[TR] Enchanted Valley Chalet - Trail 1/5/2014

[num1mc]

Looks like a cement foundation...

 

Concrete, newby

[num1mc]

And I wouldn't hazard a guess what the building is setting on. Could be piers, wood or conc.

[tvashtarkatena]

I don't think anyone mentioned the river after seeing that photo cuz it spoke for itself, no?

 

Has anyone seen those giant concrete jacks (as in the kind kids play with) that are going to shore up Hwy 20 along the Skagit near the blueberry farm? Google 'Core-loc' images. Weird and cool!

 

Just airlift a few of those into ONP with an as-yet-to-be-invented giant rocket powered helo. Problem solved.

 

If you're gonna get sued anyway, you may as well go HUGE.

 

Edited January 23, 2014 by tvashtarkatena

[RodF]

Original foundation was concrete mixed on-site in 1930. Ignar Olson packed in mortor on pack horses, and Tom and Glenn Criswell set river rock and would have mixed concrete using river gravel and sand on site. The 1983 restoration included foundation repair. Info is in its National Register of Historic Places listing.

 

Concrete foundation makes moving it easier - jack it up, slide some roller logs under, lay level ramp logs beyond, lay cable, set blocks, start pumping those grips hoists and away it goes. About 1/4 inch every few seconds as long as you can pump. (No, it's never that trivial or easy.. but it is possible.)

 

NPS analyzed a range of actions and was preparing an Environmental Assessment when the Chalet was last threatened in 2007. Among the options was moving the Chalet intact or in parts, and redirecting the river. Logs and rootwads already fallen by the river were moved by grip hoist across the side channel above the Chalet. Although in 2008 the river had swept these away, it had also returned to its previous channel, and in 2009 had incised itself more deeply into it. So the planning was put "on hold". But much thought has already been put into this. Park already has alternative plans and analysis which it can now update and consider. I expect we'll hear more in coming days.

 

re helicopter, every flight is subject to the appropriate level of NEPA review and can operate only during bird nesting "windows". But big picture is that dozens of Knaack boxes are airlifted into Olympic Wilderness each year, to SNOTEL stations, comm relays, ranger stations (emergency S&R supplies to both cabin and tent platform ones), trail bridge construction sites, etc. Flights are also made to monitor elk, mountain goat, fisher, marmot and other natural resources. Steel trail bridges are delivered on long-lines. My guess is that light helis fly at least a hundred shuttle flights or about one full week over the course of each year over Oly Wilderness. All administratively necessary - without it, we wouldn't have a functioning Park. However, use of helis to support repair of historic structures is much more sensitive... in limbo, essentially verboten due to the absurd Green Mountain Lookout court decision.

[num1mc]

... in limbo, essentially verboten due to the absurd Green Mountain Lookout court decision.

 

Thank you for the excellent summary, although I would characterize the project management of the Green Mountain site as equally absurd

[Hans_Blix]

Wow...

 

First off, thanks for posting everyone. I lived in that chalet for a summer in the 80's and am a better person for it! Like Fairweather, I camped there on my first backpack trip into the Olympics. The place is beyond awesome as everyone describes!

 

A few points. The building was available for emergency use as a shelter in the 80's, but you're right, the rangers were basically taught to discourage its use unless dire...

 

All the talk of Wilderness and Historic Preservation is good.... but... it seems to me that what matters MOST is political advocacy and $. That is what will get it protected in this tight budget environment we live in. Things that don't have these two things, get neglected. I bet the NPS wants to see this saved, and I'd also bet that they don't have the resources to save it (and do the NEPA and other compliance). Who knows, maybe this will bubble up and warrant an emergency response from the NPS??? It needs a campaign...

 

Which reminds.. I've just noticed this Wild Olympic Campaign... A number of my friends like it (to my chagrin) on face value. I would seriously seriously caution any support for further layers of protection like this on any lands within ONP or the National Forest (or any other National Park). I greatly appreciate and enjoy the wilderness and WSR designations - but my experience working w/ federal managers is that these laws can greatly (if not impossibly) complicate land management in areas that are for the most, ALREADY PROTECTED.

 

WSR and Wilderness laws will complicate, in negative ways, the management of public areas in parks like ONP - particularly as they are applied over historic buildings, trails and/or operations and modern uses. They create legal hurdles that are exceptionally challenging for the feds to plan for, and defend, particularly given the litigious and polarized environment we live in. Essentially, they will freeze agencies into inaction. So who loses - us. Adding WSR and Wilderness designations will require endless monitoring studies and limitless (i.e. virtually un-closeable) loopholes prime for law suit by anyone who doesn't like the management decision. They will not help the overall goals of protecting these areas while also providing access. It will lock everyone up in planning and study.

 

Of course this CHALET should be saved. It's not rocket science. MOVE IT! The Olympians and other volunteer orgs with the support and encouragement of ONP could get this done - I know it. But with all of the hand wringing and second guessing, this may wash down stream like our Dose and Westside Roads....

 

This shelter is a good example - if this were a WSR designated on this river, any possible saving of the shelter would basically be impossible. There is only going to be more and more and more of this as the climate change impacts hit our access roads, trails and other buildings.

 

We need flexibility. Not more rigidness.

Edited January 24, 2014 by Hans_Blix

[num1mc]

To be absolutely clear, the land covered by the "Wild Olympic" campaign is not in ONP, is not now Wilderness and does not promote the expansion of ONP.

[Fairweather]

Great post, Hans. One little point to clarify though: the Westside Road in Mount Rainier NP hasn't washed away. In fact, it is almost entirely intact. Only a small 100 foot section at Dry Creek is regularly threatened--and NPS staff in pickup trucks and quads easily cross this section and drive the length of the road regularly during the summer months. In fact, they did some significant (and unannounced?) regrading of about 1/4 mile above the washout just two years ago. The 1992 EA called for a 20-year "reevaluation" of the road's status once the South Tahoma Glacier was finished with its cycle of outburst floods. That would have been 2012, but to date this promise has not been kept, but it will supposedly be addressed in their next Master Plan. I think that's in 2016.

 

But back to the topic here: Save the chalet!!

Edited January 24, 2014 by Fairweather

[Hans_Blix]

I have to say that your statement isn't accurate. The Wild Olypics Campaign/proposal ABSOLUTELY does propose additional designations of WSR in ONP. See the link below of proposed rivers.

 

Don't kid yourself, making the entire East Fork of the Quinault a WSR sounds awesome on face value but is actually totally unneeded. Instead, it would give groups (say like Wilderness Watch) and others a formable tool to slow or prevent any restoration or repairs of structures within a quarter mile of the river (think roads-trails-bridges-CHALETS). And BTW, that depends on the current administration that's running the NPS/park. As an example, some parks w/ WRS designations allowing boating. Some don't. Some parks w/ Wilderness designations allow bolting, others remove them. Suddenly, land managers are fighting THESE battles w/ user groups or historic preservation types INSTEAD of working with them for common sense and financially more viable solutions!

 

Proposed WSR designations in ONP: http://www.wildolympics.org/forest_and_river_watersheds/wild_and_scenic_rivers

 

To be absolutely clear, the land covered by the "Wild Olympic" campaign is not in ONP, is not now Wilderness and does not promote the expansion of ONP.

[RodF]

The east fork Quinault has been determined eligible for Wild and Scenic River status. NPS regulations require eligible rivers be preserved identically to designated rivers. So Wild Olympics would have no impact on the future of Enchanted Valley Chalet or Graves Creek Road.

 

Money is not the issue here, either.

 

The Green Mountain Lookout decision is very much an issue. Veiled threat of lawsuit has already been issued if the Park tries to save Enchanted Valley Chalet, and more are surely coming.

 

(Aside: the problem with Wild Olympics proposal is that half the lands proposed do not meet the criteria of the Wilderness Act and are not eligble for designation. Half the rivers proposed do not meet the criteria of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and are not eligible for designation. All the eligible roadless lands must be considered for Wilderness recommendation in the upcoming Forest Plan anyway. Wild Olympics legislation is superfluous and over-reaching.

 

WO promoter Jon Owens finally admitted to me (paraphrasing) "Congress can ignore its own laws. If they say its Wild & Scenic or Wilderness, it is; W&SR Act and Wilderness Act are irrelevant."

 

Those who truly believe in Wilderness and in Wild and Scenic Rivers must oppose Wild Olympics.)

[Fairweather]

One last thing.

 

I would be in support of an amendment to the Wilderness Act . . .

 

I've been thinking about this a lot lately. On one hand, a radical "repeal the Wilderness Act" stance would open up a real can of worms that none of us, I suspect, want to eat. "Amending" the Act is a good idea, but since the 1964 Act has no sunset provision like most other environmental legislation, the original would, I believe, have to be repealed to move forward. Again, this could turn out badly. My thoughts might look something like this: Pass a new Act that looks exactly like the 1964 original--not a letter or semicolon out of place. But add a ten-year sunset provision at the end of new law--again, one just like most other environmental legislation already has. This would put the debate back into the hands of the people and we could have this new ten-year discussion through our elected representatives minus all the judicial (and administrative) nonsense that has made such a mockery of the original legislation.

[Fairweather]

(Aside: the problem with Wild Olympics proposal is that half the lands proposed do not meet the criteria of the Wilderness Act and are not eligble for designation. Half the rivers proposed do not meet the criteria of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and are not eligible for designation. All the eligible roadless lands must be considered for Wilderness recommendation in the upcoming Forest Plan anyway. Wild Olympics legislation is superfluous and over-reaching.

 

 

I agree 100%. Still, admissions criteria in the Wilderness Act didn't stop advocates for Wild Sky--or prevent gerrymandered additions around Mount Hood. I think many of our elected reps still truly believe that recreationalists and hard-core greens are on the same page. It's up to us to let them know this is, for the most part, no longer true.

 

Congressman Derek Kilmer was off to a good start--but it looks like he's going to get it wrong. (Page 6 seems to underline his support for Wild Olympics/Rivers).

 

http://kilmer.house.gov/sites/kilmer.house.gov/files/wysiwyg_uploaded/Olympic%20Peninsula%20Economic%20Development%20Initiative_3.pdf

 

 

 

 

Edited January 27, 2014 by Fairweather

[RodF]

Congressman Derek Kilmer was off to a good start--but it looks like he's going to get it wrong.

 

Where've you been the past week, Brian? Climbing, I hope! Kilmer reintroduced "Wild Olympics". It's been in all the newspapers.

 

He made tiny changes. They fail to address the major defects in the legislation, which are listed above.

[Hans_Blix]

The east fork Quinault has been determined eligible for Wild and Scenic River status. NPS regulations require eligible rivers be preserved identically to designated rivers. So Wild Olympics would have no impact on the future of Enchanted Valley Chalet or Graves Creek Road.

 

Hey Rod,

 

I think you're dismissing this much too easily.

 

If a WSR designation were added to the East Fort of the Quinault, there would be additional planning and legal hurdles that the NPS would have to meet if there were for example, a major flood that impacted park assets. Also, you are referencing NPS POLICY - which also mean - open to interpretation by each land manager - and also means - can be changed with a new administration.

 

Yes, the NPS 'should' manage the 'resource' to the highest protection, but it doesn't always have the resources to do this if it's not protected at a higher level, and it can choose to focus on other priorities. It acknowledges that managers must factor these choices into the management of park assets - meaning: are there available resources, budget, etc, in a world of many competing issues that may have higher (i.e. LEGAL) protections. The rivers in the park simply aren't under threat of dams or any development that would require the additional legal morass of the WSRA.

 

I also disagree with your assertion that it would not change the dialogue about lost or threatened infrastructure. Look at Yosemite Valley as the best example of WSRA gone awry. Nearly 15 years after a major flood - and the park planning is STILL tied up in litigation and political maneuvering and ALL BECAUSE of the Merced River is a designated WSR.

 

I suspect that the bill supporters and sponsors of the Merced's WSR designation never predicted that it would actually entail an extremely lengthy public debate, three major law suits, US House of Rep hearings, and a LOT of political wrangling for nearly 15 years in order to repair the damaged infrastructure to Yosemite Valley from the 1997 flood. In the meantime - the NPS has spent over 20 MILLION dollars planning and defending it's (now 3) different plans to restore/relocate/etc what was lost in the Yosemite in the 97 flood.

 

And what is being fought over - how the NPS manages the quarter mile corridor (i.e. much of Yosemite Valley) that is designated under WSRA law. Meaning - the fight is on (and has been) about parking spots, camping spots, swimming pools at the lodges, stores in the valley, ice skating, bike rentals and other visitors services that the public has enjoyed in Yosemite for nearly a century all because they are within the 1/4 mile boundary of the river. Suddenly, every rock and patch of earth is under debate about how it meets the criteria of WSRA, and if it protects and enhances the "Outstanding and Remarkable Values (ORV'S) of the river. BTW - those ORV's aren't determined by law, but later by land managers and other biologists/planners through a WSRA planning processes (THINK Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy).

 

At Yosemite, two organizations described as 'enviros' didn't like some of that stuff - or at least took issue with how the NPS wanted it, and thus successfully sued... And even today, they're still sorting it out in Yosemite Valley.

 

Additional designations will likely lead to a lot of nuanced legal battles used as proxy wars for larger political debates about access and human impacts and recreation on public lands. And I think the visitor to our public lands and the resource we wish to protect loose when these fights take on larger significance. If some group like wilderness watch or a local enviro that hates the chalet wanted, they could lock stuff up in court debating how thorough etc the NPS does anything. And I'm sorry, the NPS isn't that good at doing these things perfectly.

 

I love the protections, I do. But I've become very cautious about what they actually mean when legally and financially tested in today's world. Not to mention, what differing land managers feel about their interpretation.

 

But for Pete's sake, can we just save the chalet??!! And I'm sure a WSR designation will not help.

Edited January 29, 2014 by Hans_Blix

[RodF]

Good points.

 

The Wilderness Act does not need to be rewritten. In its Section 4(a)(3), Wilderness "shall in no manner lower the standards" of protection of a list of historic preservation laws, including the National Historic Preservation Act. The express legislative intent of Olympic Wilderness designation was to allow continued preservation of historic structures, and of Glacier Peak Wilderness to allow continued preservation of historic lookouts (in both cases, express intent entered into Senate Committee testimony by their sponsors).

 

Federal court judges have ignored this. Notably two recent rulings, on Olympic trail shelters and Green Mountain Lookout, both substantially "lower these standards" of protection.

 

The Wilderness Society advocates passage of the Green Mountain Lookout Heritage Preservation Act to restore the original intent of Wilderness, and rebuild the public trust and consensus in support of Wilderness. If you share this goal, contact your representatives urging their support.

 

And yes, this will help save the Chalet.

[Hans_Blix]

Rod,

 

In the article linked below, there is yet another example of how the additional land protections (Wildness) will be used as an argument to let the shelter go. This is from a notable wilderness and WSR advocate (and writer) - Tim McNulty. Also note that George Nickas from Wilderness Watch agrees in the comment section (and for those unfamiliar, George often, and successfully, sues the Government over such debates in Wilderness).

 

They see 'Wilderness' differently than what YOU may HOPE that they might see it (or THINK they should see it). They see (and use) the Wilderness Act (and I bet a WSR designation too) as an argument and tool to NOT save the chalet.

 

We live in a litigious age of land protection/conservation, where the threats to what we feel is important (maybe a lookout or shelter) may come from any side. Values change - trails and facilities and lookouts could be viewed by some as bad for wilderness. This seems like non-sense to recreation types, but it's real, and it's happening more and more on public land. Perhaps for good reason, but I suspect bedfellows will start fighting when they sit down to talk about subsequent washed out roads, trails, etc...

 

Here is Tim's piece on the Chalet in High Country News... I'm pretty darn sure Tim supports the additional Wilderness and WSR designations. Which makes me ask, is that really want you want Rod? Wilderness Watch and Tim McNulty arguing to remove more park infrastructure? Don't look to the Nat Historic Preservation Act to save you either...

 

http://www.hcn.org/wotr/a-wild-river-usually-claims-right-of-way

 

Good points.

 

The Wilderness Act does not need to be rewritten. In its Section 4(a)(3), Wilderness "shall in no manner lower the standards" of protection of a list of historic preservation laws, including the National Historic Preservation Act. The express legislative intent of Olympic Wilderness designation was to allow continued preservation of historic structures, and of Glacier Peak Wilderness to allow continued preservation of historic lookouts (in both cases, express intent entered into Senate Committee testimony by their sponsors).

 

Federal court judges have ignored this. Notably two recent rulings, on Olympic trail shelters and Green Mountain Lookout, both substantially "lower these standards" of protection.

 

The Wilderness Society advocates passage of the Green Mountain Lookout Heritage Preservation Act to restore the original intent of Wilderness, and rebuild the public trust and consensus in support of Wilderness. If you share this goal, contact your representatives urging their support.

 

And yes, this will help save the Chalet.

Edited February 25, 2014 by Hans_Blix

[RodF]

Which makes me ask, is that really want you want Rod? Wilderness Watch and Tim McNulty arguing to remove more park infrastructure?

 

George (WilderWatch) and Tim (Olympic Park Ass.) have been arguing (and when opportunity presents, suing) against preservation of historic structures in Wilderness non-stop for many years. Nothing you or I or anyone says will change their minds.

 

However, their arguments are mostly opinion, and their claims on legal principles are gross exaggeration or outright wishful thinking. Their two victories in court are actually very narrow (not broad as they claim) and required them to claim a procedurual fault in the NEPA process (arguable).

 

It is not true that, as McNulty claims, "the Wilderness Act trumps historic preservation in wilderness." These court cases do not change the decision whether an historic structure should be preserved, but how - that is, the minimum requirements decision. A good summary of this is in the Cultural Resources Toolbox.

 

The best resolution of this issue is for Congress to reassert it's original intent in creating and designating Wilderness, by passing the Green Mountain Lookout Heritage Preservation Act .

[BarefootJake]

Thought I would share a few photos and a short video clip to these forums. Shot around the 15th of March. Link

Edited March 24, 2014 by BarefootJake

[olyclimber]

Wow, it really is on the brink of going in.

[OlympicMtnBoy]

Thanks Jake, I liked seeing the inside pics from your earlier visit too.

[olyclimber]

Interesting development, related to the topic:

 

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2023324612_greenmountainlookoutxml.html

 

 

WASHINGTON — Congress has agreed to save the Green Mountain Lookout near Darrington in Snohomish County, permanently blocking a federal judge's order to remove the popular hiking destination in the remote Glacier Peak Wilderness.

 

A House voice vote on the issue Monday followed similarly expedited passage last Thursday in the Senate, where Democratic Sens. Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell secured unanimous support.

 

The congressional action marks the final word on a legal fight that began in 2010 when Missoula-based Wilderness Watch sued the U.S. Forest Service shortly after the agency rebuilt the crumbling 1930s-era lookout cabin.

 

The legislation now goes to President Obama, who has indicated support for the lookout.

 

The environmental group argued the repairs — which involved more than 60 helicopter flights and use of rock drills and other power tools where even bicycles are banned — violated a tenet of the 1964 Wilderness Act to preserve areas of nature largely devoid of the “imprint of man’s work.”

 

In March 2012, U.S. District Court Judge John Coughenour in Seattle found the Forest Service guilty of “substantive violation” of the Wilderness Act and ordered the lookout dismantled. But in response to the Forest Service’s arguments that removal would be worse than the offense, the judge gave the agency a chance to come up with another remedy.

 

The bill Congress passed is that solution. It prevents the Forest Service from removing the lookout unless it is deemed unsafe for visitors.

 

George Nickas, executive director of Wilderness Watch, said the vote sets a dangerous precedent by tailoring the definition of wilderness “to appease local constituency.” ...

[Fairweather]

This Congressional action sets a good precedent that puts the historic preservation language within the Wilderness Act on solid ground and puts to rest nonsensical claims made in this case and in others that "wilderness preservation trumps historic preservation." I think it's important to let both Cantwell and Murray know that their work was appreciated and I have sent letters to both expressing my gratitude. I hope others will do the same.

[Fairweather]

.

 

 

Edited May 23, 2014 by Fairweather

[JasonG]

Sanity appears to have prevailed: http://blogs.seattletimes.com/today/2014/08/crews-will-move-a-quinalt-river-chalet-with-mules-helicopter/

[olyclimber]