RodF

- Bear canisters will be required parkwide. - Quotas/use limits will be established for overnight and day use throughout the wilderness. - There will be no self-registration stations at trailheads. - Wilderness overnight permits will be required and will not be self-issued. - Leave No Trace, wilderness values and safety education will be required for all overnight wilderness users. These are some of the new restrictions in Olympic NP's Wilderness Stewardship Plan. Some alternatives would also: - eliminate less-used (climbers' access) trails and footlogs, - close some areas for revegetation or resource protection, - reduce maximum allowed group size to 6 people, - restrict groups of 7 or more to designated group campsites only, - mandate "blue bags" for human waste above 3500 feet. Read more and comment on the Preliminary Draft Alternatives - ONP Wilderness Stewardship Plan online or at one of these meetings : March 18 Port Angeles, March 19 Forks, March 24 Port Townsend, March 26 Quinault, April 1 Shelton, April 3 Seattle.

George (WilderWatch) and Tim (Olympic Park Ass.) have been arguing (and when opportunity presents, suing) against preservation of historic structures in Wilderness non-stop for many years. Nothing you or I or anyone says will change their minds. However, their arguments are mostly opinion, and their claims on legal principles are gross exaggeration or outright wishful thinking. Their two victories in court are actually very narrow (not broad as they claim) and required them to claim a procedurual fault in the NEPA process (arguable). It is not true that, as McNulty claims, "the Wilderness Act trumps historic preservation in wilderness." These court cases do not change the decision whether an historic structure should be preserved, but how - that is, the minimum requirements decision. A good summary of this is in the Cultural Resources Toolbox. The best resolution of this issue is for Congress to reassert it's original intent in creating and designating Wilderness, by passing the Green Mountain Lookout Heritage Preservation Act .

Good points. The Wilderness Act does not need to be rewritten. In its Section 4(a)(3), Wilderness "shall in no manner lower the standards" of protection of a list of historic preservation laws, including the National Historic Preservation Act. The express legislative intent of Olympic Wilderness designation was to allow continued preservation of historic structures, and of Glacier Peak Wilderness to allow continued preservation of historic lookouts (in both cases, express intent entered into Senate Committee testimony by their sponsors). Federal court judges have ignored this. Notably two recent rulings, on Olympic trail shelters and Green Mountain Lookout, both substantially "lower these standards" of protection. The Wilderness Society advocates passage of the Green Mountain Lookout Heritage Preservation Act to restore the original intent of Wilderness, and rebuild the public trust and consensus in support of Wilderness. If you share this goal, contact your representatives urging their support. And yes, this will help save the Chalet.

Where've you been the past week, Brian? Climbing, I hope! Kilmer reintroduced "Wild Olympics". It's been in all the newspapers. He made tiny changes. They fail to address the major defects in the legislation, which are listed above.

The east fork Quinault has been determined eligible for Wild and Scenic River status. NPS regulations require eligible rivers be preserved identically to designated rivers. So Wild Olympics would have no impact on the future of Enchanted Valley Chalet or Graves Creek Road. Money is not the issue here, either. The Green Mountain Lookout decision is very much an issue. Veiled threat of lawsuit has already been issued if the Park tries to save Enchanted Valley Chalet, and more are surely coming. (Aside: the problem with Wild Olympics proposal is that half the lands proposed do not meet the criteria of the Wilderness Act and are not eligble for designation. Half the rivers proposed do not meet the criteria of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and are not eligible for designation. All the eligible roadless lands must be considered for Wilderness recommendation in the upcoming Forest Plan anyway. Wild Olympics legislation is superfluous and over-reaching. WO promoter Jon Owens finally admitted to me (paraphrasing) "Congress can ignore its own laws. If they say its Wild & Scenic or Wilderness, it is; W&SR Act and Wilderness Act are irrelevant." Those who truly believe in Wilderness and in Wild and Scenic Rivers must oppose Wild Olympics.)

Original foundation was concrete mixed on-site in 1930. Ignar Olson packed in mortor on pack horses, and Tom and Glenn Criswell set river rock and would have mixed concrete using river gravel and sand on site. The 1983 restoration included foundation repair. Info is in its National Register of Historic Places listing. Concrete foundation makes moving it easier - jack it up, slide some roller logs under, lay level ramp logs beyond, lay cable, set blocks, start pumping those grips hoists and away it goes. About 1/4 inch every few seconds as long as you can pump. (No, it's never that trivial or easy.. but it is possible.) NPS analyzed a range of actions and was preparing an Environmental Assessment when the Chalet was last threatened in 2007. Among the options was moving the Chalet intact or in parts, and redirecting the river. Logs and rootwads already fallen by the river were moved by grip hoist across the side channel above the Chalet. Although in 2008 the river had swept these away, it had also returned to its previous channel, and in 2009 had incised itself more deeply into it. So the planning was put "on hold". But much thought has already been put into this. Park already has alternative plans and analysis which it can now update and consider. I expect we'll hear more in coming days. re helicopter, every flight is subject to the appropriate level of NEPA review and can operate only during bird nesting "windows". But big picture is that dozens of Knaack boxes are airlifted into Olympic Wilderness each year, to SNOTEL stations, comm relays, ranger stations (emergency S&R supplies to both cabin and tent platform ones), trail bridge construction sites, etc. Flights are also made to monitor elk, mountain goat, fisher, marmot and other natural resources. Steel trail bridges are delivered on long-lines. My guess is that light helis fly at least a hundred shuttle flights or about one full week over the course of each year over Oly Wilderness. All administratively necessary - without it, we wouldn't have a functioning Park. However, use of helis to support repair of historic structures is much more sensitive... in limbo, essentially verboten due to the absurd Green Mountain Lookout court decision.

tvashtarkatena writes "Until some volunteer group (hint hint) organizes to restore this structure - the hard way, without power equipment, it will likely continue to go back to nature." This is a curious statement. The first minor restoration was done by NPS in 1953. Volunteers from the Olympians hiking club, based in Aberdeen, contributed 2,400 hours to the 1983 restoration. NPS completed the latest complete restoration in 2009, including new cedar roof, porch roof and window sills. The Chalet is in excellent structural condition. It is not "going back to nature" for any lack of loving care. tvash' "Half of users want shelters - the other half not."? Let's check the math. This specific question was the focus of Shelter Selection Criteria public workshops conducted in 1977 in Seattle, Port Angeles and Aberdeen. Olympic National Park tallied 1,416 written public comments: 89% favoring retaining all shelters, 10% favoring keeping some and removing some (NPS' selected action), and 1% favoring removing all shelters. Olympic NP Visitor Study conducted in 2000 polled 674 user groups on whether historic structures within Wilderness are approriate. Responses: Always 52%, Usually 33%, Sometimes 14%, Never 1%. The 85% "Always or Usually" or 89% "All", versus the 1% "None" or "Never", is consistent over time, and is far from being "half and half". I'm certain an overwealming majority applaud your lookout restoration effort, as well as the work of dozens of dedicated volunteers on the Green Mountain Lookout, and the truly inspirational restoration of Mebee Lookout. JBo6 asks "Is this building used by NPS backcountry rangers for housing? What's its function these days?" Yes, it is in active use as a seasonal backcountry ranger station, the base of many search and rescue operations, providing first aid, emergency communications and shelter, natural resource protection and surveys, and visitor services over the past sixty years. The building is occasionally open to the public, on a limited basis as staffing permits. The Chalet was open for public use as a shelter in the 1940s-70s, and may be again in the future.

Park is indeed weighing its options, studying river hydrology and legal issues. In 2007, when the river approached within 30 feet of the Chalet, option was to fly in heavy grip hoists, cable, roller logs, etc and hand-winch the Chalet off its foundation away from the river onto higher ground. Then, the next summer, use house jacks to raise it, excavate topsoil and rebuild the stone foundation beneath the cedar sill logs. Enchanted Valley Chalet is listed on the National Register of Historic Places . NPS Director's Order 28 mandates "No structure listed in or potentially eligible for the National Register will be removed or deliberately neglected without review by cultural resource specialists and approval by the regional director." and is pursant to the National Historic Preservation Act section 110. The Green Mountain Lookout court decision complicates matters...

'Gypsy, check out the "Access and Travel Management Plan" for each National Forest. This is a list and maps of former logging roads, generally prioritized by aquatic impact, which are slated for decommissioning. (At the current rate of funding, it will be decades before these plans are realized, though.) Each road is its own case; what applies to one does not apply to another; generalization of the issue may be unproductive?

I was surprised to meet Park Ranger Bridgett Jamison (who was on scene throughout the rescue) again, on July 21, counting marmots near Gray Wolf Pass. She said that at last report, although climber Jake Patterson had not yet fully regained conciousness and had not yet spoken nor recognized people, doctors were optimistic about his chances for recovery. (On July 24, I watched a Coast Guard Dolphin spend more than an hour manuvering and hovering over the ridge northwest of Cedar Lake, i.e. the next ridge west of the Needles, where the July 4 accident took place. So I called Park Dispatch on VHF, and they said no rescue was in progress. Training flight, apparently. Likely not a coincidence that it was the same time of day, terrain and weather as the July 4 rescue attempts. Those familiar with accounts of those (failed) attempts may be glad to hear this?)

johndavidjr, I treasure Harvey Manning's memory... but despite his ability to write with wit, depth and feeling about anything he cared about, to my knowledge, he had nothing to say about the Dosewallips Road. Ira Spring did. I am more of a hiker than a climber. I am not a resident of Brinnon and know nothing about its local economy. But this forum is not about me, or you. This is a public issue, relevant to National Park access for climbers and hikers. If you feel this topic is in any way inappropriate here, please contact the forum moderators. I expect they would clarify to you that this forum is for access issues, not personal attacks and misdirection.

I met Park Ranger Bridgett Jamison, stationed in Royal Basin, on the trail. She related a short synopsis of the remarkable distance of the fall, the serious head injury sustained, and of the rescue, so I've been watching for news to pass on here. Bremerton Climber Injured - Kitsap Sun Teen Climber Rescued - KIRO-TV A first-person account of the rescue, with photos, has just been posted: Rescue on the 4th of July - Ambrose Bittner As many here are aware, Mt. Deception is a pile of choss, site of several previous serious injuries and a fatality. If anyone learns more of the events leading up to this one, or of the climber's condition, please share it.

There is a serious philosophical discussion to be had: should we withdraw roads, campgrounds and Ranger Stations from backcountry locations in order to make our wildernesses deeper? How do we replace these facilities? Where will the funds to decommission roads, demolish facilities and build replacements be found? Or should we simply not have campgrounds, or high country accessible within a weekend climb or hike, and just keep most people out? And it's not just the Dose, the same groups advocate closing the Mountain Loop Highway, the Suiattle, the White Chuck, most entrances to Olympic Nat'l Park, and lament the North Cascades Highway, the Stehekin Road, the Quinault, etc were ever built. I've pondered posting a poll on this philosophical question... but we've already conducted a real-world poll for 5 years on this one. 71% of backcountry visitors to the Dosewallips have voted with their feet to go elsewhere. And I know where - Lena Lakes, Upper Big Quilcene/Camp Mystery, Staircase - and I've seen the consequences - alpine vegetation dug up and trampled, feces and toilet paper scattered about even right on stream banks and lake shores (and I've cleaned it up, bagged it, and packed it out more than once, uggh) - while the backcountry Dose campgrounds (eight of which have latrines!) lie abandoned, the fire rings and tent sites still carpeted with the last winter's windthrown branches even at the end of the season. Our National Parks and Forests don't even have the funds to install new backcountry latrines where they are desperately needed, let alone build new frontcountry campgrounds if we abandon those we have now. And what of the environmental issues? The Dose Road will be rerouted hundreds of feet away from the river, so it does not affect salmon. It is technically "potential" spotted owl habitat - but they've been entirely displaced from Puget lowlands by barred owls - and marbled murrelet habitat - but they aren't found there. The only issue is 20 to 24 trees that are over 36 inches in diameter, and might be termed old growth (most of the Dose re-route was logged 50 years ago). Reopening the Suiattle Road will cut almost twice as many trees of that size, all in Late Successional and Riparian Reserve, so should be twice as objectionable. There is a serious philosophical discussion to be had, but it is not to be had with those who avoid the real questions it raises, and can only descend into petty personal attacks against anyone who raises them, even the most venerable Ira Spring. -sigh- Is it a "left brain/right brain", analytical vs emotional, problem? People do talk past each other, but in the end, we still must to deal with the real world as it actually is, if we are to have any hope of making it better.

Alas, we'll never know. However, his close collaborator for decades who coauthored 38 guidebooks with him, Ira Spring, did tell the Forest Service what he thought about the Dosewallips Road. In honoring Harvey Manning, NCCC wrote "Harvey, Ira Spring and Louise Marshall knew, early on, that getting people into wild areas was the best way to make people love those places. They saw that when people were passionate about the backcountry, they were moved to preserve it. That was the main reason they wrote and published guidebooks." said Helen Cherullo, Mountaineers Books publisher. You don't do that by closing roads to trailheads! Please read more about Ira Spring's legacy, the Spring Trust for Trails: "He loved the trails and he just wanted to share that with everyone." not with only a few.

Realize that OPA advocates closing not just the Dosewallips Road entrance to Olympic National Park, but also Queets, Graves Creek (Enchanted Valley) and the North Fork Quinault park entrance roads. They have challenged repairs necessary to keep the Hoh (Rain Forest Visitor's Center) and Sol Duc (Sol Duc Hot Springs) entrance roads open. They've requested the Obstruction Point Road be closed to public use. Just read their newsletters over the past few years; its all there. Their words match their actions. As OPA's vice president wrote, in opposing the reopening of both the Dosewallips Road and the Mountain Loop Highway, "I can tell you that I experience nothing but sheer delight when forest roads wash out. And the harder time the Forest Service has rebuilding them, the better." Close most of the Park's entrances, and the Ranger Stations and campgrounds on them, most Park visitors won't have any reason to come, and few will have the additional days to hike the additional miles to experience Olympic National Park's backcountry at all. Umm, that may be the point? The question is: do you endorse that goal? Loss the Dosewallips Road has kept 71% of backpackers out of the Dosewallips backcountry, and closure of the majority of Park entrances should keep a similar percentage of total Park visitors out. Just as well hang out a "Park Closed" sign. More to the point, keep most of the public out of Olympic National Park, and one must expect it will lose most of its public support and funding, most of which goes to environmental restoration and preservation projects. Do you accept those consequences of keeping most of the public out of a National Park? It should come as no surprise that the overwealming majority of the public do not support this idea.

I completely agree. And that right carries a responsibility to be informed. Everyone should note what is MISSING from the web pages of those opposing the Dose Road: how do they propose to decommission, not abandon but decommission, the upper Dose Road? How do they propose to get the heavy equipment required (bulldozer, tracked excavator, etc) up past the washout, and demolition debris (more than 200 tons from the FS2610-040 concrete bridge alone) back out past the washout? There is only one way: reopen the road in order to decommission it. But does that make any sense? Cheaper to reopen it and leave it open. So they don't say a thing about what they're actually proposing and asking the public to support. That's intentionally deceptive, and it often works. Just FYI: after six years of revision and public comment, Olympic National Park just issued its new General Management Plan for the next 20+ years. The plan is to maintain all entrance roads that exist today, just as you suggest. Yes. In fact, you can take a Honda 50 trail motorcycle up it, and the Park Ranger does just that. Its a road. Dogs are OK, too.

National Forests 1 day's volunteer trail work = 1 day pass 2 day's work = 1 annual pass (it is a Northwest Forest Pass) National Parks 2 days (12 hours) work = 1 free entry & camping 2 days (16 hours) work = 1 week entry pass 3 days (24 hours) work = 1 annual entry pass 6 days (48 hours) work = 1 annual entry & camping pass (its a pass for the one National Park you worked in) Go figure, but hey, it's something.

This is a project of the Federal Highway Administration's Western Federal Land Highway Division, and is funded from gasoline excise taxes. National Parks and Forests, and the roads within them, are indeed subsidized by federal taxpayers. As to whether they return more value than they cost is a subjective question... one I am surprised to see raised in a climbing or hiking forum (we value these national treasures rather highly, don't we?) The original proposal, to replace the road in its original alignment, would have cost $320,000. The alternative of decommissioning the road, all facilities on it, removing the bridges, would have cost $490,000. (Costs more because the only way to get the heavy equipment in to decommission the road is to first reopen it, of course.) link to background info The final proposal, to relocate 0.8 miles of road completely away from the river thus obviating the environmental issues, will cost $2,550,000. Summary DEIS This does not come out of the Forest Service budget, and does not compete with other Forest Service roads or projects. funding issues Basically, it is the loss of irreplacable National Park facilities (2 campgrounds, Ranger Station, Nature Trail, etc.) having a replacement cost (if there were a location to replace them, which there isn't) greater than the cost of road repair. This is summarized in Friends of Olympic National Park's comment letter posted above. However, the true value of our National Parks is intangible.

Reopening of the Dosewallips Road has the unanimous, bipartisan support of all state legislators and county council members representing the area. I'm sure one could selectively criticize one party or the other, but that overlooks the fact that many legislators who support this have substantive environmental records. Attacking individuals simply does not address the issues. Johndavidjr, I read into your words a sincere interest in Olympic National Park, it's history, and the environmental issues and access to Park resources affected by the Dosewallips Road. These issues merit a more thoughtful consideration than is reflected in your comments above. I encourage you to read the DEIS and supporting documentation, and would welcome the opportunity to discuss any substantive issue with you here. Perhaps you will find the environmental issues, while very important, are actually scarcely affected by this project, and the true issue is a philosophical one? And if you support this National Park as I do, you might conclude that restricting public access to it is inconsistent with your values, too?

Friends of Olympic National Park supports the reopening of the Dosewallips Road. The Dosewallips Road provides the sole road access point into the eastern portions of Olympic National Park for 80 miles along Highway 101, between Staircase and Deer Park. It provides access to the Dosewallips Campground (30 spaces), Ranger Station and several trailheads, backcountry camping areas and climbing routes. While overall Park visitation has increased, visitation to backcountry destinations in the Dosewallips drainage has fallen by 71% since the washout (as indicated by the number of backcountry camping permits issued). For this large majority of hikers, the washout has prevented access to Thousand Acre Meadows and many other destinations up the main fork Dosewallips, and to the once very popular cross-Park hike over Anderson Pass and through Enchanted Valley. Access to popular climbing routes for Mt. Constance, Mt. Deception, Mt. Anderson, Sentinel Peak, etc. in the northeastern Olympics has been lengthened such that these are no longer accessible to most climbers as weekend destinations. Elkhorn Campground, a popular starting point for both horsemen and kayakers, is closed. Usage of backcountry campgrounds (Dose Meadows, Bear Camp, Camp Marion, Honeymoon Meadows, Diamond Meadows, Big Timber, etc.) has plummeted. Dispersed camping opportunities are greatly restricted. Usage has shifted to other, already overused, areas, notably Staircase and the upper Big Quilcene, adversely impacting fragile vegetation and the quality of the wilderness experience for visitors. Visitation to the Park's frontcountry Dosewallips facilities (campground, Terrace Loop Nature Trail, dayhikes to Calypso Falls and the Dose High Bridge) has been blocked by the washout, and the Ranger Station has been closed. Access for those individuals with physical limitations has been completely prevented. Administrative use of the Dosewallips Ranger Station, to provide information and interpretive services to Park visitors, support trail maintenance, and support emergency search and rescue operations when needed, has stopped. Together, these effects represent a significant impairment of Park resources and values. We have also thoroughly examined the alternative of decommissioning the upper Dosewallips Road and its conversion to trail. This was analyzed in the 2004 Environmental Assessment, and rejected as not fulfilling National Park and National Forest management goals, as mandated by law, and we concur. Further, proponents have failed to identify any possible route for the heavy equipment required to accomplish this work. We conclude that it would have significantly greater environmental impact, and cost, than simply reopening the road. Friends of Olympic National Park promotes understanding of the Park's ecological, educational, economic and recreational importance through educational and informational programs. We support the Park in preserving its natural, cultural and recreational resources for the benefit of present and future generations. We endorse the goal of Olympic National Park's Final General Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement: to provide continued seasonal road access to the Dosewallips Ranger Station, Campground and trails, by whichever alternative the Forest Service deems most practical. Sincerely, Larry Stetson /s/, President Friends of Olympic National Park P. O. Box 2438 Port Angeles, WA 98362 To: Dale Horn, Forest Supervisor c/o Tim Davis, Forest Planner Olympic National Forest 1835 Black Lake Blvd., Suite A Olympia, WA 98512-5623 cc: Sue McGill, Acting Superintendent, Olympic National Park Jonathan B. Jarvis, Regional Director, National Park Service Re: WA FS ERFO 2002(1)-21(4): Dosewallips Road Washout DEIS

I admire your rebel spirit, Fairweather! I have stepped aside and waved as mountain bikes rode by me up to 3 miles inside Buckhorn Wilderness, but never in the Park. The trail up to Hatana Falls viewpoint (and beyond) would be a fine bike trail, but I hope they don't catch ya, as I have no idea how big the fine will be...

Jay, as an active WTA volunteer and member, I (and many others) have been very puzzled by this question. So I've asked Jonathan Guzzo, WTA's Advocacy Director, several times since last September. He has refused to answer this question. So beyond the general "decommission and convert to trail" [WTA website], I simply don't know what WTA is specifically advocating, nor how it could be practically and legally accomplished, nor how it could be funded. All I can offer you is Mr. Guzzo's statement "My direct line at WTA is 206.965.8558. My email address is jonathan@wta.org. All WTA members are encouraged to call me if they would like to engage in a substantive discussion on the issues that we address." [WTA mudfest]

Fairweather, I actually completely agree with everything you said, but it is always interesting to try to understand where others are coming from. In that spirit, would you entertain a challenge? Read his entire, eloquent short essay, and try to think of just one forest road to which you might agree it should be applied (abandoned spur logging roads aside). If its not easy, that makes the challenge more interesting! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ On March 22, 2004 the Forest Service's Decision Notice on reopening the Dosewallips Road accused opponents of circulating "misinformation and innuendos" on the environmental issues. Strong wording indeed for an official Federal document! It has since become clear that reopening the road along the hillside has less environmental impact (and cost) than reopening the road to decommission it. Yet they continue to oppose reopening. So what is their motivation? "Closed roads makes our too-small wilderness areas bigger." I think its respectable, and worthy of discussion.... in general. But... I agree, not in this case.

In 2003, the Western Federal Lands Highway Division (of the Federal Highway Administration), who would fund this road, estimated the cost of reopening it at $315,000 and the cost of decommissioning it at $485,000 [overview]. Both estimates would have increased substantially since (likely doubled by the time the work is done in 2009), but this remains useful as an estimate of the relative amount of work involved. The bottom line: reopen the road, or demolish a million dollars of irreplacable National Park assets (Dosewallips Ranger Station, campground showers/restrooms, bridges, etc) for $170,000 more. Same environmental impact (have to cut the same trees to reopen the road in either case). However, practicality aside, there is a respectable philosophical argument for decommissioning: "I experience nothing but sheer delight when forest roads wash out. And the harder time the Forest Service has rebuilding them, the better. Why this sentiment? Because closed roads makes our too-small wilderness areas bigger. Because wild country starts where the vehicles stop." link - Chair, Olympic Forest Coalition; Vice-President, Olympic Park Associates; board member, Washington Trails Association. He applies it to every case: Dosewallips Road, Mountain Loop Highway, Middle Fork Snoqualmie, Stehekin Road, Cascade River Road, Queets/Sams River Roads, Olympic Hot Springs Road... without analysis of each of these very different situations. Apparently it applies to every forest road. And there is a romantic appeal to literally rolling back the calendar to 1920... if you enjoy hiking decommissioned roads. And have an extra day or two to do it. On every trip.

The Dosewallips Road (FS2610 from Brinnon WA on Hood Canal 15 miles to Dosewallips Ranger Station in Olympic National Park) provides access to popular climbing routes for Mt. Constance, Mt. Deception, Mt. Anderson, Sentinel Peak, etc. in the northeastern Olympics [OMR]. In 2002, it washed out 5 miles below the trailhead. Reopening it has proven contentious . In 2004, an Environmental Assessment was completed and the alternative of decommissioning the road was dropped [summary] . Olympic National Forest has since twice refined the proposed route across the hillside above the washout to avoid a small stream and most of the larger trees [Federal Register]. In late March, Olympic National Forest expects to release their Draft Environmental Impact Statement for reopening the Dosewallips Road [news release] . To receive a copy of the DEIS, contact Tim Davis ONF 360-956-2375 or email comments-pacificnorthwest-olympic@fs.fed.us with "Dosewallips DEIS" in the subject line, and request DEIS Summary (25 pages) or Full DEIS (320 pages). A 60-day public comment period will follow its release. Environmental issues surrounding this have recently been discussed [nwhikers]. Olympic Forest Coalition, to avoid the necessity of reopening the road to decommission it, now advocates "Regarding moving equipment past the washout, the obvious choices are helicopter, or using the riverbed at summer low flows." [WTA]