Manila Discussion archive for:
  • Twin Springs

    Spent the weekend at Twin Springs Forest Camp.  A lovely place, abandoned in haste.  Picked up 2 giant bags worth of trash and cleared about 2 miles of the insanely steep route down to the Roaring River.  The route is flagged and is fairly easy to follow but wasn't built to typical Forest Service standards so it takes a lot of stamina to get out of there.  My theory is this trail was built by the CCC at the same time as the Abbot Road campgrounds as a make-work project and to be used as a recreation trail. 

    Didn't make it all the way to the river, but pretty close.  This is in a 100 y.o. noble fir forest, recovered from a turn of century fire.  The camp is a nice place to stay and there's a lot to do around the Plaza.  Check it out if you have the time.

    Twin Springs
  • Re: Twin Springs (#)
  • Did you happen to pick up any stuffed animals, or maybe rubber bands that were littered around the Camp? I couldn't believe all the junk I saw up there last month. What a shame. Thank you Robert for putting in the time and effort.
    • Re: Twin Springs (#)
    • A ripped apart stuffed cow!  And a million bits.  I'm nuerotic so I picked up every bit.  Just makes me sad to see sacred places crapped upon...
  • Re: Twin Springs (#)
  • Enjoy this area while you can.  The Forest Service is proposing to convert almost the full length of Road 4610 to ATV-use only in their OHV Travel Management Plan.  Check out the map here.  They have developed proposals for several ATV-use areas in the Mt. Hood NF, including two in the Clackamas.  They are in the beginning stages of preparing an Environmental Impact Statement and have opened the public comment period for comments relating to what the scope of the EIS should be.  If anyone has concerns about this plan, now is the time to get involved in the process.  The Forest Service cannot make a final decision about this until it completes the EIS process (estimated by them to be Spring 2008).  The EIS process is the most important comment vehicle available to the public, as long as all comments are received within the stated deadlines.  For more information go to the Forest Service website
    • Re: Twin Springs (#)
    • Am I mis-reading the map? Looks the the 4610 road would be mixed use Class II jeeps and SUV's from High Rock to Twin Springs, and mixed use Classes I, II & III all off-road vehicles from Twin Springs west. That would continue to allow 4WD pick-ups etc. to use the road, wouldn't it? Just sharing part of it with the quad riders.
      • Re: Twin Springs (#)
      • Joe,

        You're right.  The road would be mixed use and would be open to all motor vehicles.  My mistake.  The point, though, is that the effect of the Forest Service proposal would be to encourage OHVs to use the full length of road 4610 as part of a designated OHV area.  Most other areas of the forest would be closed to OHV use, so this road, and places like Twin Springs, would likely see an increase in OHV activity.   

        • Re: Twin Springs (#)
        • This area is already ATV heavy, in spades..especially in the ripped apart forests near 224 and 4610.  Essentially nothing will change on 4610, but hopefully the F.S. will be able to keep a closer eye on the trail and other damage caused by riders "poaching" (riding illegally) and destroying historic trails.

          Every time I've visited the area I've seen more than one cycle, most tend to be testosterone fueled.  They like to make a lot of noise and dust and rip thru the camps in circles like a weird motorcross race.  Hunters on ATVs always seem to be quiet and respectful (in my experience).

          A footnote, if you do visit the area, watch out for "sneaker" potholes on 4610, they jump outa nowhere!

        • Re: Twin Springs (#)
        • I agree with you Doug, it is unfortunate to have the upper 4610 as designated OHV area, especially because of the six or seven trails and three old camps located on this stretch. It will also be between wilderness areas. I think part of the thinking may be that the road is so rough that only those classes of vehicle will be able to use it anyway. The primitive stretch is also historic in a way, inasmuch as it is a fine example of early road building.
          • Re: Twin Springs (#)
          • As long as they keep those things off the trails I don't have a problem with it on lower 4610.  Upper 4610 is a special place though...I think that would be a mistake to include it in the OHV area.

            How close is this to a decision?  I'm sure the Clackamas RD is aware of the problem in the area already.  Then again, decisions seem to come from higher up from those in far away places.

            • Re: Twin Springs (#)
            • Therein lies the problem, Robert. OHV already stray onto wilderness trails along 4610 - making the area an OHV playground will only worsen the situation. Huxley Lake is a preview of what other areas will look like when adjacent OHV routes are designated.

              Sadly, it has become PC to pretend that there such a thing as responsible OHV use, thanks for an industry effective lobby, I guess. But the reality is that OHVing is all about the joy ride, and largely a testosterone rush. Just calling a spade a spade, here. IMO, the chances of containing OHVs on designated routes is pretty much zero. Add to this the noise impacts, and the idea of running them along 4610 by design is just really dumb.

              My only counter-theory on upper 4610 is that the USFS has been heavily lobbied by the OHVers since the 1970s to keep this road open for their use. The idea of closing/rehabbing it came up numerous times over the years, and the OHV lobby freaked out. So one possibility is that the USFS is using this process to put a final stake in the heart of this road, by using the NEPA documentation to show the complete incompatibility with the adjacent Salmon-Huckleberry Wilderness. That might help explain how this route even found its way into the draft proposal.

              -Tom
              • Re: Twin Springs (#)
              • Lobbying, scary stuff.  Incredible how effective that can be.  Money talks, eh?  Didn't know the history of that road in the 70s, but I do know it was the first cross-mountain road from Mt. Hood to Estacada, from the 1920s to replace the Abbot Trail and the 3 camps were built by the CCC.  Do you have any other secrets to share about the area?  Unless ya want to keep em' secrets.

                Yeah 4610 has become a 2nd gear road, too many sneaker potholes and mini washouts.  Still very passable tho.  It gets pretty brushy the further up you go.  I was surprised to see a F.S. sign on the Huxley Lake trail heading down from Lookout Springs: the trail is ATV approved!  There is the sillouhette of a quad on the sign.

                There is also the matter of respect for nature VS testosterone.  Sadly, there is no one minding the store out there, and the FS just doesn't have the funding or manpower to effectively police the place.  Ironically, once you get out there and off the gravel roads and onto trails it's True Boonies which is why I keep going back.

                • Re: Twin Springs (#)
                • And on another note, the map of the OHV proposal shows the Huxley Lake trail (521) as being non-motorized. I'm not sure if this will be a change or if they just don't realize they allow motorized right now. It would be interesting to find out.
                  • Re: Twin Springs (#)
                  • I think that depends on the Lewis and Clark wilderness bill, I believe the entire Roaring River canyon would be part of it.  Kinda up in the air right now tho.
                    • Re: Twin Springs (#)
                    • Yep, if the wilderness bill goes in I would think the whole La Dee flat OHV area would be toast. Most of the designated roads and trails for OHV are on the east side of 4610 which would be in the Roaring River area. Also would probably close 4611 which I'm not happy about but willing to sacrifice if the protection from the yahoos was there.

                      I don't get it either why people have to trash the very areas they enjoy playing in. I sometimes wonder if these people would be just as happy if we just dumped a bunch of mud in a big field in the valley and then they can go drive to their hearts content.
                      • Re: Twin Springs (#)
                      • Well, I think you answered your own question, Pete! People who trash natural areas have no clue about their surroundings - it's just terrain. I think you're onto something with play parks for these people. The parallel to skateboarding is pretty close, with skate parks as the answer to keeping skateboarders off sidewalks and out of parking garages and fountains. The same could work for OHVs.

                        IMO, I'm not even sure why the public needs to subsidize this particular form of recreation, either. If OHVs were banned on public land, then it's likely that private options would be developed in response (with entry fees). I kinda think that's the long term answer for both OHVs and target shooters. It goes back to the question of whether the USFS has an obligation to accomodate every form of recreation that shows up in the forest, and I'd like to see the line drawn a bit more conservatively.

                        Back to Huxley Lake, I was mostly referring to dodging a bunch of dirt bikes there a couple of years ago, and seeing a fair amount of damage along the trail from OHV tires. I thought they were there illegally, but when I got home, discovered that the trail is currently open to both mountain bikes and OHVs. That's the last time I hiked that trail - I have zero tolerance for sharing trails with motorized vehicles. It's dangerous, of course, but also nerve-shattering.

                        Tom
                        • Re: Twin Springs (#)
                        • We have two trails that were designated for motor bikes about fifteen years ago, one of which was Huxley. Since then, the ATV explosion has occurred. There is some effort needed to differentiate between single and double track.
                          The Forest Service has long been engaged in Multiple Use thinking, at the Publics request, which requires accommodation of varied users. Uses change with time. The sheep are gone, along with Rocky Mountain Fever, wide spread use of the horse and mule are gone, etc. The current OHV planning is an effort to segregate users which I believe is necessary.
                          As for Huxley Lake, the widening of the route has made it nice to use in the snow. And we have a trail to get up there easily in the Winter from lower elevation. I share your reluctance to go there during the Summer.
                          PS. We have found the power hedge trimmer to be highly effective and efficient trimming small brush.

              • Re: Twin Springs (#)
              • Tom,

                can you give me an idea about what's going on at Huxley Lake? I've never been.

                I was at the Public Information meeting about the LaDee Flat OHV area (4610) on Tuesday night. While it doesn't seem like any changes will be made to prevent trail access into Roaring River via 4610 or 4611 I'm concerned about encroachment off the roads and also down into the NF Clackamas. One interesting comment was that they have to do a study to see if 4610 can handle both licensed and OHV at the same time. If not, they could scrap the area or look to build other trails for OHV to get to the side roads.

                They seem to think this will help them with Law Enforcement but the area is supposed to be closed right now and they obviously can't enforce that. I guess I'm also wondering whether a lot of the damage I see up there is from 4-wheel drives licensed vehicles and not quads and motercycles. Don't know how this would impact that.

                My comments right now will be that this area has been hit enough and really needs to continue to be closed and enforced.

                By the way, all the maps and info are on the Mt Hood website and comments need to be submitted before the end of the month, I think.

                pete
                • Re: Twin Springs (#)
                • Interesting you made that meeting, I just found out about it yesterday, go figgure...

                  I'd be very surprised if new roads were constructed to any great degree.  There just isn't the $$$ or justification right now.  Logging in the 60s and 70s punched an insane amount of mileage all over the national forests but now many of the roads are languishing and falling apart since "forest practices have changed".

                  LOWER 4610 is ripped up.  Truck damage along the roads (mud mess, ruts) and in the small "camps" along the way fulla shooting galleries.  UPPER 4610 is far more natural with less damage though the ATV folks have made a mess outa the old CCC camps, especially Lookout Springs.  You can tell the difference, smaller wheelbased vehicles cause the damage where trucks can't go. 

                  It would be a shame to see the route closed because of a few yahoos.  Ironically the worst hit areas in the Clackamas (including Memaloose area and Hillockburn) are CLOSEST TO TOWN!  Hell it wouldn't be THAT hard to clean things up but that's obviously not a priority.  I'm sick of bags of trash, burned out cars, burned pallets in the road, shot up signs...We live in God's front yard why can't these folks see it?  And then we have a society that allows it to happen.