Forest Roads: The Future (MBSNF meetings)

yeah, i'm in a foul mood, but really, you didn't see this coming?? 

Yes, I've been thinking this might happen.

I would happily pay more for a NW Forest Pass if I knew the money was going to road maintenance.

I'm not an expert on this, but my understanding is that during the days of Big Logging government money was used for road construction. I presume that the logging fees paid for some of this. I don't know if they paid for all of it.

I suspect that the government subsidized logging road construction because it was good for the local economy.

It seems to me that forest recreation is good for the economy too. I'm willing to pay for my Forest Pass, but I also think that the government should continue to maintain forest roads. REI, Outdoor Research, The Mountaineers, local guide services, and communities like Darrington, Granite Falls, North Bend and others should all be in favor of this. Our congresspeople should be hearing from us about this.

Are we paying attention?

Does anyone have any idea about the ratio of total roads in the forest vs roads that are commonly used? If I open up my gazetteer I see tons and tons of roads crisscrossing all over the place in old clear cuts.

Or put another way: how many miles of roads in the forest are necessary to reach a trail head (or a trail head for a formerly maintained trail/climbers route without a trail)?

Or put another way:  how many miles of roads in the forest are necessary to reach a trail head (or a trail head for a formerly maintained trail/climbers route without a trail)?

There are other recreational opportunities on public lands for roads other then just going to a trailhead

Yes, I've been thinking this might happen.

I would happily pay more for a NW Forest Pass if I knew the money was going to road maintenance.

I'm not an expert on this, but my understanding is that during the days of Big Logging government money was used for road construction. I presume that the logging fees paid for some of this. I don't know if they paid for all of it.

I suspect that the government subsidized logging road construction because it was good for the local economy.

It seems to me that forest recreation is good for the economy too. I'm willing to pay for my Forest Pass, but I also think that the government should continue to maintain forest roads. REI, Outdoor Research, The Mountaineers, local guide services, and communities like Darrington, Granite Falls, North Bend and others should all be in favor of this. Our congresspeople should be hearing from us about this.

Are we paying attention?

Sale of stumpage (standing trees) for logging in PNW was very lucrative.  25% of FS sales went to the counties; 50% of BLM sales did also.  There was not only enough to pay for road construction, but wildlife conservation and outdoor recreation was subsidized and there was a return to the treasury above and beyond the cost of operating the FS.  The FS has never gotten enough money in its recreation accounts to fully maintain campgrounds and trails never mind roads.

Now the logging heyday picture was far from rosy.  LOTS of roads were built and built in a way that proved poor.  For example,  the old Shelton, new Hood Canal Ranger District (Shelton Sustained Yield (Steal) Unit created by Congress to benefit the Simpson Timber Company town of Shelton) had the highest road density in the U.S. and ended up with 7,000 landslides contributing sediment to rivers.  The forest road building experience of the FS, BLM, and state forestry agencies revealed many flaws in construction technique but also the absolute need for ongoing maintenance, especially of roadside ditches and culverts, to prevent blow outs and landslides.  Thus, if there is not a need for a road that will pay for its upkeep, the road is to be decommissioned (permanently removed, the slope returned to a stable angle, and revegetation implemented). Congr. Dicks was very successful in getting special appropriations to the FS (esp. Olympic NF) for watershed rehabilitation (most of which was road decommissioning). Road buidling and maintenance of industrial and state forest lands was addressed in the Timber, Fish, Wildlife Agreement; many of you may have encountered the new heavy rock standards for wet areas.

Most environmental/conservation groups vehemently opposed new road construction (even new trail construction) even where it was necessary to relocate environmentally problematic roads or trails.  Most of these groups also lobbied for road decommissioning.  Road removal is expensive in the short term, road construction in the short term, and road maintenance in the long term.

Compounding all this is the need to close roads (tank traps, gates, etc) to prevent timber theft, vandalism, trash dumping, meth labs, etc. and to satisfy state Wildlife Department demands for areas in which game animals such as elk are not disturbed.  Another problem arises with disturbance of threatened species including spotted owls, but especially marbled murrelets; the FS is required by law to do this and do it in collaboration with the Dept. of Interiors (USF&WS).

So, like everything else nowadays--it is a mess; no one wants to pay enough taxes for benefits made available to all and many don't want access to the hinterlands at all.

Article on the effort and meeting schedule in the paper today MBSNF Roads .

Of note:

(1) This is an extensive process: 8 public meetings before analysis and decision making. 

(2) FS will be trying to make it a "science-driven" approach as developed by FS PNWRS [research branch] and Portland State U. 

(3) Public engagement is being managed by a Sustainable Roads Cadre composed of environmental, timber, and off-road vehicle interests.  IMHE, these are the groups most consistently and assertively engaged with the Forest Service in their planning and managing efforts--not because they are called upon by the FS but because they insist on being engaged under NEPA, NFMA, and ESA.  I have rarely seen climbers, hikers, backpackers, bc skiers, etc. actively engaged altho I suspect the Mountaineers are involved in some efforts.

In any case, this approach is far removed and far superior to that of the National Park Service, especially MRNP.

If you are concerned about your access to your favorite bc in the MBSNF you have an opportunity to speak up for it.

For anyone who's planning on advocating for continued recreational use of FS roads I think you're going to have to do some triage. Since the $ are limited you'll want to figure which roads to fight hard for maintenance and maybe look towards getting grants or something to help pay. Then have a list of roads that could be decommissioned in a way that still allows continued travel by say 4x4, some by ATV, some by bike/foot.

When I moved from Oregon up to BC I was dismayed to find that most logging roads up here are decommissioned soon after the logging is done. Really burned me to see the land getting raped then rec users being kept out by huge tank trap cross ditches, removed bridges etc... After a bit of reflection I realized that in my small hometown (Powell River) the ONLY access was going to come with logging and the key would be trying to get rec friendly decommissioning. With a bit of talking and reading I found that the huge tank traps were supposed to be smaller, that the decommissioning plans called for some roads to be continued 4x4 use. It seems that for some reason (maliciously?) the crews built things so only a seriously modified 4x4 or ATV could pass even though it was supposed to be just enough to stop erosion and allow stock 4x4 use.

Part of the problem here is the liability question, who's going to pay for continued maintenance of a road thats going to see not commercial use? The BC gov. is working on a system where any group can take over responsibility for a road as long as they have a viable plan for maintaining it. supposedly allowances will be made for volunteer groups who won't have a visible means (capital) beyond volunteer labor for working on the road. I'm not really up to speed on this I've just read snippets here and there and as long as my cynical nature stays in check I'm a bit optimistic that we aren't going to be locked out of the forests.

So perhaps the thing to do is to try and influence the planning, help rather than hinder, and hopefully come up with some sort of continued recreational access plan. Be realistic, there needs to be a funding source if you want to keep a road open. Be open to consider less desirable alternatives if that is the only option for continued access.

Whenever we get the local BC skiers organized I'm hoping to work alongside the Forestry Co. for things like road maintenance, plowing (dreaming), and who knows maybe they'll like my idea of Linear, fall line, cut blocks?