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
PostWed Dec 19, 2007 12:58 am 
geobob wrote:
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?
Old forest of natural origin. That's pretty much it. What is "old" from a forest development perspective? That depends on site, elevation, forest type. Better sites develop complexity faster. In the western hemlock zone (western WA below say 2000') 175 years is a pretty good cutoff date between "mature" and "old growth", if one has to pick a single number. Seward park is old growth forest. A few stands in Tiger Mt state forest are pushing old growth: say ~150 years; but for the most part it's too young, and most of it's second growth from the 20's. The Mt Si trail, at least the lower half, is from the 1910 fire, so it's pushing 100 years old. In another 75 it'll be old growth. It's a meaningful concept, but the boundaries are fuzzy and ambiguous.

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 1:51 am 
RodF wrote:
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!
I honestly don't know what would be considered site potential tree height in the Dose. I know there are a few really magnificent douglas firs in the Rocky Brook area of the lower Dose, near the federal/private land boundary. At least one is an honest ten-footer. As big as the biggest I have seen on the Hood Canal district. They clearly don't get as big, or as tall, as they do in, say, the Elwha, or where they occur in the W slope valleys. But I very much doubt that a reasonable number is less than 150', and 175' might be a better number. 100' is way too short. Jan Henderson, the Oly/MBS ecologist, probably has a number, if anybody cared to ask. But whether it's 150, 175', or 200', it really doesn't change my contention that a whole lot of the upper Dose road is within Riparian reserve boundaries. And for what it's worth, 200' is a very very long way short of world record height. The tallest known to be alive now is 328' tall,and there are 19th-century reports of one over 400' in BC.
RodF wrote:
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.
Actually, it is at issue: you stated that the road beyond the washout was not in riparian reserves. I pointed out that a lot of it is.
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.
RodF wrote:
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."
The "low water crossing"--the ford--is off the table. But I expect some sort of river-level option. A bridge, say. We shall see.
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.
RodF wrote:
If the road remains abandoned until the culverts wash out, it certainly would have aquatic effects!
That is why the road needs to be converted to a trail, not just left to molder. The culverts need to be removed.
RodF wrote:
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.
I think that the tribal fish bios would generally not agree with you, that the escarpment at the washout site, and the continued migration of the river into that escarpment, is damaging to spawning habitat. It is a source of spawning gravel, and also of logs, as trees get undermined and fall into the river. Channel migrations, such as occur in wild rivers like the Dose, the Queets, the upper Elwha, both create and destroy habitat. By contrast preventing channel migration and armoring banks (such as a rebuild of the Dose road on the original alignment) is unambiguously bad for aquatic habitat quality.

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



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 12798 | TRs | Pics
Location: tacoma
Ski
><((((°>
PostWed Dec 19, 2007 1:14 pm 
there's been a good deal of research done ( UW Fisheries ) on LWD structures, and that science has been applied on the ground at a number of sites: along the Cispus where the Cispus main line meets the North Fork, along the Hoh, and a couple other places. man-made structures installed along the banks to prevent streambed migration and prevent thousands of cubic yards of asphalt from being dumped into anadromous-salmonid bearing streams. those structures not only served their intended purpose ( protecting the road ) but they also created big pools for the fish to hide out in. how is that "unambiguously bad"? if you are referring to rip-rap, that is an entirely different matter, and something which is not likely to be done either on NFS or NPS lands. in either case, I don't believe the Dosewallips project includes any provisions for any in-stream activity, LWD structures or otherwise. the geologists believe that the bank will stabilize over time on its own.

"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
PostWed Dec 19, 2007 1:16 pm 
ski wrote:
if you are referring to rip-rap, that is an entirely different matter, and something which is not likely to be done either on NFS or NPS lands.
They use rip-rap in ONF.

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
PostWed Dec 19, 2007 1:53 pm 
ski wrote:
pest wrote:
They use rip-rap in ONF.
use? or used? how long has it been there? there's rip-rap on river banks all over in ONP too. highly doubtful you'll see it used in either place in the future though. ( * although there are instances where it's been used recently when there are clearly limited options: ie: west abutment of Matheny Creek Bridge. ) at any rate: thanks for perpetuating the argument just for argument's sake- nice to see the thread bumped up so it gets the attention here it warrants. smile.gif
The old trail on the other side of the river should be re-opened regardless of what happens to the road. There used to be a trail where the road now is. I'm all for a new road being put in even if it means cutting a few non old growth trees. The trees cut to put in trails, campgrounds and non-logging roads amount to almost nothing when compared to the amount of trees cut by the greedy timber industry. Don't believe me? Try looking at Forks or Shelton with Google Earth. Riprap will be used on the Pine Creek stewardship (aka Logging) Project. You stated that riprap is not used anymore well it is and will continue to be used. "Treatments will involve: removal of six culverts; construction of cross ditches; placement of riprap at the outlet of all constructed drainage features (culvert removals and cross ditches); restoration of gullying resulting from diversion of water from the ditch; reconstruction of an intermittent channel; seeding and mulching; felling and retaining of hazardous trees; and trail construction to reduce sedimentation and erosion into nearby streams, including rock surfacing and water fords. Prior to construction, treatments will involve invasive species removal of known populations. In addition, following construction, disturbed areas will be treated to promote re-establishment of native plant species." I read plenty of technical papers and I've even written a few but I don't like to go on about it and I don't talk down to people because they disagree with me. But I will talk down to people who talk down to me or act like they know far more then they actually do.

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
PostWed Dec 19, 2007 2:32 pm 
xan wrote:
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.
http://www.oregonwild.org/oregon_forests/old_growth_protection/northwest_forest_plan Late Successional Reserves (LSR): The NWFP set aside 30%, or 7.4 million acres, of federal land as LSR. The intent is to protect current old-growth forests and wildlife habitat, as well as develop future old-growth habitat. Unfortunately, clearcutting and logging roads had already invaded virtually all corners of the national forests so these protected reserves include too little old-growth and too many old clearcuts that need to regrow into old forest. Within LSRs, forests older than 80 years are protected from logging unless it will benefit creation of old-growth forest conditions. Younger stands within LSR boundaries can be thinned as long as it is deemed neutral or beneficial to the creation of old-growth forest conditions. Unfortunately, the federal agencies’ focus on timber production means that the restoration of LSR forests is not being done to its full potential. The NWFP requires that 80% of LSRs be restored to late-successional condition, but currently only about 40% of LSR areas exhibit late-successional qualities.

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
PostWed Dec 19, 2007 3:47 pm 
Please, friends, could we try to focus on the Dose Road? Please?
xan wrote:
That is why the road needs to be converted to a trail, not just left to molder. The culverts need to be removed.
OK, good. But I am genuinely mystified about how precisely you (or OPA) are proposing this be done. Please tell us all explicitly whether you favor: (1) Reopening a temporary Dose Road bypass around the washout, adequate to provide access for the equipment (a large tracked excavator, bulldozer and dump trucks) needed to remove those culverts and probably the two bridges on the upper Dose Road, recontour the resulting streambeds, remove the steeper road cuts, fill the ditch on the uphill side and reslope the roadbed so the trail sheds water without culverts, replant these areas, and finally decommission the temporary bypass road. (2) How do you propose doing so without cutting the very same trees you're concerned with? This temporary bypass would have to follow the same route, over the same shelf, as the proposed permanent bypass. If not, how do you propose to get the equipment in to decommission the upper Dose Road? Drive them right up the river bed? Airlift them? Levitation? I am utterly mystified. What specifically are you proposing?
xan wrote:
I think that the tribal fish bios would generally not agree with you, that the escarpment at the washout site, and the continued migration of the river into that escarpment, is damaging to spawning habitat. It is a source of spawning gravel, and also of logs, as trees get undermined and fall into the river.
I did discuss this with two Park fisheries biologists at the Dosewallips on September 13, and what seems clear to you was not clear to them. (1) The area immediately above the washout was logged some years ago. It contains no trees large enough to act as key anchors for stable log jams, which are needed to increase channel complexity and form spawning pools. Small trees form only unstable temporary jams, which get washed downstream in floods, destroying redds. Stable jams require key pieces greater than 15 m (50 feet) in length and 50 cm (20 inch) diameter (volume >9 cubic meters) (see Dosewallips Habitat Assessment, pages 21-24, for inventories of log jams and key piece dimensions before and after the 2002 flood which created the washout). (2) The washout is a dense clay glacial deposit, with some embedded gravel and sand. But it's ~90% clay. Clay smothers salmon redds. It is doubtful that the washout is beneficial, certainly not in the short term. Some of this fine clay sediment probably ends up burying redds downstream and even eelgrass beds in the estuary, which are essential salmon habitat. We'll see what the Environmental Impact Statement says. But, again, this is irrelevant to the proposed bypass route: upland, well above and north of the river. Again, I would be delighted to meet you at the Dosewallips anytime, so we could search for trees at the washout which are large enough to form key pieces for stable log jams, and trees along the current (not previous) flagged bypass route that are "old growth". That'd help make this a reality-based discussion. We could make it a nwhikers outing!

"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
><((((°>
PostWed Dec 19, 2007 4:49 pm 
RodF- re: logs/key anchors/logjams when i inquired as to the disposition of any trees removed for the project, i was told they would most likely be used for LWD structures, but not in the immediate project area, and not necessarily on the Dosewallips. as you mentioned, they may not be suitable for the purpose due to size requirements, and removing them with the rootwads intact poses some logistical problems that may not be easily overcome.

"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
PostWed Dec 19, 2007 5:48 pm 
The 2004 Environment Assessment contained a table* listing the number and size of trees to be removed in building the upland bypass around the Dose Road washout. The upcoming Environmental Impact Statement concerns an updated route "with an emphasis to minimize the footprint of the road and thereby the resource impacts", i.e. it avoids the largest trees in the area. So it should contain an updated table.
xan wrote:
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.
Part of it was logged about 50 years ago, part of it was not. "Protected" yes, "forbidden" no. LSR has restrictions (specifically, under the NWFP, requires an LSR plan and EA or EIS before management actions, along with all the attendant public announcements and meetings), and the Dose Road project more than fully complies with all these laws. But rather than debating this in the abstract, we can take the EIS, follow the flagged route, and put our hands on each of the trees that would be cut: a much-needed reality check. *As I recall, 218 trees were listed, and most less than half the size of the 60 year old fir in my own front yard! (70' tall, 41" dbh). How these can be termed "old growth" is beyond my comprehension. Might the OPA, by placing a photo in its newsletter of a large cedar that is, as best I can tell, 63 feet from the centerline of the current proposed route of 15' wide single-lane gravel road, have deliberately misled its members?

"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
mossy mom
Member
Member


Joined: 29 Dec 2006
Posts: 1852 | TRs | Pics
mossy mom
Member
PostWed Dec 19, 2007 6:28 pm 
RodF wrote:
The 2004 Environment Assessment contained a table* listing the number and size of trees to be removed in building the upland bypass around the Dose Road washout. The upcoming Environmental Impact Statement concerns an updated route "with an emphasis to minimize the footprint of the road and thereby the resource impacts", i.e. reduce the number of large trees cut. So it should contain an updated table.
xan wrote:
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.
Part of it was logged about 50 years ago, part of it was not. "Protected" yes, "forbidden" no. LSR has restrictions (specifically, under the NWFP, requires an LSR plan and EA or EIS before management actions, along with all the attendant public announcements and meetings), and the Dose Road project more than fully complies with all these laws. But rather than debating this in the abstract, we can take the EIS, follow the flagged route, and put our hands on each of the trees that would be cut: a much-needed reality check. *As I recall, 220 trees were listed, and most were half the size of the 60 year old fir in my own front yard! (70' tall, 41" dbh). How these can be termed "old growth" is beyond my comprehension. Might the OPA, by placing a photo in its newsletter of a large cedar that is, as best I can tell, 63 feet from the centerline of the current proposed route of 15' wide gravel road, have deliberately misled its members?
How hard is it to find the proposed route? Has anyone been up there since the storm? I'd like to go up there and maybe even take some pictures. Has the washout before the washout been fixed yet?

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
PostWed Dec 19, 2007 7:01 pm 
ski wrote:
RodF- re: logs/key anchors/logjams when i inquired as to the disposition of any trees removed for the project, i was told they would most likely be used for LWD structures, but not in the immediate project area, and not necessarily on the Dosewallips. as you mentioned, they may not be suitable for the purpose due to size requirements, and removing them with the rootwads intact poses some logistical problems that may not be easily overcome.
The Chinook Recovery Plan (p. 311) includes "Restore channel and floodplain complexity below washout with full scale wood/ELJ restoration" and also includes a separate action "Restore channel complexity at Steelhead Campground through addition of key wood pieces, removal of sediment plug at top of enhancement pond, road bed and 200 meters of low riprap." Steelhead Campground, about a mile below the Dose Road washout, was abandoned years ago (it is within the Dosewallips floodplain and subject to flooding). 400 meters (almost a quarter mile) of its bank was armored against flooding (map: figure A-10 on page 64 of the Habitat Assessment). The Plan is to remove this rip-rap and reopen to the river an abandoned side channel through the campground. The former campground area has many large big leaf maple, alder, poplar and Doug fir which the river may recruit. This is a far more promising source of large woody debris (complete with rootwads) than is the logged area above the road washout.

"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
PostThu Dec 20, 2007 1:45 am 
pest wrote:
How hard is it to find the proposed route? Has anyone been up there since the storm? I'd like to go up there and maybe even take some pictures. Has the washout before the washout been fixed yet?
On page 1 of this thread, Bruce said he was there one week ago, and thought the lower trailhead at the base of the washout was gone. (Before then, it was just a few feet from the edge.) If so, just climb uphill to the trail switchback. The road centerline is marked with round metal "WA DOT" tags and white flagging tape. The bypass trail crosses it above the washout. Also, you might see the flagging next to the road about a quarter mile below the washout. You can follow the entire route from either location. Take high boots, that lower part is likely wet now. Yes, the Gann Creek crossing, about a mile below the washout, was rebuilt by ONF in the first week of September. There's a huge new culvert and it's all regraded. No problem for any passenger car.
pest wrote:
The old trail on the other side of the river should be re-opened regardless of what happens to the road.
I love that idea, too, but don't know where the money would come from to build a new "Upper Jumpoff" footbridge above Dose Falls. That'd be a long and relatively expensive bridge, perhaps a cable suspension bridge? But since we're fantasizing, let's relocate Upper Jumpoff upstream, nearer Dosewallips Campground, where it'd be used more, and reopen the Muscott Basin trail, too! smile.gif This would be a far more attractive trail than the Dose Road, which for most of its length is so far up on the hillside that you can't even see the river.

"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
xan
Member
Member


Joined: 31 Mar 2007
Posts: 222 | TRs | Pics
xan
Member
PostFri Dec 21, 2007 2:15 pm 
RodF wrote:
Please, friends, could we try to focus on the Dose Road? Please?
xan wrote:
That is why the road needs to be converted to a trail, not just left to molder. The culverts need to be removed.
OK, good. But I am genuinely mystified about how precisely you (or OPA) are proposing this be done. Please tell us all explicitly whether you favor: (1) Reopening a temporary Dose Road bypass around the washout, adequate to provide access for the equipment (a large tracked excavator, bulldozer and dump trucks) needed to remove those culverts and probably the two bridges on the upper Dose Road, recontour the resulting streambeds, remove the steeper road cuts, fill the ditch on the uphill side and reslope the roadbed so the trail sheds water without culverts, replant these areas, and finally decommission the temporary bypass road. (2) How do you propose doing so without cutting the very same trees you're concerned with? This temporary bypass would have to follow the same route, over the same shelf, as the proposed permanent bypass. If not, how do you propose to get the equipment in to decommission the upper Dose Road? Drive them right up the river bed? Airlift them? Levitation? I am utterly mystified. What specifically are you proposing?
Obviously not your straw-man proposal of building a "temporary" bypass road up and down a steep escarpment, cutting quite a few trees down in the process. Airlifting is a possibility. Another option which would probably be cheaper, if feasible, is to use a small "spider" and move it over the riverbed at summer low flow, when all or most of the route would be dry.Some amount of earth-moving at either end would obviously be needed to get the machine down and up the, what is it, four foot bank at the lower end and maybe 6-8 foot bank at the upper. Is it good to drive machinery in river beds? Obviously not. But this would be a one-time out and back passage I would certainly favor a minimalist approach, using as small a machine as possible in either case. My best guess about what would be needed to defensively stabilize the former road bed, not a whole lot. There aren't any deep culverts, and I don't remember any obvious perched sidecast. One would not need to resort to cadillac slope recontouring. These are precisely the sort of questions, though, which should be analyzed and addressed in the EIS. But which will not be, because decommissioning was ruled out a priori by defining the "purpose and need" as restoring motorized access.
xan wrote:
I think that the tribal fish bios would generally not agree with you, that the escarpment at the washout site, and the continued migration of the river into that escarpment, is damaging to spawning habitat. It is a source of spawning gravel, and also of logs, as trees get undermined and fall into the river.
RodF wrote:
I did discuss this with two Park fisheries biologists at the Dosewallips on September 13, and what seems clear to you was not clear to them. (1) The area immediately above the washout was logged some years ago. It contains no trees large enough to act as key anchors for stable log jams, which are needed to increase channel complexity and form spawning pools. Small trees form only unstable temporary jams, which get washed downstream in floods, destroying redds. Stable jams require key pieces greater than 15 m (50 feet) in length and 50 cm (20 inch) diameter (volume >9 cubic meters) (see Dosewallips Habitat Assessment, pages 21-24, for inventories of log jams and key piece dimensions before and after the 2002 flood which created the washout). (2) The washout is a dense clay glacial deposit, with some embedded gravel and sand. But it's ~90% clay. Clay smothers salmon redds. It is doubtful that the washout is beneficial, certainly not in the short term. Some of this fine clay sediment probably ends up burying redds downstream and even eelgrass beds in the estruary, which are essential salmon habitat. We'll see what the Environmental Impact Statement says. But, again, this is irrelevant to the proposed bypass route: upland, well above and north of the river.
You're calling it "the proposed bypass route". My current info is still that there will be no officlal "preferred" option in the EIS. Maybe two upland routes and one low route--Not the ford, just to forestall you telling me again that the ford is off the table. The release of the EIS will settle this particular question, so no point in flogging it further. Regarding whether the washout site is "good" or "bad" for fish, I think it would be appropriate to stop to achieve a little conceptual clarity at this point. As you know, road washouts are generally bad for aquatics because resulting debris flows can scour tributary streams and deliver excessive sediment (especially fine sediment), to name just two effects. But what is going on right now at the former road alignment is not a washout. The road prism is long gone at this point. It is a natural river migration into one edge of its floodplain, which happens to be a steep bluff of unconsolidated pleistocene gunk . I trust you agree/understand that *in general* allowing rivers to meander in floodplains, in a natural way, is essential for quality habitat. (creation of side channel habitat, bank complexity, wood inputs to channels, etc) Once again, *in general,", letting natural disturbances and natural processes do their thing is better in the long run for habitat quality than trying to stop or contain them. Regarding some idea that there are no "good" trees poised to go over the steep bank, well, I guess it all depends how far N the meander progresses. There are plenty of sizeable trees between the washout and the wilderness boundary. I generally prefer to take the long view.Let nature do its thing. Certainly from the washout on upstream, the vally is in a predominantly natural condition, so there is no really compelling biological case for interfering with it. I remember reading with some bemusement, in the context of the Glacier Park (MT) fires of a couple of years ago, some park bio fretting that the fires were going to damage grizzly bear habitat by burning up productive huckleberry fields. While ignoring the obvious fact that fires over the slightly longer run tend to create huckleberry fields. Worrying about whether the bank in question is inputting more "good" spawning-sized gravel, or more "bad" fine sediment strikes me as that sort of an issue. It is lilkely both good and bad, from the perspective of a chum or a sockeye salmon. But it is certainly the sort of disturbance which the fish have coped with and adapted to ever since they started using these rivers to spawn. And one clarification, what I think I said precisely was that not I, but the tribal bios--Jamestown S'Klallam, to be precise-- concluded it was good, or more good than bad.
RodF wrote:
Again, I would be delighted to meet you at the Dosewallips anytime, so we could search for trees at the washout which are large enough to form key pieces for stable log jams, and trees along the current (not previous) flagged bypass route that are "old growth". That'd help make this a reality-based discussion. We could make it a nwhikers outing!
Fair enough. Here's something on the current OFCO web site http://www.olympicforest.org/163.htm http://www.olympicforest.org/163.htm You should probably add OFCO to your list of groups which are misguided enough to think that the upper Dose valley should remain motor-free. It's not just OPA. If you are serious about walking the upper alignment with me, or with other advocates of permanent road retirement, that can probably be arranged. Just be aware that all the serious advocates have been out there already quite a few times, so you're unlikely to shift any opinions. And you don't sound particulary shiftable either.

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
PostFri Dec 21, 2007 3:09 pm 
pest wrote:
Within LSRs, forests older than 80 years are protected from logging unless it will benefit creation of old-growth forest conditions. .
Nope. Stands over 80 west of the Cascades are protected from logging, period. The sole exception is some limited salvage logging(of dead or blown-down trees) is permitted in older forest.
pest wrote:
Younger stands within LSR boundaries can be thinned as long as it is deemed neutral or beneficial to the creation of old-growth forest conditions.
That should be "beneficial", not "neutral or beneficial". There is no provision for logging in LSR of any age, for any other reason than encouraging "late-successional conditions" (once again, the salvage exception should be noted)

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
PostFri Dec 21, 2007 5:56 pm 
xan wrote:
Airlifting is a possibility. Another option which would probably be cheaper, if feasible, is to use a small "spider" and move it over the riverbed at summer low flow, when all or most of the route would be dry.
First, I'd like to thank you for addressing this question (OPA/OFCO have studiously avoided doing so). And you make a number of points which I'd like to address. But I am more than a bit taken aback by your proposal to use a "spider crane" which can walk up riverbeds and embankments, carrying a bulldozer, tracked excavator, or even a backhoe. The only thing like this I've ever seen is:
Tom Cruise blew one up in "War of the Worlds". If this actually exists, could you fill us in?

"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
   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