Please consider registering
guest

sp_LogInOut Log In sp_Registration Register

Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search

— Forum Scope —




— Match —





— Forum Options —





Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

sp_TopicIcon
Final decision on road decommissioning
Doug Firman
Member
Members

Trail Maintenance
03/25/2011 - 9:58 pm
Member Since: 09/20/2009
Forum Posts: 241
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

The FS has issued its Decision Notice on road decommissioning for the Collawash River and parts of the Clackamas River areas.  It could be worse, I suppose.  Instead of the proposed 255 miles of roads to be closed, the decision calls for decommissioning 170 miles with some postponed for 5-10 years. 

The Decision Notice is here: http://a123.g.akamai.net/7/123.....034975.pdf

Rob Williams
Admin
03/26/2011 - 5:46 am
Member Since: 09/20/2009
Forum Posts: 1383
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Doug:

How on earth did you find that?  What kind of magic incarnation did you have to do?  :)   The old links to the proposal are now dead, and I've not been able to find anything on the new FS website.  I'd really like to see the updated map.

Doug Firman
Member
Members

Trail Maintenance
03/26/2011 - 7:44 am
Member Since: 09/20/2009
Forum Posts: 241
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Rob,

I was informed of this decision by an email from the FS because I had written a letter commenting on the proposal, and their email contained the link that I posted here.  But you can get to it on their website. 

On their homepage, click on "Land and Resources Management" on the left side.

Then "Projects"

"View a listing of all projects"

Scroll down to  "Road Decommissioning...Clackamas...Increment 2"

There you'll see a listing of all the related documents including maps of Alternative 4, the selected alternative.

Rob Williams
Admin
03/27/2011 - 6:53 am
Member Since: 09/20/2009
Forum Posts: 1383
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Well that is certainly intuitive!!!  In browsing the maps rather quickly this morning, it doesn't appear as though access to any trailheads has been impacted?  I remember reading that they were going to convert the road leading to the Dickey Creek trailhead to a trail?  The beginning of that trail was an old road already, so I guess they are just continuing the tradition.

[Later..] I just read in the comments that 7010-160- One of the access points to Baty Butte was being decomissioned, but it looks to me like the map shows it as being preserved up to the point where the access trail connects (the northernmost point).  Do you know which is correct?

Were there any other impacts to trails that you were aware of? 

Thanks for posting the links to the documents.

Doug Firman
Member
Members

Trail Maintenance
03/27/2011 - 1:08 pm
Member Since: 09/20/2009
Forum Posts: 241
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Rob Williams said:

Well that is certainly intuitive!!!  In browsing the maps rather quickly this morning, it doesn't appear as though access to any trailheads has been impacted?  I remember reading that they were going to convert the road leading to the Dickey Creek trailhead to a trail?  The beginning of that trail was an old road already, so I guess they are just continuing the tradition.

Here's what the Environmental Assessment says about the Dickey Creek trail:  "The 6340-140 road provides access to the trailhead for Dickey Creek Trail #553. The last part of the road is now within Bull of the Woods Wilderness, so that section of road must be closed to vehicles. Alternative 2 would convert this road to trail."  (EA p. 113)

[Later..] I just read in the comments that 7010-160- One of the access points to Baty Butte was being decomissioned, but it looks to me like the map shows it as being preserved up to the point where the access trail connects (the northernmost point).  Do you know which is correct?

"It (the selected alternative) would not decommission the 7010-160 spur. " (EA p. 115)  

However, just to confuse things, the table at the end of the Decision Notice says this:

 

7010160

 


 


Decommission
& No action
 


Road will be needed for plantation thinning within 10 years.
 
 

 

Were there any other impacts to trails that you were aware of? 

"Decommissioning Road 4650 in this section would also extend the access to the Burnt Granite Trail #595 Trailhead for those coming from Road 46 by over nine miles as they would now need to travel Road 46 to Road 4670 to Road 4650 from the south."    (EA p. 114)

Donald Presley
Member
Members

Trail Maintenance
03/27/2011 - 6:04 pm
Member Since: 09/20/2009
Forum Posts: 842
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I believe the 7010 160 road was on a deferred list to be decommissioned after thinning was done to  some timber stands in the area within 10 years. So it is no action right now, but will be decommissioned when they are done thinning in the area. At least that was my impression. So I don't think we are out of the woods on that access road yet.

The bottom of the 4650 road will be gone, as you said Doug, making for a longer commute to get to the Burnt Granite trailhead. Unless if someone was able to locate the rest of the trail down to Big Bottom where there will still be road access.

I have tried to get to that area and look for the old trail, but have been hindered by deep snow all winter. I was up there today, not to look for trail, but to crosscountry ski the 4651 road that borders the backside of Big Bottom. It has a nice grade to it, which is perfect for XC Skiing. With the weather warming up this next week, it may have been my last chance to do it this winter.

Rob Williams
Admin
03/27/2011 - 7:45 pm
Member Since: 09/20/2009
Forum Posts: 1383
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I skimmed through the Environmental Assessment (113 pages!), looking for anything related to trails.  No wonder it is hard to understand what the plan is.  There is conflicting info in multiple documents, locked away in the "secret" place on the forest service website.  Geez....My take is that there is no real effect to trailhead access, other than the Burnt Granite issue - at least you can still get to the trailhead without too much of a detour.  I'm not opposed to closing some of the roads - I just don't want to lose access to any of the trails we have.  Even though they are not heavily used, they are still GREAT trails - especailly Baty Butte.  That one we really need to fight for.  That is one of the coolest trails I've been on.  The ridge walk between the Clackamas and Molalla drainages is spectacular!  As as I recall, most of that 160 spur is in REALLY good shape.

One interesting note I saw in the docs - It said there was a crew of 4 people that were responsible for trail maintenance in the district.  I thought that all or almost all of the maintenance was done by volunteers?  What do these 4 people do?  Maintain the heavily used trails close to town?

Donald Presley
Member
Members

Trail Maintenance
03/29/2011 - 10:44 pm
Member Since: 09/20/2009
Forum Posts: 842
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Rob:

There is no trail crew in our district other than the volunteers. Last year we had fed money for several programs that worked some teens and other personnel on several of our trails, but the majority of the work was still done by volunteers. I don't know when the original document was written that included "a trail crew of 4" , but they may have been volunteers back then. I don't think that there has been a paid trail crew in our district for at least 10 -20 years. I am sure Donavon could attest to that.

This year we have one  person from Americorp to help with recreation, but he is staying up at Zigzag until May I believe. They spend a lot of time in campgrounds  giving talks and give us some help we they can out on the trails. I hope he is a hiker, for we need  a lot  of recon about the trails out there. If anyone could let us know of any down timber or mud or rock slides on our trails, it would be greatly appreciated in our effort to keep our trails open to the public.

Don

Rob Williams
Admin
03/30/2011 - 8:06 am
Member Since: 09/20/2009
Forum Posts: 1383
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Donald Presley said:

Rob:

There is no trail crew in our district other than the volunteers. Last year we had fed money for several programs that worked some teens and other personnel on several of our trails, but the majority of the work was still done by volunteers. I don't know when the original document was written that included "a trail crew of 4" , but they may have been volunteers back then. I don't think that there has been a paid trail crew in our district for at least 10 -20 years. I am sure Donavon could attest to that.

This year we have one  person from Americorp to help with recreation, but he is staying up at Zigzag until May I believe. They spend a lot of time in campgrounds  giving talks and give us some help we they can out on the trails. I hope he is a hiker, for we need  a lot  of recon about the trails out there. If anyone could let us know of any down timber or mud or rock slides on our trails, it would be greatly appreciated in our effort to keep our trails open to the public.

Don


That is very interesting.....On page 110-111 in the Environmental assessment, the following statement(s) are made:

The Forest has a trail maintenance staff of less than four full time employees.  Most trail maintenance on the Forest is done with volunteers like the Pacific Crest Trail Association, the Oregon Equestrian Trails, the Backcountry Horsemen, and the Oregon Nordic Club, and with partners like AmeriCorps, Project YESS, and Northwest Youth Corps.  This reliance on volunteers for trail maintenance has been steadily increasing for 10-15 years.  The purpose and  need for this project, in addition to improving aquatic habitat, is to reduce the miles of roads this
Forest must maintain.  Assuming the current trails maintenance budget, the Forest would have  difficulty expanding trail mileage without reducing trail maintenance on some trails, or securing a corresponding long-term commitment for additional maintenance responsibilities from a partner.  Most of our volunteer and partner groups are already at capacity for trail maintenance work.  Wilderness trails require more than twice the time and cost to maintain because of the need to use non-motorized equipment (cross-cut saws rather than chainsaws for clearing down logs, loppers rather than brush saws for brushing).  Additionally, while Forest Service direction (FSM 2353.25) does not prohibit new trail construction, the Forest Service’s capital investment project (CIP) emphasizes trail reconstruction, rather than construction.  CIP funding is the Forest’s primary source for receiving larger sums of money for maintaining and reconstructing trails.

The document seems to be dealing with only the Clackamas district, but maybe that comment is referring to the entire Mt Hood forest (all districts).  With stuff like this, it is no wonder it is hard to understand what is going on.  Conflicting statements and inaccurate information....

If you are interested in looking at the EA, here is the link.

Donald Presley
Member
Members

Trail Maintenance
03/30/2011 - 10:34 pm
Member Since: 09/20/2009
Forum Posts: 842
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Rob,

When they say "the Forest", they are talking about the whole Mt Hood Nat'l Forest not just our district. I believe the Zigzag  district is the only one with a paid trail crew still, but they don't come down into our district to clear trails. Or at least I have never heard of any such work being done out of district. I take that back, Bob and I  cleared two of Zigzag trails, The Linney Creek Trail and parts of the Plaza Lake Trail last year on outings in those areas. All of those agencies listed as volunteers only amount to a few trails in our district, mainly the PCT, the Bagby Trail, and maybe still the Rho Ridge Trail. We appreciate any help we can get in maintaining the trails in our district.

Don

Rob Williams
Admin
04/01/2011 - 6:12 pm
Member Since: 09/20/2009
Forum Posts: 1383
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

That is what I thought - it was referring to the whole forest, not just the Clackamas district.  The EA is very misleading, since it was directly referring to the Clackamas district for the road decomissioning.  With all the conflicting info, it is no wonder people don't know what is going on in the forest!  Thanks for the clarifications.

Forum Timezone: America/Vancouver

Most Users Ever Online: 114

Currently Online:
8 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)

Top Posters:

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 0

Members: 282

Moderators: 0

Admins: 3

Forum Stats:

Groups: 2

Forums: 8

Topics: 439

Posts: 5084

Newest Members:

Tricky Dickie

Administrators: Admin: 14, Donovan: 714, Rob Williams: 1383