with these type of trail users? Please, please, please keep them safe and separate. Say NO to non motorized vehicles.

Sincerely, 34 My husband and I live 1/2 mile west of Kittitas, and 5 1/2 miles east of Ellensburg. The John Wayne trail borders our 5 acre property. We are opposed to allowing motorized vehicles on the John Wayne trail for the following reasons:

1) Every day we see people walking on the trail, either alone or with others, and often walking their dogs. Occasionally we see women pushing their young children in a stroller.

2) Often we observe horseback riders on the trail.

3) Our grandchildren who live in western Washington enjoy the peace and quiet of the trail, with the many 'nature' things to observe, both by sight and by hearing.

4) My husband and I also enjoy the peace and quiet of the trail.

5) We would be very disappointed if motorized vehicles were allowed to disrupt the quiet, peace, and safety of the trail. Horses, dogs, and small children could be in danger with careless drivers, whether they were on motorcycles, or in cars or pickup trucks.

6) The decision to convert the old railroad bed into a walking/horse back riding trail was a good one. Let's not allow the wisdom of those planners to be ruined by turning it into a noisy and disruptive 'race track'. 35 Noise pollution is a growing problem within our nation and our beautiful state is also its victim. Protecting the state's long-distance trails from becoming involved in the problem is of vital importance to their surrounding environment and those who enjoy them for walking, jogging and any other use that does not involve a motorized recreational vehicle. While there may be reasons for farm and industrial equipment to cross these trails, we must not allow their open use for motorized recreational vehicles. Allowing the legalization of such use risks their fast becoming dangerous, noisy and physically damaged in ways no one can imagine. Serious disturbances caused by the use of jet skis on state waterways, while largely different in their environmental impact, are but a hint of what motorized recreational vehicles on long-distance trails can result in. I reside adjacent to the John Wayne Trail and the thought of seeing and hearing motorized recreational vehicles legally using it is a nightmare scenario that must not be allowed to happen!

Thank you for seeking public opinion on this important matter.

36 I am strongly against motorized use of trails. We pay taxes to fund roads for motorized traffic. Pedestrians are no allows on motorways. Motors should never be allows on pedestrian trails. 37 Long-distance trails are heavily used by hikers, cyclists, skiers, equestrians and rock climbers accessing climbing areas. Non-motorized uses should continue to be the primary focus of long distance trails. Recreational and concessionaire motorized use should not be permitted for long- distance trail use.

Motorized use of long-distance trails should be restricted to some agricultural use for adjacent land owners to reach their properties. Motorized use ( via crossings and/or linear travel) should be permitted only in circumstances where there are absolutely no viable alternatives, such as an adjacent/alternate road or the permitted user cannot construct an access road to their property.The size and type of vehicles that may be authorized should not prevent safe passing of/by hikers, skiers, bicyclists or equestrians. 38 I do not believe long distance trails should be opened to motorized vehicles. In doing so, you open the door to destruction of miles of quiet trails. Hikers, bikers, runners etc would be in danger and subject to constant speed demons that love to find dirt roads to drive like maniacs and don't care about the damage they do to the environment and existing trails. Knowing the funds it would take to monitor access to these trails and the fact the State Parks are already hurting for funds to keep up on maintenance now, there would be no way to keep access controlled.

Please reconsider this proposal. It is a terrible idea. 39 The problem as I see it as we are finding out in other areas from past history that funding for personnel to monitor proper use of whatever was put in place just doesn't happen. Fish and game dept. for poachers etc. Not enough money, so we are on our own again. Motorcyclists and 4x4 enthusiasts already damage enough terrain, why give them cart blanch to do more. They already have areas set aside for they're enjoyment and if the non motorized people want to use they're areas that's up to them. But please don't turn over what is left because I don't believe we would gain it back after it is destroyed. 40 As a hunter, just wanted to point out - Motorized vehicles are shown to have a huge impact on elk habitat. These animals need quiet to successfully calve and feed.

Please read these studies.

'Many studies have found that increased motorized access results in decreased elk habitat and security (Lyon 1983; Figure 3)'.

http://www.wildlandscpr.org/?q=road-riporter/road-vehicle-impacts-wildlife 41 Please do not allow any motorized vehicles on these long-distance trails. Please keep the trails free from such vehicles. Please protect our trails and environment and not allow this! Thank you!! 42 Long-distance trails are heavily used by hikers, cyclists, skiers, equestrians and rock climbers accessing climbing areas. Non-motorized uses should continue to be the primary focus of long distance trails. Recreational and concessionaire motorized use should not be permitted for long-distance trail use. 43 Non-motorized uses should continue to be the primary focus of long distance trails. Recreational and concessionaire motorized use should not be permitted for long- distance trail use. 44 I understand the potential use for motorized vehicles on our public long distance trails, such as the John Wayne Trail. However I believe this should be limited only for the use in situations where there is no other viable option. There should also be certain size limitations as to not interfere with the safety of hikers, bikers, skiiers, equestrians, etc. while on the trail. I do believe these trails should be accessible for search and rescue groups for training purposes or to help in the aid of stranded individuals. 45 Precisely define 'agricultural and other intermittent uses'. No Harleys used by farmers. No convoy of vehicles every other day. 46 When and where is motorized use of the trail surface reasonable and appropriate? Motorized use has greatly diminished over the last few decades and where once was permitted is now blocked. Few trails are left to motorized vehicles and those trails are getting over used. Makes sense to allow long trail-distance tails that were originally built for motorized use to continue to allow motorized vehicles. Few are those who travel more than 20 miles on these long-distance trails, thus greatly limiting their use overall.

When motorized use is allowed, what limitations should be enforced? Same policies that apply to other ORV trails

What kind of monitoring is needed to ensure state property and facilities are protected? Same policies that apply to other ORV trails

What fees are appropriate? Same policies that apply to other ORV trails

47 No to 'Motorized Use of State Parks Long-Distance Trails' 48 The backcountry is the ONE place we can do for peace, quiet, solitude and to be away from the noise and pollution from motorcycles and cars. I say no to allowing motorized use on the long distance trails. Plus they are dangerous. As a horseback rider, its dangerous for me to encounter motorcycles on trails. The worst experience I ever heard about for a horseback rider happened on a trail near Monroe/Arlington last year and a woman was TERRORIZED by a motorcycle (the driver was purposely trying to get her horse to spook and he succeeded) and she ended up in a coma and wheelchair as a result.

Please keep our backtrails safe and quiet.

Respectfully, 49 I believe the long distance trails should stay non-motorized, it seems there are enough logging roads that can be used for motorized use. If I wanted to ride my bike with cars I would ride on the road, but I enjoy the quite of riding on the trails and not worrying about be hit by a motorized user. 50 Please do not allow motorized vehicles on trails used by non motorized activities. The purpose of the respective activities are so at odds, it will only ruin the experience for both parties. When one is hiking, crosscountry skiing, snowshoeing, biking, walking, etc, the focus is about the journey, the calm atmosphere, and the surrounding nature and the soothing energy that all of this brings. People do these activities to escape from all the motors, traffic, overpopulated areas. It would completely ruin my hiking/camping trip when a humming diesel engine goes flying past me. There is odor, noise pollution, a different attitude in the participants and a general lack of awareness of the fragile surrounding environments.

When one is dirt biking and snowmobiling, the enjoyment comes from the speed, the race, the turns, and jumps. This is a different, more aggressive energy that will destroy the quiet solitude that hikers seek. I would not want to have to watch out for slower forms of transport while I was on the trail. I would not have as much fun if I had to slow down every time I passed someone. I would want to know that they are safe on their trails and I am safe on mine. 51 Motorized vehicles have roads and other access points. It is important to save the trails for horse and bikers. We need a place where it is safe without having to worry about cars and motorcycles. 52 I don't believe use of motorized vehicles should be allowed on trails except for emergency situations. It would only lead to trail destruction, conflicts among users and degradation of the animal habitat and beauty of the land. Once you open a crack in the door there is no stopping it. 53 Four wheelers, motorized dirt bikes, snowmobiles need to be restricted from trails used by hikers, bikers, horseback riders, and families. While there are some that operators of motorized transportation, there are many that are reckless, drive too fast, drink, and are irresponsible and threaten the safety of all those around. It is unfortunately that that is the case and responsible operators have to suffer. However, that is the case in many situations. For the safety of the general public these trails need to remain free of motorized vehicles. Exceptions, farmers and ranchers can apply for a special permit to operate a motorized vehicle for limited distance. A farmer or rancher can apply for a special permit to operate select farm equipment on trails that directly touching his/her property M-F between dawn-dusk hours at speeds that do not exceed 15 mph. That farm equipment must be small enough to be able to go around hikers without forcing users off the trail. In my opinion something like this would be an acceptable compromise and help maintain safety for all users. 54 Please do not allow motorized use on long-distance trails. It would negatively impact the experience.

Thank you,

55 Non-motorized uses such as hiking and bicycles should continue to be the primary focus of long distance trails. Recreational and concessionaire motorized use should not be permitted for long- distance trail use. Motor Exhaust ruins the whole point of why we escape into nature! 56 I urge you NOT to allow motorized vehicles on the trail. I use the trail almost daily for cycling in the summer, snow shoeing in the winter and I used to ride my horse on the trail.

Vehicles would degrade the quaility of the trail, as well as the expirence of the ride. As a 911 Call Taker, the serenity of the trail is a great stress reliever.

Please vote NO to vehicles!

Thank you, 57 If the trails cross their property, then they have a legal right to use that part of the trail. I don't know how posting a bunch or unenforceable rules can work, unless users chose to follow them. And why should the farmers who own the land have to pay a user fee to use their own land. I have seen some major desasters when motorized vehicles and horses are using the same trails. A bad situation. 58 We previously owned farm land adjacent to the abandoned BN rail line that is now called the Willipa trail. When we bought the land we were fairly certain that BN would abandon the line which they did a short time after our purchase. Much to our chagrin the State appropriated the right of way which would have been partially ours. I went to the courthouse and read the easement granted by Thomas Long ( written in the old record book in beautiful long hand). It specifically states that when the easement was no longer used for railroad purposes, title was to revert to Long, his heirs or assigns. If one thinks about the economy at that time, one realizes that a railroad was a great benefit to locals as a means of transport of themselves and their products to market and inputs to them. In fact my grandfather owned a store and depot served by this line very near the easement granted by Mr. Long. Railroads are no longer in such favor as one can see from current events.

I understand the rail banking law, but also understand that payment to the landowners that lost their reversions rights was required. I read one such court case several years ago. That never happened on this line. In fact it was stated at a public hearing that an environmental group had purchased it from BN and than sold it to State Parks. Prices were never disclosed to my knowledge. I always wondered how BN could sell something that they abandoned and was to revert to the original owner.

After the rail was removed, we were allowed to use the rail bed as the trail was not 'developed'. At least once a year we graded the trail to keep it in shape. The 2007 flood severely damaged the road bed. In exchange for a five year use agreement we hired a contractor to repair and grade the old rail bed. My understanding at the time was that agreement might be made permanent. Hundreds of loads of wood from the flood were hauled from our fields over that road, as well as our farm products. There is another access, but it is absolutely not suited for large modern farm equipment. Without this access, over 120 acres of absolutely prime farm land would have very limited value. We have since sold this property because we have reduced our operation's size.

I believe this background was necessary as foundation to answer the questions presented for public comment. There are many situations where a crossing is absolutely necessary to access land. I see no reason for any payment for that right. As I have explained I an certain there are other situations where linear travel should be allowed. Yes there should be speed limits. As for interactions with public users, posting of signs when in use by permitees should help. There may be other actions that would be suitable also.

I could see where some agreement would need to be made for maintenance. I think some consideration for the type of road to be built should be considered where there is linear use permitted. I think a VERY minimal cost should be charged for the agreement as the land has been taken from the reversion holders by Congressional action.

Recreation and agricultural production should be able to coexist. We need to stop loosing farmland. We need good food in order to have the luxury of recreation. 59 I can understand why those next to the trails would like to use them, but a major part of hiking is getting away from the sound and the fumes of motorized vehicles. It also seems like a safety hazard. We have been skiing on mixed use trails in Oregon and were almost hit by a snow mobile. Their presence created a lot of stress for what was meant to be a relaxing time. Allowing this access has the potential to greatly decrease the pedestrian use of the trail. I always think of the Burke-Gilman Trail in Seattle that is heavily used by walkers, runners, and bikers. I often feel safer walking on the sidewalks of the streets even though the location is not nearly as nice. The path also has several places where cross streets interrupt the trail experience. It is a compromised experience at best.

The State has put a lot of time, money, and effort into these trails for hikers. Stay focused on your purpose. Compromising will lessen the quality of the experience for all at a time when we need it most. Places where we can connect with nature are precious and so is the experience. We need to protect it to continue to have it. 60 PLEASE, PLEASE, do not permit motorized vehicles on to state trail. It is wonderful to be able to retreat to the wilderness and hear the sounds of nature. Adding motorized vehicles would change the feel and dynamic of the trails and add pollution. I love that I can go out for a hike or run and not worry that I am going to get run over or have to leap out of the way. Please, preserve our forests by keeping them as natural as possible. We are so blessed to live in a state with many wonderful places to enjoy nature, let's keep it that way.

Thank you.

Sincerely, - avid hiker and trail runner 61 September 15, 2014

Washington State Parks

RE: Use of Motorized Vehicles on Long Distance Trails

The Lewis County Commissioners are concerned with the plans under review by the Parks Commission regarding the use of Motorized Vehicles on Long Distance Trails. Our concern is mainly with regard to the "Willapa Rails to Trails" which traverses Lewis County and proceeds through Grays Harbor and Pacific Counties.

It is our belief that any policy adopted should take in to account the differing characteristics of the various trails. The Willapa project has some characteristics which should be addressed. Before the existing rail property was released to Parks, it was used by various entities as an alternate route for their business enterprises, particularly farming. The rail line splits several agricultural properties and permits have been granted to allow access both across the line and upon it for the transportation of farm products and equipment. Lewis County was under severe restraint due to the Growth Management Act to keep substantial acreages listed as Agricultural Resource Land. Any rule that places limitations on the accepted and historically permitted use of the trail would severely hamper if not eliminate agricultural operations that border the trail. We would like some assurance from Washington State Parks that past practices would continue to be permitted. It is unlikely that any such use would impair either the intent or the actual recreational uses for which the trail is designated.

We respectfully request that all interested parties would have the opportunity to review and comment on the proposed rule changes prior to final adoption. 62 Its busy enough on hiking trails without motorized bikes and the like clogging up the trail. Please do not allow the use of them on trails. Its clogging and disruptive to the serenity found in nature. We get enough of that in the city and suburbs. 63 I don't think any motorized vehicles should be allowed on state or national trails. Preserve the land as it is. 64 I would like to comment on the planning stage for motorized use of long distance trails of Washington.

I feel that opening these trails to any kind of motorized use is inconsistent with current state of affairs of Washington State parks. State park funding is already at a crises stage and adding any new activities which stretch an already tight budget and time schedule, will just add more strain. Having to police motorized use on these trails is just opening the doors to new conflicts and a further eroding of resources. These trails exist because of the hard work of individuals whose efforts created through ways for non-motorized use.

That said. I believe that landowners who border these lars a transportation route for their personal, agricultural or business use unless there is no other viable alternative. Upkeep for these crossings and right of ways should be the property owner's responsibility but regulated by the state.

My main concern is that these trails do not turn into a state maintained atv and/or ski-mobile trails that are too noisy or unsafe for non motorized use, with understaffed state management unable to control it.

65 Hello -- I support the following policy for state long distance trails:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment. 66 As a hiker I am worried about allowing motorized vehicles on long distance trails. Hikers, bikers, and horse riders need a place where they can travel long distances without worrying about motorized vehicles. It would be one thing to have an agricultural crossing, which likely would have a limited impact on users, but it would be dangerous to allow recreational drivers on the same paths. 67 Use of long distance trails that have typically been reserved for non-motorized use is a bad idea. As a hiker, skier, and bicyclist I believe there needs to be less co-mingling of motorized and non-motorized use, and we need more places to get away from motorized travel. allowing motor vehicles on trails like the John Wayne trail and the Centennial trail will drive the walkers skiers and bicycles away. during a recent Hog Loppet at Blewett pass I experienced how difficult it was to ski with Snowmobiles, the fumes form the vehicles lingered in the air long after the snowmobiles were gone making it hard to breath. Let's find more places to reserve for quiet use. 68 I am opposed to motorized use of long distance trails for agricultural purposes, particularly with respect to the Willapa Hills Trail in Lewis County.

Recent use of the Willapa Hills Trail for agricultural purposes has degraded the Trail to such an extent that the affected section is no longer usable for common recreational purposes. This consequence is in direct conflict with the purpose of the trail, and with the grant funding used to construct the trail surface.

Contrary to the claims of some parties, there were no historical uses of the Willapa Trail for agricultural activities. There were trail crossings, but not trail uses. Stated differently, the currently allowed agricultural use of the Trail is not a historic use but rather a more recent use based merely on convenience, not necessity or past practice.

Standard farming equipment and vehicles are at least as wide as the trail surface, sometimes wider. Encounters with such equipment are generally sudden and unexpected with little or no warning, especially with cyclists and other faster moving recreational users. The portion of the Trail currently allowed for farming use involves several sections with no safe escape for cyclists and pedestrians encountering large equipment. Areas aside the Trail are too steep, too wet or otherwise too inaccessible to seek safety. If/when an encounter occurs on one of these sections there is certain to be tragic consequences, and the likelihood of such an encounter increases steadily as recreational use increases.

I recommend that agricultural activity be restricted to trail crossing, not trail use, and only upon a showing of strict necessity and not merely convenience. The burden of proof should be upon the applicant. The permit should be seasonal to ensure that the impacts of use are not allowed to accumulate over such an extended period that recreational use is directly affected. Most importantly, the applicant should be required to post a security bond at least equal to likely repair costs. This will encourage the applicant to minimize damage and provide a prompt source of funding for any needed repairs. Further, a permit should not be renewed until all previous damage has been fully restored with, again, the burden on the applicant to show compliance. (Such conditions are standard among private road maintenance agreements--there is no justification for lesser standards for extraordinary use of a recreational trail.) 69 I am managing member of Clerf Family LLC, which owns farm land that is intersected by about 3/4; of a mile of John Wayne Pioneer Trail (JWPT) just west of Kittitas. I am also the owner and operator of Clerf Farms, Inc. that farms this property. The farming operation includes the use of many historical road crossings and numerous irrigation water conveyances and drainage ditches passing over, under and through JWPT.

After the expiration of DNR lease in 1994, I contacted the rangers in charge about numerous issues concerning this stretch of the JWPT. These included maintenance and cleaning of intersecting irrigation ditches and drains, repair and care of right-of-way fences and irrigation conveyance lines and structures, keeping the weeds down, and litter and trash. Given the rangers' time and funding restraints, I offered to perform the work that needed to be done. With the cooperation and knowledge of rangers, I and Clerf Farms employees eventually came to clean, maintain, and monitor irrigation ditches, structures and drains, picked-up and properly disposed of trash and litter, repair fences or dismantle fences beyond repair, and controlled the weeds. We never called on the Park or its personnel to pay for or perform any repairs or maintenance.

Obviously, performing these tasks, we occasionally traveled on the trail with farm vehicles to access fences, ditches, drains, and adjacent fields. This travel was limited to and from our fields and farm roads; we didn't enter the trail directly from county roads or highways. This section of trail receives very little traffic but we are always respectful of any park user and delay or defer our travel or work until users are clear of area.

I asked many times of all Park officials I had contacted if they had received or knew of any negative reports or comments from anyone concerning our use or work along the trail adjoining my farm. I have never been told or informed of any.

We have maintained the corridor, respected its users and environment, and in return asked that we occasionally have farm vehicles travel on the trail. Given the benefits to both Parks and me for the past many years and the absence of any downside to that mutually beneficial relationship, I see no reason it couldn't continue. I have offered to pay a reasonable fee if some sort of formal contract is needed (I applied to Parks in past for a RPA , easements, and "right of entry" permit, to no avail) but the informal arrangement we had in the past worked well. Allowing use of trail for occasional farm vehicle travel in return for maintaining and monitoring irrigation ditches, drains, and structures, caring for fences, controlling weeds, and respecting users and trail environment and structures seems like a "win-win" situation from my past experience. All it takes is a good working relationship between the ranger and landowner and/or operator. I saw it work to everyone's benefit for almost 20 years.

70 Motorized use of the John Wayne Trail will destroy the serenity of the area for current users. Ample opportunities already exist for motorized recreation. Allowing users onto the trail will create unnecessary conflicts among user groups. 71 No I would not like to see motorized vehicles have access to the John Wayne trail. It is one of the few stretches of public trails that is strictly for unmotrized use. No no no 72 I use this trail regularly and greatly enjoy it solitude and beauty. This should be preserved. 73 No motorized vehicle use, please. No Off Highway Vehicles. 74 We do not want motor vehicles to be allowed on the trail. This is a place where you can get with nature and we need nothing machine operated on these trails, just bicycles. It has potential for risk and hazardous to the land. Also, it could increase harm to nature hikers, people, children. 75 As an avid cyclist I ride the trail a lot. the quiet and solitude is getting harder and harder to find. Horse people, hikers and cyclist all love this trail. please keep it as a refuge for all the people that the quiet the trail provides 76 I approve and encourage the use of this trail by farmers adjacent to it. I do NOT approve of opening it up to quadrunners, motorcycles, etc.

Responsible 'motorized' people are considerate of horses but there are far too many that are not and this results in accidents--some are quite tragic. I & many of my friends have encountered problems from the irresponsible motorized users & injuries have resulted. 77 I support the use of long distance trails, such as the John Wayne trail, by local farmers and ranchers to service their crops and stock. Often times the ROW cut through the ranch or farmstead making management of the lands troublesome.

Please accommodate farm and ranch machinery use of the trails. To assist other trail users in understanding and set the expectation that they may encounter farm machinery - please post informative signage. 78 Adjacent Landowners to WA St. Park Trails should be allowed lateral use of the trails to access agricultural and/or forest lands that they or their family also own, whenever necessary.

In areas of heavy recreational trail usage it may appropriate to limit access. However, our case, we have agricultural and forest land adjacent to the Willapa Hills Trail just west of the Chehalis River RR bridge west of the town of Pe Ell. That bridge has a WA State Parks sign: 'Trail Closed' and the only other location for public access to the trail is 1 mile to the west along SR 6. Consequently, that mile of the trail sees little or no recreational activity. Therefore, we should be allowed lateral use of the trail as often and for as long as our agricultural and forestry activities require.

In our area the trail is just as the RR left it (ie. WA St. Parks has made no improvements), so travel speeds should not be an issue. In any even, 15-20 mph should be more than adequate.

WA St. Park personnel travel the trail in our area at least a couple time a year to cut the grass and brush. They should be able to assess the condition of the trail at those times. No additional observation should necessary.

There should be no fees for lateral use of State Park Trails by adjacent landowners, because it has always been our understanding that once the Railroad Company abandoned the railroad the land was to be returned to the original landowner. 79 Please keep motorcycles, ATVs and all motorized vehicles off trails. Only permit on existing designated paved roads - no new roads for motorized vehicles. Should have separate bike only trails -.as in bicycles not motorcycles but different trails from walking,mrunning and hiking paths/trails. Thank you for seeking input. 80 No a walk on the trails is a way to get back to the quiet of nature without all the noise of every day life . Letting motorized anything on the trails would just ruin them. 81 I believe that we should keep the long distance trails free of motorized vehicles. State parks are a beautiful place and should try and be conserved and free from environmental hazards that vechiles can cause. Secondly having motorized vehicles could pose as a danger to hikers, bikers, runners, and all others that use the parks. 82 I think when we talk about parks and trails, we are talking about recreation free of the every day sounds and noise we have in the cities. We think about hiking, bicycling, climbing, and more activities that allow us to enjoy a place with sounds, colors and wildlife that make us enjoy the place away from the noise and gasoline smell.

I think we should keep this places free of motorized vehicles, there are options for this people that want to use it. Also for the agriculture business there are many other roads that They can use.

Recreational and concessionaire motorized use should not be permitted for long- distance trail use. 83 I would support motorized use by persons with mobility disabilities and their other power driven mobility devices as allowed under federal law and state parks policy. That includes motorized ATV quads and side by sides where and when appropriate. I would support use of quads and other motorized ATV use for wildife viewing or during open fishing or hunting seasons and for transportation to and from a legal fishing or open hunting area if the preferred or only accessible means by persons with mobility disabilities is by use of a trail owned and managed by state parks to get there. I would support the use of transportation by motor vehicle on a SP trail for recovery and retrival of legally harvested fish and wildife by a person with a mobility disability from a legal fishing or hunting area by SP permit or even park ranger permission. A valid discover pass should be the fee to use the trail. 84 I don't have no issue with motorized vehicles as long they don't destroy the trail and their users yield the right of way to hikers, bikes and horses. We have to put and show clear rules to the use of motorized equipment, I will put a limit in regards the hours and time of season to allow trail work and other areas to recover. Also I will put a limit regarding the type of vehicle and maybe just allowed in certain areas if possible. 85 Please do not open any more if our talks to motorized use, especially the long range ones. Motorized use is dangerous, disruptive, and not environmentally appropriate. Thanks you. 86 I see little problem with occasional crossings or SHORT linear motorized use for agricultural use, but not on a recurring basis. Also such use should include some provision for maintenance support. Also, the Stewardship group responsible for maintenance and operation should be involved in the decision and extent of use. They are closest to the public opinion and sensitivity of the area.. Any abuse of the privledge should be grounds for immediate revocation of the use. 87 State parks focus should be for people who want to get out of high traffic areas. Motorized vehicles will create congestion, noise and physical pollution. It would take away the peacefulness for hikers, campers and natural wildlife that live there. 88 I do not want to see motorized vehicles on long hiking trails. If you can't get there with your boots on you don't need to go on that trail. Motive vehicles would damage the environment that we all hike to get to. 89 Under the proposed agreement, motorized use of hiking trails, such as the John Wayne trail, would jeopardize the safety of hikers, equestrians and runners, as well as wildlife. These trails must NOT be used for commercial purposes, and designated only for the purpose for which they were intended...hikers, horseback riders, and even trail runners.

Understandably the Washington Parks Association is under the strain of budget cuts, and having to do more with less. However any extra funds raised by selling permits to motorized vehicles would not sufficiently provide funds to repair the stress to these trails caused by motorized use.

Further, in that farmers, ranchers, hunters, and others have not had motorized access to these trails, now giving them motorized access is not based on a proven need, but rather appears to be only an opportunity for the Washington State Parks to raise more money through fees.

Enforcement would be problematic. Think dirt bikes racing down the John Wayne Trail. It would be a cause for confrontation that would be harsh, and not resolvable.

Please abandon this issue, and permanently reject allowing motorized access to these state parks set aside as trails, and not roadways.

Thank you. 90 I walk the John Wayne Trail here locally. (Ellensburg). Last year I had a confrontation with a land owner bordering the trail who was riding a four wheeler - I told him that was prohibited. He told me 'fuck you' and told me to call the police - that he would use that trail anytime he wanted to and that local law enforcement had told him they would not enforce the prohibition against motorized vehicles. This man almost hit me and my dog. I strongly urge you to totally and completely ban any form of motorized traffic on this trail. And enforce it!!!!!!! 91 To Whom it May Concern,

I am a native and life-long resident of Washington. At the age of almost 65, I have seen our state triple in population and seen wilderness, pasture land and forests transformed to industrial and commercial sprawl.

Our state parks need to remain as they were intended to be used. I live in the city limits of Ellensburg and near by our home are a number of ranches and farms. Prior to moving into our current home, we lived in rural Ellensburg on acreage.

I frequently use the JW Trail as it is just outside our door and borders our neighborhood. It is a wonderful Park. I refer to it as Burke Gillman East.

I am against the use of motorized vehicles of any type on the 'People's Park' except for emergency or maintenance vehicles.

I understand the desire for ranchers and farmers, my neighbors, to have easier access to their property but it shouldn't be at the expense of citizen owned public parks. If the Park runs through a farmer/rancher's property, I can understand allowing a farm vehicle to 'cross' to the other side. I see a few locations in our area where that is the case. However, to allow motorized vehicles to traverse any length of the trail is unacceptable. 92 Please do not allow motorized vehicles on the John Wayne Trail. There are plenty of places for motor sports already! Also, this use would be disturbing to residents with property near the trail and to wildlife. No, please and thank you. 93 I do not see the need for motorized vehicles on long trails. There are lots of forest service roads and trails which are accessible to motorized users. I am fine with agricultural use on trails.

Sincerely, 94 I did not realize there was a comment period open on this particular subject until a post on WTA. I thought it was a done deal. I want to go on record as being opposed to any motorized use on the various state long distance trail trails. Any motorized use degrades does ruin visitors experience. On the JWPT through the years I have come across individuals driving it in personal vehicles as they 'have a key', quads / motorcycles going around gates and you know - don't they have enough other roads to recreate on????

I object to commercial use for fee, as I am worried commercial use will degrade the resource and make Parks maintenance of that particular area harder to stay on top of, in spite of the fees set to offset damage. That said, I may consider a one time use (say - 1 day a year) for something commercial with no public benefit and make it worth while financially - so steep fee. If it is a commercial use that might have a public benefit (filming a documentary for example) make fee moderate. Beats me how you would decide how to charge. so maybe best to just not open these trails up!!!!!!!!!!

These linear trails are hugely popular and a fabulous resource for our state. don't muck it up by commercializing it.

Thank you. 95 Our property adjoins the John Wayne Trail - Iron Horse State Park.

The people I see using the trail between Water Street and Reecer Creek Road are adults,teenagers,children, adults with babies in strollers, dog walkers, runners, joggers, bicyclists, painters, bird and wild animal watchers. School children going to and from Mt. Stuart elementary school to their homes use the trail. All these people and activities happen happily. without motorized vehicles.

Adding motorized vehicles would be a hazard on this part of the trail and would disturb the peace.

The old railroad bed in this area is but fifteen feet wide with few places to step aside-execept into the brush or water that has pooled on the north side of the trail. The dry grass and weeds next to the worn pathways would be more of fire hazard with motorized vehicles.

Therefore I would not allow motorized vehicles on this stretch of the trail.

A general comment: Historically I would guess the farmers and ranchers didn't run their equipment up and down the track. They may have crossed it but probably didn't run with the trains. 96 I think it makes sense to let farmers and other locals use the rail trails with certain limitations. But I'd like you to also consider another option.

How about letting street legal motorcycles, primarily dual sport - adventure type bikes use rural or more remote sections of trail as determined by parks. This is already done in British Columbia I believe. Some ideas might be the John Wayne Trail from Kitittas to Columbia River, Columbia Plateau Trail from Cheney to Tri Cities or the trail from Chehalis to Raymond. I think you'd want sections of trail that aren't heavily used and create a speed limit of no more than 35 mph. Motorized users that are in the know will automatically to slow down and be respectful of other users when they are encountered. That should not be a problem.

You could set this up on a permit basis so motorized users know exactly what trails are open, where they are open, what the rules and regulations are and so on. Motorized users will be very thankful because they are looking for off street, scenic corridors for which to use. Camping options would also be appreciated. Opening the use to motorized users will also help with acceptance of the Discover Pass for motorized use since you only have one real motorized experience at Riverside State Park.

I think it could be a great opportunity and greatly popular if set up correctly. I XC Ski and mountain bike on state parks rail trails. In remote sections I rarely see other users and have thought letting sensible use by motorized users would be awesome.

There are groups like WOHVA that would help you establish sensible regulations that promote recreation, safety and resource preservation. Folks with adventure bikes are always looking for places to ride off-street and I think opening some sections of these trails to motorized use would be very popular.

I hope you'll give this some consideration. Thanks. 97 Motorized use already occurs, for mowing and trail maintenance, and at both marked road crossings and unmarked driveway and intermittantly used farm roadways, and countless paths crossing long-distance trails. The intermittant agricultural right-of-way proposed is a very minor additional use, even in rural areas. A short, simple regulation should suffice.

'How should drivers behave when encountering recreational trail users? '

Stop, allow recreational users to step off of the trail or go around them before continuing.

'Should there be limits on seasons, days, times, or frequency of use?'

Only if a special event, such as an annual marathon run, is scheduled on the trail. If a problem arises in future years, then revise the regulation to the minimum extent necessary to address it.

'What is a safe maximum speed for motorized vehicles?'

Same as maximum safe speed set for bicycles on that trail segment. If Parks have not determined what that is, and have not set speed limits for bicycles, then how can it expect to set a state-wide trail speed limit for this? It depends on sight line distance. The real safety problem we have on mixed-use trails are bikes speeding downhill silently overtaking pedestrians!

'What fees are appropriate? How much should a permit cost?'

None. Permits, fees and applications are superfluous. It should be a simple regulation. Adjacent landowners in agricultural vehicles in possession of a photo ID showing an address within a mile of the location should be quite sufficient. The goal of this law is to facilitate minor, very intermittant, traditional right-of-way, not to obstruct it with some time-consuming, onerous permit system. 98 Please consider motorized use of long distance state parks trails as a legitimate use. Only the Spokane area allows motorized off road use and their promotion their is outstanding ... a model for what could be done at other state park sites. Other states use their state park system to provide many more motorized off road opportunities than Washington State does. Please consider increasing the amount of motorized off road recreation mileage.

Thank you 99 I am against motorized use on long distance trails. There is enough motorized vehicles around already. I don't want to be harassed and fearful of being rundown while enjoying nature. 100 The long distance trails should be limited to non-motorized use. Exceptions should only be for adjacent agricultural private properties that need to cross the trail to access their fields.

I am very familiar with the trails and designed three of the bridges on the John Wayne Trail. I have traveled from North Bend to the Columbia River, along the Centennial Trail near Spokane; and the Willapa Hill Trails from Chehalis to Raymond. I also use many of the other rails to trails corridors in the state. These linear parks allow for an experience away from conflicts with vehicles and a chance to relax while exercising. The relative quiet allows for bird watching and enjoyment of the natural environment.

A disadvantage to allowing vehicle use of these trails is the damage they can do to the trail surface. Uneven surfaces and potholes make running and bicycling unpleasant. 101 no motorized use of long distance trails except in the case of emergency evacuations. 102 Allowing motorized vehicle use on these trails would be such a disappointment. It would bring all the elements of noise and fast moving activity out to the place most of go to escape from it! Not only that but trash, increased vandalism, and overall safety to those of us on foot or bicycle. Aren't there enough collisions between people and vehicles in the real world? Not to mention horseback riders. There are plenty of ORV property options available already. 103 As an avid hiker and motorcycle rider, I see both sides to this. As a hiker, I would not want to be run over on a hiking trail. Then again, due to broad swaths of land ownership, like in the case of Weyerhauser, it becomes difficult to find practical trails to ride my dual sport motorcycle, and trails such as these would be a great recreational activity to ride on.

I feel we should look at the propensity of usage. If a trail is 250 miles long, will soccer moms with strollers be completing it? No. Would hikers on foot? Relatively few. Would bicyclists and horseback riders? Some. Would dirt bike riders? Maybe half due to limited fuel. Dual sport/adventure bike riders? Probably quite a few. Trucks and jeeps? They could certainly, but they'll primarily be on it for agricultural purposes, and recreational drivers will likely seek more challenging routes as a single lane gravel road will not be a huge attraction. 104 To Whom It May Concern,

As a native Washington resident who has used the trails and campgrounds of our beautiful state, I believe the motorized use of long distance trails erodes the integrity of what we are trying to preserve. We haven't had these trails motorized and we simply don't need to start now.

From a recreational standpoint, this would do much to diminish the charming outdoor experience, where we seek to get away from the hustle and bustle of everyday life. I wonder how many fewer people would buy a yearly pass knowing they might be competing for space with motor vehicles along some of these beloved trails. On another note, as someone who studied natural resource management, it would also likely create more of the phenomenon of 'Island Ecosystems', where animals who normally mingle along a certain border become thereafter divided, thus compromising the balance of biological diversity in the area.

It would be shameful to degrade the rich tradition of our parks by allowing motor vehicles on long distance trails. Thank you for reconsidering this important decision that affects so many of us.

Sincerely, 105 Keep them closed to motor use. Here are some obvious reasons why.

1. There are already routes people can use with motorized vehicles -- they're called roads, highways, etc. 2. Motorized use brings a lot of other negative impacts along, e.g., bottles, cans, litter, etc. 3. Detrimental impact on wildlife. Inevitably off trail vehicles will be used, leading to damage to habitats, harm to food sources, and increased air and water pollution, just to name a few of the negatives. 4. Noise pollution is by is an unavoidable by product of motorized use of trails. Among other reasons, hikers and cyclists use these trails to escape the noises they hear day in and day out, such as -- engine noise. 5. Increased risk of forest fires. After this year's example, I don't think any other evidence is needed. 106 I am strongly opposed to the idea of motorized vehicles on trails. It's dirty, un necessary, dangerous, and antithetical to the whole purpose of hiking, enjoying the wilderness, and preserving the natural beauty and vital Eco system of our public lands. It also smacks of a give away to recreation vehicle lobby...... 107 When and where is motorized use of the trail surface reasonable and appropriate?'

The only motorized vehicles that should be allowed on Washington's long distance trails are emergency vehicles.

'When motorized use is allowed, what limitations should be enforced?'

Trails should be for park maintenance only. The moment you surrender the title 'Hiking Trail' and turn it into 'Business Access Road.' you should raise taxes to all surrounding beneficiaries to maintain the road.

'What kind of monitoring is needed to ensure state property and facilities are protected?'

None. All beneficiaries of the road should be required to maintain the road. Because motorized vehicles damage the environment much faster than pedestrians, they should bear the burden of maintenance and either have taxes raised in zones that use the trails OR have permits that reflect their usage.

'What fees are appropriate? (How much should a permit cost? How should trail damage be addressed?)'

Permit fees should reflect the earned income of any given business using the road and should be .5 percent of their gross earnings.

Keeping WA trails intact, as is ensures future generations can enjoy the pristine nature of our State without the ever creeping sprawl that is plaguing population centers in the rest of the State. 108 TO: Nikki Fields, Trails Coordinator

From Jay Gordon, Executive Director, Washington State Dairy Federation.

We were recently made aware of this process your agency is using to consider changes to how motorized vehicles are used on trials managed by your agency. We have a number of comments we ask you to consider. I will be brief.

1. This action took us by surprise, we were given an alert just by happenstance. The concern is the apparent lack of out reach that your agency conducted. We forwarded a link to your agency website describing questions and possible actions. Not one ag group knew this was going on, yet you reference the questions as having been instigated in part by farmers and farm use.

2. This process looks very much like rule making, yet the format and process do not match the usual rulemaking that virtually all agencies use when making decisions like this one appears to be considering. Is this rule making? If so, is there a CR 101 or CR 102 available?

3. As for answers to the substantive questions you pose. Here are some thoughts.

a. 'When and where is motorized use of the trail surface reasonable and appropriate?' For farmers that must have access across or along these trails to get to their farm lands...the answer is at all times.

b. 'Should it vary depending on recreational use patterns?' We have no comment on recreational use.

c. 'What level of motorized use is compatible with recreational trail use? ' Farmers that need to access their farmland and fields. They need to use motorized equipment to run their farms, they should have the ability to move equipment to their fields.

d. 'When motorized use is allowed, what limitations should be enforced?' The usual no damage clause, repair if permanent damage is caused.

e. 'What is a safe maximum speed for motorized vehicles?' Tractors usually operate below 25 miles per hour.

f. 'How should drivers behave when encountering recreational trail users?' Politely.

g. 'Should there be limits on seasons, days, times, or frequency of use?' Not for farmers or loggers just trying to make a living.

h.' What kind of monitoring is needed to ensure state property and facilities are protected?' Go look at the trails occasionally? Talk to the adjacent landowner if there are issues or concerns.

i. 'What fees are appropriate?' For farms and ranches there should be no fees, liability insurance (and proof of it) is a common requirement and is not unreasonable.

j. 'How much should a permit cost?' Again, free with proof of insurance, and please don't make them annual, 5 years is the minimum, 25 -50 years is better. some railroad crossing agreements are over 100 years old.

k. 'How should trail damage be addressed?' Farmer that causes permanent or significant damage should fix it (I use permanent/significant because a bit of mud or manure or straw or hay on a trial is temporary and unavoidable, but, obviously a big muddy mess or a torn up pavement section must be cleaned up or fixed.

Final thought.

We would be glad, along with Farm Bureau or Cattlemen's or State Grange Associations to help you reach a broader cross section of Washington farms, ranching or logging families and businesses. The trails that criss cross our state affect a small percentage of our farms, but for these farms living along these corridors is an important fact of life, Reaching these specific families and businesses is paramount.

Glad to help. 109 Please keep the States long distance trails for hikers, bikers and horses. Please do not allow motorized use. I am an avid hiker/biker of the long distance trails run by Washington State Parks and consider these to be my favorite State Parks because of there non motorized use. Thanks, Albert Greco 110 Comments specific to Willipa Hills trails, but would apply to any long distance trail. A. Non-motorized recreation remains the principal use of linear parks and the safety and pleasure of such visitors should not be substantively compromised by motorized vehicle use. An approximately 1.5 mile section of the trail, starting at the Ceres Hill Rd parking lot and heading east, is regularly traversed by large farm equipment, generally the size of a ten yard dump truck. There are several blind corners where the driver cannot see hikers on the trail. The width of the trail itself can barely accommodate the width of the trucks; hikers are forced into the brush on the trail side as the trucks squeeze by. At the very least the trail would need to be significantly widened to provide a reasonable degree of safety for hikers. On several occasions I have encounter multiple trucks on a single hike. Contrary to the opinion expressed by Lewis County Commissioner Lee Gross stated position to Washington State Parks - "It is unlikely that any such use would impair the intent or the actual recreational uses for which the trail is designated"; I heartily disagree. This is an obviously unsafe condition that is an accident waiting to happen. When we see the farmers working the field using this section of the trail, we just go somewhere else. I personally think it is a waste of the taxpayer's money to spend millions on improving the Willipa trail while a key segment is unable to be used safely by the public. When creating policy I sincerely hope you carefully consider basic safety common sense as a balance to the pressure of agricultural use.

B. Motorized use may be permitted where there is no other practical alternative. I am concerned with the process of determining a "Practical Alternative". I am certainly unopposed to farmers and private land owners crossing the Willipa Hills trail (or any other trail) to access properties split by the trail. I believe that is their right going back to the time when it was an active rail line. I strongly object to the current "permitted" use the trail as a farm road for 1.5 miles. In the case of the Ceres Hill section of the trail, an alternate road is available to access the parcels currently accessed by the trail. Granted, the alternative road has steeper grades, is not as wide, and certainly not as well maintained as the trail, but it is useable. I have in fact witnessed the farmer in question using this road on occasion. To me, as a hiker, this seems a practical alternative. To the farmer, however, they may consider this impractical because it is not as easy the using the trail. Who decides what is practical? Will both recreational and agricultural users be involved in the process? How will notice be provided to interested public parties?

In closing I want to add I believe the Washington State Parks primary purpose is to provide safe access to a variety of recreational users. As a hiker, I find access to trails in west Lewis County increasingly difficult. With the recent decision by the timber companies to close access to the vast majority of open space in our area without an expensive permitting system, I believe now more than ever it is critical to protect what little access recreational users have to open space.

I would further urge you to develop written standards and guide lines in addition to making policy to ensure the safety of recreational users. 111 The use of long distance trails by 4 wheel drive organizations should be available. Limiting 4 wheel drive access to organized groups would allow them to assist Wa State Parks in maintaining the trails for other use. Organizations would be able to schedule access to the trails and any organization of 4 wheel drive vehicles could be assessed by their commitment to maintaining the trails for all. Those organizations who show solid commitment to working *with* Wa State Parks could receive extra consideration in the granting of permits for use.

The scheduling of such events would allow notice to other users of pending motorized use and promote safety for all. The state is severely limited in funding and resources and the additional help of organizations in maintaining our state's system of parks, trails and other lands would benefit all of the citizens of the state.

Thank you 112 I am against motorized use of long trails (like the John Wayne trail). If farms along the trail want to use them for short distances that would be ok, if there is room for non-motorized users to get out of the way safely. 113 15 mph speed limit, ONLY for legitimate ag-related access. Must yield to non-motorized trail users. Issue permit that must be carried by driver and can be presented to non-motorized trail users if challenged. Charge fee to cover cost of permit issue. 114 In the past we have received permission (permit? This was in 2007) to use the John Wayne trail to access a BPA site that would have been otherwise unaccessable. I don't have any comment other than to say it should be left open as an option. In our case it was limited access for maybe 20 trips totaling 2 miles round trip each time in and out over a three year period and didn't feel it should warrant a maintenance fee.

As speed and interaction with primary users as I remember it there was a speed limit and interacting rules which I felt were reasonable but there was one section that I felt was odd and needed rethought.

The only other comment is there was one person that called law enforcement dispatch reporting we were using the trail and while they didn't show up on site they recognized the description of the vehicle and gave me a call to see if it was us and what we were doing. This is all vague in my mind but might provoke discussion should this mean an increase in usage of trails and how to handle interagency communication.

Also I know there are farmers that rely on it to change water, a fairly low impact use that saves a significant amount on unnecessary infrastructure.

Keep it open.

Sincerely, 115 Evergreen Mountain Bike Alliance is Washington State's largest mountain bike organization with over 10,000 followers dedicated to trail maintenance, advocacy, education, and recreation. We are also an important partner with public land managers across the state, contributing over 10,000 hours of volunteer labor in the past year.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment as Parks develops a policy that may allow motorized use of long-distance trails. In response to 2013 agency request legislation for the JWPT, in a letter dated 31 Oct, 2013 as well as subsequent communications, Evergreen strongly opposed any motorized recreational or concessionaire use of any long-distance trails. We also expressed the need for a policy on limited and managed motorized use for easier access to private property by adjacent agricultural landowners. While we did not strictly oppose this agricultural use for the JWPT we were clear that any use must not impact the recreational experience or safety of non- motorized users. Accordingly we offer the follow items to consider in the development of a policy that will apply to all long-distance trails:

*Motorized use must be only for the purpose of accessing agricultural lands where alternative access is not practical. * No recreational or concessionaire motorized use should be permitted. *The policy should specifically identify safety and quality of the non-motorized recreational experience as the overriding objective for long-distance trails and that motorized use can only occur at locations and times which are very unlikely to interfere with this objective. * The speed limit for those permitted users should not exceed 10 miles per hour and the driver should be responsible for driving slower if required for safe operation. *The types of vehicles which may be authorized should not be large enough to prevent safe passing by bicyclists or equestrians while remaining on the trail tread. Vehicles which may cause significant damage to the tread surface, potentially leading unsafe conditions for a bicycle, should not be permitted. This includes tracked vehicles or vehicles whose weight is likely to cause significant tire indentations resulting in a hazardous condition. * Motorized users, as part of the permitting process, should be held fully responsible for all costs associated with repair of any damage done to the trail as a result of the use as well as all liability for accidents that may occur directly or indirectly as a result of the use. * A permit fee should be charged which is sufficient to cover the costs to Parks of both the evaluation process and ongoing inspection to * A consistent permitting process should be used for evaluating applications for motorized agricultural use. This process should include a public comment period on each application which will aid Parks in assessing the likely impact of the usage on recreationists and other stakeholders.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment on this important issue. 116 As an owner of Marwood Farms LLC, holder of a permit for lineal use on the Willapa Trail (P446007FEN1), I am submitting a response to the Commission's request for input regarding motorized vehicles on long-distance trails.

The right of entry permit granted to Marwood Farms is necessary for the continued agricultural use of our farm which has been in operation for more than 100 years. The Marwood farm is leased to one of the few remaining dairy farmers in Lewis County. In the absence of this permit, or an increase in the restrictions of the permit making access uneconomical, the dairy will lose a major source of readily accessible feed for its cattle. Whether the dairy would survive such a loss is unknown. Loss of use of this farm would be in direct opposition to our Governor's strong support and preservation of land for farming in Washington.

When the railroad first obtained its easements, farmers granted the easements knowing that the railroad would improve the value of their land by providing a means of shipping their crops, receiving supplies and providing a means of travel to and from railroad stations near their farms. The easements were given in exchange for the assurance that if the railroad ever ceased to operate, the easements would terminate and the land would revert to the owners.

By establishing the "railroad banking" fiction, farm owners have had recreational use imposed upon their property without reversion capability or just compensation. Under these circumstances, it is fair and reasonable that permits for agricultural uses of portions of the trail be given subject to reasonable restrictions. The current permit held by Marwood Farms appears reasonable and adequate for establishing manner of use, speed, and time of use, although less restrictive time uses and access on weekends would be very beneficial to the farmer. Additional restrictions, such as flaggers or pilot vehicles, appear excessive and unnecessary at speeds of ten miles or less, and would unnecessarily increase the cost of use to make agricultural uses prohibitively expensive. To my knowledge there have been no recreational user incident reports involving the Marwood permit or the previous owner's permit. This indicates the sufficiency of the current permit terms.

Once it is determined that a permit is appropriate, the term of the permit should be at least five years, and the cost of renewal should be nominal in the absence of any change of conditions. Having a reasonable length of permit assures users, such as the dairy farmer leasing our property, that there is an assured source of access for a reasonable period. Farming requires planning of more than one year at a time. As to non-agricultural motorized use of the trails, such use appears inconsistent with the nature of the Willapa Trail and should not be permitted. Allowing access for recreational motorized vehicles such as motorcycles would create unmanaged safety issues for owners and users alike.

For years, agricultural and recreational use has co-existed successfully on the Willapa Trail. This should be allowed to continue. The Marwood permit appears to be a reasonable model for other agricultural use permits to assist and preserve agricultural uses of the farmlands bordering long- distance trails

Sincerely, 117 Before responding to the specific questions, some general comments are in order:

*The trails developed statewide by State Parks were developed under different circumstances. Lewis County Farm Bureau does not believe that there should be a "one shoe fits all" approach to developing policy on the use of trails; rather, each trail is unique and policy should be tailored to the circumstances for each trail.

* Lewis County Farm Bureau is concerned about maintaining the integrity of farms where the farmland is split by the State Parks trail. The Willapa Trail passing through Lewis County is a "rails-to-trails" project and the old rail line split many farm properties. The railroad allowed farmers to cross their tracks with livestock and farm equipment so the farmer could use all of their property.

*The Growth Management Act requires preservation of Agricultural Resource Land for commercial farming. The topography of Lewis County, although highly suitable for forestry, generally restricts agriculture to the narrow valleys and plains. The Willapa Trail passes through one of the narrower valleys created by the Chehalis River, severely restricting the availability of farmland. It is important to preserve farmland and not further reduce it by creating artificial barriers which restrict a farmer's ability to farm.

*Although the Willapa Trail has been in the State Parks inventory for over 20 years, only a portion of the trail has been developed. In addition, the 2007 flood on the Chehalis River destroyed infrastructure along the trail, much of which still needs to be repaired. As a result, up to this time the trail has had minimum use and a minimum impact on farming, albeit farms along the trail have had to apply for permits to either cross the trail or make linear use of the trail to move livestock and equipment from one side of their property to another. Lewis County Farm Bureau is concerned because the permit process with State Parks has become increasingly more difficult and permits are only one year in duration. Lewis County Farm Bureau is further concerned that State Parks will develop policies that prohibit use of the trail to access farm property.

* Because the Willapa Trail bisects farm land, Lewis County Farm Bureau believes that use of the trail by motorized recreational vehicles is not appropriate. These vehicles are noisy, as a group, and not only pose a danger to recreational riders on horses but may disturb the livestock on the farms through which the trail passes.

State Parks is currently seeking input from the public on issues the agency should consider when evaluating such requests. For example:

* When and where is motorized use of the trail surface reasonable and appropriate? Where farming is in operation there should be no recreational motorized vehicle use. Because many trails bisect farmland and the farmer should have access to all of their farmland, motorized farm vehicles and equipment should be permitted to cross or make linear use of the trail.

* Should it vary depending on recreational use patterns? Depends on the circumstances.

* What level of motorized use is compatible with recreational trail use? Depends on the circumstances.

* When motorized use is allowed, what limitations should be enforced? No recreational motorized vehicle use on trails passing through farm property.

* What is a safe maximum speed for motorized vehicles? Depends on the Circumstances

* How should drivers behave when encountering recreational trail users? With respect for the rights of other modes of recreational use and the property of the farmers through which the trail passes.

* Should there be limits on seasons, days, times, or frequency of use? Depends on the circumstances.

* What kind of monitoring is needed to ensure state property and facilities are protected? The same kind of monitoring that is needed to ensure that farm property through which the trail passes is protected.

* What fees are appropriate? In so far as a farmer gets no compensation for use of his land by the trail, and the trail creates an inconvenience to the farmer and the full use of his farmland, there should be no fee for permits granted to farmers to cross or make linear use of the trail for farming purposes.

* How much should a permit cost? Nothing for farmers.

* How should trail damage be addressed? It should be repaired by whoever causes the damage. 118 I am a very frequent and enthusiastic recreational user, primarily pedestrian, of the John Wayne Pioneer Trail, especially in Kittitas County. The trail in its current condition and as currently regulated is an extraordinary and irreplaceable resource for the state.

From my familiarity with the trail, it is straightforward to recognize that it imposes some inconvenience and possibly even expense to a limited number of agricultural landowners whose property it crosses, and so I can understand and appreciate the source of this initiative; however, I urge the Commission to adopt a very conservative approach to allowing vehicular use of this resource. The impacts of anything more than the most limited vehicular use on the trail will be irreversible, and as I've said, this is a resource that is irreplaceable.

If the Commission must permit limited use of the trail I urge that it:

- be restricted solely to clearly demonstrated need only for the purposes of agricultural production and for which the landowner seeking relief can demonstrate that there is no other transportation option for addressing the agricultural production need

- be restricted to only specific short critical time periods in the agricultural production cycle (e.g., a two week harvest period) (and as opposed to a "blanket" permit for a landowner)

- be per-use(a "use" being a short critical time period in the agricultural cycle)-permit-based and with a fee assessed in order to support the additional maintenance and enforcement needs such use will impose

- be severely restricted in speed - max 10 mph or less - for the safety of all trail users and to minimize damage to the trail

- be restricted to daylight hours for safety

- be weight limited, limit to be determined by an engineering analysis, to minimize damage to the trail

- include absolute prohibition of vehicular use of any bridge or tunnel on the trail due to the potential for irreparable damage and due to the safety hazards posed by such use

- include absolute prohibition of landowner "improvements" to either the trail or its right of way for the purposes of using the trail for vehicles

Thank you for the opportunity to share my thoughts with you about how to ensure that this remarkable resource continues to serve the needs of Washington. 119 Allowing motorized use of long range trails will be a dangerous mistake. These trails are used by hikers, skiers, horseback riders and cyclists and there is no safe way to include motorized vehicles into the mix. We enjoy the quiet, peaceful nature of these trails which will be destroyed by the noise and the entire element motorized vehicles bring. Additionally, this enviornment is used by many families with young children teaching them about the beauty of nature and the need to maintain the beauty and solitude it brings.

Please reconsider this proposal. 120 No to motorized use of trails! I enjoy the parks to get away from noise and smoke. 121 Please provide access for working farmers along the trails in order to keep a good neighbor policy in Eastern Washington with the communities and neighbors. Local support for trails is vitally important, and if trails are viewed as barriers that only serve out of area folks that are hostile to local working family operations, the trails will become perceived as unwanted government run intrusions. This is not a desired result and can even lead to distance trails such as the John Wayne Trail not be completed.

While I know that many trail users from Western Washington do not understand why farm equipment access would be allowed, the fact is most of these users are not used to agricultural lands trails nor do they ever use them. Their experience is with mountain and forest trails. The entire point of hiking or riding (horse/bike) across farmlands is to experience the local farm and prairie culture.

Use can be by permit with standards for warning signage during farm operations. Any significant damage to the trail should be the responsibility of the farm operators. However, normal access to them should not result in any significant changes. 122 I am an enthusiastic hiker and backpacker commenting because I do not want long-distance trails to become accessible to motor vehicles for any reason. If the opportunity to charge fees and create a new stream of revenue is a major consideration, I would rather pay a little more for traditional, on foot or hoof trail access in the first place. The costs of making trails accessible by vehicle would be considerable; maybe better staffing on the trails to enforce fee collection among people using the parks would serve the need to make money.

It would truly ruin the trails for me to encounter motorized vehicles during my visits. 123 These long distance trails are the only respite from motorized vehicles.

Please consider the lack of resources for patrolling and enforcing speed laws when it comes to budget sizes, presently.

Also, motorized contribute to unwanted pollution. 124 As a resident with a long involvement in efforts to assemble Right of Way (ROW) for long distance non-motorized trails I can tell you unequivocally that agricultural and timberland owners are the least likely landowner groups to grant any form of ROW for trails. Given their uncooperative and obstructionist behavior I am absolutely opposed to granting them ANY form of access to OUR lands. We have fought hard and paid dearly to obtain the few valuable non-motorized transportation corridors we have, and now you propose to grant motorized access? NO.

I note, however, that your request for comment implies that the question is not whether, but how, this should be done. Therefore, I suggest the following guidelines, based on the concept that the motorized user should derive NO monetary or other benefit from his trespass. Any benefit should belong to the state:

1) Damage - Absolutely NO damage to the trail, no matter how slight. A bond must be posted to cover possible harm, and repairs will be made by the state, and billed against the bond (see also #4). 2) Cost - Any motorized use of a non-motorized ROW must involve a SUBSTANTIAL fee that is RESERVED for non-motorized enhancements. The amount MUST be based on the avoided cost the petitioner will obtain. For example, if a farmer wishes to cross a trail because it will allow him to get his harvest to market more cheaply, we should be paid THE FULL AMOUNT he expects to save as a fee for use. If the cross trail route is shorter, we should be paid the difference in transportation (or other) cost for EVERY LOAD that crosses our ROW. 3) Usage - The motorized user must operate in such a fashion that NO disruption or degradation of non-motorized use occurs. No closures, no reroutes, no interference of any kind with normal non-motorized use. 4) Aesthetics - No motorized user can engage in any activity that in any way harms or alters the scenic qualities of the trail. No trimming of vegetation. No cutting of trees. No disturbance to the trail shoulders. No materials (dirt, mud, vegetation or waste) deposited or left on the ROW. Basically, no evidence of their passage (a new take on 'leave no trace'). Example - A logging operation that proposes to use a trail for haulage of timber cut from lands adjacent to the trail (thereby altering the viewscape negatively) should NOT be allowed. 5) Duration - No 'open ended' access should be granted. Access must be limited in time, location, and intensity to a short period (less than 30 days). Any longer intrusion should require a new permit, and a review for compliance. No 'annual' or 'seasonal' permits that span multiple years.

Again, the point here is that any such arrangement should have a significant, tangible benefit for NON-MOTORIZED trail users (not just for the state, but for the users who are giving up their rights). Quid pro Quo arrangements should be encouraged (trespass here traded for ROW there). WHAT'S IN IT FOR US? That's the question Ag and Forestry always ask the non-motorized community when we come asking for ROW. They should be held to the same criteria.

I warn you that this is a VERY sensitive issue. I know that personally, if I feel that State Parks can't/won't protect our trails, I will begin campaigning to have them removed from the State Park portfolio and vested with another agency that will protect them. 125 I believe that any gravel road that is on public lands should be open to everyone. There are many roads that I used to travel as a child with my parents that are closed to access now. I cannot take my children up to enjoy the great views and landscapes that I once got to enjoy. As for speed limits, I would follow the guidelines of the National forest for their gravel roads. I would suggest allowing everyone to use the areas except on single track hiking trails. I do not believe that anymore fees should incur, I believe that the ability to use the land for motorized vehicles will pay for itself by more people purchasing the Discover pass, licensing their vehicles. and most maintenance can be done by the local clubs whom have shown excellent volunteer work on past projects. Monitoring can be done by the public, if they know that if they see something illegal, they can take a picture and report the offenders. Also the ability to contract with local law enforcement to manage the area. I have seen this done in Snohomish County and it work rather well with the National Forest Service and Snohomish County Sheriffs. Snohomish County also has a program that the other Counties may follow, It is known as the Environmental Cleanup, it is partially sponsored by Department of Ecology and Snohomish County itself. They have done a great job in cleaning up the Forest Service land, DNR, State Parks, Fish and Wildlife along with other entities with interests in the outdoor land use at a reduced tipping fee rate and the labor is free. I find this is the biggest problem that plagues us. The illegal dumping of vehicles, Trash, and other wastes. My experience is that the people whom moved here from out of state, that are used to paying their tipping fees through property taxes are the biggest offenders as well as local businesses and local people whom are used to using their man made landfill from years gone by. The regular maintenance of the access roads is very important, which also could be could be done by County Road Maintenance departments. They are losing road miles do to annexations and this is a good way to keep these people working. Lastly, I believe the education of user groups about each other is very important. Right now there is a 'No Tolerance' approach to any motorized groups. This isn't fair, they are judging a whole demographic based on a few bad apples. Though they fail to look back at themselves and find any faults. Public lands should be open to Every user group.

Thank you, 126 September 15, 2014

Nikki Fields Trail Coordinator Washington State Parks & Recreation Commission PO Box 42650 Olympia, WA 98504-2650

Dear Washington State Parks & Recreation Commission,

On behalf of our members, the family farmers and ranchers in Washington state, we would like to offer our comments regarding your process for developing policies governing the use of motorized vehicles on long-distance trails.

Washington Farm Bureau consists of more than 41,000 member families and is the state's largest general farm organization, representing the economic, social, and public policy interests of family farmers in Washington.

We understand that your office has received requests from adjacent landowners for crossings and linear use of trails for agricultural and other intermittent uses. We encourage you to adopt policies that allow for these uses.

We believe that landowners whose property is adjacent to a trail should be allowed to use the trail in a responsible fashion for their purposes. Trails often bisect land that was originally one parcel, and there is precedent for allowing landowners access to their property across and alongside such trails. Landowners often worked with railroad companies to permit access to their lands alongside or on the other side of the rail bed. For instance, the railroad that eventually formed the basis of the current Willapa Hills Trail allowed farmers to cross their tracks with livestock and farm equipment so local farmers could use all of their property. Now that some of these rail beds form the basis of trails through the "rails-to-trails" program, we ask you for the same type of accommodations.

Access for adjacent landowners is different from general recreational access. Landowners should not be required to purchase permits for use of the trail for access to their property. Granting free and permanent access to a person's land alongside or across a trail acknowledges the value of keeping nearby property, and especially farmland, viable. It also helps maintain a healthy â€“ rather than confrontational â€“ relationship between the state government and local neighbors.

We have heard from some of our members that the permit process with State Parks has become increasingly difficult to navigate, and permits are for only one year in duration. We have also heard concerns that the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission may develop policies that prohibit use of the trail to access farm property. We encourage you to establish a process that is not a burden or hindrance to local landowners, and we ask that you take steps to assure them that their needs will be met.

Below are our responses to the questions you asked:

* When and where is motorized use of the trail surface reasonable and appropriate? Where trails bisect farmland, the farmer should have access to all of their farmland. Their motorized farm vehicles and equipment should be permitted to cross or make linear use of the trail. Regarding recreational motorized vehicle use, those vehicles may pose a problem for livestock in the area and for other recreational trail users such as horseback riders. We encourage you to adopt policies that reflect the needs of adjacent land and landowners. Generally speaking, we have concerns about permitting recreational motorized vehicle use on trails, but we recognize that each trail is unique and policy should be tailored to the circumstances for each trail and the surrounding land. Allowing for the permitted use of recreational motorized vehicles on trails near farms may prove problematic for farmers, especially if trail access creates a trespass problem for adjacent private landowners.

* When motorized use is allowed, what limitations should be enforced? Deference should be given to adjacent landowners who cross the trail to access their own property. We believe these landowners will act responsibly. We have concerns about allowing recreational motorized vehicle use on trails passing through farm property.

* What is a safe maximum speed for motorized vehicles? This speed depends on the local conditions and circumstances.

* How should drivers behave when encountering recreational trail users? Drivers can and should respect the rights of others, just as recreational trail users should respect the rights of adjacent landowners.

* Should there be limits on seasons, days, times, or frequency of use? These limits depend on local circumstances. Generally, since adjacent landowners are present at all times of the year, we believe they should have access to their property, and thus the trail, during all times of the year.

* What kind of monitoring is needed to ensure state property and facilities are protected? Monitoring should be the same as any other type of trail or state property. Since state budgets are tight, forging and fostering good relationships with adjacent landowners may encourage them to help preserve and protect trails where the state cannot. State Parks should view local landowners as partners, not trespassers or adversaries.

* What fees are appropriate? A farmer does not receive any compensation from the state for the use of his or her land for the trail, and the trail may be an inconvenience that the farmer must work around. Therefore, we believe adjacent landowners should not be charged fees if they use the trail to access their property for farming purposes.

* How much should a permit cost? Adjacent landowners should not have to pay for permits. Not charging fees for permits will help foster a good relationship with people who care for the land around state trails.

* How should trail damage be addressed? Generally speaking, damage should be repaired by whoever causes the damage.

We hope you find this response to your questions helpful, and we look forward to working with you through any policy changes you may consider.

Warm regards,

Scott Dilley Associate Director of Government Relations Washington Farm Bureau

127 I strongly oppose any motorized use of state-managed long distance trails, except for emergency purposes. Roads are increasingly crowded and dangerous for bicycling. Motor vehicles have access to thousands of miles of roads; it makes no sense to open our limited network of long-distance trails to them as well.

128 Motorized vehicles on the John Wayne/Iron Horse Trail is understandable for certain times of the year for agricultural purposes. Other than that, the use of motorized recreation vehicles on the John Wayne/Iron Horse Trail would be a detriment to the large numbers of non- motorized users throughout Washington. The John Wayne/Iron Horse Trial is a rare gift to those that wish to have long distance trails to utilize whether it be cycling, running, walking dogs, etc., this particular trial is a sanctuary for the non-motorized population. With proper signage and warnings publicized, I believe the non-motorized users would be patient and understanding of agricultural vehicles utilizing the space, as long as the motorized agriculturalists are responsible and know to work within the rules that Washington State Parks would issue for them using the trails, especially the John Wayne/Iron Horse Trail. Thank you. 129 I believe there should be NO motorized use of long-distance trails in Washington state. These trails have remained naturally preserved because foot traffic and bicyclists are low-impact to the environment. Introducing motorized vehicles will pollute these precious regions and speed up erosion along these historic trails. 130 Subject - Our input on the issues now under review on the WHT Trail - specifically that portion of the abandoned Milwaukee Railroad Grade in portions of Section 13 & 14, T13N R4W W.M. in Lewis County, now being managed as a recreational strip of land. We are affected personally by the presence of this trail adjacent to our 63 acres of tree farm north of the 'trail' in the east 3/4 of Section 13 by reason of:

1) Trespassers (hikers) using our private (and posted) access road as part of a loop trail beginning and ending at the Ceres Hill Road.

2) Of our 63 acres, 49 acres lie within 500 feet of what must be considered a state park - There may be an impingement on our rights to practice management of our forest.

3) The problem of our neighbor's access is of concern - the Railroad accommodated the landowners by providing and maintaining a crossing approximately on the N-S centerline of Section 13 and our neighbor has been told his rights to this crossing are not valid. This crossing that accesses Marshall and Norwood's property originally began at the Ceres Hill Road rock pit and has existed since at least the early 1950's.

The Chehalis River once provided a suitable ford during the growing and harvest seasons near the S 1/4 corner of Section 13. This is no longer possible with the restrictive fish protection and other clean water acts.

I have only encountered 2 hikers on this strip of land (WHT Trail) in 4 years. In my opinion there is far more value received by allowing agricultural and forestry use of this segment of the WHT Trail System. A use fee arrangement for commercial use would be a good beginning and in this case would certainly be an environmental economic and resource conservation alternative until further review indicates changing use patterns. 131 This is one of the most scenic and safest routes for me, my family to ride bikes, and hike on.

Motorized use would change the way the trail is design, add costs to already struggling agency, destroy the trails by users that tread lightly and create a problems for my family when it comes to feeling safe. I am totally against allowing any type of motorized vehicle on this amazing trail. 132 I agree with the comments on this project detailed here:

http://www.wta.org/signpost/24-hours-left-comment-on-motorized-use-of-state-parks-long-distance-trails

Specifically, WA state park trails should be for non-motorized vehicles, horses, and pedestrians. I use local trails, some of which allow motorcycles, and the motorcycles tear up the trail. If you do allow motorized vehicles, it should be only in the summer months to keep the trail in good shape. 133 Motorized vehicles should not be allowed to use State Park Trails such as the John Wayne Trail. The only exceptions should be for emergency services or where a farmer needs occassional access to remote parcels not reachable in any other way.

Motorized vehicles and hikers or horses are incompatible.

Thank you. 134 No to motorized use. 135 Limited use of these trails for agricultural use can be allowed. The use should be limited to appropriate times (not weekend, holidays) and only when other transportation avenues are unavailable. Walkers, bikers, horses should have right of way. Agricultural vehicles should pay for any damage to trails; perhaps a permit system could be set up to pay for any damage.

How about veggie and fruit stands near the popular trail heads? 136 When and where is motorized use of the trail surface reasonable and appropriate? Definitely for Emergency Response vehicles at all times. Otherwise, only in situations where other alternative routes are not available, unless the proposed use would be over a relatively short distance where alternative routes would significantly longer or pose a safety risk. Commercial vehicles or agricultural vehicles only, not for recreational purposes.

Should it vary depending on recreational use patterns? Ideally each use should be considered on a case-by-case basis. However, if recreational usage patterns are especially high, for example, such as on weekends, then commercial/agricultural vehicle use would generally be limited to weekdays. If critical time-sensitive planting or harvesting operations for agriculture were necessary, then exceptions could be made for weekend use, however, perhaps early morning access before 9AM, for example, could be allowed.

What level of motorized use is compatible with recreational trail use? Only when absolutely necessary by emergency and commercial/agricultural vehicles, the above comments and examples suggesting a more detailed answer to this question. Also, essentially when it does not significantly interfere with the trail primary purpose, which is recreation.

When motorized use is allowed, what limitations should be enforced? See above comments.

What is a safe maximum speed for motorized vehicles? A safe speed. This would depend on the safety of all involved, vehicle users and trail users, plus the trail surface in terms of its weight bearing capacity.

How should drivers behave when encountering recreational trail users? Always yield the right-of-way, UNLESS it's an emergency vehicle, then trail users yield.

Should there be limits on seasons, days, times, or frequency of use? Yes, see above comments.

What kind of monitoring is needed to ensure state property and facilities are protected? On site, intermittent spot checks, and perhaps ideally WITHOUT the use of a state park motorized vehicle, too.

What fees are appropriate? None.

How much should a permit cost? No cost given the uses proposed above. However, a permit should be required and specify the proposed usage, plus all rules included for appropriate usage, and those getting the permit need to sign off on the fact that they have read and understand the rules . . . and also that the permit can be revoked for the remainder of the year if the rules are not followed. ADDITIONAL PERMIT COMMENT: Each permit should allow flexibility by also including an empty box that allows details to be written down and included for agreement that would only apply to the specifics of use for a particular case of motorized usage, too.

How should trail damage be addressed? This is one of the issues that needs to be part of the permit agreement. Ideally, if the motorized user intentionally or unintentionally causes damage, then they are responsible for bearing the cost of repairing it and for legal purposes both for state parks and the person getting the permit, to also agree to binding arbitration versus going through any court process. 137 Motorize use of State Parks long-distance trails should be allowed only on an incidental basis to address the following situations:

1) to provide access for adjacent or very nearby property owners, when other access for these property owners would be difficult or impossible;

2) to provide access for agricultural equipment for adjacent or very nearby property owners, when other equipment access for these property owners would be difficult or impossible.

Motorized access should be incidental, either to enter and leave the private property; or seasonal, such as when a farmer needs the access the cultivate or harvest his agricultural property. It should not include access for businesses with regular high levels of public use, unless such use was pre-existing prior to creation of the trail. It should not include motorized use that is so frequent that it commonly interferes with the non-motorized recreational experience.

Recreational users should always have right-of-way on these trails. When entering or crossing the trial, morotrized users should have to stop first to see if a recreational user is approaching. Stop signs may be necessary. When a recreational user is encountered, the motorized user should stop, pull over, or do whatever action is necessary to provide safe right-of-way to the recreationist.

Motorized travel down the recreational trail should be limited in the following ways:

1) NOT allowed to motorized equipment that would damage the trial surface, bridges, signs, or trailside vegetation. This may require motorized weight limits, or width limits, or seasonal limits in some circumstances.

2) Limted to a maximum travel distance on the trail of no more that 1/4 mile, or less.

3) During winter season, for trails that are used for cross country skiing or snowshoes, motorized access shall be limited to crossing, with no significant linear use.

4) Maximum motorized speed shall be 5 - 10 MPH, depending upon the type and level of recreational use.

Monitoring should be required on a monthly basis during seasons of motorized use. Monitoring should be by State officials or contractors working for the State.

The permit should cover the cost of the monitoring. In addition, if some additional trial maintenance is likely to be needed as a result of the motorized use, the permit should also cover the cost of this additional maintenance. If excessive damage to the trial is noted during the monthly monitoring, the motorrized permittee shall be immediately notified, and have 21 days to rectify the damage before his permit is cancelled.

Permits should need to be renewed on an annual basis. Permit renerewal should be contingent upon previous year's use not causing trail damage. 138 No to motorized vehicles. Thank you. 139 1) When and where is motorized use of the trail surface reasonable and appropriate? Long-distance trails are heavily used by hikers, cyclists, skiers, equestrians and rock climbers accessing climbing areas. Non-motorized uses should continue to be the primary focus of long distance trails. Recreational and concessionaire motorized use should not be permitted for long- distance trail use.

2) When motorized use is allowed, what limitations should be enforced? The size and type of vehicles that may be authorized should not prevent safe passing of/by hikers, skiers, bicyclists or equestrians.

3) What kind of monitoring is needed to ensure state property and facilities are protected? A consistent permitting process should be used for evaluating applications for motorized agricultural use. This process should include a public comment period on each permit application.

4) What fees are appropriate? (How much should a permit cost? How should trail damage be addressed?) A permit fee should be charged that is sufficient to cover the costs to State Parks for both the evaluation process and ongoing inspection to ensure compliance with permit requirements. In addition, as part of the permitting process, permittees should be held fully responsible for all costs associated with repair to any damage that is done to the trail.

140 These roads should be allowed to be used by off-road vehicles. It is important to keep these roads open so that all types can enjoy the diverse ecosystems our state has to offer. Being able to get to remote places by 4x4 is one of the reasons I love this state. 141 We seek nature to find a connection to nature that many of us can't enjoy on our daily lives; the last thing I want when enjoying a trail is to hear a motorized vehicle, to smell the fumes, to see the tracks, to be covered by dust when a vehicle passes by.

The effects on wildlife would also be significant, noise and air pollution are not good for maintaining healthy and balanced wildlife populations. 142 These trails should be restricted to non-motorized use in all but emergency and maintenance circumstances. In particular, recreational motorized use should never be allowed on non-motorized trails, it is dangerous and makes non-motorized use both unsafe and unenjoyable. Many people of all ages - toddlers to seniors - use these trails day and night without concerns for safety, motorized use endangers this. There is already an enormous network of motorized-vehicle roads made available for motorized vehicles. 143 Please support tread lightly exploration by all means of exploration, including safe and respectful motorized use of public lands. Motorized use of long-distance trails should be allowed so people of all abilities are able to enjoy the beauty of the Pacific Northwest. Motorized vehicle like elsewhere should be required to follow tread lightly principles and understand that the trail is shared use. Non-motorized use should expect the trails to be shared use. A discovery state park pass should be required for motorized use of State Parks long-distance trails just like for other state park public lands. As a person not able to hike, bike, rock climb, or ride horseback, making these trails accessible to motorized vehicles is the only way these trails funded by public dollars are accessible to all without discrimination. thank you. 144 We have a network of local, state & federal roads in the state (including all the NFS roads). State Parks' long-distance trails were never envisioned as motorized trails. I'm a WTA member with half of my extended family living on the west side of the Cascades and half on the east, and I agree with WTA's position on motorized access, which is pasted below:

When and where is motorized use of the trail surface reasonable and appropriate?

When motorized use is allowed, what limitations should be enforced?

The size and type of vehicles that may be authorized should not prevent safe passing of/by hikers, skiers, bicyclists or equestrians.

What kind of monitoring is needed to ensure state property and facilities are protected?

A consistent permitting process should be used for evaluating applications for motorized agricultural use. This process should include a public comment period on each permit application.

What fees are appropriate? (How much should a permit cost? How should trail damage be addressed?)

I'm writing to comment on usage of long-distance State Park trails by motorized vehicles.

Any time public land is open to motorized use some segment of those users will go off-trail and destroy it. The problem with motorized users is the amount of damage they can do in a single day vs. others.

I regularly see National Forest land cut up by ATVs and off-road vehicles. Around the Spokane area, Inland Paper Company has had to close their land due to irresponsible use:

http://www.iepco.com/recreation.htm

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2010/nov/19/timber-trails-closed/

http://www.spokesman.com/outdoors/stories/2014/apr/20/off-track-errant-ohv-riders-costly-to-everyone/

This is why my opinion is to not open any additional public land to motorized use, even these long-distance trails.

If opened, they should only be for specific agricultural purpose and a high enough fee charged to do so so that only people with a legitimate need would consider purchase.

Thank you,

Luke Bakken 146 This has been tried by many states and no one can find a way for horses and motorized vehicles to work together, so what about different trails as combining these two (horses and motorized vehicles) can and does lead to dangerous situations & when you get far into a trail the cost for rescue becomes very costly. 147 Hello and thank you for accepting public comment on this issue.

I do not think that motorized vehicles have any place on public trails. I think having ORV's and vehicles on the trail would not only destroy the peaceful environment, but would add air pollution, and noise pollution as well. Vehicles would also potentially be a danger to hikers, horses, bicyclists and wildlife using the trail. It's bad enough having bicycles whizzing by, please don't add farm equipment and ORV's to the mix.

The trails were not designed for motorized vehicles, nor were they funded for such use. Please, keep the trails as they are.

Thank you, 148 NO - I like the peace and serenity and safety on those trails. If I had to share the trail with motorized vehicles it would be loud, smelly, and no longer safe to hike, bike or ski with my children. 149 Please allow more use of motorized dirtbikes (motorcycles) on these and other trails. There is becoming fewer and fewer places for responsible dirtbike riders to ride. Don't let the action of a few bad apples spoil it for the rest of us. Common courtesy, such as slowing down when overtaking other non-motorized users, would be used. And dirtbikes would pull over and turn engines off to let horses pass. Thank you for your consideration. 150 I would be OK for agricultural use of the trails but why wasn't equestrians included in the user groups? You guys are discriminating and it makes me mad as I use these trails and pay my taxes. 151 I don't want motorized vehicles used in our parks by the general public because people will abuse the privilege. There will be quads and dirtbikes tearing up the natural beauty of the land and the noise will be terrible. If a trail needs to be maintained the vehicles needed should be allowed even if they belong to volunteers. 152 HORRIBLE IDEA. Im epected to deal with exhaust in the outback when out hiking with my kids. People go out there for fresh air, piece, and quiet. That would be stolen from them if this gets passed. People will stop going out there if just one bad experience takes place. Money needs to be considered, fact is attendance will decline. Please dont pass it.

The land will erode. Animals will get hit. Pollution of air and trees. People may go where they please instead of staying on trail. Another person gets hits and lawsuits.

Need I Say More 153 As a longtime resident of Kittitas County, the city of Ellensburg, and an adjacent landowner to the Iron Horse Trail, my wife and I wish to express our opinion that, except for occasional (seasonal) use of the Iron Horse Trail by those who own or lease adjacent agricultural lands and have a demonstrated need to access or cross the trail for short periods of time as part of their business, no other motorized use of the Iron Horse Trail be permitted by State Parks.

For example, use by ATV, dirt bikes, snowmobiles, or any other on or off-road vehicles should remain strictly prohibited. The use of these vehicles directly conflicts with all other currently permitted non-motorized uses such as walking, walking animals, hiking, riding bicycles, and riding horses.

Additionally, given the location of the trail across the Cascade Mountains and through the numerous surrounding public and private lands, permitting motorized vehicle use on the Iron Horse Trail would increase the likelihood of non-permitted use by motorized vehicle operators on these lands, and would assuredly result in violation of city and county noise ordinances. Not to be overly critical, but Parks is currently unable to adequately enforce the state leash laws for dogs on the trail, and as adjacent landowners we regularly have to confront and educate those who do not understand that it is not acceptable for their animals to run after other animals on adjacent private property.

Finally, there is currently no shortage of public land within all counties that the Iron Horse Trail traverses for the use of motorized vehicles of all types. Please keep the Iron Horse animal and pedestrian friendly. 154 Stevens County supports the use of motorized vehicles on long distance trails.

Stevens County opened all county roads to OHV use 2 years ago to promote ease of travel for agricultural, hunting and recreational activities for Stevens County citizens.

We believe the fewest restrictions provide the fewest violations, reduce compliance monitoring and achieve the best results for all users.

The Stevens County Sheriff reports no new increase in complaints, violations or accidents in the 2 years of implementation of unrestricted use of county roads.

We believe State Parks will realize the same benefits for staff and the public.

We would suggest that the best use of staff time would be to deal with problems on a case basis made by those closest to the area

Revenue generated by permit fees of $30 annual could be used to address trail damage Thank you for the opportunity to comment. 155 When and where is motorized use of the trail surface reasonable and appropriate?

When motorized use is allowed, what limitations should be enforced?

The size and type of vehicles that may be authorized should not prevent safe passing of/by hikers, skiers, bicyclists or equestrians.

What kind of monitoring is needed to ensure state property and facilities are protected?

A consistent permitting process should be used for evaluating applications for motorized agricultural use. This process should include a public comment period on each permit application.

What fees are appropriate? (How much should a permit cost? How should trail damage be addressed?)

A permit fee should be charged that is sufficient to cover the costs to State Parks for both the evaluation process and ongoing inspection to ensure compliance with permit requirements. In addition, as part of the permitting process, permittees should be held fully responsible for all costs associated with repair to any damage that is done to the trail. 156 My input is to only have motorized vehicles to cross over trails, not to travel linearly. Only when absolutely necessary. I have young children who ride with me on the trails for long distances and I know other people ride horses on these trails with the expectation that there are no motorized vehicles. It is not safe for motorized vehicles to be travelling on these trails with the other users. 157 I feel that state park long distance trails should remain as is with no access, across, nor along said routes.

In any form there would have to be stipulations such as which type of vehicles, specificity of purpose, segments allowed/disallowed, permits, right of way, disruption of the state park/wilderness environment - noise and air pollution, specifically to those on the trails, monitoring of use, and impact to trail integrity.

And along with all those stipulations will come violations which will likely go without repercussion and evoke the ire of pedestrians. 158 Please preserve our trails. Its rare to get the opportunity to get away from the noises of motorized vehicles and city life! Please spare those of us who enjoy the ability to jog, hike, bike, or ride in the tranquility of quiet! If you have never experience this please I encourage you to go up to an area and just sit for a few minutes. You will notice how realizing and quiet it is. This will not happen if motorized vehicles are given access to these trials. Also consider the increased amount of garbage that will result in others who disrespect the wilderness. Unfortunately motorized access tends to allow others who don't clean up after themselves because they don't respect the forest or the great opportunity that they have. This also opened the debate of forest fires. More motorized access = more disrespectful people = more young people and parties = forest fires due to negligence! Thank you for taking the time to read my concerns. Please consider keeping the trails open to those who enjoy them and respect them! Thank you! 159 I am absolutely opposed to allowing motorized vehicles access to Washington's long-distance (or short-distance) trails. These recreational trails have been designed, constructed and in some cases maintained with millions of dollars of grant money specifically for the purpose of supporting non-motorized, multi-user trails. Motorized vehicles have not contributed to these efforts. There are also hundreds of thousands of hours of volunteered labor that have been volunteered in support of these trails as well, toward which motorized vehicle owners have not contributed for the purpose of using their vehicles.

Motorized vehicles need to stay on roadways that are appropriate for their use. The safety of all non-motorized trail users would be in severe jeopardy if motorized vehicles were allowed on trails, particularly bicycle and equestrian users, young children and adults alike. The common speed limit on these trails is 15 mph. Motorized vehicles on some trail sections could far exceed that speed, causing other users great harm. In addition, many trail sections are narrow, leaving non-motorized users no place to go to avoid a fast moving vehicle.

These trails are designed and constructed to support very limited (emergency vehicle) use, and as such, would be subject to far greater damage due to greater usage by heavy vehicles. This would incur to local jurisdictions much greater maintenance costs.

This is a bad idea for many reasons. I strongly urge you to deny motorized users access to non-motorized multi-user trails.

Sincerely,

Jeff L. Selby Vice President, Jefferson County Peninsula Trails Coalition 160 When preparing the criteria for consideration for the use of motorized vehicles on State Parks long-distance trails please consider impacts to the following:

Conflicts between the motorized use of trails vs. when the primary recreational use of the trail would occur; such as time of year, etc. and minimizing impacts to the primary recreational use.

Consider impacts to designated Shoreline and critical areas such as wetlands, aquifer recharge areas, geologically hazardous areas and floodplains. 161 o When and where is motorized use of the trail surface reasonable and appropriate? As an attorney who represents agricultural clients I am concerned that Washington State Parks policy of converting abandoned rail lines to limited entry recreation corridors will harm adjacent landowners. In many cases the former rail lines split farm properties however easements with the railroads allowed farmer access prior to abandonment. I believe Washington State Parks should continue with its policy of of allowing agricultural use of state park trails, with a few modifications.

In many cases farmers will need to use machines such as tractors or all terrain vehicles (ATV's) to conduct farm operations. In some cases parallel access along the former rail bed, such as to move livestock from one pasture to another, may be necessary.

Currently, there are several farmers who utilize access across State Park trails. They are required to reapply for a permit every year which is a serious inconvenience. State parks should consider using permanent easements or long term permits to allow adjacent landowners to utilize state park corridors when engaged in necessary farming activities. Additional exemptions should be made for public safety personnel engaged in search and rescue operations.

A blanket ban on motorized vehicles that does not exempt ag related activities may result in extensive litigation not limited to prescriptive easements and legal challenges to properties obtained through the rails to trails program. see Marvin M Barndt Revocable Trust v. US. 572 U.S. _____ (2014)

o Should it vary depending on recreational use patterns? Decisions should not be made based on recreational use. Adjacent farm operations may take place on heavily or lightly used trails. An example is the Chehalis River trail corridor. Due to extensive flooding in 2007, access along the trail is limited but farmers use the corridor to access their adjacent farmland. Under a use dependent formula, if use increased, farm operations would be placed in jeopardy.

o What level of motorized use is compatible with recreational trail use? Decisions on recreational use should be made on a park by park basis with input from the community. Blanket bans that do not exempt reasonable adjacent farm operations are likely to be challenged.

o When motorized use is allowed, what limitations should be enforced? Decision should be made on a park by park basis with the inclusion of local stakeholder input. o What is a safe maximum speed for motorized vehicles? No faster than livestock can run. A 15 mph limit would probably be sufficient for safe, multiple use trails and should also apply to bicycles. o How should drivers behave when encountering recreational trail users? Farm operations should have priority as with dominant estate easement holders. Farm users should not be allowed to block trail access for unreasonable periods but should be allowed, if necessary, to stop public access on short sections if operations may present harm to recreational users. o Should there be limits on seasons, days, times, or frequency of use? Should be made on a park by park basis but any bans should exempt agricultural use. o What kind of monitoring is needed to ensure state property and facilities are protected? Parks should continue with the current safety program. In the event that an agricultural activity causes irreparable damage then State Parks can sue for damages as any property owner can sue an easement holder for unreasonable use. Considerations for animal manure deposition should mirror regulations applied to trails that allow recreational equestrian access. o What fees are appropriate? Reasonable maintenance fees may be considered to share costs between the state and adjacent permitted farm operations. Fees should be assessed based on frequency of farm use and the distance used. Fees should be reconsidered on an annual basis based on actual costs of maintenance for that portion of the trail. If fees become unreasonable it is likely landowners might challenge rail to trail ownership at the state's peril. o How much should a permit cost? Reasonable to be determined by input from stakeholders and market forces. Permits should be made for a minimum of five year increments. Permits should only be revoked if a long term pattern of abuse becomes apparent. o How should trail damage be addressed? As with any dominant/subservient easement relationship, those utilizing the easement in an unreasonable manner are liable for damages. Any unreasonable wear and tear on the trail should be fixed by the party which caused the damage. Reasonable maintenance fees could be assessed based on frequency of use and the distance of the trail utilized by the farm operation.

Similarly the state should be liable for damage to adjacent landowners caused by recreational user that use the trails to trespass onto private property and create problems. Additionally, state parks should work with adjacent landowners to ensure privacy screens and gates in trail areas where public use might interfere with the quiet enjoyment of property by adjacent landowners.

I hope Washington State Parks will decide to continue its amicable relationship with adjacent land owners.

162 When and where is motorized use of the trail surface reasonable and appropriate? It is never appropriate/reasonable for recreational use. Farmers and land owners with unique commercial needs should be able to use motorized vehicles on the trails.

Should it vary depending on recreational use patterns?

What level of motorized use is compatible with recreational trail use? None.

When motorized use is allowed, what limitations should be enforced. Impossible.

What is a safe maximum speed for motorized vehicles? 0MPH.

How should drivers behave when encountering recreational trail users? Stay off.

Should there be limits on seasons, days, times, or frequency of use? Yes. Never.

What kind of monitoring is needed to ensure state property and facilities are protected? Not possible. Would just be another unenforced/unenforceable law

What fees are appropriate? None

How much should a permit cost? No permit

How should trail damage be addressed? No motorized vehicles - no trail damage from motorized vehicles.

This idea is just as silly as the recent law allowing ORVs on public roads.

163 I am writing to provide feedback on the use of motorized vehicles on long distance trails. As a hiker and bicyclist, I really would like to keep motorized vehicles off the trails. I think it ruins the experience, interferes with the upkeep of the trails and provides more challenges for hikers and bicyclist on the trails. I'd prefer that they not allowed on the trail. The exception may be a farmer or land owner needed access to the trail to manage their land on a short term. 164 Trails should be maintained for hiking not for motorized vehicles.

IF the majority vote is to allow specific users access they should be charged for the assessment of the request and the privilege to utilize the trail on a limited basis and with specific rules including only certain vehicles, i.e., 4 wheeler, slower speeds, etc. 165 Dear Ms. Fields and WSPRC,

I understand that allowing motorized vehicles on long distance trails in WA State Parks is being considered. NO! The entire outdoor, hiking or biking experience will change if this is allowed. Vehicles--whether they just scare the wildlife (or run into it), leave oil and scars from passing through, or they actually pass as you hike and leave you in a dust trail, smelling exhaust and reminding you that nature was sold out for money and to appease a special few--would be a destructive presence.

The land owners who are requesting this, own or have bought their land fully recognizing that they must access it without turning public land into their private road.

I understand that generating income is likely a goal. Policies to do that shouldn't put the very resource it's raised to support into jeopardy.

That this is even being considered is appalling and very sad. To allow vehicles seems short-sighted and doesn't respect the the need to protect resource from the inevitable attempts to encroach by private interests.

Sincerely, 166 This should be allowed based on the idea of being a 'good neighbor' and not open to anyone. I would want to preclude trails being used by hunters on motorized vehicles, for example. This should be based on horsemen interests because horses are the most sensitive to equipment be it motorized or not - so their input is essential. I say 'let's try it and see what happens' and then make permanent rules. Do a pilot, in other words. 167 I oppose the use of motorized vehicles on trails on state lands. Allowing this will create user conflicts and the noise and exhaust of motorized vehicles will degrade the experience of non-motorized users and the environment. 168 I feel that motorized vehicles on Washington State Parks Trail should be prohibited unless use has been grandfathered in for purposes of business, industry, farming or personal residence. I think it important we consider the fact that they produce revenue for state and local governments and much needed employment for people the park service represents. Two, three and four wheeled motorized recreational vehicles have no place on Washington State Park Trails but do need some place to go which I see as a completely different issue. 169 My property is on the east side of the Yakima River with the north side of my property the John Wayne/Iron Horse Trail.

It currently is a nightmare to watch the 4 x 4 vehicles and ATV's driving on the trail today. There is no policing of the trail and not enough forest rangers to manage it correctly.

Farmers have managed for years without having access of motorized vehicles on the trail.

I say NO to your proposal.

I also say the State Parks Dept. should be liable if someone is hurt by a motorized vehicle.

170 This is reference to the rails to trails access for farm machinery located on the Chehalis river where the south fork meets the main river. Involved is 180 acres which is farmed and needed access to farm to create food for the public.The old rail line should be used at farmers descrestion to move farm equiptment. to facilitate farm crops for dairy production.Parks and trails are important but one should never impead or block access to farm grounds and private property by government agentsies.We all go to the supermarket almost daily to buy fresh produce ,milk and cheese and a wide varied of food products provided by farmers of not just the Chehalis river valley but by many farmers of our great country.I believe food prduction.is first along with private property and farming. I would welcome any comment on your part and I would be honored to discuss the matter to find an easy solution to provide farming .access and a public trail.The answer is clear to me ,both can co-exist--- 171 Please keep these trails permitted to off road vehicles such as jeeps if driving responsible it's safe for all on the trail but that goes for all orv vehicles if there driving reckless then accidents may occur. Regardless this trail is an amazing trail and allows one to be in the woods secluded and legally versus what many others do as alternatives which is illegally off roading on private property or government property which its not allowed so please keep this trail open! 172 I feel the long distant trails should be open to motorized vehicles no more than 50' wide. I think there should be an option on the Discover Pass to pay an extra fee of $3 dollars for a sticker to ride on the trails. I think this option should also apply to bicycle riders as well as horse back riders, why should one group have to pay a fee and the rest don't. This fee could go to trail repair as well as opening new trails. This would also give disabled people access to the trails. 173 I am very much opposed to the idea of motorized use of long distance trails such as the John Wayne trail. There are hundreds and hundreds of miles of gravel roads that are available for motorized use, but far fewer miles of trails available for non-motorized use. I am a frequent bicycle user of the John Wayne trail and others such as the Snoqualmie Valley Trail and the Issaquah-Preston-Snoqualmie trails and would be very disappointed to have these turn into motorized use too. 174 I am absolutely against the use of motorized vehicles of any sort being used on any long-distance trails at any time. 175 Please consider leaving trails open to horseback riding. I was thankful to talk with the ranger during a recent endurance ride and appreciate having such a beautiful place to ride and hike outside of ski season! Thank you 176 I am an almost daily user of the trail as it runs through Ellensburg. I am strongly opposed to allowing any motor vehicle traffic on the trail except for the current special event use. The tranquility of the trail, the silence and lack of floating dust and fumes created by vehicles are just some of the reasons that I use this trail. My easy access to the trail is one of the reasons that I live where I do-I feel very fortunate to have this place to walk, run, walk my dog, bicycle or just ponder the universe so close to my home. I strongly urge you to consider the original intent of the trail, and the reasons that people enjoy it so much. Vehicle traffic would be a real detrimental use of this wonderful resource.

Sincerely, 177 I believe motorized use of the State Parks long distance trails will improve the experience of all who enjoy the trails. Motorized access improves safety and makes maintenance easier. Increased access provides self monitoring from interested parties to ensure State property and facilities are protected. 178 Re: Section of Iron Horse State Park Trail between Alder Street & North Pfenning Road, Ellensburg, WA

When and where is motorized use of the trail surface reasonable and appropriate? The Ellensburg Rodeo's historical motorized use should be allowed as outlined in the current permit the Rodeo has with State Parks. This event is the single largest single economic event in the county. The Rodeo has operated at its current location since 1923. The Ellensburg Rodeo is an 'Old West' rodeo that ranks in the top 12 of the world's rodeos.

Should it vary depending on recreational use patterns? The historical use and the event created by the Rodeo in itself creates the recreation pattern during the use of the trail at Rodeo time. The Rodeo provides maintenance to the trail, public restrooms (year-round) and security during this annual event. The Rodeo does not believe its use of the trail in any way interrupts any other public use. Essentially, the annual Rodeo creates nearly 100% of the annual use of this rarely used section of the trail in support of a family oriented recreation event.

What level of motorized use is compatible with recreational trail use? The Ellensburg Rodeo controls the environment with volunteers and professional security supplemented by law enforcement to maintain orderly and safe use of the trail during the Rodeo. The Rodeo also provides sanitation for those using the trail during the rodeo in addition to the restrooms provided at the trail-head year-round. A pathway large enough for vehicles is maintained at all times for fire and emergency access and is available to the general public for travel on the trail at any time during the Rodeo.

When motorized use is allowed, what limitations should be enforced? We believe the portion of the trail that is used during Rodeo should not be used as a common thoroughfare, but at the same time preference should be given to historic use of the trail for the good of the community, and permission to use the trail for such events should not be restrictive and instead should follow common sense guidelines for use.

What is a safe maximum speed for motorized vehicles? On the portion of the trail that the Ellensburg Rodeo has historically used, we try to maintain a speed limit of approximately 5 mph due to shuttle, equine, foot and vehicular traffic.

How should drivers behave when encountering recreational trail users? The Ellensburg Rodeo expects all motorized traffic to yield to equine, foot and all other non-motorized travel.

Should there be limits on seasons, days, times, or frequency of use? The Ellensburg Rodeo's use of the trail is during the driest time of year (late August and early September). We judiciously apply water to control dust and monitor the trail conditions to ensure a safe environment.

What kind of monitoring is needed to ensure state property and facilities are protected? The Ellensburg Rodeo is a good steward of the land and facilities that surround the Rodeo grounds. We believe a routine pre and post inspection would not be burdensome should State Parks feel the need to perform such inspections.

What fees are appropriate? The Ellensburg Rodeo economically benefits not only the county but also the region and State of Washington. There is no doubt that other State Park's parks are also economic beneficiaries of this regional event. Hopefully, in this situation the fee would be waived, and if not, be the most nominal fee allowed.

How much should a permit cost? The Ellensburg Rodeo would hope that there be a reasonable one-time fee for long-term or permanent permission to use the trail as it has for the period it has since 1923.

How should trail damage be addressed? The Ellensburg Rodeo believes in repairing any damage it is responsible for causing. The Rodeo has spent millions of dollars improving the surrounding facilities and has an interest in their being no damage caused by the Rodeo's activities.

Submitted by Bob Crowe, Public Relations Director for the Ellensburg Rodeo Board 179 As Board Members of the Lewis County Community Trails, we are addressing the questions raised in the email 'WSP use of motorized vehicles on long-distance trails'.

We firmly believe that it is reasonable and appropriate that motorized use of the trails should be limited to ONLY direct crossing of the trails. Many farmers must cross the trails to access their properties as they have been doing since the railroad days..

However, linear use of the trail by any vehicle is dangerous to the trail users and damaging to our trails.

Specifically, the nearly 2-mile stretch of the Willipa Hills Trail (WHT) going east from Ceres Hill Road is used daily by heavy equipment, manure trucks, cattle trucks, harvesting equipment, pick-ups and more. As it is a gravel trail, there is no shoulder for the hikers, bicyclists and walkers to jump to when confronted. In many cases, there is only a cliff on one side or rock face on the other to get out of the way. The damage these vehicles have caused to this stretch makes walking very difficult as the gravel is gone and the trail is at various angles due to the ruts caused by vehicles. Also, the extreme dust that roils behind them covers everything and everyone.

These farmers have a road that they could be using and was built specifically to access their property several decades ago. This road is approximately 1/2 mile further up the Ceres Hill Rd and the entrance is gated by Green Diamond Company. It is a rough road going down the hill that could use improvement, and we have seen trucks and heavy equipment using this road to access the Willipa Hills Trail (which is flat and graveled and closer) so that they do not have to turn around and go back up the hill on the lesser quality road. Green Diamond has shared the keys to the gate with the people who need to use this road. So not only are the farmers with the heavy equipment using the WHT, but also the property owners who are situated above the WHT along the unimproved aforementioned road using the WHT as a matter of convenience.

We believe that the speed limit to cross the trail should be 5 mph and that drivers should stop before crossing the trail.

There are 76,000 people in Lewis County and the Willipa Hills Trail is heavily used by our citizens. The bicyclists travel fast, the walkers have dogs and children, the horse riders take up the entire trail. Please help us make this trail safe for all the users by banning linear use of this trail by motorized vehicles.

Thank you,

The Lewis County Community Trails Board

Dale Pulin Jenni Bodnar Bob Ellingson Jay Milton Emil Pierson Lyn Pehl Mark Dulin Mark Schribner Markthor MacFarlane Steve Ward Todd Mason Bill Anholt Marcy Anholt John Abplanalp

180 We have had discussions with Terrie Manning over a year ago regarding our trail crossings and had mentioned that we would like to have linear use of the trail to access agricultural/pasture lands and forest lands. 181 We DO NOT want State Parks allowing motorized vehicles on the John Wayne Trail 182 The project webpage shows a bridge and graveled/groomed trail, but I would assume most "long-distance" trails are not this improved nor well maintained. Trails should be wide enough for fire and ambulance access (at least 4WD vehicles). Allowing use by adjacent landowners for property access should help maintain the width of the trail, either by vehicular trampling or by active clearing by the landowner. Monitoring would be necessary. Landowner should submit plan for maintenance and submit a record of activity. An annual visit should be adequate. Problems would likely be reported by public users of the trail, anyway. Landowner could also help with litter control, and report problems due to public use. 183 Hello Nikki, got your card about motorized use on existing trails . We live in the Ellensburg area and it probably should be ok for farmers to use /cross parts of the Iron Horse trail to access farmlands . Farmers are not going on the trail to tear it up for fun, but rather need to access their land on either side as necessary for farming . There are many places where the public could be able to ride a SMALL , low powered motorcycle or 4 wheeler to sightsee and do no damage to the trail . This would be only open to licensed vehicaL OPERATORS . With all the handicapped people that cann,t ride a bicycle or hike any distance , this should be considered . There are also some very long streatches of non-motorized trails that are in low populated areas in eastern Wash. that get almost no use . Why not let some responsible public use of these trails be allowed ? 184 I suggest that any linear use of the state's long distance trails for moving agricultural equipment be by special permit. The permit application would be submitted ahead of each year's agricultural season and include a clear statement of justified need and the applicable extended time period of required trail useage. The issuance of said permit would be with the understanding that specific dates must be provided by the user ahead of each trail use within the extended time period. This information would allow the issuing state agency to determine if such dates would interfere with any pre-planned private or public significant event scheduled for that portion of the trail, and work with both parties to mitigate any foreseeable problems due to shared use. Perhaps agricultural users could be given a toll free number or email address to obtain preapproval for trail usage on specific dates. Penalties for violation of the permit's terms or infliction of trail damage would have to be established, and they must recognize that agricultural activities may not always be able to precisely comply with preapproved trail usage dates. This same permit/approval procedure could also be used by governmental agencies requiring trail access to install and/or service public utilities. I hope these suggestions will be of some help as your agency works to develop a usage policy for the state's long-distance trails. 185 I think easement for farm vehicles should be allowed on State Park Trails as needed on a year round bases. Private forest lands should be included in an easement as well since I forgot to mention them in my initial letter. Good question. 186 I would think that there would need to be posted times of agricultural equipment activity so that horseback riders could avoid the trail during those periods. The drivers of the ag equipment should be cognizant of the need to stop the equipment while riders are attempting to pass understanding that even posting their presence will not get the attention of all horseback riders. I don't live near the John Wayne Trail, so this will not likely be an issue for me. I would recommend that you approach horseback riders who use the John Wayne Trail to get their input. Perhaps horse in those areas have sufficient exposure to ag equipment that they would not overreact, but I wouldn't count on it. 187 I have spent quite a bit of time on the John Wayne Trail in Kittitas County. It is an invaluable resource that belongs to all citizens. I see no reason to allow special privileges to the farmers of Kittitas County. The farmers have been able to do their work for the past century without access to the railroad and now the trail. The farmers have access to the public road network with existing traffic laws and safety procedures. Our parks need to remain parks for recreation, not convenient trails for local farmers. I am not convinced that there is an overriding need to compromise the State Parks for commercial traffic. Indeed, I can see mischief if a group of ORV riders are found riding the trail that claim to be changing water on the XYZ alfalfa farm, what is the poor ranger to do? The state park belongs to all citizens of the state. 188 I would like to express my strong opposition to motorized use of the John Wayne Trail except by emergency vehicles. This State Park land ultimately should be developed for optimal use across the state by improving its surface with a combination of asphalt and gravel. Mixing motorized use with pedestrian, bicycles, and equestrian use will be very unsafe to everyone. The State of Washington should recognize the potential asset a non-motorized trail offers to the State for promoting tourism. Examples abound both in Washington and many other states of rails to trails that have improved local economies. As to allowing adjacent land owners (farmers/ranchers) to use the trail with motorized vehicles; they should not be given any preferential treatment. They did not have such access historically when the rail road owned the right of way and therefore do not need it now to access their land. If motorized use of this wonderful park land is allowed you might just as well call it “The John Wayne Road”. 189 I am the president of the Kittitas Valley Trail Riders Club and I am writing to you in regards to the news that motorized vehicles will be allowed on the John Wayne Trail! The trail has already shown wear and tear from use by local farmers. If motorized vehicles are allowed, who will pay for the upkeep not to mention the hazards created for people, dogs, and horses?! Our club has 80+ members and we are opposed to allowing motorized vehicles for obvious financial and safety reasons! 190 As an equine owner and trail rider, I would like to express my concern regarding access to motorized vehicles on this wonderful land. Please note that safety is a major concern when horses and vehicles share the same roads of travel. It is my understanding that 4- wheelers and such may soon be allowed to utilize this passage. I ask that you consider an alternate area for motorized vehicles to recreate and continue to keep the John Wayne Trail safe for those who currently are allowed use of it. 191 have spent quite a bit of time on the John Wayne Trail in Kittitas County. It is an invaluable resource that belongs to all citizens. I see no reason to allow special privileges to the farmers of Kittitas County. The farmers have been able to do their work for the past century without access to the railroad and now the trail. The farmers have access to the public road network with existing traffic laws and safety procedures. Our parks need to remain parks for recreation, not convenient trails for local farmers. I am not convinced that there is an overriding need to compromise the State Parks for commercial traffic. Indeed, I can see mischief if a group of ORV riders are found riding the trail that claim to be changing water on the XYZ alfalfa farm, what is the poor ranger to do? The state park belongs to all citizens of the state. 192 Thanks for the opportunity to make comments. My personal experience is largely with the John Wayne Trail, so that is my main context. In the abstract, my preference would be to keep the Trail non-motorized. That is consistent with the original stated purpose of the Trail: recreation. However, I do understand the plight apparently faced by some farmers whose land is partitioned by the Trail. I think that access in such a circumstance could be allowed, but it should be exclusively for crossing the Trail (or almost exclusively so), and should require a permit issued and paid for in advance.

Motorized equipment will necessarily lead to increased costs for maintenance and/or repair, and it would be totally improper for those costs to be borne by taxpaying citizens as a whole. If there were to be any linear motorized traffic, it should be for short distances only, and the speed limit should be, say, 15 mph.

Respectfully

193 Regarding motorized transportation on the John Wayne Trail, there seems to be no problem with allowing farm machinery on the trail to access farm land. This machinery moves slowly, can be heard by walkers or cyclers from quite a distance and will not be a frequent occurrence. The chief problem is all terrain vehicles in their many forms: snowmobiles, dune buggies etc. I would like to ban them outright from the trail in order to preserve it from noise and hectic (sometimes drunken) traffic. Walkers, cyclers, horsepersons should be able to enjoy the trail in peace. Should it prove impossible to introduce an outright ban, then I recommend allowing motorized traffic on the trail only on its very isolated patches. All-terrain vehicles should not be allowed on the trail in or within three miles of urban and village areas. I live in Ellensburg, use the trail at various places and would ban ATVs, if they were to be permitted, from Roslyn to the Columbia River. Some provision should also be made to assure that ATVs do not use the tunnel at Stampede Pass. Thank you for giving the public a chance to comment on this issue.

194 I think the proposal to allow more motorized vehicles on the JWPT is a bad idea. As the manager of a bike shop in a town that the JWPT runs through, I see all that the trail has to offer. I use it for my commute almost daily. I also see how underfunded and in disrepair that it is. I think that the trail has so much potential for non-motorized use. Unfortunately the state refuses to see the tourist potential that the trail has. I can't tell you how many customers of mine tell me that they are going to Idaho to ride the

Trail of the Coeur d'Alenes.

This is potential tourist revenue that you are just giving to Idaho. So, that's cool, if you want to give Idaho all the tax revenue, go right ahead, I just think its money that could better be used here in Washington.

As for the motorized use. Once you give land owners parallel access to the trail you are going to get nothing but problems. There will always be conflict when you allow unregulated motorized vehicles to share a path with all the joggers, runners, walkers, cyclists, crosscountry skiiers, skate-skiiers and wildlife watchers that enjoy the trail. I know your not going to pave and stripe the trail, so there will be no rules in place to regulate the traffic on the trail.

As I mentioned before the trail is also in huge disrepair. Many of the bridges are missing from the Yakima Training Center, the bridge at Beverly is closed, the trail is overgrown at Thorp, the tunnels are in disrepair, and I've heard reports from my customers that there is a set of stairs on the pass that are closed as well. In addition the train trestle just outside of Kittitas is closed and if you are anywhere east of the Columbia River you're lucky to find a consistent trail at all.

I hope you take a look at the strong tourist potential that the trail has to offer. To allow motorized use would only exacerbate the problem. Instead look at the future of the trail. Fix it and make it consistent, and I promise the trail will attract people from all over to use it. 195 As a frequent user of the John Wayne trail and an Ellensburg resident I oppose giving landowners motorized access to the trail for the following reasons: 1. Safety. A varied group currently uses the trail and motorized access would present an unnecessary hazard, particularly on the heavily used section between Water street & Reecer Creek. 2. Land owners have historically not had access and have been able to maintain their property without this access for decades. They can maintain their property from the side which they own as they have always done. 3. Once some are allowed motorized access, what is to stop others from also gaining this access? I shudder to think of this beautiful, peaceful walking trail to be ruined by ATV and motorcycle riders. 4. Allowing motorized access degrades the purpose of the trail and prohibits potential improvement of the trail and increased use. If the trail surface were improved & a shuttle service took people and bikes from Ellensburg to Cle elum, it would be a tourist draw and strengthen community revenue as the fly fishing industry has. Think of Lake Coeur D'Alene with the Hiawatha bike trail & shuttle service. 196 I have a short comment to make regarding the JW trail use by producers.

We are not adjacent yet we have a visual on the section of trail approx 4 miles west of Ellensburg. I am not a producer however I do live near them and speak with them on occasion. I do not see a reason that the producer cannot use the trail for access to irrigation/field/ fence work etc. This statement does not support the use of it as a farm road however it seems the hard line approach to ag restriction is yet another impediment to production and way of life that these producers are attempting to hanging onto. The farmer now has to live with water issues, development issues, transportation issues (equip movement on clogged rural roads) animal right issues, tax issues, zoning issues, restrictive new laws and any number of other problems. The part of the trail we observe is very lightly used. We live approx 150 yards south of the old railroad bed and take notice when we see someone using it. This is not a pristine wilderness that would be affected by human activity. it is just a right of way that the public now has the right to use.

I am in support of allowing the farmer/rancher to do his work with as little interference as possible. If the state of Washington truly supports agriculture as they claim then loosening and streamlining the rules for access would be a good first step. Thank you for the opportunity to voice my opinion.

197 I would like to express my strong opposition to motorized use of the John Wayne Trail except by emergency vehicles. This State Park land ultimately should be developed for optimal use across the state by improving its surface with a combination of asphalt and gravel. Mixing motorized use with pedestrian, bicycles, and equestrian use will be very unsafe to everyone. The State of Washington should recognize the potential asset a non-motorized trail offers to the State for promoting tourism. Examples abound both in Washington and many other states of rails to trails that have improved local economies. As to allowing adjacent land owners (farmers/ranchers) to use the trail with motorized vehicles; they should not be given any preferential treatment. They did not have such access historically when the rail road owned the right of way and therefore do not need it now to access their land. If motorized use of this wonderful park land is allowed you might just as well call it “The John Wayne Road”.

198 Thanks for the opportunity to have my say in the controversy concerning the use of the John Wayne Trail by motorized vehicles. I live on "the trail" off Dry Creek Rd, just west of Reecer Ck. Road. I am of the STRONG opinion that the trail should be preserved as it was originally established, i.e. for walkers, hikers, horse riders and bicycle users. In addition, farm machinery should NOT be allowed to run on the trail to access their fields. If the railroad were still in operation the farmers would not be allowed to run the tracks. Yet, I can agree that the farmer should be allowed CROSSING the trail in a perpendicular travel to access a field much like he could have when the railroad tracks where still in place.

199 With great interest, I read about the possible change of rules for the use of the John Wayne Trail. I think it is about time that those rules are reviewed. I live less then a mile from the Trail, I pass over it several times a day, every day and for the most part no one is using it.

On occasions you will see a bicyclers on it or a couple of horse riders, but for the most part it just sits there waiting to be used. I have ridden the Trail from the top of the pass to Vantage over the years, what a great ride it is.

My wife and I are now well into our 70's, she can't ride her bike anymore and I don't want to ride with out her. What we would like to do is drive our jeep on the trail, it would sure be nice if we could load up a picnic lunch and go for a fun ride on the trail.

I would be willing to buy a special permit for such permission and we would agree to only riding on a couple of days a week, like Tuesday and Thursday, keeping wheeled rigs of the trail on weekends for other users.

We would agree to drive at a low speed limit, like 15 MPH or whatever you set it at. We want to enjoy the scenery and the wildlife along the trail, no race on it. It would be a lot of fun for a lot of folks.

I know you folks are in need of money, you have something that a lot of us would like to use and be willing to pay to use it. It makes good sense to us make the most out what you got. Open the trail to wheeled vehicles and allow more people to enjoy their land.

It's time to think about all of us and not just a few, the more ways you make our trails usable for more people, the more support your going to get, not to mention the increase in your cash flow.

Thank you for your consideration of our comments on this matter.

Respectfully Submitted 200 As a voting citizen of Kittitas County I appose the proposition allowing farmers/ag to use the John Wayne Trail/Iron Horse State Park as access to various properties.

I am an equine person who rides the trail at least once a week. It is a safe place to ride in part because no motorized vehicles are allowed to use it w/ the exception of maintenance and emergencies and irrigation district's access. There is little to no room to get off to the side of the trail if a vehicle/tractor/motorcycle is traveling on the trail too. There is a main irrigation ditch on one side and rosebushes and shrubs on the other or there are steep embankments w/ a river below it. There are people that travel w/ their horse and wagons on the trail too, where will they move to get out of the way?? What happens when a farmhand comes down the trail to access a property to move irrigation pipes and comes across horses, is he going to shut down the motorcycle to let the horses pass, I doubt it.

What our Commissioners are proposing is not safe for those people that the park/trail was created. Our Commissioners are listening to the hay farmers, but not the general population.

I encourage that those of power really take a look at what the costs are involved w/ this proposal not just from the monetary standpoint but also from the overall safety of those involved.

Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.

201 I am the president of the Kittitas Valley Trail Riders Club and I am writing to you in regards to the news that motorized vehicles will be allowed on the John Wayne Trail! The trail has already shown wear and tear from use by local farmers. If motorized vehicles are allowed, who will pay for the upkeep not to mention the hazards created for people, dogs, and horses?! Our club has 80+ members and we are opposed to allowing motorized vehicles for obvious financial and safety reasons!

202 I am a resident of Ellensburg, and my wife and 5 year old enjoy walking and bicycling on The John Wayne trail. We love the peaceful serenity and the easy access to such wonderful views, something which would otherwise be a challenge for our young hiker. I strongly urge you to further restrict the use of motorized vehicles on the trail. There are long, isolated stretches of the trail which would become "extreme sport" drag-strips. The idea that motorized vehicle users will self-police is disingenuous at best. The noise and fast movement will decrease the quality of life for wildlife near the trail. The motorsport community has been given too much access to this county already, I urge you to increase restrictions on this trail. 203 As an equine owner and trail rider, I would like to express my concern regarding access to motorized vehicles on this wonderful land. Please note that safety is a major concern when horses and vehicles share the same roads of travel. It is my understanding that 4- wheelers and such may soon be allowed to utilize this passage. I ask that you consider an alternate area for motorized vehicles to recreate and continue to keep the John Wayne Trail safe for those who currently are allowed use of it.

204 I live in Ellensburg and regularly walk and bike the John Wayne Trail. I enjoy the peaceful solitude of non-motorized modes of travel on the trail. I understand the need for occasional motorized access to the trail at select locations for management, access for projects along the trail by other agencies or entities, but I am opposed to routine motorized access to the trail. One such use was recently proposed by the Kittitas County Commissioners for routine farm and agricultural use. I did not find the logic or justification for this access convincing. What did these agriculturalists do when the trail was an active railroad? Having routine access for agricultural use would fundamentally change the experience of the trail for the worse. Furthermore, access onto the trail would pose maintenance and repair issues – for much of its distance the trail is built upon fair amounts of fill to establish the stable grade required for a railroad. Bringing farm equipment up the steep sides of this fill, over the trail, and back down this fill on a regular basis would cause damage to the infrastructure of the trail over time.

Regarding managing motorized access on a very limited basis for management, speeds should be kept low for safety to trail users, and to reduce maintenance costs. In our portion of the trail there are frequent gated entrances that break the trail into manageable sections that alleviate the need to travel very fast in order to access any point on the trail. If allowed at all, Winter use in the upper Kittitas County, should be balanced between motorized and non-motorized, with non-motorized taking preference. Snowmobilers have a vast array of Forest Service and other road networks to choose from, and the flat terrain of the trail is well suited for x-country skiing, pulling children with sleds and slower forms of winter recreation.

Regarding cost for motorized use – the fee should be free or minimal for cooperating agencies, or one-time, short term access. If regular access is required, the fee should be commensurately increased to reflect the impact to the trail, the users or the Parks Staff in managing the use. A tiered approach in other words, increasing with increasing use and frequency of use.

205 As a daily walker/mountain biker of the John Wayne Trail, I wish to express my opposition to expanding motorized use of the trail more than its use today. I use the JWT walking into Ellensburg from the east side of town, using a 1.5 mile section of the trail almost daily. I also walk the JWT going east starting near No. 6 Road in Kittitas county. I also mountain bike sections of the trail between the old RR tressel over I-90 east of the town of Kittitas to Cle Elum. The reasons I would not like to see an expansion of motorized usage are the following:

1. The significant speed difference between a walker/hiker and a motorized user creates an uncomfortable and sometimes stressful experience for the walker. I've experienced the motorized use when a state park vehicle, a tractor, or a car have used the trail at various times (car usage during the Ellensburg Rodeo, for example). The hiker cannot enjoy the natural experience and quiet of a hike when they must keep looking behind them or ahead for the approaching vehicle, for example. Passing is not possible without the walker getting off the trail to allow the necessary clearance of the vehicle. With heavier motorized usage, the JWT will become an unenjoyable experience for me. This would be unfortunate since it is my commenter route into town for me and an enjoyable one at the present.

2. I feel sure that motorized usage through the tunnels would create a hazard for non-motorized users. The two tunnels between Thorp and Cle Elum, for example, have a bit of curvature in them which does not allow good visibility. I use a head lamp when traveling through the tunnels but it has a limited throw of light. It would be downright dangerous for me if I were biking through the tunnel when a motorized vehicle entered on either end.

3. Winter usage. There are few areas as easily accessible to Ellensburg cross-country skiers than the JWT. The pleasure of setting track and then using this track over a period of days makes for a wonderful experience and a good workout. How sad it would be to have snowmobile or ORV tracks obliterate my ski tracks and leave the trail a rutted or icy mess. There are quite a number of ski tracks that show up on this section of the JWT near Ellensburg. Having motorized usage would certainly take away from the aesthetics of a quiet C-X ski after work or in the early morning after a first snow.

Please carefully consider that non-motorized areas of recreation are becoming fewer and harder to access or find. The JWT was originally opened and established as one of those few places for hikers/walkers/skiers/bird watchers/meditators to get away from the noise and pollution of the streets and provide a peaceful linear space. Please preserve it as it is. The farmers/ranchers who need access already have it or can ask for it in order to access their fields. Let's continue to limit it to that.

John Wayne Pioneer Wagons and Riders Association

Motorized Trail Use

Our goal is to work with the local communities on the use of the Trail. The Trail is a National Treasure and anything we can do to enhance it use would be great. The Agricultural Operations along the Trail are a large part of the recreational experience and are interesting and educational. We would like to be involved in putting together informational panels explaining the areas along the Trail, agricultural, historical, and physical. In areas where permits are granted for motorized use the panels could explain the reason for the use and rules of the road for permit holders and recreational users.

Motorized use of the Trail surface should be restricted to maintenance and emergency aid, of course, and adjacent land owners who can show a valid reason that crossing the Trail or going down the Trail for short distances will be beneficial to their agricultural operation. In most cases this should be seasonal in nature rather than a regular use. Regular use would usually indicate that a different plan should be instituted by the adjacent land owner.

Right now much of the requested use will be in the Thorp to Kittitas area. It appears that there is quite a bit of use in the area just east of Revere and this is possible by easement. Some of the local roads were substandard and land owners using the trail worked to their advantage. This is not causing a problem at this time, because of the small amount of adjacent land owner use and light use of the Trail. Use of the Trail will of course change as more folks learn about it.

A speed of ten miles an hour would be seem to be reasonable and vehicles and equipment should give way to recreational use. An exception would be when a wide piece of equipment is traveling down the Trail; there may be no way for recreation users to get by even if it is stopped. This might be an exception and the recreation user should turn around and retreat to an appropriate place to allow the farm equipment to pass.

Limits on seasons, days, and times are probably not appropriate in the farming industry. Frequency would be a big factor.

Hopefully these regulations will be revisited in 5 years for evaluation.

Once again we are very interested in working with the Agricultural Industry and Washington State Parks in developing the John Wayne Trail within the Iron Horse State Park into one of the Nations great outdoor experiences.

Tom Short, JWPW&R, Trail Development Chair,

Outdoor Alliance Washington

Access Fund  American Alpine Club  American Whitewater  El Sendero Backcountry Ski Club Evergreen Mountain Bike Alliance  The Mountaineers  Washington Climbers Coalition Washington Trails Association

26 September, 2014

RE: Policy development for motorized use of State Parks long-distance trails

The Access Fund, American Alpine Club, American Whitewater, Evergreen Mountain Bike Alliance, The Mountaineers, Washington Climbers Coalition and Washington Trails Association - all human-powered recreation organizations in Washington State - come together as a coalition on issues relating to recreation, access and conservation. As the group Outdoor Alliance Washington, we represent more than 34,000 members who recreate on public lands.

Many of our community members use and value State Parks’ long-distance trails for activities including hiking, cycling, skiing and access to climbing areas. These are quiet, low-impact, human-powered activities and any consideration that would allow motorized use alongside our recreation is always of great concern to us. Accordingly we offer the follow items to consider in the development of a policy that will apply to all long-distance trails statewide:

 No recreational or concessionaire motorized use should be permitted. Current law is quiet on this but we are opposed to any use other than agricultural and then only with reservations and restrictions.  Non-motorized recreation use of long-distance trails should be given priority use of the trails.  Motorized use (crossings and linear) should be permitted only in circumstances where there are absolutely no viable alternatives, such as an adjacent/alternate road or the permitted user cannot construct an access road to their property.  The policy should specifically identify safety and quality of the non-motorized recreational experience as the overriding objective for long-distance trails and that motorized use can only occur at locations and times which are very unlikely to interfere with this objective.  The speed limit for those permitted users should not exceed 10 miles per hour and the driver should be responsible for driving slower if required for safe operation.  The types of vehicles that may be authorized should not be large enough to prevent safe passing by bicyclists or equestrians while remaining on the trail tread. Vehicles that may cause significant damage to the tread surface, potentially leading unsafe conditions for a bicycle, should not be permitted. This includes tracked vehicles or vehicles whose weight is likely to cause significant tire indentations resulting in a hazardous condition.  Motorized users, as part of the permitting process, should be held fully responsible for all costs associated with repair of any damage done to the trail as a result of the use as well as all liability for accidents that may occur directly or indirectly as a result of the use.  A permit fee should be charged which is sufficient to cover the costs to State Parks of both the evaluation process and ongoing inspection to ensure compliance with all terms.  A consistent permitting process should be used for evaluating applications for motorized agricultural use. This process should include a public comment period on each application which will aid Parks in assessing the likely impact of the usage on recreationists and other stakeholders.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide input as you develop a State Parks policy which will guide any possible motorized use of your long-distance trails.

Best regards,

Joe Sambataro, Northwest Regional Director, Access Fund Eddie Espinosa, Northwest Region Manager, American Alpine Club Thomas O’Keefe, Pacific Northwest Stewardship Director, American Whitewater Gus Bekker, President, El Sendero Backcountry Ski Club Glenn Glover, Executive Director, Evergreen Mountain Bike Alliance Martinique Grigg, Executive Director, The Mountaineers Matt Perkins, Washington Climbers Coalition Andrea Imler, Advocacy Director, Washington Trails Association

September 15, 2014

Nikki Fields Trail Coordinator Washington State Parks & Recreation Commission PO Box 42650 Olympia, WA 98504-2650

Dear Washington State Parks & Recreation Commission,

Washington Farm Bureau consists of more than 41,000 member families and is the state’s largest general farm organization, representing the economic, social, and public policy interests of family farmers in Washington.

We believe that landowners whose property is adjacent to a trail should be allowed to use the trail in a responsible fashion for their purposes. Trails often bisect land that was originally one parcel, and there is precedent for allowing landowners access to their property across and alongside such trails. Landowners often worked with railroad companies to permit access to their lands alongside or on the other side of the rail bed. For instance, the railroad that eventually formed the basis of the current Willapa Hills Trail allowed farmers to cross their tracks with livestock and farm equipment so local farmers could use all of their property. Now that some of these rail beds form the basis of trails through the “rails-to-trails” program, we ask you for the same type of accommodations.

Access for adjacent landowners is different from general recreational access. Landowners should not be required to purchase permits for use of the trail for access to their property. Granting free and permanent access to a person’s land alongside or across a trail acknowledges the value of keeping nearby property, and especially farmland, viable. It also helps maintain a healthy – rather than confrontational – relationship between the state government and local neighbors.

Below are our responses to the questions you asked:

 When and where is motorized use of the trail surface reasonable and appropriate? Where trails bisect farmland, the farmer should have access to all of their farmland. Their motorized farm vehicles and equipment should be permitted to cross or make linear use of the trail. Regarding recreational motorized vehicle use, those vehicles may pose a problem for livestock in the area and for other recreational trail users such as horseback riders. We encourage you to adopt policies that reflect the needs of adjacent land and landowners. Generally speaking, we have concerns about permitting recreational motorized vehicle use on trails, but we recognize that each trail is unique and policy should be tailored to the circumstances for each trail and the surrounding land. Allowing for the permitted use of recreational motorized vehicles on trails near farms may prove problematic for farmers, especially if trail access creates a trespass problem for adjacent private landowners.

 When motorized use is allowed, what limitations should be enforced? Deference should be given to adjacent landowners who cross the trail to access their own property. We believe these landowners will act responsibly. We have concerns about allowing recreational motorized vehicle use on trails passing through farm property.  What is a safe maximum speed for motorized vehicles? This speed depends on the local conditions and circumstances.  How should drivers behave when encountering recreational trail users? Drivers can and should respect the rights of others, just as recreational trail users should respect the rights of adjacent landowners.  Should there be limits on seasons, days, times, or frequency of use? These limits depend on local circumstances. Generally, since adjacent landowners are present at all times of the year, we believe they should have access to their property, and thus the trail, during all times of the year.

 What kind of monitoring is needed to ensure state property and facilities are protected? Monitoring should be the same as any other type of trail or state property. Since state budgets are tight, forging and fostering good relationships with adjacent landowners may encourage them to help preserve and protect trails where the state cannot. State Parks should view local landowners as partners, not trespassers or adversaries.

 What fees are appropriate? A farmer does not receive any compensation from the state for the use of his or her land for the trail, and the trail may be an inconvenience that the farmer must work around. Therefore, we believe adjacent landowners should not be charged fees if they use the trail to access their property for farming purposes.  How much should a permit cost? Adjacent landowners should not have to pay for permits. Not charging fees for permits will help foster a good relationship with people who care for the land around state trails.  How should trail damage be addressed? Generally speaking, damage should be repaired by whoever causes the damage.

We hope you find this response to your questions helpful, and we look forward to working with you through any policy changes you may consider.

Warm regards,

Scott Dilley Associate Director of Government Relations Washington Farm Bureau 975 Carpenter Rd NE, Suite 301 Lacey, WA 98516 Office: (360) 357-9975 Cell: (360) 581-8153 [email protected]

Last Chance to Comment on Motorized Use of State Parks Long-Distance Trails — Wash... Page 1 of 2

Last Chance to Comment on Motorized Use of State Parks Long- Distance Trails Posted by Andrea Imler at Sep 26, 2014 12:35 PM Filed under: Action for Trails State Parks needs to hear from hikers, trail runners and bicyclists regarding the future of motorized use on our long-distance trails, like the John Wayne Trail to the Klickitat Trail to the Centennial Trail.

Washington State Parks has begun a process to define motorized use on their long-distance trails, such as the popular John Wayne trail that travels from the town of North Bend east 250 miles to the Idaho border. The agency has received multiple requests from adjacent land owners for motorized use of long-distance trails for “crossings and linear use of the trail for agricultural and other intermittent uses.” To respond to those requests, State Parks is seeking public input as they determine a policy and procedures to determine when approval for motorized use on traditionally non-motorized trails should be granted. Other long-distance trails that would be affected include: the Centennial Trail near Spokane; Willapa Hill Trails from Chehalis to Raymond; Columbia Hills Plateau Trail from East Pasco to Spokane; and the Klickitat Trail in the Columbia Gorge. State Parks needs to hear from hikers, trail runners and bicyclists regarding the future of A hiker stolls (and rolls) along the motorized use on our long-distance trails. Submit your comments today! Klickitat Trail near the Columbia Gorge. Photo by Ryan Ojerio. The agency is looking for feedback on the following questions. When and where is motorized use of the trail surface reasonable and appropriate? WTA's response: Long-distance trails are heavily used by hikers, cyclists, skiers, equestrians and rock climbers accessing climbing areas. Non-motorized uses should continue to be the primary focus of long distance trails. Recreational and concessionaire motorized use should not be permitted for long- distance trail use. WTA's response: Motorized use of long-distance trails should be restricted to some agricultural use for adjacent land owners to reach their properties. Motorized use ( via crossings and/or linear travel) should be permitted only in circumstances where there are absolutely no viable alternatives, such as an adjacent/alternate road or the permitted user cannot construct an access road to their property. When motorized use is allowed, what limitations should be enforced? WTA's response: The size and type of vehicles that may be authorized should not prevent safe passing of/by hikers, skiers, bicyclists or equestrians. What kind of monitoring is needed to ensure state property and facilities are protected? WTA's response: A consistent permitting process should be used for evaluating applications for motorized agricultural use. This process should include a public comment period on each permit application. What fees are appropriate? (How much should a permit cost? How should trail damage be addressed?) WTA's response: A permit fee should be charged that is sufficient to cover the costs to State Parks for both the evaluation process and ongoing inspection to ensure compliance with permit requirements. In addition, as part of the permitting process, permittees should be held fully responsible for all costs associated with repair to any damage that is done to the trail. Comment today, time is running out! Submit your comments via a form on Washington State Parks’ website by Friday, Sept. 26, 2014.

My Backpack Save hikes, plan trips, write Trip Reports.

https://www.wta.org/signpost/24-hours-left-comment-on-motorized-use-of-state-parks-lo... 10/23/2014 Last Chance to Comment on Motorized Use of State Parks Long-Distance Trails — Wash... Page 2 of 2

A portion of the John Wayne Trail east of the Boylston Tunnel. Photo by Andrea Nesbitt

https://www.wta.org/signpost/24-hours-left-comment-on-motorized-use-of-state-parks-lo... 10/23/2014