Carbon River Seattle Times Article

[mr.radon]

Looks like the semi-random road wash out problem may get solved.

 

Building a better road to a Rainier treasure

 

Making it easier to get to the Carbon River Glacier on Mount Rainier is my kind of economic development. Washington's congressional delegation is finally working across party lines to seek the largest expansion of the national park in 70 years and improve public access to the iconic mountain. Complementing the efforts of elected officials are skilled activists and community leaders focused on the same outcome. The 3.5-mile hike to the glacier from Ipsut Creek Campground via the Carbon River entrance to the national park is an absolute delight. A modest 1,300-foot elevation gain ends at the smudged face of a glacier as rugged as the mountain. On the way, the trail moves in and out of inland rainforest, opens up for stretches along the Carbon River and dangles hikers over streams and waterfalls with log crossings and a terrific oh-no-please-you-go-first suspension bridge. The hike, however, is the end of the story. All of the heavy political lifting is away from the trail and miles back down a road that frequently washes out. Access through the park's less-visited northwest entry has long been complicated by road-destroying floods and a growing impatience with expensive repairs. In a typical cycle of destruction, the National Park Service spent $700,000 to repair the road only to see it wash out again. The solution is to expand park boundaries with an 800-acre purchase of land in the Carbon River Valley from the Marsh and Thompson families and Plum Creek Timber Co. Their interest, support and goodwill are key to assembling the property and making this work. Credit for moving this along in Congress goes to Rep. Jennifer Dunn, R-Bellevue. Her party standing and influence with House Resources Chairman Richard Pombo, R-Calif., has been essential.

Despite her substantial efforts, the legislation had been stranded for lack of support in the Senate. That was mercifully resolved last week when Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., offered to introduce a companion bill. The park would pick up another 3 miles of the Carbon River within its boundaries, and have the room to relocate vulnerable roadways. This is still a work in progress. Congress has to authorize the expansion. Next, the delegation's appropriators — Rep. Norm Dicks, D-Bremerton, Rep. George Nethercutt, R-Spokane, and Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash. — have to plug purchase money into the 2005 Interior Department budget. Nothing is easy. Dunn is retiring this year. And Nethercutt and Murray are Senate campaign opponents. For a handful of gateway communities to the park, this is too important to be a partisan issue. Enumclaw, Wilkeson and Carbonado see the expansion as part of a longer-range plan to attract more tourist dollars into their communities. Reliable park access is a foundation. Improved visitor facilities are the next logical step. The city of Enumclaw and community partners have plans for a dazzling welcome center on the park's west side. Helping to channel local enthusiasm on park expansion is Heather Weiner, regional director of the National Parks Conservation Association. She speaks with authority about Mount Rainier annually drawing 1 million visitors — who spend $30 million in surrounding communities — and generating 775 jobs. Her real strength is knowing how things work. A refugee from 10 years of environmental lobbying in Washington, D.C., Weiner can fit the pieces of the puzzle together: finding a partner to sponsor a bridge loan — Cascade Land Conservancy — if time is critical for the sellers between legislative approval and appropriation of the money; securing a good mix of business and community leaders to sign a supportive note to Cantwell. Weiner helps choreograph a dance of legislation, which features cities, chambers of commerce, tribal concerns, congressional relations, the National Park Service and the U.S. Forest Service. The original proposal started out as a 1,000-acre expansion, but was pared to 800 acres when the Muckleshoot Tribe expressed concern a portion of the land extended into the Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest, and impinged upon traditional tribal hunting land.

This has been a complicated but important effort: buying valued property in part to build a better road to get more people into a national treasure. Many good instincts are in play: civic-minded landowners, persistent politicians, skilled activism and sound investment of the public treasury.

See you at the glacier.

[Kiwi]

Cool. About time.

[rock-ice]

A step in the right direction. With any luck this will help alleviate the huge crowds on the south side.

[Fairweather]

Radon said:Looks like the semi-random road wash out problem may get solved.

 

Building a better road to a Rainier treasure

 

Making it easier to get to the Carbon River Glacier on Mount Rainier is my kind of economic development....

 

Radon,

 

Exactly how does this proposal "make it easier to get to the Carbon Glacier"? Do you consider permanently closing the Ipsut Creek Road to vehicles improved access? (See Tacoma News Tribune story below)

 

While I support the idea of protecting the (already ravaged by clearcuts) Carbon Valley west of the current park boundary, I must take exception to folks like those at The Seattle Times who gift wrap this proposal in enviro-speak bullshit. This proposal says nothing about a permanent solution to the road washouts along Ipsut Creek Road. It does not propose a bypass. It proposes closing the road at or near the current park boundary! This is not improved access. It is access reduction. The (now) 7 mile round trip hike to the suspension bridge will become a 17 mile march. And ten of those miles will be spent hiking along the decommissioned Ipsut Creek Road. Not exactly fun for the whole suburban, day-trippin' family!

 

I'll admit that I do like the idea of a new auto campground and a walk/bike-in only camp at the current Ipsut Creek site, and I would love to see parts of the Clearwater Wilderness included in this proposition, but I really can't tolerate this proposal being sold as "improved access" for hikers/climbers and the public at large. It clearly is not. I would strongly encourage people to wait, gather all the facts, and read the fine print before deciding whether or not to endorse this proposal.

 

 

 

Here is the Tacoma News Tribune story:

Support for expanding national park grows

 

BETH SILVER; The News Tribune

 

A plan to expand Mount Rainier National Park with 800 acres of old-growth forest and prime habitat for threatened and endangered fish and birds has gained another congressional supporter.

 

Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Edmonds) will formally join Reps. Jennifer Dunn (R-Bellevue) and Norm Dicks (D-Bremerton) next week when she files Senate legislation that would authorize the addition to the 235,625-acre park.

 

Dunn has long sponsored a House version of the same plan. It passed the House Resources Committee last fall, but never come up for a Senate vote. Now, with the support of Democrats Cantwell and Sen. Patty Murray (D-Shoreline), the proposal could gain ground.

 

Cantwell spokeswoman Charla Neuman said some Republican senators, opposed to national park expansions in general, still stand in the way. And the Bush administration has traditionally favored restoring existing National Park Service facilities over adding new land.

 

"It's definitely an uphill battle, but they look favorably upon environmental efforts that are bipartisan and regional," Neuman said.

 

Cantwell, who has scheduled a news conference today in Seattle to announce sponsorship of the park bill, will pitch the $4 million proposal mostly as a money-saver.

 

A stretch of Carbon River Road frequently washes out where a glacier-fed stream jumps its banks. Replacing the road costs the federal government $700,000 each time it happens, Neuman said. If the land were absorbed by the park, the road would be unnecessary. Instead, park officials would build a drive-in campground downstream and set aside Ipsut Creek Campground for hikers and bicyclists.

 

Some also fear that the pocket of land along the Carbon River, which includes one of the state's only inland rain forests, could be a target for developers looking to build homes. Two private land-owners own about half of the 800 acres, and Plum Creek Timber Co. owns the other half.

 

"It's obvious they are coming this way. If you drive up from the lower areas, you'll find homes on the hill, developments all the way up the edges of Carbonado," said one of the landowners, John Thompson.

 

All three landowners say they are committed to keeping the land from becoming a housing subdivision, and haven't been approached by developers in recent years. But a change in federal law would ensure its protection, said the other individual landowner, Sandy Marsh.

 

"We're not anxious to have a big fire sale to get rid of it, because we love it. This is our family home. We're willing to wait," Marsh said. Her family's 200-plus acres include old-growth forest, portions of the Carbon River and several creeks. It serves as home to 28 species of birds, elk, cougar, bobcats, brown bears and chinook salmon.

 

Conservationists say preserving the land in the park's confines would protect the habitat for threatened and endangered species of salmon, the northern goshawk, the spotted owl and the marbled murrelet.

 

Federal legislation is required to expand the park.

 

Another bill to pay for the land at an estimated $4 million, also is required.

 

The boundary change in the northwest corner of the park would be the biggest since 1931, when 34,000 acres were added to the park's eastern edge.

Edited February 28, 2004 by Fairweather

[Fairweather]

Here is more info: Representative Dunn's bill and Cantwell's press release. Neither one suggests that 'improved' access to Carbon Glacier is afoot. Dunn's bill mentions guaranteed access to Coplay Lake road which is the left turn-off just before you reach the current park boundary.

 

http://cantwell.senate.gov/news/releases/2004_02_20_rainier.html

 

http://www.house.gov/dunn/leg/108-1/HR265.pdf

[Norman_Clyde]

I agree that closing the road would not constitute improved access. But if the road is closed just short of the usual washout spot, it would not add much to the hike, as I recall. Before I decided whether to support the proposal, I'd want to know just how far back the trailhead would be set. As it stands, although the trail is a lot more gentle than most of the Paradise options, it's still a ways up there to the Carbon, out of reach of the majority of tourists (considering that the average visitor to Paradise never leaves the parking lot), though well within range for the average fit hiker.

[mr.radon]

My first impression was that the land purchase would allow the NPS to move the current road south and avoid the Carbon River flood area. Reading the new post it looks like the intent is to move the entrance/end of the road West. This would make sense since the washout occurs typically the last mile or so. I would not mind hiking the extra miles, it's a lot easier to rebuild or reroute a trail then a road. I can't think of a dumber place to have an access road then that one. Kinda like building a house on the beach. How much money needs to be wasted to save a few miles? Anyways, if they did move it back even two or three miles the area is so flat (flood prone) that the extra miles to get to the terminus of the Carbon wouldn't even be noticed. Maybe this would free up funds to get the West Side road open?

Edited March 1, 2004 by mr.radon

[Fairweather]

I like your thinking re Westside Road, but I remain skeptical. As far as Ipsut Creek Road, I seriously doubt that the NPS would provide a new trailhead anywhere close to the washout. This would necessesitate building a new parking area very near this low spot in the road. As they have done in the past, I suspect they will simply close the road at the current park boundary, five miles from the existing trailhead. You're right that it is stupid to keep spending money repairing the road, but please understand that two things stand in the way of a permanent solution: 1) Relocation of the road bed by even a few dozen yards would require years of environmental review and public hearings as the current road is in a narrow corridor surrounded by designated wilderness, 2) I may be wrong, but I believe that environmental mitigation is a big cost factor in the ongoing repairs. (I don't think $700,000 per year is an accurate figure regardless. It seems to me that this was the total cost on the last single repair done four or five years ago.)

 

I would also point out that adding new land to the park without the proposed improvements written in stone would constitute wishful thinking on the part of the public. Addition of this new 800 acres into the national park system before construction of a new campground within the revised boundary would likely raise the ire of the environmental crowd. I haven't heard if this new land would be designated wilderness.

 

With the park maintainence backlog supposedly in the millions, I am not sure that spending money on new land aquisition is the right priority at this time.

[Careless_Ev]

With the park maintainence backlog supposedly in the millions, I am not sure that spending money on new land aquisition is the right priority at this time.

 

That's a logical statement and I would agree with you. But I suspect that the NPS can get the money for the new land, but not necessarily for the maintenance.

[mr.radon]

Kinda makes you wish for another "Great Depression" so we can get a new CCC corps formed to (re)build the roads/trails/maintenance /ect.... (tongue in cheek)

Funny, when times were really bad we did so much (some of it not very environmentally friendly) with so little. In times of plenty we have a hard time doing anything?

I forget, is the topography an issue in moving the road south a few hundred yards?

Personally I like the small crowds on that side of the mountain. Economically it would be a huge boom for Carbondale and the county if more visitors had access to the area. Much nicer side then White River/Sunrise or even Paradise – maybe not Paradise.