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.