Minimum Roads Analysis

[mattp]

The Forest Service is under direction from Washington to identify 75% of the roads in national forests for possible closure. The Mount Baker Snoqualmie National Forest is undertaking a comment process aimed at allowing Forest users to indicate roads that should be kept open.

 

Climbers need to show up at the meetings.

 

There are a series of meetings planned for the next couple months. There is also an on-line survey.

 

Be sure to tell them that the road serving the climbing area we call Darrington should be maintained. This is the 2060 and 2065 roads south of the town of Darrington. Also, the 2040 road, in the Squire Creek valley just to the west.

 

More information here: washington climbers coalition info page.

 

The next meeting is this week: Tuesday, July 23, in Issaquah. After work.

[Quarryographer]

Bump! First one is tonight!

 

[Rafael_H]

Climbed Rainman on Exfoliation Dome on Saturday.

The road is very marginal for Honda Civic, we spent an hour road building at the "first washout". Without any road work, and larger trucks and SUVs gunning through, it might soon be impassable for most.

Not a single soul there the entire day.

Climbing there is a fantastic experience, open granite faces any way you look and beautiful rocky peaks all around. Very tranquil, only noise is from wind and birds. Routes are clean and intelligently bolted. If one climbs at the Apron week in week out, Darrington overall is way better, except for no Starbucks' close by. Cleaner, less sandy than L-worth, and all in one place.

[hanman]

Excellent climb!! I love that dihedral down low and the pure friction on P5 (I think). Oh yeah, and everything between.

 

Hoping to stabilize the first wash with some well placed concrete. People really punch it through there, I have found slow going on the left margin to work the best with low clearance.

 

MH

[mattp]

The next meeting (there have already been a couple) is tomorrow night, in Issaquah:

 

Tuesday, July 23, from 5:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.

Issaquah Main Fire Station office

175 Newport Way NW, Issaquah, WA 98027

 

Again: be sure to point to roads 2060 and 2065, serving the traditional Darrington climbing area, and 2040, serving Squire Creek, a few miles west, on a map. These roads serve some remarkable and unique granite rock climbing as well as the very scenic Squire Creek Pass / Eightmile Creek hiking trail. The 2060 and 2065, in particular, were targeted for possible closure even before the current comment process.

 

And, meanwhile, go up there and enjoy the climbing!

 

 

[Fairweather]

Thanks for the heads up, Matt. As you know, I have a long-standing interest in these issues. I'll be attending the Enumclaw meeting on August 6th, but I'm not sure if the road discussions at each of these gatherings will be regional, or will apply to the MBSNF at-large.

[mattp]

Fairweather! A blast from the past.

 

This comment process is important but, in addition, I hope to generate broader discussion. It only makes sense that they can't maintain all of the roads but at the same time it'd be a shame to see such the Forest Service road system taken apart on purpose.

[Fairweather]

The core issue, as usual, pits the concept of wilderness as a public park against those who see wilderness as an ecological preserve. (I believe it's both.) Since those in the latter camp have USFS budgetary constraints on their side, I think it's important to remind Forest Service representatives that users in the former camp have paid the $30 annual "demonstration" fee for nearly twenty years now--and we expect popular areas to remain reasonably accessible.

Edited July 23, 2013 by Fairweather

[mattp]

I completely agree with the notion that public lands should be kept accessible for public access. I'm not sure that our parking passes have actually covered the expense of keeping those roads open, though.

 

I think we need to find a way to express a coordinated support for funding, and in this matter I see an unusual opportunity to bring a diverse group of user groups and segments from both right and left leaning political groups to the same side of the table.

 

The impact of having 75% of the forest roads closed would be HUGE.

[Lowell_Skoog]

For more discussion, see these threads:

 

http://www.turns-all-year.com/skiing_snowboarding/trip_reports/index.php?topic=28807.0

 

http://www.nwhikers.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=8005450

 

Also, you don't have to attend one of the meetings to comment. Fill out the questionnaire at the following link:

 

http://mbssustainableroads.wordpress.com/questionnaire/

 

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. If anyone hears more about the other forests, they should let us know.

Edited July 23, 2013 by Lowell_Skoog

[Fairweather]

I completely agree with the notion that public lands should be kept accessible for public access. I'm not sure that our parking passes have actually covered the expense of keeping those roads open, though.

 

I think we need to find a way to express a coordinated support for funding, and in this matter I see an unusual opportunity to bring a diverse group of user groups and segments from both right and left leaning political groups to the same side of the table.

 

The impact of having 75% of the forest roads closed would be HUGE.

 

I agree, but I think the 30 bucks does make us stake-holders, and the $$ are now a significant portion of the USFS budget. As for the right-left thing, well, I think there are plenty on the right who wonder why federal $$ are being spent on the pursuits of a few--and many on the left who wonder the same albeit for very different reasons. We need to face the fact, right or wrong, that what we are asking the USFS to do is spend taxpayer $$ to repair roads that only a relative few will ever use. I'm willing to live with this conflict in my value system because I think outdoor recreation serves a valuable public function, and because humans still have a role in the places we perceive to be wilderness. Plus, I just enjoy the status quo access to the outdoors in this region. Anyhow, I hope you'll post comments regarding the meeting tomorrow night; I'm anxious to hear how it went.

[Quarryographer]

Just returned from the meeting tonight in Issy. Though climbers were represented, the Mountaineers, and WCC. Climbers were by far the minority of the group. There was a huge turnout for Jeep, and off roaders, whose agenda sadly doesn't share the same points of interest. I was given 8 stickers to place on the points I'd like to have maintained. Which after the Darrington crags left me with 4. I also added the middle fork of the Snoqualmie (Infinite Bliss) and Schriebers Meadow (Mt Baker) And the Noisy Diobsud. It's important to note that many more roads to popular areas are threatened! Be prepared to spend 3 hours at the meeting spitballing ideas for the forest service in furthering this cause. It's also important to recognize that this isn't just a local problem. The federal Gov't has mandated this across the board, To be finalized in 2015. Not every individual Forest will be handling this in the same manner, so everyone should contact their local rangers to voice their interests. Just one more shout out to get involved! Climbers are grossly outnumbered from what I've seen, and it would be a tragedy if we lost access to the places we love due to a lack of action/unity for our needs.

Cheers!

[mattp]

Thanks, Mr. Quarryographer, for turning out! There were a couple of guides there, as well. I didn't know about the request to identify 8 destinations either, and was not quite prepared to do so. I indicated three locations in Clear and Squire Creeks, near Darrington, and Green Creek, Infinite Bliss, Mt. Persis, Bedal Creek, Sunrise Mine Road, and one other.

 

I deliberately sat at a table where I knew nobody. There was a motorcycle guy, a mushroom picker, a mountain biker, a Forest Service ranger, a miner, and me.

 

Interesting to me was that I don't think anyone from logging or fern cutting or other forest industry people were there.

 

One point that I gained in conversation after the event: the Mount Baker Snoqualmie National Forest is closer to population areas than any other National Forest in the country, and it has a very low concentration of forest roads compared to other National Forests.

 

I bet there is some number of roads most of us could agree should not be kept and I'm not advocating that we maintain all of the current roads but we might well argue that, even if 75% of the forest roads in the national inventory are to be cut, it should not be 75% of the roads on this National Forest.

 

I've been thinking about this for some time as we see roads close to the highway closed, one after another, because people dump trash or shoot guns or whatever. Easy access is why these kinds of problems occur but it is also why these roads are important. Looking ahead 10, 20, 50 years from now, I think we should generally seek to maintain roads that are closer to main access arterials and population centers and that we might address some of the police problems through developing increased recreational opportunities on some of them. At the same time it is important to offer some opportunities to access remote and wild places so that people who are not able to take several days for a backpacking trip can access remote and wild places.

[Fairweather]

Matt,

 

Was there any talk about the fate of these soon-to-be decommissioned roads? In other words, will the abandoned grades be enclosed into the surrounding designated wilderness? (Bicycles banned.) Or will the 100-foot wilderness exclusion buffer remain intact? (Bicycles allowed)

 

Also, I'm having a hard time finding your Darrington road number(s)? Do you know them off-hand? I'm also curious: were the MBSNF folks talking about major trunk roads as a "single closure?" or are they counting secondary roads as stand-alone closures? Is the 75% based on miles? or raw road numbers?

 

 

 

My "save these" list exceeds the eight-road limit:

 

Hannegan Pass #32

 

Glacier Creek #39 (Heliotrope access)

 

Suiattle #26 (Screw the NCCC and fix it, for God's sake! A judge has already ruled on this.)

 

Baker Lake Road #11

 

Mountain Loop

 

FS #73 and Suntop (Huckleberry Creek off of Hwy 410)

 

Cayada Creek #7810 (aka Coplay Lake just before the Carbon entrance to MORA)

 

Schreibers Meadow #13

 

Middle Fork #57 (and reopen the Upper Road while you're at it.)

 

Foss River #68 (and Foss River West Fork #6835)

 

Cascade River Road #15 !!!!! (Don't give Harvey his dying wish. Listen to Ira and keep this road open!)

 

 

 

BTW, thanks for the summary.

 

 

Edited July 24, 2013 by Fairweather

[mattp]

Fairweather,

This current process follows from a travel management rule that was promulgated four or five years ago. It is not tied to any Wilderness expansion mandate as far as I know.

 

In general, I think there is probably little likelihood that many trunk roads are in danger of being identified for closure in this process, but I don't really have real information on this: there are certainly groups that are advocating for closure of these roads at least to the extent that they penetrate near "core" wilderness areas.

 

The roads serving the traditional Darrington area are 2060 and 2065. Road 2040 serves Squire Creek, nearby, where there is also granite rock climbing that is unique in terms of rock quality, scenery, proximity to Puget Sound population centers, etc.

 

[Fairweather]

Thanks Matt,

 

I'll include your roads in my letter and participation session. Regarding wilderness expansion, I'm thinking about what the NCNP folks did when they permanently closed the Upper Stehekin Road. They simply "erased" the non-wilderness corridor that had exempted the road from Wilderness Act rules, and banned bicycles. Since these road "corridors" were created without Congressional approval, it's just as easy for USFS and NPS managers to declare them invalid. I'd like to think that even if a road is closed to car traffic, it can still continue to provide modest access by bicycle. West Side and Carbon River Roads are great examples of this. Ditto, the Upper Middle Fork Snoqualmie. Wilderness purists, however, don't like the idea of wheels, period.

[kurthicks]

Here are a few that came to mind. I didn't get to make it to the meeting tonight.

 

glacier creek (baker, north side)

shannon ridge (shuksan, south side)

schreiber meadows (baker, south side)

middle fork of snoqualmie

Sibley/Hidden Peaks lookout

NF Sauk (glacier peak)

Clear Creek (darrington climbs)

FS 41 (Three Fingers Lookout)

Hannagan Pass

Downey Creek (Ptarmigan Traverse)

Mtn Loop Highway (the FS part in the middle)

[chris]

There are five more meetings:

 

6 August, 11am-1:30pm

Enumclaw Public Library

 

21 August, 4:30-7pm

Darrington Community Center

 

10 September, 5:30-8pm

Bellingham Public Library

 

24 September, 1-3:30pm

Monroe Public Library

 

9 October, 5:30-8pm

Everett Public Library

 

You can RSVP and reserve a seat by emailing sustainableroads@gmail.com

 

Another option is to go online to make comments and tell them specifically which roads you value (a la Fairweather): http://www.mbssustainableroads.com

[Fairweather]

This map might help clarify the management boundaries for everybody:

 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_MEDIA/stelprdb5342056.jpg

 

 

[Quarryographer]

To further respond to Fairweathers question. There was much talk about the roads left behind. The forest service has an obligation to erase a percentage of these roads, due to environmental impact "ie" water contamination, or possible landslide catastrophe. But it sounds like this is a very costly process, and the Forest service has little faith that the current budget could ever "erase" all the roads that are to be excluded.

 

[chris]

I heard the same thing as Quarry - The only roads that could be financially justified to demolish/eradicate/eliminate are ones that could jeopardize water quality (and/or possible fish habitat) if allowed to erode into non-use. Otherwise, I think under current management practices the plan would be to gate and close.

 

Several people advocated for the more Canadian approach to "close" but leave ungated, allowing 4WD and bikes to use the roads as much as they dared. I actually like this idea, even though I don't own either of those. Presumably, if a user breaks down / rolls over / get stuck, they're responsible to remove their vehicle, or the USFS will and will charge them for it - that's how its already managed through much of the Southwest without any fuss.

 

Fairweather, I just finished looking at all the road maps and there doesn't seem to be any roads within the wilderness areas - there are roads that are carved out of wilderness areas, but its actual wilderness boundary, not a "buffer". Perhaps the Upper Stehekin example that you cited was a one-off? Presumably it would take an act of congress to get these roads (if closed), added to the wilderness areas surrounding them.

[mattp]

I have heard from Forest Service people that there are different funds available for the full decommissioning where there are salmon streams under threat, but a couple of them also tell me there is pressure from certain camps both within and outside the agency toward decommissioning elsewhere as well. I think, too, the Forest Service has some funding that may be available for decommissioning but maybe not simple closure and certainly not maintenance.

 

Also, one ranger type I talked to said that they might in some cases fully decommission maybe the first few hundred yards of the road or portions of it that were otherwise visible from a road that was to remain open and simply abandon the remainder as Chris suggests.

 

I am aware of the Canadian approach and that is kind of what they've done with the road to Green Giant Buttress: it hasn't had any Forest Service work for probably 20 years and maybe more. It remains passable only due to a lot of volunteer effort (like some of the roads up north) and I don't think anybody drives to the "trailhead" where I used to park to go climb Dreamer and Safe Sex. I have worked to keep this road and others like it passable and I can tell you it is brutal work!

 

We talked about the idea of leaving "closed" roads simply "open" but not maintained in last night's meeting. Many people there agreed that it was a better idea than a steel gate. It would allow some degree of continued access, but at least in some cases it would allow it only to people with jeeps, or maybe motorcycles and mountain bikes but it is pretty rough to ride through alder saplings. At least some interest groups would rather see a road converted to a walking trail.

 

If a "closed" road was converted to a walking trail, there might be some places where it would be appropriate to maintain the full width of the road as a walking path. In my view this might be particularly attractive for places that were easily accessible and which serve some attractive destination with a relative short walking distance. I don't really like walking several miles on logging roads through old clearcuts where I used to drive, but I have found it very pleasant to walk on the old carriage road serving the 'Gunks, or similar paths in other places in New England and Europe, where you can walk three or four people next to each other and carry on a conversation, and where you don't have to watch your feet. Our conception of walking trails is, perhaps, narrow. In the "right" location I might favor a gated road that is maintained for walking over a jeep or motorcycle road.

 

As to roads in wilderness, I am not sure but the latest Mt. Hood wilderness addition may actually include a stretch of road or two. Does anybody know?

[mattp]

Tomorrow there is one of those minimum roads comment meetings in Enumclaw. 11:00 am to 1:30 pm at the Enumclaw Public Library. If you have time, show up and be ready to identify 8 Forest Service roads on the Mount Baker Snoqualmie National Forest that lead to climbing destinations. The 2060 road in Clear Creek near Darrington is a good place to start.

Washington Climbers Coalition page on comment process

[Fairweather]

I attended the 11am meeting in Enumclaw today along with about 30+ other folks--mostly off-road vehicle supporters, but with a few deep-green types mixed in. I did not sense that climbers or skiers were represented at all. For their part, the USFS folks were great. My suggestion that the $30 annual fee be used exclusively to support road and trail maintenance was well received by the south unit director. In fact, he knew exactly how much extra revenue he would receive for this purpose if it were properly allocated.

 

So here's the short of it: The USFS has been directed (by whom is not clear) to close 75% of the roads under its authority by 2015. In the MBSNF, this means that only about 683 miles of road will remain open. This sounds like a lot, but this total includes many paved and trunk roads that we don't typically think of as USFS--like Crystal Mountain Blvd, Baker Lake Highway, Mountain Loop, etc. Additionally, many of the roads being counted as existing miles have already been closed for decades--like the West Fork of the White River, White Chuck River, etc.

 

So, like Matt and Quarry have described above, each member of our four groups chose eight "favorite" roads on table-sized maps. This data, in turn, is supposed to be analyzed by "social scientists" at Portland State University and superimposed upon other unspecified hard environmental and GIS data that they probably have no business interpreting. This has me particularly worried, since the soft sciences, in my experience, too-often rely on flawed assumptions regarding motives and intent--in this case, the motives of the public citizen placing his or her marks/choices on the map. I got the impression that even the USFS folks were skeptical of this complex decision matrix and will not likely rely on this university interpretation too much.

 

Matt, I am sad to report that no one else chose your Darrington area crags access as a preference. Of course, I wouldn't really expect folks in the southern part of the MBSNF to be dialed in to that area. The choices at this Enumclaw meeting were overwhelmingly along HWY 410 and Carbon River. Curiously, the Suiattle River seemed to be a popular choice too.

 

In the end, I'm not sure that managers will be able to divide the pain equitably. They certainly don't have the money to properly decommission these roads, so "environmental concern" claims are dubious, at best. I suspect that this is a battle between wilderness-as-public-park versus wilderness-as-ecological-preserve. In other words, it's philosophical. Popularity/use will probably determine which roads remain open for now, but is anyone really under the illusion that our friends at NCCC won't be agitating for another round of closures a decade from now? My suggestion at this point is to remind USFS that the Forest Pass revenue generated by hikers, climbers, mountain bikers, skiers, and yes, even motorheads, represents an understanding that reasonable access to public recreation will be maintained. To just roll over and accept this 75% plan and squabble over what's left is giving in too soon, IMO.

 

So that's my report--and .02 worth of my blather too.

[Off_White]

Thanks for the first hand report FW. Granted, you're not a slab climber, but what 8 roads took precedence over Clear Creek? I wish I'd heard about this before hand, I'd have made the trip.

 

Oh, and the Mountain Loop Highway or Crystal Blvd are in play? WTF?