Expansion of North Cascades National Park

mmmh sukiakiumo.
I dont mean to be pedantic( OK... yes I do haha) but why is heli-skiing and preservation of the Hwy20 Corridor( again I'm being specific and not generalizing it into the North Cascades as a concept as you did) mutually exclusive??
Your answer implies that continued heli-skiing along the Hwy20 corridor will denude the preservation of this particular mountain area for my son and your prodginy to enjoy in later years and generations.
I honestly don't understand that.
Can you explain further why heli-skiing if it is allowed to continue will destroy the area arround Liberty Bell and Silver Star for future generations???????

The North Cascades Conservation Council long ago concluded that they prefer Park Service management to Forest Service management. I haven't seen detailed N3C proposals, but I presume that they do not think the current situation will last, and I imagine that they are less comfortable with the current situation than I am.

Well THEY would wouldn't they!!!! Just because they think that way and have concluded that , it doesn't mean its' beyond discussion or is even in the best interests of the owner's of the land. They are naturally biased in their conclusion aren't they?
This is the problem I have with some of the generalized statements and attitudes being presented, namely MAKING MORE AREAS NATIONAL PARK MUST BE A GOOD THING AND THE INTENTIONS OF THIS GROUP SHOULDN"T BE QUESTIONED AND WE SHOULD JUST ACCEPT THEY KNOW BETTER.
Changing the status of the Highway 20 corridor from it's present governance and thereby banning previously allowed multi-use activites and the effect on the local communities, businessess and current end users is a huge deal especially considering that PARK status is probably, effectively forever.
I am more concerned about PARK governance and prefer Forest Service goverance as the Park service at some future date could decide that the highway 20 area is getting too much use and that they need to protect biodiversity at all cost ( conservation is their primary goal) and ban or restrict access to a permit sytem sometime in the future.

mmmh sukiakiumo.
I dont mean to be pedantic( OK... yes I do haha) but why is heli-skiing and preservation of the Hwy20 Corridor( again I'm being specific and not generalizing it into the North Cascades as a concept as you did) mutually exclusive??

In terms of the National Park concept. I think earlier in this post it was indicated that National Parks do not permit this (and I believe this is so). So if is against the National Park concept for, instead,  the preservation of heliskiing, then the two are mutually exclusive. Exclusivity is not the case, were there some other way to preserve it at the same level as National Park, but I haven't heard of anything of this ilk being a reasonable course.

Your answer implies that continued heli-skiing along the Hwy20 corridor will denude the preservation of this particular mountain area for my son and your prodginy to enjoy in later years and generations.
I honestly don't understand that.
Can you explain further why heli-skiing if it is allowed to continue will destroy the area arround Liberty Bell and Silver Star for future generations???????

Indeed that was the implication I was trying to make. If one is to have heli-skiing and NOT a national park, and hence, ome other form of real protection, then the danger that future generations can enjoy it, is increased. I am not trying to say that heliskiing will directly destroy the areas actual ecosystems etc... But if heliskiing is a reason to preclude the formation of a national park then it does denude the preservation of the area.

But as it seems you are fundamentally apposed to NP governance vs FS service governance for the preservation of the area, this is a whole different discussion that would be better settled with hard facts (historical or otherwise) which I do not have.

I was recently referred to this conversation because I am the Exec. Dir. of the North Cascades Conservation Council and coordinator of the American Alps Legacy Project.   Several folks ask me to respond to comments on the blog about environmental threats to the North Cascades, so I registered and here I am.  These comments are long and sound a bit formal for a blog, but I have pulled them from a larger document I am producing.  So, please bear with me on all the words.  In the next few days, I will comment on concerns about how American Alps will affect current recreation activities.

The American Alps Legacy Proposal will provide protection for public lands in the North Cascades that are threatened by natural resource extraction, energy development, and global warming.  Some of these threats are immanent and others may develop over decades, yet they are all very real. 

The North Cascades Conservation Council takes a long-run view of conservation.  It has been more than 50 years since we first started promoting the North Cascades National Park and we will still be committed to protecting the North Cascades 50 years from now.  When you love a place with 500 year old trees, you can not narrow your focus to just immediate environmental threats.  You must take the long-run approach to conservation.

The statement, “if it’s not broke, don’t fix it,” is short-sighted.  Many of the threats to the North Cascades ecosystem are linked to the health and competitiveness of the US economy.  Who can predict where the US economy will be in 10 or 20 years, little lone in 50 years?  Will we remain the most advanced economy in the world?  Will our education system continue to support our scientific and technical leadership in the world?  Or, will we become a nation that depends more on natural resource extraction and export to help preserve our economic strength?  I would like to think everything will remain the same, but it seldom does.  So, let’s look at specific issues.  

How long has it been since an endless stream of logging trucks were carrying old growth trees out of the North Cascades?  Not much more than 30 years, and perhaps only a brief pause in the traditional extractive approach to the North Cascades.  With economic growth and resource depletion in Asia and South America, and continued aggressive logging in northern Canada, who can say that the US won’t become a major source of timber for developing economies?  How much pressure is there going to be to “harvest” the maturing and very valuable timber in the Bacon Creek, Baker River, and Cascade River watersheds?  We need to protect our forests before the logging pendulum swings the other way.

Mining is also an ever-present threat to the North Cascades.  There is gold (and other minerals) in the American Alps Legacy Proposal area and the price of gold is increasing almost every day.  As the world population increases and demand for minerals increases, there will likely be more pressure for mining in the North Cascades.  Mines not only destroy the land, but they also pollute streams with acids and heavy metals.  Including language in new North Cascades National Park legislation that limits future mining claims will likely make a big difference in the number of new mines that come into the American Alps area over the next 50 years.

Energy sources are coming to dominate environmental thinking at the national and state levels. The North Cascades has many pristine streams that are ideal for small hydropower production.  Energy from small hydropower is now perceived by some as “green” energy.  Green energy is being aggressively promoted at the national level.  Every year, Washington State considers legislation to designate small hydropower as a “renewable energy source.”  Numerous public and private entities are searching the North Cascades now for small hydropower sites.  One of the constraints on small hydropower is the cost of building and permitting the power lines that carry energy from source to user.  The power lines penetrating up the Skagit Valley to Ross Dam make Skagit watershed streams a powerful attractant for small hydropower developers.  

The US is actively pursuing biomass as a source of future energy.  The Forest Service, with its multiple use mandate, is already looking at its role in producing biomass for energy production.  Most of the trees east of Ross Lake are not attractive for traditional logging.  However, they would make excellent biomass to feed the US demand for energy.  When the energy spigot in the Middle East dries up, as it certainly will some day, will conservationists be able to withstand the public demand for biomass from National Forests to fuel our cars?  

Global warming is also a very real threat to the North Cascades.  Water is an increasingly sought after resource in the Methow Valley, as it is in many areas of the North Cascades.  Already, there is a history of conflict between ranchers who need water for irrigation, developers who need water for development, and agencies and conservation groups that would preserve in stream flows for fish and other aquatic resources.  This conflict will only increase as glaciers melt, snow and rainfall patterns change, and streams become drier in the summer.  How long will it be before there are very serious calls for water storage dams in the upper Methow watershed?

Global warming also directly impacts wildlife.  As our forests continue to burn and our riparian areas continue to dry out, wildlife must find suitable habitat to survive.  Biologists do not fully understand how wildlife will be able to move and/or adapt to global warming.  Renewed logging and mining, small hydropower development, and biomass extraction will all place further stresses on wildlife.  It just makes sense to protect as much wildlife habitat in the North Cascades as possible, as we learn more about how global warming will impact wildlife.  

I believe national park status will provide far more long-term protection for the North Cascades than the current multiple use national forest status, with its management plan overlays that can change with the next administration.

Thanks for signing up Jim, welcome to TAY.

Thanks Jim. Very helpful.