Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > I've Had It!!! RIP Green Mountain LO
 Reply to topic
Previous :: Next Topic
Author Message
RodF
Member
Member


Joined: 01 Sep 2007
Posts: 2593 | TRs | Pics
Location: Sequim WA
RodF
Member
PostThu Mar 21, 2013 11:44 pm 
Kim, there was widespread public dismay in the Quinault area that it took so long. The only objection I'm aware of is Jonathan's hyperbole. His concern that "chainsaw use does not become the default position" seemed completely disconnected with the reality that USFS chainsaw use in Wilderness has steadily grown increasingly restrictive. As you know, under NEPA, the decision whether a proposal is eligible for categorical exclusion is purely this “…a category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment… and for which, therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.” (40 CFR 1508.4). The criterion is not whether he has hypothetical concern about it becoming "the default". Three years is long enough to reach a decision, without two more years for an EA on an action which clearly does not have significant impact. But then, I'd say the same of the action in the title of this thread...

"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 Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Kim Brown
Member
Member


Joined: 13 Jul 2009
Posts: 6900 | TRs | Pics
Kim Brown
Member
PostFri Mar 22, 2013 7:01 am 
Yes, Rod, I remember that, which prompted me to pick up the phone & call the District Ranger about it. he mentioned something about a threatened plant in there somewhere, which the public was concerned about, but overall not the only issue with the project; the other being chainsaw use in general. Interesting arguments. Frustrating, sure; but that's how it is with Wilderness in the US of A.

"..living on the east side of the Sierra world be ideal - except for harsher winters and the chance of apocalyptic fires burning the whole area." Bosterson, NWHiker's marketing expert
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
DIYSteve
seeking hygge



Joined: 06 Mar 2007
Posts: 12655 | TRs | Pics
Location: here now
DIYSteve
seeking hygge
PostFri Mar 22, 2013 11:57 am 
RodF wrote:
Exceptions to Prohibited Uses "The only criteria managers have for allowing exceptions to the prohibited uses is "...to meet minimum requirements for administration of the area for the purpose of this Act."
Interesting that the author of that omits the words "except as necessary" which directly precedes that in Section 4 of the Act:
Quote:
. . . [i]except as necessary to meet minimum requirements for the administration of the area for the purpose of this Act. . . .there shall be no. . . motorized equipment. . .
(emphasis supplied). Perhaps it's just an innocent oversight. It's an interesting omission to one looking at the case law because a determination of "necessity" is key to any analysis re whether the use of mechanization fits within the Section 4 exception. Re chainsaws -- an item of "motorized equipment -- under the Act (and, for the moment, disregarding NEPA*), it seems to me that a determination of necessity under Section 4 of the Act can surely be made in some situations, e.g., an avalanche blowdown of hundreds of trees over an established trail that would take years to clear by hand, or the examples RodF cites. *Of course, Director's Order No. 12 was promulgated per NEPA and does not squarely apply to an analysis re the exceptions per Section 4 of the Wilderness Act. (BTW, RodF's link to Director's Order No. 12 doesn't work for me.)

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
trestle
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Aug 2008
Posts: 2093 | TRs | Pics
Location: the Oly Pen
trestle
Member
PostFri Mar 22, 2013 3:51 pm 
WMC wrote:
the goal is to advocate by discussion and debate.
Or just rant at people. Either way, it's nothing but matter.

"Life favors the prepared." - Edna Mode
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
RodF
Member
Member


Joined: 01 Sep 2007
Posts: 2593 | TRs | Pics
Location: Sequim WA
RodF
Member
PostSat Mar 23, 2013 1:17 pm 
BigSteve wrote:
Re chainsaws -- an item of "motorized equipment... it seems to me that a determination of necessity under Section 4 of the Act can surely be made in some situations, e.g., an avalanche blowdown of hundreds of trees over an established trail that would take years to clear by hand
First, that is not USFS Wilderness policy, which is "You cannot use a chainsaw just because it may be faster, more economical, or more convenient." In the finding of necessity, "take years" is irrelevant, safety is relevant. Second, the GMLO decision, which you've defended here, is quite on point. "'When there ia a conflict between maintaining the primitive character of [a wilderness] and any other use, the general policy of maintaining the primitive character must be supreme.'... Actions taken in furtherance of conservation are more likely to be fully consistent with restoring the 'natural condition' and erasing the 'imprint of man's work' than actions to further 'recreational use', given that the actions take in furtherance of the latter would almost certainly encourage increased human presence in wilderness areas... The court also takes note of the fact that the continued presence of the lookout" here read: trail "invites increased traffic into an area of the wilderness which is already subject to overuse due to its proximity to the rapidly growing Puget Sound population base." If WW challenged a chainsaw waiver for clearing trail, it appears Judge Coughenour would agree and order the trails be permanently relocated outside of wilderness.

"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 Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
JVesquire
Member
Member


Joined: 28 Jun 2006
Posts: 993 | TRs | Pics
Location: Pasco, WA
JVesquire
Member
PostSat Mar 23, 2013 1:55 pm 
Quote:
If WW challenged a chainsaw waiver for clearing trail, it appears Judge Coughenour would agree and order the trails be permanently relocated outside of wilderness.
Well, no because if they'd approved a waiver for motorized use then they would've been following the rules.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
DIYSteve
seeking hygge



Joined: 06 Mar 2007
Posts: 12655 | TRs | Pics
Location: here now
DIYSteve
seeking hygge
PostMon Mar 25, 2013 2:04 pm 
RodF wrote:
In the finding of necessity, "take years" is irrelevant. . . .
Silly. What is your basis for saying that? For anyone who has actually put together an administrative record and has read the Act, it's a no-brainer that time it would be one factor in a determination of "necessity for the minimum administration" under the Act.
RodF wrote:
If WW challenged a chainsaw waiver for clearing trail, it appears Judge Coughenour would agree and order the trails be permanently relocated outside of wilderness.
Humor, eh? If you actually understood Judge Coughenour's order, you'd know that he would give deference to the FS under principles of primary jurisdiction if the FS actually had a well-supported determination of necessity under the Act. The failure of the FS to make and support such a determination underpins the ruling. As I said pages ago, the FS blew it. [/administrative law remedial lesson]

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Logbear
Member
Member


Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 493 | TRs | Pics
Location: Getchell. Wash
Logbear
Member
PostMon Mar 25, 2013 6:45 pm 
During discussions related to the clearing of wilderness area trails in the Sierra Nevada, it was mentioned that the safest thing to do would be to do nothing. But it was determined that something had to be done. Social trails circumventing the blow-downs could have done damage to sensitive areas. When the choice between chainsaw and handsaw was discussed, the length of time that users (hikers) would be subject to crews doing the clearing was considered as a factor. Of course chainsaw use is a lot quicker. 222 miles of trail were cleared using hand saws. 67 miles of trail were cleared by chainsaw. All of it was done safely.

“There is no such thing as bad weather, only inappropriate clothing.” – Sir Ranulph Fiennes
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Schroder
Member
Member


Joined: 26 Oct 2007
Posts: 6696 | TRs | Pics
Location: on the beach
Schroder
Member
PostSat Jul 27, 2013 3:26 pm 
Congress leaps into legal battle over historic mountain lookout
Quote:
While lawmakers rarely agree on wilderness issues, a bill to prevent the lookout's removal has attracted support from some strange bedfellows, worrying some stalwart wilderness advocates. At a hearing this week, Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah) -- chairman of the Natural Resources Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation -- said H.R. 908 by Rep. Suzan DelBene (D-Wash.) "brings joy to this old history teacher's heart." That wouldn't have been so strange if the bill weren't also endorsed by the Wilderness Society, a group that frequently spars with Bishop over protection of roadless areas. Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.), the subcommittee's ranking member, said he, too, sees no harm in protecting the building.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 12798 | TRs | Pics
Location: tacoma
Ski
><((((°>
PostSat Jul 27, 2013 6:17 pm 
sounds like some phone calls are in order. congressional switchboard: 1 202 224 3121

"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Kim Brown
Member
Member


Joined: 13 Jul 2009
Posts: 6900 | TRs | Pics
Kim Brown
Member
PostSat Jul 27, 2013 9:57 pm 
Testimony text and vid Suzan DelBene starts at about 1:00, the GMLO testimony starts at about 2:30 Reagam Dunn re: Alpine Lakes expansion

"..living on the east side of the Sierra world be ideal - except for harsher winters and the chance of apocalyptic fires burning the whole area." Bosterson, NWHiker's marketing expert
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
loadmaster
Member
Member


Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Posts: 22 | TRs | Pics
loadmaster
Member
PostWed Jul 31, 2013 2:41 pm 
If I read everything right, House Bill 908 has passed out of committee and on to the full house for consideration as of today. "Adopted and favorably reported to the House of Representatives by unanimous consent. " http://naturalresources.house.gov/calendar/eventsingle.aspx?EventID=344289 See also http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2013/07/30/congress-moving-to-save-green-mtn-lookout/ An identical bill was introduced yesterday to the Senate subcommittee by Senators Murray and/or Cantwell. Will congress move fast enough?

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Kim Brown
Member
Member


Joined: 13 Jul 2009
Posts: 6900 | TRs | Pics
Kim Brown
Member
PostWed Jul 31, 2013 3:51 pm 
Thanks! I read Connelly's article yesterday and wondered about the happenings today!

"..living on the east side of the Sierra world be ideal - except for harsher winters and the chance of apocalyptic fires burning the whole area." Bosterson, NWHiker's marketing expert
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
wamtngal
Member
Member


Joined: 13 Jun 2004
Posts: 2382 | TRs | Pics
Location: somewhere
wamtngal
Member
PostMon Aug 05, 2013 2:39 pm 
Published: Saturday, August 3, 2013, 12:01 a.m. Officials want Green Mountain lookout to stay By Gale Fiege, Herald Writer EVERETT -- Members of Congress are asking the U.S. Forest Service to delay plans to move the Green Mountain forest fire lookout out of the Glacier Peak Wilderness. Rep. Suzan DelBene, Rep. Rick Larsen, both Democrats who represent portions of Snohomish County, and a member of the House Natural Resources Committee sent a letter Friday to the chief of the Forest Service describing their intent to pass legislation to protect the lookout where it sits. In July, Darrington Historical Society member Scott Morris joined DelBene and Larsen in testifying before the congressional committee in support of the Green Mountain Heritage Protection Act, which could be heard by the full House of Representatives in September. Sens. Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell, also Democrats, also are pursuing identical legislation in the Senate. At a cost of about $100,000, the Forest Service is planning to use a helicopter to haul away the lookout from the 6,500-foot mountain and put it down eight miles away at the top of Circle Peak, also in the Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest. The plan follows an order by the U.S. District Court in Seattle to remove the lookout. The court sided with a lawsuit by Montana-based Wilderness Watch against the Forest Service for using a helicopter to shore up the lookout, a violation of the federal Wilderness Act. Kitty Craig, Pacific Northwest regional representative of the Wilderness Society, said in a statement last week that her organization is pleased that the House committee approved the proposed bill. "We believe the Green Mountain lookout provides outstanding benefits to the preservation of Glacier Peak Wilderness and the education of wilderness visitors and does not detract from the qualities we seek in wilderness," Craig said. "Time is running out for the future of the lookout as the Forest Service has started its first phase of planning for the removal of the lookout from Green Mountain." Gale Fiege: 425-339-3427; gfiege@heraldnet.com.

Opinions expressed here are my own.
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 12798 | TRs | Pics
Location: tacoma
Ski
><((((°>
PostWed Sep 25, 2013 12:49 pm 
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 12:04:45 -0400 From: "Round, Sarah" <Sarah.Round@mail.house.gov> To: "'skimohawk@ Subject: H.R. 908, the Green Mountain Lookout Heritage Act Thank you for contacting Rep. Derek Kilmer about H.R. 908, the Green Mountain Lookout Heritage Act. He appreciates you sharing your thoughts and asked me to follow-up with you. Like you, one of the reasons Derek enjoys living in our region is because he values the richness of our environment. He strongly feels that we have an obligation to be responsible stewards of our lands and waters so that we can maintain the pristine beauty and diverse wildlife of the Northwest for future generations. This includes protecting our state’s outdoor recreational facilities within our state and national parks. Rep. Suzan DelBene (Wash.) has introduced the Green Mountain Lookout Heritage Act, which would amend the Washington State Wilderness Act of 1984 to specifically allow the operation and maintenance of Green Mountain Lookout. Further, the bill would prohibit the Secretary of Agriculture from moving the lookout from its current location, unless deemed necessary for preservation or safety reasons. It is encouraging that the legislation was unanimously reported out of the House Natural Resources Committee and has the opportunity to be considered by the full House of Representatives. I encourage you to continue to share your views with Derek on this topic or any other issue at kilmer.house.gov/contact. Best, Sarah Round Legislative CorrespondentOffice of Rep. Derek Kilmer (WA-06) * Congressional Switchboard: 1 202 224 3121 *

"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
   All times are GMT - 8 Hours
 Reply to topic
Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > I've Had It!!! RIP Green Mountain LO
  Happy Birthday speyguy, Bandanabraids!
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