Forum Index > Stewardship > Olympic Wilderness Stewardship Plan - comment by May 17
Previous :: Next Topic  
Author Message
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 9999 | TRs
Location: tacoma
Ski
  Top

><((((°>
PostTue Mar 25, 2014 3:42 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
cairn builder wrote:
Let's put in a couple of east to west highways across the Olympics

There was at one time a proposal to construct just such a highway. Maybe you should suggest it when you submit your comment to ONP on the WSP.

-

Olympic National Park founding legislation:

"...preserve for the benefit, use and enjoyment of the people, the finest sample of primeval forests of Sitka spruce, western hemlock, Douglas fir, and western redcedar in the entire United States: to provide suitable winter range and permanent protection for the herds of native Roosevelt elk and other wildlife indigenous to the area: to conserve and render available to the people, for recreational use, this outstanding mountainous country, containing numerous glaciers and perpetual snow fields, and a portion of the surrounding verdant forest together with a narrow strip along the beautiful Washington coast."

U.S. House of Representatives:
House Report 2247, April 28, 1938


-
Olympic National Park Founding Documents

--------------
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. 
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
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: 1974 | TRs
Location: the Oly Pen
trestle
  Top

Member
PostTue Mar 25, 2014 11:29 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
What's the name of that agenda? Looks like it's well at work in ONP.

--------------
"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
RodF
Member
Member


Joined: 01 Sep 2007
Posts: 2493 | TRs
Location: Sequim WA
RodF
  Top

Member
PostThu Mar 27, 2014 8:28 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
sten wrote:
Also does 'no new trail construction' apply to this planning round, or limit future potential trail building options?

The current Olympic Backcountry Management Plan EIS under which the Park is now operating was written in 1980.  After Olympic Wilderness was designated in 1988, the plan was modified slightly in 1990 to serve as a temporary Wilderness Management Plan, pending completion of the Park's General Management Plan (GMP) EIS.  (The GMP was initiated in 1991, again in 1996, again in 2001 and was completed and became official in 2008.)

The Park hopes to have this Wilderness Stewardship Plan completed in 2015... but is already a year behind schedule, so it might be 2016.

So we might expect this Plan to serve, as the current plan has, for the next 36 years, through the year 2052.

Meanwhile, I am proud to be but a feeble one of the hundreds of trail volunteers who are exceeding the Park Service's 2016 Centennial Initiative goal of increasing volunteer hours by 10% each year since 2006, and doubling the Park's volunteer effort by 2016.  There is no reason why it might not double again TWICE during the lifetime of this Wilderness plan.  By then, the majority of trail maintenance in the Park might be accomplished by volunteers from a wide variety of groups - WTA, SCA, BCHW, WCC and many others - just as it has been for years in Olympic National Forest.

A plan looking backward based only on today's Park trail maintenance budget... will constrain what we may do for the next 36 years.

Olympic NP has already abandoned ~240 miles of trails it inherited from U.S. Forest Service, and downgraded maintenance on most of the remainder from "All Purpose" to foot travel only.

We can plan to have fewer trails, fewer bridges and footlogs and more dangerous fords, or we can plan to keep trails.  We can plan to fail and have a plan we can be certain the Park Service can fulfill - choose any of the alternatives offered in the Wilderness Stewardship Plan.  Or we can plan to succeed, and all strive in partnership for the next generation to make it a success.

Please attend the remaining WSP meetings in Shelton April 1 or Seattle April 3, look carefully at the trail maps, and make your choice known.

--------------
"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
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 9999 | TRs
Location: tacoma
Ski
  Top

><((((°>
PostThu Mar 27, 2014 8:49 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Rod wrote:
Olympic NP has already abandoned ~240 miles of trails it inherited from U.S. Forest Service, and downgraded maintenance on most of the remainder from "All Purpose" to foot travel only.

or put another way:

"By 1935 the Forest Service had completed 962 miles of trails and associated facilities including campgrounds and overnight shelters."
(ONP GMP May 2006 pp. 126)

"There are approximately 611 miles of maintained trail within the wilderness."
(ONP GMP May 2006 pp. 118)

From 962 to 611 is a 37% net reduction in trail miles between 1935 and 2006.

--------------
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. 
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
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
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 9999 | TRs
Location: tacoma
Ski
  Top

><((((°>
PostSat Mar 29, 2014 1:50 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
"Under the no-action alternative, there would continue to be about 570 miles of maintained hiking trails in the wilderness and about 40 miles of beach travelways."

(ONP WSP Preliminary Draft Alternatives Full Table March 2014 - page 10)

> 6.8% net reduction in trail miles since 2006

> 40.8% net reduction in trail miles since 1935


(It's possible I'm misunderstanding what I'm reading, but it does not appear to me that alternatives B, C, or D are better choices in this regard.)

--------------
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. 
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
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: 2493 | TRs
Location: Sequim WA
RodF
  Top

Member
PostSat Mar 29, 2014 1:20 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
The "No Action" Alternative A is not an alternative the Park is free to select.  It is required under NEPA purely as a baseline or benchmark for comparison with the action alternatives B, C and D.

"a full analysis of no action is required in all NPS EISs and EAs. This is true even when your park is under legislative or other command to take action" - NPS Director's Order 12.

The Park is required by law to adopt a Wilderness management plan, but has been unable to complete one since Olympic Wlderness was designated in 1988.  "No Action" = "No Plan" is not an alternative the Park may select.

None of the action alternatives maintains the full current trail system, although Alternative D come close.  If we wish to keep all trails (Alternative A), we must ask that a new, improved "Alternative E" be added.

--------------
"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
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 9999 | TRs
Location: tacoma
Ski
  Top

><((((°>
PostSat Mar 29, 2014 2:13 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Rod wrote:
None of the action alternatives maintains the full current trail system, although Alternative D come close.  If we wish to keep all trails (Alternative A), we must ask that a new, improved "Alternative E" be added.

None of the proposed alternatives are acceptable, as I noted in the email I just sent to you.

--------------
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. 
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
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: 2693 | TRs
Location: Port Angeles
RumiDude
  Top

Marmota olympus
PostMon Mar 31, 2014 10:45 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
RodF wrote:
The "No Action" Alternative A is not an alternative the Park is free to select.  It is required under NEPA purely as a baseline or benchmark for comparison with the action alternatives B, C and D.

"a full analysis of no action is required in all NPS EISs and EAs. This is true even when your park is under legislative or other command to take action" - NPS Director's Order 12.

The Park is required by law to adopt a Wilderness management plan, but has been unable to complete one since Olympic Wlderness was designated in 1988.  "No Action" = "No Plan" is not an alternative the Park may select.

None of the action alternatives maintains the full current trail system, although Alternative D come close.  If we wish to keep all trails (Alternative A), we must ask that a new, improved "Alternative E" be added.

I am confused here.  At the meeting in PA at NOLS, I directly asked one of the ONP representatives if Alternative A was an option which could be selected and she told me "Yes".  She also told me the article in the PDN which stated that Alternative A was not allowed but only used to compare was wrong and that there was a lot of missinformation about the alternatives out there.

Since I will not be able to attend another of these meeting, how can I get an official and reliable response to this issue?  Preferrably this would come directly from Sarah Chreachbaum.  This seems an important understanding and I don't want to waste my comment on the Wilderness Plan by assuming Alternative A is acceptable. If we must insist on an Alternative E, then so be it.

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
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 9999 | TRs
Location: tacoma
Ski
  Top

><((((°>
PostMon Mar 31, 2014 10:52 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Rumi- try Christina Miller (ext 3008, if I remember correctly)

and yes, we must insist on an "Alternative E". all of the alternatives offered (B,C, and D) ultimately result in fewer trail miles, reduced trail maintenance, and more user restrictions (which in some cases are completely unnecessary.)

--------------
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. 
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
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
ranger rock
One of the boys



Joined: 14 Dec 2011
Posts: 2535 | TRs

ranger rock
  Top

One of the boys
PostTue Apr 01, 2014 6:25 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
I went to the Shelton meeting and was told that option "A" is an option.  I asked if it was true the the park favored option "B" and I was told no, the park did not have a favorite option.

I don't like b-d.. bear cans everywhere, no more wilderness self registration, pack out your poop everywhere, meh..

I was also told that there is a lot of misinformation out there.

I like that the park might want to go high tech.  But I hope that you can still get permits even if you don't own a computer with interent acess and a printer.

The only person I recognized was Critter.

Here are pictures of the Shelton meeting:
http://mosswalks.blogspot.com/2014/04/olympic-national-park-wilderness.html
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: 2493 | TRs
Location: Sequim WA
RodF
  Top

Member
PostTue Apr 01, 2014 9:38 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
RumiDude wrote:
She also told me the article in the PDN which stated that Alternative A was not allowed but only used to compare was wrong and that there was a lot of missinformation about the alternatives out there.

Ranger Rock wrote:
I was also told that there is a lot of misinformation out there.

Let's be frank: they mean  prod.gif right here in this thread on NWHikers.  During the first WSP meeting in Port Angeles, the Park planner pulled out a printout of my postings above, and told me "this information is wrong!"  I pointed out that these were verbatim quotes from the Park's own  Draft_Zones_FULL_TABLE and still she didn't believe me.  I asked her to please pull out her printed copy, as the Superintendent joined us, and pointed out, near the bottom under APPROPRIATE FACILITIES zone 5 it states "No facilities or maintained trails" period.  Her response, "Oops, that's not what we intended."  As far as maintained trails, I asked why on the Alternative B map, the upper Queets Trail disappears as zone 6 where "There would be no trails and no established campsites in this zone", and again her comment was "Oops."

I brought along a 3 page spreadsheet of all 629 miles of Wilderness trails in the Park and their zoning under all Alternatives, with a list of 3 pages of questions "Do you really intend..."  I'd asked many of these questions of staff at the meeting, and who had answers for not a single one.  Those two questions were the only ones I had time to get answers for before we were ushered out the door.  I suspect the answer to many more of those questions may well be "Oops, oops, and oops".

As a Friend of the Park, it gives me a pang when I see the Park publish even a "preliminary draft" plan, on which it is investing hundreds of staff hours in public meetings and travel time, that wasn't even proof-read.  And no list of the proposed zone of every single trail, and whether or not the Park intends to maintain it, under each Alterative.  Because it gives the appearance that the Park doesn't even know the resources it is managing.  It damages public trust in the National Park Service.  We can do better than this.

If "there's a lot of misinformation out there", it is all direct quotes from the Park's own "preliminary draft" plan.  You can read it above with direct links to the Park planning documents.  Look for your favorite trails in each the Alternatives maps, and ask how it may be affected and  whether its footbridges will be maintained without stock access.  Can you ford its streams before August?

We hikers do care.  About every remaining trail in this Park.  And about many that we've lost already... and we wish the Park appeared to care, even half as much as we do.

--------------
"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
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 9999 | TRs
Location: tacoma
Ski
  Top

><((((°>
PostTue Apr 01, 2014 11:00 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
so... what I have to wonder is... if we accept at face value the definitions and meanings described on pages 98-99 in the document I cited above (pertaining to the Organic Act of 1916), would not that same argument and rationale also apply to the language contained in the founding legislation for Olympic National Park?

"...preserve for the benefit, use and enjoyment of the people, the finest sample of primeval forests of Sitka spruce, western hemlock, Douglas fir, and western redcedar in the entire United States: to provide suitable winter range and permanent protection for the herds of native Roosevelt elk and other wildlife indigenous to the area: to conserve and render available to the people, for recreational use, this outstanding mountainous country, containing numerous glaciers and perpetual snow fields, and a portion of the surrounding verdant forest together with a narrow strip along the beautiful Washington coast."

U.S. House of Representatives:
House Report 2247, April 28, 1938

--------------
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. 
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
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
puzzlr
Mid Fork Rocks



Joined: 13 Feb 2007
Posts: 6534 | TRs
Location: Stuck in the middle
puzzlr
  Top

Mid Fork Rocks
PostWed Apr 02, 2014 1:09 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
RodF, that's discouraging about the "oops", but not surprising.

I read almost every word of USFS documents from an area I'm interested in and it's amazing how many basic things are wrong, usually because they're way out-of-date. Maps often have roads on them that have been gone for decades, and the trails frequently don't show current alignments or additions. It's just plain shoddy work, going through the "process" because they have to. It's important that someone calls them on it once in a while, so thanks.

--------------
Mid Fork Rocksflickr
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
ranger rock
One of the boys



Joined: 14 Dec 2011
Posts: 2535 | TRs

ranger rock
  Top

One of the boys
PostWed Apr 02, 2014 8:15 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Good enough for government work... sigh.. get me a job in the Federal government.
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: 1974 | TRs
Location: the Oly Pen
trestle
  Top

Member
PostWed Apr 02, 2014 8:30 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
That's what happens when an outside group is allowed so much influence on written policy. Oops.

This is becoming a familiar refrain with almost all levels of federal government. The wonks write the policies, the bureaucrats say "oops," and the citizens are left purposely wondering.

--------------
"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
  Display:     All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Forum Index > Stewardship > Olympic Wilderness Stewardship Plan - comment by May 17
  Happy Birthday Creaky Knees, ryleymyers!
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