The Newsletter of the Alpine Lakes Protection Society (ALPS) 2015 Issue No. 1 Rick McGuire Pratt River valley now in Alpine Lakes Wilderness By Rick McGuire and Donald Parks Also in this issue: After over forty years of work because of difficult politics in the by the Alpine Lakes Protection US Senate. Low power hydro project threatens North Fork Snoqualmie...... 4 Society (ALPS), the Sierra Club Background and Early History Helicopter operations threaten and several other conservation thru 1976 Alpine Lake Wilderness...... 5 organizations, the Pratt River Yakima Plan update...... 6 valley and nearby areas are now The road to permanent protection for the low elevation State could expand motorized use protected within the Alpine in the Teanaway...... 7 Pratt valley, the center-piece of Lakes Wilderness. Parts of the Greenway National Heritage Area Middle Fork Snoqualmie and this legislation, has been long and Bill re-introduced...... 8 Pratt were also designated as twisting. The Pratt valley suffered Hansen Creek Vegetation Project Wild and Scenic Rivers. Our bill from a checkerboard pattern of Snoqualmie Ranger Districat...... 9 was included in the catch-all alternating federal and private ALPS and other groups file lawsuit “National Defense Authorization ownership resulting from the 1864 to stop ATV routes on Okanogan- Act (NDAA),” and signed into Northern Pacific Land Grant. The Wenatchee National Forest...... 10 law on December 19, 2014. This railroad subsequently sold its North Fork Skykomish road costs keep soaring...... 11 unusual vehicle was used to lands in the Pratt and many other ALPS obtains tax-exempt status...... 11 package our bill and a number parts of the Cascades New diversions & dams in Alpine of other lands and waters bills Continued on page 2 ALPINE Lakes Wilderness?...... 12 1 Pratt River valley now in developed a larger single- protect a number of unroaded unit Wilderness proposal that areas, including many that were Alpine Lakes Wilderness encompassed 374,342 acres. But contiguous to the designated Continued from page 1 many important places were Wilderness, many other areas were to Weyerhaeuser. Its subsidiary left out, so conservationists not protected, including the Pratt North Bend Timber Company worked out their own proposal. which was left vulnerable. logged lands in the lower and By 1974 ALPS and a coalition of The 1976 Legislation did middle Pratt, both private and conservation groups had proposed however set in motion a major National Forest sections, from the a 565,000 acre Wilderness effort to adjust the ownership 1920s through 1941. including more checkerboard pattern in the region, resulting in land and more forests than the an Alpine Lakes Land Exchange Early railroad-based logging Forest Service had proposed. was not very thorough, and much that was formalized in 1979 and This proposal by conservationists took several years to carry out. old growth survived. Low wood included the entire Pratt River prices during the Depression years Weyerhaeuser took advantage of and much of the Middle Fork the situation and exchanged out meant that only the best trees Snoqualmie area. were worth the effort to cut and of a number of significant areas haul out. Thus many areas were But when Congress finished including all of its holdings in the simply bypassed. Logged areas drawing final boundaries for the Pratt River Valley. were never artificially replanted, Wilderness in 1976, encompassing With the Pratt now entirely and have now grown back nicely 393,400 acres, the Pratt valley in federal ownership and Alpine into diverse, naturally regenerated, was not included. This was Lakes Area planning completed, mature second growth forest, because this forest was considered the Forest Service unveiled plans with many trees now more than 3 “high quality timberland”; it in 1987 for several massive timber feet in diameter and 150 feet tall. was in checkerboard ownership sales in the erstwhile North Bend The Pratt valley and much of the requiring additional funding for Ranger District that included Middle Fork are well on their way the legislation; and it had been the Pratt Valley. A major USFS to becoming old growth, “ancient cut only 30-40 years previously. sponsored field trip was held in forest” again. Although perhaps ALPS and its allies tried to include the Pratt in the late summer of not literally true, local legend has as much forest in the Wilderness 1987. ALPS swung into action, it that scrap iron from rails torn up as possible, but the politics of the forming a Pratt River-Middle after the Pratt logging went toward day were heavily influenced by the Fork Steering Committee, and building Admiral Yamamoto’s Kido timber industry, thus much low mobilizing widespread opposition Butai (mobile striking force) that elevation forest was excluded. to the new cutting plans. Then- attacked Pearl Harbor in Hawaii, Defending the Pratt 1977–2006 Congressman John Miller bringing America into World War introduced a bill to designate the Conservationists viewed II. Pratt as a Wild & Scenic river. the 1976 bill as a start toward Although it did not pass, broad Conservationist interest in this protecting the region, not the area started at least 50 years ago public opposition to roading and end. The recent legislation takes logging the Pratt eventually caused when a 334,000-acre Wilderness a big step toward finishing the proposal was developed to the Forest Service to back away job started in the 1970s. ALPS has from the plan. The Forest Service replace the Alpine Lakes Limited worked steadily to protect the Area that was established by the ended up with much more than forests surrounding the Wilderness it bargained for from its Pratt Forest Service in 1946. The North ever since it was established, Cascades Study of 1965, a joint sale proposal. After the sale was advocating for administrative stopped, Pratt defenders came to National Park Service and Forest protections, and supporting Service effort, resulted in an early the realization that the real prize purchases and exchanges to was not just the Pratt, but the Forest Service proposal to protect acquire critical private lands, such the Alpine Lakes area with a two- entire Middle Fork Snoqualmie as the checker-boarded sections valley itself. unit Wilderness of 195,000 acres in the Pratt valley, which are now that was mostly rock and ice. entirely in public ownership. During the development of the The Forest Service initiated Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie Forest Plan, The Forest Service prepared completed in 1990, protection of a study of the Alpine Lakes a management plan for the Region in 1971 and developed the Pratt was a high priority for the Alpine Lakes Area as directed environmental community. In fact management alternatives for the by Congress in 1981. While area. The study team eventually the Pratt generated more specific this plan did administratively calls for protection than any other
2 ALPINE area on the national forest. But the Final Push for the Pratt, Middle Fork Snoqualmie and Mt. Forest Service ignored these inputs 2007-2014 Si Natural Resource Conservation and continued to allocate the Pratt Areas just downstream on Ultimately, these outreach for road construction and timber state DNR managed lands. The efforts did bear fruit when cutting. combination of Pratt Wilderness Congressman Dave Reichert and Middle Fork NRCAs now But in April 1990 everything introduced an excellent bill to add includes what many believe to changed when the Jack Ward the Pratt and parts of the Middle be the largest extent of protected Thomas report on the northern Fork and South Fork Snoqualmie lowland forest in the Cascades. All spotted owl proposed major valleys to the Wilderness in 2007. of this is located less than an hour areas of national forest land After the passage of Wild Sky east of Seattle. in Washington, Oregon, and in 2008, Senator Patty Murray California to be withdrawn took up the cause, introducing a ALPS wishes to thank those who from timber production. This revised bill in the Senate, adding took the lead to protect the Pratt, proposal included the Pratt the Middle Fork Snoqualmie especially Senator Patty Murray, Valley, and it was listed in every River as a Wild and Scenic River. Congressman Dave Reichert, and major subsequent owl study. Reichert and Murray were later Congresswoman Suzan DelBene. The pressure to log the Pratt was joined by Suzan DelBene after Many others played important greatly reduced. the 2010 redistricting placed the roles also, including King County The Middle Fork is the closest Pratt-Middle Fork area into the Councilman Reagan Dunn, and mountain valley to Seattle, but by new First Congressional District Neil Strege, in his capacity as a the late 1980s it had degenerated which she now represents. The staffer first with Congresswoman into a sort of mountain slum. three worked as a strong and Jennifer Dunn and later with Shooting, dumping and vandalism effective team to gain passage of Councilman Reagan Dunn. Strege gave it a well-deserved reputation this legislation. took an interest in the Middle Fork and was the right person in the as a place to avoid. But ALPS The bill passed the House, right place to take the initiative members and others formed the and passed the Senate, but never in catalyzing the whole process. Middle Fork Outdoor Recreation in the same Congress until 2014, Other conservation groups helped Coalition (MidFORC,) and began when it finally made it through immensely in this final push, most a campaign to “take back” the the House Resources Committee, notably the Sierra Club, American Middle Fork and make it a place followed by Senate passage in Whitewater, and Washington Wild, that people could safely enjoy. For December, when it was attached to whose conservation director Tom over 25 years, ALPS and MidFORC the NDAA, a “must pass” catch- Uniack managed much of the day have been working to further all bill thousands of pages long, to day campaign work over the consolidate public ownership in to which all kinds of non-defense- seven years the bill was in play. the Middle Fork, close off spur related measures were added. roads and clean up the messes left Some provisions, like the Pratt, Much work remains in the by vandals. In addition, work was were excellent, while others, like Middle Fork and the remainder done to get a new campground the transfer of many thousands of of the Snoqualmie watershed. A built, trails constructed, and the acres of old growth forest out of detailed management plan must Middle Fork road paved. Today’s Alaska’s Tongass National Forest be developed for the Middle Middle Fork is far different than it were harmful. In addition to the Fork and Pratt Wild and Scenic was 25 years ago. Pratt Wilderness, the bill also Rivers, requiring significant public Adding the Pratt valley to the designated Illabot Creek in Skagit involvement. There are unroaded Alpine Lakes Wilderness has long County as a Wild and Scenic River. lands that are not inventoried and in need of protection. Paving of the been a priority for ALPS and its Passage of the bill closes a Middle Fork road will mean a huge allies whose members kept the chapter for ALPS after more than increase in visitation. Many more idea alive and worked to inform four decades of work. Of particular trails and facilities are needed. and educate Congressional note is the roughly 5,000 acres ALPS will continue to work with members and staff about its of low-elevation mature second- land management agencies and desirability. These outreach growth forest now protected in the others to promote appropriate, efforts started in the 1980s with Pratt and Middle Fork Snoqualmie, low impact development in the Congressman Rod Chandler following the inclusion of about Middle Fork, with special emphasis whose eighth district encompassed 6,000 acres of similar forest in Wild on forest and wildlife habitat the Pratt at that time. But no result Sky. Also worth noting is nearly protection. The job in the Middle was produced from these first 25,000 acres of forest protected Fork is far from over. conversations. in the immediately adjacent
ALPINE 3 Low power hydro project threatens North Fork Snoqualmie By Rick McGuire ALPS believes that there is no need to dam up and divert the last of our free flowing streams for the sake of a few unneeded kilowatts. As their name implies, low power hydro projects produce little energy compared to the harm they do. Proponents, including backers of this one, always use wildly optimistic “nameplate” ratings, touting how much power might be generated during the small amount of time at high river flows when a project might be running full tilt. And even when such projects can run at maximum, it is when all other hydro facilities are running at capacity and there is no need for additional power. This particular proposal flies in the face of several protective designations. The section of the North Fork that would be dewatered forms the extreme northwestern boundary of the Mt. Si NRCA. Land southeast of the river (left bank) is within the NRCA and land northwest of the river (right bank) is mostly part of the Hancock Snoqualmie Tree Farm. The state Department of Natural Resources (DNR) owns the beds of navigable rivers. This section of the North Fork is run by kayakers, so it is a navigable river, owned by DNR and part of Katie Woolsey, DNR the NRCA. The project proponents Looking downstream in North Fork Snoqualmie canyon, seem to have a curious disregard for the fact that the North Fork is Mt. Si beyond. within the NRCA. ALPS believes that NRCAs were established for conservation, not hydroelectric The North Fork Snoqualmie running about 1.4 miles, bypassing development, and views this as an river is under threat from a low what is variously called “Ernie’s important test case. power hydroelectric proposal Canyon” or “Moon Gorge” at calling itself “Black Canyon Hydro the extreme northwest corner The Federal Energy Regulatory LLC.” The project, currently under of the Mt. Si Natural Resource Commission has just licensed review for licensing by the Federal Conservation Area (NRCA). ALPS two similar projects not far Energy Regulatory Commission and other conservation groups are from this one, on Calligan and (FERC) would divert water out opposing the project. of the North Fork and into a pipe Continued on next page
4 ALPINE Helicopter operations threaten Alpine Lakes Wilderness By Rick McGuire
The U.S. Army at Joint Base right on the border of the Alpine regarded as an epic boondoggle Lewis-McChord has announced its Lakes Wilderness. by many defense observers. So intention to begin greatly increased These flights would mean that far, V22s have been used by the helicopter training operations in the Alpine Lakes Wilderness and Marines rather than the army. the Cascades. Formerly confined other areas will be far less tranquil ALPS and other organizations mostly to Colorado, the army than in the past. Helicopters are very concerned about the claims these operations need to be are not quiet machines, and potential impacts to the Wilderness expanded and that the Cascades will produce a lot of noise and and the rest of the Cascades. In offer the right kind of terrain vibration merely flying over the July we sent an ALPS letter and suitable for training crews for Wilderness and nearby areas. also co-signed a joint letter to the operations in far flung corners of Large, double rotor Chinook Army acknowledging the need the world such as Afghanistan. helicopters appear to be what to train our military personnel The flights will be numerous, they will be flying. It may be for battle, asking that Wilderness and could happen 365 days a year, possible that the V22 Osprey values be taken into consideration, at any time of day or night. Areas will also be used at some point, and that alternative mountainous on both sides of Lake Chelan are a breathtakingly complex and terrain away from Wilderness be proposed for landing zones. Of deafeningly noisy tilt wing used to meet the Army’s training special concern to ALPS is Icicle airplane-helicopter hybrid that needs. Ridge southwest of Leavenworth, has been plagued by problems, where a landing site is proposed suffered horrible accidents and is
suitable for new hydroelectric Hydro project, development, and which areas Continued from page 4 are not. This project will also be a test of whether those protective Hancock creeks, both tributaries designations mean anything. of the North Fork. There is also an existing project on Rachor Creek If the backers of this project nearby. So if this project were can build it where they propose to approved that would mean four build it in spite of multiple layers such installations within a few of protection for this reach of the miles of each other. No cumulative North Fork Snoqualmie, then effects have ever been considered there is little hope of stopping any – FERC looks at each project in such project anywhere. And with isolation. no one looking at the cumulative effects of these as one goes in This part of the North Fork here, one goes in there, the day Snoqualmie is designated as may not be far off when we find protected from new hydroelectric ourselves like Switzerland, with development by the Northwest majestic mountains but where Karl Forsgaard Power and Conservation Council, virtually every stream is diverted the regional power planning into a pipe. There is no shortage New Wilderness sign on the entity established by Congress of electricity and absolutely no Pratt Connector Trail. in 1980. NWPCC’s designations need for that to happen here. do not carry force of law, but This project needs to be stopped. they are the only effort so far to ALPS is committed to keeping the look at the region as a whole and cascades in the Cascades. plan for which areas might be
ALPINE 5 Yakima Plan update By Karl Forsgaard
ALPS and other conservation proposed IP instream flow aug- In March 2015, ALPS groups are continuing their mentation result in the following submitted comments on the active opposition to the most estimated out-of-stream net 842-page Draft EIS for two I-90 destructive parts of the Yakima present value and B/C ratios, none components of the Yakima Plan, Basin Integrated Plan. A significant of which passes a B-C test”: the Kachess Inactive Storage recent accomplishment has been • Bumping Lake Expansion: Benefit/ Pumping Plant and the Keechelus- the State Legislature’s funding of a Cost (B/C) ratio of 0.18 [i.e. a to-Kachess Conveyance (a.k.a. benefit-cost study of Yakima Plan return of 18 cents on the dollar] K-to-K Pipeline). In April, Kittitas component projects, including County commissioners met with proposed irrigation dams. This • Wymer Dam and Reservoir: B/C Lake Kachess residents to discuss was necessary because the U.S. ratio of 0.09 [i.e. a return of nine their opposition to these projects. cents on the dollar] Bureau of Reclamation had refused By late spring, low snowpack to prepare a benefit-cost analysis • Keechelus to Kachess Conveyance: in the Cascades was bringing under the federal Principles and B/C ratio of 0.20 [i.e. a return of increased attention to the water Guidelines for each water project 20 cents on the dollar] supply. On June 25, Senator Maria in the Plan. The State-mandated • Kachess Drought Relief Pumping Cantwell introduced S.1694 in study has now been completed, Plant: B/C ratio of 0.46 [i.e. a the U.S. Senate, including some and it identifies those projects return of 46 cents on the dollar] troublesome language (later in the Yakima Plan that are not deleted) about implementing the The public cannot afford to economically sustainable. 2012 Yakima Plan “in its entirety,” subsidize new water projects that The Legislature directed despite everything we’ve learned don’t make economic sense. that the study be conducted by since 2012. As the Seattle Times the State of Washington Water Meanwhile, State Senator reported, conservation groups Research Center (SWWRC). Jim Honeyford (R-Sunnyside) and impacted homeowners Established by the U.S. Congress introduced SB 5628 to create a were not invited to testify at the in 1964, the SWWRC is one of $3.8 billion grant program to July 7 Senate hearing on S.1694. 54 water research institutions or fund irrigation water storage Fortunately, mark-up of the bill centers in the United States. The and flood control projects. It was postponed while ALPS, Sierra Water Resources Research Act provided that in ranking projects Club, Kachess homeowner groups Program is administered by the for grants, Ecology “shall prefer and other critics of the Yakima U.S. Geological Survey under the projects that are consistent with Plan worked with Senate staff to general guidance of the Secretary or designed to implement an begin revising the bill, including of the Interior. SWWRC’s Director, integrated plan, as defined in RCW more explicit provisions that Jonathan Yoder, is a respected 090.38.010” (which specifies the authorizations and appropriations Professor of Economics in the WSU Yakima Plan). The funds would for future components would School of Economic Sciences. be raised with a new statewide be contingent upon feasibility, property assessment ranging The SWWRC report mandated environmental reviews and cost- from $35 on a single-family home by the State Legislature was benefit analyses. In the process, we on less than one acre to $375 for released December 15, 2014, and were informed that Yakima Plan a commercial property on more can be reviewed at: proponents are no longer seeking than five acres. The bill provided federal funding for the Lake http://swwrc.wsu.edu/ that the assessment would be Kachess and K-to-K components, documents/2014/12/ybip_bca_ submitted to voter approval in a and will seek private funding for swwrc_dec2014.pdf statewide referendum. However, them, so the bill would allow the The SWWRC report concluded the bill was not passed by the 2015 federal Bureau of Reclamation that most Yakima Plan storage State Legislature. In June, a guest to accept private funds for them. components miserably fail a opinion in the Seattle Times by State The bill would also extend federal benefit-cost test: Rep. Hans Dunshee said “While funding begun in 1979 and 1994 the Yakima plan nobly creates a statutes for fish passage and “Based on moderate coalition of interests, it lacks a conservation projects. On climate and market outcomes, funding plan other than to ask storage infrastructure projects state taxpayers for more.” implemented alone and without Continued on page 11
6 ALPINE State could expand motorized use in the Teanaway By Dave Knibb
The state has bought and now manages private timberlands in the Teanaway. This may sound like progress, but questions remain over how good a neighbor this new “Teanaway Community Forest” will be to the adjoining Alpine Lakes. Why did the state buy these lands? One view is that this 50,272-acre Community Forest was created to protect habitat, water supply and fish under the Yakima Basin Integrated Plan because the private owner planned to convert much of the area to non-forest uses (and any future private owner would likely do the same). Another view, expressed Karl Forsgaard by Rick McGuire last year in a Motorcyclist on trail at Reiter Forest. previous edition of Alpine – is that are often full, and during holidays federal agencies are evaluating the purchase was a tradeoff or and hunting season they overflow. how to recover grizzlies in the some form of mitigation for raising These take some of the pressure Cascades, areas such as this will Bumping Lake, as part of the off adjoining national forest assume new importance. Yakima Plan. The 2013 state law lands including the Alpine Lakes authorizing the land acquisition Boise Cascade owned and Wilderness. contained a “poison pill” – it managed the Teanaway Forest as a gave the Department of Natural For our furry friends who don’t tree farm for decades. As a result, Resources (DNR) authority to read signs, the Teanaway Forest is most of this forest is now in second sell the Community Forest (or simply part of a seamless habitat growth. Ten years ago Boise downgrade it to common school stretching from the ponderosa pine Cascade sold all its timberlands trust forestland) if 114,000 acre- lowlands, up through the hills to in the Teanaway. American Forest feet of Yakima Plan water storage the alpine crests along the Kittitas- Holdings became the new owner. projects are not permitted and Chelan county line. Like few other Boise Cascade’s policy was to financed by 2025. places in the Cascades, this is a gate all logging roads to keep out land for all seasons. The south- The state paid $97 million off-road vehicles (ORVs) except facing, low elevation Teanaway for these lands. Now DNR and on three trails. American Forest Forest with its natural cover and the Department of Fish and continued that policy and, so far, freedom from development is Wildlife (WDFW) manage them the state has too. Despite a few critical winter and spring range as Washington’s first “community trespassers, the Teanaway Forest for elk, deer, wolves, and other forest.” has remained quiet, and the wildlife. wildlife, less troubled than some of This area is the front lawn When the Interagency Grizzly us by logging, like it. But now loud for one of the most popular Bear Committee designated the ORV advocates want to open up gateways into the Alpine Lakes. North Cascades (including the this area to motorized trail bikes. The Teanaway Community Forest Alpine Lakes) as a grizzly bear Language authorizing purchase attracts a lot of use in its own right recovery area, it worried aloud of the Teanaway land specifically with horse and mountain bike about the shortage of unoccupied allows snowmobiling – the extent riders, hunters, and fishermen. On spring range. The Teanaway is of it yet to be decided. But the weekends the campgrounds at 29 one of those few places. Now that Pines and Teanaway West Fork Continued on page 15
ALPINE 7 Greenway National Heritage Area Bill re-introduced Karl Forsgaard
Bipartisan legislation was create a voluntary framework for through partnerships between re-introduced in June 2015 to stakeholders to better fulfill their private and public entities. designate the Mountains to Sound missions, to increase the visibility • Create a branding campaign Greenway as a National Heritage of the Greenway and conserve the for the Greenway to increase Area (NHA). Senate bill 1690 was landscape for future generations. tourism. introduced by Senators Maria NHA designation would do the Cantwell and Patty Murray, and following: • Increase the visibility of the House bill 2900 was introduced by communities in the Greenway • Encourage interagency through an enhanced sense Congressmen Dave Reichert and collaboration on trails with Adam Smith. of place, history and natural multiple land owners for heritage. The NHA bill had been maintenance and signage. introduced in the prior session of The Greenway encompasses • Allow ecological restoration 1.5 million acres from the Seattle Congress, and had moved out of across multiple jurisdictions, committee in both houses, but at waterfront to Ellensburg, including property owners, and the southern half of Alpine Lakes the end just missed being included watersheds. in the final lands package that Wilderness (the Snoqualmie and enlarged Alpine Lakes Wilderness • Enable agencies to share staff, Yakima River watersheds of the in December 2014. such as a wildlife biologist or Wilderness). For a map and more conservation corps crews. information, see the Greenway NHA designation will • Allow cost sharing for things Trust’s webpages on the NHA: not impact any current legal http://mtsgreenway.org/heritage structures, and does not provide like trailhead gate locking and for acquisition or transfer of any unlocking, or shared bathroom lands. It does not affect private maintenance at nearby Olallie meadow view of property, water, hunting, or trailheads. Granite Mountain and Denny fishing rights. Its intent is to • Enhance funding opportunities Mountain.
8 ALPINE Hansen Creek vegetation project Snoqualmie Ranger District By Don Parks
The Forest Service was understood to have modified and reduced the cutting plan in Unit 16 near the Ira Spring Trail (T1038). However, much of the cutting continues to be planned for the general area of the Ira Spring Trail (see Final EA Figure 8, map 2 of 10). A review of the ‘fine print’ in the Decision Notice reveals that only the logging system was changed (from uphill skyline to down hill skyline) in only unit 16w, so that the trail would not be temporarily used to conduct this sale. Altogether, a sad business.
Don Parks For Reference ALW Additions in the South Fork of the Snoqualmie River in From Decision Notice Dated the Granite Mtn-Bandara Mtn area. The lower slopes, heavily 3Aug15 the USFS, the final selected forested, were parts of the ALW Additions that would have alternative will differ from the been logged in the Hansen Creek affair if they did not end up “Alternative 4 in the Final EA the the Wilderness. dated 23July2015”: First, Units 18.1 and 18.2 will not be treated as a part of this In August 2015, the USFS as 7 mmbf, so this single sale decision. These stands are adjacent arrived at its final decision on represents nearly five years of PSQ to the Pratt Lake Trailhead and the massive, and massively volume. Trail. As the units would be dropped controversial, Hansen Creek In the end, the final decision in their entirety, all logging and timber sale (so called Vegetation deleted the most controversial transportation systems specifically Project) in the sensitive I-90 cutting units (Unit 18.1 and 18.2) meant to access these stands would Corridor west of Snoqualmie Pass. that were located along the Pratt no longer be necessary. (Emphasis The sale calls for the logging of Lake & Granite Mountain Trail added.) about 33 million board feet (mmbf) (T1007/T1016). This area also Second, the end of Forest Service of trees from about 1000 acres. This included forest stands well over Road (FSR) 9031, Ira Spring Trail (a intensity of cutting, described by 100 years old, hardly candidates dual-purpose road/trail), would not be the USFS as “thinning” amounts to for “thinning.” about 30,000 board feet of timber used for harvest activities. The logging per acre, virtually the same as So basically, the Forest Service system for Unit 16w would change clear cutting by any standard. It wised up, in a small way at from uphill skyline (to the road/trail) should also be pointed out that least, by dropping its plan to cut to downhill skyline (to nonsystem 2/3’s of this volume will come from delightfully old, big tree forest road 16t). If some portion of Unit Northwest Forest Plan Riparian right along a heavily used trail. 16w cannot be accessed by skyline, Reserve, a land allocation not Let’s hope that they continue in it would be accessed by helicopter, originally intended for to produce this vein and reconsider whether, instead. The Ira Spring trailhead significant timber volumes. The at a time when almost every real would still be used for harvest entire Mount Baker-Snoqualmie need is going unmet. it is wise to activities, including but not limited National Forest ‘Probable Sale put so much of their dwindling to expansion of the adjacent Quantity” (PSQ) is documented resources into a timber sale like rockpit and decking of timber. this. (Emphasis added.) ALPINE 9 Alps and other groups file lawsuit to stop tA v routes on Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest
ALPS, along with Kittitas Audubon Society and the Sierra Club, filed a lawsuit on June 30 in federal court in Seattle, in hopes of reversing an outrageous Forest Service plan to open up 350 miles of Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest roads to wheeled all-terrain vehicle (WATV) use. These roads have until now always been closed to off road vehicles (ORVs) such as dirtbikes and ATVs. This far reaching decision by the Forest Service was made outside the public eye, and outside of all established procedures. If allowed to stand, it will convert huge areas of the Okanogan Wenatchee
National Forest into unrestricted Karl Forsgaard and unpoliced ORV playgrounds, Lake Wenatchee and Fish Lake from Entiat Ridge with horrible consequences for WATV Route. soils, wildlife, and peace and quiet. Until now, only certain trails roads newly opened to WATVs licensed drivers will be permitted and roads have been legally open were chosen to link up trails to operate WATVs on these newly to ORVs. ORV is a term that that were already open to ATVs, opened roads, but no one will includes two-wheeled motorcycles, creating large loops. It has been be checking. ORV riders are three- or four-wheeled all-terrain speculated that the Forest Service notorious for ignoring rules, yet vehicles or “quads,” as well as decision may have been partly the Forest Service says it will rely souped-up jeeps and “monster driven by WATV sale and rental on “volunteers” - ORV riders trucks.” With limited site-specific interests eager to sell or rent themselves – to monitor conditions exceptions, regular forest roads machines to neophyte riders. and report violators. Such a have generally been closed to Whatever the motivation, if situation would be laughable if these machines. This sudden and this decision is allowed to stand it it were not so worrying. How far reaching change by the Forest will mean huge changes across big long will it be before some WATV Service was done behind closed parts of the Okanogan-Wenatchee. rider, thinking he has stepped doors with essentially no public Places which have been quiet and into a real life video game, comes notice or input, and in complete peaceful until now will be quiet flying around a blind corner defiance of NEPA, the National no more. Just driving on forest straight into an oncoming car or Environmental Policy Act. It roads will become an entirely truck? Will the Forest Service, and was done entirely outside of the new experience as one will need thus the taxpayers, be liable for ten-year-old, broad and inclusive to watch out constantly for these allowing such an obviously unsafe Travel Management process which “thrillcraft.” The Okanogan- situation? was designed as the means to Wenatchee National Forest will be ORVs always create significant make such decisions. a very different place. adverse environmental impacts. Just why the Forest Service The Forest Service says it The whole point of “recreational” would make such a radical and cannot commit any funding ORV riding is to race around and destructive change to the existing to any kind of monitoring or tear up the land. It is all about rules is a mystery. Many of the policing. Supposedly, only Continued on page 11
10 ALPINE North Fork Skykomish road ALPS obtains costs keep soaring tax-exempt status The estimates just keep Plus, the river is pointed straight climbing for building a new, at another section of the road not roughly mile-long section of the far below where the new section Good news! The Internal North Fork Skykomish, or “Index would be built. Revenue Service granted tax – Galena” road, where it washed exempt status to ALPS under Snohomish County is falling section 501(c)(3) of the Internal away about five miles or so above farther and farther behind just the Town of Index in 2006. The Revenue Code. The IRS also maintaining roads and bridges determined that ALPS is a public latest unofficial number is a in places where people actually breathtaking $27 million dollars. charity under the Code. The live. For a long time it seemed that effective date of the exemption is Snohomish County now says providing quick, easy, and above work may happen sometime in the May 15, 2010; contributions made all, fast road access for the few after that date are deductible. decade starting in 2020. dozen cabins in the Galena area The original plan for a new trumped all other concerns. Could We are grateful to our long- road here called for a 40 mile-per- it be that the county has realized time treasurer and fellow board hour design speed and massive that spending nearly a million member, Frank Swart, for cutting and filling – a real highway dollars per cabin might not be the preparing the application and in every sense. Could it be that best use of dwindling tax dollars? diligently pursuing it through the Snohomish County and the The North Fork Skykomish is an 2½-year application process. Federal Highways Administration important recreational valley, with Thank you Frank! have begun to realize that maybe a number of trailheads. It remains it isn’t such a good idea to spend to be seen whether FHWA and the so much money on this one road county can ever get beyond their when there is an alternate route “massive highway or nothing” (via Beckler River and Jack Pass) mindset and look at a range of into the upper North Fork valley? alternatives.
practically no chance for the Lawsuit affected public to comment or even Yakima Plan Continued from page 10 know what they are up to. Continued from page 6 ALPS, the Sierra Club and operating a powerful, noisy August 18, ALPS, Audubon, other Kittitas Audubon were left with no machine, not about experiencing conservation groups and impacted alternative but to ask the courts to nature. ORVs degrade air and homeowners met with Sen. stop this destructive, illegal and water quality, and impair the Cantwell in Ellensburg to raise inexplicable move by the Forest ability of everyone else near them strong concerns that the Yakima Service. Look for updates in future to enjoy the sights, sounds and Workgroup does not comply editions of The Alpine. smells of nature. They can ruin with federal laws on advisory the experience of anyone else. September 23, 2015 update: committees, that the 2012 Yakima They also create safety hazards, Plan cannot be relied on as the As we went to press, the U.S. especially where they are mixed basis for future legislation, and Attorney said the Forest Service in together with cars and trucks that the 2012 Final Programmatic is not going to file an Answer to as the Forest Service is doing EIS did not comply with the the Complaint, and instead will here. ORVs cause destruction National Environmental Policy withdraw its action, and will soon wherever they go, and the Forest Act. announce that publicly. In other Service has just consigned a huge words, we won the lawsuit. Look part of the Okanogan-Wenatchee for more details in the next issue of National Forest to them, with Alpine.
ALPINE 11 New diversions and dams in Alpine Lakes Wilderness? Excerpted from Naiads blog by Rachael Paschal Osborn
Genesis of the Icicle Work question whether ecosystem Group benefits, including water quality improvements and The State Department of restoration of instream flows Ecology’s Office of the Columbia for endangered species, may River (OCR) is funding and only be achieved if new sponsoring proposals to increase water supply is provided for water diversions from seven Leavenworth (along with lakes in Alpine Lakes Wilderness other IWG goals). This in that flow into Icicle Creek: turn raises questions about Colchuck, Eightmile, Upper whether state and federal laws and Lower Snow, Nada, Upper (for example, Clean Water Act Klonaqua and Square Lakes. and Endangered Species Act In 2012, OCR funded Chelan permits) may be superseded County to form a “collaborative” by a stakeholder-based Icicle Work Group (IWG), collaborative process. ostensibly to solve instream flow problems in Icicle Creek while Overview of Alpine Lakes obtaining more water from the Water Projects system for out-of-stream uses. Three current The impetus for creating proposals relate to Alpine IWG comes from a City of Rachael Osborn Lakes: (1) Eightmile Lake Leavenworth lawsuit against Unlined Icicle Irrigation Ditch, with Restoration-Storage; (2) Upper Ecology regarding quantification artificial riparian zone from water Klonaqua Lake pipeline; and (3) Alpine Lakes Optimization- of the City’s water rights. That leakage. lawsuit is on hold while Ecology Automation. The latest consultant studies are on the uses the IWG process to attempt unknown); and Icicle Peshastin Chelan County website. to find water for Leavenworth. If Irrigation District (IPID)($25,000 the effort fails and the lawsuit per year for two years). OCR is IPID holds grandfathered moves forward, a court decision now seeking another $3.5 million easements and water rights to could undermine Ecology’s to fund IWG into the 2015-17 store and divert water from authority to quantify water rights biennium. the lakes. Leavenworth Fish that pre-date the 1917 water code. Hatchery (owned by US Bureau The statewide implications are IWG Goals of Reclamation, operated by US substantial; presumably Ecology In addition to finding water for Fish & Wildlife Service) also holds would prefer to settle and vacate Leavenworth, IWG goals include a water right for Snow and Nada the lower court orders. improving instream flows in Icicle Lakes. The scope of these interests Funding IWG Creek, making the Leavenworth is a matter for evaluation. National Fish Hatchery To implement Leavenworth sustainable, protecting tribal rights Alternative Conservation settlement efforts, OCR entered to fish at the Hatchery, improving Proposal into a $700,000 contract with water reliability for agriculture, Rather than divert additional Chelan County to run IWG and improving ecosystem health. water from Alpine Lakes and pursue water development Wilderness, water solutions All this must occur while projects. Chelan County for Icicle Creek could be found achieving compliance with state subcontracted with Aspect through more sustainable and federal laws, including the Consulting for investigations approaches. Approximately 117 Wilderness Act – no small feat. ($506,000); Dally Environmental cfs of new instream flow could Service for meeting facilitation IWG is a “quid pro quo” be added to a 6-mile length of ($16,000); Cascadia Law Group ($$ process. This raises the Icicle Creek (downstream of 12 ALPINE Snow Creek) by moving IPID’s dam, increasing pool level and/or Presidential approval to establish take-out point downstream to the drawing the lake down further. and maintain reservoirs within Wenatchee River. The original dam and control wilderness areas. Water conservation works for the lake have collapsed The appraisal study opportunities are substantial. and current usable capacity is hypothesizes that the easement Rather than looking to Alpine 1,375 acre-feet of water. language will allow and perhaps Lakes as the first option, the City The Eightmile Lake Storage even require the Forest Service of Leavenworth and other users Restoration Draft Appraisal to approve an expansion of should adopt an aggressive water Study (Nov. 2014) evaluates four Eightmile: “In performing conservation plan. These actions, options for increasing storage maintenance, repair, operation, combined with promoting water capacity: 2,000, 2,500 (2 options), modification, upgrading markets that facilitate selling and and 3,500 acre-feet. All four and replacement of facilities, trading water rights, could supply options include re-building the [IPID] will not without prior future water uses, but they have dam to its original height, or written consent of the Forest received minimal consideration. higher, as well as drawing down Service, which consent shall Eightmile Lake pool below its not unreasonably be withheld, Public Outreach & materially increase the size or Environmental Processes current, semi-natural outlet. The proposal is based on assumptions scope of the facilities.” Manipulating lake levels and about water rights and easements The proposal raises questions allocating new water rights from held by IPID, which actively about the scope of impacts on Alpine Lakes Wilderness could manages four of the Alpine Lakes riparian zones and wilderness be controversial. Although IWG to serve water to about 7,000 acres surrounding the lake, including was asked to create a Wilderness of orchards and converted lands in trails, campsites and other public subcommittee, that idea was the Wenatchee Valley. amenities. Eightmile Lake is one of eliminated without discussion in the more popular trail destinations December 2014. IPID holds water rights dating from 1926 to store water in Alpine Lake Wilderness, partly Chelan County held a in and divert from the lakes. because of its easy accessibility. public meeting in Seattle in The Eightmile Lake water right However, the Forest Service has 2013, and a similar meeting was adjudicated in 1929 at 2500 not yet provided a public position may be held in February 2015. acre-feet annual volume, and 25 regarding proposals to expand or Meanwhile, scoping under the cfs rate of diversion. However, draw down Eightmile Lake. State Environmental Policy Act the Eightmile dam collapsed (SEPA) will be scheduled for Upper Klonaqua Pipeline and IPID has not used the full Proposal spring or summer 2015. National (artificial) storage capacity for Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) many years. There are questions The Klonaqua Lake proposal processes are unknown at this about relinquishment of water involves installing a siphon time. rights over and above what IPID or pump or blasting a tunnel to In addition to Alpine Lakes needs and has used in the past. At drain Upper Klonaqua Lake into storage and water right proposals, a minimum, Ecology would have Lower Klonaqua Lake, detailed IWG is evaluating several other to issue water rights for new and in the draft Bathymetry and projects to improve instream flow increased uses. Topographic Survey of Upper Klonaqua Lake and Conceptual and habitat in Icicle Creek. There IPID holds easements that is also movement afoot by other Release Options (Aspect allow it to “store” water in several Consulting, Nov. 2014). water users in the Wenatchee Alpine Lakes, although the scope Valley to capture Icicle Creek of the easement for Eightmile IPID holds some form of water (including Alpine Lakes) water for Lake does not cover the entire rights and easements for Upper downstream uses. lake. As described in a Review of and Lower Klonaqua Lakes. IPID The ultimate “package” of Eight Mile Lake Storage Authority has never accessed water from projects will require public (Aspect Consulting, March Upper Klonaqua, and according scrutiny and input. 2014), IPID’s easements cover only to the report, has used only 1,600 a portion of the lake. acre-feet of its 1926 water right Eightmile Lake Proposal to 2500 acre-feet from Lower Any increase in storage capacity The Eightmile Lake Restoration Klonaqua Lake. Nonetheless, the would require U.S. Forest Service and Expansion proposal evaluates Upper Klonaqua study evaluates approvals. Section 4(d)(4) of the the ability to increase water storage the natural storage capacity of Wilderness Act of 1964 requires in Eightmile Lake by rebuilding a Continued on page 14
ALPINE 13 The original concept for the to continue its work for the next Diversions and study was to evaluate more biennium. OCR has indicated its dams efficient use of water and refill spending plans include moving Continued from page 13 rates. However, the scope of forward with feasibility and design the O/A Study has expanded to studies for the Eight Mile Lake include analysis of increasing and Alpine Lakes Automation/ Upper Klonaqua, including how storage at Snow and Eightmile Optimization projects. Also in much water could be obtained by Lakes. The study evaluates June, the Icicle Work Group drawing down the lake. increasing storage at Upper and proposed amendments to its Issues with this proposal Lower Snow Lakes by 5 feet and Operating Procedures, converting include that any new water drawing down Lower Snow by an to a majority rule decision process project in a wilderness area would additional 3 feet. The study also instead of the prior consensus- require approval of the U.S. Forest evaluates two options at Eightmile based approach, and prohibiting Service (and, according to the Lake. The first involves rebuilding litigation or public expressions of Wilderness Act of 1964, possibly the dam to its original height disagreement between Working the U.S. President). And because (adding 4 feet to current pool); the Group members. In other words, this proposal would increase second adds another 1 foot above Work Group members are now diversion from the Klonaqua that. Both options also evaluate required to support Work Group Lakes, Ecology would have to lowering the Eightmile Lake outlet decisions, without legal recourse evaluate relinquishment, and issue by 19 to 22 feet below current or the opportunity to publicly state new water rights to accomplish the drawdown levels. dissent. As a result, CELP resigned goal. Neither the Forest Service nor The O/A Study then from the Icicle Work Group in Ecology has expressed opinions evaluates the water supply July, and will pursue other efforts yet about the viability of these opportunities should six of the to protect Icicle Creek. As we went proposals. seven lakes be fully drained each to press, the Work Group was reportedly deciding which “base Alpine Lakes Optimization/ year. (At present, IPID diverts on a Automation Proposal rotating basis from the four lakes package” of projects will go to to which it holds rights.) SEPA/NEPA scoping and which The current IPID and will require additional feasibility Hatchery diversion methods are The proposals to install work. primitive: drain holes and gates at automation equipment, the lakes are manually opened and manipulate lake levels, and closed at the beginning and end of increase diversions from the lakes the irrigation season by IPID and seem likely to require approvals Hatchery staff who hike into the from the U.S. Forest Service Wilderness. and the State Department of Ecology. To date neither agency The Alpine Lakes Optimization has indicated their positions and Automation Appraisal regarding these proposals, Study (O/A Study)(Aspect although as discussed above, Consulting, Nov. 2014) evaluates Ecology’s OCR has provided the potential to install telemetry substantial funding to study new equipment at each of the seven dams and diversions from the lakes to allow IPID and the Alpine Lakes. Hatchery to remotely control the water release structures from their offices. Rather than uncontrolled August 22, 2015 update: drainage, automation would allow the water users to fine-tune the The above article was posted quantities of water they remove online as a 4-part blog on from the lakes to meet both January 7, 2015. In June, the State consumptive use and instream Legislature included the Icicle flow requirements. This would Creek integrated plan in the capital increase efficiency and potentially budget, which means the Icicle drain the lakes. Work Group will be fully funded
14 ALPINE The statute authorizing the state buys private lands. True, State could purchase of the Teanaway directed in recent years the legislature has expand Teanaway the state to adopt a management shortchanged this program. But plan that includes “recreational opening the Teanaway Forest to motorized use opportunities consistent with ORVs is a dubious solution to the Continued from page 7 watershed protection for activities legislature’s failing, and a clear such as hiking, fishing, hunting, case of how two wrongs don’t state is also considering whether horseback riding, camping, make a right. to open the area to motorized trail birding, and snowmobiling.” It Understandably local officials bikes – a use not mentioned in also directs the state “to conserve the statute. To the wildlife who want compensation for lost tax and restore vital habitat for fish . . revenue. But they should insist depend on this habitat, this is not . and wildlife, including deer, elk, good news. that the state fund the PILT large predators, and spotted owls.” program. That is what it’s for. That And it would affect lands It does not explain how to balance is not what the Teanaway Forest is within the Alpine Lakes itself. these conflicting mandates. for. ORVs already use the Middle and With the help of a citizen The new management plan for West Fork Teanaway within the advisory committee, the state national forest. If the state-owned the Teanaway Forest leaves open has now adopted a management two big questions. How much Teanaway Community Forest plan. But it defers until later the allows trail bikes too, the entire snowmobile use will the state critical questions about motorized allow? And will the state also region could become one big noisy recreation. playground attracting even more allow motorized trail bikes? ORV use than it does now. Some local officials argue that According to the management opening the Teanaway Forest to plan: “DNR and WDFW will use Rick McGuire also warned in more ORV use would boost the his Alpine article last year that the results of a recreation planning local economy and thus help offset process to determine whether the the Yakima Plan proposes a large revenue lost by the state buying National Recreation Area (now use of two-wheeled motorcycles these private lands and taking is appropriate in the Community called National Conservation them off the tax rolls. Recreation Areas) on federal Forest. All other motorized lands in the Teanaway within the Yet, if public ownership of the vehicles – ATVs, ORVs, wheeled Alpine Lakes area. One purpose Teanaway Forest was designed in all-terrain vehicles, and 4x4s – will of this NCRA would be to allow part to mitigate or compensate for continue to be prohibited from ORVs. Creating an NCRA that raising Bumping Lake, opening trails, closed roads, and cross- encourages motorized use would the Forest now to trail bikes would country travel.” draw national attention and thus conflict with the goal of mitigation. The citizen committee that encourage even more ORVs. Raising Bumping Lake and advised the state on management Opening the new state-owned allowing ORVs into the Teanaway of the Teanaway Forest lands to motorized trail bikes Forest is a Lose-Lose proposition recommended no increase in ORV would add yet more fuel to this that stands the meaning of use over current levels. bad idea. “mitigation” on its head. An expansion of ORV use would ALPS has a direct stake in these The state law defines also conflict with the alternative issues. It needs to monitor and “community forest” broadly, but explanation for why the state influence this recreation planning a key element is to protect “in bought this land: to protect water process, not only because of the perpetuity working forest lands supply and fish habitat. spillover effects in the Alpine that are at a significant risk of Lakes Wilderness itself, but also to conversion to another land use.” The claim that more ORVs will ensure that wildlife, which move This fits the Teanaway like a glove. boost the local economy is also back and forth between the Alpine American Forest was planning to suspect. It ignores the substantial Lakes and these lands, do not lose convert much of this forest into a sums that non-motorized their vital winter and spring range. recreational town. recreationists already spend in Cle Elum and Roslyn and how A community forest, says the much they would take their money state law, should also provide elsewhere if ORVs take over the Knibb is a former trustee and “ongoing, sustainable public Teanaway. president of ALPS. He acknowledges recreational access, local timber the substantial help of Hal Lindstrom, Lastly, the state already has a jobs, clean air and water, carbon another former ALPS trustee and Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) storage, fish and wildlife habitat, president, in obtaining information for program designed to compensate and open space.” this article. counties for tax revenue lost when
ALPINE 15 alps Non Profit alpine lakes protection society US Postage PO Box 27646 PAID Seattle, WA 98165 Seattle WA Permit 1244
ALPS Officers & Trustees: 2012-2015 2013-2016 2014-2017 President: Karl Forsgaard Bill Beyers Natalie Williams Art Day Vice President: Rick McGuire James Chapman Gus Bekker Thom Peters Membership: Natalie Williams Kevin Geraghty Karyl Winn Karl Forsgaard Treasurer: Frank Swart Charlie Raymond Don Parks Secretary: James Chapman
The newsletter of the Alpine Lakes Protection Society (ALPS). ALPS is dedicated to protection of the Alpine Lakes area in Washington’s Cascades. Editor: Rick McGuire Layout: Pat Hutson For membership information, contact Natalie Williams 5627 47th Ave. SW
Karl Forsgaard Seattle, WA 98136 Peggy’s Pond and Cathedral Rock. [email protected]
16 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER ALPINE