Thanks for asking, Rolan. GMP stands for General Management Plan. I do
hope you will take a few minutes to visit the site and request further
study and modification of the proposed plan. What we do now will affect
birding on the peninsula in the future.

Patricia

Rolan Nelson wrote:
Patricia,

Since I'm apparently reading this e-mail out of context, I'd love to
know what GMP stands for?

-Rolan

pslott <VariedThrush at comcast.net> wrote:



-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Olympic Park GMP
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 13:44:33 -0700
From: Tim McNulty <mcmorgan at olypen.com>
To: VariedThrush at comcast.net



Hi Patricia, A friend forwarded me your posting on the Olympic GMP in Tweeters. I chair the GMP working committee for Olympic Park Associates, and I'd like to thank you for your help in getting the word out on this important planning effort. If park planners hear form enough committed conservationists on the plan, the final result is bound to be better that the preferred alternative offered in the draft. Thanks again. Tim McNulty

_______________________________________________
Tweeters mailing list
Tweeters at u.washington.edu
http://mailman1.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/tweeters




Rolan Nelson
Fircrest, WA
rnbuffle at yahoo.com

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: More recreational use of the Olympics? 9/30 deadline for
public comment
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 15:35:15 -0700
From: pslott <VariedThrush at comcast.net>
Reply-To: VariedThrush at comcast.net
Organization: Seattle
To: TWEETERS <tweeters at u.washington.edu>, "Johnston, Greg"
<GregJohnston at seattlepi.com>, Barrytruman at aol.com, WNPS list
<wnpsmail at tardigrade.net>



Olympic National Park plan public-comment period extended to 9/30
http://parkplanning.nps.gov/olym

Most people are unaware that the temperate rain forest of our Olympic
Peninsula is one of the rarest ecosystems in the world, and animals and
plants that exist only there have been largely uncataloged. That must
explain why the favored plan for the Olympic National Park (ONP)
involves increasing the park's recreational and commercial use. What
does that mean? What kind of recreational or commercial use? Exactly
what measures would be taken to protect natural resources, animals, and
plants? How much protection vs. disturbance can the area sustain in
order to continue as it is? How can I voice an opinion? These are
questions that should be answered at http://parkplanning.nps.gov/olym.

Alan Lincoln and I had a chance to ask a few questions and look at some
maps of roads and trails and how they would be affected by the four
plans under consideration on Thursday evening at REI. This Seattle
public meeting was the last scheduled meeting of eight, held previously
at Pt. Townsend, Forks, Sekiu, Pt. Angeles, Sequim, Silverdale, and
Shelton.

It was easy to look at the maps of the four plans, Alternative A-Current
Use, Alternative B-Resource Preservation, Alternative C-Visitor
Opportunities Emphasis, and Alternative D-Preferred Alternative (which
should be called "Major Disturbance") and know my preference will be for
Resource Preservation, Alternative B. I find the >1"-thick plan proposal
(EIS) paralyzing it is so verbose, but I encourage you who may be more
adept at this kind of reading to please search out the nitty gritty of
these plans.

For an excellent review of the ONP General Management Plan, I recommend
you download the current issue of VOICE OF THE WILD OLYMPICS, Vol. 14,
No. 2: Summer 2006, at
http://www.drizzle.com/~rdpayne/opa-newsletter.html. This 10-page
publication of the Olympic Park Associates has an excellent article
describing the biological wonder of the park, what was not included in
the 400-page EIS (no ecosystem study was undertaken to provide necessary
groundwork for long-term decision making), and a summary of the positive
and negative aspects of Alternative D-Preferred Alternative. ?Points to
make in your comment letter? is another helpful article that makes
reference to Alternative A-Current Use and Alternative B-Resource
Preservation plans.

For others who prefer maps, I refer you to
http://parkplanning.nps.gov/document.cfm?projectId=10233&documentID=15558.
These are the detailed maps of various locations within the park and how
they would be used under the four alternative plans. Especially, I would
draw your attention to "Hoh Alternatives, A through D," a 1.3 MB PDF
file that must be downloaded to be viewed. The largest development zone
and greatest day use zone are in the Preferred Alternative (D).
Alternative D-Preferred Alternative does more to develop and extend use
of this *waterway* than either Alternative A-Current Use, or Alternative
C-Visitor Opportunities Emphasis. However, in Alternative B-Resource
Preservation for Hoh, the long paved road in the river zone up to the
Visitor Center would not be maintained, and the existing facility would
be relocated *outside* the river zone and next to the highway (101)
where fewer vehicles would have the chance to pollute the Hoh River and
alter forever the interior of this national treasure.

As summarized in VOICE OF THE WILD OLYMPICS, Alternative D-Preferred
Alternative does provide some positive action for the park including
establishing marine intertidal reserves along sensitive areas of the
coast and relocating Kalaloch Lodge, facilities, and Highway 101 out of
coastal erosion zone and floodplain. However, it does not address the
impact of maintaining poorly located roads on four federally endangered
salmon stocks. Numerous other fish stocks are at risk. Alternative D:
? Proposed boundary expansions do not conform to watershed boundaries
and are inadequate to protect downstream fish species from destructive
upstream activities like timber harvest and road building.
? Unique Beardslee and Crescenti trout remain at risk due to upstream
activities.
? Illegal elk hunting from nearby roads would be a continuing problem.
? Greatly expands most front country development zones from their
current sizes. Developed campsites in the Elwha valley could explode
from 72 to 250; at the Sol Duc campground expansion could be from 82 to
250.
? Allows expansion of commercial concessions within the park
? Zones designated wilderness into use levels without providing specific
reference or rationale.
? Although federal court thoroughly refuted the park?s claim that
historic structures of all types ?enhance wilderness character?, yet
this plan dictates that 29 to 50 historic structures be maintained and
reconstructed in designated wilderness.

By contrast, Alternative B-Resource Preservation increases ecologically
sound watershed additions by 87,000 acres, as compared to 16,000 in
Alternative D. I also appreciate the idea of *not* maintaining roads
built along rivers, but moving facilities close to roads outside of
sensitive areas inclined to erosion and flooding.

A woman working at the meeting site argued that the National Park
Service (NPS) was formed to not only protect wild spaces, but to provide
access to *all* people. I find the original objectives of the NPS may be
outdated in an age where we have already polluted the entire planet and
there are no more 'wild places'. Actually, the ONP seems to come as
close to a nearly complete ecosystem as the lower 48 has. I think we
should work to protect it and try to return it to the way it evolved
naturally.

I wish there was another alternative of increasing money for research
and cataloging of the species dependent on our temperate rainforest.
Perhaps those of you with more knowledge in this area can come up with a
plan to help the NPS, or perhaps we should request that controversial
decisions relating to designated Wilderness be deferred until a
comprehensive wilderness management plan is completed, as suggested in
VOICE OF THE WILD OLYMPICS.

Patricia S. Lott
Seattle, WA
mail to: VariedThrush at comcast.net