By Eric Tyson
March 19, 2007
In response to Mr. Vickrey's last letter. To you first statement "Although I suspect from the tone of your email you are not interested in understanding etc." As to the tone of my email, I hope you would not believe that any message with an outlook different than yours would preclude the sender from being interested in trying to understand your opinion. The reason I wrote the letter was to gather additional information from you that could possibly change my outlook on the subject.
As to your statement "I
do not issue cease and desist orders. The Army Corps of Engineers
I spoke with a member of the staff of the Corps. I inquired about their oversight of a silviculture road and they do have some authority. However the rules they are enforcing are not the rules that the Corps uses for a public access road. The state division of forestry uses what are called BMP or best management practices, and your right they do have oversight of a rock pit. That being said, as stated in my first letter I talked with Greg Staunton, the project engineer for the state division of forestry, about the logging road on Gravina. He says it meets state requirements for the type of road that it is. Since the Corps has taken no action I assume that they agree. Or who knows, perhaps an action may be forthcoming. However if it is it doesn't appear to be a high priority, thus somewhat lessening the picture of the disaster you portray of the road? You made no mention of Mr. Staunton (other than the reference to the correction I made) or of speaking to him in your reply. Perhaps if you spoke with him he could put you at ease about the areas of concern you may have, as he doesn t seem to see a problem there.
To the documentation you provided. The document you provided me with and the one I could not access were both forest service documents referring to a road they had planed to access a federal timber sale. It did refer to some limited public access but according to the forest service district ranger it may as well not exist as no action will ever be taken on them. As it was cancelled in the fall of 2004 I find it hard to believe you were not aware that the aspect of public access in this instance was not applicable. As for the borough assembly meetings you reference, I have attended most of the meetings referring to the Gravina Development Plan. Perhaps this was what you were referring to? I believe the plan shows a desire for public access to Bostwick. However as stated in my previous letter "I don't see why the logging industry or the forest service should foot the bill for a public access road, and here is why. Every time they build a logging road you and your organizationand others like it, start crying about how much it costs. If you force the forest service or the logging industry to build a higher standard road than necessary to meet state standards, the first thing you will say is "look how much the road costs, logging just isn't profitable, we have to do something". They should only have to build the road to the standards required, not something you dreamed up. By the way the project engineer told me that the stumpage sold should cover the cost of the road." The borough manager knew that this road was not public access and according to the Ketchikan Daily news told you so. It was he and the airport manager I was referring to in my previous letter. To wit "I know that a few people at the borough have told me they would like to see a public access road to Bostwick but I never heard one word about the logging road being it. Although the airport manager never told me he was pro public access, he did point out to me that it was not. I sat in on a meeting that the borough had with Miss Leightey concer ning a permit the borough is applying for. At the meeting I referred to the Bostwick logging road as a public access road and the airport manager was quick to point out to me that it was not in fact public access. I could go on but let me sum it up. I believe it is you Mr. Vickery who are trying to backtrack and get more stringent rules applied to the road to get it shut down, and not the state and borough who are "backtracking on their statements." Why would you want the road shut down? Although you claim to be pro logging under the right circumstances, I don't think those circumstances will ever occur. As with all conservation groups it will always the wrong place, wrong time, or wrong road. I am probably being a little blunt but a man has to lay his cards on the table sometime. I look forward to your reply. This letter was originally a lot longer. I decided to split it in two and submit the rest later as so much at once can get boring. Also I need more facts before sending in the other half.
Thank you for your time.
About: "Lifelong resident"
and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Sitnews.