Manila Discussion archive for:
  • Re: Fish Creek - an interesting Forest Service document (#)
  • 1/28/08; 2:25:12 PM ¦ by Rob Williams
  • How on earth did you ever find this?  It is quite an interesting read, especially since I've made several treks up that old road.....Now I know why the crossing of third creek is so much harder than the other crossings.  You can still see the damage there.

    Thanks for posting it.

    Rob
    • Re: Fish Creek - an interesting Forest Service document (#)
    • 1/29/08; 6:40:21 AM ¦ by Rob Williams
    • There is still a "trail" up the old 54 roadbed, which follows the creek (more or less).  There was a posting here a couple years ago about it, and I've made the hike 3 or 4 times now.  It is usually a good winter hike.  Take Fish Creek Road up approximately a mile up to a point where the road forks.  To the left is the road, to the right is a short dead end that is the old 54 road which will take you up the creek.  About 3 miles up (after crossing 2 creeks), is a bridge across the creek.  In another mile or so, there is another bridge across the creek.  That is as far as I've gotten up in there.  Some year, I'd like to either take a mountain bike and get as far as I can up in there on a day ride, or make it a weekend backpacking trip to explore the area.

      Rob
      • Re: Fish Creek - an interesting Forest Service document (#)
      • 1/29/08; 11:00:03 AM ¦ by Pete Giordano
      • If you want another couple options you can also access the upper reaches of Fish Cr. by taking the trail over the ridge in the East Mt. and Skookum Lake area. This trail offers some great views of the entire area. Also, you can drive up Memaloose Rd. or Hillockburn Rd. (sorry, forget the road numbers) and go to the end of those roads which is on a very neat ridge near the headwaters of Wash Cr. There is a good trail (old road) that goes down Wash Cr. until it reaches the confluence with Fish Cr.

        Both of these options get snowed in early but are very pleasant in summer and fall.

        pete
      • Re: Fish Creek - an interesting Forest Service document (#)
      • 1/29/08; 10:17:13 PM ¦ by Zack Byerly

      • A few years back there was a thread on this site titled: 'favorite winter-hikes', where I posted a description of the nearly year-round opportunitiy to hike up the old 54 road.  Since that posting, I have spent virtually every weekend during the offseason exploring the Fish Creek Watershed.  Hiking the old road system and bushwacking on animal-paths has led to some of my most memorable experiences in the woods.  I've spooked massive five-point bucks, stumbled upon old squatters camps, and captured some of my favorite photographs.  I have often wondered what the future holds for this area, and apart from the proposed LNG pipeline, I would have to commend the policy makers for their hands-off (let nature take its course) approach when it comes to rehabiliting this watershed. 

        I have scoured the web for any documents on Fish Creek and always come up empty...thanks for the post Robert!

        Zack

        • Re: Fish Creek - an interesting Forest Service document (#)
        • 1/30/08; 9:09:29 AM ¦ by Rob Williams
        • Zack:

          If those pictures are posted anywhere public, I'd love to see them.  I've hiked up the old 54 road 3 or 4 times now, and it is a favorite winter hike for me.  It is a very pretty area.  I'm considering making that area a summertime backpacking trip, doing a big loop or something to be able to get back deep into the area and explore some more.

          Rob
                • Re: Fish Creek - an interesting Forest Service document (#)
                • 1/31/08; 10:37:28 PM ¦ by Tom Kloster
                • Pete, thanks for posting the links - always enjoy the Oregon Kayaking adventures! I think Jason wrote this, but is sure bears reposting:

                  _________________________________________________________

                  On Friday I walked back in and paddled down. The wood situation was awful all the way to the Wash Creek confluence, lots of portaging, then it improved somewhat and actually got pretty good for awhile but it was depressing because Fish creek is one of the runs the Forest Service chose to cable logs into, which makes the rapids very dangerous.

                  There are cables and logs all over the place on the lower part of this creek, most of which have been torn loose and cast about, just waiting to trap the unwary paddler.

                  I can't understand how anyone who even has the most basic understanding of hydrology could ever think that a cabled log would stay where it was placed, but I suppose that is what we get from huge government bureaucracies who are disconnected from reality: Failed policies that have deep and long-lasting negative consequences for everyone involved. In short, the Forest Service did not do anything for fish habitat in the long term, and at the same time they have prevented anyone from having a safe paddling experience on Fish Creek. This is really too bad, because there are some really good quality class III-IV rapids on the lower section, and the scenery is top-notch. __________________________________________________________________

                  Amen to that.

                  -Tom
                  • Re: Fish Creek - an interesting Forest Service document (#)
                  • 1/31/08; 11:38:49 PM ¦ by Joe Keller
                  • I remember reading about the log introduction that was going to rebuild Fish Creek as a prime spawning habitat. Has there been a follow-up study on the results of that effort? I searched around at the Pacific Northwest Research Station site, which was supposed to follow up on the project, but didn't find anything.

                    Joe
                    • Re: Fish Creek - an interesting Forest Service document (#)
                    • 2/1/08; 12:19:07 AM ¦ by Pete Giordano
                    • I'd be interested to know if there has been any follow-up as well. There are lots of stream restoration projects planned in the Clackamas Basin over the coming years. A couple of the stream reaches that are planned for more log introduction are:  Upper Clackamas-Two Rivers upstream to June Cr., Oak Grove Fork below Harriet Lake, Upper Collawash, NF Clackamas, Main Clackamas from Sandstone Bridge to NF Reservoir.

                      Log placement is getting better and more sustainable in some cases but not all. One of the new "strategies" is to just go in and pull trees down into the river (100-150 per mile) and let the river sort it out. To me, this is the worst kind of excuse for "management"; particularly when the rivers support healthy recreational activity.

                      Sorry for the rant, I'm about as sensitive on this subject as a lot of other people are about wilderness designation in the Clackamas area. I just wish there was more room for common sense.

                      Getting back to Fish Cr. though, I highly recommend getting up in that area. Eventhough there are lots of old clearcuts, it truly feels rugged and isolated. It will only get better as it ages. A word of caution though, some of the old road/trail isn't the best for hiking in spots due to uneven slope. Hopefully as more people use the trails they will get more comfortable to hike on.

                      pete

                        • Re: Fish Creek - an interesting Forest Service document (#)
                        • 2/2/08; 11:47:02 PM ¦ by Tom Kloster
                        • Pun intended, Donovan..? :-)

                          A nice middle-ground on this (at least in my view) are the boulder placements done below the weir/dam on Tanner Creek. This particular project also includes logs, unfortunately, but the series of boulders have evolved since their installation a few years ago, and now have quite "natural" resting pools below each "rapid". If you didn't know what you were looking at, you wouldn't know they were man-made. The spawning chinook like them very much... maybe kayakers would, too, if water levels were sufficient..?

                          The advantage at Tanner Creek is a service road that parallels the project portion of the creek, making it possible to install large rocks. But maybe a bit of innovation could allow for remote installation of similar boulder features on other streams.

                          Tom
          • Re: Fish Creek - an interesting Forest Service document (#)
          • 2/7/08; 9:35:35 PM ¦ by Zack Byerly

          • Rob:

             I have added a few Fish Creek Photos to My PortHikers Gallery.  You can see them here:  http://portlandhikers.org/photos/zackoftheclack/default.aspx?ppage=1

            I have also spent alot of time pouring over maps trying to plot out a backpacking trip that would cover some of the vast territory that I have yet to explore.  The best I have come up with would be to leave a car down at the 54 road blockade, then drive up to the Thunder Mt./Skookum Lake Trail, bushwhack down to the headwaters of Fish Crk. and then follow the road that parallels the creek all the way back to the first vehicle.  Maybe spend the first day hiking to the confluence of Fish and Wash Creek, the second exploring the Wash Creek drainage, then the third hiking out.

            • Re: Fish Creek - an interesting Forest Service document (#)
            • 2/7/08; 9:51:43 PM ¦ by Rob Williams
            • WOW!  Cool pictures....Is that surprise lake the one in the fish creek drainage?  There are at least 2 or 3 surprise lakes in the clackamas area....

              I've been plotting an exploratory trip in the fish creek drainage for this summer.  Going up road 45 to 4550 to 4540 to the end and hike back up that way, up the old road (which still looks like it is there, based on google earth), and make a side trip up to surprise lake.  My estimates are about 15-20 miles, plus exploring a few side trails.  It looks like a very interesting trip.

              If you've got any additional info, I'd love to see/hear it.

              Rob



              • Re: Fish Creek - an interesting Forest Service document (#)
              • 2/8/08; 11:15:36 AM ¦ by Pete Giordano
              • Rob,

                Do you mean going up 54 and then 5440? I don't see a 5450 on the map.

                In my experience up there, all the roads are still there as hiking accessible. The main ones that go along Fish and Wash Cr. are pretty good hiking. I'd figure most of the side roads are pretty good too. There are occasionally some washout areas or sidehills but nothing too bad. Alders haven't encroach too bad in most places.

                If you are hiking up along Fish Cr. there is a very pretty waterfall/gorge about a mile or so upstream of the confluence. If you listen carefully you'll hear the roar. It takes some scrambling to find it. I've never seen any documentation about the waterfall so it seems pretty neat to me. Probably 25-30' tall.

                pete
                • Re: Fish Creek - an interesting Forest Service document (#)
                • 2/9/08; 8:36:24 AM ¦ by Rob Williams
                • The route I'm thinking is going up past Memaloose lake on road 45, then 4550 to 4540 (past several buttes-miners butte, divide butte, wash creek butte).  All the way to where ever the end of that road takes me and starting from there.

                  The google earth images were pretty good.  Much better than some of the other areas I've tried to investigate.

                  Here is a link to a rough route I'd like to investigate, but after your description of the waterfall, I think I'll add another leg to it.

                  http://www.robshikingdiary.com/gallery2/v/2008/FishCreek/FishCreekBasinBackpack2008.pdf.html

                  It looks like the second bridge (from the 54 road side) is just downstream of the confluence of fish and wash creeks, so that would be a good place to cross over to go find the waterfall.

                  Thanks for the info.  I only wish I could go up there sooner!  I love doing exploration like this.....

                  Rob