Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > Wild Olympics Wilderness Act passes House
Previous :: Next Topic  
Author Message
treeswarper
Alleged Sockpuppet!



Joined: 25 Dec 2006
Posts: 9755 | TRs
Location: Don't move here
treeswarper
  Top

Alleged Sockpuppet!
PostTue Jul 28, 2020 4:01 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
There's a bit more to repairing a road than just shoving dirt around.  How far would slide material have to be hauled?  Where could it be placed?  Is it economical to haul it far enough so it won't affect the wilderness?

One has to have a spot where it won't run into a creek or cause a landslide or have a lot of runoff causing all the salmon in the world to die from the silt.

My references?  Working on road decommissioning projects.  Finding a suitable spot to put waste (that's the mud or rocks and debris that slides onto roads) is very difficult what with all the rules to follow.

The same goes for removing culverts.  Where is the fill that has to be removed going to be dumped?  And, this is quite frustrating for some folks, sometimes a road has to be repaired so it can be decommissioned, or in the case of roads in a wilderness area, obliterated.  Equipment has got to get in to do the work.  Pulling out fill and culverts and recontouring slopes is a bit beyond a the ability of a weekend WTA party.

Things get complicated quickly in areas with steep slopes.

--------------
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
altasnob
Member
Member


Joined: 29 Aug 2007
Posts: 202 | TRs
Location: Tacoma
altasnob
  Top

Member
PostTue Jul 28, 2020 11:07 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
As I mentioned previously,  the Wild Olympics proposal includes setbacks of 200-500 feet.

If a dirt road that goes deep into National Forest/National Park can't be repaired without rerouting the road more than 200-500 feet is it really the wilderness boundary that is keeping the road from being repaired? Or is it the fact that the road is in a geologically unstable location and would require exorbitant costs to repair and maintain? Or is it other environmental laws (Endanger Species Act, Clean Water Act), that have nothing to do with wilderness designation, that makes repair more costly and difficult?

Further, if a road is washed out, there is the money to repair it, there is the will to repair it, and the only thing preventing the repair is the nearby wilderness boundary, that wilderness boundary can be moved by an act of Congress. Congress did this in response to the lawsuit over the Green Mountain lookout (they specifically exempted the lookout from the wilderness).

I still do not believe the only reason the Dosewallips road has not been repaired is the nearby wilderness boundary. It appears there are a whole host or reasons this road has not been repaired but blaming wilderness and environmentalist is the easiest scape goat.
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
Sculpin
Member
Member


Joined: 23 Apr 2015
Posts: 681 | TRs

Sculpin
  Top

Member
PostWed Jul 29, 2020 8:02 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
altasnob wrote:
I still do not believe the only reason the Dosewallips road has not been repaired is the nearby wilderness boundary.

Correct.  Wilderness designation is not even a factor.  From a civil engineering standpoint, that side of the Dose is a disaster waiting to happen.  The river would soon take out any structure down low, and above is a 12 degree, unstable slope.  Any road up there would require major earthmoving efforts nearly every year to keep open.

https://products.kitsapsun.com/archive/2003/11-03/302554_washed-out_road_into_park_will_.html

Three pages of insults and nattering about evil environmentalists, and yet no one met your challenge of a single road that has remained unrepaired because of nearby wilderness.  Typical for this forum.   frown.gif

--------------
Between every two pines is a doorway to the new world. - John Muir
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 11139 | TRs
Location: tacoma
Ski
  Top

><((((°>
PostWed Jul 29, 2020 9:21 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
sculpin wrote:
From a civil engineering standpoint, that side of the Dose is a disaster waiting to happen.  The river would soon take out any structure down low, and above is a 12 degree, unstable slope.  Any road up there would require major earthmoving efforts nearly every year to keep open.

False.

The "low road" option was abandoned after it had been determined it would not remain stable during a subsequent high water event.

An alternate plan was drawn up which re-routed the road away from the river. The project supervisor (sorry, can't recall name now - he worked out of the Black Lake USFS office) sent two different crews of federal geologists up there to do redundant soil and slope stability tests.
The area for the proposed 0.9 mile re-route was on stable ground, although there were some questions regarding the gradient angle of the cut-banks alongside the road. As I recall, that plan called for the removal of (help me out here Rod) about.... 91 trees (?)

Arguments that the project area was "old growth" were proven to be false when several different individuals actually walked the area and found multiple stumps and remains of yarding cables left behind after a cut done in the 1940s.

The whole "unstable hillside" argument was bogus - the proposed re-route was on ground that was determined by two different, redundant federal geological surveys to be perfectly suitable.

What actually happened was that in the eleventh hour, after the process had been stalled and stalled and stalled and stalled and then stalled again by repeated objections from a couple organizations from the Sequim/Port Angeles area was that they simply ran out of money to complete the project.

Oh.. .and yes... all through the process there were objections raised about the project site area being immediately adjacent to a designated wilderness area.

All the details are posted in previous "Dosewallips" threads, but if you don't want to bother to go back and read them that's your choice. I'm not going to go back and ferret them out for you (or anybody else.)

If you want to engage in a fact-based discussion on this, fine. Don't hold onto any expectations of any "dialog" occurring if you continue to post nonsense that is not fact based. I was engaged with the project supervisor down at Black Lake throughout the entire process and I clearly recall exactly what happened - and again, in the end, they ran out the clock by stalling the process to the point where USFS ran out of funding for the project.

--------------
"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
Kim Brown
Member
Member


Joined: 13 Jul 2009
Posts: 5801 | TRs

Kim Brown
  Top

Member
PostWed Jul 29, 2020 11:30 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
altasnob wrote:
I still do not believe the only reason the Dosewallips road has not been repaired is the nearby wilderness boundary. It appears there are a whole host or reasons this road has not been repaired but blaming wilderness and environmentalist is the easiest scape goat.

I think you're correct. The Decision Notice was signed (I checked their website; couldn't locate it, but to be honest I didn't look very hard; it's probably still out there somewhere). The road repair was a go, pending funding. But it was never funded. USFS didn't want to fork over the dough to repair a road that leads only to ONP land, so asked ONP to help out. ONP didn't want to fork over any dough to repair a USFS road.

The agencies didn't click.

--------------
" I'm really happy about this! … I have very strong good and horrible memories up there."  – oldgranola, NWH’s outdoors advocate.
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: 11139 | TRs
Location: tacoma
Ski
  Top

><((((°>
PostWed Jul 29, 2020 3:29 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Kim wrote:
"... it's probably still out there somewhere..."

In part, that is correct.

Virtually all of the conversations and information that was originally posted here on this site remains.

I would imagine that all of the USFS documentation is still out there somewhere, although sourcing it might require some detective work.

What is not still out there are the web pages that were posted by Olympic Park Associates, who removed/altered content from their site as the project evolved. Rod should be able to confirm this as well - he and I were both picking apart the content of the stuff being posted by Scarborough and McNulty - they were editing (or deleting) content as they were being called out on their lies.

Another bunch of stuff that probably can't be found now would be the tiny independent sites that went up in the early years of the process - like the one put up by the guy who owned the little store in Brinnon - they probably simply ran out of steam or (quite likely) went out of business and the sites went down.

And again, in the end, it was all about the money. I was in regular contact with the project supervisor down at Black Lake - he and I had established a pretty good rapport over the phone, and I had the benefit of his candor in many phone conversations. They simply ran out of money and didn't anticipate additional funding for a project that had dragged on for such a length of time and weren't real enthusiastic about starting all over again with a new EIS on the project.

And although I had a fabulous relationship with ONP's compliance officer at that time (who has since moved and is probably retired by now) she never mentioned there was any point of contention between ONP and USFS. In fairness I should note that she was rather reticent about getting involved in a project which wasn't on NPS real estate.

--------------
"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
altasnob
Member
Member


Joined: 29 Aug 2007
Posts: 202 | TRs
Location: Tacoma
altasnob
  Top

Member
PostWed Jul 29, 2020 8:41 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
From the Dose FEIS Summary final, regarding all of the proposed alternatives:

"Project activity is proposed within a narrow corridor between the Buckhorn and The Brothers
Wilderness areas. While no activities are proposed within the Wilderness areas themselves,
there could be impacts to wilderness values."

https://www.fs.usda.gov/nfs/11558/www/nepa/8492_FSPLT2_029264.pdf

In the Dose Entire FEIS document for alternatives B and C, which are the alternatives that involve a reroute, it says:

"These alternatives propose no activities within the Buckhorn Wilderness or The Brothers
Wilderness and would have no effect on the preservation of wilderness character in terms of
these qualities: untrammeled, undeveloped, and natural"

"There would be some limited effect to the wilderness character of outstanding opportunities
for solitude and unconfined type of recreation during road construction. Construction
activities would generate noise and dust for limited times within a two year period. However
due to the distance of the construction activity from the wilderness boundaries and the
limited use of the wildernesses in the affected area the effect if any would be minor and
short-term in nature. "

https://www.fs.usda.gov/nfs/11558/www/nepa/8492_FSPLT2_029265.pdf

All the documents referenced can be found here:

https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=7483

The whole point of this side track is Wild Olympics says no roads or trails will be closed, people objected. I asked for precedence and was told to look at the Does road. Just because a few folks objected to the road reconstruction being so close to wilderness doesn't mean wilderness stopped the road from being rebuilt. Wilderness would stop the new road from being rebuilt if the new road was in the wilderness, which was not proposed on any of the alternatives. So there is still no precedence to doubt Wild Olympics' claim that no roads or trails will be closed.

The Forest Service page says "on hold" for status of project. You can always FOIA things from the Forest Service if you can't find it on their web site. And you can use the way back machine to find old websites that have since been changed/deleted:

https://archive.org/web/
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
Kim Brown
Member
Member


Joined: 13 Jul 2009
Posts: 5801 | TRs

Kim Brown
  Top

Member
PostWed Jul 29, 2020 9:18 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Ski wrote:
she never mentioned there was any point of contention between ONP and USFS

Oh, I don't know that there was any contention. Neither agency wanted to try locating funds for the reasons already mentioned. Imagine the grant application, if they could find a grant that fits,  and the potential grantors scratching their heads.

--------------
" I'm really happy about this! … I have very strong good and horrible memories up there."  – oldgranola, NWH’s outdoors advocate.
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: 11139 | TRs
Location: tacoma
Ski
  Top

><((((°>
PostWed Jul 29, 2020 9:52 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
^ Originally they qualified for ERFO money. Not sure what happened there. Might have been "disqualified" after the decision was made to move the location of the road. (??)

--------------
"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: 2530 | TRs
Location: Sequim WA
RodF
  Top

Member
PostSat Aug 01, 2020 6:41 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
altasnob wrote:
The whole point of this side track is Wild Olympics says no roads or trails will be closed, people objected. I asked for precedence and was told to look at the Does road.

You are correct.  You should've been directed to the Stehekin Road as the premier precedent.  (Overview: This CCC-built road along the upper Stehekin River in North Cascades NP washed out.  The alternative of moving it back from the river onto the original Cascade Wagon Road was foreclosed because its route is now within the Stephen Mather Wilderness boundary.  Congress failed to adjust the wilderness boundary, so the road remains closed.)

In the Olympics, the upper Hoh Road has repeatedly washed out at several sites.  Alternatives to move it back from the river are foreclosed, as they would require wilderness boundary adjustments.  Many extensive reconstruction projects have instead been necessary at a half dozen sites along the river, particularly a new bridge at West Twin Creek.  The Sol Duc Road (at the North Sol Duc trailhead parking area), Graves Creek Road (several sites), North Shore Road (Finley Creek vicinity, Lake Quinault) and the Queets Road are also threatened, and can't be moved back from the rivers because the wilderness boundary is set back only 50 feet from these roads.

I am not aware of any existing roads whose future is threatened by the Wild Olympics legislation, except one: the FS2860-300 spur providing US NRCS access to the Upper Dungeness SNOTEL.

Ski wrote:
^ Originally they [Dose Road] qualified for ERFO money. Not sure what happened there. Might have been "disqualified" after the decision was made to move the location of the road. (??)

Correct.  "ERFO projects are intended to return an asset to its previous, pre-disaster condition.   ERFO is not intended to fund improvements, nor to address issues that existed prior to the disaster."  link  ERFO would've covered the repair in-place originally proposed in 2004.  But ERFO does not cover "improvements" like moving the road up away from the river, as decided in the final EIS decision in 2014.  However, had the environmental review been completed sooner, it would've been "shovel-ready" for funds in the 2009 ARRA stimulus act.  Repeated objections and threats of lawsuits delayed it for years, so that opportunity was lost.  sigh)

--------------
"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
RodF
Member
Member


Joined: 01 Sep 2007
Posts: 2530 | TRs
Location: Sequim WA
RodF
  Top

Member
PostSat Aug 01, 2020 7:42 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
altasnob wrote:
RodF wrote:
Anne Elk wrote:
I wonder if there was some "giveaway" in order for these protections to get attached to the NDAA,  like continuing to allow the Whidbey NAS flyboys to continue conducting war games over the park.  huh.gif

Done.

Protecting America's Wilderness Act was amended to include this provision:

Quote:
SEC. 801. Military activities.
Nothing in this Act precludes—
(1) low-level overflights of military aircraft over wilderness areas;
(2) the designation of new units of special airspace over wilderness areas; or
(3) the establishment of military flight training routes over wilderness areas.


Protecting America's Wilderness Act is not the legislation that would authorize the Wild Olympics Wilderness. So I am not sure why you are claiming in order to pass the Wild Olympics Wilderness Act there was a "giveaway" involving low-level military aircraft.

I was not claiming there was a "giveaway".  I simply informed Anne Elk that Congress has just passed such legislation.

--------------
"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
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 11139 | TRs
Location: tacoma
Ski
  Top

><((((°>
PostSat Aug 01, 2020 7:52 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
RodF wrote:
I am not aware of any existing roads whose future is threatened by the Wild Olympics legislation..."

Possibly.... the upper end of the LOWER Queets road? It is currently closed (approx.) 4.5 miles from Hwy 101 - 2.5 miles shy of its terminus at the Matheny Creek Bridge.

Per roads and C.M. (pers. comm. / phone) my understanding is that no plans are currently on the table to effect repairs.

(Still waiting on response from roads regarding the section on the upper road between the 2180-010 and Streators Crossing.)

--------------
"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: 2530 | TRs
Location: Sequim WA
RodF
  Top

Member
PostSat Aug 01, 2020 9:31 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Ski wrote:
RodF wrote:
I am not aware of any existing roads whose future is threatened by the Wild Olympics legislation..."

Possibly.... the upper end of the LOWER Queets road? It is currently closed (approx.) 4.5 miles from Hwy 101 - 2.5 miles shy of its terminus at the Matheny Creek Bridge.

Let's see... that's within the Park.

The Park's Daniel J. Evans Wilderness is on the north bank up to Sams' River, so doesn't touch the Queets Road, which is on the south bank.  "Wild Olympics" proposes wilderness further up the Sam's River in the Forest, which won't affect the Queets Road. 

Wild and Scenic River designation imposes the additional hurdle of a Section 7 analysis prior to any road repair project within the river corridor.

"Wild Olympics" proposes the Queets from Sam's River to the Park boundary be designated a scenic river.  NPS already determined the Queets is eligible for W&SR designation, so already protects its values, so would do the equivalent of a Section 7 analysis prior to any project whether "Wild Olympics" is passed or not.  "Wild Olympics" passage shouldn't pose any new barrier to repair of the Queets Road.

I recall there's also concern about access to the Humptulips and Wynoochee segments that would be designated as scenic rivers.  Both existing and proposed recreational access for kayaks, rafting or fishing.  The Act does not address those concerns by designating these segments as recreational rivers, rather than as scenic rivers.

--------------
"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
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 11139 | TRs
Location: tacoma
Ski
  Top

><((((°>
PostSat Aug 01, 2020 10:10 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Yes, the entirety of both the upper and lower roads are within the Park boundaries.

If people actually read the text that's already been posted here in the thread, some of these redundant arguments wouldn't be necessary.

And yes, you nailed it with the "feel goodism" comment just above.

--------------
"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
  Display:     All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > Wild Olympics Wilderness Act passes House
  Happy Birthday DayveeB, Movenhike, clerr!
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