Public comments on the future of the Enchanted Valley Chalet in Olympic National Park were heavily in favor of removing the historic structure/NPS
"Wilderness ethics" received far more support than emotional and historic ties in public comments on what to do with the Enchanted Valley Chalet that stands in designated wilderness in Olympic National Park, with most people calling on the National Park Service to remove the historic structure.
While many comments touched on the historic nature of the chalet and the memories it held for them, others thought efforts to protect the structure and leave it standing in the Olympic Wilderness would be a waste of money and serve as a distraction in the wilderness setting.
"Please stop violating the Wilderness Act by allowing mechanized transport of this structure, and please cease with handing the reins of park management over to a small group of loud, hobbyist ideologues who are damaging and otherwise desecrating the wilderness by foolishly attempting to preserve the chalet," read one comment from Bellingham, Washington. "This has been one of the sadder chapters in the history of Olympic National Park, ranking with clearcutting in the Bogachiel Valley in the mid-20th century. Either dismantle and remove the chalet via traditional methods, or allow it to decompose in place over the decades to come. It's really that simple. The free-running nature of the East Fork Quinault River is the obvious priority here, not some glorified rodent dormitory."
The Enchanted Valley Chalet is located 13 miles from the nearest road, deep within the Olympic Wilderness. The chalet was constructed by Quinault Valley residents in the early 1930s, prior to establishment of Olympic National Park. The chalet served for several decades as a backcountry lodge and more recently as a wilderness ranger station and emergency shelter. The chalet was added to the National Register of Historic Places in 2007 due to its local significance.
The chalet is located on the active floodplain of the East Fork Quinault River, where migration of the river’s channel is common. In January 2014, the river had migrated to within 18 inches of the chalet. The National Park Service prepared an environmental assessment for “Emergency Action to Temporarily Relocate the Enchanted Valley Chalet for the Protection of the East Fork Quinault River.”
The selected alternative was to move the chalet 50-100 feet from the bank of the river in an effort to protect the river and its associated natural resources from imminent environmental harm. In September 2014, the NPS hired a local contractor, and the chalet was moved approximately 100 feet from the river. Now, park officials are working on the final determination for what to do with the building.
Nearly 1,400 comments were received in the park's initial round of public scoping for an environmental assessment on the chalet's future.
"I feel like nature should take it's course with the chalet. I love it, it's beautiful and I will miss it. But as a hiker we go to these places to see untouched wilderness. I also feel like it's a drain on limited resources to try to move it again," wrote one individual from Yelm, Washington.
Before it was moved, the chalet was in danger of being undercut by the East Fork of the Quinalt River/NPS
While the great majority of comments favored removing the chalet from the wilderness area either to stand elsewhere or simply destroy it, some supported preservation of the building.
"One alternative should include a meaningful, long-term preservation plan for the chalet to remain in the Enchanted Valley. The chalet would ideally be available again for public use, possibly as a ranger station or emergency shelter as it was for so many decades," wrote an individual from Port Townsend, Washington. "There is no conflict between wilderness protection and the preservation of existing historic resources. ONP has taken action in the past to protect and maintain other built and historic resources within the park. ONP should consider small remedial actions on the Quinault River to steer it away from the chalet."
Added another writer from Port Angeles, Washington: "The Enchanted Valley Chalet should be further moved to a more secure area of the meadow, a new foundation placed under it, and it should be re-assembled and used as a ranger station and emergency shelter if not fully open to the public. Thereafter, it should be reasonably maintained as a park asset and as a fitting entrant on the National Register of Historic Places. The chalet is one of few historic structures left in the park. We have many Park Service units dedicated to history, but for some reason our history doesn't seem to matter. The building provides a destination for many hikers while providing an opportunity to be used for administrative purposes by the park and public."
"As a resident of Clallam County for over 40 years I feel strongly that the history of the Olympic National Park includes the structures that reflect that history. There is support for moving the Enchanted Valley Chalet, a willing group of volunteers and skilled workmen, as well as community members such as myself who want to see the chalet protected for the future. This is an irreplaceable piece of history and to allow it to continue to be damaged through neglect is not acceptable," wrote another Washington resident. "As a back country rider I can continue to access wilderness, and go farther by horseback than I can when hiking. These reminders of the pioneer spirit and early settlers who made the parks accessible through trails, and care for their environment have set a high standard for us to follow, not neglect. Preserve the Enchanted Valley Chalet, move it back from the river further as has been discussed, and allow us this piece of history, preferably in a form that can provide shelter for the sturdy folk who hike, horseback ride and spend time in the wilderness. When storms arrive and shelter is of the essence, this building may save someone's life. Our national parks, especially this year, need to be welcoming to the next generations before we forget how to be in the wild and beautiful preserved areas of our nation."
But a resident of Greencastle, Pennsylvania, wanted the Park Service to stop wasting money on the structure.
"Dismantling and removing the chalet, rather than relocating it, would eliminate an unnecessary structure from the Wilderness, and would uphold the intent of the Wilderness Act, which prohibits non-essential, human-built structures. It would also end the need to continually "rescue" the structure. The area's wilderness condition would be improved by removing this man-made structure," the person wrote. "STOP WASTING MY TAX DOLLARS ON A BUILDING THAT SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN BUILT IN THE FIRST PLACE!"
Park officials said that of the 1,399 comments received, 502 favored restoring the valley to "natural conditions"; 463 were in favor of dismantling and reusing its materials in some other fashion, such as in a bridge; 420 were in favor of dismantling the chalet without the use of power tools or helicopters, and then burning the "burnable materials"; 124 were in favor of "saving the chalet"; and 96 thought it should be preserved in the valley.
Comments
The headline is not true. The majority of the 1405 comments are individual letters asking the Park to preserve Enchanted Valley Chalet. Nearly all of these are from hikers who have actually visited it themselves, often many times.
457 are cut-and-paste copies of Wilderness Watch's form letter opposing it. Few of these add any personal comments or mention they have ever visited it. They are also incorrect to assume that dismantling the 2-1/2 story Chalet would be less labor and cost than moving it intact, which is relatively easy as it is already on steel moving I-beams.
Kurt, you also fail to report the purpose of NEPA scoping. Scoping is "an early and open process for determining the scope and the significant issues to be analyzed in depth." See CEQ 1501.7. It was time to refine the purpose and need for the action, consider the full range of possible alternatives and the issues raised by each. It is not a time to choose among alternatives which have not been fully defined, some of which may be excluded from further analysis because they violate the National Historic Preservation Act, the NPS Organic Act, section 4 of the Wilderness Act, and this Park's General Management Plan EIS.
Kurt, your headline is spot-on, and your article is on the mark.
The Kitsap Sun (11-13-16) reported a breakdown of scoping comments on the chalet: "More than 500 comments advocated restoring the valley's 'natural conditions.' About 460 want the chalet dismantled and materials reused, while 420 want it torn down and burned at the site. About 125 comments backed a plan to move the chalet."
Despite the earlier comment, Olympic is a national park, and comments from individuals in Montana and 47 other states who may not "have ever visited it" are as valid as comments from those who have.
The last futile move of the 2-1/2-story building squandered an estimated $300,000 to $400,000 on helicopter flights, contracting costs, planning, and compliance. This was taken from scarce, badly needed funds for other Park amenities and visitor services.
The chalet was a speculative bust from the start. Now it squats on timbers in one of the park's most spectacular wilderness valleys waiting for the next big flood to sweep it away It's time to say goodbye to the old hotel -- and the ideological thinking that demands it be preserved at all costs.
It will be interesting to see how the design of the eventual action alternatives is influenced by these public comments. I'm in agreement with Tim that Wilderness is a national issue and the local's opinions should not carry extra weight; at least the out of state "cut-and-paste" commenters cared enough to respond.
Olympic National Park is one of the largest roadless areas and most intact ecosystems in the lower-48 states. This dedicated Wilderness also contains thousands of man-made structures, including dozens of cabins and shelters, over forty large trail bridges with six-figure replacement costs, twelve miles of boardwalks, hundreds of smaller bridges and footlogs, and thousands of signs. That's not even counting water bars and hundreds of miles of trail corridors. Then there are the ubiquitous chainsaws, and hundreds of annual contract helicopter hours. If kept, the Chalet will continue to add to this unsustainable, under-maintained inventory regardless of the relative costs of "saving" vs. dismantling it.
This has been a popular management junket destination (think multi-day, cross-park hikes with a daypack!), so don't be surprised if the Park Service decides to keep the Chalet, despite the rather substantial opposition. I would be surprised if it's re-opened to the public ("in a form that can provide shelter for the sturdy folk who hike, horseback ride and spend time in the wilderness") as the ground floor once was, since it's been for NPS use only the past several decades.
Tahoma, Enchanted Valley Chalet was continuously open as a public shelter from 1954 until moved in 2014. (When unstaffed, the public had access to the entire Chalet until 1984, to the first floor only from 1985 to 1995, and to one room only since 1995.) It has never been, as you stated, "NPS use only the past several decades".
Yes, Olympic Wilderness' 612 miles of trails do contain over 10,000 trail structures... if you count every single water bar and culvert! Less than 5% of the Park's base budget goes to maintenance of the trail system. Visitor recreational fee revenues have paid for new trail bridges, so these do not compete with the base budget. Without trails and trail bridges over the rivers, the 95% of the the Park that is Olympic Wilderness would not be accessible to most of its visitors (99,484 backcountry overnight permits this year to date). And wilderness ranger stations, including EV Chalet, provide minimal essential ranger presence to handle this visitation. Enchanted Valley has consistently had about 5000 overnight visitors each year since the 1950s.
I'm not sure what your point is, but if it is that maintenance of the 95% of the Park that is Olympic Wilderness merits more than 5% of the Park's $12 million base budget and 3% to 10% of its $3 milllion fee revenue, then I heartily agree. If your point is that the Park should not maintain trails, I disagree.
I would also join you in hoping the EA will include labor and budget estimates for each alternative, so the public can compare them. Moving the Chalet intact or burning it down in place are the only economical alternatives. Dismantlement would cost far more. I also hope the EA will accept the offer from volunteers to move the Chalet for free.
A Tale of two UNESCO World Heritage Sites.
Islamic State's looting and destruction of the historic temples, tombs and statues in Palmyra, Syria last year, and their brutal murder of archaeologist Khaled al-Asaad, has been decried across the civilized world. The motivation for cleansing the land of its Greco-roman and local Semitic historic sites is that they are "un-Islamic". Islam "placed a new value on the land".
Beginning in 1931, Enchanted Valley Chalet hosted thousands of visitors whose appreciation of the Olympics led first to the designation of Olympic Primitive Area, precursor of Olympic Wilderness, and then to the designation of Olympic National Park in 1938, and finally to the designation of Olympic Wilderness in 1988. Echoing the barbaric attitude of ISIS, some feel the designation of Wilderness "places a new value upon the land" which requires cleansing it of its historic sites.
The Wilderness Act's floor sponsor, Sen. Frank Church, wrote "I believe, and many citizens agree with me, that the agencies are applying provisions of the Wilderness Act too strictly and thus misconstruing the intent of Congress as to how these areas should be managed. ...perhaps most tragic of all, to the burning of historic cabins to eliminate the evidence of earlier human habitation. Such policies are misguided. If Congress had intended that wilderness be administered in so stringent a manner, we would never have written the law as we did." Section 4 of the Wilderness Act states "the designation of any area of any park, monument, or other unit of the national park system as a wilderness area pursuant to this Act shall in no manner lower the standards evolved for the use and preservation of such park, monument, or other unit of the national park system in accordance with" historic preservation laws.
Oral arguments will be heard December 2 in Federal District Court in the case Wilderness Watch v. Creachbaum et al. Plaintiffs demand the removal of four trail shelters and a cabin from Olympic Wilderness, all eligible or (like Enchanted Valley Chalet) listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The National Trust for Historic Preservation and Friends of Olympic National Park have joined as third-party intervenor co-defendants in support of NPS.
I'll see you there, Tim.
The outcome of this case has clear bearing on the "long-term disposition" of all of the few surviving historic structures in Olympic. I'm confident that our National Park Wilderness will be ruled by law, not by barbarism, and administered by NPS, not by ISIS.
For key readings on this topic, see:
"Keeping It Wild in the National Park Service: A User Guide to Integrating Wilderness Character into Park Planning and Management" (NPS, 2014)
http://www.wilderness.net/toolboxes/documents/WC/NPS_Wilderness%20Charac...
Olympic National Park General Management Plan Environmental Impact Statement Record of Decision (NPS, 2008), pages 2, 8, 13, 14 and Final GMP EIS, volume 2, pages pages 51-53 and 96-99.
https://parkplanning.nps.gov/documentsList.cfm?projectID=10233
Enchanted Valley Chalet Historic American Building Survey (NPS, 2014)
http://www.windsox.us/Enchanted_Valley_Chalet_History/Enchanted_Valley_C...
Laura Ann Kirn, "A Case for Storied Landscapes: Wilderness and Historic Preservation" (thesis, Goucher College, 2013)
http://hdl.handle.net/11603/2620
Nikki C. Carsley "When Old Becomes New: Reconciling the Commands of the Wilderness Act and the National Historic Preservation Act", Washington Law Review, 88:525-558 (2013)
https://www.law.uw.edu/wlr/print-edition/print-edition/vol-88/2/when-old...