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
PostFri Dec 21, 2007 6:39 pm 
RodF wrote:
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. Tom Cruise blew one up in "War of the Worlds". If this actually exists, could you fill us in?
Okay, at this point we can now conclude that you are just being disruptive, resorting to ridicule, amusing yourself, and not really interested in discussing this question. If you know as much as you appear to, you have certainly heard of spiders

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



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 12798 | TRs | Pics
Location: tacoma
Ski
><((((°>
PostFri Dec 21, 2007 7:13 pm 
Quote:
Let nature do its thing
perhaps that's the solution. a ranger station, a dorm, a power-generating plant, various outbuildings, steel fire rings and picnic tables, and a few culverts would doubtless "naturally assimilate back into the landscape" in a few thousand years. just leave it. good enough.

"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
xan
Member
Member


Joined: 31 Mar 2007
Posts: 222 | TRs | Pics
xan
Member
PostFri Dec 21, 2007 7:36 pm 
ski wrote:
Quote:
Let nature do its thing
perhaps that's the solution. a ranger station, a dorm, a power-generating plant, various outbuildings, steel fire rings and picnic tables, and a few culverts would doubtless "naturally assimilate back into the landscape" in a few thousand years. just leave it. good enough.
Nothing like taking a remark out of one context and sticking it into an entirely different one. It was made with reference to the river, and to the washout site, and to the general desirability (from a habitat perspective) of allowing natural disturbances and forces to operate in predominantly natural landscapes. What does that have to do with a decision about whether, or how to, remove infrastructure beyond the washout? That would be a good question to address in a decommission alternative in the EIS. Too bad there isn't one.

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



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 12798 | TRs | Pics
Location: tacoma
Ski
><((((°>
PostFri Dec 21, 2007 9:15 pm 
okay, well then let's put it back into context. in the context of "letting nature take its course" along the stretch of the river below the washout area, which was cleared of logjams by the WPA, re-channeled in places, and/or otherwise considerably altered from its natural state over the course of the last half century or so ( refer to the Habitat Assessment mentioned previously in the thread ). as opposed to implementing the plan to remedy some of the problems of sedimentation, streambed scouring, etc., by installing LWD structures in-stream, "letting nature take its course" may require hundreds of years for adequate recruitment of LWD by natural processes to stabilize portions of the stream channel. ( this point is mentioned previously in the thread ). the lower end of the river is by no means a "predominantly natural landscape": it has been significantly altered, much to its detriment. i'll leave streambed migration out of this, because we do not know until the DEIS is released how stable/unstable are the geological conditions at the proposed project site, unsubstantiated claims by some ( aforementioned groups ) notwithstanding. given that: would you (a) do nothing, let nature take its course, and wait ( possibly ) hundreds of years for the lower end of the river to recover by natural processes, or (b) implement some plan of action which has been comprehensively studied, implemented at other sites, and proven to be of benefit to anadromous salmonid habitat and riparian health?

"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
PostSat Dec 22, 2007 3:39 am 
Trail conversion of upper Dosewallips Road
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... If you know as much as you appear to, you have certainly heard of spiders
Whew! I am relieved to learn this exists, and thank you for informing me of it. Very neat. Please accept my apology if I offended you by asking; I was simply ignorant of this.
This Terex Schaeff Walking Excavator appears to be the only type available in the western states Still, we're talking about quite a small tool (a 1/4 yard bucket?) and short reach for what would be a big job. How big a job is this? I think we can agree that 1/2 to perhaps 3/4 mile of the road, the relatively level sections in and just below Dosewallips CG, and below Elkhorn CG, can be abandoned in place by simply removing culverts without regrading the road. However, the remaining 4-1/2 miles on steep hillside cannot. Currently, the road bed is insloped and drains to inboard ditches, which in turn drain across the road through culverts. If the culverts are removed, the trailbed needs to be outsloped to drain evenly along its entire length, to avoid erosion. Its width needs to be reduced, if possible, especially where the cut and fill slopes are steep: and they are on many sections of this road, especially wherever its curved. This road has an average slope (from Dose Falls to Elkhorn CG) of 7%, and is over 10% in spots. The hillside it's on averages 50% slope, and is almost a cliff in spots. This area can get heavy rain; all the water coming off the slope above, from Mt. Constance to 5050 Pass, crosses this road. A few waterbars simply won't cut it. That's just the road/trail bed. Then we've got seven perennial and numerous smaller seasonal streams crossing the road, two (Constance and Bull Run Creeks) under bridges, the rest in culverts. These need to be removed, and the stream beds recontoured. What I've described is all standard USFS road and trail building. But converting this steep road to trail clearly involves a lot of earthmoving! In 2004, the WFLHD estimated decommissioning the upper Dose Road and converting it to trail would cost $485,000, or some $170,000 more than simply rerouting the road above the washout. Using the standard estimating guidelines for road decommissioning posted on the OFCO website (pp. 16-17), we can at least get a ballpark of the scope of this project. It must be at least 10,000 cubic yards (and may well be double or triple that?). Picking up, moving and placing that with a 1/4 yd bucket would take years; this is a job for a bulldozer and a large tracked excavator. It is not impossible to airlift these in pieces and reassemble them (its been done), but I doubt this is within the WFLHD budget estimate! It is possible to drive them right up the Dosewallips River bed, but I cannot imagine the NMFS would ever approve such a proposal! Can you? We seem to have a quite a different understanding of the scope of the work involved in trail conversion of the upper Dose Road? Please correct me if anything above appears unreasonable to you. I'm willing to phone the ONF Hood Canal RD in Quilcene and go pick up a copy of the 2003 WFLHD scope-of-work estimate, and post it here, if it would help resolve this question. OPA/OFCO are very clear about what they're against, but to be credible, very much need to articulate what they're for. Would it help to get a copy of the WFLHD trail conversion estimate?

"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 23, 2007 3:58 am 
re: Dosewallips Road Restoration ONF ( Olympic National Forest ) / ONP ( Olympic National Park ) Olympic Forest Coalition ( OFCO ), in their statement against a proposed road restoration project on the Dosewallips states: "...public consensus has steadily developed among recreational advocates (including Washington Trails Association)..." So I called WTA on the phone: Q. WTA supports the road-to-trail conversion? A. Yes. Q. Was any poll taken among the general membership of WTA, or some sort of vote taken? A. No. Q. If the general membership was not polled, and did not take a vote, how does WTA arrive at their position? A. The WTA "advocacy council" and the "board of directors" decided on the postion favoring "road to trail" conversion. WTA's original position was in favor of road restoration. After a letter from NMFS ( National Marine Fisheries Service ) was sent to ONF claiming "...reroute of the road around the 300-foot washout could have dire consequences for Chinook salmon..." WTA's position was changed to one favoring a "road to trail" conversion. ( pers. comm. WTA/122007 ) In the letter, NMFS objected to a proposed re-route "using a low-water crossing design", a plan which has since been withdrawn by NFS, and replaced with a plan for a proposed re-route "upslope of the damage with an emphasis to minimize the footprint of the road and thereby the resource impacts." A comprehensive response addressing the above statement ( regarding the NMFS letter citing "dire consequences" ) is here. In a letter from OFCO ( Olympic Forest Coalition ) ( Kitsap Sun July 12, 2006 ) OFCO claims there is "...growing public consensus that reconstructing this road will cause significant environmental damage..." How did OFCO make this determination? Was there a poll taken among the general public? Did they go out and knock on doors or make random phone calls? OPA ( Olympic Park Associates ) states on their website that road-to-trail conversion is supported by "OPA, Olympic Forest Coalition (OFCO), Olympic Audubon, The Mountaineers, and other environmental groups." Per Mountaineers, their position favoring road-to-trail conversion came out of a process similar to that of WTA, based on recommendations by their conservation and recreation divisions. ( pers. comm. SC/Mountaineers/122007 ) Mountaineers article "Do-si-do on the Dosewallips" 08-07 BrinnonProsperity.org posted letters from several parties in support of restoring vehicle access, among them: Greater Quilcene/Brinnon Chamber of Commerce; the Coastal Caucus ( several members of the Washington State Legislature ); Ira Spring; Jefferson County Commissioners; the Regional Director of NPS; Port Ludlow Hiking Club ( 34 signatures ); and others. Per an article in the Port Townsend Leader ( 03-25-04 ) "About 500 people signed a petition to rebuild the road at the washout..." Per ONF about 120 responses were received during the intitial scoping process on the current DEIS. The responses ran about 50-50: about half favored restoration of vehicle access; about half favored road-to-trail conversion. ( pers. comm. TD/ONF/122007 ) Per NWhikers.net poll of 01-19-06 ( as of 12-20-07 ) of 52 respondents: 29 ( 55% ) favor road restoration, 23 ( 44% ) oppose road restoration. It remains to be seen what the geologists and biologists have to say about unstable slopes, impacts to anadromous fish habitat, or threatened and endangered species habitat. The new DEIS on the project has not yet been released. In the meantime, I have to wonder: where is this "growing public consensus" that opposes road restoration? background info: ONF Scoping Letter 08-16-05 ONF Notice of Intent 05-11-07

"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 Jan 20, 2008 12:31 pm 
Decommissioning the upper Dose Road
This thread continued on the Washington Trails Association website. Decommissioning will not be addressed in the upcoming DEIS, as it was rejected for good reasons in 2004. However, in 2003 Olympic National Forest prepared a list of required actions if the road were to be permanently decommissioned, and estimated their costs. All facilities above the washout would have to be removed, because they could no longer be accessed and maintained. This includes, in Olympic National Park, the Ranger Station, residence, shop, and campground shower/restroom buildings; in Olympic National Forest, three bridges (FS2610 bridges over Constance and Bull Run Creeks, FS2610-040 concrete bridge over the Dosewallips River), all culverts, and the roadbed resloped. So this requires a bulldozer, large tracked excavator, large crane, many truckloads of supplies and fuel, and will produce dozens of dump truck loads of demolition debris (over a hundred tons from the concrete bridge alone). It appears this would require first reopening the Dose Road, in which case it could be left open: it then makes no sense to demolish irreplacable National Park assets worth over a million dollars. To avoid that, Olympic Forest Coalition board member Kevin Geraghty now advocates "Regarding moving equipment past the washout, the obvious choices are helicopter, or using the riverbed at summer low flows." Running a heavy lift helicopter up and down the Dosewallips valley dozens (likely over a hundred) times would create an auditory footprint into the adjacent wilderness areas which would wreak havoc on protected owls, murrelets, eagles and other nesting birds for miles around (and is outright illegal 10 months out of the year for that reason), and the downwash might knock down more trees than reopening the road would. Running a bulldozer, tracked excavator, crane and many dozens of dump truck trips up the Dosewallips River bed, and down again, would destroy whatever fish and redds might be nearby, and send fine sediment downstream into the habitat of Chinook, steelhead and chum salmon (all protected under the Endangered Species Act): literally a criminal proposal. These are amazing proposals for an "environmental" group to make. It appears OFCO either (a) places its ideological opposition to reopening the Dose Road far above whatever environmental damage this might entail, or (b) after advocating "decommissioning" for four full years, never paused to think through just what it entails. Read the full thread, and decide for yourself.

"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
Tom
Admin



Joined: 15 Dec 2001
Posts: 17835 | TRs | Pics
Tom
Admin
PostSun Jan 20, 2008 1:34 pm 
Rod, unfortunately logic often falls on deaf ears when debating road closures, but I salute your efforts. WTA seems firmly entrenched here. As an aside, I'm surprised they were so offended by your mention of Greg Ball. They don't seem to have a problem doing so in fund raising campaigns (and I doubt they refer to him as a "dead coworker" which I found an odd choice of words on their part).

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 Feb 01, 2008 4:11 pm 
Dosewallips Visitation Stats
Olympic National Park has compiled these counts of overnight camping permits issued for backcountry sites in the Dosewallips drainage (1). before 2002 washout: 1098 parties, 2830 visitors per year after 2002 washout: 318 parties, 812 visitors per year This supports WTA's inclusion of the Dosewallips main fork trail in its 2006 Endangered Trails list (2). But who speaks for the 71% of hikers who no longer visit the Dosewallips backcountry? Or for the 55,000 person-days per year of visits to the Dosewallips frontcountry campgrounds, which are no longer accessible? Not WTA. (1) pers. comm. 1/31/08, Nancy Hendricks, Environmental Protection Specialist, Olympic National Park Headquarters, Port Angeles. (2) http://www.wta.org/trail-news/publications/HikeIt2006.pdf

"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 Apr 10, 2008 3:13 pm 
After the WTA work party at the Dose Road washout bypass trail on Tuesday, I walked the new route proposed for the road. This is an easily accessible, low-elevation walk which is now snow-free. Others might wish to check it out. The walk begins at the washout, 9.7 miles west of Hwy. 101 at Brinnon. Walk over the berm at the end of the road to the start of WTA's bypass trail over the washout. The December 3-4, 2007, flood has altered the washout. Last year, the river was tight up against the base of the washout, so close that the old walking route was under water from April through July. But the river is now further back from the base of the washout.
At the top of the short switchbacks, the trail crosses an old logging skid path with some rusting drag cable in it on the left.
It leads to an old logging road bed in the woods on the right.
In about 100 yards, just before the trail begins descending, watch for the metal Federal Highway Administration tag on the right.
From this tag, follow the line of flagging pretty much due east through the woods, and watch for more FHWA tags. There's evidence of the trampling of prior foot traffic along the route. It's easy to follow. This area has all been cut, and has large stumps, mostly Doug fir and a few western red cedar, scattered throughout. This area was reportedly logged in the 1950s, and the age of the stumps appears consistent with that. Second-growth western hemlock, 6 to 16 inches in diameter, predominate, with some cedar, fir, maple and alder. Larger Doug fir and a few cedar are widely scattered throughout. These must have been too small to interest the loggers ~60 years ago, so might now be ~100 years old. The route crosses a second logging road bed and another logging skid path. Note the logged stumps scattered throughout the area.
Small white fir, 6 to 12 inches diameter, begin to predominate. The route to this point varies between 10 and 20% average slope across the shelf above the river, and accounts for about a half mile, most of the length, of the planned reroute. But as the terrain begins to steepen, evidence of past logging ends, and the various flagged routes diverge. (Maybe this is supposed to be the putative "old growth grove"? It's not clear to me where that is.)
The Forest Service estimate (in the 2004 Environment Assessment) that about 20 to 24 large trees would have to be cut to put the road through this route appears feasible. The route now preferred reportedly descends further east, to avoid the largest trees in the area and avoid crossing a small stream at the base of the hillside. It was beginning to rain, and the hour was getting late, so I simply followed an old line of yellow/white striped flagging, dropping about 200 feet and coming out directly across from the lower (east) entrance to the old Steelhead Campground loop road. The Steelhead Campground reach of the river is now buried under up to 2 feet of new gravel, washed down from the road washout above. The higher bed has pushed the river into its south bank. A log jam had formed a large spawning pool near the southwest corner of this area. Now it's gone, completely swept away and buried under sediment from the washout. This reach formerly had some of the best salmon spawning habitat in the Dosewallips, with numerous log jams, spawning pools and meanders. I didn't have time to see how far downstream the December 2007 flood had pushed washout sediment and obliterated this habitat. This damage could have been prevented if the road had been repaired promptly, but I guess nature will heal in time. A pair of large common mergansers, and later a pair of gorgeous harlequin ducks, were spotted in the river; bald eagles are frequently seen overhead; spring has arrived!

"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
PostWed Apr 23, 2008 11:56 pm 
At the WTA potluck dinner in Quilcene this evening, Dale Horn, Supervisor of Olympic National Forest, reports that the Environmental Impact Statement on the reopening of the Dosewallips Road will be released this spring. The preferred option is to reopen the road across the shelf above the washout (pics in the posting above). Jonathan Guzzo, WTA's Advocacy Director, continues to maintain that the road should be decommissioned and converted to trail. I again asked him (1) what tasks are involved, (2) what equipment would be required to accomplish those tasks, (3) how would that equipment get to the work site above the washout and back out, and (4) where would the funds come from to do this? He continued to refuse to answer any of these basic questions, so we WTA members still don't really know what WTA is actually advocating, nor whether it is practical or even possible. Jonathan did propose removing the FS2610-040 concrete bridge using a helicopter!
This bridge crosses the Dosewallips River just below Elkhorn Campground, about a half mile above the washout. It has a 120 foot span and is supported by four 6 foot deep steel-reinforced cast concrete I-beams. Jonathan admitted the bridge would be far too heavy to be lifted without first being disassembled. This would require flying in several pieces of heavy equipment (crane, excavator with jackhammer, etc). These are each also too heavy to be brought in by even a heavy-lift Chinook or Sikorsky Skycrane without first being disassembled, the parts carried in on separate flights, reassembled on site, and the entire process repeated to get them out. Additional flights would be required for smaller equipment and supplies (cribbing, fuel, etc). It's possible in principle, but the costs would be simply astronomical. Marbled murrelet and spotted owl nesting seasons exclude helicopter flights during the period April 1 through Sept. 30 (see Sect. 3.4). Bald eagle nesting excludes flights between Nov. 15 and March 15 (see page 13) by state law. Practicality aside, how could this work possibly be accomplished within the narrow time windows available in early spring and fall? Or would the equipment have to be left up there over winter (adding enormously to the cost)? Finally, heavy-lift, dual rotor helicopters produce a downdraft of ~150 mph. The December 3, 2007 storm showed exactly what such winds do: they knock trees flat. A landing areas of about an acre would have to be clearcut on the road above and below the washout... within riparian reserve where clearcutting is prohibited! What does Mr. Guzzo propose? The practical way to decommission the upper Dose Road is, of course, to first reopen it to get equipment in and demolition debris out. Since it has to be reopened, it makes no sense (and would today cost over $300,000 more) to then decommission and close it. When Mr. Guzzo advocates an impractical action for two years, while refusing to answer any specific questions about it, he loses credibility with WTA members and volunteers. This is not good for WTA. We deserve straightforward, honest and thoughtful answers, not continued evasion from Mr. Guzzo. He admitted he'd never hiked the flagged bypass route, very obviously has never thought his proposal through, and adamantly refuses to do so now. We deserve better.

"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
gone
Member
Member


Joined: 08 Feb 2008
Posts: 1051 | TRs | Pics
gone
Member
PostThu Apr 24, 2008 2:14 am 
RodF - Thanks so much for the updates. The pictures really make it easier to understand the issues.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
elizabeth@wta
Member
Member


Joined: 24 Apr 2008
Posts: 2 | TRs | Pics
elizabeth@wta
Member
PostThu Apr 24, 2008 1:29 pm 
Rod: That’s an interesting summary of your conversation with Jonathan last night. I walked away with a very different sense of the exchange. Frankly, it was hard to see Jonathan’s attempts at civil discourse met with outbursts of profanity, eyeball-rolling, and hostility. Nevermind that I never quite figured out what you were driving at. You kept asking over and over again what we were advocating for—all when you clearly have outlined the history of our position on the issue, chapter and verse, numerous times. I still ask WTA members what their opinion on the Dose issue is when I talk to them and I still get a 50/50 breakdown for and against the road. Doesn’t matter where they live, how much they like trailwork, how old they are. It’s a 50/50 split. Even on our board at large and among our two board members from the Peninsula, you’ll find both sides of the issue. We’d run a poll, but this is not a popularity contest. Our board, staff, advocacy volunteers and advisors chose to voice WTA’s concern about the lower route several years ago because of the aforementioned information that came from NMFS. Since then, we have watched this debate volley back and forth, but short of a more comprehensive analysis (or DEIS), I don’t see where drawing any further conclusions at this point would be useful to anyone except for those who like to have an organization to bash when they have argued their case to death and need something else to beat. Elizabeth Lunney Washington Trails Association

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Magellan
Brutally Handsome



Joined: 26 Jul 2006
Posts: 13116 | TRs | Pics
Location: Inexorable descent
Magellan
Brutally Handsome
PostThu Apr 24, 2008 2:16 pm 
I agree with you Rod. Thanks for fighting the good fight. While Elizabeth claims 'it isn't a popularity contest' WTA's response makes it appear otherwise. When they haven't walked the ground, and have no answers for how to get the decommisioning proposal done, it's obvious that the stance is opinionated and not fact based. I do hope the eyerolling and cursing will be be eliminated from future talks. I stopped supporting WTA when they began agreeing with those who would limit access to our public lands. That, coupled with their rebuilding of perfectly good trails on I-90, leave me baffled.

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
PostThu Apr 24, 2008 2:23 pm 
So, is it correct to say that WTA does not at present have an opinion on the Dosewallips Road issue?

I think there's an easier way on the far side
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