Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > "Wild Olympics": Wild and Scenic Rivers
Previous :: Next Topic  
Author Message
RodF
Member
Member


Joined: 01 Sep 2007
Posts: 2559 | TRs
Location: Sequim WA
RodF
  Top

Member
PostSun Feb 19, 2012 4:49 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
The "Wild Olympics Campaign" advocates the designation of 130,000 acres of additional Wilderness within Olympic National Forest, up to 20,000 acres of additional National Preserves to Olympic National Park, and Wild and Scenic River designation of segments of 24 rivers.  Only the third proposal is reviewed here.

The "Wild Olympics Campaign" provides no supporting information on each of the rivers it proposes for Wild and Scenic designation.  To enable the public to weigh these proposals more carefully, NPS and USFS evaluations of these rivers are summarized here.


The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act

"It is hereby declared to be the policy of the United States that certain selected rivers of the Nation which, with their immediate environments, possess outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, or other similar values, shall be preserved in free-flowing condition, and that they and their immediate environments shall be protected for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations." - Section 1(b) [1]

"The Secretary of the Interior or, where national forest lands are involved, the Secretary of Agriculture or, in appropriate cases, the two Secretaries jointly shall study and submit to the President reports on the suitability or nonsuitability for addition to the national wild and scenic rivers system of rivers which are designated herein or hereafter by the Congress as potential additions to such system." - Section 4(a) [1]

The effect of designation is to forbid dams, and restrict development and logging within 1/4 mile of the river.  Designation may be used as an argument to either restrict or improve recreational access.

Both the NPS and USFS have conducted Wild and Scenic River eligiblity studies on the Olympic Peninsula's rivers, and the NPS has committed to further formal study.  Both are Lead Agencies in this evaluation, and coordinate extensively with many other Federal, State, Local and Tribal agencies.  Meanwhile, policy of these agencies treats all eligible rivers as if they were Wild and Scenic, and bars any action which might diminish the resources and values which make them eligible for Wild and Scenic River designation.  Therefore, there is no need to rush forward without considering the agencies' recommendations.

Deference should be accorded to the expertise of these agencies, and must be accorded under the Wild and Scenic River Act.  Their determinations are summarized below.


Wild and Scenic Rivers Proposed by the "Wild Olympics Campaign"

River  -  Determination by Agency [Sources]
Elwha (above Lake Mills) - Eligible, by NPS [2]
Gray Wolf - Eligible and Highly Suitable, Recommended by USFS [3]
Dungeness (above Fish Hatchery) - Eligible and Highly Suitable, Recommended by USFS [3]
Big Quilcene - Ineligible, by USFS [3]
Dosewallips - Eligible and Highly Suitable, by USFS [3]
Duckabush - Eligible and Highly Suitable, Recommended by USFS [3]
Hamma Hamma - Eligible and Highly Suitable, by USFS [3]
South Fork Skokomish - Eligible, by USFS [3]
Middle Fork Satsop - not proposed by USFS [3], likely ineligible [4]
West Fork Satsop - not proposed by USFS[3], likely ineligible [4]
upper Wynoochee - partially Eligible, Medium suitablility, Not recommended, by USFS [3]

East Fork Humptulips - partially Eligible, Medium suitablility, by USFS [3]
West Fork Humptulips - partially Eligible, Medium suitablility, Not recommended, by USFS [3]
Quinault (East Fork to Lake Quinault) - Eligible, by USFS and NPS [3,5]
Metheny Creek - not proposed by USFS [3], likely ineligible [4]
Sams River - not proposed by USFS [3], likely only partially eligible [4]

Queets - Eligible, by NPS [5]
Bogachiel - Eligible, by USFS and NPS [3,5]
South Fork Hoh - not proposed by NPS, likely eligible [5]
Hoh - Eligible by USFS and NPS [3,5]
South Fork Calawah - Ineligible, by USFS [3]
Sitkum River - Ineligible, by USFS [3]
South Fork Sol Duc - not proposed by USFS [3], likely ineligible [4]

Sol Duc - Eligible, by USFS and NPS [3,5]
North Fork Sol Duc - not proposed by NPS, likely eligible [5]

Rivers Not Proposed by the "Wild Olympics Campaign"
Royal Creek - Eligible, by NPS [5]
Ozette River - Eligible, by NPS [5]

The USFS deferred to the NPS as lead agency for eligiblity study of these rivers:
Elwha, Quinault, Queets, Bogachiel, Hoh.
The NPS has determined these rivers are Eligible.

The USFS found these three river segments which are included in the Wild Olympics proposal, Ineligible [3]:
"West Fork Humptulips, from R.M. 58.6 to R.M. 61, its source, due to the extensive timber harvesting within the river corridor and its inaccessibility for anadromous fish."
"East Fork Humptulips, from Stovepipe Creek (A.M. 24.5) to source, due to extensive timber harvesting within the corridor and being upstream of the outstandingly remarkable whitewater values" which do make lower reaches Eligible.
"Wynoochee, from Clark Creek to source, due to extensive timber harvesting within the river corridor and from the fish collection facility at R.M. 47.8 to the head of Wynoochee Reservoir at R.M. 55.0" because it is not free-flowing.


The USFS found two rivers Ineligible, lacking the required "outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, or other similar values" [1,3] compared to the other rivers evaluated.
Big Quilcene (entire river)
Calawah (N and S branches and Sitkum R)


One major river is not proposed by either "Wild Olympics Campaign" or the agencies:
North Fork Skokomish
This is due to dams which render the lower reaches ineligible, and are barriers to anadromous fish passage to upper reaches.  This is also a factor on the Big Quilcene.


Summary

Of the 24 rivers advocated by the "Wild Olympics Campaign":
- four have been recommended by NPS or USFS for designation at this time,
- eight to ten are ineligible, and
- thirteen deserve further study (most are Eligible and will likely be recommended).
Two additional rivers are also eligible and will be studied.

The "Wild Olympics Campaign" disregards the determinations of the Lead Agencies.  Wild and Scenic River designation is a serious topic, which deserves to be addressed through a formal NEPA process, not a political lobbying campaign.

Implementation of Wild and Scenic Rivers designation will cost the agencies an estimated $2 million in the first two years, plus $200,000 per year thereafter.  Congress has allocated no funding for this purpose, so it competes with other missions of the agencies.

Commercial forest lands within 1/4 mile of the river would have to be acquired by exchange (DNR) or purchase (of private land, by Lands and Water Conservation Fund).  This is a factor on several proposed rivers, especially Metheny Creek.


Future Studies

"Within the general management plan process, Olympic National Park reviewed the existing eligibility studies and determined that formal suitability studies related to wild and scenic rivers designation would be conducted in a separate NEPA planning process after the General Management Plan is completed due to the high number of rivers involved and the detail needed for these studies.  Upon completion of this General Management Plan, formal requests will be made for funding to conduct the suitability studies and associated studies."

Meanwhile, "the agency is required to manage the river so as to not diminish the resources and values that caused its eligibility
in the first place."
  - NPS, 2010 [5]

This NEPA process will detail all suitability criteria and effects of designation for public discussion.  We should wait for this process to be completed.


Sources

[1] Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, 16 U.S.C. 1271-1287, PL 90-542 as amended.
http://www.ferc.gov/legal/fed-sta/wsr-act.pdf

[2] Elwha Wild and Scenic River Eligibility Report, Final Draft (NPS, 2004)

[3] Wild and Scenic Rivers Review, Olympic National Forest, Final Environmental Impact Statement, Land and Resource Management Plan (USFS, 1990), Appendix F, pp. F1 - F187.
http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/olympic/landmanagement/planning

[4] Opinion of the author, following agency criteria, based on lack of "outstandingly remarkable" values due to extensive alteration of landscape and impact on riparian habitat by both logging and roads, and/or natural barriers to migration of anadromous fish, and lack of recreational value (trails or whitewater).  See Wild and Scenic Rivers Study Process.

[5] Olympic National Park Final General Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement, volume 1, pp. 50, 64 (NPS, 2008).  General Management Plan Summary Presentation, pp. 19, 91 (NPS, 2010).
http://parkplanning.nps.gov/documentsList.cfm?projectID=10233

--------------
"of all the paths you take in life, make sure a few of them are dirt" - John Muir
"the wild is not the opposite of cultivated.  It is the opposite of the captivated” - Vandana Shiva
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
trestle
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Aug 2008
Posts: 2007 | TRs
Location: the Oly Pen
trestle
  Top

Member
PostMon Feb 20, 2012 9:14 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Meticulous research, thanks for posting Rod. The unnecessary expenditures that would be triggered by new designations are hardly worth it during this economic climate but allowing the studies in place to run their course may allow future designation if the conditions warrant it.  up.gif  Seemingly, patience can provide a win-win for all yet I still worry about preservation of access corridors and their adjoining setbacks.

--------------
"Life favors the prepared." - Edna Mode
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Kim Brown
Member
Member


Joined: 13 Jul 2009
Posts: 5992 | TRs

Kim Brown
  Top

Member
PostMon Feb 20, 2012 9:58 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
They often capture official designation when the update management policy.  NPS has the Big Beaver, Thunder Cr & portions of the Skagit up for official designation on the EIS for Ross NRA's Management Plan.

We need more WSR desigations in Washington. We don't have many.

--------------
" I'm really happy about this! … I have very strong good and horrible memories up there."  – oldgranola, NWH’s outdoors advocate.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
silence
Member
Member


Joined: 25 Apr 2005
Posts: 4361 | TRs

silence
  Top

Member
PostMon Feb 20, 2012 10:48 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
RodF wrote:
Wild and Scenic River designation is a serious topic, which deserves to be addressed through a formal NEPA process, not a political lobbying campaign

agreed .... but wasn't it their campaign that brought it to the forefront?

willing to listen and learn? of course you know i always like to talk to you .. but i have to say that i think some of those rivers might benefit from a WSR designation .. but that's coming purely from an uninformed person ..

in a week or so i will be spending the day with an old friend from california who has worked tirelessly since the 70s on wild and scenic rivers down there .. hopefully i will get some insight on it ...

--------------
PHOTOS: https://www.flickr.com/photos/33792231@N00/sets
FILMMAKING: http://www.crestpictures.com/

Keep a good head and always carry a light bulb. – Bob Dylan
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
chrisinakmtns
Member
Member


Joined: 23 Jun 2008
Posts: 346 | TRs
Location: San Juan Island
chrisinakmtns
  Top

Member
PostMon Feb 20, 2012 10:58 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
I'm all for WSR designations but I think we need to be mindful of any unintended consequences such as what has happened up in the Suiattle. If a bridge washes out, will the access be forever lost because any repairs or replacement will disrupt the free-flowing nature of the river? Sure there could be some promised exceptions built in but you can't discount the power of a few whackos to try their hardest to ruin it for everyone. Bridges are not permanent - especially in areas prone to flooding - and they eventually wear out just like any other capital asset.

The FS and NPS already have policies in place to maintain these rivers to WSR standards. Balance that with strong environmental awareness and advocacy of the public and I wonder if these designations are truly necessary. Do you really think some of the disastrous practices that happened in the past are likely to happen again on the OP?

I'm a true believer in protection and preservation of our resources. But I want to ensure it is balanced with protecting the historic access to the Park and Wilderness areas for future generations.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Slugman
It’s a Slugfest!



Joined: 27 Mar 2003
Posts: 16608 | TRs

Slugman
  Top

It’s a Slugfest!
PostMon Feb 20, 2012 11:03 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
J37: In this economic climate is exactly the time we need to do things like this. Maybe congress could cut back on a war or two, or prune back a tax break for gazilionaires, and actually invest something in this country for a change. hmmm.gif

Rod: Sure, some of the rivers Wild Olympics proposes won't make the cut. That hardly justifies the criticism of them, however. Criticizing them for a "political lobbying campaign" is strange. It's like you are saying they are wrong to even ask for something. Your whole piece, while informative, is also completely slanted and biased. You take several sly shots at them, mixed in with the factual information. The piece would have more integrity if you stated the actual information, then went into the editorializing after, or at least not mingled into the body of the piece.

As far as "disregarding the determinations of the lead agencies", I'll be waiting for you to level that same criticism at anyone who resists the designations that do occur.

--------------
“The jerking motion of a knee does not reflect the operation of a mind”  Slugman, January 24th 2020
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
RumiDude
Marmota olympus



Joined: 26 Jul 2009
Posts: 2975 | TRs
Location: Port Angeles
RumiDude
  Top

Marmota olympus
PostMon Feb 20, 2012 12:17 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
ChrisInAKMtns wrote:
Do you really think some of the disastrous practices that happened in the past are likely to happen again on the OP?

I think it is a kinda "trust, but verify" situation, at least for me and many others.

Rumi

--------------
"This is my Indian summer ... I'm far more dangerous now, because I don't care at all."
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
trestle
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Aug 2008
Posts: 2007 | TRs
Location: the Oly Pen
trestle
  Top

Member
PostMon Feb 20, 2012 9:43 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
RumiDude wrote:
ChrisInAKMtns wrote:
Do you really think some of the disastrous practices that happened in the past are likely to happen again on the OP?

I think it is a kinda "trust, but verify" situation, at least for me and many others.

Rumi

Hard to trust or verify what isn't put down on paper but I too hold out hope.

Slugman, really? You're going to bring wars and all of that into this discussion? Jeeshhh. While I may agree in principle, the funding for this (which is non-existent by the way) comes from a different part of the general budget. Besides, most of our overseas military spending isn't even a part of our federal budget. Anyways, the proposal is beyond what the corresponding agencies are capable of right now, can't we just be a little bit patient? Again, while I may agree with your rhetoric, I live here and pounding on the table and arguing with emotion simply won't be effective or move the discussion along.

Silence, some of the rivers are simply not suitable for WSR designation and efforts for such should be minimized so more suitable areas can be protected (the reasons they're unsuitable are listed in the report and are hard to dispute). The blanket designations proposed by Wild Olympics would tie the hands of the corresponding agencies and force them to spend money they don't have on efforts that are doomed to fail. WSR designation was already being considered for many of the rivers in question and as Rod informed us, consideration of same is similar to de-facto protection. With a little patience and allowing the NEPA process to run its' course, the WSR designation will be placed on the appropriate rivers. Let's allow the specialists to do their work.

--------------
"Life favors the prepared." - Edna Mode
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
onemoremile
Member
Member


Joined: 26 Dec 2010
Posts: 1305 | TRs
Location: Sequim
onemoremile
  Top

Member
PostMon Feb 20, 2012 10:04 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
I curious as to why some are on here for designation--example:  Elwha above Lake Mills.  Is it just for props for WSR?  I can't see any additional protection that could be gained from the designation.  Is it to tie the hands of the NPS should they ever want to do anything?  Multi-tiered protective measures?

--------------
“Arbolist?  Look up the word. I don’t know, maybe I made it up. Anyway, it’s an arbo-tree-ist, somebody who knows about trees.”  G.W. Bush
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Kim Brown
Member
Member


Joined: 13 Jul 2009
Posts: 5992 | TRs

Kim Brown
  Top

Member
PostTue Feb 21, 2012 9:48 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
WSR has 3 different designations; wild, scenic, and recreation.

The benefit is permanent protection from impoundment (re the Elwha: as far as I know, NPS policy doesn't prohibit dams for Park management purposes [except on WSRs and in Wilderness]). Rod's the expert there.

It irks me that Oregon has more WSR than Washington.  huh.gif

It looks great on a brochure, too. And on grant applications for environmental restoration funding.

WSR doesn't hamstring land managers from managing appropriately, but it does mean that sometimes it can take more time and cost more.

Here's how the USFS dealt with WSR on the Boundary Bridge on the Suiattle and Here's how WSDOT dealt with WSR on the Sauk along Hiway 530 (check out "Partnerships & Cooperation" on the webpage and the "Chronic Environmental Deficiencies" )

--------------
" I'm really happy about this! … I have very strong good and horrible memories up there."  – oldgranola, NWH’s outdoors advocate.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
RodF
Member
Member


Joined: 01 Sep 2007
Posts: 2559 | TRs
Location: Sequim WA
RodF
  Top

Member
PostTue Feb 21, 2012 2:22 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Kim Brown wrote:
WSR doesn't hamstring land managers from managing appropriately, but it does mean that sometimes it can take more time and cost more.

This is a central issue, and deserves further consideration.  This issue is most acute in Olympic National Forest.

With the passage of the Northwest Forest Plan in 1994, management direction of northwest forests shifted dramatically.  Over 80% of Olympic NF is now managed as wilderness, Roadless or as Late Successional Reserves (LSR), with the primary goal of preserving or restoring old growth characteristics. 

Within LSRs, the focus is on stewardship.  Thinning can accelerate the development of old-growth characteristics.  About 40 years after clearcut or fire, forest enters a dense "competitive exclusion" stage.   The majority of standing trees are dead or dying.  In the worst areas, stands are so densely packed that you can't even walk through the thicket of dead branches on stems spaced on average only a foot or two apart - these are called "stagnated doghair" and may never develop old growth character.

Removal of the smallest trees releases the growth of the remaining larger trees.  In former clearcuts that were replanted with Doug fir monoculture, selective removal of only the smaller Doug fir, while leaving all naturally seeded cedar, pine, hemlock and most alder, increases stand diversity.  Thinning also creates openings in the forest, where an understory develops for wildlife habitat. 

Once thinning is completed, decommissioning can be accomplished for those roads which are not needed for recreational access.  The focus here is on removal of culverts and stabilization of steep slopes to protect rivers and streams.

This has been the primary activity of Olympic NF for the past 20 years.  It has been slowed, both by the collapse of forest revenues (staff slashed from a high of 333 to 86 today, and falling) and a continuous series of lawsuits and threats of lawsuits over every project.  But there are encouraging signs the Forest may now be hitting its stride. 

For 80% of Olympic NF, the goal of USFS management is indistinguishable, in my view, from the Park service: restoring the forest to old growth.  Only the means are different, because most of the Forest was roaded and cut.  We who love the forest should support fulfillment of the Northwest Forest Plan in Olympic!


The "Wild Olympics" campaign interferes directly with this goal.  Of the 130,000 acres proposed for Wilderness, 50,000 acres are roaded areas that include clearcuts, at least 65 miles of classified system roads and likely more than that of unclassified logging spurs.  Within proposed Wild and Scenic River corridors, I can only "guesstimate" that commercial thinning would be banned from another roughly 30 - 40,000 acres of the Forest.  By a preliminary USFS analysis, premature declaration of additional Wilderness and Wild and Scenic Rivers corridors would directly block restoration thinning of 32,700 acres of young growth and stagnated doghair forests. 

Revenue from this one-time restoraton thinning in LSRs is the major source of funds the Forest has to accomplish road decommissionings in LSRs, protect watersheds, and return them to potential Wilderness status.

For all of us who support the Northwest Forest Plan and its goal of restoring much of Olympic NF to old-growth conditions, eventually worthy of Wilderness or even Park designation, the "Wild Olympics Campaign" must be a major concern.  It is in direct conflict with our goal.  It hasn't been thought through.  Its consequences, unintended or not, are deeply damaging.


Do you love Wilderness?  I mean, genuine Wilderness, without roads and clearcuts?   Under law today (the Washington State Wilderness Act of 1984 (PL 98-339, Section 5(b)), it is mandatory that Olympic NF review all its remaining 85,807 acres of unroaded areas for potential Wilderness in its next Forest Plan process, expected to begin in 2014.  To this, add several thousand acres of LSR in which thinning has been completed and roads decommissioned which I expect will also be considered for Wilderness.  Most of this will be recommended for Wilderness, without any "Wild Olympics Campaign". 

The additional 50,000 roaded acres of LSR which "Wild Olympics" proposes for "instant designation" needs to remain LSR for a future Forest Plan cycle, while thinning and road decommissioning is completed.  Only then it will become potential real Wilderness. 


The point: if you love Wilderness, real ones without roads and clearcuts, please rethink your support of the "Wild Olympics" campaign.  If you love Wild and Scenic Rivers, real ones with "remarkably outstanding" values, please rethink your support of the "Wild Olympics" campaign.  All the good things "Wild Olympics" seeks will happen anyway... at least, if "Wild Olympics" doesn't inadvertantly screw it all up!

--------------
"of all the paths you take in life, make sure a few of them are dirt" - John Muir
"the wild is not the opposite of cultivated.  It is the opposite of the captivated” - Vandana Shiva
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
RodF
Member
Member


Joined: 01 Sep 2007
Posts: 2559 | TRs
Location: Sequim WA
RodF
  Top

Member
PostTue Feb 21, 2012 3:15 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
I apologize for the long post above.  It is simply that I'm deeply disappointed in the tenor of the public debate on the "Wild Olympics" campaign.

On the one hand, opponents cite the loss of jobs, which is frankly a bogus issue under current policy anyway.

On the other, supporters cite their love of Wilderness and Wild & Scenic Rivers, which is an equally bogus issue and reflects a superficiality, lack of knowledge of current law and policy, and lack of analysis of the real impacts of "instant designation".

"Wild Olympics" has fostered this divisive climate.

Stewardship takes time.  It takes time for trees to grow, for thinning to be accomplished, for roads to be decommissioned.  There is a necessary sequence of events: you can't decommission the roads until thinning is complete, nor designate Wilderness until both are complete.  Time is what "instant designation" forecloses.

By muddling three completely separate issues (Wilderness, Wild & Scenic Rivers, and Park expansion), which have completely separate merits and demerits, "Wild Olympics" has propagated this superficiality.  We're asked to be "Pro" or "Con" on the entire package, when we should be looking carefully at each separately.

I am just deeply disappointed.  This is just no way to do serious, careful land management planning.  Can't anyone see through this smoke screen?

Well, yes, reading the responses above, most can!  Hopefully more will examine it more carefully.  NEPA is the right way, "Wild Olympics" is the wrong way, to make sound plans based on sound reasoning.

--------------
"of all the paths you take in life, make sure a few of them are dirt" - John Muir
"the wild is not the opposite of cultivated.  It is the opposite of the captivated” - Vandana Shiva
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
RodF
Member
Member


Joined: 01 Sep 2007
Posts: 2559 | TRs
Location: Sequim WA
RodF
  Top

Member
PostTue Feb 21, 2012 4:22 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Slugman wrote:
Criticizing them for a "political lobbying campaign" is strange.

This is simply a statement of fact.  The quite open goal of "Wild Olympics Campaign" is to directly lobby Congress to set policy, overriding the ongoing public NEPA planning processes conducted by the NPS and USFS.

There's a long tradition of such lobbying campaigns over Olympics land management issues, from the creation of Olympic National Park, the  State Land Exchange, "Shelton Sustained Yield Unit", the coast strip... with quite mixed results.

Two years ago, the "Wild Olympics Campaign" was turned over to Jon Owen.  He has been a registered Federal lobbyist with the Pew Environmental Group for the last decade.  Two additional paid spokemen were hired for this campaign, to lobby locally, mostly in Grays Harbor County so far.

In addition, the coalition employs about two dozen other paid and registered lobbyists, with a disclosed lobbying budget of over $2 million per year, although "Wild Olympics" is only one of many issues for which they lobby (and likely don't know much about the actual issues).

The first lobbying success is the endorsement by Rep. Dicks and Sen. Murray last November, and their "public workshops" their staffs held in December.  (I asked their staff questions for 45 minutes, but they could answer only one: "Has the USFS been consulted?"  "No."  That alarmed me, and should alarm you, too.)

"Wild Olympics" is a lobbying campaign.  That is a neutral statement of fact.  But if that fact prompts you to view it more critically,  perhaps that's a good thing?

Slugman wrote:
Rod: Sure, some of the rivers Wild Olympics proposes won't make the cut. That hardly justifies the criticism of them, however.

Garrison Keillor invites us to visit Lake Woebegon, where "all the women are strong, all the men are good looking, and all the children are above average."  "Wild Olympics" invites us to the Olympics , where every river, not just most, are not merely "good looking" or "above average", but must have a truly "remarkably outstanding" value... even if that value hasn't been identified.

What does the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act mean, if every river is automatically "remarkably outstanding"?  Was that Congress' intent?

Might the real goal here be that the ends justify the means?

--------------
"of all the paths you take in life, make sure a few of them are dirt" - John Muir
"the wild is not the opposite of cultivated.  It is the opposite of the captivated” - Vandana Shiva
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
RumiDude
Marmota olympus



Joined: 26 Jul 2009
Posts: 2975 | TRs
Location: Port Angeles
RumiDude
  Top

Marmota olympus
PostWed Feb 22, 2012 12:11 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
RodF wrote:
I apologize for the long post above.  It is simply that I'm deeply disappointed in the tenor of the public debate on the "Wild Olympics" campaign.
...
I am just deeply disappointed.  This is just no way to do serious, careful land management planning.  Can't anyone see through this smoke screen?

Part of the problem as I see it is mistrust of each side towards the other.  In the end this results in each side unwilling to compromise on even the smallest issue.  So instead of sitting down to cooperatively reason out what should be done, each employs political gamesmanship to get what they want. Thus in the end, there is a winning side and a losing side.  The winning side looks around for their next conquest and the losing side binds their wounds and retrenches.

In another post, you asked: "Do you love Wilderness?  I mean, genuine Wilderness, without roads and clearcuts?"  And then in another :  "Stewardship takes time.  It takes time for trees to grow, for thinning to be accomplished, for roads to be decommissioned.  There is a necessary sequence of events: you can't decommission the roads until thinning is complete, nor designate Wilderness until both are complete.  Time is what "instant designation" forecloses."  Part of the issue on thing like this for me and I assume others is simply that old mistrust of the other side.  This long period of time allows those who would like to block the process of moving towards wilderness to quietly erode the safeguards put into place.  Just look at what has happened in regard to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.  It is the "camel's nose under edge of the tent" which so many fear might be happening.  That is why the Wild Olympics Campaign gets so much support.  People say, "Lets lock this down while we can."

It is surprising to me how little respect the USFS and NPS gets from the general public and especially from people here on the boards.  If you don't believe me, just look at the discussions on the Suiattle River Road, Illabot Creek Road, Dosewallips Road, and the Index Galena Road.  I myself do not have such a jaded opinion of these and other government agencies.

Rumi

--------------
"This is my Indian summer ... I'm far more dangerous now, because I don't care at all."
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
settebello
Member
Member


Joined: 23 Mar 2009
Posts: 31 | TRs
Location: Vancouver, Canada
settebello
  Top

Member
PostThu Feb 23, 2012 7:02 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
I would like to thank the posters here, and in particular, RodF, for a very informative discussion. I am one of the foreign lurkers on this board, and I must admit that the land use decision process in the United States remains something of a mystery to me. Since the round trip cost of going to Vancouver Island has risen to 150$ plus reservation fees (the cost of round trip fare from Coupeville to Port Townsend is less than that of a BC Ferries reservation, one way), I have been going to the Peninsula a lot more frequently than I used to. This exchange has answered a number of questions that I have had in the recent past.

Thanks again!
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
   All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > "Wild Olympics": Wild and Scenic Rivers
Jump to:   
Search this topic:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
   Use Disclaimer Powered by phpBB Privacy Policy