Forum Index > Stewardship > Threat to clearcut DeLeo Wall
Previous :: Next Topic  
Author Message
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 9642 | TRs
Location: tacoma
Ski
  Top

><((((°>
PostMon May 07, 2018 3:49 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Well.... it might be considered, then, to request that the slope be checked out by qualified, credentialed geologists and hydrologists, who almost always are able to find some reason to require more extensive set-back requirements or tag some areas as potentially unstable.
Has anyone checked the LIDAR imagery of the area?

As mentioned above, however, if it was all cut 80 years ago and it's remained stable, that's a fairly good indication that it will remain so.

Sir Bedivere wrote:
"...seems to me the best thing to do would be as others are saying, let them log it (providing all appropriate environmental precautions are followed) then add it to the park."

^ This might well be the best solution in the long term.

(* Bear in mind I am not at all familiar with the area or its use patterns. )

--------------
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. 
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
RodF
Member
Member


Joined: 01 Sep 2007
Posts: 2450 | TRs
Location: Sequim WA
RodF
  Top

Member
PostTue May 08, 2018 2:28 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
crock wrote:
Does the public have a prescriptive easement to use the two trails that cross this property?  This is a grey area.  This link http://studylib.net/doc/18434369/law-of-easements is from 2007 and doesn’t have the 2015 Gamboa case that RodF refers to above, but the link cites other court cases and implies the public has a strong case for a prescriptive easement for trail use across the property.

Hart, Law of Easements wrote:
Another factor that affects whether the neighborly accommodation doctrine may be used to affect the burden of proof is whether the owner maintains a road or path and the easement claimant is merely a co-user of the road or path.  In these cases, the presumption is that the use is permissive and that the owner is granting neighborly acquiescence or accommodation. Cullier v. Coffin, 57 Wn. 2d 624,627, 358 P.2d 958 (1961).  If instead, however, the claimant made the road or path himself, this is persuasive evidence that the use is adverse rather than permissive. Cullier, 57 Wn.2d at 627

crock wrote:
I use this area a lot a lot and like it a lot, enough that I built the two trails going across the property.

If ten years have passed, and the property owner then blocks your trails, you may be able to make this case wink.gif but it's less clear whether the public could.

--------------
"of all the paths you take in life, make sure a few of them are dirt" - John Muir
"the wild is not the opposite of cultivated.  It is the opposite of the captivated” - Vandana Shiva
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
treeswarper
Alleged Sockpuppet!



Joined: 25 Dec 2006
Posts: 8805 | TRs
Location: Don't move here
treeswarper
  Top

Alleged Sockpuppet!
PostTue May 08, 2018 6:28 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
RandyHiker wrote:
MtnGoat wrote:
Let's let the owners of the resource decide what 'need' is, instead of placing you at the top of the subjective pyramid on 'need'....in spite of not being on top of the ownership pyramid.

NIMBY is a perfectly valid argument for something called enlightened self interest when it just happens to be right next door, a very strange coinkydink.

Since land usage choices affects nearby property owners land owner don't have complete freedom to do whatever they please. 

Obviously-- since this whole thread is about soliciting public comment on whether the land owner should be granted a permit to harvest timber on land they own.

In rural counties such rules tend to be more relaxed,  but in dense population areas a more regulated approach is appropriate.   Extreme example: Building a oil refinery right next to an apartment complex will have a negative impact on the residents of said complex.    Heck even in Klickitat county you might not welcome it if your next door neighbor decided to build a rendering plant and the county had no regulations concerning where such plants could be located.

It has to be zoned.  I bet it is zoned for timber or agriculture. 

People buying real estate outside of cities really need to research what zone they are buying in instead of buying and then demanding
rules/historical use be changed.

Did the tree farm exist before the land was pillaged for houses?

--------------
What's especially fun about sock puppets is that you can make each one unique and individual, so that they each have special characters. And they don't have to be human––animals and aliens are great possibilities
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
ThursdayHiker
Member
Member


Joined: 09 Dec 2014
Posts: 47 | TRs

ThursdayHiker
  Top

Member
PostTue May 08, 2018 5:48 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
I am directly involved with SaveDeLeoWall.org
My interest in this area is purely inspired by my love for wildlands and wanting to protect Cougar Mountain Wildland Park.  I live about 15 min away from the Dalpay property so it's not a NIMBY issue for me.

I'm a bit taken back by the strong opinions expressed by posters who obviously know little about this proposed clearcut.

The Dalpay Property is a 35+ acre long rectangle that extends from May Valley Rd all the way up the very steep Deleo wall to the the very top of Marshall's Hill.  This property is within the Newcastle City Limits.  The entire east and north edges of the property are adjacent to Cougar Mountain Wildland Park.  The property is zoned for forestry and rezoning it to residential is highly unlikely due to a lack of safe access and steep slopes.
Just west of the property is a similarly shaped 40 acre parcel owned by a Chinese land developer.
They have not had any luck with development permits due to access issues.

This entire side of Marshall's Hill is covered with beautiful forest that is actually mostly virgin forest that has regrown naturally after a fire.  Most of the trees are over 100 years old.  There is a well established trail system that dates back to the 1970/80's.  The Deleo Wall viewpoint is smack dab in the middle of the property.

Logging this tract would be quite awful.  It would cut an ugly gash into an otherwise beautiful and unblemished forest that covers then entire steep south side of Marshall's Peak.  There are several homes at the bottom of the Dalpay property that would be at risk for flooding and landslides if this clearcut were to occur.

Please look at my 56 second drone video and judge for yourself.  The drone was launched from the Deleo viewpoint which is right in the middle of the proposed clearcut.



Marshall's Hill, Deleo Wall in center
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
RandyHiker
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 6082 | TRs
Location: Mobile
RandyHiker
  Top

Snarky Member
PostTue May 08, 2018 7:15 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
treeswarper wrote:
Did the tree farm exist before the land was pillaged for houses?

The land is zoned for forestry-- but I don't think that alone defines it as a "tree farm"   .  The tree farm outside of North Bend has access roads from prior harvests and when parcels are cut they are replanted  and even fertilized. 

This parcel has neither access roads, nor was was it replanted when the surrounding area was logged in the 1920's -- the section around the cliff was never harvested as the hillside is steep enough to make a timber harvest less efficient when using the technology used during the 1920s
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 9642 | TRs
Location: tacoma
Ski
  Top

><((((°>
PostTue May 08, 2018 8:02 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
ThursdayHiker wrote:
I'm a bit taken back by the strong opinions expressed by posters who obviously know little about this proposed clearcut.

Clearcuts are clearcuts. Trees in Western Washington are trees in Western Washington.

Certainly there may be little differences and different circumstances in different locations, but forestry is forestry. The locations don't change that part.

Interesting video. Looks like a relatively young stand. If it was naturally reseeded after a fire (or clearcut) in the 1920s that's probably why those trees you're standing next to in the first few seconds of the video (as you're launching the drone) are so small - too close together.

--------------
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. 
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
ThursdayHiker
Member
Member


Joined: 09 Dec 2014
Posts: 47 | TRs

ThursdayHiker
  Top

Member
PostTue May 08, 2018 9:34 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Ski,
I'm not sure if you are for real or just trolling for a reaction?  Do you really think that trees and locations in WA are all about the same?  So you think that the old growth forest in the Hoh River Valley is the same as a scrubby 3rd growth forest in the North Fork Snoqualmie Valley? I suspect that few would share your opinion.

The trees on this well drained steep south facing slope are actually small but relatively old.  The trees at the very top and lower on the slope are good sized (up to 4+ feet in diameter).  The forest also has a good number of mature Madrone trees which makes for a relatively uncommon and interesting ecosystem.

There are no tree farms or clearcuts within miles of this location.  A clearcut here would be totally out of place.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 9642 | TRs
Location: tacoma
Ski
  Top

><((((°>
PostTue May 08, 2018 11:19 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
ThursdayHiker: did you miss this part of my statement above:

Ski wrote:
Certainly there may be little differences and different circumstances in different locations.

The uncompromised late-seral growth in the valleys of the western Olympics isn't being discussed, and it's highly unlikely that any of it will be cut in our lifetimes, or the lifetimes of our children, or in the lifetimes of their children or grandchildren. I don't see how bringing those forests into the conversation has any relevance.

There's an uncompromised little stand of old Western Red Cedar (the "Don Bonker Grove") down on Long Island, but I don't think that's relevant either.

And there's a wee bit of really old Noble Fir down at the bottom of Yellowjacket Creek in the South Cascades, but it's doubtful anybody's going to go cutting it any time soon, either.

So outside of a few tiny little areas, yes, for the most part Western Washington trees are Western Washington trees, and clearcuts are clearcuts.

The difference is that I don't really have big issues with killing trees on privately-owned land. That's why the landowners own the land: so they can grow trees and then kill them for money. Same reason farmers in the Midwest plant corn. Same reason farmers in eastern Washington plant wheat or lentils or hops or what-the-hell-ever. A crop is a crop.

There have been suggestions above about purchasing the land from the owners to protect it from cutting. That's always an option, but it requires getting the money together to do it.

It's also been noted that there's a possibility there may be issues with the landowner's proposed plan that have yet to be examined by the Washington State Department of Natural Resources - they're the people who have the final say-so as to whether or not the area can be cut. It remains to be seen what they'll say about the landowner's plan.

As mentioned by another member, we as a society have a need for wood products. We use wood to build houses, make paper, and all kinds of other stuff. Wood comes from trees.
We can either kill trees here at home, or we can outsource wood products elsewhere.
In the larger context, are we "saving the environment" by buying finished lumber from Canada? Are you okay with the Canadian government's subsidized raping of the landscape in British Columbia so we can buy finished lumber from the Canadians?
Or maybe you'd rather supply the demand from pirated wood hauled out of the forests of Thailand and South China and Malaysia? Because as everybody knows, they adhere to such rigid environmental regulations when they go in with crews to steal the forests that belong to the people of those countries.

Taking a longer view, you might consider that trees grow back. They'll even do it all on their own without any help! Of course, we currently require that landowners replant new trees after cutting - I think the ratio is something like five to one - I could be wrong on that part, treeswarper might know the correct number.
When you cut them down, miraculous things happen: wild blackberries come up in two years and you've got a hell of a berry patch until the seedling trees shade them out. Foraging ungulates have more stuff to eat. After a few years, new trees come up and grow. That's why they call it a "sustainable industry".
There are stands along Hwy 101 between Hoquiam and Quinault that I've watched grow and be cut and grow and be cut twice during my lifetime. The world did not stop rotating on its axis as a result of that happening.

If you think that's "trolling", you might want to click on my "handle" there on the left and peruse my previous posts about this subject. I do my best to not allow my belief systems to get in the way of reality. Some people here have issues with that. Some don't.

--------------
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. 
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
ThursdayHiker
Member
Member


Joined: 09 Dec 2014
Posts: 47 | TRs

ThursdayHiker
  Top

Member
PostWed May 09, 2018 7:09 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
The logging proposal submitted by Dalpay to DNR has been reviewed by City of Newcastle, Renton, King County and an environmental lawyer hired by an adjacent homeowner.  They all found several errors in the proposal and have written responses to DNR to reject the current proposal. They also asked to reclassify the project from level 3 to a level 4 (I'm not sure what that means). We have no idea how responsive DNR will be to these concerns.

Yesterday DNR did a walk through on the Dalpay property in response to the submitted logging proposal.  This included DNR officials, Dalpay officials, reps from City of Newcastle, etc.

A decision by DNR will be made by 5/18.  Logging could start immediately after approval.

We are hoping that Dalpay will be open to allowing purchase of the logging rights or better yet buying the property outright.

The core group at SaveDeLeoWall.org has done an amazing job of creating a nice website and alerting officials at multiple city, county and state agencies.  This group has only been in existence since 4/20 when an adjacent land owner stumbled on the proposal. We are also trying to inspire interest with Forterra and Trust For Public Lands.  Unfortunately there are several other properties at risk around Cougar that are already being addressed so resources are spread thin.

If you are interested in saving DeLeo Wall from this clearcut then please go to SaveDeLeoWall.org and get involved on some level.  Right now they are in the letter writing stage.  It may soon turn into fund raising as things evolve.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
crock
Member
Member


Joined: 14 Aug 2004
Posts: 43 | TRs
Location: Newcastle
crock
  Top

Member
PostThu May 10, 2018 8:29 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
ThursdayHiker wrote:
This entire side of Marshall's Hill is covered with beautiful forest that is actually mostly virgin forest that has regrown naturally after a fire.  Most of the trees are over 100 years old.

There are old cedar stumps below the DeLeo Wall cliffs, implying the area was logged (not burned).  Take a look at 1936 aerial photos on King County's iMap http://gismaps.kingcounty.gov/iMap/  The DeLeo Wall Cliff is entirely in view and there are logs on the ground above the cliff.  It's pretty clear the area was logged a few years before the aerial photo was taken; about 1930.

RandyHiker wrote:
This parcel has neither access roads, nor was was it replanted when the surrounding area was logged in the 1920's -- the section around the cliff was never harvested as the hillside is steep enough to make a timber harvest less efficient when using the technology used during the 1920s

The area is steep, but it was logged both above and below the cliffs, as evidenced by both the extant cedar stumps and King County's 1936 aerial photos.

ThursdayHiker wrote:
There is a well established trail system that dates back to the 1970/80's.

According to The Authoritative Guide to the Hiking Trails of Cougar Mountain published in 2000 (and based on Harvey Manning's writings going back to 1981) The DeLeo Wall Trail was built across what is now the Dalpay property in 1981.  However, the DeLeo Wall Trail was not the one people currently use along the cliffs, but instead only touched one viewpoint at the far southeast end of the cliff and then climbed steeply north to the top of Marshall's Hill - this trail is not much used anymore.

The trail that people now use following along the top of the cliffs and offering one viewpoint after another was built in 2001.  I built it because I wanted a training run loop around Marshall's Hill, and the DeLeo Wall Trail was far too steep to run.  I built the lower trail across the property in 2000 in order to access a loop trail around Marshall's Hill.

I still use these trails a lot and want them to continue to exist.  The property has been zoned by King County as forest land at least as far back as 1982.  The owners have a right to log it.  If society wants public ownership of the land, the owner must legally be compensated.  Logging the property would open up views that will disappear if the ~90 year old second growth continues to mature.

Let the land be logged (again) and then we can use our limited tax money to buy the land for much less than it would take to buy the land now.  Keeping the trails is much more important than keeping the trees.  Without the trails nobody would know this area and nobody would care whether or not it was logged.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 9642 | TRs
Location: tacoma
Ski
  Top

><((((°>
PostThu May 10, 2018 10:50 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
^ If you were going to go that route, consider the possibility of allowing some buffer zone around the trail system (if that's practicable) and rework the purchase price accordingly.
Logging activity directly on the trail corridor really makes a hell of a mess out of a trail. (see Wright Meadow trail #3, Blue Lake Trail #271, etc. GPNF.)

There was a note up-thread about good-size Pacific Madrone on the parcel. There's no reason they can't work around the Madrone - it has no value as timber. They left it all intact when they cut the parcel between the SE corner of Wilcox Farms property and the Nisqually River (just east-southeast of McKenna 46.867376, -122.467342 )(cut about 1992), and in the "Salmon Creek Ravine" in Burien just off of Ambaum Blvd. SW.. Not uncommon to leave it alone when doing regen harvests on small parcels.

==

(* if you bothered to look at the Google Earth images at those GPS coordinates above, just an FYI: the old grove of Western Red Cedar that Harvey Manning spoke of in one of his earlier-edition hiking guides is here: 46.864229, -122.457699 - the "trail" can be seen as a faint line beginning at the eastern end of the southeasternmost chicken house at Wilcox.
I had to get clearance from Wilcox to drive back there. Followed that trail (actually an old roadbed) down and across the face of the slope, where it will now traverse through three separate parcels that were all cut about the same time: late 80s - early 90s, and then just west of the mouth of Taxwax Creek there's a sliver of ancient Thuja Plicata down there.
Access might be sketchy - the guy who used to own the piece just southeast of Tanwax Creek used to do target practice out there on the gravel bar with a mini Mac10, so be sure not to venture over to the south side of the creek.)

--------------
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. 
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
RodF
Member
Member


Joined: 01 Sep 2007
Posts: 2450 | TRs
Location: Sequim WA
RodF
  Top

Member
PostThu May 10, 2018 11:18 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Ski wrote:
Logging activity directly on the trail corridor really makes a hell of a mess out of a trail.

Well, it does if the slash isn't cleaned up.  But it's easy to clean up a trail (or a road) corridor with the equipment on hand while logging, and they may do so anyway to make it easier to replant.  Anyway, the parcel is only 1/8 mile wide so the trails crossing it could easily be cleaned up by hand in a couple hours.

I appreciate crock's position, as it happens I have three neighbors who decided to log this year and I walk trails across their properties every week in the winter myself, too.  Fortunately, none of them are clearcutting everything, and something did deserve to be done to overstocked parts of these parcels.  While it does leave a mess for a couple years, the new browse also attracts a lot more elk.  The remaining trees are more subject to windthrow, and I asked (and got) permission to clear a couple off the trails.

--------------
"of all the paths you take in life, make sure a few of them are dirt" - John Muir
"the wild is not the opposite of cultivated.  It is the opposite of the captivated” - Vandana Shiva
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
MultiUser
Member
Member


Joined: 16 Feb 2011
Posts: 158 | TRs
Location: United States
MultiUser
  Top

Member
PostFri May 11, 2018 10:34 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
RodF wrote:
We, it does if the slash isn't cleaned up.  But it's easy to clean up a trail (or a road) corridor with the equipment on hand while logging, and they may do so anyway to make it easier to replant.  Anyway, the parcel is only 1/8 mile wide so the trails crossing it could easily be cleaned up by hand in a couple hours.

I appreciate crock's position, as it happens I have three neighbors who decided to log this year and I walk trails across their properties every week in the winter myself, too.  Fortunately, none of them are clearcutting everything, and something did deserve to be done to overstocked parts of these parcels.  While it does leave a mess for a couple years, the new browse also attracts a lot more elk.  The remaining trees are more subject to windthrow, and I asked (and got) permission to clear a couple off the trails.

The mountain bike trails in the Tokul area have fared pretty well through logging.  The landowners allows Evergreen mountain bike alliance to do some marking of the trail area, and then the logging company is directed to try to minimize impact on the the trails.  Most trails have reopened very quickly after logging.

It is truly amazing how many people feel they have a right to dictate what other people do with their property.  This thread should be a 'thank you' to the landowners for the years of free public access that has been afforded.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
cambajamba
Member
Member


Joined: 05 Nov 2011
Posts: 339 | TRs

cambajamba
  Top

Member
PostFri May 11, 2018 10:37 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
*record scratch!*

You can ride at Tokul again? Wasn't it closed by uh...whoever owns the Weyerhauser land now?
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
MultiUser
Member
Member


Joined: 16 Feb 2011
Posts: 158 | TRs
Location: United States
MultiUser
  Top

Member
PostFri May 11, 2018 10:57 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
cambajamba wrote:
*record scratch!*

You can ride at Tokul again? Wasn't it closed by uh...whoever owns the Weyerhauser land now?

Yes, but a permit is required.  https://www.sqrecreation.com/

CG has worked with Evergreen and approved new trail additions each year, which have been built by volunteers.  Evergreen's latest fundraising mentions 4 more miles of trail to be built out there.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
  Display:     All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Forum Index > Stewardship > Threat to clearcut DeLeo Wall
Jump to:   
Search this topic:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
   Use Disclaimer Powered by phpBB Privacy Policy