Residents can join planning effort for Snoqualmie Corridor recreation

February 7, 2012

By Staff

NEW — 8 a.m. Feb. 7, 2012

State planners greeted about 120 people at a recent session to plan recreation on natural areas stretched from Tiger Mountain to Mount Si.

The state Department of Natural Resources hosted a meeting at Snoqualmie Middle School on Feb. 1 to launch the public planning process for 53,000 acres in natural areas along the so-called Snoqualmie Corridor in East King County.

In addition to the open house, citizens can apply to serve on the 12-member recreating planning committee for the Snoqualmie Corridor. The deadline to apply for a post on the committee is Feb. 15.

Residents can also send questions about the area to or go to the project website for details.

Department of Natural Resources officials plan to post a survey online in the spring to collect additional feedback.

The corridor — a quick jaunt from Seattle, Issaquah and fast-growing Eastside cities — is a popular destination for hikers, mountain bikers and more. Combined, the lands in the corridor form the largest network of natural areas in Washington.

In the past 20 years, the Department of Natural Resources added the amount of land managed in the area. The more recent acquisitions include the Raging River State Forest and the Middle Fork Snoqualmie Natural Resources Conservation Area. The land under state management includes working forests.

Bookmark and Share
Other Stories of Interest: , , ,


One Response to “Residents can join planning effort for Snoqualmie Corridor recreation”

  1. Jim Lanning on February 7th, 2012 12:12 pm

    In recent years the citizens of King County have spent millions buying the development rights in eastern King County forests with the intent of perserving it for recreation and now we are seeing these areas turned into a private for profit hunting, fishing and hiking perserve by the Hancock Timber Management. Why is the DNR not protecting the public’s right to access the public owned lakes and rivers in this area? If this is now indeed a private preserve why are they not taxed at the same rate as other land owners are? If the DNR is giving up on what they have already aquired why should we aquire more?

Got something to say?

Before you comment, please note:

  • These comments are moderated.
  • Comments should be relevant to the topic at hand and contribute to its discussion.
  • Personal attacks and/or excessive profanity will not be tolerated and such comments will not be approved.
  • This is not your personal chat room or forum, so please stay on topic.