Expansion of North Cascades National Park

An NRA would not require a Czar at all--not any more that an existing NP or NF.  However, many NFs are much more experienced in mediating among different user groups than most NPs.  In PNW, Adaptive Management Areas were set up with AMA managers who mediated amongst conflicting demands and influences and who operated below the Ranger District level.  The AMA process was actually an exciting and rewarding process for many from quite different interest groups.

Thanks. That's interesting and encouraging.

The ALPs project just updated their website with a new map of the study areas.
Some areas were dropped due to competing proposals with other wilderness groups according to their blog.
See this link;
www.americanalps.org/images/AALP_Draft_Proposal_042510.jpg

The highway 20 study area is delineated by white hatching but has blue shading so I interpret this to mean it's still part of the Park expansion plan but they don't call it out with an acreage number like the other areas??????
Why is this slightly ambiguous.... intentional or accidental????

Can somebody clear this up for me?

The ALPs project just updated their website with a new map of the study areas.
Some areas were dropped due to competing proposals with other wilderness groups according to their blog.
See this link;
www.americanalps.org/images/AALP_Draft_Proposal_042510.jpg

The highway 20 study area is delineated by white hatching but has blue shading so I interpret this to mean it's still part of the Park expansion plan but they don't call it out with an acreage number like the other areas??????
Why is this slightly ambiguous.... intentional or accidental????

Can somebody clear this up for me?

In the same vein, why does so much of the Ross Lake NRA need to be redesignated (under the same map) as part of the NCNP?
According to the NPS, most of that is also already part of the Stephen Mather Wilderness:
www.nps.gov/noca/planyourvisit/upload/Map_WTP_0308_Screen-2.pdf

Can someone explain why we need to switch a joint NRA + Wilderness designation to a joint NP + Wilderness designation?

Pardon my late entrance to the conversation... so many thoughts to add to, but I will try. I have probably logged over 50 outings in the AALP proposal boundaries.

Wilderness vs NP vs NRA. 'Wilderness' designation may exist within a NP, an NRA, or within the Forest. For example 'Stephen Mather Wilderness' overlays portions of both the NCNP and the Ross Lake NRA. Perhaps the arguments presented here are not so much centered around what agency manages the land, but whether that land is managed 'wilderness' or not. Wilderness I believe is the most restrictive designation, not only to development, but also to different forms of recreation. For example, no mtn bikes, no new trails, no huts or shelters. Wilderness designation also allows land managers to limit usage in order to enforce a 'feeling of solitude', in addition to limiting counts based on resource damage. Enchantment lakes is restricted because of its wilderness designation.


Key, I think to the acceptance of the AALP is where the wilderness boundaries will overlay the map, as this is what will determine what kinds of activites may take place in each region. For example, could we accept the Park proposal if the HWY 20 corridor were excluded from any 'wilderness' designation?

I grew up here in the 80's and have seen the rampant roading and cutting of the forests. A trip up through Alaska's Tongass only further created a distrust of Forest Service management. One also only has to look north of the border into the Chilliwack/Slesse region of the North Cascades to see what this area might have looked like without today's protection. It would be easy then to argue stronger protections for these areas we love.

However, I have also been unjustly 'ticketed' for camping in the wilderness -- so I dont trust 'recreation (mis)management' either.

It is right - I think - that the HWY 20 corridor is currently in a Golden Age - lots of folks enjoy it currently and are getting along just fine. Perhaps even more telling - this area has an established stewardship base. We all love it dearly, and should anyone propose to threaten it, we will rise up to defend it. I do not think that it needs any more top-down protection, because it has protection from the roots - thats us. There are considerably more people invested in keeping the area in recreation than there are to gain from resource extraction. As we are still a maturing culture, there may yet be subtle shifts of management given the mood of the times. However, for the most part, I believe this area is in a nice balance -- such shifts will not be so dire, and might even offer other benefits.

Wilderness/Park designation is a great tool for protecting areas which do not have the established stewardship base - this is why the Bacon Creek is an interesting component of the AALP proposal -- that area does not have the stewardship base that the rest does.

In conclusion, I think that our resources are best spent on the areas that are most in danger of real development threats. Wilderness/Park designation is useful, but blunt tool for land protection. I would agree with most here that an NRA is probably the most 'balanced' approach to managing the HWY 20 corridor, if a change needed to happen.

However, much more precision tools do exist for conservation. For example -- consider supporting your local land trust! I am probably more concerned with how the rural character of our gateway valleys change over time, than with potential threats to what is already in the public lands base. The Methow Valley Conservancy, the Cascade Land Conservancy, the Skagit Land Trust, etc... -- these people will be able to utilize funds much more efficiently than any government agency!

- Kevin

"However, much more precision tools do exist for conservation. For example -- consider supporting your local land trust! I am probably more concerned with how the rural character of our gateway valleys change over time, than with potential threats to what is already in the public lands base. The Methow Valley Conservancy, the Cascade Land Conservancy, the Skagit Land Trust, etc... -- these people will be able to utilize funds much more efficiently than any government agency!

- Kevin"

Kevin you are very well spoken and I agree bottom up protection is in place and very valuable. Furthermore, local stewardship in the eastern portion has been proven with the denial of the construction of a ski area on Sandy Butte.

Does the Golden Horn national park area conflict with NC Heli's boundaries?

I, too, am a supporter of various land trusts, including the Nisqually Land Trust which is trying to protect the character of the gateway to Mt. Rainier. I also have worked with and supported various non-profit conservation groups. Whether these groups and other 501 3 cs or whatever use funds more efficiently than any gov't agency, however, is not a given (I know, politically incorrect sentiment in a Tea Party Era, but NGOs answer to no one; they have no particular rules on nepotism, cronyism, etc.; nor do they have caps on executive salaries, advertising, etc.) so it is wise to scrutinize those you support financially or politically and determine if they meet your standards of conduct. In my experience, front-line public agencies are very constrained by laws and regulations in how they do business; not so much the politicians (legislators and agency heads that give them orders). NGOs have wide latitude to do almost anything they want.