Expansion of North Cascades National Park

I was reading the Mountaineers newsletter ( Stewie's a member) and was surprised to see an article about a Mountaineer's advocacy program to "finish the park" and incorporate the Early Winters Area and presumably Silver Star.
Didn't know there was such a project.
Don't know how far it's gone or if it has any chance of succeeding any time soon, but it does have some serious implications.

Park rules for Birthday tour area and campgrounds in that area.
No more heli- skiing in that area-
No more mountain biking at Cutthroat lake-- one of the best mnt bikes rides in the state.
No doggies.
No fixed anchors for big wallers- federal fixed anchor ban.
Cadres of meadow rovers.
Maybe restrictions on Snowmbile access up SR 20 from Mazama.

Could be good, could be bad depending upon your perspective.

It will definitely be interesting too see where it goes if anywhere. As a native of Twisp I can tell you a lot of locals would be pissed, since I think most people feel the area is managed incredibly well. I can tell you that many opinions would be changed if they kept the road open in the winter. The local skiers getting pissed though

It will definitely be interesting too see where it goes if anywhere. As a native of Twisp I can tell you a lot of locals would be pissed, since I think most people feel the area is managed incredibly well. I can tell you that many opinions would be changed if they kept the road open in the winter. The local skiers getting pissed though

In the article they say the area is "under development pressure". Not sure what that means??? Is it a scare tactic or code for something else. Anybody know???

www.americanalps.org

"Hiking, wildlife viewing, mountain biking, cross-country skiing, horseback riding, and climbing are all extremely popular. Opportunities for these outdoor activities must be preserved and expanded in the North Cascades. Incompatible uses, such as downhill skiing and motorized recreation, are also popular and are slowly encroaching on pristine non-motorized recreation areas adjacent to the current park. "

So are we XC skiers (good), DH skiers(bad), or did this brilliant study miss our user-group?

www.americanalps.org

thanks Brit.
Interesting read.
"Recreation activites must be preserved" and mentions horse back riding and mountian biking... BUT I it hought they weren't allowed in a national park- misleading or will they be allowed? Anybody know.?
Incompatible uses' Downhill skiing and motorized recreation"- Mazama slednecks won't like that,

Infers USFS and State protection currently is subject to change and is therefore not sufficient. Federal is always best....????

Wind farms and hydroelctric...mmmh. Scary. Windmill ontop of Liberty Bell could be  WA's own " Christ the Redeemer" statue like Rio???

Best way to Protect Puget sound is to protect headwaters..... mmmh... major problem is sewage , industrial waste and pesticides from farming.

They do know how to write some interesting spin.

Best way to Protect Puget sound is to protect headwaters..... mmmh... major problem is sewage , industrial waste and pesticides from farming.

Don't you love that one....

Edit: you overlooked urban runoff.

I've been reading it more. It's a very well done site.... they have t-shirts and even Republicans supporting them( never did trust those Republicans)
It's obviously a website tailored to get an emotional response and who does want wind farms along the cascade crest or the area despoiled... not me!
As with much of this stuff, it contains so much hyperbole.... general fear mongering.. and a lack of nuance that's its like the conservationist's equivalent of some paranoid Glen Beck rant.

I dare say there are areas within the Pasayten and around Ross lake that seem they should be part of the park.. makes sense... however there are areas.. like around the Scenic Highway corridor that have had and does have a wider envelope of recreational use such as heli-skiing, snowmobile riding/skiing and mountain biking that wouldn't  be allowed if it became a national park.
But some conseravationists( not all) are such devotees to the their cause that like the NRA will never give an inch or allow a nuanced discussion even if common sense stands in the way. Some would like to lock it all up and throw away the key.
I hope their "ground truthing" is not biased but I'd fear for the worst based upon this website.

I find it somewhat ironic that the most used areas in the whole North Cascades area at this time of the year, namely the SR20 corridor around Early winters, Liberty Bell and Rainy pass ( which as you know is teeming with people right now at the weekends) is also outside the Park. Obviously that has to do with ease of access. Now ease of access has always been a big issue with the Park Service. Their record up to now has been to allow access roads to deteriorate ( think West Side road, Cascade River Road, Olympic Park roads) and then provide one paved access point where the tourists can gape and visit the "Visitor Center".


I think their statement about providing short, paved interpretive paths to get visitors out of their cars very telling.

I was wondering if Lowell would chime in with this thoughts . As a prominent member of the Mountaineers and a person very familiar with this particular area I'd like to know what his thoughts are specifically regarding the Highway 20 Scenic corridor and the area around Liberty Bell and Rainy pass.

Do you agree with changing this particular area and it then having the effect of stopping heli-skiing in this particular area.?
I'm talking about this specific area and not the general park expansion advocacy.

I remember your recent FOAC trip there and the marvelous pictures so I think it's a fair question if you'd  pony up for an answer.

www.turns-all-year.com/skiing_snowboardi...ex.php?topic=15719.0

I was wondering if Lowell would chime in with this thoughts . As a prominent member of the Mountaineers and a person very familiar with this particular area I'd like to know what his thoughts are specifically regarding the Highway 20 Scenic corridor and the area around Liberty Bell and Rainy pass.

Do you agree with changing this particular area and it then having the effect of stopping heli-skiing in this particular area.?
I'm talking about this specific area and not the general park expansion advocacy.

I remember your recent FOAC trip there and the marvelous pictures so I think it's a fair question if you'd  pony up for an answer.

www.turns-all-year.com/skiing_snowboardi...ex.php?topic=15719.0

I'm a member of the North Cascades Conservation Council (N3C), which is the group spearheading the American Alps Legacy Project. I haven't been following this project closely but I certainly am interested in it and will follow it as it develops.

It's worth noting that the N3C, which was the key group responsible for the initial North Cascades National Park campaign, is now a 501(c)(3) organization. So they can no longer lobby for legislation like they did in the 1960s to get the park established. They can only "advocate," which I believe means doing studies and education. So, when study turns to action, it's going to be interesting to see how the action is carried forward.

I personally don't have a problem with the way the highway corridor is currently managed. I think a certain amount of heli skiing is okay and a certain amount of snowmobile access is okay, and I haven't gotten the impression that things have gotten out of hand up there. I've talked to people, however, who feel that the trends are not good, and that things may be headed toward an undesirable situation. I haven't seen the projections, so I can't really comment on this.

So my basic feeling is that if everything stayed like it is today, I'd be fine with that. But if I were convinced that we're heading for a bad future, I might support changing the management balance. My mind remains open on these questions and I'm not actively involved in the study process for this project.

Thanks for the response.
You said you've talked to people who think the trend it bad.
Care to expand upon what they think the bad trend is?

You said you've talked to people who think the trend it bad.
Care to expand upon what they think the bad trend is?

I don't know enough to comment at this point.

I don't know enough to comment at this point.

mmmh. Care to point us to another member of your N3C group who can explain what these bad trends you refer to are or any studies etc. You are a member so presumably you know where we can access this data or is it secret?

It's an issue I care deeply about as I too, like you think the current balance is just right.

I like lots of legal wilderness, lots of national park but I also like having some world class heli-skiing on my doorstep in an albeit relatively small area compared to the rest of the land available for the park.

Like you, I can't afford it often and have to save up for it but it's marvelous and I hope we can protect it from the NPS and your group.

I don't know enough to comment at this point.

This is the internet, make something up. :

We have a serious problem in the USA with various interest groups in conflict, agencies with markedly different philosophies, sometimes in conflict with their organic legislation, and overlapping and contradictory legislation and regulations.  Just look at the Feds: National Parks, National Monuments (part of NPS), Forest Service, BLM, Military (yes some good environments and rec opportunities), National Wildlife Refuges (some on DoD) land, designated wilderness (in National Parks, National Forests, and BLM lands), designated roadless areas, and National Recreation Areas.  Many of us pursue muscle-powered recreation and would like to maintain or increase access for that. There are those who would keep people out of nature (quite different from the Bob Marshals and Aldo Leopolds who created the idea of wilderness); they push for larger and larger wilderness areas, even in National Parks, where development is limited by other laws and regs.  There are those who would like to make public lands into an ORV terrain park, they push for privatization, special designation, and work hard to curry favor with agencies (ORV = "high quality" recreation on the Gifford Pinchot, inclu. Mt. St. Helens and Mt. Adams vicinity).  There are those who simply wish to extract all the resources they can for private profit (timber, mining, grazing, oil, gas).  There are the commercial recreation corporations who want control of public lands (ski areas, climbing concessionaires, campground concessionaires, hunting and fishing outfitters, heli ski operators, etc.).  National Parks have redefined their mission to protect biodiversity first and provide for public enjoyment second.  Forest Service (mandated for multiple use)  bent to political pressure to log at maximum speed over and over creating mistrust with the public.  But since the demise of big timber it seems funding for all federal land management has declined and the majority of spending is done on planning and environmental impact statements.  Even building or relocating hiking trails in National Forests can be hotly contested; just a few objectors bring big costs.

So what? you ask.  Well if something is working don't "fix" it, because that fix may become a Pandora's box.  I enjoy the rec opportunities around Mazama, Silver Star, Cutthroat Pass, etc. etc.  I don't know what would happen if the areas become NP.

It is too bad the National Recreation Area concept was never fully developed; it includes a wide range of management techniques. For example, Mt. Rainier, Tatoosh Wilderness, Glacier Wilderness, and the adjacent National Forest, including Skate Creek (FS Rd 52) and Cooper Creek Rd (FS 59) and their tributaries could be managed to provide much much better access for muscle powered access (and even non-conflicting motorized access). But that costs money and no one seems interested.

Hmm - thanks for the heads up on this, Scotsman. I agree with you that the concerns expressed on the American Alps site (at least that I've found in a few clicks there) are vague at best, appearing to support the charge of fearmongering.

And per acarey's spot-on response, I've not yet seen clear evidence of "what's broken" that needs fixing.

As for the cleanliness of the Puget Sound, I thought it was under MUCH higher threat from uncontrolled storm drain runoff during rain events right here in Pugetopolis. IIRC, we have about as much oil washed into the sound each year (off the pavement we all use daily) as the Exxon Valdez spilled into Prince William Sound. There are many other nasty things being washed in from around the region. It's hard for me to believe that the American Alps proposal would make more than a teeny incremental dent for the Sound, if that. In other words, this is not passing the sniff test for me yet...

As for the cleanliness of the Puget Sound, I thought it was under MUCH higher threat from uncontrolled storm drain runoff during rain events right here in Pugetopolis. IIRC, we have about as much oil washed into the sound each year (off the pavement we all use daily) as the Exxon Valdez spilled into Prince William Sound. There are many other nasty things being washed in from around the region.

Also keep in mind the combined sewer/drainage system  in the older parts of Seattle that, after a major storm, kicks into overflow and discharges raw sewage into local water bodies. 

Who wants to go for a swim???

Hmm - thanks for the heads up on this, Scotsman. I agree with you that the concerns expressed on the American Alps site (at least that I've found in a few clicks there) are vague at best, appearing to support the charge of fearmongering.

And per acarey's spot-on response, I've not yet seen clear evidence of "what's broken" that needs fixing.

As for the cleanliness of the Puget Sound, I thought it was under MUCH higher threat from uncontrolled storm drain runoff during rain events right here in Pugetopolis. IIRC, we have about as much oil washed into the sound each year (off the pavement we all use daily) as the Exxon Valdez spilled into Prince William Sound. There are many other nasty things being washed in from around the region. It's hard for me to believe that the American Alps proposal would make more than a teeny incremental dent for the Sound, if that. In other words, this is not passing the sniff test for me yet...

Well thank you Jim. I'm sincerley very touched by your fairness and comments.

I don't know enough to comment at this point.

Sorry to belabor the point Lowell, but you are a member of the group "spearheading " the project and you're not usually so coy.
I found some of your advise and arguments on the WMC thread useful. How can you spearhead and not know or even be a member of an advocacy project and not know what the arguments are.?

You already intimated that there were people who portend bad things that make the designation of this particular area( and again I'm being specific to the SR20 area from Rainy Pass down to the Early Winters campground) to a National Park rather than current control necessary.
What are those things?
Let me try to help.
1) heli-sking
2) Snowmobile access along Sr 20
3) Lots of use by BC tourers concentrated in one area.
4) Dogs
5) Mountain Biking
6)Horse back riding
7)commercial wind farms
8)mini hydro-electric
9)Fear USFS will change multi-use policies in the future
10) all of the above

How can you spearhead and not know or even be a member of an advocacy project and not know what the arguments are.?

Didn't I say that I was not an active participant in the American Alps Legacy project? Which part of my previous post did you not understand? You're way out of line suggesting that I'm spearheading anything in this case.

The issues you listed probably include some of the things people are worried about. I honestly don't know. As I said, I'm a member of N3C. But I have several years of their newsletters sitting on my bookshelf unread because I just haven't kept up with them.

I suggest that you go to the N3C website and look through some of the recent issues of "The Wild Cascades." Those are the same magazines I receive from N3C. There isn't anything I can tell you about the N3C position that you can't find in there:

www.northcascades.org/magazine.html

Didn't I say that I was not an active participant in the American Alps Legacy project? Which part of my previous post did you not understand? You're way out of line suggesting that I'm spearheading anything in this case.

The issues you listed probably include some of the things people are worried about. I honestly don't know. As I said, I'm a member of N3C. But I have several years of their newsletters sitting on my bookshelf unread because I just haven't kept up with them.

I suggest that you go to the N3C website and look through some of the recent issues of "The Wild Cascades." Those are the same magazines I receive from N3C. There isn't anything I can tell you about the N3C position that you can't find in there:

www.northcascades.org/magazine.html

No I didn't understand the distinction between" member of the group spearheading" and non active participant . But I do now, thanks for clearing that up.

It's pretty easy to take pot shots (comparing with Glenn Beck) or picking select items to criticize or generalize. The people behind NCCC are the ones who helped bring us Glacier Peak Wilderness (instead of an open pit copper mine), Olympic NP, NC National Park and now the Wild Sky Wilderness. They've been at this for more than 5 decades and we're all the recipients.

I too am mixed for various reasons. And I think things are fine now so why "fix" what's not broken. I think NCCC, because of decades of battles, knows that unprotected means just that so take action before it gets broken. Their "fixes" in the past have insured that 100's of thousands of acres of wilderness won't be despoiled. Their goal with the Wilderness Alps proposal is to finish what was unfinished decades ago because they understand that political winds and economics can result in irreversible changes to wilderness. Doing nothing doesn't mean nothing will happen.

Their website and journals include contact information and board members' names so rather than wondering and speculating, ask them.

I believe the problem is that any of the "fixes" described will change the character of the area by changing what people can currently do there.

As an example, if the area is converted to Wilderness, that will shut down any heli-skiing as well as any mountain biking.

If it's converted to a National Park, that will also shut down heli-skiing and hunting in the affected area. Overnight camping and backpacking will also be effected, and mountain biking would be optional depending on the local NP administration - which given how NCNP is managed as a defacto wilderness area, probably suggests it would also be shut down.

Conversion to a National Recreation Area could allow from protection against development (i.e. no new downhill ski areas being built), but also allow for all of the existing uses of the land to continue, but I don't think (having seen the presentations and visited the website) that's really what people are campaigning for.

Great comments, reflections and questions.  Personally, I too am bothered with this push for parkdom in the expanded areas.  Though I sympathize with the notion that greater, permanent protection could be given the areas mentioned, as 'previously left out when the NCNP was created', I seriously question the need and consequences.  As the areas under consideration are some of the most successful multiple-use recreational areas in our mountains, why would we want to change that?  I can think of few areas in the Cascades where nordic and backcountry skiers, heliskiers and sledders all coexist with minimal friction.  Where rock and alpine climbers, hikers, horse folks, packers, mountain bikers, campers and rv'ers can all recreate in proximity in the spring, summer and fall.  What are we worried about?  That mining might once again emerge like cicada's from the played out mines of Chancellor?  I think SeaTacExpat hit it right by suggesting National Recreational Area status - if any change in status is needed.  I too believe the NCNP is running 'their' park like a 'defacto wilderness area'.  Despite prepark commitments to backcountry fisherman to retain existing high lake fishing, the park just recently determined to poison such lakes within the Park of their existing fish - trout native to Washington, but not previously (50 to 75 yrs previously) native to the lakes in question within NCNP - thereby doublecrossing those fisherman who were talked into supporting efforts by N3C to bring about the original NCNP.  I therefore can't and wouldn't trust the NCNP to do or not do anything it might say today as it pertains to current and future uses of the areas as they might expand into.

Another issue at play here, which I think is critically important to recognize, is that organizations and individuals maintain and gain credence through the public activities they support - whether in politics or business, right?  So if you are an organization espousing environmental or conservation causes, then you need a cause to rally behind in order to maintain or gain credence.  What could be more convenient than to rally behind a cause and in an area tucked away a convenient distance from the higher use areas of the central and southern cascades, where existing urban, industrial, business, mining, logging, park, recreation and highway users compete more vigorously.  The more remote an area is from the big urban centers supporting potential conservation issues, the less impact it has on those urban centers, and the less they have to give up.  N3C's efforts are made easier if they can make the issue warm and fuzzy, after all the N3C et al is just proposing to 'expand the NCNP to its former intended boundaries', thereby protecting those fuzzy, friendly  little pikas, lynx and ghost grizzlies.  Well, maybe there were damn good reasons the original park boundaries were established where they were!  Maybe those boundaries reflected the concerns and realities of needed multiple recreational uses and users at that time!  And have those needs changed since then?  If anything, the need for areas to enjoy such recreational uses as are currently allowed in the area is more endangered than the lands under consideration are endangered by potential mining, lumber, etc.

So for all of the previous concerns and reasons,  I am personally not behind the expansion of the NCNP.  I don't want to see my recreational opportunities, or those of my fellow summer and winter users of this fantastic area,  further minimized.  I do support balanced, rational multiple use, and support our continuing to do so as long as we are not further degrading this wonderful mountain environment we chose to play in.

...National Parks have redefined their mission to protect biodiversity first and provide for public enjoyment second... 

Those interested in how the mindset of Park managers evolved and the possible future of  management objectives of the National Park Service should check out:

www.nationalparkstraveler.com/2010/05/id...ks-united-states5853

Interestingly, the author suggests that the NPS will soon have to compromise it's current push for ecological  purity:  "Conflicting needs may require that national parks be divided into management zones...".

Sounds a lot like what we have now?   ???

I think that many are forgetting or do not realize that because of N3C and their cumulative efforts over the past 50+ years, many of the areas which we earn our turns are, have remained untouched. Additionally, the N3C is not hoping to abolish all of these things that have been claimed will disappear with the expansion of the National Park. Even so, if some 'activities' are lost, are we being selfish in wanting all them to remain an option? While personally I would like to be able to eventually paraglide over the N Cascades, and National Parks prohibit this activity, I would still prefer that the area be more thoroughly preserved (with the expansion of the NP) than to be left with some risk of development. Which brings me to another point:

I would say that the dangers of not doing something to further extend protection to the North Cascades may be quite high. How can I get away with saying this? By applying the concept (from avalanches!) danger = risk*consequence. The risk that the Forest Service (Dept of Agriculture) opens these areas up to tree farming, mining, hydro... etc might be low, (some may disagree with this evaluation). However the consequences will be considerable: Examples are: Azurite mine (super-fund site), Erosion, Loss of scenic beauty, loss of habitat. Once done, any actions to these areas will take decades or centuries to recover, if ever. If it remains in the realm of National Parks (dept of Interior....) they will be more thoroughly protected.

So, I'd rather not risk the danger, and I'll forgo selfish considerations for the extended preservation of these amazing mountains and ecosystems.
[edited for spelling/grammar, oops]

Once again, the nuances are lost in the discussion as each side espouses it's ingrained dogma and point of view.
There is no doubt IMHO that there are portions of the area not currently incorporated in the park that make absolute sense to do so. When you look at the map and study areas, there are certainly areas that should be included in the park which= reserved for wilderness in perpetuity.
However, the area I ( yes selfishly) am concerned about is the Hwy 20 corridor that presently allows multi-use such as heli-skiing and mountain biking and seems to work quite well and offers a mix of activities not available elsewhere in WA( heli-skiing).
If it was just about incorporating the areas around Ross Lake and the Pasyaten, I would wholeheartedly support it frankly, but it's not.
The Highway 20 area is emphasized in their promotional data. Their announcement in the Mountaineer's newspaper started with a quote by Fred Beckey about his views and impressions from the top of Liberty Bell so one can only construe that they consider the Early Winter Spires a "  must have" area in their expanded park vision.

So although your altruism Sukiajiumo is much to be admired and far superior to my selfish desire to have heli-skiing and mountain biking available to me for the rest of my active life and my son's during his, could you be more specific in your argument and state wether you think the Hwy 20 corridor should be turned into Park and not just the overall general park expansion vision which as you can see , even some of us selfish types support as well.

It's pretty easy to take pot shots (comparing with Glenn Beck) or picking select items to criticize or generalize.

Well Jackal, you've pretty much covered all the bases there. We can't select items or generalize?? You can't have it both ways or are you just implying that no critiscm or arguments should be allowed and that we should just accept their intentions as being benign and that they know better?

While personally I would like to be able to eventually paraglide over the N Cascades, and National Parks prohibit this activity...

As long as you don't land, it is permitted, isn't it?

I assume that you're interested in fulfilling Bruce Tracy's dream, described here:

mountaineers.org/NWMJ/07/071_Paragliding5.html

Best of luck! That would be quite a flight.

...
However, the area I ( yes selfishly) am concerned about is the Hwy 20 corridor that presently allows multi-use such as heli-skiing and mountain biking. ...

You nailed it. I am glad to hear that you agree with some areas within the American Alps proposal. However, on a personal note, I resent the implication of superiority in my post as I was not trying to be pompous nor snooty, merely suggest a course of consideration by EXAMPLE.

Going beyond ad-hominem...

A big point is they are not wanting to remove Mountain biking as per your arguments:

Taken from front page www.americanalps.org/ (5/18/2010):

---

Recreation Opportunities Must Be Preserved
Recreation is also an essential aspect of the North Cascades National Park. Major Puget Sound population increases may overrun the limited recreation resources available in the North Cascades. Hiking, wildlife viewing, mountain biking, cross-country skiing, horseback riding, and climbing are all extremely popular. Opportunities for these outdoor activities must be preserved and expanded in the North Cascades. Incompatible uses, such as downhill skiing and motorized recreation, are also popular and are slowly encroaching on pristine non-motorized recreation areas adjacent to the current park.
--
So you see that they are not wanting the to remove Mountain Biking. Heli-skiing is likely another story as it is 'moterized recreation'. There are likely leases/policies that would have to be grandfathered in to be properly honored by the NP. Does this mean that we should continue to allow it after expiry of such leases? France and Germany have prohibited this endevour and maybe Switzerland soon. Because heli-skiing may be losing support globally, does NOT mean that it should continue to support it locally.

As long as you don't land, it is permitted, isn't it?

I assume that you're interested in fulfilling Bruce Tracy's dream, described here:

mountaineers.org/NWMJ/07/071_Paragliding5.html

Best of luck! That would be quite a flight.

Ha, yeah. I saw that looking at that sight a while back and it inspired me. That coupled with stories of friends parasailing in the Alps made me look into it. Just need to get more $$ and a fully healed shoulder to have the chance to properly learn. I called one of the ranger stations near the NC NP and they said parasailers are considered 'low flying aircraft', which is prohibited in park terminology.