The Mount Hood National Forest has started a process to analyze its road system with a eye on cutting way back on the number of roads currently open. The Forest Service states on its writeup that they are currently funded for maintaining 16% of their roads. So they are looking for public participation to see what roads people think important enough to keep. This does not include roads improved in the course of fighting fires. It is very important that anyone who uses forest  service roads to speak up about what is important to them. This is especially important if you happen to use abandoned, forgotten or unofficial trails rather than popular and overused trails. "The U.S. Forest Service Travel Management Rule requires all national forests to prepare a plan on how they could make their road systems less costly and more ecologically stable, while providing an appropriate level of access to national forest lands, by the end of 2015." There will be a series of meetings hosted by the Forest Service, with the one in Estacade November 5th. Oregonian article: http://www.oregonlive.com/travel/index.ssf/2014/10/mount_hood_national_forest_beg.html Forest Service page: http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/mthood/workingtogether/?cid=stelprd3818668

More work, less talk might help. D.

I bet the FS won't take in consideration the miles of roads that they have recently and are currently decommissioning. They haven't finished decommissioning the roads that are already in the process to be decommissioned and we are talking about doing more. It is getting to the point where you can't hardly pull off the road anymore. I assume they are going to keep all of the primary roads (46, 57, etc.) open, it's the secondary and tertiary roads that I am worried about. Once the tree stands are thinned almost all of the tertiary roads and a lot of the secondary roads  are being decommissioned or blocked. Have you guys noticed that in these thinned areas like the 4620 road up to the Fish Creek Mtn. trailhead?

Here is a link to a PDF document where you can easily make a comment: http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprd3818948.pdf Fill out the document and it has an "email" button to email it to the FS.  I sent my comments in already.

Anybody planning on going to the meeting about the road study at the Clackamas River Ranger District in Estacada at 5:30 pm on Nov 5th? I plan on going and maybe eating a hamburger and drinking a pint at Fearless afterwards to digest the info. Don

I was thinking about going, but just found out I have a different meeting I have to go to on Wednesday. Will be interested to hear what you find out.

Donald Presley said Anybody planning on going to the meeting about the road study at the Clackamas River Ranger District in Estacada at 5:30 pm on Nov 5th? I plan on going and maybe eating a hamburger and drinking a pint at Fearless afterwards to digest the info. Don

I should be there though possibly late as I will have to leave another meeting to make it on time. A pint and a little food will be fine since I won't have time to eat with two meetings starting at 3.

Bryon, it would be nice to finally see the one of faces behind the names of those who post a lot on this website and who also has a desire to keep open access to the trails of the Clackamas River Ranger District. Should be an interesting meeting! Don

I'm hoping you post a full report of the meeting after you get home.  I wish I could go - but I did send in my comments already.

I will be asking questions - Is this a result of budget cuts at the congressional level? What is the approach the FS to bringing road repair funds with the amount of roads to be maintained / repaired? How much of the road system has been upgrading to enable forest fire fighting while the fires are burning? I have observed brushing out, grading and graveling as needed for fire fighting, which is what the road system needs. What level of importance is  attached to trail access and other recreational uses? I will most likely be representing the Clackamas River Basin Council, meeting at 3 to gain board approval.

So, tell us - what happened at the meeting?

I had never been to a leaderless meeting before yesterday. No chairs either. No one directed the meeting. There were just groupings of people at several tables with maps on them, about a dozen FS personel and 20-30 other people besides me. They didn't have a handout, but I heard that "the map" will be posted on the FS website sometime in the future. The map shows roads marked in red are the ones decommissioned recently or are scheduled to be so. The roads marked in blue are the roads that they are planning to decommission after public input. Basically it's like I had mentioned earlier, the primary (46, 57, etc.)and secondary roads (4610, 4070, etc.) will stay, but almost all tertiary roads (the 3 digit spur roads with dashed lines) will be gone unless someone speaks up for them. I didn't bring my camera or I would have a photo of the map.  It looks to me that will be the end of dispersed camping. If you can't pull off a secondary road to camp, you're out of luck. I for one have always pulled off the main roads unto the spur roads to get some privacy and to get away from everybody else. The main reason I go up into the forest is to get away from almost all of you lovely people, a few of you I can tolerate. It looks more like people control than reduced road maintenance costs. They will spend millions on ripping up these roads and removing culverts, of course only after they have thinned the stands of timber ( resource extraction=$$$, dispersed camping and hiking=0$ going into the coffers). Just my take on input meeting. Don

One piece of info I found out recently.  One thing prompting all the road decomissioning - the money to REMOVE roads comes from a different bucket than the money to MAINTAIN roads.  Apparently there is "special" money (as an incentive?) to remove roads. There are few spur roads (7010-160 is an important exception - Baty Butte) that lead to trailheads, but sometimes those spur roads provide interesting access to an otherwise inaccessible (or easily accessible) area. I'm assuming the map looked something like this map: http://www.bark-out.org/sites/default/files/Collawash%20watershed%20road%20map.pdf Thanks for the report.

The Forest Service meeting was not a presentation but rather an attempt to engage in conservation. Quite a few FS personnel were there, from the District Forester to work crew leaders and rehabilitation managers. Everyone mingled standing up in one large room. The public attendance was large. There was environmentalists, local loggers, equestrian trail users, a variety of recreational forest users and more I did not have the opportunity to talk to. I did talk to 8 or so FS persons, each of whom has a different understanding of the situation. There was an environmental group present named BARK one of whose goals is to eliminate every road possible in the MHNF. I think the BARK map posted by Rob Williams is a bit more aggressive than what the FS is suggesting. Surprisingly the BARK map keeps open one road which has been closed for decades. The Forest Service at this point is not talking specifics. That will come later (soon?). Right now they are looking for input to guide their future decisions. The time frame is to be done with this process at the end of 2015. "By Identifying the sustainable road system, the Forest will be well positioned to move towards a more durable and lasting road network that meets basic public safety standards and provides appropriate access for agency and public use.  This exercise will also enable forest managers to strategically allocate funds to improve roads that are needed and to decommission those that are a risk to forest health and safety." - MHNF website Road maintenance financing The FS folks I talked to readily agreed that much of the road maintenance done is paid for either by logging or fire fighting. Very little if any of the current funding shortfall for road maintenance is due to cost cutters in Washington, though we don't know how the new balance of power there will play out.  It seems to me allowing a national asset like the national forests to deteriorate is foolish but then too many in congress don't seem to think being foolish is an issue. Originally both road construction and maintenance was financed by logging and rarely other resource extraction. With logging levels now low, funds are too low to keep up the roads from the traditional source. They are assuming that congress will never approve direct funding of road maintenance. This may be a given and it would take a big push by the public to change that. All the national forests are making plans like this about transportation. Only two in our area have finished. The word from them is that no national forest will ever, under current conditions, be able to finance all needed road maintenance, nor will they be able to decommission enough roads to fill the funding gap. I made sure they heard that people want to get to their trails including little used and abandoned trails. They will need to hear from more folks who want to have access to use the National Forest and who want specific roads to remain open. There is a comments page and you all need to use it. The more the merrier when it comes to influencing government decisions. http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/mthood/workingtogether/?cid=stelprd3818668 Don't be angry - be informative! The 36 Pit Fire continues to cause problems. A sizable slide occurred Wednesday and was worked most of the day. It was big 'nuff to hit the papers yesterday. Some areas of the burn were extreme, consuming the soil itself. Some trees may not visibly die until next spring, though most likely have yellowed already. The first couple miles up 45 are badly burned. The logging at the top of Hillockburn noted in the fire thread are likely on Pope & Talbot private timber land. Or maybe BLM land. The FS is developing a recovery plan for the burn area with replanting where possible beginning by next spring. Some areas no longer have much soil and they are still studying feasibility on such areas. The terrain supplies many obstacles. I did arrange a FS talk for the Clackamas River Basin Council on restoration for the fire area by the head of the restoration project. Date should be 2-3 months and I will post when know in case anyone wants to follow this issue. They began talking about cutting down fire-killed trees near the road it seems like two months ago. That has not been done, but they are getting ever closer to sending a contractor out. Evidentially they will be cutting all danger trees within 100 feet of the road. I asked what about the ones taller than 100 ft. and did not get a real answer. Once this is done the FS will be talking with ODOT about opening 224. If rock keeps burying the road it may be a while before they actually open it.  We do not have a trustable time frame.

Thank you for the reports. Ironically, this may eventually lead to a trail Renaissance. I can imagine several old trails that could become quite useful for access.   D.

It would have been nice if they would have introduced the FS personal, for I didn't recognize anyone, probably most from the Sandy office. I'm sorry Bryon, but I'm not buying the BS! I heard during the meeting that there were more funds to decommission roads than there where for road maintainence which shows me where this agenda is going. It seems to me it would cost less if the FS didn't do anything but take the roads off maintenance. I have cleared more FS roads of downed trees and brush then the FS has on purpose. The FS doesn't do  any road maintenance unless they have to anyway. Don

Interesting fuzzy meeting. Must be a consultant giving workshops on that. I would rather see some real leadership. A strong Chief capable of getting all the wagons into a circle when needed. Someone with a vision, direction, and guts. One thought I have had is that the preservation of roads and access needs to be promoted in the interest of clean water and air. These massive and uncontrollable (wait for rain) fires will be even more difficult without roads. Not that a paved state highway helped much recently, but no roads would have made it worse.  D 2

Here is something about the evolving thinking at the Forest Service: Expect spur roads that were only for logging to be blocked off or obliterated. Expect roads to popular trailheads, campgrounds and other facilities to remain open. Expect the level of road maintenance, perhaps for most or even all roads to drop. This is being considered as an alternative to closing even more roads. Expect many roads to be blocked but not destroyed. They are aware of the need to maintain access for fire-fighting - and future tree cutting. Forest Service thinking is taking into account previously closed roads (about 900 miles closed with Fish Creek a major contributor to that), and they will be using that as justification for closing fewer roads in the future. Expect that the road to your favorite low-use trail to close especially if its not on the Forest Service list. Make sure they know you value that access and don't wait until they propose to close it. Comment now - there is a link to do it on the Mount Hood National Forest website. Expect continuing slippage or rockfall along a road to bump it up on the list of roads to close, especially if that leads to organic debris or silt and clay getting into streams. Ditto for any condition that increases road maintenance costs. The USGS is studying pollutants that increase the difficulty/cost of treating drinking water - forest service lands are a big contributor of organic material that created toxic byproducts when chemically treated in water plants along the Clackamas. The Clackamas is the drinking water source for what will soon grow to half a million people. The USGS states that 91% of the organics (which lead to damaging byproducts during water treatment) in the Clackamas are in the river by the time it reaches Estacada above all the water intakes. The USGS is not shy about telling the Forest Service about all this. There needs to be a commitment by the Federal Government to maintain our national patrimony the National Forests. Believe it or not there has never been a federal appropriation for road maintenance in the National Forests. All funding has been from resource extraction (mostly logging) and fire fighting. This needs to change if we want to keep a useable and sizable road system in our national forests. There needs to be direct funding of road maintenance in the Department of Agriculture budget. And this can be done but only by a lot of organizations working with this as a common goal. If this does not happen look for the deterioration of national forests be used as an argument to destroy them. Don't hold your breath on 224 opening. Several cars of the limited number allowed up there have been hit by falling rock.

After sending in my first comment, I re-looked at roads leading to obscure trails or other things, and came up with this list of roads to existing and/or abandoned trails (that aren't main roads):

Road            Trail(s)
4220            Horseshoe Saddle
4540            South Fork Mtn
4550            Music Creek Falls
4610            Huxley Lake, Corral Springs, Plaza Creek
4610-240    Grouse Point, Serene Lake, Signal Buttes
4611            Grouse Point, Huxley Lake
4613            Fanton, Old Baldy
4614            Bissell, White Iris
4620            Skookum Lake, Thunder Mountain, Fish Creek Mountain, East Mountain
4635-120    Cottonwood Meadows
4635-140    Cache Meadow, Cripple Creek, Rimrock
4635-146    Rimrock
4670            Rho Ridge
4671            Rho Creek
4672            Rho Creek
4691-120    Fish Lake
58-140        Pyramid Lake
58-160        Anvil Lake
58-210        Buck Lake
5830-190    Shellrock Lake, Hideaway Lake
6310            Rho Ridge, Hawk Mountain
6320            Skookum Lake, Thunder Mountain
6322            Skookum Lake, Thunder Mountain
6340            Bull of the Woods
6341            Pyramid Lake
6350            Rho Ridge, Hawk Mountain
6370            Round Lake
6380            Elk Lake Creek, Janus Butte
7010-160    Baty Butte
7020            Whetstone Mountain
Some of those are not spur roads, but could be in danger of decommissioning due to their light use.

Anyone have any other lightly used roads that I might have missed?

Bryon Boyce said Here is something about the evolving thinking at the Forest Service: ... Expect roads to popular trailheads, campgrounds and other facilities to remain open.

This comment is what made me take another look at what comments I had made.  The problem with the Clackamas area is that there are only a few "popular" trails, so if that is a primary consideration, the majority of the trailheads in the district are in danger of being closed.  That is very concerning to me.  We have 64 trails on the trail index currently, and I would only consider 14 of them "popular" - that leaves 50 trails potentially being lost.  Not to mention all of the abandoned trails that could potentially be lost.

Bryon Boyce said Don't hold your breath on 224 opening. Several cars of the limited number allowed up there have been hit by falling rock.

 I can't say I'm surprised by this one.  It saddens me, but I continue to hold out hope that by next spring, they will have figured out how to re-open 224.  I've given up on it re-opening this year at all.