Expansion of North Cascades National Park

Yeah, that's about enough of that. Carry on without the personal attacks please. Thanks.

This land around Highway 20 belongs to everybody and the solution lies in everybody getting a chance to determine it's future status not just the Park Service and their supporting groups like this one.

Chris, you write as though N3C is some sinister conspiratorial group that has special power over the Park Service. Everybody will have a chance to determine the future of the North Cascades, including you.

N3C's American Alps project is expressly intended to expand the North Cascades National Park. They are very clear about this. Expanding the park requires an act of Congress. All of us have the opportunity to make our views known to our congressional representatives. As a 501(c)(3) organization, N3C cannot lobby Congress. They can only make their position known to the public. Other people will have to do the lobbying. So, in this sense, you and I have more influence over the final decision than N3C.

Regarding N3C's "propaganda," "hyperbole," and "scare mongering," it is certainly no worse than what you have included in your posts. Everybody is entitled to make the best case they can. That's the nature of public debate.

Despite what you may think, I haven't made up my mind about these issues. My comments are intended not to defend the N3C position but to  correct what seem to be misunderstandings or distortions.

An economic study that we released to the media on Thursday has shown that an increase in the size of the North Cascades National Park and the addition of family-friendly recreation amenities will significantly increase visitation to front-country areas of the North Cascades National Park.  The economic study found that if the American Alps proposal is enacted, more than 1,000 new jobs will be created over the next two decades in gateway communities from Twisp to Concrete.

From the press release issued with the Economic Study associated with the American Alps project at americanalps.blogspot.com/ : 

“The North Cascades National Park is one of the least visited national parks in the lower 48 states. This wild and nearly inaccessible park receives fewer visitors than Isle Royale National Park in the middle of Lake Superior. Combined visitation to the North Cascades National Park and the adjacent Ross Lake National Recreation Area is still only 1/10 that of Olympic National Park. Low visitation translates directly into low economic benefits for gateway communities.

Conservation and outdoor recreation advocates seek to add more than 300,000 acres to the park, nearly a 50% increase. The new proposal will add low elevation, front-country lands to the park to make it more accessible to visitors. It will also support development of new park visitor centers in gateway communities, 25 miles of new family-friendly trails, new ecotourism sites, expanded campgrounds, and other amenities that will attract more families to the North Cascades.”


Open Question to Those Who Know that they Do Support This Proposal: 

Could the fact that NCNP is “one of the least visited National Parks” have something to do with the fact that this eco-system is the only one in Washington supporting a naturally occurring Gray Wolf population, wolverines, lynx, and more than likely a small population of Grizzly Bears?

As someone who is all for taking thoughtful action using ALL of the tools in our tool-box to ensure that future generations have the opportunity to know that these creatures still exist in our state, I struggle to see how NC3’s economic development and access-centric focus outlined above does anything to further the conservation goals supposedly at the core of NC3’s mission.  If anything it furthers the highway corridor as a hurdle for migration.

Asked today which I fear more, a dam on Cedar Creek, the brief distraction of a helicopter overhead two and a half months each year, or the prospect of more parking lots, paved trails, RV pull-offs, visitor centers, waterfall loops, and commercial gateway development on private lands just outside the “Park”  – I can tell you which I’ll choose.

Just because we’ve ruined most of our national treasures with “National Park” Villages catering to the obese and photo-happy busloads eager to get to the next photo platform, doesn’t mean that we’re stuck with this model for North Cascades.

I’d like to see the NPS and USFS come together to commission an honest and independent assessment of the likely development “risks” for the lands at the heart of the NC3 proposal, together with a clear identification of the various management tools and designations that could be utilized to manage these areas.  That information should drive the future alternatives for these lands.

We will accomplish more with careful management than by resorting to the commercialization of this unique and special natural resource.

I suspect that many living in the communities facing today’s “low economic benefits” feel the same way.  It isn’t always about the money, and I don’t think that this attempt to “buy” local  support with visions of prosperity and employment will fly. 

I’d like to see the NPS and USFS come together to commission an honest and independent assessment of the likely development “risks” for the lands at the heart of the NC3 proposal, together with a clear identification of the various management tools and designations that could be utilized to manage these areas.  That information should drive the future alternatives for these lands.

Excellent points, Jason. Thanks.

I share your concerns.

As much as I admire what N3C has accomplished in the past, I'm concerned that their approach on this project may be applying a "blunt instrument" (a term I used before) where more refined tools are needed. I'm still not sold on the N3C approach.

Several people have ridiculed the global warming statements in JRD's original post. I think you didn't read his post carefully. What he's saying is that the steps we might take to address global warming could have an impact on the area in question. He refers specifically to small water storage and/or hydropower dams and biomass extraction activities. The N3C position is that we should find other places (besides the North Cascades) to do these things. JRD also mentions that wildlife may be stressed by global warming and that protecting more habitat from development would be a good thing.

I believe I've reasonably reacted to the notion that this proposal will do anything substantive about the stress on wildlife, as I have noted in a few posts above (with no real explanation coming back in reply). I don't think I'm mis-reading JRD's comments, or statements like this from their web site:

Global warming is disrupting natural wildlife habitats and travel corridors, threatening the movement and survival of some species in the North Cascades.

Again, I would need to see more than hand-waving to believe that this proposal will provide any meaningful mitigation of the impact of GW on wildlife. There may be other great reasons to enact this specfiic proposal, but the shotgun blast of sketchy rationales such as this, paired with "backing from the solution to the problems" raises alarm bells for me...

The dams and biomass thing is another can of worms, but not what I was reacting to.

The American Alps proposal would place new visitor centers in gateway communities, not within park boundaries or just outside park gateways.  This will help focus the economic benefits of park designation within gateway communities and not within or adjacent to the park itself.  The American Alps proposal will not include any commercial development on or adjacent to North Cascades National Park lands.

Conservation is compatible with the separate, but important effort to bring youth back to nature (see: “Last Child in the Woods” by Richard Louv).  When we talk about front-country family-friendly amenities, we are not talking about RV parking, paved trails, or waterfall loops.  The intent is just the opposite.  We are talking about a short trail to a scenic overlook of the Skagit Valley, a salmon viewing platform on Bacon Creek, a guided tour of the native plant restoration facility in Marblemount, or a nature trail from Lone Fir Campground up Pine Creek to the falls.

Wildlife conservation is a core value guiding development of the American Alps proposal.  Converting 304,300 acres of Forest Service and National Recreation Area lands to National Park will limit hunting in these areas and create a major refugia for wildlife populations, including wolves, grizzly bears, wolverine, lynx, and other species.  Front-country recreation along State Route 20 can be developed in a way that is compatible with wildlife conservation.  Specifically, the American Alps proposal will include language requiring the Park Service to identify, preserve, and enhance wildlife corridors that cross State Route 20.

Through conversations with Forest Service staff and several Methow Valley residents, I have been able to identify only three trails in the American Alps study area that are both legal and popular with mountain bikers.  These include Cedar Creek Trail, Cutthroat Lake Trail, and the West Fork Methow Valley Trail.  My previous reference to popular mountain bike trails included all three of these trails.  There may be other popular trails that were not mentioned to me.

Dog walking on public lands is a complex and potentially controversial issue no matter who manages the land.  I am a dog walker and know this from all sides of the issue.  This is indeed an area where significant public discussion is needed.  I think my recent comment (below) could be a starting point for that conversation.  “Dog walking could be allowed in areas where it will not significantly impact wildlife or the outdoor experiences of other visitors.”  What does that mean?