NEWS RELEASE | February 23, 2021 Judge rules federal agencies once again violated federal environmental laws in approving mining exploration near Mt. St. Helens.

Judge rules federal agencies once again violated federal environmental laws in approving mining exploration near Mt. St. Helens. 

 A federal court ruled mineral prospecting permits issued by the Bereau of Land Management and the Forest Service violated environmental laws. The decision is a victory for conservation groups who believe that Mount St. Helens is no place for a mine.

NEWS RELEASE | February 23, 2021

Contacts: 

Lucy Brookham

Policy Manager, Cascade Forest Conservancy

801-708-9436 lucy@cascadeforest.org

Thomas Buchele

Co-Director, Earthrise Law Center

503-768-6736 tbuchele@lclark.edu

Portland, Or – Thursday, a federal court ruled that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Forest Service violated federal environmental laws by issuing mineral prospecting permits to a Canadian mining company. The permits would allow Ascot Resources to drill 63, 2-3 inch diameter exploratory holes from 23 drilling pads across hundreds of acres of Washington’s Green River Valley adjacent to the Mt. St. Helens National Volcanic Monument to search for copper, gold, and molybdenum. Environmentalists say mining in the area would cause irreversible impacts to the environment, recreation opportunities, and drinking water. The lawsuit brought by Cascade Forest Conservancy and represented by Earthrise Law Center and Western Mining Action Project is the organization’s third lawsuit seeking to block the prospecting in Southwest Washington. The agencies withdrew their approval of the drilling in 2011 after a lawsuit was filed, and in 2014 the federal agencies’ attempt to approve the drilling was also struck down by the federal court.

The 55-page opinion, published on Thursday, held that the agencies violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) when considering recreation impacts. The opinion stated the agencies did not take a hard look at the impacts that 24-7 noise, created by the drill pads, would have on nearby recreators and how the project closures would prevent recreational access to the area. The judge also ruled that the agencies violated NEPA by failing to properly analyze the critical groundwater resources that would be affected by the drilling.

The Cascade Forest Conservancy, formerly the Gifford Pinchot Task Force, has been fighting mining outside of Mount St. Helens in the Green River Valley for over 15 years. Once considered for inclusion in Mount St. Helens National Volcanic Monument, parcels in the Green River Valley were eventually purchased by the Forest Service through the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). The LWCF purchase intended to promote recreation and conservation for the area; however, the public lands in question have been under assault from mining challenges since 2005.

The parties will now confer and likely submit additional legal briefs addressing remedy issues. The Court will then rule on the appropriate legal remedy for the federal agencies’ violation of federal law.

“This is a positive step towards preventing mining in this spectacular landscape,” said Lucy Brookham, Policy Manager for Cascade Forest Conservancy. “The Green River Valley is no place for a mine, and we hope the agencies’ decision to permit prospecting in this beautiful place will be vacated following this ruling.”

”Cascade Forest Conservancy has repeatedly asked the federal agencies to fully evaluate and disclose the impacts of the proposed mineral prospecting on outdoor recreation and groundwater resources, and those agencies have now failed to do so twice, said Thomas Buchele, Co-Director of the Earthrise Law Center. “Their failure to fully disclose the adverse impacts to outdoor recreational uses is particularly troubling because both agencies obviously know what those impacts will be but have chosen not to fully disclose them to the public.”

 “Once again, the federal court correctly found that the agencies’ review and approval of this ill-advised project violated federal laws designed to protect water and public resources,” stated Roger Flynn, Director and Managing Attorney of the Western Mining Action Project, a non-profit environmental law center specializing in western mining issues.

“There are, of course, parts of the Court’s opinion that we disagree with, including its interpretation of the Land & Water Conservation Fund,” said Molly Whitney, Executive Director for Cascade Forest Conservancy. “The funds Congress allocated and the Forest Service used for the purchase of these lands exist to provide the public with opportunities to enjoy and recreate on our public lands–the opposite of what an open-pit mine would provide to this landscape. We remain hopeful that the Forest Service will reconsider its consent after it has reevaluated and fully disclosed the impacts to outdoor recreation and groundwater resources from the proposed mineral prospecting.”

###

The Cascade Forest Conservancy is the leading conservation organization working to protect and sustain the Gifford Pinchot National Forest and surrounding areas. Founded in 1985 and now with more than 16 thousand members and supporters, the Cascade Forest Conservancy has led the effort to protect the Green River Valley and Mount St. Helens from mining threats for over 15 years. 

A History of Leadership

As we come to the end of Women’s History Month, we reflect on the women who have led the fight for conservation in the southern Washington Cascades and who shaped our history as an organization.

We asked questions to three leaders: Susan Saul, who fought for the protection of Mount St. Helens and was a leader and co-founder of the Gifford Pinchot Task Force (now Cascade Forest Conservancy); Susan Jane Brown, an environmental lawyer and the Task Force’s first Executive Director; and our current Executive Director, Molly Whitney.

(Responses have been edited for clarity and length)

What first led you to pursue a career in conservation?

Susan Saul:

I grew up in Oregon. We lived “out in the country” so I spent a lot of time outdoors and my parents took the family camping in the Cascades and at the Oregon Coast for vacations. When I was 15, I went on my first backpacking trip and was introduced to hiking and wilderness camping. By the time I entered university, I knew I wanted a career that involved both writing and the outdoors. I met a woman who was the public affairs officer for the Willamette National Forest and she mentored me with advice regarding which classes to take. I graduated with a degree in Journalism with an unofficial minor in environmental education and interpretation. 

I worked for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for 33 years in a variety of public engagement jobs, mostly with the National Wildlife Refuge System, so I had a paying career by day and a separate volunteer “career” by night and on weekends. 

Susan Jane Brown:

I grew up in a family that spent a lot of time in the out-of-doors, camping, hunting, fishing, so the environment was always something that was important to me. I also always wanted to be a lawyer, and in high school and college became aware that there was a discipline of law called environmental law. I set my sights on environmental law, and thus wanted to attend Lewis and Clark Law School in Portland, which is the number one environmental law school in the country. It was only once I got to law school that I fully came to understand the nature of public interest environmental law, which is what I practice today. 

Molly Whitney:

Being a born and raised Portlander, I think an appreciation for the natural world is in my blood. Also, my father is a biologist and learning about the ecosystems around me was a part of everyday conversation. I grew up on a trail or in a canoe exploring the world around me – rain or shine. I saw negative impacts of development and human interference, but also noted that there were many groups working to stop and or mitigate these impacts… I knew which side I wanted to work for. 

Was there someone or something that inspired you to become a leader in the field? 

Susan Saul:

I moved to Longview, Washington, to take my first permanent job. I joined the local Audubon chapter and the Mount St. Helens Hiking Club to find like-minded people for outdoor recreation. Quickly, older members introduced me to conservation issues in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest (GPNF), particularly around Mount St. Helens. I spent most of my free time hiking, backpacking, and scrambling with them so I got to know the places as well as the issues.

In the autumn of 1977, I saw a newspaper notice that a group called the Mount St. Helens Protective Association was holding a public meeting. I attended the meeting and joined the group. Local hikers, backcountry hunters and equestrians had formed the group in 1970 to seek national monument designation for Mount St. Helens but they hadn’t achieved much public or political traction. I had some ideas to build public support so I gradually took on a leadership role.

I was mentored by Joe Walicki, Northwest Representative for The Wilderness Society, Helen Engle of Tacoma and Hazel Wolf of Seattle, founders of many Audubon chapters in Washington state. Joe prodded me to get newspaper coverage for the Mount St. Helens monument proposal and to make my first constituent visit with Congressman Don Bonker of Washington’s 3rd District.

I attended the twice yearly Audubon Council of Washington meetings where I got to know Helen and Hazel and made presentations on conservation issues in southwest Washington. By the time Mount St. Helens erupted in May 1980, I had established recognition as a local conservation leader. State-wide conservation groups turned to me for leadership regarding how the conservation community should respond to the eruption.

Susan Jane Brown: 

I never intended to be “a leader,” but rather I love my job and the work that I do. I guess that passion and excitement is attractive to others, who want to share in that energy. I’m glad that I have partners who I get to work with that also inspire me to protect the wild places and critters that I love.

Molly Whitney:

I’ve been influenced by strong women in my family – to become a leader in any field. My grandmother earned her PhD when it was nearly unheard of for her generation… and my mother earned her MD. Matriarchs have led our family – they demonstrated that there is nothing that couldn’t be achieved if you worked for it and gender should never be a limiting factor. 

Susan, as you mentioned, you were an important part of the Mount St. Helens Protection Alliance that predated the creation of the Gifford Pinchot Task Force (which you went on to help establish). Susan Jane, you were the first staff person/Executive Director of the GPTF. What are the biggest changes you have noticed about conservation in the Pacific Northwest over your careers?

Susan Saul:

Women have always played a leadership role in conservation in the Pacific Northwest, but they had to fight for recognition of their skills and abilities. Men always wanted all the glory and tried to delegate women to making coffee and taking meeting minutes. I almost quit the entire conservation movement after three men from state conservation organizations drove down from Seattle, accepted my hospitality and proceeded to dictate to me a long list of tasks that I should do, without any offers of help, and unwillingness to acknowledge that I also had a full time job. By the end of the meeting they had me in tears. I called Helen Engle, who advised me: “Susan, just keep doing what you are doing and eventually they will recognize that you know more about Mount St. Helens than they do and they will leave you alone.”

Following passage of the Mount St. Helens Monument Act, my conservation leadership rolled over into working on the Washington Wilderness Act of 1984. I helped craft the campaign that was put together under the leadership of the Washington Wilderness Coalition (now Washington Wild) which was co-founded by a woman – Karen Fant. Many women were leaders in advocating for wilderness in their local areas. 

In 1984, the GPNF began work on its land management plan. I organized a meeting of representatives of all the interest groups in early 1985 to figure out how we wanted to deal with the planning process. At the end of the meeting, the group decided we needed a new, temporary organization to lead through the process and chose the name Gifford Pinchot Task Force (GPTF). Five years in, the GPTF had come up with innovative ideas, like creating our own alternative forest plan and getting it included in the Environmental Impact Statement. We had also been appealing timber sales and getting involved in other management issues so it made sense to keep the organization going.

I stepped down from leadership of the GPTF in 1993. By then, women were much more common as both volunteer leaders and paid staff for conservation groups.

Susan Jane Brown:

Probably the biggest change has been the focus of the United States Forest Service. When I started out, the agency was still clear cutting old growth in the Pacific Northwest, and despite the adoption of the Northwest Forest Plan, didn’t show signs of slowing down.  Now, a couple of decades on, the Forest Service has really turned a corner with respect to old growth logging: while it sometimes still happens, the agency is much more focused on restoration and collaboration rather than controversy and conflict.

Molly, why CFC? 

Molly Whitney:

The forests of the Pacific Northwest are iconic. I spent time in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest growing up… and I had no clue that these beautiful areas that I was experiencing were connected by being within the same National Forest boundary. I can’t remember when I was first introduced to the Task Force, but they, and then CFC, had been on my radar for a long time. When the posting for an Executive Director appeared, I jumped on the opportunity to be a part of this long-standing and impactful organization. 

Susan and Susan Jane; what excited you about where CFC is right now?

Susan Saul:

I am enthused by the continuing legacy of womens’ leadership of CFC, including not only Molly as the Executive Director but also the strong supporting roles of Lucy as the Conservation Policy Manager, Amanda as the Stewardship Manager, and Suzanne as the Restoration Manager. I think it is especially important that CFC has expanded its organizational role beyond conservation to also engage in stewardship and science and to partner with the Forest Service on shared projects and goals.

Susan Jane Brown:

CFC is in an interesting place right now: it is an organization that is changing and growing and has a lot of opportunities before it. I’m excited to see how CFC evolves and grows in the years ahead!

What do you see as the greatest opportunities for conservationists working in the Pacific Northwest in the next 5 years?

Susan Saul:

The “30 x 30” conservation target embraced by the Biden administration to protect 30 percent of U.S. land and coastal seas by 2030, with expanded funding opportunities coming through the Land and Water Conservation Fund and other programs. This target and associated funding may bring renewed energy to conservation campaigns like permanent withdrawal of the Green River area from mineral exploration and development and federal acquisition of the High Lakes area northwest of Mount St. Helens. 

Susan Jane Brown:

As the Forest Service has shifted away from its commodity production emphasis, the conservation community has a great opportunity to work with diverse stakeholders to develop a new vision for our national forests. In particular, the Northwest Forest Plan is scheduled for revision beginning this year, which means that land managers and the public have the chance to build on the important ecological successes of the Northwest Forest Plan and to address pressing issues such as climate change and wildfire risk reduction.  Because forest plans guide subsequent land management decisions, it is essential that forest plans – and the Northwest Forest Plan that covers the range of the northern spotted owl – contain requirements and limitations that will deliver those societal values. But we won’t receive those values without engaging and putting forward a proactive vision, which takes time and intention.

Molly Whitney:

Maybe I’m an optimist but I think that institutions are seeing some of our policies and law as dated and/or needing revision. Take the Northwest Forest Plan. I think we have opportunities to make contributions for the betterment of these policies as they are revisited. We have seen what doesn’t work – we, as conservationists, with growing public support, are situated to address them.  

What do you see as the greatest threat we will need to overcome?

Susan Saul:

A challenge, rather than a threat, is engaging the political support of Representative Jaime Herrera Beutler where federal legislation is needed to achieve conservation goals, such as a legislated mineral withdrawal for the Green River.

Susan Jane Brown:

Bureaucratic inertia.

Molly Whitney:

There are few places that are left intact and undisturbed by human interference. I think that these places, unless protected, are on the verge of being lost forever. We can always work toward restoration, but you only have one chance to protect something before it is forever altered. I think, as demands on our natural resources continue to expand, that we will have to work even harder to make sure that these rare places aren’t impacted. 

What is one insight that you think is unique to being a woman and a leader in the conservation movement?

Susan Saul:

About 10 years ago I was interviewed for a book, “Extraordinary Women Conservationists of Washington: Mothers of Nature.” My interviewer, Raelene Gold, asked me that same question and we discussed it at length since women’s contributions have until recently been literally left out of important conservation histories. We agreed that women often are more collaborative in their approach to achieving shared goals: women frequently have strong people skills, are more inclusive, listen more, read situations more accurately, and are more likely to build teams to solve problems. They learn from adversity, often with an “I’ll show you” attitude.

Susan Jane Brown:

As a woman in a male-dominated field (both conservation and law), I frequently see and feel the power imbalance inherent in my work. Once you are attuned to that inequity, you see it everywhere and want to address it, but systemic inequality cannot be solved by one person alone, but rather by the whole community sharing power. Getting the message across that the conservation community is stronger when we share power, rather than by treating conservation as a zero sum game where some win and some lose, is a challenge. But working with others who understand this dynamic and are also working to build power by sharing it is incredibly rewarding.

Molly Whitney:

There are new perspectives that can be brought to the conservation movement by people that haven’t been historically represented. There are many voices that need to be heard and I hope that women, as well as many other underrepresented groups, are finding their voices heard and recognized as the movement expands and becomes more diverse.

What advice would you give to girls and women interested in pursuing a career fighting for the natural world?

Susan Saul:

Don’t reject volunteering. I have never been paid for any of the 45 years of work I have described in this interview. There weren’t many paying jobs with conservation groups when I was starting out, and the few jobs that existed paid very little. Joe Walicki, the Northwest Representative for The Wilderness Society in the 1970’s, could not afford to own a car so he traveled around Washington and Oregon by Greyhound bus, couch surfed at the homes of conservationists, and relied on supporters’ generosity for meals and rides.

Find mentors. Take advantage of internships, temporary and seasonal jobs to explore your career calling. 

Susan Jane Brown:

Develop a thick, but compassionate skin. Conservation is a full-contact sport, and the losses are tragic: a special place is irreparably changed and perhaps lost, or a species is harmed, or water quality is degraded when our campaigns aren’t successful, and that hurts. Sometimes people operate from a place of fear and are unkind to others who are also working to conserve nature, even though we’re all on the same side, and that hurts.  But take comfort in the wild, because it appreciates your efforts, and in like-minded advocates, because they do too.

Molly Whitney:

Do it. If you find a connection, interest, or passion stemming from something in the natural world – follow it. You will be fulfilled if you are following something you love. Challenge the status quos and don’t be afraid to ask why things have been done a particular way… just because they’ve always been done one way doesn’t mean they should continue. Speak your mind, learn from those around you, and change the landscape in which you work and live.

Thank You 2020 Volunteers

December 30, 2020

The scope of the accomplishments of Cascade Forest Conservancy’s on-the-ground restoration and conservation work wouldn’t be possible without the help of our dedicated community of volunteers. Year after year, these citizen scientists give their time and labor to make positive impacts in habitats across the southern Washington Cascades. We are always grateful for their help, but never more so than we are in 2020.

Sadly, many of the trips that had been planned for this year were canceled because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Other trips were adjusted so volunteers could participate with minimal risk of exposure.

Our amazing volunteers donated over 500 hours of their time to important conservation and restoration projects across the Gifford Pinchot National Forest. They did demanding work; hiking, bushwhacking, duff raking, seed collecting, replanting and reseeding—all while wearing face masks and practicing social distancing.

Because of their love for our forests and their generosity, in 2020 we were able to:

    • collect thousands of images from wildlife cameras deep within the Gifford Pinchot. The data collected is helping scientists understand the distributions of reintroduced fishers (a native species that until recently had been extirpated within the Gifford Pinchot.) The camera data is also shedding a light on other wildlife throughout the region.
    • prepare ancient ponderosa pines across 95 acres for prescribed burning while collecting data to help forest managers understand the effects of fire in the unique forest near Mt. Adams.
    • plant more than 300 plants and reseed 20 acres of forest affected by three recurring burns in recent years.


The impacts of all this work will benefit ecosystems across the southern Washington Cascades for years to come. 2020 will be remembered as a uniquely challenging time, but also as one when people came together to protect and care for our common home. We couldn’t have accomplished all we did this year without our volunteers, thank you!

News Release: Cascade Forest Conservancy Launches Groundbreaking Aquatic Restoration Initiative in SW Washington

12-16-2020

News Release

      

The Cascade Forest Conservancy has launched a new initiative called the Instream Wood Bank Network. The network has the potential to revolutionize the scope, scale, and efficiency of aquatic restoration in southwest Washington and beyond.

The Instream Wood Bank Network was designed by Shiloh Halsey, Cascade Forest Conservancy’s Director of Programs, to address two challenges common to restoration professionals throughout the West; a lack of wood in streams and rivers and difficulty sourcing the wood needed for restoration.

Restoration experts say that before the removal of old-growth trees along rivers and streams, waterways contained more downed trees which diversified aquatic habitat and created deep cool pools needed by many aquatic species, including salmon, steelhead, and various trout species. Climate change is warming rivers in the Pacific Northwest, creating dangerous and potentially fatal conditions for migrating salmon and steelhead, making cold water refugia increasingly important to the survival of spring and summer runs of wild fish. (See Chuck Thompson’s July 23, 2020, piece for Columbia Insight “Thermal hopscotch: How Columbia River salmon are adapting to climate change” https://columbiainsight.org/thermal-hopscotch-how-columbia-river-salmon-are-adapting-to-climate-change/ )

“There is a pressing need to restore fish habitat on a large scale. There are fallen trees and logs on timberlands that can’t be sold—all of which could be used to help build back this habitat. But, there has never been a system in place to connect these two ends,” said Halsey. “And that is exactly what the Instream Wood Bank Network is designed to accomplish.”

The network sources non-saleable wood, then employs local contractors to move wood to a series of wood banks that are set up across the region. The network then provides these logs to restoration groups throughout southwest Washington.

“This is a game-changer for aquatic restoration,” said Brice Crayne of the Lower Columbia Fish Enhancement Group, one of many partner groups benefiting from the new initiative. Other partners and stakeholders include Cowlitz Indian Tribe, South Puget Sound Salmon Enhancement Group, U.S. Forest Service, Washington Department of Natural Resources, and others.

In addition to supplying wood for restoration, the network advances restoration in new areas by helping to prioritize, design, and coordinate the installation of small and medium-sized wood structures to increase restoration efforts in critical habitat areas not being addressed through existing efforts.

The network is currently focused on restoring watersheds in the southern Washington Cascades. With time, the Cascade Forest Conservancy hopes to expand the network into other areas of the Cascades.

More Information:

https://www.instreamwoodbanknetwork.com

UPDATE: MOUNT ST HELENS IS NO PLACE FOR A MINE

August 30, 2020

We have some important updates about our work to protect Goat Mountain and the Green River Valley from hard rock mining. A September 18 hearing date has been set in our case against the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Oral argument will be held remotely rather than in a courtroom. It is currently unknown who will be able to watch the arguments, but we will update you as we learn more.

Why did we sue?

In the final weeks of 2018, the Forest Service and the BLM granted a Canadian company, Ascot Resources, permits to drill 63 exploratory boreholes 2 to 3 inches in diameter on and around Goat Mountain, despite the comments and objections of Cascade Forest Conservancy and opposition from tens of thousands of concerned individuals and other organizations. In response to the decision, we filed a lawsuit because we believe the permits issued are illegal. A portion of the area in question was purchased with funds from the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), which is specifically allocated for purchasing land for the purposes of recreation and conservation. Furthermore, the exploratory drilling permits were granted without the necessary analysis required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) leading to a Finding of No Significant Impact–or a determination (which we believe to be false) that the project will not have any significant impact, negative or positive, on the environment. 

Why is an exploratory drilling permit such a big concern?

Drilling exploratory boreholes will cause significant negative impacts on the area and the people who enjoy it. The Ascot proposal involves reactivating old roads in pristine forest to transport trucks and heavy equipment to drill sites. Harmful chemicals would be used at the drill sites, some of which are located within 100 feet of waterways, and the constant noise of equipment would disturb wildlife and ruin some of the best fishing, hunting, hiking, horseback riding, and outdoor recreation opportunities in Washington State.

Our biggest concern, however, is that if significant mineral deposits are found, stopping an open-pit hard rock mine may become very difficult. Our best chance of protecting this place and the surrounding areas is to stop the mining process now, not later.

What is at stake?

Goat Mountain and the Green River Valley are situated just beyond the borders of the protected Mount St Helens National Volcanic Monument. In fact, as you can see in the map below, the boundary lines of the monument were drawn specifically to exclude the area from protection because of the possible value of the mineral deposits that may lie there. The monument was formed in 1982. During the years of the Regan administration, excluding these areas from protection was a necessary compromise to achieve protections for the rest of the mountain, but one that left the region vulnerable to mining threats.

The slopes of Goat Mountain are home to some of the only old-growth forest stands in the area to survive both the intensive logging of the preceding decades and the 1980 eruption. The Green River flowing directly below is a recognized gene bank for wild steelhead, and an eligible Wild and Scenic River. A mine would completely decimate this landscape. We are also concerned by the toxic chemicals that are used in hard rock mining and stored in tailing ponds. These toxic ponds would pollute waterways and poison drinking water far beyond the immediate area if (or more accurately when) the pond leaks and breaches into the Green River, which flows into the Toutle, then into the Cowlitz. There is no way to mine safely on the slopes of an active volcano and in a seismically volatile landscape. If a mine is excavated the impacts of the damage will be felt for hundreds of years.

What are our next steps?

Even if we win in court, this fight will not be over. Similar permits have been approved and ruled illegal in the past. The only way we can protect this area from mining, in the long run, is to secure permanent protections for the Green River Valley. 

Cascade Forest Conservancy will make sure to keep you up to date on this issue. You can help us by making a donation to support our work to protect this landscape here.

SPIRIT LAKE PROJECT UPDATE

June 26, 2020

 

Some places are too special, too beautiful, and too important to risk losing. One of those is the Pumice Plain, a 6-mile long area between the crater of Mount St. Helens and Spirit Lake. This landscape is unique, pristine, and has transformed our understanding of aspects of ecology. Now, a proposed road through the heart of this place is putting it at risk of being lost.

 

The Pumice Plain is, in geologic time, a brand-new area. When Mount St. Helens erupted forty years ago on May 18, 1980, it erupted sideways. That day, the area north of the mountain was buried under hundreds of feet of superheated ash and pumice–nothing survived.

But more quickly than we thought possible, life has come back. The Pumice Plain is still a rugged, harsh, windblown landscape–but now rich with insects, flowers, plants, and animals, each attesting to the stubborn resilience of life. The area’s protected status has meant that hikers have had a unique opportunity to see a Cascadian volcano’s power and the return of life up close. It has also allowed scientists and researchers to make some surprising discoveries that wouldn’t have been possible anywhere else on Earth.

 

 

Despite the area’s scientific value and protected status as a National Monument and a Class I Research Area, the Forest Service plans to construct a road here for easier access to infrastructure (a drainage gate at nearby Spirit Lake). The drainage gate helps prevent a breach of the lake, which could pose serious danger to downstream communities. But this road is not the only (or even fastest or best) way to keep people safe. The road would close the world-famous Truman Trail, damage newly forming streams and watersheds, introduce invasive species, and disrupt, or end ongoing scientific studies. We could lose this place forever.

There is enough we know now to stand against this project. Yet the real extent of the potential impacts are not fully understood. The Forest Service avoided their obligation under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to provide an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), a detailed study which is typically required for a project like this. They did so by announcing a Finding of No Significant Impact, meaning the Forest Service has come to the conclusion that the road will not have a significant impact (positive or negative) on the people, plants, and animals who inhabit this place. We know that isn’t true. There will be impacts, and they will be permanent. We need to know what they will be.

 

There are other problems with the plan too, like the addition of core sample drilling along the lake and many more issues you can read about in detail in our objection, submitted to the Forest Service in May, which you can read here. It is critical that we stop this planned project and find a better way to protect people living in downstream communities. We are asking the agency to take a step back. Cascade Forest Conservancy is ready and willing to advocate for the funding the agency needs to complete a full EIS, and to work cooperatively to explore alternative solutions that protect Washingtonians while preserving this irreplaceable place.

The official objection period for this project has passed, but it’s not too late to raise more public awareness for the Pumice Plain. Share this article, or plan a visit to the Pumice Plain to see how special this place is for yourself. Cascade Forest Conservancy and many other organizations and concerned individuals submitted objections to the Forest Service. We will attend an objection resolution meeting with the agency on July 8th. After, we will know if the Forest Service will decide to work with us to find a better solution, or if the agency will push forward with the plan as is. Either way, we will continue fighting to preserve this landscape and keep our friends and supporters informed along the way.

Environmentalists must speak up about racism

June 3rd, 2020

Here at the Cascade Forest Conservancy, we work every day to protect the places and people of southern Washington’s Cascades. Some may wonder why an environmental organization should take a stand on an issue some would consider beyond the scope of our mission. We don’t see it that way. Our efforts are regional, but our vision, one in which human communities exist in harmony and peace with the thriving natural world, is global. Racism and racist violence are antithetical to that goal. Environmental wellbeing is not possible apart from social and racial justice.

The protests that have spread across our nation are not solely about the murder of George Floyd by Minneapolis Police officers. We are still mourning the death of Emmett Till. Of Tamir Rice. Of Sandra Bland. Of Trevon Martin, and countless other precious lives. We are still mourning the historical looting and land theft of the indigenous peoples of our region, and the continuing discrimination and injustice these communities face today.

A majority of our staff benefit from white privilege, as do many other leaders within the environmentalist movement. Historically, conservationists have not been vocal leaders in the long fight for social and racial justice in this country. We can no longer bear to remain in the silence our privilege affords.

At CFC, we are committed to listening, and speaking up when we see injustice–whether that be environmental policies that endanger the health and safety of marginalized communities, unequal opportunities to safely enjoy the benefits wild places provide, unjust laws, or police brutality.

We ask that you join us. Listen to and amplify the voices of Black, Brown, Indigenous, and POC perspectives. Research intersectional environmentalism. Read about the history of Vanport. Educate yourself about the history of indigenous peoples in our region (Vine Deloria Jr.’s Indians of the Pacific Northwest is an excellent place to start) and continue to fight for a world that is sustainable, whole, and where black lives matter.

Hiking Safely in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest

May 22 2020

If you’re anything like us, you can’t wait to get back out on the trail this summer. It was recently announced that after COVID-19 closures, most of the day-use trails and recreation areas in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest have reopened. As glad as that news makes us, the situation is far from back to normal. Here’s what you need to know before hiking in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest during the pandemic:

Check ahead of time to confirm that the area you plan to visit is open. You can find information on current trail openings and closures at the Gifford Pinchot National Forest’s website here. 

Site facilities may still be closed. Just because the trailhead is open, does not necessarily mean the site’s facilities are. Vault bathrooms may be open, but the Forest Service will not be maintaining them as usual because employees don’t currently have the PPE to do so safely. There is no guarantee that open facilities are COVID free. Take precautions for your own safety and the safety of others. Plan (and pack) accordingly.

Avoid crowded areas. If you get to a trailhead and the parking lot is full, don’t hike there. Period. The trail will be too crowded to safely practice social distancing. Plus, if you park on the side of the road, you could be towed, and who wants to end a day in the woods trying to hitch a ride to an impound lot? Not us. Probably not you either. Have a plan B (maybe even a plan C) before you head out.

DO NOT visit stores in rural communities. Can’t stress this one enough: unless you’re a local resident, don’t stop into stores in rural communities. Plan ahead and bring everything you’ll need with you. Don’t risk exposing people in rural communities to the virus because you didn’t bring enough water or snacks.

Campgrounds are still closed, but dispersed camping is allowed. Campgrounds currently remain closed and the GPNF is working to open them with safety as the number one priority.  If you choose to disperse camp, please take all of your trash home and dispose of human waste properly.

These are strange times, so be safe out there. If a hiker or other recreational user gets into trouble, response times will likely be longer since local emergency responders (many of whom are volunteers) are also under the Executive Order unless necessary or exempted. Emergency responders are also focusing on keeping their local communities safe. So remember, always pack the 10 essentials. Bring more food and water than you think you need. Bring basic first aid, supportive footwear, and rain-gear, no matter what the weather forecast says. Tell someone where you are going and when you will be back.

We’ll see you (from a safe distance) on the trail!

What’s at stake in the Mount St. Helens national monument 40 years after the eruption?

by Bryn Harding | Communication Manager

May 18 2020

I was born a few years after the eruption of Mount St. Helens. The two five-gallon buckets of fine gray ash stored in our garage were curiosities I mostly ignored as I explored the seemingly ageless mountains, streams, and forests of the Pacific Northwest. They were certainly interesting–not only because of the stories associated with them, but also because their weight seemed alien, as if the contents of the buckets was at once too light and too heavy. In my mind, the Pacific Northwest had always been a place defined by peace and stillness. But as that ash attested to, the Pacific Northwest is in fact a place of incredible power and violence, of death and rebirth, destruction and transformation.

The Pacific Northwest is a land of volcanoes. Major eruptions and corresponding cycles of destruction and regrowth are a part of the fabric of this place. Yet, as common as these events may be geologically, in the span of any single human lifetime they are rare, which is why we are so lucky to have the chance to observe, record, and learn from the areas protected from human interference within the Mount St. Helens national monument, the most active volcano in the Cascades.

At places near the blast zone, like Spirit Lake and the area now referred to as the Pumice Plain, the destruction following the famous May 18th eruption seemed permanent. However, life has already begun to come back. “I’ve been lucky in my lifetime to watch Spirit Lake transform from a cold, clear body of water to a coffee-colored, lukewarm basin of pathogens and then back to a cold, clear lake teeming with new life.” wrote Christine Colasurdo, author of Return to Spirit Lake: Life and landscape at Mount St. Helens, “Spirit Lake is a unique place of mystery and beauty that deserves our awe and respect.”

The return of life to the Pumice Plain has been similarly enlightening. Within just a few years of the eradication of all plants and animals, some species started to return, and prairie lupine began to flower. Now the area, featuring trails much enjoyed by curious hikers from around the world, teems with birds and insects, as grasses, wildflowers and young willows sway in the breeze. “The Pumice Plain, once baked clean of life by the 1980 eruption,” wrote Colasurdo, “is now one of the prime treasures of the Mount St. Helens National Volcanic Monument. It is where research done by scientists has helped rewrite biology textbooks, and where hikers can experience the awesome power of Mount St. Helens’ blast zone.”

Spirit Lake and the Pumice Plain have provided us with insights into how habitats, ecosystems and watersheds form, insights that are changing how we think about managing and protecting the world around us. Right now, there are more than 30 studies currently underway in this natural laboratory; each taking advantage of the protected and undisturbed areas within the National Monument to gain insights not possible anywhere else.

Yet today, the Pumice Plain is facing a new threat. This time the danger comes in the form of a proposed road to be constructed through the heart of this unique, beautiful and irreplaceable area. There is a real need for the Forest Service to access infrastructure near Spirit Lake, but we don’t think this road is the right solution to that problem. The road risks the unique beauty and insights this site offers to hikers and the ability of researchers to complete their work and add to our knowledge. CFC will be sharing ways you can help us in our efforts to protect this place in the coming weeks.

For now, we encourage you to learn more about Spirit Lake and the Pumice Plain. Reading Christine Colasurdo’s helpful and informative book is a great place to start. Colasurdo’s book is available by emailing her through her website (www.christinecolasurdo.com.) It’s also available online through Annie Bloom’s Books and Broadway Books.

If you would like to learn more about some of the scientists working in this area, we encourage you to start with the articles here and here.

ACTION ALERT: Object to the proposed project at Spirit Lake

April 30, 2020

We need your help. On April 7, the US Forest Service released a draft decision and Environmental Assessment (EA) for the proposed action at Spirit Lake. The Forest Service plans to move forward with the proposal to construct a road straight through the Pumice Plain. Those of you who commented on the original proposal now have an opportunity to object to the draft decision, no later than May 22, 2020.

[Note: The Forest Service will only accept objections from individuals who previously submitted public comments, and objections must relate to the specific issue[s] discussed in your original comments. Didn’t comment but still want to help protect the Pumice Plains? Help CFC get the word out by sharing the articles linked below on your social media accounts. CFC commented on the original proposal, will be submitting detailed objections to the draft decision, while we continue working to raise public awareness around this issue. If you’re in a position to do so, consider making a donation to CFC to support our conservation work.]

The US Forest Service has released its draft decisions and EA for activities to replace the Spirit Lake intake gate system and to drill into the debris field from the 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens. To accomplish this, The Forest Service plans to build a 3.5-mile, 16-foot wide road across the Pumice Plain within the Mount St. Helens National Monument, replacing the Truman Trail (https://www.wta.org/go-hiking/hikes/truman-trail-pumice-plain)

The Pumice Plain is like nowhere else on Earth. Since the destruction brought by the 1980 eruption, the area has been protected, researched, and allowed to return without interference. As a result, the Pumice Plain is now a wild and beautiful natural laboratory that is reshaping our understanding of ecosystem development.

The proposed road would severely impact the Pumice Plain by:

• disturbing wildlife including mountain goats, fish, deer, and elk.  

• negatively impact streams, watersheds, and wetlands, 

• disrupting recreation and hunting, 

• opening a potential door for invasive species,

• impacting, and possibly destroying  25 research plots, and cutting across most of the transects scientists and researchers have been using to record the recovery of the area.

The proposed project addresses legitimate concerns. There is a need to modify and repair the intake gate for the Spirit Lake Tunnel, and to provide access for tunnel maintenance to protect downstream communities. But the timeline expressed in the draft decision does not accurately reflect the situation. It would take an abnormal series of climatic events followed by months of inaction to result in a breach. In the unlikely event of infrastructure failure around Spirit Lake, there would still be “substantial response time to prevent catastrophic breaching and protection of the downstream communities.”*

We believe the agency is using the ruse of an emergency as the pretense for forcing action without a fair public participation process or adequate analysis in the form of an Environmental Impact Statement. Additionally, we believe that the need for the geotechnical drilling project is premature, and by combining these projects the agency is dismissing reasonable alternatives that could minimize impacts on the environment, wildlife, and research, while still protecting downstream communities.

CFC formed a coalition and voiced our concerns when the project was proposed. The recently released draft decision does not adequately address our concerns with this project. We are submitting a formal objection to the agency’s decision and will continue to do all that we can to advocate for a plan that both protects communities and this beautiful, important, and unique place. 

*Grant, et al., GEOLOGIC, GEOMORPHIC AND HYDROLOGIC CONTEXT OF THE SPIRIT LAKE OUTLET (2017).


Action:

Objections to the Spirit Lake Intake Gate Replacement and Geotechnical Drilling Project or to the forest plan amendment will only be accepted from those who have previously submitted timely comments regarding these planning efforts during any designated opportunity for public comment in accordance with the project objection requirements in section 218.5(a). Issues raised in objections must be based on previously submitted timely, specific written comments regarding the proposed project unless based on new information arising after the designated comment opportunities.

Please reach out to us at info@cascadeforest.org with questions about submitting objections. 

Objections can be submitted electronically here:

https://cara.ecosystem-management.org/Public//CommentInput?Project=57259

Objections may also be mailed to:

 Regional Forester (Reviewing Officer)

Pacific Northwest Regional Office

Attn: 1507 Objections

P.O. Box 3623


Articles to share:

The Daily Chronicle Researchers, Conservationists Raise Alarm About Proposed Road Through Mount St. Helens Pumice Plain* January 24, 2019

The Daily News Mount St. Helens ecological research could help conserve, restore nature April 8, 2020

The Columbian ‘Floating habitat’ could be key for Spirit Lake fish April 5, 2020

*this article references the withdrawn 2019 Spirit Lake project proposal, which was similar to the current 2020 proposal.

 

Photos by Carri LeRoy