Road decommissioning in the North Cascades

[lilredgypsy]

I'm a grad student at Huxley and I'm doing a research project regarding road decommissioning, focusing on the conflict between conservationists and land managers who want to close the roads and recreationalists who want to keep them open. I'm posting here because I want to get as many perspectives as possible regarding the issue.

A few questions to start off with or folks can just skip that and tell me what they think.

 

1- What is your stance on road decommissioning?

 

2- What are your environmental and access concerns regarding road decommissioning?

 

3- How would road decommissioning limit access to recreational areas? What would that mean to you?

 

Thanks

 

 

[Bill_Simpkins]

1. Depends on the road. Some roads really serve a purpose, some are just leftovers from a different era. If an entire area is cut off when a road is decommissioned, I'm not really for it, but if there are other roads going to the general area, I don't mind so much.

2. I love remote areas, but I hate to see a really useful road go. My father is too old to hike long distances and his only real enjoyment is driving these old roads.

3. More hiking. More of a hassle to get out (may have to take time from work etc ...).

 

Good luck.

[builder206]

1. "Conservationist" and "recreationist?" What do those words mean?

 

2. Where did you get the premise that land managers as a group want to decommission all roads? That's what's implied in the blank statement

 

land managers who want to close the roads

 

3. On the other hand, if it's not all roads, which roads? Or is your study a philosophical one in which only concepts are studied?

 

4. How do you know it's "the" conflict? Are all conflicts over any road closure proposal so alike that a study can call it "the" conflict? Seen one, seen 'em all?

 

5. What is the stated topic of the study, exactly? Your post

 

a research project regarding road decommissioning, focusing on the conflict

 

is too vague and amorphous for my understanding. Is there info about the study available online?

 

[lilredgypsy]

In response to builder206:

 

1. I think the titles of conservationist and recreationalists are understandably vague and an individual could be both. In general I think a conservationist is someone who advocates for the protection of natural resources, possibly through planned management. A recreationalist could be defined as an individual who spends time in the nature world, such as a hiker, backpacker, climber, etc. These definitions are not definitive, but simply my explanation.

2. Some generalizations must be made. I recognize that not all land managers want all roads decommissioned. However, if the goal is habitat restoration and watershed health decommissioning of problem roads would move us closer to these goals.

 

3. This is not a philosophical paper. This is a current issue in our area. I'm still working to compile a list of roads that will be decommissioned, or have been proposed be decommissioned. A few roads in the Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest and NOCA NP that have been decommissioned or are slotted to be: FS road 6200 near Proctor Creek, Finney Roads road system 1700, FS road 7020 and 7021 at Slide Creek Crossing, and the Upper Stehekin Valley Road from Car Wash Falls to Cottonwood.

 

4. You can call it a difference of opinions, an issue, or say that the parties involved are hoping for different outcomes. The point is there are different opinions on the matter and I choose to label it as a conflict, call it what you will.

 

5. There is no information about my research project available as of yet, as I'm still working on it. The end product will be a short paper accompanied by a quick presentation, nothing formal to present to the public.

 

Here are a few links for more information regarding the issue:

 

Washington Watershed Restoration Initiative

http://www.wawatersheds.blogspot.com/

 

Wildlands CPR

http://www.wildlandscpr.org/legacy-roads-funding-fy08

 

Conservation Northwest

http://www.conservationnw.org/wildlife-habitat/legacy-roads-act/?searchterm=legacy%20roads

 

[Fairweather]

1- What is your stance on road decommissioning?

Repair and maintain ALL primary and secondary FS and NPS roads that provide access to existing trails a/o, say, 1990. The White Chuck, West Side, Ipsut, Middle Fork, Suiattle, Steheiken, Dosewallips all come to mind. Where necessary to maintain access, relocate road beds to higher ground despite any wilderness boundary issues. The closing of capillary roads that lead to nowhere seems logical.

 

2- What are your environmental and access concerns regarding road decommissioning?

Only where real, quantifiable, unmanageable, and irreversible environmental damage can be demonstrated. Social considerations should be rare or non existent. (ie: Limits in the Enchantments; yes. Limits on St Helens; no.)

 

3- How would road decommissioning limit access to recreational areas? What would that mean to you?

It already is making access more difficult for working individuals and families. It is concentrating use into fewer and fewer areas. It will eventually erode the user base and create apathy for the very lands being protected. It would mean that I cannot show my future grandchildren some of the great places I once enjoyed on the weekends. It would mean they won't grow up caring.

 

 

 

I hope your project is a sincere effort at balance. Is this work related to a master's thesis? If not, have you formulated a thesis statement for this project/paper? Quid pro quo?

Edited July 26, 2008 by Fairweather

[Off_White]

Just as an aside, I personally know the Lilredgypsy, who's a real and decent person, in grad school just as described.

[mattp]

Builder, I think there is some reality in the blanket statement that land managers as a group want to decommission or at least close roads. Clearly not all roads and not all land managers, but a simple and cheap steel gate solves a lot of problems when when a land manager is faced with budget constraints, environmental concerns, police problems, manpower shortages, and numerous other challenges we could think of. This one reason why we, as a user group, need to participate in recreation and resource management discussions in a way that not only promotes our interest in being able to get to the crags and mountains that we enjoy but which also recognizes the balance and trade-offs necessary so that we are perceived as "reasonable."

[builder206]

Thanks for your thorough & comprehensive response.

[builder206]

When I hear "decommission," I don't think of putting up a gate. I thought decommission meant tear out the roadbed, return the alignment to the original slope contours, remove bridges, and cause the forest to re-grow where the road was.

 

I think it would be sorry state of affairs if land managers wanted to close all or most roads. Some management. When I was a boy, the Forest Service always had a campaign running to get people to visit, camp, fish, whatever.

 

Instead of focusing on the local land managers, it seems to me we ought to be writing our representatives to boost the budgest of the agencies in question.

 

Fairweather hit the nail on the head when he pointed out the problems with the roads here are impacting families and working people. Pretty soon the rich and the unemployed will be the only ones with enough time to get into some areas.

[mattp]

You are right that the word "decommission" usually means the kind of effort you are describing, Builder, but in the context of the original post I don't think that is what we are really talking about. Relatively few roads have been or will be decommissioned in that fashion whereas hundreds of roads are simply being "let go" or gated (if you count all the spur roads, it is probably thousands).

 

Fairweather's hit one nail squarely on the head, to be sure. I think there is more to it than that however. Not only may closing roads shut out many deserving recreational users and possibly erode support for the preservation of public lands, but simply abandoning roads in place can lead to serious habitat destruction in terms of stream damage and it may also interfere with sensible resource management concerning other issues. For example, some areas may appropriately see fire suppression, motorized recreational access and even some well-managed timber harvest. Unstructured camping is a traditional activity that is a plus for many users though perhaps not a good idea in the Middle Fork of the Snoqualmie River, and fisherman, boaters, berry pickers and hunters deserve access just as much as hikers and climbers.

 

Climbers as a whole are a pretty green bunch and I doubt even the most strident access nut would say that all or even most of the current roads and spurs should be maintained. Hell, I bet even Fairweather could be talked into agreeing that what was formerly a main trunk road somewhere would be appropriate for closure if he was invoilved in a comprehensive discussion of recreation and resource priorities and he thought the discussion might lead to what he perceived as a "balanced" plan.

 

It is easy to take a hard core "anti-closure" stance when looking at the last few decades' ad hoc closure of road after road with what seems to be a one-way ratchet (almost never has an abandoned road ever been rehabilitated). It is also a nataural reaction to some of the preservationist tirades from hard core environmentalists. However, it is similarly easy to take a hard core "close everything we can" stance when looking at the last century's destruction of much that was once wild and the ongoing impact of recreational use that is in many areas inadequately managed. A big problem, in my opinion, is that we are not seeing enough comprehensive evaluation of resource and recreation management issues or long term management plan for the region as a whole. Some may have hoped the something like the Grizzly Bear recovery plan or the Northwest Forest Plan could have offered such an opportunity, but I don't think they really have.

[mattp]

Any different ideas on this topic?

[lilredgypsy]

I just wanted to thank everyone for giving me their thoughts regarding this issue. Its turning out to be an interesting research project. Thanks again.

[johndavidjr]

Imagine, for example, that the North Cascades Highway 20 had never been built and Washington Pass access remained as it was when Becky first climbed there.

 

Or God Forbid, the Cascades River Road were closed. What then?

 

I've been to all these places multiple times and probably without the roads, perhaps I'd never have had the opportunity.

 

Another guy from New Jersey that you locals wouldn't have the chance to run into out there in the endless "wilderness." Is that a bad thing?

 

The other extreme would be perhaps the Alps, where I'm told there are cable cars strung all over the place, and approach hikes are entirely optional. Alternately, in Canada, helicopter use is much more common than in the '48.

 

I'm probably being a bit unrealistic at an arms' length distance of 3,000 miles.

 

But it's a depressingly small world, and I'm of the opinion that these little slivers of so-called wilderness in Washington are enhanced by difficult access. Therefore, I assume you catch my drift.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 27, 2008 by johndavidjr

[Stefan]

1- What is your stance on road decommissioning?

 

2- What are your environmental and access concerns regarding road decommissioning?

 

3- How would road decommissioning limit access to recreational areas? What would that mean to you?

 

Thanks

 

1) road decommissioning to be is intentionally using government money to take out a road. I am not in favor of that option becuase I hear too often the government does not have the money to upkeep the current roads.

If a road goes away becuase of a landslide, or rerouting of a river, then putting up barricades just before the problem is my recommended solution.

2) Road decommisioning means less access for all of us. For example, when the Goodell Creek road was turned into a "roadwalk" you will see less users in the Pickets. If the North Cascades National Park administration whines becuase they do not have enough funds becuase not enough people visit them, then this is one primary example of not planning for the future. More access, means more people. More people means more funding for certain parks. The more a park is used, the more money will be allocated to it. A primary example is the gate now on the Middle Fork of the Snoqualmie. My recommendation would have been to NOT put up the gate, and just let the road take its natural course. Now the gate on the Mid Fork Snoq has limited people to NOT use the trail. Nobody I have talked to will ever want to walk an additional 7 miles to get to the old trailhead.

 

3) see the Mid Fork Snoq example above. I will never use that trail up the Mid Fork Snoq ever--that has limited my access. Same as can be said for the road to Monte Cristo. The road is not decommissioned--it is blocked. Road decommissioning will stop me from using the wilderness as much. When I use the wilderness less, so will others. What that eventually will mean is less voices FOR future wilderness.

[RodF]

'Gypsy, check out the "Access and Travel Management Plan" for each National Forest. This is a list and maps of former logging roads, generally prioritized by aquatic impact, which are slated for decommissioning. (At the current rate of funding, it will be decades before these plans are realized, though.)

 

Each road is its own case; what applies to one does not apply to another; generalization of the issue may be unproductive?