You are here

Should the NPS Be Given Mount St. Helens?

Share
Mount St. Helens National Volcanic Monument. U.S. Forest Service photo.

Mount St. Helens National Volcanic Monument. U.S. Forest Service photo.

Both the National Park Service and U.S. Forest Service are hamstrung by deficient budgets. In the case of the Forest Service, one symptom of its financial plight is that the agency wants to close a visitor center at the Mount St. Helens National Volcanic Monument. That move has spurred calls that the Park Service be given the monument to manage, and the National Parks Conservation Association now is echoing those calls.

But should Mount St. Helens be given such status? As Jeremy Sullivan pointed out a month ago, (S)witching the management of the mountain from one cash-starved agency to another cash-starved agency may not solve the fundamental problem of not having enough money to operate the three visitor centers at St Helens.

Too, he pointed out that Washington state's congressional delegates, the ones who now are being lobbied to push the Park Service to take over Mount St. Helens, could solve the immediate problem by working to better fund the Forest Service.

But the NPCA seems to see the Forest Service's budgetary struggles as a perfect opening to add another jewel to the park system.

“Mount St. Helens is a national gem. The volcano and the surrounding communities deserve the recognition that come with national park status,” says Sean Smith, NPCA's Northwest regional director. “Placing Mount St. Helen’s under the care of the Park Service would ensure the volcano’s natural wonders are preserved for the enjoyment of present and future generations.”

While it'd be hard to argue that Mount St. Helens isn't worthy of park status, can the Park Service afford it at this point in time? After all, the agency already has an $8 billion backlog of maintenance needs, and its annual budget falls roughly $800 million shy of what the agency needs, according to the NPCA.

At a time when the Park Service is leasing facilities to private interests because it can't afford to maintain them, I wonder how it could possibly afford to take on Mount St. Helens.

NPR Audio Coverage from Seattle Affiliate:
Jeers Outnumber Cheers For Volcano National Park Idea

Comments

True, the event on 1980 marked a unique and significant geological opportunity for ecological and geothermal studies "right in our own backyard". The results were catastrophic in terms of environmental impact, while at the same time invaluable in the seismic and geothermal data that were collected. Most noteworthy has been the replenishment of plant and animal life at a far greater pace than previously thought possible by E&E scientists. While many scars still remain and the local geography and topography have been forever altered, and while there can be no arguement for this region being termed volcanically active, I would like to pose a few questions. Are we prepared to designate any or all future eruption sites are National Parks? Aside from chronology, what criterion are to be utilized to denote this event from probably future events in the same or any other range of mountains? There is mounting evidence and data currently being collected that strongly suggest other probable volcanically active sites beyond the Cascades. And while Volcanos National Park gained status as a national park through the usual "unique character" clause and to some degree due to its remote location and the novel character of the Hawaiian Island chain of ancient volcanic mountain builders, where are we prepared to draw the line in the sand? Should the area of the Mississippi River where it's channel was permanently altered by the New Madrid earthquake be designated a National Park, or monument or preserve?
Are any other remnants of natural disasters within the scope of presevation? My vote would be to nix the NPS acquisition of Mt. St. Helens, consider status with other capable organizations (e.g., the State Park system of Washington?) and manage it from within. There happen to be more than a few local individuals with the resources to assist in both direct and indirect fiscal subsidies, as is common to many public facilities across the nation. I submit for reference funding sources at the Grand Tetons. Any other ideas?


Lone Hiker makes some good points and raises some good questions that should be explored.

As I've noted several times over the past two years, Congress is quick to designate national park system units, but not so quick to adequately fund them. The result? Well, there's that $8 billion maintenance backlog for starters, as well as the National Park Service's trend toward replacing full-time rangers with volunteers because it simply can't cover all the bases.

Lines need to be drawn, both to whittle down the Park Service's budget problems and, frankly, to protect the integrity of the park system. Now, that's not to say that adding Mount St. Helens would damage the integrity. I think a sound argument can be made for its inclusion. But as Lone Hiker questions, where do you stop? If the Park Service budget were solidly in the black, I'd probably jump on the bandwagon. But it's not.

Frank and Beamis more than once have called for a reordering of the Park Service, and one project whose time perhaps has arrived is taking a good, hard look at the various units and deciding whether they truly deserve to be within the national park system.


I think it's a little harsh to say that Steamtown isn't 'nationally significant' because it and Golden Spike are the only 2 NPS units that I am aware of that preserve our nation's railroading history. Without railroads, the West wouldn't have been opened nearly was quickly.

That being said, there are many NPS sites that are worthy of protection, but aren't nationally significant...

---
jr_ranger
http://tntrailhead.blogspot.com
http://zinch.com/jr_ranger
http://picasaweb.google.com/north.cascades
President, CHS SPEAK (CHS Students Promoting Environmental Action & Knowledge)
Founder and President, CHS Campus Greens


MSH, because of its easy access to the public and science affords a unique ability to watch the natural processes of regeneration - a regeneration process which requires park status protection. There are lots of areas outside the monument where Weyerhauser and others can study the effects of timber planting and other intrusions into the natural cycle, but unless MSH is fully protected from "use," it's value to science and to the public's interests as a scenic geological area will become even more compromised than it has been already.

No one's suggesting that every time a volcano blows in the lower 48 it be turned into a NP... though to be honest, all that have erupted in historical times are in NPs EXCEPT Mount St. Helens... the one we have the chance to watch regenerate both biologically and geologically from the its major eruptive event.

As for the idea that the Forest Service will somehow become an instrument of protection rather than use, if Gifford Pinchot couldn't be convinced, it ain't gonna happen 100 years later. The Forest Service may learn how to better allow private use, but it will never cease private use. It's completely contrary to their mission.

And therein lies my argument. MSH has historical, geological, scenic, scientific and cultural value for all Americans. It deserves to be protected for future generations. It will not be under the Forest Service.


@Frank: "Leaving land to recover naturally ("preserving"?) needs no funding". This is quite simplified, because there is substantial research and documentation but let's say it were true. But a National Monument (even more a potential National Park) at MSH is about access to the recovering landscape and interpreting the processes to the interested public. And this requires substantial funding for constructing access roads and parking, visitor centers, maintaining them, enforcing the rules, manning exhibitions and information desks and what ever else is needed.

Congress wanted MSH to be a National Monument, it was funded lavishly in the beginning. The Silver Lake Visitor Center had everything imaginable and got awards for architecture and exhibitions. And even after almost 30 years there are many Americans and tourists from overseas who want to see a recently erupted volcano, see the marred landscape and recovering flora and fauna. There obviously is demand for education, interpretation and/or simply the entertainment and the thrill to see the forces of nature. The Coldwater Ridge Visitor Center is not to be closed for lack of visitors.

It MSH worth to be managed on the federal level? Congress said yes in 1982. This can be reevaluated, of course. Are there established criteria? You may want to check license plates at the visitor parking. Or you may take a look at the international interest MSH gets. Just one indicator might be Wikipedia. Right now(*) there are 28 so called interwiki links at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_St._Helens - meaning that besides English, people from 28 other languages and cultures find Mount St. Helens worth an article in their language, including Bahasa Indonesia, Estonian and Croatian language.

* permanent link to the current version: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mount_St._Helens&oldid=154824256


THANK YOU, Mr. Williams. I absolutely agree.


I agree, I worked for the Forest Service in a Ranger Station very near to the Monument and they do not know how to manage an area for the person that just wants to visit the area. Thier specialty is managing it for many uses, thus thier motto. The best example is thier pass system, for most people this is very, very confusing. A typical visitor sees Mt. St. Helens National Volcanic Monument and automaticly think it is part of the National Park Service and all it's standard nuances.


Commissioners rescind support for national park around volcano
By Barbara LaBoe
Oct 31, 2007

Link here: http://www.tdn.com/articles/2007/11/01/area_news/news10.txt


Add comment

CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.

The Essential RVing Guide

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

The National Parks RVing Guide, aka the Essential RVing Guide To The National Parks, is the definitive guide for RVers seeking information on campgrounds in the National Park System where they can park their rigs. It's available for free for both iPhones and Android models.

This app is packed with RVing specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 parks.

You'll also find stories about RVing in the parks, some tips if you've just recently turned into an RVer, and some planning suggestions. A bonus that wasn't in the previous eBook or PDF versions of this guide are feeds of Traveler content: you'll find our latest stories as well as our most recent podcasts just a click away.

So whether you have an iPhone or an Android, download this app and start exploring the campgrounds in the National Park System where you can park your rig.