There in an article today in the Columbian, a Vancouver, Washington based newspaper that details the efforts of four US Representatives to get the Mt St Helens Volcanic Monument moved from the management of the US Forest Service to management under the National Park Service. The article, "St. Helens National Park?", addresses the issue of the Forest Service having to permanently close a visitor center within the Monument because of budget shortages. Because of this closure, Washington's two Senators and two Congressman (including Norm Dicks, chairman of the House Interior Appropriations Committee) have asked Mark Rey, the Under Secretary of Natural Resources and Environment to see if the Forest Service is the best agency to provide long term management of the volcanic resource.
In the letter, the representatives state, "while we believe Monument staff does a superb job with the resources and direction…, we remain concerned about the public access to and long-term protection of the Monument." It continues, with emphasis on the budget, "given this funding reality, we are interested in learning more about the Forest Service’s plan at Mount St. Helens and how it expects to protect and expand necessary visitor services and appropriate recreational opportunities while protecting monument resources and wildlife."
The Forest Service and the National Park Service have very different objectives when it comes to land management. The Forest Service manages for multiple use, for activities including logging, hunting, mining, grazing, off-road use, and for hiking and other low impact recreational activities. And under that mission, Mt St Helens has been a working mountain. But since the major eruption in 1980, the mountain has been a poor investment for the Forest Service because all timber of value has been salvaged, and it will be generations before full-scale harvesting could return to the slopes of the mountain. Modern management of the mountain more closely resembles that of the Park Service, with preservation of the resource for science and for visitor enjoyment in the form of elaborate visitor centers and museum exhibits.
I find it somewhat ironic that this debate is happening for a mountain located inside of the Gifford Pinchot National Forest. Gifford Pinchot was the first person in the United States to graduate with at degree in Forestry. He was also the first person to lead the US Forest Service. It was debates in the late 1800's between Pinchot and John Muir that lead to the distinctions between managing forests for conservation (managing trees as crops) and preservation (letting trees alone), which would eventually be the major distinction between the Forest Service and the Park Service operations.
Also, I find it interesting, that if the problems at Mt St Helens predominantly involve issues surrounding the budget, the four representatives from Washington are in a unique position to do something about it, specifically, give more money to the Forest Service for visitor services on the mountain. Switching 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. The National Park Service does have experience managing volcanic resources and visitor services at places like Hawaii Volcanoes, Lassen, Mt Rainier, and even Yellowstone. And so, if Congress can provide the additional funds needed for operations, the Park Service may be the best agency to manage the Mt St Helens Volcanic Monument for the future generations.
Support Essential Coverage of Essential Places
Comments
I live in Portland and am familiar with the politics and problems surrounding the monument. It was carved far too small to serve as the island of scientific and natural study it should have been, but it's better than nothing...
However ever since it's establishment, the monument has been beseiged by commercial interests who seek to decrease its size or get inroads in. From lumber interests to mining interests to real estate interests, the monument is under attack and the Forest Service - far more used to bending to commercial use - is not protecting the resource as it should be.
The visitor center that is closing is only one of two in the park (the other two are managed by private sources - one of which is Weyerhauser, a major logging enterprise, whose visitor center is a pure propaganda machine.) And though I understand some who want to be alone with the mountain, there are many who wish to know more about it and would like to have some understanding of what they're seeing. The visitor's center is imperfect, but far better than no interpretation at all. There are still plenty of miles of trails on which to be alone with the mountain.
If the site of this historic eruption is to be preserved for future generations and for study, it must be moved into NPS hands. Sure there are money issues in the NPS (and there aren't in the NFS?) but at least their mission is primarily about preservation and not about selling out to the highest bidder.
Sell it off to developers or put it back into timber production...it's just a barren wasteland.
St. Helens is anything but a "barren wasteland", and those who have visited have seen the abundant covering of wildflowers, grasses, saplings, and sedges. Fish, bears, deer, mountain lions, and other wildlife call it home. St. Helens provides us with a rare opportunity to study natural recovery after a cataclysmic volcanic disturbance.
My original comment:
"This was the most momentous volcanic eruption on the continental United States in the history of the country."
Beamis' comment:
"If I'm not mistaken the eruption of Lassen Peak on was equally powerful. Any vulcanologists out there know which was bigger?"
I wasn't eluding to the power of the eruption. I was using "momentous" in terms of a historical event. It was the first eruption in the continental U.S. of the modern media era. The eruption spawned coverage that was deep and broad, and will therefore be etched in the memory of the country for an extremely long time. I also think that St. Helens had a greater impact on the population (more evacuations, more casualties, more economic impact) than Lassen.
I think the geological, ecological, and historical elements of the St. Helens area demands NPS status.
"Do the Hawaiian islands count? I know many native islanders who consider the United States a hostile occupier and so maybe they don't count in the "momentous eruption" category as being in the United States."
I clearly stated "continental" for that very reason. Hawaii has an intimate relationship with its many volcanoes; to us "conties", volcanoes are an extremely rare occurrence.
Oh please Ruth,be for real.. Any one who has ever taken the time to go to St.Helens knows ,it's anything but a barren wasteland. Maybe people, who don't know what their talking about,should keep their thought 's to themselves.Especially, when it comes to such important matters.
Been there Diana, found this whole region to be just awesome. This is a geological wonder that testfies that mother nature bats last. Yes, it deserves the status as a National Park...and more. Just to see the slow ecological recovery after this big blast is a remarkable thing to see. Try to visualize the impact that nature(after the eruption) has on this beautiful part of the country Ruth. It's not Central Park, but the rugged outskirts of Washington...I just love it!
As a former Forest Service, Mount St. Helens National Volcanic Monument employee, and a resident of Toutle who lived the eruption, I must first correct some inaccuracies in the article. #1 No land in the Monument will ever be logged. Monument designation permanently removes 110,000 acre-Monument from resource extraction, period. This is a non-issue. #2 The land is permanently preserved for scientific research, which has the highest priority, even over recreation. #3 Currently, all ATV, except snowmobiles serviced by snowparks and snowtrails, are banned.
Funding at the Forest Service is a problem, but the area was overbuilt to start with. Coldwater should be used for something else, such as a overnight facility for education/research/ or seminars. The Monument plan is outdated by 12 years, and needs reviewed. Basic legal public access through private timberland to official trailheads needs to be a priority.
We must fund the Monument in the same direct appropriation as a park, while keeping Forest Service management. Bringing in the National Park service will create immediate problems. ( I've also worked in the backcountry for N. Cascades Nat. Park) Many popular area trails would wind between the park and forest service. These are areas where hunting and horseback riding are very popular, but the park service usually bans both, and the transport of firearms. There is a current elk overpopulation which the state is managing with the cooperation of the USFS, and more regulated hunting is planned to address overbrowsing in the monument. The park service would take years, and have to hire sharpshooters at millions to address this problem. Community distrust will increase with park service management, while the Forest Service has been here for over 100 years.
This area must stay under Forest Service management, and folks who love the mountain should be rallying to fund the forest service instead of pushing for a park.