| Previous :: Next Topic |
| Author |
Message |
Tom
Admin
Joined: 15 Dec 2001
Posts: 17851 | TRs | Pics
|
|
Tom
Admin
|
 Thu Apr 24, 2008 2:26 pm |
|
|
I for one am glad to see someone challenging WTA advocacy positions. I guess the logic of decommissioning the Dose escapes me as well. Will the WTA answer some of these basic questions after the DEIS is complete? Or simply avoid answering them?
|
| Back to top |
  
|
|
reststep
Member
Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 4757 | TRs | Pics
|
|
reststep
Member
|
Thu Apr 24, 2008 6:59 pm |
|
|
| geobob wrote: | | So, is it correct to say that WTA does not at present have an opinion on the Dosewallips Road issue? |
Here is a link to WTA's position on the Dosewallips Road Issue.
Link
WTA came out with this position in 2005 and as far as I know they have not changed their position.
In the explanation of their reason for taking this position WTA says nothing about polling any members.
Most of the climbers and hikers I have talked to are in favor of reopening the road as am I.
Thanks for your advocacy Rod.
"The mountains are calling and I must go." - John Muir
"The mountains are calling and I must go." - John Muir
|
| Back to top |
|
|
reststep
Member
Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 4757 | TRs | Pics
|
|
reststep
Member
|
Thu Apr 24, 2008 7:11 pm |
|
|
Here is a link to a letter to the editor of the Kitsap Sun that pretty well sums up my feelings about rebuilding the Dosewallips Road.
Link
"The mountains are calling and I must go." - John Muir
"The mountains are calling and I must go." - John Muir
|
| Back to top |
|
|
reststep
Member
Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 4757 | TRs | Pics
|
|
reststep
Member
|
Thu Apr 24, 2008 7:46 pm |
|
|
Here is a link, that Rich Baldwin came up with, to the letter from the National Marine Fisheries Service to the Forest Service in case anyone is interested in reading it.
Link
This is the letter that the WTA and others quote out of context from.
I just read it again and it appears to me that the National Marine Fisheries Service in the letter are concerned about the option of rebuilding the road near the river. It does not seem to address the option of rerouting it away from the river.
I wonder if WTA is aware of this.
"The mountains are calling and I must go." - John Muir
"The mountains are calling and I must go." - John Muir
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Quark
Niece of Alvy Moore
Joined: 15 May 2003
Posts: 14152 | TRs | Pics
|
|
Quark
Niece of Alvy Moore
|
Thu Apr 24, 2008 7:57 pm |
|
|
I don't know of any organization that routinely polls it's members before taking positions on all it's issues. (however WTA has recently asked for opinions regarding rolling the FS into the Dept of Interior). Organizations have board members and are in communication with other like organizations and with various other entities that give appropriate information to aid in developing a position. That's how WTA changed it's stance on the Dose. No organization has 100% support from it's members (or board members).
If they were against the repair of my favorite access road, I admit that I might resort to rolling my eyes and cussing as RodF did at the meeting last night, but I would then certainly understand that my arguments, debates, my word, opinions and input would be like mud to them from there on. But WTA is used to me cussing, so I don't know if they'd notice anything different.
Along with unpopular positions WTA has taken that made some people stop supporting them, WTA has done a lot of good - so it's good for everyone that people continue to support them. From the early days of Louise Marshall hounding magazine subscribers to attend meetings for the creation of Alpine Lakes Wilderness decades ago to heavy marketing and advocacy for the (hopefully) passing of the new Wild Sky Wilderness, WTA has been active. From having NOVA funds re-allocated in order to more fairly represent foot recreationists, to advocating and lobbying for funds for the repairs to Mt Rainier National Park as well as various DNR lands. Without WTA, there would be no hope for anyone to obtain a free NW Forest Pass by doing trailwork, and there would be no accounting for the NW Forest Pass funds - WTA insisted on these 2 things, and the FS developed and implemented a process for these demands.
Recently the Tenas Creek/Green Mtn road was a hot thread on this site. The public comment period likely yielded more comments about Tenas Cr/Green Mtn Road than even the Mtn Loop Highway (which yielded only 26 comments). This, thanks to WTA bringing it to our attention.
While it's not possible to always agree with everything an organization does, WTA included, I think the good that WTA does far outweighs the unpopular decisions. The Wild Sky thread had a lot of  emoticons. Well, WTA has been working for Wild Sky for a very long time and it's efforts have likely been instrumental in it's thus-far success (I don't have any proof of this, but I helped man a WTA Wild Sky information booth at Index over 5 years ago, and that was only one of hundreds of events and other campaigns WTA spearheaded). My few hours at the booth 5 years ago was well after WTA's advocacy program for Wild Sky had been in full swing for quite some time.
I look at it this way: I don't agree that little kids should have to eat lima beans, but if Northwest Harvest delivers them to a needy family, I'll still donate to Northwest Harvest.
Enjoy Wild Sky.
"...Other than that, the post was more or less accurate."
Bernardo, NW Hikers' Bureau Chief of Reporting
"...Other than that, the post was more or less accurate."
Bernardo, NW Hikers' Bureau Chief of Reporting
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Quark
Niece of Alvy Moore
Joined: 15 May 2003
Posts: 14152 | TRs | Pics
|
|
Quark
Niece of Alvy Moore
|
Thu Apr 24, 2008 9:17 pm |
|
|
OK so a little kid having to eat lima beans aren't as big an issue as the Dose is, but it's all I can think of at the moment. Of course if you ask a little kid, I'm sure lima beans would beat the heck out of the Dose in importance.
"...Other than that, the post was more or less accurate."
Bernardo, NW Hikers' Bureau Chief of Reporting
"...Other than that, the post was more or less accurate."
Bernardo, NW Hikers' Bureau Chief of Reporting
|
| Back to top |
|
|
geobob
Member
Joined: 29 Sep 2007
Posts: 183 | TRs | Pics
Location: seattle |
|
geobob
Member
|
Thu Apr 24, 2008 11:21 pm |
|
|
Restep..thanks for that link..I see it dates to 2005. Is that still WTA's position?
Indulge me for copying below what I think is the salient statement from WTA's 2005 position:
| Quote: | | While we still believe that there is a valid recreational reason to rebuild this road, we must weigh that carefully against the costs to the environment, and to the species that depend on a clean, healthy river ecosystem. On balance, we have reluctantly drawn the conclusion that the road should not be reopened and that a trail be built to provide access to the upper valley. |
The above statement appears to have been written primarily with the intent to preserve a "clean, healthy river ecosystem". If that is WTA's intent and position, a re-routing of the road above the river should not be in conflict with WTA's objective of preserving a clean and healthy river system.
I think there's an easier way on the far side
I think there's an easier way on the far side
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RodF
Member
Joined: 01 Sep 2007
Posts: 2593 | TRs | Pics
Location: Sequim WA |
|
RodF
Member
|
Fri Apr 25, 2008 1:23 am |
|
|
| elizabeth@wta wrote: | | 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. |
Elizabeth, WTA hasn't simply "taken a passive position", but advocates a specific action: decommissioning the upper Dose Road and converting it to trail. These questions stand:
| RodF wrote: | | (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? |
As Dale Horn (ONP Supervisor) mentioned, the upcoming DEIS will not study decommissioning the Dose Road. The Forest Service views its mandate as providing access to National Park campground, Ranger Station, and trailheads... something I had thought was WTA's goal, as well.
Since the DEIS will not explore the decommissioning option, there is no point waiting for it to tell us about it. And if WTA hopes to convince the Forest Service to change its course, it should at the very least flesh out what it is proposing, to at least make sure it is legal, possible and hopefully practical.
WTA has apparently dropped Olympic Forest Coalition's proposal to drive heavy equipment up the river bed, because it isn't legal? So let's explore Jonathan's helicopter proposal. Let's try to get this back onto a reality-based discussion.
With that goal in mind, I contacted Mark at Evergreen Aviation, one of three companies in the Northwest which can provide heavy-lift helicopter services. He proposes using the Sikorsky Skycrane at $13,500 per hour. This involves positioning flights (2 hours each way) from Hillsboro, Oregon, and they will provide an on-site fuel truck. (The Forest Service will have to lease a farm field in the lower Dosewallips valley for fueling operations, but this will be much cheaper than making several flights out to an airport and back for fueling.) The positioning flights alone (two round trips) would be $108,000.
He cautions that the heavy equipment must first be disassembled into loads under 18,500 pounds, then reassembled above the washout, as I mentioned above. Lifting heavy equipment using long lines, with the loads cabled in advance, it might be possible to make three flights over the washout per hour if everything goes smoothly. The total bill for heavy-lift services will likely be over $300,000.
Each piece of heavy equipment costs about $220-250 per hour or $2000 per day, whether it is working or not. Several days will be required to disassemble it, then reassemble it, then repeat the process when it is airlifted out: all in the field and requiring several mechanics. And then there is the actual decommissioning work, listed in the 2003 Federal Highway Administration estimate discussed previously, which will have roughly doubled by 2009.
WTA's proposal for the entire project is likely to cost near $2 million, or roughly triple the Forest Service's proposed budget in the upcoming DEIS to reopen the road. Is this what WTA is proposing?
If WTA is also proposing to replace the Dosewallips campground (a good move, if WTA wants any public support), there is no site on Federal land below the washout as large as Muscott Flat. Private land would have to be purchased (~$1 million), and then a campground built (+$1 million). Now we're near $4 million. Is this what WTA is proposing?
All this appears so unrealistic as to be hard to grasp. So let me close with a small consideration that is easier to grasp. WTA makes much of carpooling to trailheads, even writing laudible editorials about biking to trailheads. Heavy-lift helicopters burn 400 gallons per hour of Jet-A (more in hover with heavy loads!), times over two dozen hours, is over 10,000 gallons or over 150 tons of CO2. Impacts on eagles, owls and murrelets aside, do you realize Jonathan's proposal blows more fuel than WTA could ever hope to conserve over the next decade away in one big cloud of kerosene exhaust? Is this what WTA is proposing?
"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
"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 |
|
|
Dayhike Mike
Bad MFKer
Joined: 02 Mar 2003
Posts: 10958 | TRs | Pics
Location: Going to Tukwila |
"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke
"Ignorance is natural. Stupidity takes commitment." -Solomon Short
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Magellan
Brutally Handsome
Joined: 26 Jul 2006
Posts: 13116 | TRs | Pics
Location: Inexorable descent |
|
Magellan
Brutally Handsome
|
Fri Apr 25, 2008 6:53 am |
|
|
| geobob wrote: | Restep..thanks for that link..I see it dates to 2005. Is that still WTA's position?
Indulge me for copying below what I think is the salient statement from WTA's 2005 position:
| Quote: | | While we still believe that there is a valid recreational reason to rebuild this road, we must weigh that carefully against the costs to the environment, and to the species that depend on a clean, healthy river ecosystem. On balance, we have reluctantly drawn the conclusion that the road should not be reopened and that a trail be built to provide access to the upper valley. |
The above statement appears to have been written primarily with the intent to preserve a "clean, healthy river ecosystem". If that is WTA's intent and position, a re-routing of the road above the river should not be in conflict with WTA's objective of preserving a clean and healthy river system. |
They do object under the logic that the road above the current washout 'is subject to future failure'. What dirt road on a hillside in the woods isn't subject to future failure? It's not possible to build forest roads that aren't above a pond, stream or river.
Kim is right in that WTA has done a tremendous amount of good over the years. I have volunteered for trail work a few times, and would do so again. That is why it hurts me to withdraw support for them. I find myself disagreeing more and more with their stance on different topics. They supported the Forest Service Pass from the beginning, I believe based on realism. Trail maintainence was dwindling and something had to be done. One could be skeptical since they derive funding from this pass indirectly, but the bottom line is WTA does use the money for trail maintainence. The FS uses it for many things, including needless signage, outhouses, and picnic tables.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Quark
Niece of Alvy Moore
Joined: 15 May 2003
Posts: 14152 | TRs | Pics
|
|
Quark
Niece of Alvy Moore
|
Fri Apr 25, 2008 8:34 am |
|
|
| Magellan wrote: | | The FS uses it [Forest Pass funds} for many things, including needless signage, outhouses, and picnic tables. |
But Magellan, I've mentioned several times over the years that the FS intent with the funds was strictly trail maintenance.
It's the public outcry and complaints for instant gratification that switched the intent to outhouses, picnic tables and trailhead aesthetics. So now we have all that, and what's left gotes to trails. Prior to the public tantrums, backcountry work such as Li'l Wenatchee River trail, trails in the Pasayten, etc. were being worked on. But the majority of the public never get back there to see the results, so didn't see the work. They wanted picnic tables and a cushy toilet.
"...Other than that, the post was more or less accurate."
Bernardo, NW Hikers' Bureau Chief of Reporting
"...Other than that, the post was more or less accurate."
Bernardo, NW Hikers' Bureau Chief of Reporting
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RodF
Member
Joined: 01 Sep 2007
Posts: 2593 | TRs | Pics
Location: Sequim WA |
|
RodF
Member
|
Fri Apr 25, 2008 8:03 pm |
|
|
Buttercup, if you feel my statement:
| RodF wrote: | | The Forest Service views its mandate as providing access to National Park campground, Ranger Station, and trailheads... something I had thought was WTA's goal, as well. |
is an unfair summary of the Forest Service's goals, then please see Olympic National Forest's own words in its Dosewallips Road Environmental Impact Statement Scoping Document:
| Quote: | | Forest Supervisor Dale Hom, as the Responsible Official, has identified the purpose and need for this project to be reestablishing road access on FSR 2610 at the washout site, and on the Park's Dosewallips Road .
Two Forest Plan management prescriptions, Undeveloped Recreation (Motorized) and Developed Recreation & Administrative Sites, support this purpose and need statement since they are dependent on the road access provided by FSR 2610. Additionally, road access to Forest Service Elkhorn Campground helps achieve two Forest level recreation goals and objectives. These are Forest Management Goal for recreation (#5), “Provide safe and well-maintained facilities at developed sites that offer a range of opportunities and experiences. Assure that facilities are readily accessible to a diverse public, including the physically impaired”; and Forest Management Objective for recreation at developed sties (4.a) as this is a site identified in the Forest Plan for reconstruction/expansion to meet the projected increase in demand for developed campgrounds.
Additionally the Olympic National Park considers the road access provided by FSR 2610 and Dosewallips Road an important part of its overall management strategy as they provide one of two motorized vehicle access points on the east side of the park. The roads provide access for a more primitive recreational experience for park visitors than those found at more developed sites with road access within the park, and this assists the park in meeting its goal of providing a wide range of recreational opportunities.
Those familiar with the project's previous NEPA analyses will note the change in project purpose from a more generic restoration of access to the more focused road access. The views of some who commented during the previous NEPA analyses and expressed a desire to change the land use of the area to non-motorized were considered in making this change. However after further review of the importance of road access to the Park's Dosewallips recreation facilities and the existing Forest Plan direction for this area it was determined that restoring road access is the more appropriate purpose. |
On the conservation issue you raise, Jonathan's objection to reopening the Dose Road is that trees would have to be cut within Late Successional Reserve. Please compare the two proposals:
(1) The Forest Service proposes to cut a single lane road 0.8 miles long, which with an average 20 foot wide footprint is exactly 2 acres, almost entirely outside of riparian reserve.
(2) WTA proposes to cut:
(a) a new one acre trailhead parking lot below the washout (the clearing would be used for landing heavy-lift helicopter loads during decommissioning), and
(b) another one acre load landing site above the washout.
Total: also 2 acres, but entirely within riparian reserve.
Which proposal has less environmental impact on the river?
Which proposal is in the best interests of conservation?
Does Jonathan realize he is proposing to cut just as many trees in LSR as would be cut to reopen the road, plus his clearcuts are within riparian reserve?
Wouldn't it be better if WTA fully thought through its proposal, and asked itself such questions, before adopting an advocacy position?
Regarding the rest of your comments, I read your posting minutes before departing on a 3-day WTA work party. I've been on most of the WTA's work parties on the Olympic Peninsula for the past year, and most of the active WTA volunteers on the Peninsula have talked to me about this issue. Apparently you and I agree that it would be in the best interests of WTA, rather than directing such comments at the majority of WTA volunteers on the peninsula, to direct them at me via PM or e-mail. So I acknowledge "message rec'd", and "tipping my WTA helmet" to you, sincerely thank you choosing to exercise your editorial discretion.
"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
"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 |
|
|
RodF
Member
Joined: 01 Sep 2007
Posts: 2593 | TRs | Pics
Location: Sequim WA |
|
RodF
Member
|
Fri May 16, 2008 4:40 pm Dosewallips Discovery Hike
|
|
|
"Washington Trails Association invites all intersted on a Wildland Discovery Hike. You’ll learn more about the challenges facing an area, and how you can help.
Dosewallips River Road/Trail
Saturday June 28, 2008
Where: Olympic National Forest and Park
Round Trip: 13 miles Elevation Gain: 1,700 feet
Green Trails: #168 The Brothers
"The Dosewallips Road washed out in 2002. Controversy surrounds plans to rebuild the road, as it previously provided dayhike access into the east side of the Olympic Mountains. The Forest Service is expected to release a Draft Environmental Impact Statement on their plans for the Dosewallips washout in May. We’ll hike the road into the Park and discuss the issues surrounding this challenging issue. Far from being a barren road-hike, a walk up the Dosewallips is lovely, studded with old growth trees and laced with waterfalls and streams."
Sign up here:
http://www.wta.org/hiking-info/guided-hikes/sign-up-for-hiker-lobby-day
"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
"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 |
|
|
Ski
><((((°>
Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 12824 | TRs | Pics
Location: tacoma |
|
Ski
><((((°>
|
Sat May 17, 2008 4:47 am |
|
|
Hello there.
Hi Rod. Sorry I missed your communications- I've out of touch a bit lately.
I've gone over the recent posts here, and I'm still baffled that WTA maintains their position on this one based on the infamous "NMFS letter" ( citing "dire consequences" ) and a single, unfounded, unqualified and hyperbolic remark regarding a proposal which has since been withdrawn by NFS.
The objections raised by WTA, OFCO, et al have all been addressed by NFS, especially the removal of large trees and making all possible attempts to minimize the potential for damaging or jeapordizing the conditions in a riparian zone.
As Rod has cited several times, the removal of the existing facilities poses unsurmountable logistical problems, cost factors aside. That the option for removal of the facilities and decommissioning the road is not included in the DEIS should be at least a vague indication that the issue is moot as far as NFS and NPS are concerned, and I seriously hope any of the aforementioned groups or organizations opposing the road reconstruction won't be foolish enough to jeapordize their own credibility taking NFS to task on the matter in the form of litigation, considering overwhelming public support for restoring vehicle access, Elizabeth's "50-50" statement notwithstanding. ( refer to my previously cited numbers )
In a few conversations with involved parties subsequent to my last post, the issue of various groups and organizations became part of the discussions. I think in the long term WTA and other groups who continue to maintain nonsensical arguments jeapordize their own credibility and the positive influence they have with public lands management personnel, and so do a disservice to their membership.
On a brighter note, they finally ( after only 3 years and 3 months ) got the Queets Road bypass finished and opened.
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach.
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach.
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joshua
Slow hiker
Joined: 11 Jul 2007
Posts: 11 | TRs | Pics
Location: Olympia WA |
|
Joshua
Slow hiker
|
Sat May 17, 2008 7:45 am |
|
|
I just overnighted up there at the ONP campground (thurs/fri). Lovely place. Shared it with only one couple, and older pair who've been coming up for 25 years and admitted that they don't have too many more trips left in them (Hi Don!).
Mostly I went to be able to form an educated opinion. The debris on the road are only an issue after the park boundary, especially up that last hill next to the falls. The falls have eaten the road and the mountain is trying it's damnedest to bury it. I turned my knee on that scree there on the way out.
I did notice that those highway survey tags on the washout bypass trail were posted in 2003.
Anyway, my opinion: Reopen it. I didn't see anything in the bypass area that would really preclude putting in a single-lane road. Actually, I wonder how many folks reading this thread even know that the whole way after it hits FS lands is single-lane.
Access to the near-back country is in the public interest. There's still plenty of territory for us nuts with heavy packs to hiking into without having to worry about the hordes following.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
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
|
Disclosure: As an Amazon Associate NWHikers.net earns from qualifying purchases when you use our link(s). |
I hate dealing with people who can't advocate from a rational/reasonable position and refuse to provide logic and rationale for their positions when questioned, especially when their influence will directly affect (diminish) access for others who seek to enjoy an area.
Big thumbs up to RodF and Reststep. Keep up the good fight! 