Forum Index > Pacific NW History > Olympic trail shelters
Previous :: Next Topic  
Author Message
geobob
Member
Member


Joined: 29 Sep 2007
Posts: 183 | TRs
Location: seattle
geobob
  Top

Member
PostSat Dec 01, 2007 8:05 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
ScottM...yes, and their legacy is being ignored and forgotten.

--------------
I think there's an easier way on the far side
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
peltoms
Member
Member


Joined: 13 Jul 2006
Posts: 1762 | TRs
Location: Worcester MA
peltoms
  Top

Member
PostSun Dec 02, 2007 8:54 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Very interesting.  It is surprising that grandfathering that almost always applies did not here.  How does this apply to flying in bridges to replace those lost in 2006 in the Glacier Peak Wilderness?  I do not think this can be stretched to ordinary trail maintenance but to flying in structures such as bridges it would seem to.   hmmm.gif
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
geobob
Member
Member


Joined: 29 Sep 2007
Posts: 183 | TRs
Location: seattle
geobob
  Top

Member
PostTue Dec 04, 2007 12:23 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
I certainly hope that the Wilderness Act will not be used as a tool to attempt to prevent trail maintenance, including the re-establishment of bridges as may be needed to keep existing trails passable, but at this point it would not surprise me.

The following is a link to the court decision regarding the shelter litigation.  I have only quickly perused it but it seems to provide good background information and perspective on the issue.

http://www.drizzle.com/~rdpayne/case304-cv-05732-fdb.pdf

Link to Washington Park Wilderness Act of 1988:

http://www.wilderness.net/NWPS/documents/publiclaws/100-668.pdf

Link to Wilderness Act of 1964:

http://www.wilderness.net/index.cfm?fuse=nwps&sec=legisact

Following is excerpted language from the Wilderness Act of 1964 that pertains to use and prohibited use of areas that are designated wilderness (Act text is in italics):

USE OF WILDERNESS AREAS

Sec. 4. (a) The purposes of this chapter are hereby declared to be within and supplemental to the purposes for which national forests and units of the national park and national wildlife refuge systems are established and administered and --

(1) Nothing in this chapter shall be deemed to be in interference with the purpose for which national forests are established as set forth in the Act of June 4, 1897 (30 Stat. 11), and the Multiple Use Sustained-Yield Act of June 12, 1960 (74 Stat. 215).

(2) Nothing in this chapter shall modify the restrictions and provisions of the Shipstead-Nolan Act (Public Law 539, Seventy-first Congress, July 10, 1930; 46 Stat. 1020),the Thye-Blatnik Act (Public Law 733, Eightieth Congress, June 22, 1948; 62 Stat. 568), and the Humphrey-Thye-Blatnik-Andersen Act (Public Law 607, Eighty-fourth Congress, June 22.1965; 70 Stat. 326), as applying to the Superior National Forest or the regulations of the Secretary of Agriculture.

(3) Nothing in this chapter shall modify the statutory authority under which units of the national park system are created. Further, the designation of any area of any park, monument, or other unit of the national park system as a wilderness area pursuant to this Act shall in no manner lower the standards evolved for the use and preservation of such park, monument, or other unit of the national park system in accordance with the Act of August 25, 1916, the statutory authority under which the area was created, or any other Act of Congress which might pertain to or affect such area, including, but not limited to, the Act of June 8, 1906 (34 Stat. 225; 16 U.S.C. 432 et seq.); section 3(2) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 796 (2) ); and the Act of August 21,1935 (49 Stat. 666; 16 U.S.C. 461 et seq.).

(b) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, each agency administering any area designated as wilderness shall be responsible for preserving the wilderness character of the area and shall so administer such area for such other purposes for which it may have been established as also to preserve its wilderness character. Except as otherwise provided in this Act, wilderness areas shall be devoted to the public purposes of recreational, scenic, scientific, educational, conservation, and historical use.

PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN USES

(c) Except as specifically provided for in this chapter, and subject to existing private rights, there shall be no commercial enterprise and no permanent road within any wilderness area designated by this Act and, except as necessary to meet minimum requirements for the administration of the area for the purpose of this Act (including measures required in emergencies involving the health and safety of persons within the area), there shall be no temporary road, no use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment or motorboats, no landing of aircraft, no other form of mechanical transport, and no structure or installation within any such area.


--------------
I think there's an easier way on the far side
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
RodF
Member
Member


Joined: 01 Sep 2007
Posts: 2497 | TRs
Location: Sequim WA
RodF
  Top

Member
PostTue Dec 04, 2007 10:10 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Wilderness Act section 4(c):

Quote:
...except as necessary to meet minimum requirements for the administration of the area for the purpose of this Act... there shall be no structure or installation within any such area.

That's the key phrase.  Debate over its meaning and implications is at the heart of any decision affecting wilderness, including trail maintenance, footbridges, and shelters.

Regarding shelters, the Burgess decision appears to affirm the policy espoused by the plaintiff Wilderness Watch "attempts to restore or stabilize structures should be discouraged. The natural deterioration of historic structures is part of wilderness".   shakehead.gif

Wilderness Watch goes on to state their interpretation of the law regarding trails and footbridges "There is no authority to build or reconstruct trails to make them easy or more comfortable."  Whether a destroyed footbridge should be replaced is open to debate in each case.

The site you referenced, wilderness.net, offers a minimum requirements decision guide which included case studies on replacing washed out trails and footbridges.  These cite the relevant forest service regulations.

Reading these is rather alarming, in that many ONP trail, footbridge and shelter maintenance practices are open to challenge.  ONP routinely uses chain saws to clear trails, and occasionally uses a motorized rock drill... sure, they could use handsaws, sledges and star drills, if they only had three times the budget for trail crews.  ONP routinely flies in materials and tools for trail, footbridge and shelter maintenance... sure, they could pack most of this in, if they only had double the budget for packers.  Apply these strictly, and ONP would be hard pressed to maintain more than about 1/3 of its existing trail mileage.
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
geobob
Member
Member


Joined: 29 Sep 2007
Posts: 183 | TRs
Location: seattle
geobob
  Top

Member
PostTue Dec 04, 2007 10:14 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Rodf:  While you were posting, I was significantly editing my post and unfortunately deleted some of the links that you mentioned.  Nevertheless, I think your post stands very well on its own.  Thanks for your thoughts.

I'll re-edit my previous post to re-establish some of the links and verbage that you refer to.

--------------
I think there's an easier way on the far side
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
geobob
Member
Member


Joined: 29 Sep 2007
Posts: 183 | TRs
Location: seattle
geobob
  Top

Member
PostTue Dec 04, 2007 3:26 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Here's the Conclusion section (italicized by me) from the litigation decision in the case of OPA, WW, and PEER against the National Park Service regarding the Low Divide and Home Sweet Home historic shelters.

CONCLUSION

The National Park Service has not considered its shelter replacement proposal giving proper deference to the mandates of the Wilderness Act.  A determination of whether the agency’s decision is arbitrary and capricious calls for an inquiry of “whether the decision was based on a consideration of the relevant factors and whether there has been a clear error of judgment.” Hells Canyon Alliance v. U.S. Forest Service, 227 F.3d 1170, 1177 (9th Cir. 2000).  There has been a clear error of judgment in this case because although the NPS, arguendo, may have proceeded appropriately under the operative historic preservation laws to determine whether the shelters were historic, the subsequent decision concerning whether to place reconstructed shelters in the former locations of Home Sweet Home and Low Divide failed to properly reconcile doing so with the mandate to preserve the wild and primitive character of the Olympic Wilderness.  The Home Sweet Home and Low Divide shelters have collapsed under the natural effects of weather and time, and to reconstruct the shelters and place the replicas on the sites of the original shelters by means of a helicopter is in direct contradiction of the mandate to preserve the wilderness character of the Olympic Wilderness.

The Park Service references the historic pattern of shelter construction and recreational use in concluding that the “setting, association, and feeling are significant aspects of historic use within the park” (AR 416-17), but while this may be true, this type of usage is in the past and a new value has been placed on the land by the creation of the Olympic Wilderness.  Rather than emphasizing tourism and providing hundreds of miles of trails and approximately 90 shelters, a different “feeling” of wilderness is sought to be preserved for future generations to enjoy, a place “where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man” and which retains “its primitive character and influence, without permanent improvements”. 16 U.S.C. § 1131(c).  The Park Service need not build replica shelters to be airlifted into locations where the original shelters once stood in order to preserve history.  It is apparent from the record that photographs and other chronicles document the history of the usage of Olympic National Park before the Olympic Wilderness was designated.


So, this decision fundamentally alters the purpose and function of Olympic National Park and seemingly disregards all the earlier acts and laws that pertained to the purpose, operation, and management of the park. This is, I think, is dramatically emphasized by the following language.

"...this type of usage is in the past and a new value has been placed on the land by the creation of the Olympic Wilderness."  (where type of usage refers to recreational and historic use).

--------------
I think there's an easier way on the far side
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
reststep
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 4301 | TRs

reststep
  Top

Member
PostTue Dec 04, 2007 4:28 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
So who wrote that?  Is that something the judge wrote?  Is the Park Service appealing the decision?

This part makes it sound to me like they want no one going in the park.

"Rather than emphasizing tourism and providing hundreds of miles of trails and approximately 90 shelters, a different “feeling” of wilderness is sought to be preserved for future generations to enjoy, a place “where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man” and which retains “its primitive character and influence, without permanent improvements”. 16 U.S.C. § 1131(c)."

How do you enjoy a place without going there?

--------------
"The mountains are calling and I must go." - John Muir
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
geobob
Member
Member


Joined: 29 Sep 2007
Posts: 183 | TRs
Location: seattle
geobob
  Top

Member
PostTue Dec 04, 2007 4:46 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Restep:

The text in itialics was written by the judge; the text not in italics was written by me.

There is a link to the complete decision (pdf format) on OPA's website.  It is located in the news section at the bottom of the item titled "U.S. Court Rules New Shelters Illegal in ONP Wilderness".  Here's a link to that item:

http://www.drizzle.com/~rdpayne/opa-news.html#shelters_lawsuit

--------------
I think there's an easier way on the far side
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
geobob
Member
Member


Joined: 29 Sep 2007
Posts: 183 | TRs
Location: seattle
geobob
  Top

Member
PostTue Dec 04, 2007 5:01 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Ski:

Regarding the wasted money on the litigation, here's a link to a news item I found on PEER's website yesterday.

http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=672

--------------
I think there's an easier way on the far side
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
ScottM
Member
Member


Joined: 18 Apr 2007
Posts: 363 | TRs
Location: The Olympics
ScottM
  Top

Member
PostTue Dec 04, 2007 8:34 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
reststep wrote:
This part makes it sound to me like they want no one going in the park.

A couple of years back I gave a backcountry ranger a ride back to the park maintenance facility in Port Angeles from Obstruction Point (he had a flat tire and no spare on the National Park truck).  We had a lively discussion about Park politics and he made a statement to the effect that if certain individuals got their way they would make the Park a "preserve" and shut it down to us humans.  He obviously disagreed with this way of thinking.
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
ScottM
Member
Member


Joined: 18 Apr 2007
Posts: 363 | TRs
Location: The Olympics
ScottM
  Top

Member
PostTue Dec 04, 2007 8:43 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
ski wrote:
I kind of doubt that ONPs staff would have gone ahead with the project had they had overwhelming negative feedback from the public.

That always seems to be the problem.  The majority of the general public is always excepting of these things but a few minority groups always seem to squawk the loudest.  I bet you could count on one hand the number of nwhiker.net members that would object (if any at all) to shelters being rebuilt in the wilderness.
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
BlueMountainMan
Member
Member


Joined: 03 Jun 2006
Posts: 37 | TRs
Location: Everett
BlueMountainMan
  Top

Member
PostThu Feb 14, 2008 8:38 pm 
Deer Park Shelters
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Thanks for the "List of Classified Structures" in ONP- that answers a question I had a while back about just how old the 2 shelters at Deer Park are. My answer is right there in that document: they were built in 1930! That's so cool. I've stayed in them, and there's a great sense of history with them- think of all the other people that have stayed here over the years, what they thought of the place, etc. Plus they smell good! Old wood smells with a big dose of camp smoke. I'll think differently of them when I go back up there this summer. I guess the graffiti dated 1937 in one of those shelters is real. . . .
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: 2497 | TRs
Location: Sequim WA
RodF
  Top

Member
PostSat Apr 19, 2008 1:18 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Don Abbott of Sequim generously offered to share these nostalgic photos of some of our lost and lamented Olympic trail shelters.

Falls Shelter (upper Gray Wolf River): destroyed by arson in 2006

Upper Duckabush Shelter: destroyed ca. 2000

Home Sweet Home Shelter: destroyed by heavy snow in 1999
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: 2497 | TRs
Location: Sequim WA
RodF
  Top

Member
PostSun Apr 20, 2008 9:41 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
I think you're right, HJT!  Don Abbott sent along these photos of Upper Duckabush Shelter in 1991.  I think it remained in damaged condition for several years before the Park Service removed it; perhaps Bruce might know?

Don also sent these pics of Anderson (Camp Siberia) Shelter, taken in 1991 and then in 2004 after the southeast corner collapsed, as well.
Duck (Don Houck), ONP's stalwart Backcountry Carpenter, began repairs of Anderson Shelter last year, and plans to complete them this summer.
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: 2497 | TRs
Location: Sequim WA
RodF
  Top

Member
PostSun Apr 20, 2008 6:37 pm 
Bogachiel River Shelters
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Don Abbott provided these photos of all the Bogachiel River shelters.

Bogachiel (Indian Creek) Ranger Station, 1989.

Bogachiel Horse Barn, 1989

Bogachiel Shelter, 1989

All the above structures were lost as the Bogachiel River changed course in the early 1990s.

Fifteen Mile Shelter, 1994 and 1999

Hyak Shelter, 1999

Both Fifteen Mile and Hyak were built in 1928 and are now listed in the National Register of Historic Places.

21 Mile Shelter, 1999
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
  Display:     All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Forum Index > Pacific NW History > Olympic trail shelters
  Happy Birthday TrailWIKI!
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