Stehekin Road - Current Status & Opportunity

[Off_White]

This is just a copy of the thread Blake started in Spray, put here for more exposure to the subject. Write your congress rep now!

 

There's a bill in committee in congress, proposed by Rep. Doc Hastings, that would repair the Stehekin Road washout and restore a lot of great climber/hiker access. The Yakima Herald just ran an editorial in favor of the bill . Please let your congressional rep, and senators know your view on the issue! The bill goes before the House Committee on Natural Resources on Sept. 10. Washington members on the committee include Democrat Jay Inslee and Republican Cathy McMorris Rodgers, so it's especially important to contact these two folks.

 

Doc steps up to the plate on Stehekin

 

August 4, 2009 by Scott Sandsberry

 

(Full Article Link)

 

The history in a nutshell: The pioneers built the old Stehekin Valley Road that follows the valley, overlooking the Stehekin River, well above the floodplain. In the 1930s, the feds came along with their infinite wisdom and transformed a critical 2 1/2-mile stretch of what the locals still call “the old wagon road” or “the detour road” into part of the then-new Pacific Crest Trail. Civilian Conservation Corps crews replaced that section of the road by running it down below, along the river … where it was bound to be washed out in time.

 

In 2003, that time came. After the flood washed out a chunk of the road, the Park Service promptly abandoned the road above that washout.

 

This bill would have the PCT, not the road, down along river’s edge. The road should never have been moved in the first place, and Hastings’ bill would allow the National Park Service to rectify a long-ago wrong — because the way the law is now, that road can’t be put back where it should have been all along.

 

The road cannot be moved, because of the wording in the 1988 Wilderness act. (This despite the fact that the 1988 act’s author, former senator and governor Dan Evans, has written in support of Doc’s bill to say the intent of the act was never to prevent this kind of problem-solving solution.) Doc’s bill would allow the road to be moved to its proper place — as originally built above the flood plain — and allow access to areas that, until then, will remain unseen by most of the Wilderness lovers who might otherwise enjoy them.

 

 

 

[faster_than_you]

Some other information

 

This bill is about maintaining a very remote and largely inaccessible road. Some question if this might be a waste of the taxpayers money (not that we don't waste tax payer's money elsewhere), particularly with the current economic climate and needs.

 

This road will cost millions to repair/reroute and, likely, millions more to keep up. The Wilderness boundary adjustmant and commitment to the road benefits only a few families and a very small fraction of the public who visit the park.

 

There is still access to the wilderness. You just have to hike or bike a few extra miles.

 

Also, there are other roads in flood threatened areas that are connected to the highway/road system that need to be moved or repaired. Perhaps we could sort them out first (I'm thinking the Dosewallips and Hoh).

[Blake]

You have a few things wrong there Faster_Than_You

 

The Washout adds an extra 12 miles of road walking in each direction.

 

If you read the article, it mentions that the NPS has estimated repair costs at 1.3million, and that was before a large drop in fuel/labor/commodities prices.

 

An amount equal to (or greater than) this repair cost has likely already been spent using helicopters to bring forest fire equipment to the upper stehekin valley, whereas if the money had just been used to fix the washout, the supplies could have been driven. This would almost certainly be the case again on future fires that will occur.

[faster_than_you]

Actually Blake, it's 9.9 miles of road, but whatever with that.

 

If fixing roads for fire protection/response were the primary reason, then what do you say about the 1,000's of miles of abandoned USFS/BLM/NPS roads that would greatly improve fire protection/response throughout the rest of state and western US? Using your point, why not fix those roads or do an omnibus bill to correct similar roads throughout the state? This isn't about fire finances, it's about access in a very very remote community - access that largely benefits a very small user group. It's also about changing laws and boundaries without a full public review. Don't forget, this will be a major reroute through old growth forest and it will be very expensive.

 

I'm not against fixing roads that washed out, but there are a number of roads that would provide greater access to more people than this one extremely remote road at the end of the Lake Chelan. I don't agree with the finances (at this time) and the wildland fire argument doesn't stick.

 

 

Anyway, in spirit of information, here are a few more thoughts on the Chelan road.

 

September 4, 2009

 

The Honorable Nick J. Rahall, Doc Hastings, Raul M. Grijalva, and Rob Bishop

 

Dear Chairmen and Ranking Members:

 

On behalf of the more than 10,000 members and supporters throughout Washington State, Washington Wilderness Coalition is writing to express a number of strong and significant concerns with legislation (HR 2806) which is scheduled to be marked up at full committee on Thursday September 10, 2009. WWC has worked to protect wild lands and waters in Washington State over the last 30 years and many of our members recreate in the North Cascades National Park Complex and the surrounding national forest lands.

 

The legislation (HR 2806) before you would move the boundary of the Stephen Mather Wilderness in North Cascades National Park in order to relocate the Stehekin Road between Car Wash Falls and Cottonwood Camp. WWC has the following concerns about this bill:

 

I. Inappropriate & Unprecedented Authority Given to the Secretary of Interior

 

As currently drafted, the bill gives the sole authority to change the existing wilderness boundary of the Stephen Mather Wilderness within the North Cascades National Park to the Secretary of the Interior. To our knowledge, this would be unprecedented and would ignore the fact that Congress (not administrative agencies) have designated and determined wilderness boundaries since the Wilderness Act was created in 1964. Such was the case in 1988 when the Stephen Mather Wilderness was designated by the Washington Park Wilderness Act of 1988 (Public Law 100-668).

 

II. Significant Departure from the Congressional Protocol for Determining Wilderness Boundaries

 

Since the Wilderness Act was passed in 1964, more than 100 million acres of wilderness have been designated by Congress. Associated with each of the public laws that designated these areas was a map detailing the boundaries of each wilderness. HR 2806 would ask Congress to cavalierly depart from that protocol and not only allow an agency head to undo what was legislated by Congress in 1988 (as explained above) but also determine additional wilderness acreage to replace it without a congressionally legislated map.

 

III. Dismissing A Decision Reached By Professional Land Managers

 

HR 2806 would effectively overturn the decision of professional managers in the National Park Service. While this is certainly the purview of Congress, we feel that it should not be done lightly and in this case is unwarranted. In 2006, the National Park Service completed an environmental review of the Upper Stehekin road and concluded the best way to preserve park resources, save taxpayer money, and maintain public enjoyment was to retire the upper section of the road. The decision was based on the valley’s topography, the changing flood regime, the financial costs, public demand and the Park’s enabling legislation. The analysis associated with HR 2806 pales in comparison and we urge that the process that led to retiring the road by professional land managers not be summarily discounted by this bill.

 

IV. Insufficient Accommodation for Public Input and Environmental Review

 

As written, the bill does not require any additional public process or environmental review despite the fact that all such efforts to date have led to the decision to retire the road. Because the bill does not contain any specifics on the re-siting of the road, the change in the existing wilderness boundary or the replacement wilderness acreage, it seems irresponsible not to include a requirement that the outcome be associated with a public process and an environmental review.

 

V. Concern About Setting a Dangerous Local Precedent

 

At issue is a portion of the Stehekin road that has been damaged by recent storms. Storm damage to roads in the Pacific Northwest is a reoccurring theme, and the phenomenon seems to be getting worse. With the onset of climate change, most scientists warn that we can expect more of these damaging storms, in particular those rain on snow events that occur in the fall (as was the case with the latest event in Stehekin). This bill, if passed as currently drafted, would set a dangerous precedent for similar areas in the Pacific Northwest. It essentially puts forward a broad and simple solution to a complex problem by simply changing long-standing wilderness boundaries to accommodate road maintenance due to storm damage. However, there are no assurances or even assertions that such actions would preclude future storm damage.

 

Additionally, the Stehekin road is not the only recent example of a chronically storm-damaged road near existing wilderness boundaries. The Dosewallips Road in the Olympic National Forest is one case where this issue has been debated and litigated for close to a decade. The Olympic National Park went so far as to suggest legislative language to adjust wilderness boundaries near the Hoh River Road due to chronic storm damage (although that road remains open). This bill puts forward a simplistic solution of changing wilderness boundaries to accommodate storm damaged roads that sets a dangerous precedent of a one-size-fits-all solution to a deliberate and thoughtful process of wilderness preservation. While there may be some situations where adjusting a wilderness boundary is a necessary solution based on a number of factors, this bill fails to make that case as written and threatens to set a precedent where such consideration would not be made in future situations.

 

Thank you for your consideration. Please do not hesitate to contact Washington Wilderness Coalition if you have any questions or if we may otherwise be of service.

 

Sincerely,

 

 

 

Terry Fernsler

Executive Director

Washington Wilderness Coalition

 

 

CC: Senator Patty Murray

Senator Maria Cantwell

Congressman Rick Larsen

Congressman Jay Inslee

 

[Fairweather]

So what currently washed out roads does WWC support repairing?

 

[faster_than_you]

So what currently washed out roads does WWC support repairing?

 

I don't know FW, and I'm not one of their members. That doesn't change the points made in the letter, which seem like a fair and good addition to the public discussion.

[max]

Just my opinion: Leave it washed out. I can do without motorized access to plenty of places in WA.

 

And as a side note: In the last seven years, I've been on four wildland fires operating out of Stehekin. During three of those fires, the road was open and traveled by the locals, but virtually unused by fire operations (other than logistics bwtn the boat landing and the airstrip). Up there, jumpers and raps cutting helispots is where it's at. And that's for the relatively few fires that recieve any suppression action. I think the comment about benifiting a small local user group is right on.

Edited September 9, 2009 by max

[Fairweather]

So what currently washed out roads does WWC support repairing?

 

I don't know FW, and I'm not one of their members. That doesn't change the points made in the letter, which seem like a fair and good addition to the public discussion.

 

I guess I misunderstood. I do think the fire access angle is weak--but it seems to me there are too many great places that are now accessible to too few. Glacier Peak Wilderness is a case in point. Half a generation barely knows it exists! We need to restore the access status quo of, say, 1995 to keep people participating in, and advocating for wilderness.

[faster_than_you]

I guess I misunderstood. I do think the fire access angle is weak--but it seems to me there are too many great places that are now accessible to too few. Glacier Peak Wilderness is a case in point. Half a generation barely knows it exists! We need to restore the access status quo of, say, 1995 to keep people participating in, and advocating for wilderness.

 

Agreed! Another road that should/could be repaired is the westside road at Mount Rainier NP - and that doesn't require a wilderness boundary adjustment.

 

Perhaps we should press our WA ST delegation to look at the larger USFS/NPS/BLM road network, and have them pursue those for economic recovery funding?

[Blake]

Actually Blake, it's 9.9 miles of road, but whatever with that.

 

Road AND shuttle bus historically ran to Cottonwood Campground, where the trailhead was, 23 miles from the boat landing.

 

Road now exists to carwash falls (@ 12.5 miles), but NPS shuttle stops at High Bridge, 11 miles from the boat landing.

 

23-11=12!

[dberdinka]

So what currently washed out roads does WWC support repairing?

 

 

 

Exactly. Their claim that "there might be cases where moving a wilderness boundary is approriate" is completely disingenous. Find me one example where these organizations supported any sort of change to a boundary or road/trail repair that would maintain or improve access to a wilderness area? You won't be able too!

 

The leadership of these organizations are interested in "protecting" not "experiencing" our wild lands. Your presence out there is not appreciated by these folks. They'd much rather you stayed in the city like them. Watch out their goals are opposed to our interests as hikers and climbers.

[faster_than_you]

So what currently washed out roads does WWC support repairing?

 

 

 

Exactly. Their claim that "there might be cases where moving a wilderness boundary is approriate" is completely disingenous. Find me one example where these organizations supported any sort of change to a boundary or road/trail repair that would maintain or improve access to a wilderness area? You won't be able too!

 

The leadership of these organizations are interested in "protecting" not "experiencing" our wild lands. Your presence out there is not appreciated by these folks. They'd much rather you stayed in the city like them. Watch out their goals are opposed to our interests as hikers and climbers.

 

You may be right about WWC, and for the record, I dislike the "lock it up and prevent humans from going there" attitude, but your drifting from the real issue and it still doesn't address a fair critic about this situation.

 

What is happening is that this community is politically connected (i.e. they often host politicians and events) and has been very successful at lobbying the WA ST delegation. Perhaps b/c the road is in E-WA (more conservative) and not in W-WA (liberal)? Whatever, but that doesn't mean that the bill is OK or that it's a great decision for the rest of the tax payers. For me, this is about how and where to best spend tax dollars. If our nation had money to burn, maybe throwing money into river beds would be fine. But we're not flush with cash, and the NPS definitely isn't. And given that financial reality, I think our money could be put to better use on other washed-out roads.

 

 

Here is more information on the issue from the National Parks Traveler.

 

Should Congress Direct the National Park Service to Rebuild the Upper Stehekin Valley Road in North Cascades National Park?

 

There are some roads in the National Park System that just shouldn't be maintained. The "road to nowhere" in Great Smoky Mountains National Park is one. The current path of the Carbon River Road in Mount Rainier National Park is another.

 

But what about the Upper Stehekin Valley Road in North Cascades National Park? At least one congressman believes wilderness boundaries should be bent to reroute this deadend route out of the existing floodplain of the Stehekin River. With the full House Natural Resources Committee set to consider this bill Thursday, let's take a look at what's at stake.

 

The route, which is prone to washouts, provides access to Stephen Mather Wilderness trailheads and North Cascades National Park from the Lake Chelan National Recreation Area. Back in 2003 there was a flood of historic proportions that washed out the road. While some portions were rebuilt, the section beyond Car Wash Falls has remained impassable. Some are fine with that, others are not.

 

U.S. Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Washington, back in June introduced legislation that, while not specifically ordering the National Park Service to rebuild the road, suggested it do just that. His measure, H.B. 2806, gives the secretary of the Interior discretion to realign the wilderness area's boundaries in such a way that a better route for the road could be located while there would be no net loss in wilderness acreage. If he didn't want the road rebuilt, why introduce this measure?

 

During a hearing July 30 on the legislation, Washington state Sen. Linda Evans Parlette testified that the continued closure of the upper stretch of the road creates both an economic hardship for the Stehekin community and a visitation hardship for folks who don't have the ability to backpack in to the trailheads that once could be reached by vehicle.

 

"The closure of the Upper Valley Stehekin Road has had a negative effect on the economic viability of the Stehekin Community by limiting access to trailheads and rustic park facilities. It has also created a safety concern for valley residents and visitors," the state senator testified to the House Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands. "With an impassible road above Car Wash Falls, vehicular access to multiple trailheads for recreational purposes, as well as fire and safety purposes, is impossible.

 

"In addition to trail access being diminished, there are a significant number of visitor facilities at Bridge Creek that used to be accessible by vehicle," added state Sen. Parlette. "These facilities include: a campground, corral, Ranger Patrol Cabin, National Register listed historic public shelter, pit toilets, and an emergency cabin maintained by Chelan County Public Utility District. There is also a six site campground and pit toilets at Cottonwood Camp that use to be accessible by vehicle."

 

But not everyone agrees the wilderness boundary should be moved to allow the road to be rebuilt. One of those is acting-National Park Service Director Dan Wenk. During his appearance before the subcommittee he pointed to issues with The Wilderness Act, the lack of visitor facilities at the end of the road, and, of course, the cost of rebuilding the road.

 

"The department opposes H.R. 2806 because of our concerns about potential impacts to the environment, inconsistency with the intention of the Wilderness Act, and our position of not rebuilding roads in parks in the Cascades after natural disasters where no visitor facilities are found along or at the end of the road," Mr. Wenk testified. "In addition, with limited financial resources, the planning, design, construction and maintenance of a new road are lower in priority than other needs of the National Park Service. Stehekin, Washington, is a small community within the Lake Chelan National Recreation Area, which is part of the North Cascades National Park Complex. The Stehekin Valley is only accessible by boat, float plane or hiking. Visitors arrive to Stehekin by means of one of these conveyances and do not typically bring cars. Cars generally are limited to those who live in or own property in Stehekin. There are approximately 85-95 year-round residents and about one-third are NPS employees or their dependents.

 

Following the 2003 flood, the Park Service prepared an environmental assessment looking at the issues involved with both rebuilding or rerouting the road. According to Mr. Wenk, that analysis "found that relocating and constructing the road in the Stephen Mather Wilderness could have significant impacts on active Northern Spotted Owl habitat, old-growth forests and wetlands. In addition, road construction is prohibited within wilderness areas. Both the rebuilding and the relocation alternatives also raised concerns about obtaining the funding needed to maintain the road in such a demanding environment. As a result of these findings, the NPS made the decision to formally close the road and rely on access by trail to the Upper Stehekin Valley."

 

Throwing its support behind the Park Service is the National Parks Conservation Association, which in late August wrote Rep. Nick Rahall, chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, to solicit his opposition to Rep. Hasting's bill.

 

"You cannot reach Stehekin by car; the Stehekin Road is not connected to any road network. You can only get there by boat, plane or hiking. Vehicles can only reach this road by special shipment on a barge. One section of this road, leading into North Cascades National Park, has repeatedly been washed out by floods," pointed out the NPCA's Sean Smith. "Adequate access to the park is available on the remaining road network and by hiking and with stock.

 

"... Like many others, I too have a personal connection to the Stehekin road. As a former North Cascades’ ranger I was responsible for leading hikes, presenting evening programs and even shuttling visitors in the park van up and down the Stehekin Valley," added Mr. Smith. "What I found during my interaction with countless visitors is that they are deeply focused on their park experience. Put another way, retiring the Upper Stehekin Road may impact how people come to the park, but it’s unlikely to affect why they come. By focusing on the ultimate purpose of a park trip, the NPS better fulfills the real intent of the park visitor."

 

Stay tuned to the outcome of Thursday's committee meeting. Among those on the committee is U.S. Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Arizona, who takes pride in pointing out congressional earmarks that he considers to be pure pork. In recent weeks he has ridiculed a $143,000 earmark to the American Ballet Theater in New York City intended for educational activities, saying, “Congress continues to spend way tutu much," and a $100,000 earmark to Thomas More College in Crestview Hills, Kentucky for training programs in healthcare management.

 

“More is less,” Congressman Flake said.

 

[JasonG]

H.R.2806 passed the House, on to the Senate! I, for one, am in support of it . . .especially now that I have short legged ones I would like to take to areas I remember fondly as a kid.

[faster_than_you]

For those who want to see this road replaced I'm curious - are you willing to let other USFS and NPS roads remain closed so that this particular road gets a higher priority? As stated in the NPS testimony, to replace this road means that funds for other projects will be diverted. That could mean a wide range of things, but generally, it means something (usually services) will be cut elsewhere, unless there is a special earmark. This is an expensive road repair (with unknown long term costs) that benefits a very small population of people (roughly 90 permanent residents at Stehekin). And the correlation to fire management (above) is largely non-sense and will not result in any savings.

 

Also, the claim that public access decreased doesn't hold up - and that should be part of the discussion. The NPS visitor stats show that access initially dropped after the flood, but then stabilized and increased despite the washout. Currently, there are more people accessing that end of the road (I’d post the NPS stats, but I don’t know how to post a graph here). The type of use may have changed, but it did not decrease.

 

I'm trying to walk a fine line here with an eye toward fiscal responsibility. In general, I like to see roads that are washed out repaired! But given the number of USFS and NPS roads throughout the state and region that suffer the same fate, I would prefer to see roads that that provide substantially more access to a greater population repaired over the ones like the Stehekin Road that benefit a very small community.

 

BTW, don’t let this bill get you too excited. It’s an AUTHORIZING bill, meaning, in this case that it moves a Wilderness boundary but does not provide funds or specific direction. There is more than one option on how to repair the road - and at what places. This bill does not get into the variety of options (or costs). Note the final paragraph. Here is the text – (I cut the findings)

 

H.R.2806

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to adjust the boundary of the Stephen Mather Wilderness and the North Cascades National Park in order to allow the rebuilding of a road outside of the floodplain while ensuring that there is no net loss of acreage to the Park or the Wilderness, and for other purposes.

 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

 

SEC. 1 FINDINGS

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENTS.

The Washington Park Wilderness Act of 1988 (Public Law 100-668) is amended by inserting after section 206 the following:

`SEC. 207. BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENTS FOR ROAD.

`(a) In General- The Secretary may adjust the boundaries of the North Cascades National Park and the Stephen Mather Wilderness in order to provide a corridor of not more than 100 feet in width along which the Stehekin Valley Road may be rebuilt--

`(1) outside of the floodplain between milepost 12.9 and milepost 22.8;

`(2) within one mile of the route, on the date of the enactment of this section, of the Stehekin Valley Road;

`(3) within the boundaries of the North Cascades National Park; and

`(4) outside of the boundaries of the Stephen Mather Wilderness.

`(b) No Net Loss of Lands-

`(1) IN GENERAL- The boundary adjustments made under this section shall be such that equal amounts of federally owned acreage are exchanged between the Stephen Mather Wilderness and the North Cascades National Park, resulting in no net loss of acreage to either the Stephen Mather Wilderness or the North Cascades National Park.

`(2) STEHEKIN VALLEY ROAD LANDS- The newly designated wilderness shall include the lands along the route of the Stehekin Valley Road that are replaced by the reconstruction.

`(3) EQUALIZATION OF LAND- If the lands described in paragraph (2) contain fewer acres than the corridor described in subsection (a), the Secretary may designate additional Federal lands in the North Cascades National Park as wilderness, but such designation may not exceed the amount needed to equalize the exchange and these additional lands must be selected from lands that qualify as wilderness under section 2© of the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131©).

`© No Sale or Acquisition Authorized- Nothing in this Act authorizes the sale or acquisition of any land or interest in land.

`(d) No Priority Required- Nothing in this Act shall be construed as requiring the Secretary to give this project precedence over the construction or repair of other similarly damaged roads in units of the National Park System.'

[JasonG]

This is one of the three roads I really miss, the other two being the White Chuck and the Suiattle. Sounds like they are moving ahead on the White Chuck repair up to MP 5.6 or so . . I don't know about the Suiattle.

 

I see your point about fiscal responsibility, but it is a pretty special area that isn't very easy for families to access any longer. I guess if I was going to have to pick a road to repair, The Stehekin is pretty high on my list. I understand that it probably won't happen for some time, if at all, but still I thought the Park Service's position to be a little out of step with my own. It really isn't about the Stehekin residents, I'm interested in my family's access!

 

I know there is a lot of passion around this issue, I'm just explaining my perspective- right or wrong.

[faster_than_you]

Heinrich

 

Well I can't argue with you on that. I want to see the Dosewallips Road in the Olympics and Mount Rainier's Westside Road fixed. I wish someone 'connected' would make those a priority!

 

We should start a list of roads that can be reasonably fixed and send it to our electeds like Doc Hastings and Norm Dicks.

[JasonG]

It certainly wouldn't hurt if all of us climber/hiker types made lists and sent them to our electeds. Nothing may come of it, but it certainly won't if we don't speak our minds. It seems like too often ordinary folks don't comment on things anymore . . . . and then wonder why their views aren't represented.

 

And I agree, the Dose and Westside roads (five and counting .. .) would be on my list too ! I think I am starting to see a pattern with the Park Service . ..

[mountainsloth]

Leave it wild. we have enough roads winding through the cascades.

[Off_White]

Well, the point is that it isn't wild, its a road with a washed out section in need of repair. If Hwy 20 gets closed again by a rockfall past Newhalem, should we just "leave it wild"?

 

I'd sure like to see the Westside road reopened at MRNP too, probably more than the Stehekin road, but I didn't know that one was even under discussion.

[mattp]

Like what I think Off assumed, I have "accepted" that a repair of the Westside Road was not even a possibility.

 

I understand the attraction of having the west side of Mt. Rainier being more difficult to access and thus more of a wilderness but I'd support restoring that road for sure. There were some terrific outings there and my guess is that it wouldn't take all THAT much to reopen the road. I haven't really looked at the cost estimates or balance sheets but I do believe that the new bridge over the Sauk River, maybe 5 miles out of Darrington, must have cost an absolute FORTUNE in comparison, and there are ongoing projects and maintenance on Park Service lands that probably dwarf what it would cost to restore that Westside Road.

 

With the Carbon River entrance cut back and the WestSide Road closed, the entire west half of Mt. Rainier has become much more difficult to access with the exception of Ptarmigan Ridge, perhaps.

 

Back to the original topic: how expensive might be the Stehekin Road repair compared to others mentioned here?

[Blake]

Faster_Than_You and others... Repairs to the Stehekin Road would not come with a decrease in the repair budget to area Forest Service Roads, which I agree would be used by more people. This is not a case of either/or, where we have to choose between roads

 

This argument was raised 2 years ago on the Washington Climber Coalition Website and at a WCC Meeting during which I presented information on this topic. I had a very long and informative exchange with Daniel DeSantis, who is the the "Transportation Program manager" for the federal government overseeing the Western USA, and learned that this phantom competition of repair funds would not occur.

Email Exchange with the guy in charge of federal roads

 

 

Matt_P, the NPS estimates a repair would be $1.3million. That might have been when fuel prices were at their peak (the transport cost is a disproportionately high % of construction expenses in Stehekin). The bill currently in congress would allow the road to be re-routed along it's original course, which is currently a very wide trail that was once driveable. This course sits on a bench of land up from the Stehekin River and is not in flood danger. The road was first constructed and used along this road bed, and only later moved as part of a CCC project in the late 1930s to make this stretch of road more scenic/riparian.

 

MountainSloth: The upper Stehekin Valley was far "less wild" 100 or even 80 years ago, than it is today or was eairlier this decade when the road was functioning. For much of the 20th century, a year-round community of several hundred people existed at Bridge Creek, vehicles were being driven into HorseShoe Basin, and miners and trappers used (now extinct) marked trails to places like Trapper Lake, Junction Mountain, the W. Fork of Agnes Creek and several other now-unvisited spots in the upper valley. One-lane dirt road does not make the upper valley "un wild". As an example, I was coming off Mt. Goode with a friend 2 years ago, and after 2 days of climbing, we came across the Stehekin Road/Park Creek Trail junction. My friend was amazed that a road existed, as he couldn't see it from the surrounding peaks, and he couldn't tell it was there until he literally stepped onto it.

Edited December 21, 2009 by Blake

[mattp]

Blake, with some exceptions I think you are probably preaching to the choir around here. On balance I favor re routing the road back to the earlier alignment and improving access there but I certainly see the merit in Faster_Than_You's argument that this particular road is only high on the list of priorities for a relatively small number of users who have a special interest in the Stehekin area as compared to west side access roads or even east side roads that don't require an expensive and rather "inconvenient" ferry trip.

 

Even if we were to accept the idea that the Park Service budget is separate from the Forest Service, do we still conclude there is no "competition" for funding between, say, the Stehekin Road and the Cascade River Road? North Cascades and Rainier? The ardent conservations generally seem to argue that virtually all access roads should be eliminated where it is feasible and ardent access promoters would like most of them maintained, but certainly a lot more users would be served by keeping the Cascade River Road or the West Side Road at Rainier than they would be served by rebuilding the Stehekin road extension - if we had to choose between them.