Waterhole Cabin- destroyed by ONP

Thanks for the offer to help and the interest, I'll let you know what I find.

The land is much easier to "manage" by the gov. when the public can't access it.

When groups are against motorized use they are only hurting everyone.

There is a much bigger picture out there that has been in the works for a long time

"UnSaid" 1992

Here are some answers to your questions.

What were the structural issues?

The structure did not comply with any standard building codes and was a
liability the park could not continue to condone or invite the use of it by
visitors.

Was there an environmental process followed in making the decision?

Removal of the structure was covered under a programmatic categorical
exclusion. Because the structure was not historic, not located in a
wilderness area and removal would not result in soil, vegetation, or
archeological disturbance an Environmental Assessment (EA) or Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) were not required under NEPA.

When was the decision made?
What options were considered? (repair, replacement, etc)

The decision to remove the structure was made by the park leadership team in
2008. In August 2012, the Olympic National Park Executive Leadership
Council completed the removal of the structure, as recommended by the
leadership team in 2008. Park management considered improvement of the
structure as well as removal of the structure. At this time, there were no
funds available to mitigate the potential liability of the structure so
removal took place.

Was there an opportunity for public input?

I do not know if there was public input during the initial decision point of
2008. This action did not require public input under the guidance of NEPA.

Would the Park consider future replacement of the hut? (possibly in
partnership with a private group)

Within the next ten years the park has plans to develop a winter use plan.
Replacement of the hut and other improvements to the winter recreation area
will be considered in the plan. Public comment and participation in the
planning process will be invited and encouraged.

Was consideration given to the role this hut plays in providing safe shelter
for injured or storm trapped winter travelers?

The park considered the role that the hut has played in providing shelter
for winter travelers.

Although the shelter has been used by backcountry visitors, there was not a
significant history of the structure being used as an emergency shelte

Here is a somewhat tangential rant against the way the the NPS is managed at the national level:

This post states that the decision to remove the Waterhole Hut was made the ONP management team in 2008.  The problem is (and this is my rant) that there has been 100% turnover in the leadership of the park since then.  Superintendent, Deputy Superintendent, Chief Ranger, Chief of Maintenance, Park Planner, and Hurricane Ridge District Ranger have all changed hands since then, sometimes more than once.


I believe this is not unusual in the way our Park system is managed, and that it has a negative impact on all aspects of the Park.

1.The Management Team barely has a chance to get to know the Park employees, which can not be good for moral. PThis This study shows that the NPS ranks close to the bottom of all federal agencies in terms of job satisfaction.

2.The Management Team barely has a chance to get to know the nuances of the Park itself.  What makes Olympic special compared to parks in the Pacific and Florida when our two most recent Superintendents have come from?

3.The Management Team barely has a chance to get to know the nuances of the communities surrounding the Park.  A tuned in leadership team would know the importance of winter access to Hurricane Ridge and work to embrace the passionate support of it's supporters.  And those needs pale in comparison to the relationships with the Tribes surrounding ONP.  Those relationships take time to build and time to maintain.

4.The need to constantly move every five years or so to advance in the NPS self selects people that are willing to sacrifice family and community for career advancement.  Are those the people we want in leadership? In the above referenced study the NPS scored 38.3 out of 185 in the "family friendly culture and benefits" category.  That is incredible for a service whose existence is to bring families together.

5.Unlike other high turnover professions, such as coaching, the new leader does not get to bring in their own team.  Therefore, the duration of the tenure of all these individuals is spent working out the roles and strengths of each member of the team.

6.National Parks are not widget factories, where a solution that worked in X park can be applied in Y.  In fact, I have heard that several times in talking with ONP officials about other parks that keep their winter roads open.  Yet, that seems to be the point of moving leadership around- to standardize management decisions and processes.

7.It causes decisions to be made based on their effects on career advancement rather than what is best for the Park and Community.

8.Good Park employees that opt out of career advancement for community or family values are marginalized in decision making.

Many thanks to Stormking for posting the park's 'rationale'.  I don't find his analysis of NPS management shortcomings to be a "rant" at all, it's mostly right on.  I'd like to offer some elaboration on his numbered points:

1.  The low 2009 job satisfaction score is not just an anomaly; the employee comments on these newer threads are quite revealing about continuing poor NPS management nationwide: 
2010:  www.nationalparkstraveler.com/2010/09/be...ed-still-far-top6511
2011:  www.nationalparkstraveler.com/2011/11/na...es-work-rankings9091

Recently, a plant operator, claiming insufficient training, spilled 200,000 gallons of sewage at Rainier and was forced to resign and face legal charges.  Compare that to the management double standard appled to the previous Rainier superintendent, who accepted a six-figure bribe from a concessioner and was promoted to head Grand Canyon!   

2.  It's not just management's lack of time at a park that skews employee relations in the NPS.  The whole management structure continues to seem upside-down to me.  Instead of monitoring and supporting the levels below them, each level of management (and there are plenty) is consumed with trying to fill the eye of the manager above them.  This goes on all the way to the top, where the Director's office spends tens of millions of dollars lobbying Congress for more money.

4.  Quite a few of these careerists are also willing to sacrifice the goodwill of the public and even the integrity of the park itself to placate their primitive primate need for status.  The accompanying widespread bureaucratic back-stabbing doesn't improve employee relations either.

5.  On this point I must disagree somewhat.  All park superintendents have discretionary spending authority outside the operating budget.   The number of employees is theoretically limited by the budgeted FTE's (Full-Time-Equivalents).   In practice, vacant positions are sometimes left unfilled for years and the money applied to bringing on a posse of Assistant this & Deputy that on 'temporary' assignment details from other parks (often with high-roller travel per diem).  This dovetails well with the agency policy of transferring fallen high-priests to another parish.  This posse usually spends its time disrupting the operations of the normal chain of command in its new park.

Definitely sad news.

I was up with  my daughters on a backpacking trip at Moose Lake and Grand pass when I met a fellow skier.  She let me know of the A frame and that it had been destroyed.

I felt sad.  I'm new to the area and had vaguely heard something about it.  Sad I will never get to have the experience.

I'm all for supporting whatever efforts there are to help improve access while respecting wilderness.

Hey Dan, I am the one that met you out at Moose Lake and told you about the Cabin...I have not forgotten the feeling I had that day that I discovered it had been removed. What I can say is that we have a full force effort to not only replace it but a whole system of back country huts to be installed. The park has said no for too long so we are ready to speak up about the demands of the visitors of the park and how we feel we can best utilize the non wilderness road corridor from Hurricane ridge to Obstruction point. Heck lets not stop there..might as well continue it to Deer Park ! The General Management Plan emphasizes huts as a means of encouraging and facilitating the use of trails and back country areas. This is in their plan, we are just asking for action now. Keep informed by joining Free Hurricane Ridge Face book and or blogspot !