Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > Dosewallips Road Washout Project DEIS
 Reply to topic
Previous :: Next Topic
Author Message
xan
Member
Member


Joined: 31 Mar 2007
Posts: 222 | TRs | Pics
xan
Member
PostSat Dec 08, 2007 12:31 pm 
RodF wrote:
(1) The proposal to which NMFS objected, to put the road back in its original alignment, now occupied by the river, was officially dropped. Instead, it'll be hundreds of feet away from the river, outside of the riparian reserve, just as the rest of the road is.
You're a real fount of misinformation, rodf. Quite a few stretches of the road upstream of the washout on NF land are within riparian reserve. Generally riparian reserve widths on fish-bearing streams are two site-potential tree heights, or the edge of the inner gorge, whichever is greater. Call it 400 feet. Most of the road as far as Elkhorn, and at least two shorter segments beyond, are within RR. National Parks do not have "riparian reserves"--it is a Northwest Forest Plan concept--but for sure most of the national park road segment--pretty much everything from the falls on up-- is within that distance. Close enough that the road poses aquatic risks, and has aquatic effects. And from what I have heard about the EIS, there will be several alternatives, none of them officially "preferred". One at least will be the upland route which you tout so enthusiastically, but there will be at least one "low" route in the EIS which involves bridges or fords.
RodF wrote:
In short, it finds there are no chinook spawning pools near or above the washout, so provides no support for the NMFS' earlier concerns. I'll post a more detailed summary of this study separately.
No chinook redds at the site of the washout does not imply no effects, positive and/or negative, on occupied habitat downstream.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
RodF
Member
Member


Joined: 01 Sep 2007
Posts: 2593 | TRs | Pics
Location: Sequim WA
RodF
Member
PostSat Dec 08, 2007 12:56 pm 
ski wrote:
the dosewallips project area doesn't allow for a lot of "wiggle room" as there is a designated wilderness area nearby, allowing only a narrow corridor for a by-pass route. ( a "few hundred feet" is what i was told on the phone yesterday. )
That's right. The boundary of the Buckhorn Wilderness follows the 1000' elevation contour. The river is at ~610', and there is a USGS benchmark 644.9' MSL beside the road just above the washout. The reroute climbs to a bench between 800 and 850' MSL. So the wilderness boundary is nearby, but isn't an issue. And the re-route is well away from the river, as is the rest of the road up to Dose Falls, so isn't vulnerable to future washouts. Anyone interested can go follow the proposed route. The centerline is marked with metal highway division tags and white flagging tape. It crosses an old logging skid path where one will see old rusting, abandoned drag cable. The current route is the third surveyed there; this route avoids crossing a small stream and avoids the largest trees in the area. Much of this area was logged some years ago. Some trees will have to be cut, about the same number and size as two of my neighbors cut to build their homes last year. In return, the old river channel is already filled with new alder.

"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 Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
RodF
Member
Member


Joined: 01 Sep 2007
Posts: 2593 | TRs | Pics
Location: Sequim WA
RodF
Member
PostSat Dec 08, 2007 5:08 pm 
xan wrote:
Generally riparian reserve widths on fish-bearing streams are two site-potential tree heights, or the edge of the inner gorge, whichever is greater. Call it 400 feet.
I would be delighted to meet you at the Dosewallips anytime, so we could search for those elusive 200 foot tall trees! I found a few large trees in the area, indeed some just over half that height, but none of "world-record-contender" size the west side of the Park has, and you're saying are "potentially" there. Please show me!
xan wrote:
Most of the road as far as Elkhorn, and at least two shorter segments beyond, are within RR.
The existing road isn't at issue here. Most of the re-route would be outside the riparian reserve.
xan wrote:
And from what I have heard about the EIS, there will be several alternatives, none of them officially "preferred". One at least will be the upland route which you tout so enthusiastically, but there will be at least one "low" route in the EIS which involves bridges or fords.
Please see the official Notice of Intent published in the Federal Register: "The original proposed action to restore and rebuild the washed out section of Forest Service Road (FSR)2610 using a low-water crossing has been dropped from further consideration. Instead, the ONF and WFLHD proposed to reestablish road access previously provided by FSR 2610 to ONF and Olympic National Park (ONP) recreational facilities by rerouting the road above its former location along the hill-slope above and to the north of the washout."
xan wrote:
Close enough that the road poses aquatic risks, and has aquatic effects. No chinook redds at the site of the washout does not imply no effects, positive and/or negative, on occupied habitat downstream.
If the road remains abandoned until the culverts wash out, it certainly would have aquatic effects! Xan, the Dosewallips suffered its all-time record high flood on November 26, 1949. A short section of the Dose Road washed out, I assume (because there's no other vulnerable place on the road) at the same point the 2002 washout occurred. Local residents took a bulldozer up and reopened the road the following March. Minimal damage. End of story. But since 2002, OPA has blocked any action to prevent the washout from enlarging, or to remediate its sedimentation of the river, while the washout has more than doubled in length and probably quadrupled in the volume of sediment washed into the Dose. OPA bears some responsibility for the destruction of salmon habitat for roughly a half mile downstream. Longer term, this can be remediated by the placement of LWD, just as the ONF had proposed to do in 2004, and is now adopted as official Federal policy by the NMFS in the Chinook Recovery Plan, page 311, "Restore channel and floodplain complexity below washout with full scale wood/ELJ restoration." Indeed, this item is identified in the full study as in the group having the highest potential to restore chinook productivity and abundance (Table 5.3), and the highest potential for actual implementation (Table 5.1)... if OPA doesn't block it yet again. OPA's position, and the delay it has caused, has been needlessly environmentally destructive and is irresponsible.

"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 Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
geobob
Member
Member


Joined: 29 Sep 2007
Posts: 183 | TRs | Pics
Location: seattle
geobob
Member
PostSat Dec 08, 2007 6:59 pm 
Please help clarify the following for me. It is my understanding that the option to rebuild the road along the washed out section of river is no longer being considered and that leaves two scenarios: 1. No reestablishment of the road (the road will remain closed to vehicles where it is currently closed) or 2. Rerouting the road on the hillside above the washout area. Is the paragraph above accurate? More questions: Is it true that the hillside route is not within a designated wilderness area? Is it true that the hillside route is outside any aquatic habitat protection zones associated with the river? Is it true that the hillside route is situated in an area that has been logged in the past? Has there been in the past and/or is there now more than one potential hillside route? One final question. Is there a map available online that shows in enough detail the washout area, the closed/destroyed section of road, the location of the hillside route, and the boudaries of the various management agencies in the vicinity (ONP, designated wilderness areas outside the park, the national forest, private property etc.). Thanks

I think there's an easier way on the far side
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 12798 | TRs | Pics
Location: tacoma
Ski
><((((°>
PostSun Dec 09, 2007 10:57 am 
for a definitive answer to the question of whether or not the area was previously logged, old archival aerial photos will tell. who has them? NFS? UW Dept. of Fisheries?

"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
RodF
Member
Member


Joined: 01 Sep 2007
Posts: 2593 | TRs | Pics
Location: Sequim WA
RodF
Member
PostSun Dec 09, 2007 12:35 pm 
geobob wrote:
It is my understanding that the option to rebuild the road along the washed out section of river is no longer being considered and that leaves two scenarios: 1. No reestablishment of the road (the road will remain closed to vehicles where it is currently closed) or 2. Rerouting the road on the hillside above the washout area.
The original scoping, back in 2003-4, for this project did include a "No Action" alternative and a trail conversion alterative, as mentioned here. These were dropped because of the need to reestablish access to the Dosewallips Ranger Station, Dosewallips Campground and trailheads in Olympic National Park, and Elkhorn Campground in Olympic National Forest. This is the only road access into the east side of Olympic National Park between Staircase and Deer Park, a distance of 80 miles along Hwy. 101. The Proposed Action is to re-open the road. >Is it true that the hillside route is not within a designated wilderness area? Yes. >Is it true that the hillside route is outside any aquatic habitat protection zones associated with the river? Right above the washout, its probably crosses within the 300' foot wide riparian reserve. Most of the re-route, below the washout, is not. >Is it true that the hillside route is situated in an area that has been logged in the past? Part of it certainly has been. The temporary bypass trail above the washout crosses a bulldozed skid path with an old rusting, abandoned drag cable in it, and there are many old stumps scattered throughout that area. I didn't see stumps along the entire route, though. >Has there been in the past and/or is there now more than one potential hillside route? Yes, there have been minor variations in how the road would climb to the bench above the washout. The differences are mostly in the approach east of and below the washout. The latest route avoids crossing a small stream, avoids the largest trees in the area, is less steep (8% vs 10-12% grade) and has turns that aren't as tight, but is longer (0.8 miles vs 0.5 miles). This route has "an emphasis to minimize the footprint of the road and thereby the resource impacts" link. Its still just a narrow, single-lane gravel road with turn-outs, as is the rest of the Dose Road. >One final question. Is there a map available online that shows in enough detail the washout area, the closed/destroyed section of road, the location of the hillside route, and the boudaries of the various management agencies in the vicinity (ONP, designated wilderness areas outside the park, the national forest, private property etc.). The EIS should have all this in it. The washout is in Olympic National Forest. A detailed map wouldn't include Olympic National Park (the boundary is 3 miles west, upriver) or any private property (the Forest boundary is 3-1/2 miles east, downriver).

"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 Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
geobob
Member
Member


Joined: 29 Sep 2007
Posts: 183 | TRs | Pics
Location: seattle
geobob
Member
PostSun Dec 09, 2007 4:11 pm 
RodF, HJT, and ski: Thanks so much for answering my questions. I really appreciate the information. It leads, however, to an additional question. I have seen the term "old growth" often used as a forest descriptor. Does this term have a specific meaning (such as a forest of at least a certain age) or is it an informal term with no formal definition?

I think there's an easier way on the far side
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 12798 | TRs | Pics
Location: tacoma
Ski
><((((°>
PostSun Dec 09, 2007 4:40 pm 
re: "old growth" ( just my lousy opinion here ) the term is right up there with "war on terror" in its capacity to mislead, inflame, obfuscate, or confuse. there are some areas of "uncompromised virgin forest", where no human activity ( ie: logging ) has taken place. ( aka: "climax stage temperate rain forest" ) there are some designated "late successional reserves" ( LSR ) on NFS lands, which sometimes can be really really old trees, but don't necessarily have to be so, nor do they have to be really big trees. there are lots of "old" trees, but they don't necessarily have to be really really big trees ( ie: at timberline ). generally "old growth" ( used in the context of referring to PNW west-side forests ) refers to areas where there are lots of big old trees both standing up and laying down, mixed understory growth, and a healthy population of diverse species ( softwood/hardwood ). does a tree 20" in diameter ( DBH - diameter breast height ) qualify as "old growth" ? there's all kinds of trees bigger than that 6 blocks north of me at Pt. Defiance Park ( most all of which was cut ). it's a good-size tree, but how old is it, really? 80-100 years isn't "old" if you're a tree. for really real "old growth": 8-10 miles up the Queets trail in Harlow Bottom you'll find Sitka Spruce as big as any to be found. or 4-6 miles up Redwood Creek Trail. or the "Old Cedar Grove" down on Long Island in Willapa Bay.

"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
RodF
Member
Member


Joined: 01 Sep 2007
Posts: 2593 | TRs | Pics
Location: Sequim WA
RodF
Member
PostSun Dec 09, 2007 6:41 pm 
geobob wrote:
I have seen the term "old growth" often used as a forest descriptor. Does this term have a specific meaning (such as a forest of at least a certain age) or is it an informal term with no formal definition?
The best formal definition might be from the USFS Pacific Northwest Research Center:
Quote:
The Pacific Northwest old-growth forest is a conifer forest, dominated by large, old trees. In the Pacific Northwest, the most common type of old-growth ecosystem is forests dominated by Douglas-firs and western hemlocks, generally 350 to 750 years old. The youngest old-growth forests are 200 years old, and the oldest are about 1,000 years old. - The Pacific Northwest also has old-growth forests dominated by Sitka spruce and western hemlock, along the Pacific Coast, and at higher elevations in the Cascade Mountains, true fir and hemlock old-growth forests.
In the context of the Dosewallips Road issue, OPA initially described the route as "old growth", but when it became all too apparent there wasn't a tree half that age in the area, adopted the legal term "Late Successional Reserve". This term is not ecologically descriptive; it is a legal term defined in the Northwest Forest Plan. In Olympic National Forest:
Quote:
Olympic National Forest has an area of approximately 632,300 acres. Under the Northwest Forest Plan, this land falls into three principal categories... Late-successional Reserves where silvicultural treatment of young forested stands in certain areas will be permitted in order to accelerate the development of late-successional or old-growth structure. The total area of the Forest's late-successional reserve system is estimated at 417,500 acres. Included in the Olympic's late-successional reserves are approximately 60,000 acres of land administratively withdrawn, including undeveloped recreation areas, botanical areas, developed recreation and administrative sites, bald eagle management areas, and selected river corridors. (these allocations were previously established in the Olympic Forest Plan.)
So 66% of ONF is designated LSR, and most of that has been logged. The Dosewallips Road re-route goes through an area administratively designated as LSR. postscript: Deciduous forests in the Eastern U.S. develop old growth characteristics sooner; 180 to 220 years is typically cited.

"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 Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 12798 | TRs | Pics
Location: tacoma
Ski
><((((°>
PostSun Dec 09, 2007 8:21 pm 
when the LSR designation was "invented", it was provided for that some areas would be pruned/thinned/logged to speed up the process of creating "old growth" characteristics. all LSR units are not necessarily "protected" or off-limits to cutting activity.

"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
geobob
Member
Member


Joined: 29 Sep 2007
Posts: 183 | TRs | Pics
Location: seattle
geobob
Member
PostSun Dec 09, 2007 9:24 pm 
So, if I understand it correctly, the land through which the hillside reroute extends is classified by ONF as late-successional reserve (as defined in the Northwest Forest Plan). Here is a URL to an overview of the Northwest Forest Plan. Note the five key principles in the box on the upper right. http://www.reo.gov/general/aboutNWFP.htm And here's the definition of late-successional reserve from the "definitions" section of the NWFP Overview site:
Quote:
Late Successional Reserves a) A forest in its mature and/or old-growth stages that is reserved under each option in the FEMAT report. (See Old-growth forest and Succession.) (FEMAT, IX-18) b) Land allocation under the Northwest Forest Plan with the objective to protect and enhance conditions of late-successional and old-growth forest ecosystems that serve as a habitat for late-successional and old-growth forest related species, including the northern spotted owl. Limited stand management is permitted, subject to review by the Regional Ecosystem Office. (S&G Jan 2001, p. 77)

I think there's an easier way on the far side
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 12798 | TRs | Pics
Location: tacoma
Ski
><((((°>
PostSun Dec 09, 2007 10:02 pm 
again: LSR units are not "protected" stands. they can be commercially thinned, pruned, or ( selectively ) cut for a variety of reasons, including commercial timber harvesting. for the same reasons the new PM in Britain no longer wants the term "war on terror" used, the term "old growth" should not be used in discussions regarding public lands management: it serves only to confuse and inflame the issue.

"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 12798 | TRs | Pics
Location: tacoma
Ski
><((((°>
PostMon Dec 10, 2007 12:48 pm 
any large wood cut in the proposed project area would most likely be set aside to use for in-stream projects ( specifically man-made logjams or other LWD structures to enhance fish habitat ). as these projects require the use of the largest wood available, a good supply of them would make such projects more easily implemented, as the supply of wood of such size is minimal. ( generally they cannot recruit wood from the stream channel itself. ) so: in the event they do cut down great big trees, they'll go for a good purpose- they won't get run through a chipper to make toilet paper or chopped up to make toothpicks.

"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
mossy mom
Member
Member


Joined: 29 Dec 2006
Posts: 1852 | TRs | Pics
mossy mom
Member
PostTue Dec 18, 2007 11:49 pm 
I would like to see the road re-built. As things are now there is virtually no access to ONP from the West in the Winter. The road to staircase is going to be closed every winter now. What shame they did not put out the Mount Rose fire. Yeah they fought it some but mostly the resources went elsewhere while Mount Rose Burned for the second time in recent history.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
xan
Member
Member


Joined: 31 Mar 2007
Posts: 222 | TRs | Pics
xan
Member
PostWed Dec 19, 2007 12:44 am 
ski wrote:
when the LSR designation was "invented", it was provided for that some areas would be pruned/thinned/logged to speed up the process of creating "old growth" characteristics. all LSR units are not necessarily "protected" or off-limits to cutting activity.
This is misleading in the context. All LSR stands over 80 years old are indeed protected from any sort of logging. The upland Dose bypass is indeed over 80 years old, and in fact most of it meets any reasonable definition of old growth forest.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
   All times are GMT - 8 Hours
 Reply to topic
Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > Dosewallips Road Washout Project DEIS
  Happy Birthday speyguy, Bandanabraids!
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