Deflating the expansion

North Cascades National Park expansion proponents have scaled back their plans due to widespread opposition, especially over in the Methow Valley. The proposal has been scaled back by 109,000 acres with the new park boundary now being placed at Washington Pass.
This change is certainly indicative of the lack of support for the expansion let alone the overwhelming opposition to it. Nonetheless, the proposal is still out there, looking for a congressional backer foolish enough to tack this unnecessary project in the form of some rider on some unrelated bill.

Here's an article opposing the plan that ran recently in the Everett Herald:

One-sided proposal goes too far

By Victor Garcia

 

An environmental group from Seattle is proposing changes to land use in Skagit and Whatcom counties via the American Alps Legacy Proposal (AALP). As a lifetime hiker, sportsman and conservationist, I am for protecting wilderness and habitat but feel that this proposal crosses over to a bridge-burning case of protection for protection's sake and will actually do harm to both visitor numbers and the recreation-based economy of the Highway 20 corridor.

Much of this area is already covered by considerable environmental protections and AALPS will distract from the harder work of protecting areas with little or no protection. Certain provisions in this draft proposal will damage the important alliances between diverse user groups that build coalitions for preservation that benefits all user groups, including wildlife.

Misunderstanding No. 1: AALP purports to increase usership. The report states that "Low visitation to the RLNRA (Ross Lake National Recreation Area) can also be attributed to the limited number of recreational opportunities along Highway 20…", yet then goes on to actually restrict some of the biggest recreational uses that exist: hunting, fishing and snowmobiling.

I take particular exception to the Ross Lake NRA's inclusion, since this sportsman's paradise has been heavily used by all groups and has fared well by most measures. It is not clear exactly which groups that don't come already will replace these displaced sportsmen. These uses are especially important to the populations living closest, not just those one to two hours away in the Seattle metropolitan area. Snowmobilers are an economically vital user group during the time the highway is closed due to snow.

Misunderstanding No. 2: These areas are currently unprotected. Both the Baker Rainforest and the Cascade River are currently under Late Successional Reserve (LSR) protections, under which nothing older than 80 years can be cut. There is already a considerable amount of protection in place here. The Ross Lake NRA will face a ban on hunting and dogs on trails. It is one of the few places dog lovers can currently experience wilderness with their pets. Given the relative inaccessibility of this area currently, I can see no other benefits to its inclusion.

Misunderstanding No. 3: This would benefit the Highway 20 corridor economy. This protection would not appreciably increase the scenic beauty already present, nor would it change the fact that low usage is more likely due to the dead end nature of a closed Highway 20 for much of the season and there being no major ski resort as a destination.

The current mix of multiple usage is not mutually exclusive with the activities proposed. "Waterfall tours and wildlife watching" are not mutually exclusive with hunting, as anybody who has been to any National Wildlife Refuge can attest. Hunting is much more than a traditional American pastime. It creates more than 700,000 jobs nationwide. New studies now show that annual spending by America's 14 million hunters amounts to $22.1 billion. My question is what the AALPS proposal would do to make up for this economic loss.

I have great respect for some of the signers. However, the American Alps Legacy Proposal will alienate and exclude current user groups without significantly improving the conservation status or biodiversity of the area. I feel it will hurt the economy of the Highway 20 corridor without replacing those visitors lost. A better path might be to make the improvements noted without excluding entire classes of users.

Victor Garcia teaches biology and environmental science at Anacortes High School, and has worked as a field biologist for the National Marine Fisheries Service.

Promises made....

Proponents for expanding the park have emerged from some sort of disarray that had one wondering what happened to their whole American Alps Legacy Project and have recently released a draft version of their proposal nearly a year later than projected.
What has changed since last year? Nothing, really, just the same old spin that expanding the park will benefit everybody and everything: the gateway communities' economies; the wildlife and habitat; the outdoor recreationists; the future generations – you name it, it's a win-win situation, of course!

Unfortunately, the whole proposal is complicated and largely unnecessary with plenty of unwanted "benefits."

Here's a telling quote from the draft proposal (italics added for emphasis):

"Most existing recreation uses on the new park lands will be preserved. American Alps legislation will direct the Park Service to work with interested parties to assure that these popular recreation uses are continued where they will not impact fish, wildlife, or the outdoor experiences of other visitors. Opportunities for Nordic skiing and dog walking will be maintained in selected areas. Party-size limits for groups providing outdoor experiences for youth will be kept at their current level. Horseback riding will be continued in the Park. Backpacking and hiking will be unchanged under Park management, with the exception of free permits for backcountry camping."

Read between the lines: "where they will not impact," "in selected areas," "will be unchanged..."
Expansion of the North Cascades National Park will bring about a series of radical changes that at first will only be the tip of the iceberg. Promises made will not be promises kept.

Here's another choice quote from the draft proposal:

"Visitation to the National Park and RLNRA are unusually low given the spectacular beauty and size of these national park units and their proximity to several large metropolitan areas. Low visitation to the Park can be explained by the fact that no paved roads provide access to the Park. The only drivable access is via a gravel road up the Cascades River. Low visitation to the RLNRA is explained by its designation as a national recreation area instead of a national park. National parks have a reputation for world class attractions that attract more visitors. Low visitation to RLNRA can also be attributed to
the limited number of recreation opportunities along Highway 20. Low elevation trails are generally not available. Waterfall tours and wildlife watching sites have not been developed."

It seems really unusual, and completely ironic, for a storied group like the N3C to be so concerned about boosting visitation numbers to the NCNP and the Ross Lake area. After all, this is an organization that has vigorously opposed restoring the Stehekin River Road (that used to be the other drivable access into the park and was a great asset to the business-oriented folks at the upper end of Lake Chelan as well as droves of public land users). What a funny way to look at these issues!

This past weekend, things were hopping at the Ross Lake Resort and on the lake itself. Maybe the fact that this beautiful area is not as busy as Ranier or the Olympics could be a good thing? And as far as there not being many recreation opportunities along the North Cascades Highway? These folks must be either lazy, ignorant or have too much dust in their eyes from the recent chip-seal project on the highway to see the potential existing opportunities for easy adventure. (BTW, check out the great new boardwalk at Happy Creek just east of the Ross Lake Trailhead.)

Stay tuned for more dismantling of one of the more bizarre "conservation" proposals to come around in a long time....

Skeptical observations

Here are two recent posts taken from the Turns-All-Year website where there is a lengthy thread on the proposed expansion:

     I attended the AALP presentation at REI last night (in Bellingham) and  left with far more questions and concerns than I went in with. Sorry I didn’t get the name of the presenters and will have to refer to them as THEM. Or the AALP. The meeting was populated by folks who seemed sympathetic to the expansion proposal. I might have been the only skeptic in the room, if there were others they didn’t speak up. City of Subdued Excitement after all.

     The AALP is not done drawing their proposal map apparently. The presenter asked the group what other areas they would like to see included in the proposal and the Nooksack Cirque and Artist Point received nods from the audience. The presenter expressed a personal desire to see better access to the Nooksack Cirque and Artist Point was touted as a possible visitor center. They also discussed moving the park boundary at Hannegan Pass to include the pass. 

The speaker discussed some of the meetings he has had with the various user groups. He was unapologetic about negative outcomes for other user groups saying that a certain loss of freedom is necessary to adequately protect the natural resources of the region.

I was able to ask two questions. 
Q. What percentage of the 300,000 annual visitors to the HWY 20 corridor are engaged in activities that would be prohibited if the  park proposal goes through?
A.  I don’t know, the park study didn’t address that.

Q. Regarding the hatch marked area of the proposed expansion(see map), what specific threat do you see to that area?
A. Small Hydroelectric development. The permits are on the books.
Q. Is that a realistic threat? Hydro in the shadow of Liberty Bell?
A. (shrug) The permits are on the books.

And another post by the same person:

Indeed, their shoulder  shrugging was very telling. Some other unsettling attitudes emerged during the meeting. Any talk about accommodating the desires of affected user groups is lip service at best. A very clear anti-hunting, anti-motor, anti-dog, anti-mountain bike, anti-ski area agenda was voiced. Regarding backcountry skiers they made it clear they don’t understand the demographic, referring to , “cross country skiers who like to use snowmobiles to access the backcountry.”  Huh? As someone stated earlier in the thread this appears to be an attempt to garner a wide base of support early in the game using soothing language and gauzy environmental platitudes. The people currently using the Hwy 20 corridor are exactly the people who would stand up to a legitimate environmental threat to the area. This proposal alienates nearly all of them by creating a police state wilderness.

JRD’s post on page 2 of this thread reads like a doomsday scenario. A very cynical vision of the North Cascades future. Gold mining! Logging! Hydro! Biomass extraction? Should I buy my backyard bomb shelter now?

The AALP suggestion that we should be willing to give up the freedom we currently enjoy makes me very prickly. The proposal in it’s current form is probably intentionally over reaching in anticipation of the whittling that will occur when the various interest groups catch wind of it. They are asking for a lot of territory and their sights are set on  Hwy 542 to include Mt. Sefrit, Goat Mt., Larabee, Tomyhoi and low elevation wetlands along the Nooksack river.

My skin in the game? I’m an avid split boarder, dog owner, hunter/gatherer, mountain biker, Nordic skier and wannabe heli-rider. The reason I moved to Whatcom County is to have the North Cascades as a backyard. This ill-advised proposal hits home.
 

The North Cascades Parkway

     It took nearly 100 years for the North Cascades Highway to finally be completed since the concept of a northern crossing in the state was first considered. The first public crossing of the highway took place in 1968, back when this stretch of road was referred to as the North Cross State Highway. Officially, the highway opened in September of 1972 for two and a half months. And since then, except for the winter of 1976-77, the highway has closed for several months in the winter.
    Relative to its youthful age and remote location, the North Cascades Highway has been a longtime popular traveling destination for tourists and recreation enthusiasts as well as being an important commerce and transportation route for the rural communities on both sides of the mountain range. The highway also continues to grow in popularity as evidenced by the increase in traffic the last past decade. Statistics from the Washington State Department of Transportation from their Cutthroat junction traffic counter show a steady, yearly increase in the average daily number of vehicles from 640 in 2006 to 920 in 2009.
     That may not seem like much traffic, but if you are familiar with the highway, then you know that for a daily average, those numbers, growing as they are, are pretty impressive. The past week, especially given this time of year and weather conditions, there certainly wasn't 920 vehicles coming or going over the North Cascades Highway each day.
     Without a doubt, the bulk of the traffic occurs on weekends from July to September. Before that time, there is some periods of significant travel, but with much of the high country that is accessible from the road still buried under snow, the vast majority of the traffic is just passing through.
     And that is one of the main concerns with plans to expand the park: This could turn the North Cascades Highway into an absolute nightmare to drive, especially on certain weekends. Already annual traffic counts are growing. Creating a national park that encompasses the highway, changing that section into the North Cascades Parkway, as presented in the AALP Economic Study, will suddenly jack the number of vehicles way beyond what is steadily growing now. AALP proponents, concerned as they seem about climate change, laud the increased visitation that will come to the highway with a park expansion. Nearly all of this increased numbers will be by vehicle. Congestion, traffic hazards, noise and air pollution could all become major issues on this scenic highway.
      The North Cascades Highway is an unique and beautiful stretch of road that will have its current qualities diminish if the North Cascades National Park is expanded along its corridor.

What about the NCNP?

     In addition to impacts on the USFS, expanding the boundaries of the North Cascades National Park would also have impacts on the existing NCNP management situation. What kind of impacts could those be?
     Like any other national park, the NCNP has its budgetary deficits, backlogged maintenance issues and other administrative challenges. The park units themselves are quite large, plus there is the additional oversight of the entire NCNP Complex, which includes the Ross Lake and Lake Chelan national recreation areas. Administratively, park infrastructure and personnel are spread out in wide distances: from the way-out-of the-park headquarters in Sedro-Woolley to Glacier, Stehekin, Marblemount and Newhalem. Expanding the park boundaries eastward along with constructing a visitor center in the Methow Valley would stretch these distances, geographically- and administratively-speaking, even further. Obviously this would require additional federal dollars, funding which is already lacking for the park currently, yet still coming from the same pot of taxpayer revenue.
     With an expanded area to cover, the NCNP would undoubtedly have some growth and continual oversight headaches. An expanded National Park Service presence, including enforcement and maintenance, would cost more park money and demand more park resources along with the task of incorporating the new lands into the current management plan, especially with the recreation exceptions that AALP proponents have discussed in regard to current recreation usage that conflict with the park's current rules.
     The east side lands along the Highway 20 corridor provide ready access and popular spots for the public to enjoy. Use in these areas would likely additionally increase because of the new national park status. This increase in visitation numbers would require similarly increased park oversight and management undoubtedly equating more regulation.
     It appears that the NCNP has its hands full now overseeing such a vast complex with its various issues and challenges. Adding extra acreage that has been under forest service jurisdiction for a long time seems like an unduly burden that is neither desired or needed. But, again, one can inquire with NCNP personnel as to what their viewpoint is regarding the notion of expanding the park.

Additional quotes

Park expansion proponents want the public to believe that they are recreation-friendly. This apparently depends on what type of recreation meets their approval:

"N3C opposes all motorized recreation on Ross Lake."
– From NCCC letter (Sept. 30, 2010) to North Cascades National Park Superintendent Chip Jenkins regarding the Ross Lake National Recreation Area general management plan.

"... hunting should be banned in all areas of the RLNRA."
– Same letter from above.

"And so it is with the profusion of high tech ski gear that the back country is not as protected as it used to be, even 10 years ago. I see there is a new usage challenge to consider as we work to protect and enhance our North Cascades"
– NCCC board member Tom Hammond, July, 2010. 

What about the USFS?

     If the North Cascades National Park were to be expanded, particularly on the east side of the crest, many acres of public land that have been managed for a long time by the United States Forest Service would then be under the jurisdiction of the National Park Service.
     It isn't hard to fathom that the folks at the Methow Ranger District may not want to see these lands along Highway 20 as well as several major tributaries near the Methow Valley turned over to the NPS. These lands are a major highlight, practically the crown jewel, of the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest, whether from a biological/habitat point of view or that of tourism and recreation.
     The management of these lands have long provided good, federal jobs for community members in the Methow Valley, both full time and seasonal positions. The same jobs that park expansionists say would come to the area if NPS moved in. So, it is plausible that there would be some personnel reduction within the Methow District if these forest service lands were designated national park lands.   
     What other impacts may occur?
     The timing of the park expansion proposal really could not have been worse given the long-term management plan revision process the OWNF is currently undertaking. Losing a vast chunk of prime acreage certainly isn't a consideration of the plan.
     Revenue loss would occur from commercial outfitters that utilize these recreational-rich lands and annually pay the USFS  a percentage of their gross profit.    
     The USFS would lose a lot of public recognition with their presence in being replaced by NPS management along such a visible and important tourism corridor like the North Cascades Highway. Their presence, at a time when the agency striving to impress its existence in managing these public lands, would certainly be diminished.

     It is a safe bet that many locals involved with the USFS do not want to see the park expanded using national forest lands. But don't take NOPE's word on this matter, ask some USFS employees what they think.