What's more important, a thick, primordial forest, or the road that takes you to it? Is Yellowstone in winter only remarkable and wondrous if you can view it from the back of a throbbing snowmobile? Is the backcountry of Big Cypress National Preserve only impressive if you bounce through it on a swamp buggy on steroids?
These aren't new questions, but no clearcut answers have been attached to them. I revisit them now because of a story in the Seattle Times that examines how officials have been trying to rebuild Mount Rainier National Park in the wake of last fall's torrential storms that washed out roads and campgrounds.
The story, by Warren Cornwall, reveals that park officials, determined to stop a rampaging stream from undercutting the Nisqually River road, dispatched a bulldozer through designated wilderness to alter the new channel of Kautz Creek. Fortunately, saner minds prevailed before too much damage was caused.
Of course, sanity is a measure of perspective in this instance. Is the road more valuable than the wilderness?
A similar question arises in Rainier's northwestern corner, where the storms, once again, washed out much of the Carbon River Road. While park Superintendent Dave Uberuaga wants to rebuild a section of the road, the storm redesigned the Carbon River, in some places sculpting deep pools valuable to bull trout, a species protected by the Endangered Species Act.
In each of these instances we need to place a value on nature, and determine whether that value is diminished because we can't easily reach it.
Repairing Rainier: A Question of Values
Published Date
June 25, 2007
Fixing the roads in Mount Rainier National Park; NPS Photo.
Story Categories:
Support National Parks Traveler
Your support for the National Parks Traveler comes at a time when news organizations are finding it hard, if not impossible, to stay in business. Traveler's work is vital. For nearly two decades we've provided essential coverage of national parks and protected areas. With the Trump administration’s determination to downsize the federal government, and Interior Secretary Doug Burgum’s approach to public lands focused on energy exploration, it’s clear the Traveler will have much to cover in the months and years ahead. We know of no other news organization that provides such broad coverage of national parks and protected areas on a daily basis. Your support is greatly appreciated.
EIN: 26-2378789
Support Essential Coverage of Essential PlacesA copy of National Parks Traveler's financial statements may be obtained by sending a stamped, self-addressed envelope to: National Parks Traveler, P.O. Box 980452, Park City, Utah 84098. National Parks Traveler was formed in the state of Utah for the purpose of informing and educating about national parks and protected areas.
Residents of the following states may obtain a copy of our financial and additional information as stated below:
- Florida: A COPY OF THE OFFICIAL REGISTRATION AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION FOR NATIONAL PARKS TRAVELER, (REGISTRATION NO. CH 51659), MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE DIVISION OF CONSUMER SERVICES BY CALLING 800-435-7352 OR VISITING THEIR WEBSITE. REGISTRATION DOES NOT IMPLY ENDORSEMENT, APPROVAL, OR RECOMMENDATION BY THE STATE.
- Georgia: A full and fair description of the programs and financial statement summary of National Parks Traveler is available upon request at the office and phone number indicated above.
- Maryland: Documents and information submitted under the Maryland Solicitations Act are also available, for the cost of postage and copies, from the Secretary of State, State House, Annapolis, MD 21401 (410-974-5534).
- North Carolina: Financial information about this organization and a copy of its license are available from the State Solicitation Licensing Branch at 888-830-4989 or 919-807-2214. The license is not an endorsement by the State.
- Pennsylvania: The official registration and financial information of National Parks Traveler may be obtained from the Pennsylvania Department of State by calling 800-732-0999. Registration does not imply endorsement.
- Virginia: Financial statements are available from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 102 Governor Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.
- Washington: National Parks Traveler is registered with Washington State’s Charities Program as required by law and additional information is available by calling 800-332-4483 or visiting www.sos.wa.gov/charities, or on file at Charities Division, Office of the Secretary of State, State of Washington, Olympia, WA 98504.
Add comment
National parks and their natural resources belong to you. The National Parks Traveler works to ensure you know how these essential places are being cared for.
Sign Up For Our Weekly Newsletter
Unsubscribe at any time.
Your urgent support helps the National Parks Traveler increase awareness of the wonders and issues confronting national parks and protected areas.
Support Our Mission
Help support us– the one source for journalism dedicated to our National Parks.
National Parks Traveler is a 501(c) (3) nonprofit.
INN Member
The easiest way to explore RV-friendly National Park campgrounds.
Here’s the definitive guide to National Park System campgrounds where RVers can park their rigs.
Our app is packed with RVing- specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 national parks.
You’ll also find stories about RVing in the parks, tips helpful if you’ve just recently become an RVer, and useful planning suggestions.
Comments
You tree-huggers are pathetic..."too much damage" maybe we oughta just put a FENCE around it and keep everybody out.... The storm did one helluva lot of DAMAGE too, including dumping a LOT of SILT in the river too...who ya gonna blame, God??
Crissakes, ya have to keep the infrastructure if people are gonna have a chance to enjoy the park, otherwise let's just sell it off to the highest bidder and develop it.
BRAVO!!! to Supt. Uberagua for his efforts to allow the American people to enjoy THEIR park...it DOESN'T just belong to a minority of envirowhackos who don't include Homo sapiens as part of the park ecology!
If you were my grandson, I'd SLAP some common sense into yer head!
Granma
Two things:
1. Olympic and North Cascades already protect the forests in WA. Rainer has also been the most developed, and I think that by developing it, we might not have a balance between recreation and resource protection within the park, but we will have a balance within Washington State . So I say build the road, but do it right. Whoever decided to send a bulldozer up a river isn't too bright.
2. Sally - NPT is not a place for personal attacks. You might not agree with what us "envirowhackos" have to say, but please just respect us instead of attacking. You'll find that debate works much better without ultimatums.
Sally,
I get this feeling that you've never read "How to Win Friends and Influence People"....
Kurt
Sally,
I feel sorry for your grandchildren who have to suffer your physical abuse. Take your verbal abuse elsewhere.
Back to the point, there is a fine line (as has been repeated over and over) between protecting the resource and providing access to people. I'm not sure if these things can be decided on a blanket, general basis. It seems that diverting Kautz Creek may be a frustration response by park officials who have sought to tame that road crossing for the last 50 years. Between lahars and floods, they've pumped a lot of money and time into that crossing.
I also think that the NPS has become kind of trigger-happy when it comes to flood repair. The Yosemite situation has made them that way. After the 100-year flood of 1997, Yosemite sought to look at long-term responses rather than just "fixing what's broke." As good an idea as this was, it's 10 years later and things are still just getting started, due primarily to litigation.
I think, as frustrating as the process of looking at the long-term may be (i.e. asking "do we really need a road here?") it is vital we do so. More and more, Rainier is becoming an island in a sea of development. If we can't retain wilderness in Rainier, where can we?
The "line between protecting the resource and providing access to people" isn't fine. In the case above, it's a half-mile long scar carved into living forest by a diesel-slurping smoke-spewing monster that does not belong in wilderness. Period.
And what is up with the title of this post? Could it be any more innocuous? This blog sensationalizes fees and cloaks environmental degradation in mundane language.
Here's a grabber for this story:
"Top Park Officials Illegally Allow Bulldozer Use in Wilderness"
That better sums up the story than the blase "Repairing Rainier: A Question of Values".
You know wilderness is more valuable than the road. Less rhetorical questions and more assertions please :)
What good is wilderness if nobody can see it? Wake up and smell the real world, enviropukes.
We need to get back to the 40s and 50's...get rid of all these stupid environmental regs...they have to just drive these Superintendents batty. The public deserves and needs ACCESS...otherwise, quit taking our tax dollars for parks....