Mount St. Helens should become Washington's fourth national park

This week marks the thirtieth anniversary of the eruption of Mount St. Helens, the most disruptive geological event in Washington State history, which claimed the lives of fifty seven people and thousands of animals, as well as causing over a billion dollars in damage and destroying four billion board feet of timber.

The eruption was before my time, but like many other Washingtonians, I've journeyed out to the 110,000 acre National Volcanic Monument to view the aftermath firsthand. The Monument, established in 1982, is managed by the U.S. Forest Service. It encompasses Mount St. Helens itself, the entirety of the volcano's immediate blast zone, plus Spirit Lake, Coldwater Lake, and Castle Lake.

Although the monument is popular with tourists, it has long been chronically underfunded. The Forest Service doesn't have the money and manpower, for instance, to keep the Coldwater Ridge Visitors' Center open (the facility cost more than $10 million to build), or to maintain the monument's network of hiking trails.

When Coldwater was initially closed back in 2007, Senator Maria Cantwell was quick to call for the creation of a national park, though she ultimately joined Norm Dicks, Brian Baird, and Patty Murray in setting up an advisory committee to study how to best manage, preserve, and protect the area.

The committee last year recommended keeping Mount St. Helens a national monument, under the jurisdiction of the Forest Service, with the stipulation that Congress do a better job of providing funding. We can't concur with that recommendation because we don't see that happening. What's more, we don't think the Forest Service is best-suited for the task of administering a popular tourist attraction like Mount St. Helens. The Forest Service's mission to sustain America's forests, and close to half of its annual $5.5 billion budget is spent fighting forest fires.

The National Park Service, in contrast, has experience running the most popular natural attractions throughout the West, from the Grand Canyon to Yellowstone. Three mountainous areas of the Evergreen State — including Washington's tallest peak — are already protected as national parks.

What's more, NPS already manages several volcanic areas: Craters of the Moon (in Idaho), Hawaii Volcanoes, and Lassen Volcanic National Park (in California).

Why not give Mount St. Helens the same honor and recognition?

The principal objection seems to be that some local authorities and residents don't trust the National Park Service. In its final report issued last summer, the Mount St. Helens Advisory Committee concluded:

While the National Parks model has the advantages of being a part of the NPS system – and the name recognition that designation brings – the majority of the committee still felt that the U.S. Forest Service model is [the] best fit. This also reflects the overwhelming majority of the public’s input.

Committee members Mark Plotkin and Mark Smith, however, provided a dissenting view at the end of the report. They wrote:

During the local public hearing process we heard from the same few local citizens and representatives of special interest groups. Their support for the USFS was based on their being able to continue their use, fearing that a management change could stop their activities. They showed little concern to preserving the natural features or economic benefits of the Monument. For the most part we heard that taxpayers did not care who ran the monument, they just wanted to make sure they were able to hunt and recreate on it and that it was open, accessible and maintained.

That certainly jibes with our perspective. We suspect those in favor of sticking with the Forest Service wish to do so because that agency is (to use a figure of speech) the devil they know. It makes more sense to us to place Mount St. Helens under the jurisdiction of the National Park Service — and address concerns about recreational opportunities and land use in the legislation making the mountain a national park — rather than trying to restructure the Forest Service for the monument's benefit as the committee suggests. That won't be easily accomplished.

Plotkin and Smith also observed in their dissent that the committee had not really taken the time to study the possibility of creating a national park.

We feel that there is validity to the UW Economic Report, the GP task force, NPCA and many local and regional newspapers' recommendation supporting a National Park. The stable line item funding, economic potential, recreation and visitor facility development make it an option that should warrant a more detailed review and consideration.

We agree.

The committee acknowledges that establishing a national park might not lead to all the ramifications critics of the idea worry about. It notes, "Supporters of the National Park model did suggest that the recreational opportunities in a Park setting could be provided for in the charter." The committee listed the following arguments against Mount St. Helens remaining under USFS control in its full report:

• not as much money from tourism industry than if NPS
• less money than a NPS
• history of past Monument management
• notoriety – NPS is a brand
• NPS has an established funding mechanism in place
• perceived lack of protection under USFS
• NPS has a proven tried model of management
• USFS culture

Given that funding and management have been serious problems, these seem like pretty compelling reasons not to stick with the Forest Service. That doesn't mean, of course, that the federal officials currently in charge of Mount St. Helens must be displaced; rather, they might very well be the best candidates to oversee the conversion of the monument into a national park, since they understand the needs of the surrounding communities.

Later on its report, the committee recommends reopening Coldwater Ridge Visitors' Center and turning it into an overnight destination with accomodations, so that Mount St. Helens won't be thought of simply as a place to go on a day trip.

Essentially, they're calling for the creation of a park lodge, and ironically, that's another reason why Mount St. Helens should be transferred to the care of the National Parks Service. NPS knows something about constructing park lodges and hiring contractors to provide guest services; it has such facilities at Mount Rainier and Crater Lake National Parks. A thoughtfully designed park lodge is a common, defining feature of many of America's greatest national parks.

We look forward to the day when we can call Mount St. Helens a national park. We urge Washington's congressional delegation to join with Senator Cantwell in recognizing that the current plan for the area is not working. If The National Parks: America's Best Idea taught us anything, it's that local fears about the creation of national parks tend to be unfounded or exaggerated.