Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > "Wild Olympics": Wilderness
 Reply to topic
Previous :: Next Topic
Author Message
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 27 May 2005
Posts: 12254 | TRs | Pics
Location: tacoma
Ski
><((((°>
PostTue Jul 28, 2020 9:48 pm 
altasnob wrote:
"...the vast majority of the 126,661 acres of proposed wilderness are suitable as wilderness and are not "doghair stands of pecker poles" as Ski describes..."
FALSE. that is not at all what I said, counselor again, you attempt to put words in my mouth. FAIL

"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
altasnob
Member
Member


Joined: 29 Aug 2007
Posts: 996 | TRs | Pics
Location: Tacoma
altasnob
Member
PostWed Jul 29, 2020 7:10 am 
The strongest argument from those who oppose the wilderness seems to be that some of the lands have been logged and need to be thinned, roads decommissioned, so that they can regain old growth characteristics as soon as possible. My counter argument is that 85,807 acres of the 126,661 total acres are roadless. So the argument above does not apply to them. So what about the remaining 40,854 acres? In a perfect world, where the forest service was fully funded, stands would be thinned (but not sold) and left to decompose. Roads that the forest service wished to permanently close would be decommissioned. But as Kim Brown has pointed out, the forest service has had years to do this and has not acted. This could be lack of funding, but I don't see that changing anytime in the future. So the low cost alternative is to place them in wilderness status where eventually, they will regain old growth characteristics. And again, I am trying to deduce the actual state of these 40,854 acres. These acres have roads through them. But Wild Olympics says no roads will be closed so the roads that exist today on these 40,854 acres are not roads that the Forest Service wants to decommission. These roads will continue to be maintained and are not actually in the proposed wilderness areas (there is a 200-500 setback from any existing road). I don't know the status of the forests in these 40,854 acres. I assume they have been logged, and RodF states 12,400 have been clear cut logged (not sure where he gets that). Do these forests have any old growth characteristics today? If left undisturbed, when will they regain old growth characteristics? If I can identify these specific areas we are talking about, we can make a list or roads that will be surrounded by wilderness if the Wild Olympics proposal passes, and trails that will be included. Then people can travel out to these areas and see for themselves the state of the forests. My overall point is the argument against Wild Olympics only applies to a small percentage of the proposed lands. I am trying to deduce just how small of a percentage.

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


Joined: 13 Jul 2009
Posts: 6573 | TRs | Pics
Kim Brown
Member
PostWed Jul 29, 2020 7:56 am 
Ski wrote:
(There is still, as Rod mentions, the issue of decommissioning roads and removing culverts, which won't happen under the "Wild Olympics" plan. Dumb, dumb, and more dumb. Leaving old plugged-up culverts in place is a recipe for disaster, which you should know all about.)
So how about contacting the advocate organizations to suggest they include that in the plan while they're pushing for wilderness. Because, as I mentioned, wilderness will be signed into law someday. You know it, I know it. Might as well get those culverts out. The USFS will hate that, but they should do it regardless of whether wilderness is hanging over them; wilderness is actually a great cost to them for these reasons. (signs, road decommissioning, public processes, studies).

"..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
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 27 May 2005
Posts: 12254 | TRs | Pics
Location: tacoma
Ski
><((((°>
PostWed Jul 29, 2020 8:03 am 
Good question Kim, but now you're getting into the finer points of the proposal, with which I am not completely conversant. Maybe Rod might know the "why" on that one. If I had to make a wild guess on this, I'd say that the hurdle on getting the thinning done would have been money (just as it was on that USFS land adjacent to Yosemite NP that went up in flames several years back.) And that last part is one of the things that concerns me: leaving these stands in their present state is asking for trouble down the road - either from catastrophic wildfire, or from some pathogen or infestation taking out the entire stand and creating a potential hazard to NPS lands in the immediate proximity (as happened on that Yosemite incident.) The "recreation of old-growth characteristics" won't affect me personally (or any of us here) because the end results wont be seen until long after we're all long gone. However, considering we are currently experiencing changes in climate and weather patterns, we simply don't have millenia for those changes to take place.

"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
RodF
Member
Member


Joined: 01 Sep 2007
Posts: 2593 | TRs | Pics
Location: Sequim WA
RodF
Member
PostSat Aug 01, 2020 2:19 pm 
altasnob wrote:
I added up all the most updated, roadless areas from appendix C in the FEIS and got 85,807 total roadless acres. So I assume that means 85,807 acres of the 126,661 acres proposed as wilderness by Wild Olympics are roadless, do not need to be thinned, and do not require roads to be decommissioned.
Correct! Thank you.
altasnob wrote:
If 85,807 acres of the 126,661 acres proposed are roadless, that leaves only 40,854 acres having roads. Not all of these 40,854 acres have been clear cut. In 2012, you mentioned 12,400 acres have been clear cut.
Correct, that's USFS' estimate from their land use map (but may be off by hundreds of acres, as "gyppo" logging companies often cut beyond the boundaries of their contracted harvest units in earlier years).
altasnob wrote:
So to get to my point, it appears the vast majority of the 126,661 acres of proposed wilderness are suitable as wilderness
I'm confident that most, and perhaps all, of the 85,807 acres of inventoried roadless areas, if studied in the next Forest Plan as required under the 1984 Washington State Wilderness Act, would be recommended for wilderness designation. 85,507/126,661 = 68% is a majority.
altasnob wrote:
Wild Olympics says no roads will be closed so I assume today, one cannot not drive through these wilderness areas that have been previously logged with roads now closed.
Correct, passage of the "Wild Olympics" bill would not close any roads which are now open. However, please realize not all of the closed roads have actually been decommissioned. Some have simply been abandoned or "placed in storage", with culverts in place. These culverts become blocked or rust out and collapse. This can result in washouts or block natural flows into wetlands and may possibly block fish migration. Please realize there are also hundreds of miles of uninventoried roads within Olympic NF. They appear on no map, but they're there! Some are just skid paths, but many were permanent roads with culverts, many of which have failed.
altasnob wrote:
If I can identify these specific areas we are talking about, we can make a list or roads that will be surrounded by wilderness if the Wild Olympics proposal passes
I tried to do this for you; please see the "Appendix: Roads" in the original posting in this thread.
altasnob wrote:
But Wild Olympics says no roads will be closed...
Correct, but...
altasnob wrote:
...so the roads that exist today on these 40,854 acres are not roads that the Forest Service wants to decommission.
...this conclusion does not follow. The Forest Service very much wants to be given the time to study this as part of the Forest Plan process, to survey these areas, inventory and examine its roads, and determine whether beneficial restoration projects would be practical. Passage of the "Wild Olympics" bill would summarily foreclose this.
altasnob wrote:
So the low cost alternative is to place them in wilderness status where eventually, they will regain old growth characteristics.
Which do you prefer: the "low cost" alternative or the more environmentally responsible alternative?

"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
RodF
Member
Member


Joined: 01 Sep 2007
Posts: 2593 | TRs | Pics
Location: Sequim WA
RodF
Member
PostSat Aug 01, 2020 3:46 pm 
altasnob wrote:
I am curious about where specifically the lands RodF argues are not suitable for wilderness are... And again, I am trying to deduce the actual state of these 40,854 acres. These acres have roads through them.
These are excellent questions. They deserve clear, definitive answers before they are permanently designated wilderness. The Forest Plan process will answer these questions... if we give USFS time to do it. If we're impatient, we should give USFS more resources so Forest Plans can be done in a more timely manner. These past 3 years has been deeply disheartening to me (and I hope, to many others). We see ill-considered policies put forth on diplomatic relations, immigration, climate, public health, defense, tax policy, education, etc. based on whims, with little or no prior consideration of the facts nor of their adverse, unintended consequences. Anyone who points this out is denounced in an emotional and highly partisan manner. This is no way to run a country. It is also no way to manage our public lands. No Forest Plan to answer these questions. No public hearings on the peninsula, as Sen. Evans held prior to drafting the 1984 Washington State Wilderness Act, to vet any additional concerns before even drafting this legislation. atlasnob, I have not argued that these 40,854 acres are unsuitable for wilderness designation, only pointing out that we don't know, and there are legitimate environmental concerns, particularly with ~12,400 acres of them which have been logged, which should be addressed prior to their permanent designation. Wilderness is good! Wild and Scenic Rivers are good! This is very much a "feel good" issue. However, these areas are under no imminent or even foreseeable threat. Wild Olympics serves no need and has no tangible benefit, only a desire to "feel good". And it may have unintended adverse consequences. atlasnob, your questions deserve to be answered before Wild Olympics is drafted, let alone passed. But they were not. Instead, it became a political campaign promise to be fulfilled.

"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
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 27 May 2005
Posts: 12254 | TRs | Pics
Location: tacoma
Ski
><((((°>
PostSat Aug 01, 2020 7:00 pm 
RodF wrote:
"...these areas are under no imminent or even foreseeable threat. Wild Olympics serves no need and has no tangible benefit, only a desire to "feel good". And it may have unintended adverse consequences."
^ well put. thanks Rod.

"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
treeswarper
Alleged Sockpuppet!



Joined: 25 Dec 2006
Posts: 10872 | TRs | Pics
Location: Don't move here
treeswarper
Alleged Sockpuppet!
PostThu Aug 13, 2020 8:23 pm 
Just a bit of clarification about roads. Decommissioning may include and usually does, removing culverts and fill, and stabilizing the road. The road is then removed from the system--it is no longer a road. Closing is different. Closed system roads are often considered to be Level 1 maintenance roads. They may be gated or blocked and not maintained. But, they are still on the system and can be opened up again if needed.

What's especially fun about sock puppets is that you can make each one unique and individual, so that they each have special characters. And they don't have to be human––animals and aliens are great possibilities
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Secret Agent Man
Member
Member


Joined: 24 Dec 2015
Posts: 175 | TRs | Pics
Location: Seattle
Secret Agent Man
Member
PostFri Jul 15, 2022 8:20 pm 
It sounds like the Wild Olympics proposal is moving forward and may pass this year as a part of the defense appropriations bill: https://www.nwprogressive.org/weblog/2022/07/wild-olympics-prospects-rise-thanks-to-inclusion-in-2022-national-defense-funding-bill.html Does anyone have a map of what specific areas would be added to wilderness by this? Not just vague descriptions of acres here and there, but specific lines and boundaries on a caltopo map?

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
PostSun Jul 17, 2022 8:14 pm 
Secret Agent Man wrote:
It sounds like the Wild Olympics proposal is moving forward and may pass this year as a part of the defense appropriations bill
Is it "moving forward" or merely "spinning its wheels"? Please consider: - it has been introduced in each of the last ten years, and never passed, - it has been introduced as a rider on the defense appropriations bill in each of the last three years, but never survived reconciliation into the final bill, and - this year: -- its sponsor Sen. Patty Murray didn't prevail on a single member of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, which failed to report the bill favorably to the Senate, so it died. -- its sponsor Rep. Derek Kilmer failed to prevail on any member of the House Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands, where it has languished for months. -- Neither sponsor has in the last two years even mentioned the bill on their websites or newsletters or issued a press release touting their support for it. Might its sponsors have more important legislative priorities on their minds? Might other progressive legislators have more pressing priorities this year? Might this column in NW Progressive have strayed a wee bit into hyperbole?
Secret Agent Man wrote:
Does anyone have a map of what specific areas would be added to wilderness by this?
The campaign has a low resolution map here. Their higher resolution map has disappeared from their website. Outdoor Alliance has a better interactive map here. The bill would designate the green areas as Wilderness. Note the yellow "Potential Wilderness" areas contain roads. Note the blue lines denote entire length of rivers, not just those segments the bill would actually designate Wild and Scenic Rivers.

"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
Randito
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 8916 | TRs | Pics
Location: Bellevue at the moment.
Randito
Snarky Member
PostSun Jul 17, 2022 9:25 pm 
FWIW: I observed many anti-wild-Olympics yard signs driving 101, 12 and 115 out to the beach today.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Secret Agent Man
Member
Member


Joined: 24 Dec 2015
Posts: 175 | TRs | Pics
Location: Seattle
Secret Agent Man
Member
PostMon Jul 18, 2022 9:36 am 
Thanks for the Outdoor Alliance link - I had only seen that low-res map previously and it was completely useless.

RodF
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 > "Wild Olympics": Wilderness
  Happy Birthday Otter, CampChamp, Wolfman!
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