Post by: ElaphusElatus on October 28, 2015, 03:36:21 PM
http://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=47991
The notice was issued 10/22/2015 and comments for this phase are due 30 days later. The maps show a LOT of yellow suggesting that these roads are to be closed.
http://a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akamai.com/11558/www/nepa/102767_FSPLT3_2577917.pdf
The table in the above document link proposes to decommission 14 miles and close 160 miles, a net loss of open roads of 174 miles out of a total 259 miles. This is a HUGE change if it occurs!
Voice your concern to the USFS about your favorite road if you want to keep it open.
Post by: bigtex on October 28, 2015, 04:15:20 PM
Typically the reasons these roads are USFS roads is because either the USFS built them, or there used to be lands along those roads and the USFS sold/traded them away but retained the ownership of the road.
In some cases it does make sense where USFS to own these roads through the private areas. For example on the same map you see that the first several miles of FS 70 is private (formerly Hancock Timber not Muckleshoot land) well obviously we wouldn't want a private landowner to put a gate on FS 70 and essentially close off that whole system. But if you have a road that never touches USFS lands (such as 7120), or barely does (7125) why keep them as USFS roads, thus requiring the agency to maintain it?
I've always warned people that just because the lands one either side of a road are private it doesn't mean the road isn't a public road, especially the USFS. This map just shows that.
Post by: ElaphusElatus on April 27, 2016, 04:55:46 PM
EA is out for comments due back by 5/27. Looks like they made significant changes from the initially proposed Alt 1 which is presented as Alt 2.
http://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=47991&exp=overview
Post by: rosscrazyelk on May 15, 2016, 08:01:24 AM
Post by: Duckslayer89 on May 15, 2016, 08:39:24 AM
Post by: netcoyote on May 15, 2016, 09:11:00 AM
So if I'm reading it right the yellow roads will be closed? I think this is great personally. Less area for native road hunters. Possibly more walk in/mountain biking areas?
I would encourage you to please rethink your position. Here's why:
I've been following this since I learned about it just sometime early this year. I was surprsed to learn how extensive this road closure plan is, not just for the Greenwater area, but for ALL the national forest lands throughout the country. This is one of THE LARGEST land grabs in recent history. The NF system managed under the USDA is planning to restrict thousands of miles of access to land that is supposed to managed as a PUBLIC trust and for all US citizens. The larger goal is to reduce the amount of human activity in outdoor area by restricting access and making the remaining access so unfriendly that more and more people will decide that it's just not worth it anymore to try to escape the urban sprawl. The fewer people who enjoy the remaining outdoor experience, the fewer advocates there will be to resist further restrictions. It's a vicious cycle and a carefully planned one.
It's as if this is the last dying gasp of the Obama administration to limit any type of free travel and sense of solitude and independent thinking.
Duckslayer, you made a comment about this resulting in "less access for native road hunters". How do you know that? A large portion of the plan indicates that many roads will be maintained but gated. If you think tribal hunters will also be restricted, you have not been paying attention to what's been going on lately. Since the plan specifically stated that tribal input was a part of the planning process, I would bet that there is something more in it for them.
As for the comment, "Possibly more walk in/mountain biking areas". What's to stop the FS from limiting ALL access once gates are up and policies nailed down? You are making a huge leap of faith here. But a greater point is this; Because this is compatible with just YOUR style of outdoor access, it's ok with you to allow the government to restrict other outdoor users?
We are all in this together, my friend. If they come to take away my access today, what' to say they will not come for your access tomorrow. Please don't fall for this divide-and-conquer strategy.
I attended a meeting in Greenwater last Weds (5/11) where this was discussed and I can tell you there is a lot more attention to this as the plan moves forward. This affects ALL of us who love the outdoors, not just hunters, not just ORV users, not just berry pickers, etc. It's going to set yet another precedent that the government can just edict another restriction on our way of life.
This is a BFD people, please take heed and voice your concern during the open period, write the FS, write your Congressional representatives, speak up and resist this intrusion!
Post by: netcoyote on May 15, 2016, 09:16:13 AM
http://www.fs.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsinternet/!ut/p/c5/04_SB8K8xLLM9MSSzPy8xBz9CP0os3gDfxMDT8MwRydLA1cj72BTUwMTAwgAykeaxRtBeY4WBv4eHmF-YT4GMHkidBvgAI6EdIeDXIvfdrAJuM3388jPTdUvyA2NMMgyUQQAyrgQmg!!/dl3/d3/L2dJQSEvUUt3QS9ZQnZ3LzZfS000MjZOMDcxT1RVODBJN0o2MTJQRDMwODQ!/?project=47991 (http://www.fs.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsinternet/!ut/p/c5/04_SB8K8xLLM9MSSzPy8xBz9CP0os3gDfxMDT8MwRydLA1cj72BTUwMTAwgAykeaxRtBeY4WBv4eHmF-YT4GMHkidBvgAI6EdIeDXIvfdrAJuM3388jPTdUvyA2NMMgyUQQAyrgQmg!!/dl3/d3/L2dJQSEvUUt3QS9ZQnZ3LzZfS000MjZOMDcxT1RVODBJN0o2MTJQRDMwODQ!/?project=47991)
Post by: Duckslayer89 on May 15, 2016, 09:25:52 AM
So if I'm reading it right the yellow roads will be closed? I think this is great personally. Less area for native road hunters. Possibly more walk in/mountain biking areas?
I would encourage you to please rethink your position. Here's why:
I've been following this since I learned about it just sometime early this year. I was surprsed to learn how extensive this road closure plan is, not just for the Greenwater area, but for ALL the national forest lands throughout the country. This is one of THE LARGEST land grabs in recent history. The NF system managed under the USDA is planning to restrict thousands of miles of access to land that is supposed to managed as a PUBLIC trust and for all US citizens. The larger goal is to reduce the amount of human activity in outdoor area by restricting access and making the remaining access so unfriendly that more and more people will decide that it's just not worth it anymore to try to escape the urban sprawl. The fewer people who enjoy the remaining outdoor experience, the fewer advocates there will be to resist further restrictions. It's a vicious cycle and a carefully planned one.
It's as if this is the last dying gasp of the Obama administration to limit any type of free travel and sense of solitude and independent thinking.
Duckslayer, you made a comment about this resulting in "less access for native road hunters". How do you know that? A large portion of the plan indicates that many roads will be maintained but gated. If you think tribal hunters will also be restricted, you have not been paying attention to what's been going on lately. Since the plan specifically stated that tribal input was a part of the planning process, I would bet that there is something more in it for them.
As for the comment, "Possibly more walk in/mountain biking areas". What's to stop the FS from limiting ALL access once gates are up and policies nailed down? You are making a huge leap of faith here. But a greater point is this; Because this is compatible with just YOUR style of outdoor access, it's ok with you to allow the government to restrict other outdoor users?
We are all in this together, my friend. If they come to take away my access today, what' to say they will not come for your access tomorrow. Please don't fall for this divide-and-conquer strategy.
I attended a meeting in Greenwater last Weds (5/11) where this was discussed and I can tell you there is a lot more attention to this as the plan moves forward. This affects ALL of us who love the outdoors, not just hunters, not just ORV users, not just berry pickers, etc. It's going to set yet another precedent that the government can just edict another restriction on our way of life.
This is a BFD people, please take heed and voice your concern during the open period, write the FS, write your Congressional representatives, speak up and resist this intrusion!
Most of what you said is true and I agree with. I didn't think far enough into it to consider the tribes being apart of this and then still having access while the rest of us don't. I got caught up in thinking road closures would allow more game escapement from the tribal hunters frequenting the area. Well I wonder how far along this decision is and if it's to late to stop it?
Post by: trophyhunt on May 15, 2016, 09:41:29 AM
Post by: trophyhunt on May 15, 2016, 10:16:57 AM
Post by: Green broke on May 15, 2016, 10:34:04 AM
Post by: bigtex on May 15, 2016, 11:30:51 AM
So, I see a few roads being maintained but gated, and we all know the natives will get keys to those gates. That's our property! What is the point of closing a FS road but still maintaining it? Are they anti hunters? If they do this as planned and the natives get keys, we need to sue or go to war!This has nothing to do with hunting.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: netcoyote on May 15, 2016, 11:34:52 AM
How did the meeting go???
There were about 75-100 people in attendance at the meeting. There seemed to be a good mix of people and a lot of FS staff. I knew a few of them from previous associations;some were knowledgeable, some were seasoned, experienced folks but many were young and didn't know about the history of the area or prior FS land management practices. I asked one about the previous practice of posting carsonite signs at roads that were not planned for maintenance. They simply stated that the road would not be maintained by FS for vehicle travel. That sort of left it up to users of the road to decide if they wanted to maintain the road or let it go. That seemed reasonable to me. If it lead to a worthwhile location, someone would probably take on the maintenance of it without FS expense. Seems like that sort of independent thinking is frowned on these days.
The meeting started out with a brief overview of what was being planned and the three alternatives that were being proposed. They were trying to make an effort to give the impression that they would be considering public input, but I got the impression that the deal was already done and this was just going to be for show, so that they could claim that they did get community involvement. That opinion seemed to be shared by others in attendance and there were a few hot-heads in the crowd that got pretty heated at times and actually downright obnoxious. Doesn't help our cause a bit. There were a few reps from local politicians, namely Dan Roach and a rep from Dave Reichert's office.
After the overview, the group was asked to split up into separate tables for small group discussion and comment with each table lead by a FS rep. Comments and notes were taken and at the end the table lead went over the list of comments. Several common threads came out of the small group discussion. It was clear to many that the designation of the existing roads left something to be desired. Roads that were listed as existing were some that clearly did not exist any more and a few other anomalies emerged. If they didn't get it right on some of the roads that people were familiar with, it tended to cast doubt on the whole project credibility. The subject of including the possibility of volunteer labor to maintain the roads seemed to not have even been considered. Not too surprising there.
A few roads were being set aside for elk migration but it was noted that they would cut off access to many other miles of roads. A lot of the premise of the whole project seemed to be on the notion of "high density" of existing roads as well as fish habitat preservation. None were gone into in any detail. No proof was given that "high density" was necessarily a bad thing and when questioned about the volume of traffic on these high density roads, the FS clearly admitted that they had not studied the volume issue, just the number of miles of roads in a square mile. Likewise, the whole "salmon habitat" reason was left open ended and we were expected to take it as gospel.
Several comments were made about the lack of any places to pull off the main remaining roads if all the spurs were gated. This would leave the only camping opportunities to be along the side of the main roads, not very appealing to most of us.
One comment I made was that there would be some serious access limitations to one of the historical gems up there, the Naches Pass Trail #1175. The subject of limiting access for fire suppression was brought up but the FS didn't seem to think that was a priority.
The alternatives that were proposed seemed predictable for a government project. The first alternative was to do nothing and leave existing roads (approx 247 miles) open but maintenance would have to be reduced due to limited funding. It was not clear how the prioritization of limited funding would be allocated across the road system. The second alternative was the most draconian with 167 miles closed and 12 miles fully decommissioned. Alternative 3 would leave 151 miles open with some of the side spur roads open and still some closed for elk habitat. Check out the details for the alternatives in the link above.
Like I said before, this is real and the FS is being directed to do this, and do it soon. The time to act is NOW. Griping on a forum is good for generating discussion but it will mean nothing for stopping this land grab. Get your comments into the FS and write and call you your congress-critters as soon as possible.
Post by: trophyhunt on May 15, 2016, 11:35:11 AM
it is about access though to our lands, hunting just goes along with access for the most part. Why are they closing roads and then gating them? That 7222 road is a big closure.So, I see a few roads being maintained but gated, and we all know the natives will get keys to those gates. That's our property! What is the point of closing a FS road but still maintaining it? Are they anti hunters? If they do this as planned and the natives get keys, we need to sue or go to war!This has nothing to do with hunting.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: netcoyote on May 15, 2016, 11:36:23 AM
You guys on this forum really widen the gap and alienate possibly one of your only allies. Your assumptions and claims are false and lack representation, however they do give me food for thought on avenues to pursue.
Could you be more specific?
Post by: trophyhunt on May 15, 2016, 11:43:49 AM
Post by: Green broke on May 15, 2016, 11:56:16 AM
Access is an in common goal! The forest service is an example of a modern day coup by eco-extremist. It is an example of defeating an agency from within to promote an agenda. If the tribes ever gain anything in these dealing it will be a pr move definitely not part of the plan.You guys on this forum really widen the gap and alienate possibly one of your only allies. Your assumptions and claims are false and lack representation, however they do give me food for thought on avenues to pursue.
Could you be more specific?
There is so much deeply rooted hatred that surfaces (especially after north of falcon), it only promotes the goal of these extremists. They are smart calculated and use every tool in their arsenal, which includes promoting lines of division.
Post by: netcoyote on May 15, 2016, 12:03:52 PM
Access is an in common goal! The forest service is an example of a modern day coup by eco-extremist. It is an example of defeating an agency from within to promote an agenda. If the tribes ever gain anything in these dealing it will be a pr move definitely not part of the plan.You guys on this forum really widen the gap and alienate possibly one of your only allies. Your assumptions and claims are false and lack representation, however they do give me food for thought on avenues to pursue.
Could you be more specific?
There is so much deeply rooted hatred that surfaces (especially after north of falcon), it only promotes the goal of these extremists. They are smart calculated and use every tool in their arsenal, which includes promoting lines of division.
I guess I was wondering what you meant about "widening the gap and alienating possibly one of our only allies"? What ally were you referring to? Do you mean tribes?
What assumptions and claims are false?
Post by: Green broke on May 15, 2016, 12:20:07 PM
Post by: Green broke on May 15, 2016, 12:26:13 PM
Post by: netcoyote on May 15, 2016, 12:45:51 PM
Most of the time on this forum tribes are villianized one way or another. After north of falcon this year is the first time in quite a while that I've seen the death threats surface (not on here- breaking Skagit, they are probably still there).
I guess we're agreeing on the same thing. I didn't intend to imply that this was somehow a tribe vs non-tribal dispute. I see them as separate issues but the fact remains that the FS clearly stated that tribal concerns were a factor in their decision making and many non-tribal people were surprised to hear about the whole process until recently. The assumption seemed to be that the outreach was not as focused on both sides equally.
Post by: trophyhunt on May 15, 2016, 12:50:55 PM
Post by: Green broke on May 15, 2016, 12:55:33 PM
Net, it wasn't you, I apologize. You brought up some excellent points and I appreciate you drumming up support, we need it. Many others, trophyhunt is always one of the ones (many others also) who fuels contention and increases the divide. In the end both sides will lose and wolf huggers will rejoice.Most of the time on this forum tribes are villianized one way or another. After north of falcon this year is the first time in quite a while that I've seen the death threats surface (not on here- breaking Skagit, they are probably still there).
I guess we're agreeing on the same thing. I didn't intend to imply that this was somehow a tribe vs non-tribal dispute. I see them as separate issues but the fact remains that the FS clearly stated that tribal concerns were a factor in their decision making and many non-tribal people were surprised to hear about the whole process until recently. The assumption seemed to be that the outreach was not as focused on both sides equally.
Post by: Green broke on May 15, 2016, 12:59:29 PM
Until you guys, the tribes, quit thinking your above us all and deserve special treatment, there will always be animosity towards you. Fairness and equality get shoved down our throats in this country, but the tribes just keep doing what they want. This is off subject by a mile I realize, but just have to comment when someone starts giving the tribes kudos. We all need to be on the same level, and as far as the keys go, c'mon man you know you guys will get keys.Trophy, I have little to nothing to offer to you and others. I think I'll crawl back under my rock for a while. You personally fuel division, what have you done for the white river elk? I would love to match resumes with you on conservation efforts.
Post by: trophyhunt on May 15, 2016, 01:39:16 PM
your abuses of treaty rights are the division we will always have. My conservation in the white goes as far as turning in trash dumpers, leaving places I stay cleaner than when I got there, always on the lookout for illegal activity and helping the elk herds out by hunting them when I legally can. And not killing them anytime of the year and during the winter when they need to be left alone. I have an idea, let's both get on the same level then talk about getting along, I can't hear you from your pedestal way up there. dont be so proud that you put more money back into the herd than the state, you guys have more money than the state, wonder why? And you helped the elk herd come back in the green river watershed, gee, thanks for helping out the herd that you guys destroyed and took one of the best tags at that time down to no tags cause your tribe wiped them out. If I collected the money you do every month from the casinos, I'm sure I'd be a lot more active in the white, but for now I need to work full time to support my family and pay taxes. I don't wish bad things on you but until the treaties are abolished and we are all created/treated equally, we will not be on the same level. Good day sir.Until you guys, the tribes, quit thinking your above us all and deserve special treatment, there will always be animosity towards you. Fairness and equality get shoved down our throats in this country, but the tribes just keep doing what they want. This is off subject by a mile I realize, but just have to comment when someone starts giving the tribes kudos. We all need to be on the same level, and as far as the keys go, c'mon man you know you guys will get keys.Trophy, I have little to nothing to offer to you and others. I think I'll crawl back under my rock for a while. You personally fuel division, what have you done for the white river elk? I would love to match resumes with you on conservation efforts.
Post by: ElaphusElatus on May 15, 2016, 03:38:05 PM
The USFS wants to close roads. They have a variety of reasons for doing this, mostly due to lack of money for maintenance and fish habitat concerns. We have 3 proposals. Which do you prefer? Are there specific roads folks are concerned about, and can you argue your position in a convincing manner to get the USFS to do what you want? If so you might be able to change the alternative a bit. Maybe the USFS is asking us to blindly accept their "science", but we need to study the science and see if it is sound or if there are holes in their argument. If there are holes, argue your position. Can you suggest plausible alternative approaches, e.g., volunteer maintenance as netcoyote suggests? Gates are proposed for roads going to maintenance level 2A, some of these are the elk elk forage areas. Under Alternative 3 this amounts to about 20 miles, or 8% of the roads. Is this a deal breaker if some folks get keys? Would you rather have a different alternative or how would you modify Alt 3?
This is an emotional issue but rational arguments will prevail over broad generalizations and unfounded claims. Submit your comments using sound arguments to support your view.
Post by: Duckslayer89 on May 15, 2016, 05:47:41 PM
Only reason I know this is because I thought it was a white guy with a gill net permit for the area and I walked down interested in what he was doing.
Post by: logger on May 15, 2016, 06:14:41 PM
Post by: DishBogget on June 20, 2016, 07:59:17 PM
Roads are the forest service biggest infrastructure they have yet it gets the least attention, to many oligist's of one sort or another, how bout put up a timber sale? you know like they are suppossed to do!Couldn't agree more , a few timber sales now and again would go a long way towards fixing their budget
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: lewy on June 20, 2016, 08:10:45 PM
Post by: timberfaller on June 20, 2016, 08:43:18 PM
Even if the "district" claims to be broke, the $$$$$$$ will be there to destroy/gate/abandon roads.
The only way he could get a timber sale approved was to show "road decommissioning" done in and around the sale area. Road building was a "red light alert" to the Environmental Attorneys sitting in the wings with their injunctions to STOP and proposed timber sale.
But by all means attend the "public meetings"! It makes "kudos" for those putting them on! They live for "feathers in their cap" helps if they decide to transfer to another district!!
Post by: trophyhunt on June 20, 2016, 09:15:17 PM
Post by: Naches Sportsman on June 20, 2016, 09:26:45 PM
Post by: netcoyote on June 21, 2016, 11:39:30 AM
Lewis County Chapter of Back Country Horsemen repaired the roads that were washed out to Cody and Keenes Horse Camps. See photos at lcbch.org
FS #21 is the only access to the horse camps - main roads are rough. Trails out of the camps have not been cleared yet.
https://scontent.fsnc1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/13434808_591163437731292_1105696040795990108_n.jpg?oh=3bb199c62ea4d1e46c8b7dfaccc4b315&oe=57CA5644[/img]](https://scontent.fsnc1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/13434808_591163437731292_1105696040795990108_n.jpg?oh=3bb199c62ea4d1e46c8b7dfaccc4b315&oe=57CA5644) (http://[img)
https://scontent.fsnc1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/13495281_591163744397928_8414370937863278114_n.jpg?oh=62a6c337aaf31b1981347c6082734883&oe=57CF4B38[/img]](https://scontent.fsnc1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/13495281_591163744397928_8414370937863278114_n.jpg?oh=62a6c337aaf31b1981347c6082734883&oe=57CF4B38) (http://[img)
Post by: westside bull on June 21, 2016, 11:41:28 AM
Adopt a road plan! They could have volunteers adopt certain roads or part of roads, those people would clear the road of trees. If heavy equipment was needed the forest service could pay for the rental, rock or whatever. I will start, I volunteer to take care of corral pass road!!:yeah:
Post by: Skyvalhunter on June 21, 2016, 11:47:29 AM
Post by: Special T on June 21, 2016, 01:05:01 PM
I think saving important roads and volunteer work are the only viable ways to stave off huge closures. Logger is right that timber sales would take care of much of this. The usfs really isn't into selling timber anymore. Which is why they are a net $user instead of producer with a bye product of more public access.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: netcoyote on June 22, 2016, 08:05:19 AM
They are too afraid of liability if private people went out and did the work regardless if they signed a waiver form or not. Kind of like when they had all the private heavy equipment owners wanting to help with the fires and they shot them all down.
I think some in the FS are getting over the liability concern. They have an established policy of allowing volunteers to clear trails using equipment, including chainsaws. Their concern was that there would be liability if they just allowed people to start doing it without training and supervision. They have a program of certifying instructors and sawyers and building relationships with trail teams that seams to be working quite well. I personally have a "Class C" sawyer certification and own my own equipment and safety gear approved by the FS. Sure, it's a commitment of time and money, but I've spent a lot of time in the forests in my past and now that I have more time available (retired) I feel it is a good way to pay back. I want my kids and grandkids to have the same access that I had. It's an uphill battle but it's got to be done.
Post by: swanny on June 23, 2016, 11:33:34 AM
They are too afraid of liability if private people went out and did the work regardless if they signed a waiver form or not. Kind of like when they had all the private heavy equipment owners wanting to help with the fires and they shot them all down.
I think some in the FS are getting over the liability concern. They have an established policy of allowing volunteers to clear trails using equipment, including chainsaws. Their concern was that there would be liability if they just allowed people to start doing it without training and supervision. They have a program of certifying instructors and sawyers and building relationships with trail teams that seams to be working quite well. I personally have a "Class C" sawyer certification and own my own equipment and safety gear approved by the FS. Sure, it's a commitment of time and money, but I've spent a lot of time in the forests in my past and now that I have more time available (retired) I feel it is a good way to pay back. I want my kids and grandkids to have the same access that I had. It's an uphill battle but it's got to be done.
Was just going to say this. I know Evergreen MTB Alliance has and holds sawyer classes for the trail building they do on USFS land. I'm sure they could agree to the same type of set up for volunteer forest road clearing/management.
Post by: ElaphusElatus on November 27, 2016, 09:25:51 AM
http://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=47991
Post by: RB on November 27, 2016, 09:41:34 AM
As my retired USFS(timber crew manager)buddy told me not to many years ago, $$$$$$$$ for road decommissioning come "ear marked" from DC, YOUR public meeting will hold no sway over their agenda.
Even if the "district" claims to be broke, the $$$$$$$ will be there to destroy/gate/abandon roads.
:yeah:
Always found it ironic that they had enough money to haul in loads of boulders to block a road, but sometimes the same amount of "fill" could have fixed a road.
Post by: trophyhunt on November 27, 2016, 09:55:22 AM
Post by: bigtex on November 27, 2016, 06:44:26 PM
My biggest concern, those roads that are closed, are they blocking them off or putting gates on them? We all know who will get the keys if they gate them!There's basically two types of things that will really cause a visible impact:
One is that some roads are to be decommissioned, which means the road surface will be torn up and seed will be planted. Basically the road is gone.
The other is some roads will be closed, but the road itself will remain. That is where the question will be will it be blocked by a gate or boulders? Each pose positives and negatives. Boulders keep everyone out, but can be hard to move in an emergency. Gates can be easily accessed in an emergency but there's the risk of locks being cut off, keys being handed out, and they're also costly.
Post by: netcoyote on November 27, 2016, 07:11:55 PM
http://a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akamai.com/11558/www/nepa/102767_FSPLT3_3906969.pdf (http://a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akamai.com/11558/www/nepa/102767_FSPLT3_3906969.pdf)
The red roads will be decommissioned. The yellow will be "closed", not clear on the method. The green will remain open.
Post by: logger on November 28, 2016, 04:44:50 PM
Post by: trophyhunt on November 28, 2016, 04:54:40 PM
Post by: logger on November 28, 2016, 05:08:55 PM
Post by: pope on November 28, 2016, 05:25:54 PM
These are the maps of the FS final proposal:
http://a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akamai.com/11558/www/nepa/102767_FSPLT3_3906969.pdf (http://a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akamai.com/11558/www/nepa/102767_FSPLT3_3906969.pdf)
The red roads will be decommissioned. The yellow will be "closed", not clear on the method. The green will remain open.
Corral pass will remain open. Last I heard it was closed indefinitely. I think it was summer of 2015 we climbed that hill on bikes and it was closed to vehicles at that time, if my memory is correct.
Post by: ElaphusElatus on November 28, 2016, 07:21:58 PM
http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r6/landmanagement/?cid=stelprd3831710
and will guide individual forest plan revisions. The MBSNF last updated their Land and Resource Management Plan in 1990
http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/mbs/landmanagement/planning
Keep on top of this as your rational comments must be heard.
The argument for more cutting will come from some of the same scientists who were proponents of old growth. They are realizing that a healthy functioning ecosystem has diversity of ages and stand structure, and the ways to get this are fire, insects, root rot, or cutting timber. We need to make sure that science drives the plan revision. The future won't be the way it used to be, but hopefully it will result in more robust ungulate herds on public lands, as well as a healthier ecosystem used by a greater diversity of species, and maybe a few more roads.
Post by: bigtex on November 28, 2016, 07:53:28 PM
Does the forest service ever plan to log in the future? If so, are they going to build the damn roads again?There's more logging going on now (and in the past 5 years) in the Mt Baker Snoqualmie than there was in the previous 20.
Post by: RB on November 28, 2016, 08:09:51 PM
I have a hard time with the forest service closing any road, My company decommissions roads for them and it drives me nuts to rip out a road that could be in pretty good shape with minimal maintnance, $270,000 to rip out six miles almost perfectly good road, for that kind of money we could have fixed up alot of system roads and I mean alot, some are as simple as cleaning the ditch and culverts and brushing the road doesn't take near as much money or effort as the forest service would like to make out.
Have always wondered about that, there are plenty of small private contractors that would brush out roads and clean the ditches for a reasonable price. :twocents:
Post by: Special T on November 28, 2016, 10:10:02 PM
Post by: netcoyote on November 29, 2016, 10:19:03 AM
I have a hard time with the forest service closing any road, My company decommissions roads for them and it drives me nuts to rip out a road that could be in pretty good shape with minimal maintnance, $270,000 to rip out six miles almost perfectly good road, for that kind of money we could have fixed up alot of system roads and I mean alot, some are as simple as cleaning the ditch and culverts and brushing the road doesn't take near as much money or effort as the forest service would like to make out.
Have always wondered about that, there are plenty of small private contractors that would brush out roads and clean the ditches for a reasonable price. :twocents:
I attended the public meetings on the FS proposals for the Greenwater area. The FS tried to always tie the road reduction back to funding but if you listened carefully, you could hear the other reasons clearly. Even the title of the project, "Travel Management Plan" spoke to the notion of restricting TRAVEL more than road maintenance or budgets. I asked if they had metrics to understand what the level of usage of these roads are
getting or a study of the demographics of just WHO was using the roads. They admitted they had done NO evaluation of those metrics. They brought up the statement several times about how many "miles of road per acre" or road density as metrics they were looking at. Wouldn't that metric just align with the higher density population metric of the surrounding area? Also big on their priority (no surprise) was fish habitat and native American access. I suspect the later is why so many of the roads are listed as "basic custodial care" rather than open. That implies that money will still be spent on maintenance but that access will be available for some (guess who?)
Bottom line take-away many of us got at the meeting that the "budget reason" was BS and they were marching to a different drummer than public opinion. Maybe with a new administration at the top of the Dept of Ag. which controls this at the highest level, there may be some hope of halting this road destruction before it's too late.
Post by: Naches Sportsman on November 29, 2016, 01:16:10 PM
They are getting funding from outside sources to rip out these roads and gate them.
I think someone willing to write about it from the inside can create a best seller book.
Post by: trophyhunt on November 29, 2016, 01:24:05 PM
Post by: Special T on November 29, 2016, 02:00:02 PM
Their "lack of budget" trick gets played all too often and time is running out before the majority realizes what is happening.It's called "The Tinder Box; How political correctness destroyed the USFS" many have read it. Logger bought a copy and read it and said it was spot on.
They are getting funding from outside sources to rip out these roads and gate them.
I think someone willing to write about it from the inside can create a best seller book.
It is the most documented case of how preferential hiring and quotas screwed up what was once a surplus agency while providing massive amounts of outdoor recreation.
Post by: bigtex on November 29, 2016, 07:18:20 PM
Bottom line take-away many of us got at the meeting that the "budget reason" was BS and they were marching to a different drummer than public opinion. Maybe with a new administration at the top of the Dept of Ag. which controls this at the highest level, there may be some hope of halting this road destruction before it's too late.I wouldn't hold my breath. After all it was the GW Bush administration who implemented this whole "Travel Management Plan" process and required forests to start working on them.
Post by: Special T on November 30, 2016, 06:57:10 AM
Post by: bigtex on November 30, 2016, 07:53:19 AM
This subject is just another example why people like me aren't so scared of returning federal lands to the states. How much benifit and access are we getting my letting the feds control it? Oh yeah it keeps diminishing with every road bed they take out or gate.
There's a lot of gates on DNR & WDFW lands as well. What about red dot roads on state areas?
Heck in King County basically every DNR parcel is gated and closed to target shooting, there's less restrictions on the USFS lands in King County then there is on DNR land. And if you think this is just a King County issue think about all of the public meetings DNR has had to start regulating recreation in several other parts of the state
Post by: fireweed on November 30, 2016, 08:10:17 AM
Private timberland owner and USFS both use same road to get to their different parcels of land, they have a "cost share agreement". Big landslide wipes out part of the road. Forester and USFS employee jointly take a look at the problem. USFS guy, "Oh, this is really bad. Will take at least a year and $150,000. It will need a NEPA." Private forester, "let me handle it, and you cost share," USFS makes smart decision and replies "ok". $15,000 and a few weeks later, road is fixed following state rules.
The problem and cost is in the PROCESS not the actually fixing or maintenance of roads.
Post by: Special T on November 30, 2016, 09:23:11 AM
Personal example of USFS road management:Bingo!
Private timberland owner and USFS both use same road to get to their different parcels of land, they have a "cost share agreement". Big landslide wipes out part of the road. Forester and USFS employee jointly take a look at the problem. USFS guy, "Oh, this is really bad. Will take at least a year and $150,000. It will need a NEPA." Private forester, "let me handle it, and you cost share," USFS makes smart decision and replies "ok". $15,000 and a few weeks later, road is fixed following state rules.
The problem and cost is in the PROCESS not the actually fixing or maintenance of roads.
Post by: Special T on November 30, 2016, 09:32:07 AM
Does DNR cost tax payers $ ? No they generate funds by managing state lands through Timber sales. Does DNR rip out road bases like the USFS does? No. Are most DNR lands gated? YesThis subject is just another example why people like me aren't so scared of returning federal lands to the states. How much benifit and access are we getting my letting the feds control it? Oh yeah it keeps diminishing with every road bed they take out or gate.
There's a lot of gates on DNR & WDFW lands as well. What about red dot roads on state areas?
Heck in King County basically every DNR parcel is gated and closed to target shooting, there's less restrictions on the USFS lands in King County then there is on DNR land. And if you think this is just a King County issue think about all of the public meetings DNR has had to start regulating recreation in several other parts of the state
So in round about terms your telling me I should support the USFS because I have more freedom on that land. This despite the fact that they make BS reasons to limit accessibility. The problem is that you can make the argument to close a road for a good reason and pull the culverts and gate or tank trap the entrance. You can't make a good argument for destroying miles of road bed that removes access.
I don't care for the DNR or the USFS but if I had to pick it would be the DNR. At least they are generating $ and not costing me any.
Post by: ElaphusElatus on November 30, 2016, 10:40:03 AM
So yes, the 69 miles of road is not there for current motorized vehicle use, but it is not taken down to the level of decommission and can still be reopened if necessary. The 15 miles proposed for decommissioning is far better than the 42 proposed by the Joint Conservation and Recreation Group’s Alternative which was thankfully not considered in the Ranger's decision.
But yes, the feds do seem to make a bigger deal out of things then they need to, resulting in much higher cost and lack of action due to too much caution over being challenged on anything they do. But that's the nature of the lawsuit-happy society we live in.
Post by: logger on November 30, 2016, 03:22:16 PM
Personal example of USFS road management:
Private timberland owner and USFS both use same road to get to their different parcels of land, they have a "cost share agreement". Big landslide wipes out part of the road. Forester and USFS employee jointly take a look at the problem. USFS guy, "Oh, this is really bad. Will take at least a year and $150,000. It will need a NEPA." Private forester, "let me handle it, and you cost share," USFS makes smart decision and replies "ok". $15,000 and a few weeks later, road is fixed following state rules.
The problem and cost is in the PROCESS not the actually fixing or maintenance of roads.
I saw that between f.s and orm, orm had that road fixed in a couple days good as new