Forest Roads: The Future (MBSNF meetings)

This was posted on the Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest's news page a couple of days ago. I have a bad, bad, BAD feeling about this:

Forest Roads: The Future

Basically, thanks to the 2005 Travel Management Rule, all NFs must identify a road network that is "sustainable" and within their maintenance budget by 2015. the MBSNF claims to only have the ability to maintain 25% of their current road infrastructure so you do the math.

Grim times are definitely ahead. This is your opportunity to voice your concerns.

Thanks for the heads-up. The following meeting schedule was included in the MBSNF post:

MEETING SCHEDULE
RSVP to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., capacity is limited and attendance is on a first-come basis.

June 29, 10 a.m.-12:30 noon
Seattle, REI downtown

July 9, 10 a.m.-12:30 noon
Sedro-Woolley, Mt. Baker District office

July 23, 5:30-8 p.m.
Issaquah Main Fire Station office

Aug. 6, 11 a.m.-1:30 p.m.
Enumclaw Public Library

Aug. 21, 4:30-7 p.m.
Darrington Public Library

Sept. 10, 5:30-8 p.m.
Bellingham Public Library

Sept. 24, 1-3:30 p.m.
Monroe Public Library

Oct. 9, 5:30-8 p.m.
Everett Public Library downtown

This was pretty much all news to me so I spent some time last night trying to get acquainted with the rule that's referenced in the FS release. I found this link helpful but keep in mind that it is an advocacy group with emphasis of eliminating "unneeded" roads.

Perhaps this is included in the information above, but I can’t find it. Do we know what the process is for “unroading” do they simply stop maintaining roads or do they gate them? Tear them up? Plant trees on them?

they appropriate money to decommission them - yes, they tear them up..

not to fan the flames, but the system that was used to keep access on public lands was called logging ~ you know, the resource management that's done somewhere else now (because most of you wanted it that way)..     recreation $'s don't get anywhere near that amount (although it does allow for a tripling of staffers at district front offices..).  if we could only get more skiers up Adams at those in-season rates.

kind of makes you wonder how MORA will handle Rainier climbs when they move to a four month park opening

yeah, i'm in a foul mood, but really, you didn't see this coming?? 

edit to clarify:  my comments not aimed at prior, or any, poster.

Thanks for the info, scole.

No need to start posting potshots at each other over this, eh? Have a discussion of land use policy and what's led to the current state over beers, but the fact of the matter is that this is happening and if a big chunk of roads are going to be closed, best to have some input into the selection process.

yeah, i'm in a foul mood, but really, you didn't see this coming?? 

Yes, I've been thinking this might happen.

I would happily pay more for a NW Forest Pass if I knew the money was going to road maintenance.

I'm not an expert on this, but my understanding is that during the days of Big Logging government money was used for road construction. I presume that the logging fees paid for some of this. I don't know if they paid for all of it.

I suspect that the government subsidized logging road construction because it was good for the local economy.

It seems to me that forest recreation is good for the economy too. I'm willing to pay for my Forest Pass, but I also think that the government should continue to maintain forest roads. REI, Outdoor Research, The Mountaineers, local guide services, and communities like Darrington, Granite Falls, North Bend and others should all be in favor of this. Our congresspeople should be hearing from us about this.

Are we paying attention?

Does anyone have any idea about the ratio of total roads in the forest vs roads that are commonly used? If I open up my gazetteer I see tons and tons of roads crisscrossing all over the place in old clear cuts.

Or put another way: how many miles of roads in the forest are necessary to reach a trail head (or a trail head for a formerly maintained trail/climbers route without a trail)?

Or put another way:  how many miles of roads in the forest are necessary to reach a trail head (or a trail head for a formerly maintained trail/climbers route without a trail)?

There are other recreational opportunities on public lands for roads other then just going to a trailhead

Yes, I've been thinking this might happen.

I would happily pay more for a NW Forest Pass if I knew the money was going to road maintenance.

I'm not an expert on this, but my understanding is that during the days of Big Logging government money was used for road construction. I presume that the logging fees paid for some of this. I don't know if they paid for all of it.

I suspect that the government subsidized logging road construction because it was good for the local economy.

It seems to me that forest recreation is good for the economy too. I'm willing to pay for my Forest Pass, but I also think that the government should continue to maintain forest roads. REI, Outdoor Research, The Mountaineers, local guide services, and communities like Darrington, Granite Falls, North Bend and others should all be in favor of this. Our congresspeople should be hearing from us about this.

Are we paying attention?

Sale of stumpage (standing trees) for logging in PNW was very lucrative.  25% of FS sales went to the counties; 50% of BLM sales did also.  There was not only enough to pay for road construction, but wildlife conservation and outdoor recreation was subsidized and there was a return to the treasury above and beyond the cost of operating the FS.  The FS has never gotten enough money in its recreation accounts to fully maintain campgrounds and trails never mind roads.

Now the logging heyday picture was far from rosy.  LOTS of roads were built and built in a way that proved poor.  For example,  the old Shelton, new Hood Canal Ranger District (Shelton Sustained Yield (Steal) Unit created by Congress to benefit the Simpson Timber Company town of Shelton) had the highest road density in the U.S. and ended up with 7,000 landslides contributing sediment to rivers.  The forest road building experience of the FS, BLM, and state forestry agencies revealed many flaws in construction technique but also the absolute need for ongoing maintenance, especially of roadside ditches and culverts, to prevent blow outs and landslides.  Thus, if there is not a need for a road that will pay for its upkeep, the road is to be decommissioned (permanently removed, the slope returned to a stable angle, and revegetation implemented). Congr. Dicks was very successful in getting special appropriations to the FS (esp. Olympic NF) for watershed rehabilitation (most of which was road decommissioning). Road buidling and maintenance of industrial and state forest lands was addressed in the Timber, Fish, Wildlife Agreement; many of you may have encountered the new heavy rock standards for wet areas.

Most environmental/conservation groups vehemently opposed new road construction (even new trail construction) even where it was necessary to relocate environmentally problematic roads or trails.  Most of these groups also lobbied for road decommissioning.  Road removal is expensive in the short term, road construction in the short term, and road maintenance in the long term.

Compounding all this is the need to close roads (tank traps, gates, etc) to prevent timber theft, vandalism, trash dumping, meth labs, etc. and to satisfy state Wildlife Department demands for areas in which game animals such as elk are not disturbed.  Another problem arises with disturbance of threatened species including spotted owls, but especially marbled murrelets; the FS is required by law to do this and do it in collaboration with the Dept. of Interiors (USF&WS).

So, like everything else nowadays--it is a mess; no one wants to pay enough taxes for benefits made available to all and many don't want access to the hinterlands at all.

Article on the effort and meeting schedule in the paper today MBSNF Roads .

Of note:

(1) This is an extensive process: 8 public meetings before analysis and decision making. 

(2) FS will be trying to make it a "science-driven" approach as developed by FS PNWRS [research branch] and Portland State U. 

(3) Public engagement is being managed by a Sustainable Roads Cadre composed of environmental, timber, and off-road vehicle interests.  IMHE, these are the groups most consistently and assertively engaged with the Forest Service in their planning and managing efforts--not because they are called upon by the FS but because they insist on being engaged under NEPA, NFMA, and ESA.  I have rarely seen climbers, hikers, backpackers, bc skiers, etc. actively engaged altho I suspect the Mountaineers are involved in some efforts.

In any case, this approach is far removed and far superior to that of the National Park Service, especially MRNP.

If you are concerned about your access to your favorite bc in the MBSNF you have an opportunity to speak up for it.

For anyone who's planning on advocating for continued recreational use of FS roads I think you're going to have to do some triage. Since the $ are limited you'll want to figure which roads to fight hard for maintenance and maybe look towards getting grants or something to help pay. Then have a list of roads that could be decommissioned in a way that still allows continued travel by say 4x4, some by ATV, some by bike/foot.

When I moved from Oregon up to BC I was dismayed to find that most logging roads up here are decommissioned soon after the logging is done. Really burned me to see the land getting raped then rec users being kept out by huge tank trap cross ditches, removed bridges etc... After a bit of reflection I realized that in my small hometown (Powell River) the ONLY access was going to come with logging and the key would be trying to get rec friendly decommissioning. With a bit of talking and reading I found that the huge tank traps were supposed to be smaller, that the decommissioning plans called for some roads to be continued 4x4 use. It seems that for some reason (maliciously?) the crews built things so only a seriously modified 4x4 or ATV could pass even though it was supposed to be just enough to stop erosion and allow stock 4x4 use.

Part of the problem here is the liability question, who's going to pay for continued maintenance of a road thats going to see not commercial use? The BC gov. is working on a system where any group can take over responsibility for a road as long as they have a viable plan for maintaining it. supposedly allowances will be made for volunteer groups who won't have a visible means (capital) beyond volunteer labor for working on the road. I'm not really up to speed on this I've just read snippets here and there and as long as my cynical nature stays in check I'm a bit optimistic that we aren't going to be locked out of the forests.

So perhaps the thing to do is to try and influence the planning, help rather than hinder, and hopefully come up with some sort of continued recreational access plan. Be realistic, there needs to be a funding source if you want to keep a road open. Be open to consider less desirable alternatives if that is the only option for continued access.

Whenever we get the local BC skiers organized I'm hoping to work alongside the Forestry Co. for things like road maintenance, plowing (dreaming), and who knows maybe they'll like my idea of Linear, fall line, cut blocks?

Perhaps we should collaborate on this thread and come up with a list of desired Forest Roads to preserve for the skiing/climbing community.

--cascade river road
--Re-open the road up to sulphur creek near glacier peak
--Re-open road up the Dosewallips in the Olympics
--2870 in the olympics up to the Buckhorn wilderness trailheads

Just a start. But I'm sure there are other roads that lead me to places I want to go in the future that may be closed. So all of you veterans to the area--speak up on your favorite roads!

great idea, Dan.  I don't get up that way, so I won't be involved; I'm limited in my ability to travel, that is why I harp on Mt. Rainier NP.  I hope others with local knowledge will collaborate with you; it is the only way to get things done.  Good Luck! 

Oh, FWIW, don't conflate Olympic NF road policy with Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie NF road policies (or with Olympic NP or NC NP policies) until they join the two Forest SOs (there was a plan for that, but I think that was derailed maybe).

Here is a quick inventory of roads in Mt Baker-Snoqualmie N.F. of potential interest to skiers.

I compiled this by looking at TOPO! and a DeLorme road atlas.

I don't know the status of all these roads. (Some may already be abandoned.)

If I've missed any important ones, let me know.

The goal of this post is to list some candidates. I haven't tried to prioritize them. I'm not sure they're all critical to maintain.

Mt Baker Highway Area:

• Church Mtn Road
• Swamp Creek Road, #3065 (Winchester Mtn)
• Ruth Creek Road, #32 (Hannegan Pass)
• Nooksack River Road, #34 (Nooksack Cirque)
• Skyline Divide Road, #37
• Glacier Creek Road, #39 (Coleman Glacier)

Highway 20 Area:

• Sulphur Creek Road, #13 (Easton Glacier)
• Shannon Creek Road, #1152 (Sulphide Glacier)
• Boulder Creek Road, #1131 (Boulder Glacier)
• Anderson Creek Road, #1107 (Mt Watson)
• Sauk Mtn Road
• Bacon Creek Road, #1060
• Illabot Creek Road, #16 (Snowking Mtn, west)
• Found Ridge Road, #1570, (Snowking Mtn, east)

Darrington Area:

• Tupso Pass Road, #41 (Three Fingers)
• Suiattle River Road, #26 (Dome Peak)
• Green Mtn Road
• Conn Creek Road, #2437 (Whitechuck Mtn)
• Whitechuck River Road, #23 (Glacier Peak)
• North Fork Sauk River Road, #20, 49 (Glacier Peak)
• Bedal Creek Road, #4089 (Sloan Peak from NW)

Stevens and Snoqualmie Passes:

• Skykomish River Road, #63 (Blanca Lake)
• Beckler River Road, #65
• Evergreen Mtn Road, #6554
• Johnson Ridge Road, #6520
• Tonga Ridge Road, #6830
• Miller River Road, #6410 (Alpine Lakes)
• Middle Fork Snoqualmie Road, #5620 (Alpine Lakes)
• Kendall Ridge Road, #9090

Crystal Mtn Area:

• Naches Pass Road, #70
• Corral Pass Road, #7174
• Huckleberry Ridge Road, #73 (Grand Park)
• Sun Top Road, #7315

One of the things we should push for is preventing the Forest Service from actively blocking or decommissioning these roads.

Thanks, Lowell, that is a good start for what we need - a list of roads that are critical to important recreation destinations.

Thanks, Lowell, that is a good start for what we need - a list of roads that are critical to important recreation destinations.

Thanks for the feedback.

To be honest, I was surprised the list wasn't longer. But when I located the boundaries of the MBSNF and looked at the significant roads I know of, this is what I came up with.

Please add more if you know of any. This is just a starting point. Prioritization can come later.

Here are three roads in the Mt Baker area that I deliberately left off my list:

* Wells Creek Road (north of Mt Baker)
* Canyon Creek Road (north of Church Mtn)
* Middle Fork Nooksack River (SW of Mt Baker)

I left them off the list because I didn't think they were of much interest to skiers. But I could be wrong. I've never been on any of these roads.

One of the things we should push for is preventing the Forest Service from actively blocking or decommissioning these roads.

Yes, absolutely.  Thanks for getting a good list started.

The website that the original press release eluded to has been set up:

Sustainable Roads Blog Site

Instead of blindly coming up with a list of roads, everyone should review the maps that they have specifically produced because they have color coded which roads are being analyzed as part of this process:

Sustainable Roads Maps Page

From looking over the maps, what strikes me are the number of roads on the chopping block which are already not driveable (and haven't been probably since the logging stopped).

Instead of blindly coming up with a list of roads, everyone should review the maps that they have specifically produced because they have color coded which roads are being analyzed as part of this process:

Sustainable Roads Maps Page

From looking over the maps, what strikes me are the number of roads on the chopping block which are already not driveable (and haven't been probably since the logging stopped).

I looked at the PDF maps and added a few roads to my previous list (see above).

It's important to look at the legend at the upper right corner of the northern map and the lower right corner of the southern map. That's where the road legend can be found.

From the legend I conclude that virtually every Forest Service road in MBSNF is part of this analysis process. The number of "Basic Custodial Care (Closed)" roads is small, and I don't think any of them are of interest to skiers.

I think my previous post captures most of the roads of interest to backcountry skiers. (Probably more.) Feel free to disagree.

Attending the meeting today left me with a better understanding of what the FS getting at. For me it seemed that $$ is gone for road maintenance and repair
There was a tone of if "you like a road , take care of it" Because the FS can't
The current budget for 2013was presented as $250,000 for MBSNF

I would recamend if you care at all, Fill out the survey.

The FS is in a data collection phase. and sometimes the squeaky wheel gets the oil.
We won't always be broke. But once the alder takes over the road is not coming back.
Protocol for the future care of roads has not been established.

The original use of Roads for logging and mining seem to have been exhausted,

So what to do now?

Thanks CS

This topic is also being actively discussed over on NwHikers. Someone else who was at the meeting today has posted a summary with a description about what people were asked about. It's at the end of the page in the following link:

NWHikers Sustainable Roads Discussion

Assuming that people show up to meetings, that's an elegant way to communicate what parts of which roads are useful.

Can someone with online map skills create a google map overlay that TAYers can mark up, with ~10 most important routes in ranked order?

I can probably whip something together but I'm a little fuzzy as to what you want as an overlay. Lowell's list of roads? Or...?

I was at the REI meeting on Saturday.  The summary by "puzzlr" at the bottom of the page mentioned by Scole is very good.  Here is the link again:

NWHikers.net discussion on MBSNF Sustainable Roads process

There is an online questionnaire that you can (and should!) fill out, accessed through the following page:

mbssustainableroads.wordpress.com/questionnaire/

The link to the questionnaire is in the first paragraph on that page.  The questionnaire will guide you through the same process that we went through at the REI meeting. The in-person meeting was interesting because you could ask questions, interact with the other participants, and see what other people were thinking.

At the meeting, they allowed us to designate up to eight places that were important to us and explain why. (The online questionnaire gives you only five choices.) I picked locations from the list that I posted earlier in this thread. It was hard to pick just eight places. I was kind of amazed to be the only person at my table to pick the Coleman Glacier trailhead, Ruth Mountain, the N Fork Sauk River (Glacier Peak) and several other spots that I particularly like. But that's what the process is for.

Everybody should submit their ideas. The MBSNF staff will use this information to create a "human layer" to overlay the landscape, to better understand where people go and why and how they get there.

So I'm looking the MBSNF South map and I notice that the old Middle For Snoqulamie road is not actually in the Alpine Lakes Wilderness.  I was always under the impression that they closed that road to vehicle traffic because it was in the Alpine Lakes Wilderness and vehicular access didn't fit with that management plan.  But it's not.

So why did MBSNF close it?

Also, is WNF running a similar query?

So why did MBSNF close it?

I don't have an answer to that. I haven't paid much attention to the Middle Fork situation.

Also, is WNF running a similar query?

Yes.

According to Jennifer Eberlien, MBSNF supervisor, all the national forests have to address the sustainable roads issue. But they don't have to do it the same way.

Colville, Wenatchee/Okanogan, Gifford Pinchot and Olympic will all be addressing these questions, but I don't know how or when. I hope some of our Wenatchee friends will let us know when they hear more about it.

Thanks Lowell.

This all ties in to the access and BC skier advocacy issues so many of us are concerned about. I was dismayed when they closed the Middle Fork Road because it made tours, traverses, and summer trips around that drainage much more difficult. Also my inner hoon enjoyed the 4x4 aspect of that "road". I filled out the survey on MBSNF, hopefully something similar will develop for the other forests.

I like Lowell's list but I would include Canyon Creek Road and Middle Fork Nooksack (FSR 38) on the list.  There is some excellent terrain that can be accessed from both roads (but Canyon Creek is becoming a distant memory).  Check Red Fred for some of the climbs that start from CCR.  They are putting money into repairing it this summer so I have a hard time believing that it will no longer be maintained after that.

I would actually rather have CCR than Church Mountain because more terrain can be accessed from CCR than CM.