[Ski]

Olympic National Park News Release December 21, 2006 For Immediate Release Barb Maynes 360-565-3005 Interim Access Route Proposed for Queets Valley; Public Comment Invited An Environmental Assessment (EA) for Restoring Interim Access to the Queets Area was released today and is available for public review and comment. The EA analyzes one action alternative for restoring interim access into the Queets Valley, along with a no action alternative. The Queets Road has been closed to traffic since March 2005, when a rock slide undercut the road bed, creating cracks in the road and rendering it unsafe for vehicles. In January 2006, an even larger slide at the same site completely wiped out 150 feet of the road, leaving a 200-foot deep chasm and closing the area to pedestrian traffic as well. “Thanks to excellent cooperation from our two neighboring agencies in the Queets, we are proposing to use DNR and U.S. Forest Service roads in order to establish an alternate route into the upper Queets area,” said Olympic National Park Superintendent Bill Laitner. “Our goal is to re-establish access into the Queets rain forest, allowing people to once again enjoy the area.” The roads considered for restoring access to the Queets are U.S. Forest Service Roads 21 and 2180, both of which are currently open to the public. These roads would provide access to another U.S. Forest Service road and a DNR road, which would lead to a National Park Service road sometimes referred to as the “back door road.” These roads have been used in the past for access by park staff, for emergency and administrative purposes, and when flooding or washouts have occurred along the first ten miles of the Queets Road. Comments should be sent to the following address no later than January 31, 2007. Superintendent – Queets EA Olympic National Park 600 East Park Avenue Port Angeles, WA 98362 Fax: 360-565-3015 Website: http://parkplanning.nps.gov Email: olym_ea@nps.gov Comments may also be submitted on-line by visiting http://parkplanning.nps.gov, the website for the National Park Service’s Planning Environment and Public Comment system. Initial public input on restoring access to the Queets was invited in July 2005. Twenty-one comments were received. For more information or to request a copy of the EA, people may call the park superintendent's office at (360) 565-3004. Commentors should be aware that their entire comment – including personal identifying information – may be made publicly available at any time. While commentors can ask that their personal identifying information be withheld from public review, the NPS cannot guarantee that this will be possible. - NPS -

[captain jack]

Woohoo ! Keeps my dreams of a Tshletshy ramble alive. Plus the bonus of improving DNR and National Forest roads with NPS funds. I cant see a downside to this, the Queets is still Oly's readheaded stepchild, the only people that go there are the ones that get lost on thier way to the Hoh, or Quinault. Whether or not they fix the road, I just dont see a huge jump in area visits, this will always be a place for those prefering the path less travelled.

[Ski]

It's doubtful that the proposed alternate route would result in increased use. That portion of the existing Park service road which will become the connecting link in the alternate route is fairly steep, narrow, and wont lend itself easily to use by motor homes or vehicles pulling long trailers. ( Not that the old Queets Valley Road was easily negotiated by any vehicles. ) I would contend that there is some downside to the proposed alternate route. The Queets River Road was a destination site in and of itself ( mentioned in tour books ( Backcountry Roads of Washington ) and magazines ( Sunset ). The proposed alternate route goes through managed ( cut-over ) units on DNR and NFS lands, and a spindly stand of second-growth Sitka Spruce on the NPS land. That opportunity for driving through magnificent rain forest will be essentially lost. Additionally, I see the proposed alternate route as potentially exacerbating the poaching problem up there unless adequate law enforcement staff is stationed at Kalaloch. As it was, the Queets River Road saw only sporadic patrols. The proposed alternate route, while being a much quicker route to the Queets Campground and trailhead, is nonetheless a bit out of the way. I haven't read the EA yet, so I have no idea whether or not the issue of existing culverts and bridges is addressed. While the bridges are fairly stable ( with the exception of the bridge at Matheny Creek ), they are fairly obtrusive on the landscape, and would be more so should the Park ultimately choose to permanently abandon the Queets River Road. Several of the culverts have been troublesome in the past, and should probably be removed if the road is to be closed or abandoned. My hope is that they will close the Queets River Road at the Hartzell Creek boat ramp, and just west of the junction with the Park Service Road, eliminating two pieces of dead-end road within the Park.

[brownster145]

Drive-in access to the upper Queets should not be restored. This is not a preservationist or "off-trail elitist" issue. Rather, it is an issue that will impact the future of the last (most) preserved watershed in the Pacific Northwest and its inhabitants (especially the aquatic ones). When Olympic National Park was founded, the Queets was designated as the one watershed that would be entirely protected (headwaters to estuary) from the onslaught of timber harvest and agriculture that impacted other Peninsula watersheds so severely around the turn of the century. Although the tributary Clearwater, Sams, and Matheny drainages and some Quinault Indian Reservation lands adjacent to the river have been exploited, the original goal of preservation has been largely realized... particularly since the natural failure of the Queets River Road. Nearly every river in the National Park has one or more campgrounds along its banks with easy drive-to access -- ample opportunity for outdoor recreation already exists within the park. In fact, well-built trails along the banks of the Skokomish, Duckabush, Dosewallips, Elwah, Bogachiel, Hoh, and Quinault Rivers (both forks) allow relatively easy travel through scenic basins to the center of the Olympics. The Queets River Trail, on the other hand, is dilapidated, difficult to follow, difficult to access outright (crossing the largest glacial river on the Peninsula is required), and, perhaps most significantly, (the trail) leads nowhere in particular. For these reasons, even when regularly maintained (maintenance of the trail was also difficult), the Queets River Trail was never very popular. Reopening drive-in access to the campground, then, would do little to serve wilderness-seeking outdoorspeople. Rather, it would serve primarily to increase pressure from car campers (especially fishing car campers) on the area immediately surrounding Sams Rapids, restoring the littering, gradual erosion, and harassment of resident and anadramous fish populations that took place prior to the failure of the original road. The Sams Rapids section of the Queets and the Sams River itself serve as important spawning grounds for wild salmonids including cutthroat and rainbow (/steelhead) trout, coho salmon, and a depressed stock of chinook salmon. The closure of drive-in access substantially increased the protection of these runs from both anglers and general recreationists. The protection of other fauna and local flora also naturally increased, and, as anyone who has visited the upper Queets since the washout can attest, the area is healthier for it. Given that a reopening of access would have no substantial economic benefits to the area and would in fact take money from other park projects -- given that no unique or outstanding recreational benefits would be gained -- the upper Queets should remain closed to vehicle access. As it exists now, the upper Queets is unique in that it has no road or trail access, is virtually free of development (and litter or other pollution), and provides a one-of-a-kind setting for scientific research -- research which may help in the restoration of other already-damaged watersheds. Even if you have no personal experience with the Queets, please consider contacting ONP administration in opposition of the proposed action. Using old logging roads to provide vehicle access to a protected river corridor which has just recently asserted the protection it was originally promised would reflect rather poorly (and sadly ironically) on our ability to resist (attempting to) control the wilderness we claim to admire so much. You need not write much; a simple "Please do not restore access to the upper Queets" will do just fine. Thanks, Andrew ------------- Contacts: Postal Mail: Superintendent – Queets EA Olympic National Park 600 East Park Avenue Port Angeles, WA 98362 Fax: 360-565-3015 Website: http://parkplanning.nps.gov Email: olym_ea@nps.gov

[Ski]

[Slugman]

[brownster145]

I'm sorry if I have misconstrued my position (it seems I have, at least to some who read my post). Let me try to clarify a few points. I realize that the Queets is a remarkable destination for solitude. I realize that the rainforest is a destination in itself. What I meant was that, in terms of flora, fauna, riverine environment, weather, etc, the Queets basin is quite similar to the Adjacent Hoh and Quinault basins. It is, however, substantially more difficult to access. Restoration of vehicle access to the campground would do little to improve that access (given that the park has officially ended maintenance of the trail), but it would serve to increase pressure on the immediate area/river in and around the camprgound (more on that in a moment). Ski - I appreciate your input, and I have throroughly enjoyed reviewing your website on your experience with the Queets and its history. (You are correct in your correction on stream size... I based my comment on "maximum capacity" as you surmised; the Queets ran at over 118,000 cfs during November's flood event--about twice the volume of the flooding Hoh--wow!) The fact is, most who are willing to hike into the upper Queets basin are experienced hikers, and likely solitude seekers (Ski's site gives at least a couple accounts of the result of inexperience). To experienced hikers, following the trail through Andrew's Meadow or picking up the trail after a series of thick blowdowns is no difficult task. It seems the flat 7-8 mile road hike/bike that is currently required to reach the trailhead does not add much to the rigors of a trip up the Queets. Incidentally, yes, when I say that the Queets is unpopular, I say it in relative terms (sure, use the Hoh or Elwah for comparison). Concerning the "most preserved" statement, I base this on the fact that the Queets has stream buffers (uncut old growth zones on either side of the river) broader and for more of it's proportionate length than any other on the Peninsula, or, to my knowledge, anywhere else in the state (it could be argued the Elwah is more preserved by this criterion, but the Elwah and Glines Canyon Dams make that claim laughable, at least for now). I base it further on the status of Queets salmonids... while non-native hatchery fish introgression has occured to some degree in salmon and steelhead stocks on most all other major Peninsula streams, the upper Queets runs remain truly wild. The exploitation of the lower river (on the reservation) and tributaries is sad, but that doesn't diminish the pristinity of the majority remainder of the river or justify further exploitation. On that point, I concede that the proposed road access will probably not result in markedly more "exploitation" from the average hiker perspective, but the campground will of course see increased use as a result of an opening and the immediate area will become less pristine (garbage in the firepits, beer cans and flip-flops on the river bar, etc.). For the most significant effect (and the "hard science" my previous post lacked), however, I must turn again to the fish. The average hiker may not care about fish, but, like it or not, anadramous salmonids are the primary means of returning nutrients from the sea to the rivers and they an indespensible component of riverine ecosystems that we depend on for our "wilderness experience" (not to mention the whole "Northwest Icon"/"Soul of the Indigenous Peoples" thing). I'm sure somebody's tried to yak your ear off about salmon conservation before, so I'll try to make it brief. Queets salmon and steelhead runs have been in gradual decline for decades due to a number of factors. With the closure of the road at Matheny Creek, 8+ miles of river was effectively protected. It can still be accessed by foot or bike, of course, but fishing guides can no longer float the section by boat, and poachers (overwhelmingly the driving rather than hiking type--and this is not merely personal opinion) have been effectively denied access. Catch and Release regulations had seemed to have negligible impact on declining populations, likely due to low enforcement presence and substantial mortality rates on improperly handled and released fish with substantial fishing pressure. That is, since the washout of the road, 8 miles of Queets and the most productive part of the Sams spawning habitat has been restored to the fish. Winter steelhead, summer steelhead, and, most notably, Chinook salmon runs have gained the protection they lacked for decades. The area around Sams Rapids, an important hub for migration and spawning almost year-round (particularly late spring and early summer) has been relieved of the pressures of fishermen and campers (swimmers/tubers). Redds (salmonid nests) are easily destroyed, and many recreationists wouldn't know if they were standing in one (it happens far too often--they're almost always dug in shallow gravel). My angle, then, is that the increased protection the fish and river have received with reduction in use from fishermen and campground users (and whatever protection the surrounding forest ecosystem has received) is assuredly a good thing. Solitude-seeking hikers/backpackers were never really the problem, and while the slightly easier access they would gain to the upper watershed by being able to drive to the campground would also be a good thing, it would inadvertently undo the former "more" good thing. Also, as an aside, if backpacking in solitude is your sort of thing, continuing to restrict drive-in access will presumably increase the solitude that much more. I support continued closure of access because I feel it will sustain more good in the long-term. If runs of wild salmon and steelhead disappear from the Queets, they will disappear from the rest of the state (a loss with implications we can't yet imagine, I suspect). Other benefits seem secondary, but, hey, more solitude, and, in terms of actually serving users, the required money probably would be better spent on repair of roads like the Hoh or Dosewallips anyway. I care a lot about the Queets (and the rest of ONP), and I care a lot about this issue. If you still disagree or would like further clarification, I certainly don't mind continuing the discussion -- perhaps there's a perspective I haven't yet considered. I think it's important that a well-informed public view is submitted to the Park Service. And slugman, I guess comments submitted out of spite also work, but they'd probably prefer sincere ones. Thanks, Andrew

[l]

I've never been more ambivalent about a thread as this one. And I'm beyond impressed by the reasoning, civility and pure emotion attached to each position. I have nothing to add that hasn't been mentioned. Everyone's point has merit and it's up to all of us to decide what we want done with this priceless valley. On a personal note, I lived in Forks for a year - a blissfully unemployed year - and had the privilege of knowing the Quinault, Queets, Hoh and Bogachiel on an intimate basis, under most conditions, in all seasons. Each certainly is different. But they impact your mind and soul pretty much the same way. There are only a handful of temperate rain forests in the world and none of them look quite like ours, especially the Hoh and Queets. So if you have a moment, let the Park know how you feel. If you have no opinion either way, I have to assume you haven't spent alot of time out on the west end. Check it out - winter is a good time to develop a rain forest point of view.

[Slugman]

There is no spite involved in being spurred to action by someone else's post. I truly believe that the Queets should be re-opened, but sometimes I lack the motivation to do something. Thank you for providing that needed push. (PS: look up the word "spite" in the dictionary, as you apparently have no idea what the word means, if you are applying it to my sentiments about the Queets) I notice that you (Brownster 145) continue to make false claims. You did indeed say that no unique or outstanding benefits would be gained. You can restate that in any way you like, it is still what you said, and it is still wrong IMO. You also make factually false claims in your above post. Here's one:"Restoration of vehicle access to the campground would do little to improve that access (given that the park has officially ended maintenance of the trail)," This is complete nonsense. Keeping the road closed for miles and miles before the trailhead would not impede access? Ridiculous in the extreme. I'm not sure how someone could even say such a thing with a straight face. Are you trying to be funny or something? 7 or 8 miles of road walking in each direction doesn't add significantly to the difficulty? So a person doing a dayhike can simply add 15 or so miles to the length of the hike? That is a laughable contention.

[MtnGoat]

I can't quite figure out how restoring the road would "increase" impact at the campground...unless we're calling the status with the road out, the baseline impact. At which point restoring access would 'increase' impacts..while also merely returning them to where they were prior. Like Sluggo, i also find the contention that reopening access would do little to improve access interesting, given that the difference between zero road access, and road access, is by definition increased access should the road be restored or rerouted.

[Malachai Constant]

The Queets has always been one of my favorites. It has the luxuriant growth of the Hoh without the crowds. It is not complete wilderness as it was the site of old homesteads. There are trails other that those that cross the river but the crossing adds an extra element.

[Ski]

[MtnGoat]

[Ski]

on the "day long" and "week long" point raised by MtnGoat: Lack of vehicle access to the Queets Campground and trailhead essentially eliminates any possibility of "day hike" use of the area, and in particular two destination points: the "Big Fir Trail" near Coal Creek, and the "Sams River Loop Trail". With vehicle access to the trailhead, the Queets "Big Fir" was a very popular day hike for many users, among them very small children. The hike was a 5½ mile round trip, including the ford of the Queets. Without vehicle access to the trailhead, the trip is 12½ miles ( via the #21 road ), or almost 18 miles ( via the Queets River Road ), clearly beyond the capabilities of small children and the elderly. With vehicle access to the trailhead, the "Sams River Loop Trail" was a 3-mile loop hike. As with the "Big Fir" trail, the Sams Loop was very popular, and I've watched many families with small children visit. Without vehicle access to the trailhead, the trip becomes 10 miles or 15.4 miles, depending upon which route is used. Again, either way beyond the capacity of small children and the elderly. While lack of access to those two destinations perhaps may be considered by some to be of negligible consequence, I would submit: The Queets "Big Fir" afforded an opportunity for a short day-hike to the world's largest Douglas Fir, and a glimpse of some of the finest specimens of Sitka Spruce and Big Leaf Maple in the Park. The "Sams River Loop Trail" offers within a relatively short distance all the features one would hope for in a "rain forest" hike. The trail meanders through some sections of mature forest, through abandoned homestead meadows, alder flats characteristic of west-slope rainforest environment, views of the Queets and Sams Rivers, and of Queets Ridge and Kloochman Rock. It also offers all the man-made features one might see on any trail within the Park: a small foot bridge, a log bridge, and a flight of stairs. All along the way there are points of interest which are invaluable for educating the public about rainforest environments: nurse logs; blowdowns; etc. One would be hard pressed to find another trail of such short length which offered such a diverse array of features, more than enough to keep any curious child fascinated the entire way. Looking at a map of Western Washington, one will be challenged to find many "day hikes" between Ilwaco and Neah Bay, particularly any in a temperate rainforest environment. Ledbetter State Park at the south end is great for watching birds, but the long walk through miles of Shore Pine isn't the most fascinating thing for a small child. There isn't much worth mention between Tokeland and Tahola in the way of "day hike". There is a very short loop trail at "Promised Land", about 25 miles north of Aberdeen, right along Hwy 101. It's a nice little walk, but hardly spectacular. There's the "Kalaloch Creek Nature Trail" at Kalaloch, but it's only about a mile-and-a-half in length and doesn't really make for much of a "destination", considering the driving distance required to get there. And there's the Cape Alava-Sand Point loop of 9 miles, but it's awfully far to drive with a car full of kids and is really a different sort of environment than the rainforest one finds a bit farther inland. Again, look at the map. You'll find a dismal lack of "day hike" opportunities along the Washington coast and the west slope of the Olympics. I have deliberately left out the Hoh "Nature Trail" and "Hall of Mosses" and their overcrowded "Disneyland" aura. As well, the short little trails along the South Shore Quinault Road ( on NFS lands ) don't ( in my lousy opinion ) offer the same sort of experience one would find on the Queets or the Hoh. So what's the point of this diatribe?

[brownster145]

I'm humbled by your knowledge of Queets history, Ski. I've had trouble locating reliable accounts of its early years. If you could point me in the direction of some, I'd be very appreciative. I guess I might as well stop arguing that drive-in access would not improve prospects for access to the upper river. Eight (or 6.2/3.5?) miles, to say nothing of the roundtrip total, certainly adds substantial length/time to a dayhike if done on foot. It is also significant for children, elderly, and disabled users (although much (perhaps most) of the park remains inaccessible to these user groups). I had indeed fallen into an egocentric perspective, assuming that most users beyond the camprgound would be conditioned for backcountry travel and likely out for a multi-day trip (like me?) -- perhaps this is not the case. My statement about the discontinued maintenance of the trail was based on a news release I received (late last spring or early summer) which deemed the trail unfit for stock due to its unmaintained status and uncertainty about if/when it would be maintained again. I can't seem to find the news release now. Having travelled the trail recently, however, I can attest that it is in considerable disrepair (I can also think of at least one new potential washout point with the recent flood event--it will be interesting to see this spring). I suppose the problem here is trying to argue, as "Mtn. Goat" indicates, conservation over recreation. This isn't completely a "one over the other" issue, but you can't have one without compromising the other. I suppose hikers aren't the best group to argue fish conservation to, then, since it often suggests restricting access, but, for anybody who cares (because reopening the campground will impact fish): Hard science: Take Queets winter steelhead as an example. The population had declined from over 16,000 in 1972 to under 5,000 in 2003 (with fewer than 2,000 fish reaching the spawning grounds) (WDFW data). There are a number of factors contributing to this decline, and while adverse ocean conditions and tribal harvest have had substantial impact, these factors are larglely beyond our control. Recreational impact, however, is directly controllable. When the road was open, sport harvest of returning adults had typically hovered around 500 adult fish (up to ~10% of the population, depending on the year). Catch and release (assuming the widely accepted 10% mortality rate) contributed additional impact. When the park put mandatory catch and release regulations in place, the 10% mortality rate was transfered to the previously harvested fish in addition to the previously released fish (illegally poached fish were dead as ever). Once the road closed, however, harvest and c&r impacts were reduced, since guides and other anglers were no longer able to float the Queets Campground to Streater's Boat Ramp drift or drive along its length to access the bank. For adult steelhead attempting to reach spawning grounds from Matheny to Tshletshy, this was good news. Further good news was had with less campground impact on the spawning grounds themselves. Again, the Sams Rapids area and the Sams River itself are important spawning grounds for Queets fish, including steelhead. Queets winter steelhead spawn into June, and offspring do not emerge from the gravel for ~9 weeks... that is, they incubate along vulnerable gravel bars through the heart of the camping season. Major flooding this time of year is rarely an issue, and the effects of crossing herds of elk/deer/bears have been assimilated into the life histories of these fish over thousands of years. Unnatural human impacts beyond this have not. Finally, it is a perhaps unfortunate fact that most juvenille steelhead in the Queets spend two years in the river prior to outmigration (although no specific life history studies have been done on Queets steelhead to my knowledge, 2 years in fresh, 2 or 3 in salt is most common among Peninsula winter steelhead stocks and there is no reason to assume the Queets fish would be different, particularly since they are genetically similar (by allozyme analysis) to other western Peninsula stocks [1 year is the absolute minimum]). What this means is that many of the "trout" caught by campers are actually juvenille steelhead, feeding voraciously to build size before their long journey to sea and back. These fish are about 20+ inches and 10+ pounds away from their "trout" potential, and, if caught, they will likely never see it due to exceptionally high mortality rates (small but voracious fish do no weather big hooks or bait well at all). Many smolts will die of natural causes on their anadramous journey, but the number of juvenilles than can be pulled (or "caught and released' (likely killed)) from a single pool by a single angler with even in artificial lure in one day is staggering (on the order of 10-20 or more if timed well). Multiply this by several anglers per week over the course of a summer and the premigratory harvest impact becomes another detriment to the population. Impacts on adults, spawning grounds, and juvenilles, then, have all been reduced since the failure of vehicle access. No, data has not yet been compiled to corroborate this claim, but do you really need it? Other uncontrollable impacts might skew the data set anyway. It's intuitive, and supported by studies on other systems (the very reason why certain fisheries are closed at certain times of year). Less anglers and less harrassment of spawning grounds results in more spawners and better juvenille survival. The Queets, along with the Skagit was once one of Washington's most fecund salmon and steelhead rivers (the Columbia was on another plain). When I say that a disappearance of wild fish from this river would signal the probable disappearance of wild fish elsewhere, I mean it. It has better habitat protection than most all others, and it had more fish and more productive habitat to start with... what further advantage could it have? Despite these factors, the run has continued to decline at an average -1.6%/yr since the early 70s. It is not yet an irreversible trend, and in fact prospects for recovery are quite good if action is taken soon. If negative impacts are restored at this critical point, however, the outcome could be quite different. I'm sure many of you have lost interest by now, so I won't detail other runs... it's sufficient to say that Queets winter steelhead aren't the worst off in the basin (see: spring/summer chinook). The point remains, keeping vehicle access closed can only help fish, thus, in the bigger picture, the river and its ecosystem (since, again, salmon and steelhead are in indespsensible part of the river's ecosystem). Of course closing vehicle access alone will not save the declining runs, and it is something to be pursued in concert with other measures (which are somewhat beside the point here). Reopening vehicle access, on the other hand, will almost certainly have some negative impact, although I suppose it's statistically possible that no additional fish will be caught, no additional redds destroyed. Sure, though, ok: keeping vehicle access closed makes it significantly more difficult to access the upper Queets, and if you value recreation access more, I can understand why you would be in favor of restoring it. Just realize that the fish were instrumental in building the Queets rainforest itself and they will be paramount to its continued health (rain is also a biggie). That will probably about do it for me in this thread, as I have little to add but more fish science. I must apologize for not articulating myself perfectly the first time, and thanks for your patience with my clarifications. Email me for further clarification if you like. Thanks, Andrew