FS Road 26 - Suiattle River Road - Closure Where?

[chris]

I'm trying to determine where mile marker 11.5 is geographically on the Suiattle River Road (FS Rd 26). My work is mostly stumped because I can't tell on my maps where the FS Road starts and the county road ends. Can someone give me a geographical marker - campsite, creek junction, etc?

[num1mc]

Your maps don't show the NF boudary? My USGS and TOPO maps show the boundary as about 3/8 of a mile SE of the turnoff for the South Suiattle RD

[curtveld]

Hey Chris - milepost #s start at Hwy 530. The closure is a couple miles past Boundary Bridge (where the #25 road takes off toward Rat Trap Pass). It is roughly across the river from where Straight Creek joins.

 

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

The FS web site talks about work being done fixing part of the washouts (last bit will never be fixed) this year. Does anyone know the concrete time frame for this other than "late summer".

[wbk]

also does anyone know how passable these washouts are on mtn bike or on a dirtbike?

[goatboy]

They're passable but it's illegal to do so.

[wbk]

illegal? why this? because they are doing roadwork on them?

[curtveld]

As I understand it, motorized vehicles are verboten, but bikes are fine. Might want to call the Darrington Ranger Station to confirm this - and any details below.

 

Regarding repairs, the plan for 2011 is to fix it out to Downey Creek and do the rest next year. Pretty hard to guess exactly when - they'll give the contractor as much leeway as possible as long as it's done by fall

 

The wild card is that an environmental group has just filed an appeal (not enough studies/review) and that could slow things down.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

The wild card is that an environmental group has just filed an appeal (not enough studies/review) and that could slow things down.

 

That's so retarded.

[curtveld]

That's so retarded.

Maybe you should sue them...like, for complicating your recreational plans

[KaskadskyjKozak]

That's so retarded.

Maybe you should sue them...like, for complicating your recreational plans

 

They are blocking all repairs to these roads for the sake of eliminating access, period. It's hard enough to get the funds for the work yet alone have these idiots blocking it. We're not talking about new roads here, just about keeping access to the well-travelled ones that already exist.

 

 

 

[curtveld]

Yeah, I miss having driving access up that road too.

 

But I'd rather see this thread stay focused on info and updates, rather than opinions. My bad for biting, I guess.

[Layback]

If updates are what this thread is about here's one for you: A bunch of birdwatchers are trying to get the whole project stopped, just like they attempted to do (rather unsuccessfully) with the Mountain Loop Highway:

 

http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20110507/NEWS01/705079906/-1/NEWS

[Layback]

There's also a vibrant discussion on NWH: http://www.nwhikers.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=7990688&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

[KaskadskyjKozak]

If updates are what this thread is about here's one for you: A bunch of birdwatchers are trying to get the whole project stopped, just like they attempted to do (rather unsuccessfully) with the Mountain Loop Highway:

 

http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20110507/NEWS01/705079906/-1/NEWS

 

I have a bird for the bird wathchers to see. ;-)

[chris]

Thanks guys - I'll contribute whenever I learn something new.

[Bronco]

Published: Thursday, June 2, 2011

 

By Gale Fiege, Herald Writer

 

DARRINGTON -- In the face of a lawsuit by local environmentalists, the federal government has backed out of plans this summer to spend $1.7 million in emergency highway funds to repair to the once popular Suiattle River Road 26 in the Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest.

 

Repairs to the washed-out road would have allowed access to the Glacier Peak Wilderness, which has been virtually blocked from the west side of the mountains for more than seven years because of flood damage. The road, located east of Darrington, leads to popular trailheads, campgrounds and even Sauk-Suiattle tribal burial grounds.

 

The Pilchuck Audubon Society, the North Cascades Conservation Council and Lynnwood engineer and hiker Bill Lider brought the lawsuit, contending that the proposed repairs would destroy old trees that are home to the northern spotted owl and the marbled murrelet, as well as damage parts of the Suiattle River, which has a scenic river designation with protection for salmon. Lider also objected to the use of emergency highway repair funds for the project, since the last damaging flood was in 2007.

 

In withdrawing plans to make the repairs now, the Federal Highway Administration also said that it will include additional environmental analysis the next time it considers making repairs to the Suiattle River Road, said Clara Conner, an engineer with the western lands division of the highway administration.

 

That's what the plaintiffs wanted, Lider said.

 

"The lawsuit served its purpose. The withdrawal of their so-called emergency repair plans is tacit acknowledgement that wetlands and old forests along the Suiattle River are worthy of more environmental assessment," Lider said. "The Forest Service and highway administration had done the lowest form of environmental review for this and they were playing fast and loose with the rules."

 

Darrington District Ranger Peter Forbes said National Forest Service personnel have been asked not to talk about the lawsuit or respond to Lider's comments. However, Forbes said that any action on federal lands is subject to the National Environmental Policy Act, which requires environmental review before that action takes place.

 

Washington Trails Association advocacy director Jonathan Guzzo said he thought the environmental assessment for the road repair project was good -- "a significant and sufficient assesssment." He said he is sad that the lawsuit changed the plans for repairs to Suiattle River Road 26. If it isn't fixed, Guzzo said, people will have to walk an extra 24 miles roundtrip on the damaged road to get to the trailheads.

 

"That takes any trip in the area out of the realm of a day hike. This is a major hardship for hikers who haven't been able to access the Glacier Peak Wilderness for many years," Guzzo said. "You can do it, but the easiest way up there includes a drive over the pass to the east side."

 

Lider, however, thinks the river road in its current condition can still support plenty of recreation for people willing to bicycle or walk in.

 

"Our goal was never to shut down the Suiattle River Road," Lider said.

 

Forbes said it's possible that repairs to White Chuck River Road 23, located south of the Suiattle, are set to begin mid-month and could be completed near the end of summer. This might allow for a few weeks of hiking from trailheads on that road. Lider's suit did not aim to stop repairs on the White Chuck River Road.

 

The Washington Trails Association wants make it clear that it doesn't support the repair and restoration of every old logging road in the National Forest, Guzzo said.

 

"The Suiattle River Road, however, is clearly worthy of being rebuilt," Guzzo said. "There is a new generation of hikers who have never even been up there."

 

The Suiattle River Road was established in the early 1900s by miners heading out to work their claims. By the 1930s, the road extended nearly 20 miles to the Civilian Conservation Corps-constructed Buck Creek Campground. In the big timber heyday of the 1950s and 1960s, the road was used heavily by logging trucks. From the mid-1970s through 2007, the road was damaged by flooding on more than a dozen occasions, most severely in 2003 and 2007, Forbes said.

 

 

[num1mc]

It is a shame that repair of this old and historical access route is continually being interferred with by groups that do not represent the mainstream of Wilderness users

[builder206]

This is effing unbelievable. I thought it was a crime it went unrepaired so long. Now this?!

 

And all they had to do was threaten a suit? I wish threats of lawsuits had half as much effect on other government agencies.

 

Can they at least cut the blowdown?

 

I'd like to see a group in wheelchairs complain about the road condition violating their ADA rights...

 

 

Edited June 2, 2011 by builder206

[builder206]

How can there be a requirement for an EIS for a road ***that already exists***?!

Edited June 3, 2011 by builder206

[num1mc]

 

How can there be a requirement for an EIS for a road ***that already exists***?!

 

If I understand correctly, one of the main problems or possible future hurdles facing the deep bore Highway 99 viaduct replacement, is that the state used some kind of abbreviated Impact Study. Opponents claim that they will force a full EIS on the deep bore project.

 

I cannot help but think that many of these cases are a corruption of the original intent of the law

Edited June 3, 2011 by num1mc