Cascades logging town fights to save a fire lookout
Darrington in northern Snohomish County has had a tough time converting from a timber-based economy to one that relies on tourism and the environment. Now, townspeople feel blindsided by environmental groups who are trying to remove a beloved hiking destination.
U.S. Forest Service
On a blustery summer night, the Red Top Tavern in Darrington, Wash., is nearly empty. A neon Hamm's beer sign illuminates a picture of a local logger reclining in the bucket of an excavator with the caption "Redneck Hot Tub." Above it hangs a crosscut saw, just like in every bar in every other Northwest timber town. One block down, Skidder's Bar and Grill — the only other tavern — was recently boarded up.
Surrounded on three sides by federal land, Darrington was hit hard by the 1990s timber wars with environmentalists that, along with economic factors, curtailed logging in much of the Northwest. Only 75 miles from Seattle, its 1,350 residents had hoped to find a new economy in the hundreds of miles of trails that lace the surrounding mountains.
But the recreation boom hasn't happened, and a slew of complicating factors have frustrated locals. Washed-out roads hinder access to trails, and environmentalists have repeatedly challenged repairs. Meanwhile, the U.S. Forest Service has closed other roads for budgetary and environmental reasons. In 2009, the town's only outdoor-supply store was shuttered.
Now, a lawsuit aimed at removing a locally beloved fire lookout — a popular hiking destination atop Green Mountain in the Glacier Peak Wilderness — has escalated the already tense situation. Built in 1933 by the Civilian Conservation Corps, it was used to spot forest fires for 50 years and keep watch for aerial invasions during World War II.
For decades, local volunteers helped maintain the weathering structure, which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. But after an attempt to repair the foundation failed, in 2002 the Forest Service dismantled the lookout and helicoptered it down to Darrington to be restored. Locals devoted hundreds of hours to the task, and in 2009, the agency flew it back to Green Mountain and reassembled it on new supports.
Then, a year later, a small, hard-line Montana group called Wilderness Watch sued, accusing the agency of sidestepping the public comment process and violating the Wilderness Act, which forbids new structures and motorized equipment in wilderness areas, with few exceptions. The federal court ruling is expected in the coming months.
"The lookout is symbolic for a lot of people," says Scott Morris, secretary of the local historical society and a self-described environmentalist who works as a watershed manager for the Sauk-Suiattle tribe. The attempt to raze the lookout, on top of the road-repair scuffles, looks to many residents like another step toward erasing them from the woods. "When the timber industry went down, the battle cry from the environmental movement and the Forest Service was that you'd be able to fall back on recreation," says Mayor Dan Rankin. "As we tried to, they closed more and more avenues in our area for recreation." Now, "some people want to take away the last hold of our heritage and our culture. It becomes personal real quick."
Located deep in the western Cascades, Darrington is deluged with 80 inches of rain a year. In 2003, a record flood washed out the 100-year-old Suiattle River Road that connects the town to the Green Mountain lookout trail and 14 others; subsequent floods have also taken a toll. Reaching the lookout now requires a 13-mile hike or bike on road and another four miles on trail — generally at least a two-day round trip. Two car campgrounds and a ranger station have been abandoned. Last fall, the Forest Service permanently closed the most popular portal to the Glacier Peak Wilderness after floods destroyed the road, a trail, and hot springs. All told, washouts around Darrington have cut off vehicle access to 29 hiking trails to some of the region's iconic wild places.
Efforts to repair roads and trails have been contentious, however. Forest impacts and erosion into salmon streams have concerned environmentalists, as has the Forest Service's decision-making process. In one case in 2006, an Everett-based engineer named Bill Lider joined the Pilchuck Audubon Society and the North Cascades Conservation Council to appeal repairs on the popular Mountain Loop Byway, citing impacts to salmon. The plan was finally upheld after more than a year of delays, angering locals who depend on tourism.
Last April, the same parties sued to stop new repairs on the Suiattle Road, which they had also challenged in 2006. Early construction work had downed patches of old-growth forest — habitat for the northern spotted owl and the threatened marbled murrelet — and the plan could impact protected salmon runs, they argued. "I've seen so many bad projects over the years," says Lider. "It's time to draw the line and say no more."
The work had gone forward under a categorical exclusion filed by the Federal Highway Administration to bypass additional environmental review and public input. It was the same procedural shortcut used to restore the lookout; the ranger district maintains that using exclusions helps avoid unnecessary work and saves taxpayer dollars. The Suiattle project has since been halted for a full environmental assessment.
In December, the Forest Service closed yet another road due to flagging funding and erosion concerns. Now, there's no road access to the Glacier Peak Wilderness from the west side. The end result is a de facto expansion of the wilderness area — a win for some advocates but difficult for Darrington. "Making money off of tourists gets pretty tough when you have record floods," says Morris.
Beyond impacts to local businesses, the loss of access may also harm the broader cause of conserving wild land. "People have to be able to get in there to enjoy it if we are going to continue to garner support for the National Wilderness Preservation System," says John Miles, an environmental historian at Western Washington University in Bellingham.
The lookout lawsuit raises similarly difficult questions about how far environmentalists should go to enforce the elusive ideal of a wilderness "untrammeled by man." The Wilderness Act allows for "historical use," and the National Historic Preservation Act encourages agencies to maintain officially recognized structures. In 1984, the Washington State Wilderness Act expanded the Glacier Peak Wilderness to include the entire lookout site, seeking to "preserve scenic and historic resources." With support from the state historic preservation office, Forest Service officials believe they were in the right when they removed and reconstructed the teetering lookout, using mostly original materials. But the legal terrain is ambiguous: A related court ruling held that "historical use" in wilderness applies only to natural features, not anything man-made.
The Forest Service's process also raised concerns. The restoration went forward under the original categorical exclusion used to permit the foundation repair, which did not mention removing the lookout. No public comments were taken on the new plan.
Eight wilderness helicopter trips had been planned, but several dozen flights took place. Wilderness Watch Executive Director George Nickas, who has challenged similar issues around the country, says the agency overstepped its bounds. "Part of what made the lookout historically significant was how it got there," he says. "Now, it's this modern building that was plopped there by a helicopter." He hopes the suit will return the mountain to its original state and thwart similar efforts elsewhere. "If we want wilderness," he says, "we've got to be willing to give something up."
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feeds
Comments:
Posted Wed, Feb 29, 5:57 a.m. Inappropriate
Trial lawyers, "environmental groups", public employee unions and "social-justice" advocates have decided they can squeeze the public much harder if they all work together.
Good luck, Darrington. The "environmental group" will bring the suit, the trial lawyer will accrue billable hours, the public employee union will produce the Science to support their case and YOU will lose your lookout.
Oh! And let's not forget the Party Politician who - for campaign money - has put the whole process in place.
http://www.portorchardindependent.com/opinion/104088189.html
Posted Wed, Feb 29, 6:47 a.m. Inappropriate
Oh, a small consolation, Darrington...
Your anguish will only last a generation. The teacher's union will have your kids grow up to believe you were wrong, in the first place.
Posted Wed, Feb 29, 7:52 a.m. Inappropriate
An environmental group recently challenged trail access to those who are mobility impaired ie wheel chairs. Their efforts remind me of a Tom Clancy book where environmental enlightened wanted to eradicate the rest of humanity ie the un enlightened to save the world for the enlightened ie themselves.
Well I suppose it is OK for the environmental folks to save the environment from us the unwashed masses
PROVIDED
they buy the land for themselves and relieve the unwashed masses ie taxpayers of paying for it.
Until they buy the land and THEY pay the bills
1. That is public land and we all have access to it
2. You are just going to have to put up with us unwashed
3. You guys from Montanna go home and clean up your own mess back there- we have enough problems without you.
Posted Wed, Feb 29, 8:12 a.m. Inappropriate
As a long-time hiker and climber, and someone who believes we came far too close to wiping out our forests during the 1970s and 1980s, I'm sympathetic to the enviros who are opposing road reconstruction, lookouts, etc. But I think they're really over-reaching. Loss of roads makes many hiking trips impossible, or adds days to a trip. Sure, that means more "wilderness." But meanwhile places that ARE accessible get hammered. Plus, as one person interviewed here said, people need access to wilderness is they are to support it. Ira Spring, who wrote so many "100 Hikes" books and grew up with REAL wilderness, would be appalled at current efforts to reduce access.
Posted Wed, Feb 29, 8:28 a.m. Inappropriate
Too bad. Many moons ago I took a float trip down the Suiattle that staged from that sporting goods store. It was a good place then.
The laws regarding wilderness are pretty strightforward, so the prohibition regarding rebuilding the lookout tower is a no-brainer.
But nobody in Darrington should be complaining. These are the very same people who scream for lower taxes and less government.
As for the wilderness protection, it should be no problem for them to get some Tea Partier in the House whose district is a million miles from anyplace besides strip malls to attach a rider to some must-pass bill prohibiting the Forest Service from following the law, just as was the case with the endangered Species Act and wolves.
I'm tired of rednecks crying "socialism" when public spending is on anything but the subsidy that benefits them.
Posted Wed, Feb 29, 9:18 a.m. Inappropriate
Maybe it wasn't a good idea to permit helicopter trips in a wilderness area. A worse idea would be to fly another dozen helicopter trips to take it down. The desecration to the wilderness isn't the lookout, it's using a machine like a jet helicopter.
If Wilderness Watch dismantles the lookout by hand and hikes it down at their own expense, more power to them.
Second I'd be curious if the members of Wilderness Watch make any personal sacrafice for the environment. If they put more miles on their Subarus in a year than the average soccer mom, then they're just a bunch of blowhards.
Posted Wed, Feb 29, 11:01 a.m. Inappropriate
Great piece of writing. Do they have guides who can get someone up to the lookout?
Posted Wed, Feb 29, 12:26 p.m. Inappropriate
The Darrington "fire lookout" issue is a good "micro case" example of an endemic problem, and an issue which repeats itself many times over in both urban and rural areas. And I do not single out environmental groups, although environmental laws are frequently used as both a "sword" and a "shield" depending on whether an action is supported or opposed.
What is at stake is the common sense balance between regulation and regulatory enforcement. And it is increasingly being eroded.
Legislators start with well intentioned laws, which are then interpreted by administrators, and then reinterpreted and enforced by the judicial branch. Both Federal and State courts are forums of choice, and from a litigator's perspective preferably both. And once an issue is "in the courts" a typical legislative refrain is "we can't get involved because the matter is before the courts," ignoring the larger question of how it got there in the first place.
The cost of filing a civil lawsuit is negligible; the consequences - in this case to Darrington - significant. Leaving aside the significant financial burden to defend against such a lawsuit,plantiff groups are rarely required to post a bond. There are actually very few costs associated with such litigation, and because the civil dockets are full resolution of these cases is delayed. And if you litigate using the right law, or can persuade a judge that your litigation is in "the public interest," you may recover attorney fees. Either way, you can frequently build your case at no cost using public disclosure laws.
Looked at from a "macro" perspective this issue has very large and very real social and economic consequences.
The building or rebuilding of critical infrastructure - even "shovel ready" critical infrastructure- with bipartisan support can easily be delayed for years by litigation. Bridges, highways, transmission lines, low income housing? Not if you are a determined opponent and have the cost of a filing fee for State or local court, preferably both.
And when the viaduct collapses, or the transmission line can't support the electric demands we place upon it and the lights go out, the public outcry is "why didn't you do something sooner."
Posted Wed, Feb 29, 5:58 p.m. Inappropriate
Snus: Your details are wrong and your conclusion is wrong; either you don't have a clue or you're being disingenuous. It is a very difficult and usually expensive proposition to bring and prosecute effective public interest environmental or land use lawsuits. Ask any of the lawyers who specialize in the area around here. I've been in and around that world for thirty years, and with few exceptions your facts are wrong.
"There are actually very few costs associated with such litigation." Totally incorrect. It is easy to file a case for a few hundred bucks, but that's just the start. Only "on the record" cases that don't involve fighting over facts in front of a hearing examiner or appeals board are relatively simple, and even then, if you don't have a volunteer lawyer to do your case, you'd better raise ten grand. To start.
"if you litigate using the right law, or can persuade a judge that your litigation is in "the public interest," you may recover attorney fees." Maybe, if you're in federal court. Which tend to be the same "on the record" cases under federal laws like ESA. If you're dealing with local land use, GMA, shorelines, etc., it is almost impossible to get attorneys fees and costs, even if you win them, they're capped at $25,000. As I recall, there have been about five recoveries of fees under the state EAJA (equal access to justice act) in the past twenty years. Only the federal EAJA works reasonably well as intended.
Oh, and then there's the other direction: if you bring a land use appeal and lose at the hearing examiner where the evidence is taken, and lose at superior court which is supposed to act like an appellate court (but frequently doesn't want to learn the issue and read a big record), you then risk "fee shifting" to the other side if you lose at the Court of Appeals (where you get maybe ten minutes to argue on a thousand page record). This horrible law, which is counter to the centuries old "American Rule" that parties to litigation pay their own attorneys fees, experts, and most costs, was jammed through the Legislature by developers as a "reform." It is a huge wet blanket on getting real appellate review of cases.
And the judges: it's true that federal court judges are not rushed and in the Western and Eastern Districts of Washington, most judges know the issues and give a fair hearing to public interest plaintiffs. Doesn't mean it's a slam dunk, but at least they usually know what the acronyms mean (HCP, FONSI, etc.). In state court, forget it. With the exception of a handful of judges in King and Thurston County Superior Court and a smattering elsewhere, most don't know and don't care, and most are generally inclined to rule for the agency. Hearing examiners are worse. And I repeatedly hear state supreme court candidates/justices who don't even know what SEPA stands for.
"you can frequently build your case at no cost using public disclosure laws." Sure, and that's what the state Public Records Act and the federal FOIA are for. But that doesn't mean your case is presented to you on a platter. Have you ever gone through thousands of pages looking for the relevant and supportive pieces? And put together the argument that relates the facts to the law in your favor? It takes dozens if not hundreds of hours.
"because the civil dockets are full resolution of these cases is delayed." Most state and local appeals are on strict timelines. So strict in fact that if you don't do your public disclosure act request before you file the appeal, and serve your discovery the day after, you will not be able to get your record and witnesses together. Happens all the time to so-called nimby appeals.
"The building or rebuilding of critical infrastructure - even "shovel ready" critical infrastructure- with bipartisan support can easily be delayed for years by litigation." Your conclusion is not based in reality. My experience and opinion is that the building and rebuilding of critical infrastructure is delayed because: 1) we don't have a revenue stream set up to pay for it when it's needed. Think of Seattle's bridges. 2) Worse, the decision making process to decide which projects to proceed with is broken, with public involvement more often than not given only lip service.
Posted Wed, Feb 29, 6:41 p.m. Inappropriate
Mr. Bluelight - I recognize the handle you hide behind because I've seen the corrosive, foolish junk you've pushed in the past. I'd like to invite you to get off the boat and take your dope with you.
I am a government employee, a union member, and an environmentalist.
Fire lookouts are great, and it makes perfectly good sense preserve what's up there, especially this one built by the Civilian Conservation Corps. Yes, Mr. Bluelight, that was a government program.
On the matter of noise caused by the helicopter, I can't help but chuckle. When the snow finally got to melting last year I went on a hike along the Pacific Crest Trail. I was above the head of the North Fork Sauk River when a couple of fighter jets dipped over Indian Pass down hundreds of feet into the valley and followed the river out to the Mountain Loop Highway. Like it or not, that's a routine wilderness experience, like thunder.
Wilderness Watch appears to lean toward an extremity in environmentalism. The main stream core of the movement values wilderness with humans in it. Human to respect bears. Humans to breath fresh air. And humans to maintain the trails. Humans need access to it. It'll be very nice when humans in the Darrington Ranger District make those west Glacier Peak trail heads more accessible.
It helps not at all to leave a road abandoned. When roads are left to erode, the surface gets rills and gullies, roadside ditches incise, and culverts get clogged and blow out. Thousands of cubic yards of soil to into headwater streams and rivers. Roads need maintenance.
Nobody likes it when someone comes from out of town on a mission and fouls their opportunities to live well and do good. Good people gave a lot of themselves to restore that fire lookout. So, Mr. Bluelight, what can you do that is more constructive than cherishing and gloating about their pain?
You can start by putting aside your cries of conspiracy. The fate of the fire lookout will be decided in court according to laws. And Mr. Rice made some pretty good points to that end.
Scott
Posted Wed, Feb 29, 7:48 p.m. Inappropriate
This piece has some rather contradictory statements in it. "No access" to the west side of the Glacier Peak Wilderness? Yet the wilderness is "de facto" bigger?
Seems to me like the wilderness begins where the roads end. What many people seem to want isn't access to wilderness, it is motorized access to short trails leading to high country. In other words, places where you can drive most of the way up a mountain and just walk the last little bit.
Such opportunities will be less and less common as time passes. Logging roads are not the same as regular roads. They were built on the cheap for one purpose, getting timber out. They traverse steep unstable terrain and are very expensive to maintain. The road to Tupso Pass, in the other direction from Darrington, is over twenty miles long and is maintained so that another old fire lookout, on Three Fingers mountain, can be day hiked. It would be interesting to know how many taxpayer dollars are spent every year for each of the relatively few vehicles that drive to its end. I suspect it is well into the four figures, maybe even five.
This article does little to illuminate the real situation out there. The 1950 to 1990 logging frenzy was simply a gift of public money and public forests to a small segment of the timber industry located in places like Darrington. The trees and money have run out, and the cheaply built roads are collapsing. We need sustainable ways of insuring access to public lands for the owners of these places, the public. That is happening in some places. But it looks as though it is still some ways off in Darrington, where people are still demanding that everyone else pay for expensive roads climbing most of the way up mountains.
That's too bad, because there will only be less money in future to maintain those roads. Absent some sort of funding miracle, those roads are going away. But blaming "environmentalists" is an old tradition in Darrington, and apparently more appealing than realistically planning how to build a recreation based economy.
Posted Wed, Feb 29, 9:21 p.m. Inappropriate
It's true. Fourteen mile days are easier than twenty-two mile days. Thank you for the point about maintenance cost.
newbie
Posted Thu, Mar 1, 7:45 a.m. Inappropriate
A government employee, a union member AND an environmentalist!!!
Wow! The "environmentalist" in you must HATE that your union dues fund such anti-environmental Democratic Party causes as increased immigration. Of course that concern is mollified by the government employee in you who says "shut up and keep cashing the paycheck" and the union member in you that is required to maintain lock step.
Regarding the boat: I've booked passage, you aren't the Captain. I extend the same invitation to you: get off.
Posted Thu, Mar 1, 2:08 p.m. Inappropriate
This article begs for folks to read "Uncommon Ground" edited by William Cronon with essays by folks like former UW environmental historian, Richard White. I would also recommend anything written by Donald Worster, Patty Limmerick and "The Idea of Wilderness" by Max Oelschlaeger. Isn't wilderness a human contrivance? These wilderness areas are, in reality, arbitrary lines drawn on maps. If there has been extensive logging in Wild Sky, shy not a lookout tower in Glacier? And isn't the whole idea that there is "nothing" man made rather Euro-centric anyway, given for probably thousands of years humans roamed these "wilderness" areas, hunting, fishing, gathering? The idea that "wilderness" designated areas are somehow more special or pristine is a delusion. The Alpine Lakes Wilderness Area is the most actively human managed area in the MBS and Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forests! To think a lookout impairs this wilderness area is to really have a misguided idea of wilderness and a rather simplistic reading of the Wilderness Act.
Posted Sat, Mar 3, 4:11 p.m. Inappropriate
I am an environmentalist I think but the fuss over the tower is silly. We have had one on Sun Top for years in the White Ranger District run by volunteers. I have volunteered several times and you have to be lucky to get a decient date and amount of time to do it. You also get to drive too so I guess it's not wilderness but it sure is drop dead gorgeous. The new second one being available this year requires you to hike in.
Now my real complaint at environmentalist is the no machinery rules. I have been active in trail work this last month or so and we use a lot of labor, pack horses and chain saws. Now if a rule maker was to be seen packing a misery whip and using it in the wilderness I may even help on the other end. I will bet you would have a hard time finding a rule maker in Wash DC who ever practiced what he preached with a cross cut or ax.
Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.