Middle Fork Snoqualmie road getting paved

#1
I knew it was coming but it looks like it's going to happen in 2013. The author of the article cites the reduction in sediment runoff from the road and an environmental benefit but I wonder about the sediment during the construction and the ten-fold increase in trash we're likely to see.

I liked the built in barrier the crappy road presented. Hell, since i'm selfish about my fishing spots, I wouldn't have minded if it had gone to non-motorized only.

Looks like I might be buying another NoFork permit next year after all...

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2018343673_midfork03m.html
 
#3
but I wonder about the sediment during the construction
All road beds in Washington state are built to specification, made from engineered soils, which are broken rock, agreggate, and the 'fines' which are formed as the larger rock is fractured to the specified size or shape. If a soft area is found when grading, the standard is to excavate, fill the area with spawls wrapped with (generally) 5oz. filter fabric, then a layer or smaller 2-4", then whatever the owner has specified as road bed or cap break. Unless there are some culverts being replaced, or something new being pushed in, there shouldn't be any dirt/clay/soil/ man made sediment anywhere near the river.

Specs: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Publications/Manuals/M41-10.htm

My take is that I think it's a good thing that the contract value is so high, it'll more than likely keep all the small time out of town ratty outfits from coming in and doing a half assed job.

Jason- We hiked Mailbox last weekend, and man is that valley busy now! I just don't see how people are going to continue to drive up that road at 40+ mph if it doesn't get paved, and soon!
 

Brian Miller

Be vewy vewy qwiet, I'm hunting Cutthwoat Twout
#4
Considering the size of a drainage above a road I can't believe a 15 foot wide road would add appreciably to the amount of sediment runoff. I believe the MF road is already maintained as a "Passenger Car road" that is "designed and constructed to carry commercial truck and recreational highway vehicles" (RVs).

And the road will be closed during the week focusing ALL recreational use to the weekends with no midweek option to avoid crowds. Perfect.

Will a Federal Forest Pass be required to drive or park anywhere along it :rolleyes: ?
 

Old Man

Just an Old Man
#5
I can remember when the road up the N/F of the Sky was gravel. Or the Beckler river road was also. They paved them and turned them into speed ways.

This was when you could get into Garland Hot Springs. I don't think there is anything left up there anymore. Gravel roads were fun. It kept the rift raff out of there.
 

Brookie_Hunter

aka Dave Hoover
#8
Even with the crappy road, it gets crowded back there. Now it's going to get ugly. But even with that, it'll just take a little more hiking to gain some amount of solitude.
 

John Bisset

retired to fish
#9
How can the state justify this, when we have more roads than we can't afford to maintain as it is? Soon there will be nowhere to get away from the hoards.
 

Steve Call

Active Member
#10
Quite possibly one of the worst things that could have happened to a watershed in the Seattle area.
I couldn't agree more! You can only imagine the accidents that will result from increased traffic and cars going a hell of a lot faster on that road. Add to that trash and general degradation of the area from dramatically increased use. Most weekends it looks like an REI convention up there.

Frankly, I don't buy the whole runoff issue. The road only parallels the river in a few short stretches. Otherwise it is at least several hundred feet from the river providing ample vegetation to filter sediment long before it reaches the river. Simply improving several of the culverts would correct most of the so-called sediment issue.

What a waste!
 

Derek Young

Emerging Rivers Guide Services
#12
I attended a public comment session at the North Bend FS office to hear and see more about the plan. What I heard was the local residents, anglers, and others concerned about irresponsible government spending all asking questions that had no answers; such as "who pays for the trash clean up?" and "who will patrol the area?" and they went unanswered. What I did hear was "if we don't spend the money on this plan, Snohomish County will get the money to spend, so we want it" from the FS and the local governments, and funny enough, a contingent of white water enthusiasts who wanted better access to the river that a road would allow. That struck me as being the most ironic.
 

Kent Lufkin

Remember when you could remember everything?
#13
How can the state justify this, when we have more roads than we can't afford to maintain as it is? Soon there will be nowhere to get away from the hoards.
This has been a USFS project from the git-go and it's probable that neither the state, the county, Seattle, nor any local other local entities have any control or veto power over it. The public comment sessions were pro forma and not intended in any meaningful way to gather real input. Since the FS's budget is zero based every year, if they don't build the road the funds were allocated for it will expire and they'll have to start the process all over again if they want to enjoy the same level of funding in future years.

K
 

Lugan

Joe Streamer
#14
This has been a USFS project from the git-go and it's probable that neither the state, the county, Seattle, nor any local other local entities have any control or veto power over it. The public comment sessions were pro forma and not intended in any meaningful way to gather real input. Since the FS's budget is zero based every year, if they don't build the road the funds were allocated for it will expire and they'll have to start the process all over again if they want to enjoy the same level of funding in future years.

K
If they must spend money, in my ideal world they'd restore or build in-stream fish habitat in the MF Snoq or elsewhere.