Longview Weather
79°F
Severe
Full Forecaste

Past Month's Most Commented Stories

Home > Area News

Mount St. Helens panel hears from Forest Service, Parks officials

Friday, November 21, 2008 11:36 PM PST

By Barbara LaBoe

Font Size:
 
 

STEVENSON — While there’s continued debate about whether the U.S. Forest Service or National Park Service should manage Mount St. Helens, there’s no question about which agency wants it more.

Despite money problems, the Forest Service passionately wants to keep managing the volcano.

The better-funded Park Service, on the other hand, is ambivalent but ready to take over if so ordered by Congress. That said, a Park Service official said Thursday night he thinks the volcano would get more visitors and federal dollars as part of his agency.

Officials from both agencies met with the Congressional Mount St. Helens Advisory Committee in the last of the committee’s fact-finding hearings. The committee is charged with recommending how the 110,000-acre Mount St. Helens National Volcanic Monument should be managed, and who should manage it.

Congress established the area in 1982 to preserve the land and the effects of the eruption for scientific study and public enjoyment. Talks of changing management began in 2007 when limited finances forced the closure of the Coldwater Ridge Visitor Center.

Park Service employees certainly understand the lure and possibilities of making the volcano a national park, but the agency’s position is officially neutral, said Rory Westberg, deputy regional director of the Park Service’s Pacific West Region.

He then included several examples of Park Service programs and parks similar to Mount St. Helens. All had budgets 10 times higher than the $500,000 the Forest Service’s basic budget to run the monument.

Mary Wagner, six weeks into her job as regional forester of the Forest Service’s Pacific Northwest Regional office in Portland, argued to keep the monument — the strongest stance from the Forest Service since the debate began in 2007.

The Forest Service has managed Mount St. Helens for 100 years as part of the Gifford Pinchot National Forest and has no desire to relinquish that role, Wagner said. She did agree, though, that officials must do a better job of “turning over rocks” and finding more ways to invest in the monument. She also announced that Forest Service officials have committed $1.2 million in 2010 for improvements to the monument.

“We love this mountain, it’s beautiful and it makes memories,” she told the committee. “And we want to continue to work to increase funding, because when you love something, you want the very best for it.”

Wagner also asked for the committee’s help, saying Congress must find ways to prevent forest fire-fighting costs from siphoning away half the agency’s budget.

Wagner also said public and private partnerships are the key to continuing to develop the monument. And, she hopes area leaders can brainstorm ideas for the shuttered Coldwater Ridge Visitor Center.

Westberg explained how Mount St. Helens could become part of the Park Service, including the possibility that part of the land could be declared a National Preserve, which would allow more hunting and recreation access. Even with a preserve, though, activities likely would be more limited than under Forest Service control — a key concern for many committee members.

But, national parks get direct line-item appropriations from Congress and have more money available for management and improvements. California’s 1.6 million-acre Mojave National Preserve, for example, received $810,000 its first year as a national preserve in 1996 and is budgeted for $5 million in 2008.

Westberg also compared Mount St. Helens to Lassen Volcanic National Park in Northern California. There, the national park has 75 employees and a base budget of $4.29 million, compared to 25 employees at the monument with the $500,000 base budget. Lassen gets 401,000 visitors a year, compared to 750,000 at Mount St. Helens. Westberg said a national park designation likely would draw more visitors to Mount St. Helens.

“I can’t guarantee certain numbers, but the National Park Service does have a certain cachet in the minds of the public because it carries that moniker,” he said.

At the Congaree National Park in South Carolina, visits increased 50 percent in the five years since it became a national park, he added.

A University of Washington report commissioned by the National Parks Conservation Association — an advocacy group that supports changing management — also states that visitors and economic benefits to neighboring committees likely would increase with a national park designation.

Still, committee member Casey Roeder said it was clear the Forest Service is more committed to the monument.

“It appears the Forest Service is passionate about the monument and would like to continue managing it and the Park Service would take it if Congress made them,” she said. “Am I hearing this right?”

“I think you’re hearing it right,” Westberg said.

When prompted by committee member Jim Adams, though, Westberg said that privately Park Service employees are excited about the opportunities at Mount St. Helens. Officially, though, the agency has no opinion and is not advocating a change.

With the fact-finding meetings done, the committee now plans to spend a day and a half in January drafting recommendations to lawmakers. The date of the meeting hasn’t been set but likely will be the third week of the month. The meeting will be open to the public, members said Thursday.

Committee members said from the outset the didn’t have preconceived notions of who should manage the monument and several said Thursday that they still were conflicted.

“I fear dropping the bone we have to grab the bone we don’t have, thinking it will be bigger and better,” said committee member Mary Kay Nelson. “But it could end up being very similar.”

After the draft recommendation is written, the committee plans to hold at least three public meetings to take comment on the document before it is finalized and sent to members of the Washington Congressional delegation: U.S. Reps. Brian Baird and Norm Dicks and U.S. Sens. Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray.

Previous Next

dogshead wrote on Nov 22, 2008 8:11 AM:

" The Forest Service is under the Dept. of Agriculture. It manages tree farms (and, poorly, Wilderness Areas). The Monument deserses being Park Service (Dept. of Interior) management, as they have the skills and funds to be successful. The Forest Service never should have dabbled in trying to mange a National Monument (which had alway, I believe), been in the hands of the Park Service. "

questionman wrote on Nov 22, 2008 8:30 AM:

" Actions speak louder than words. The US Forest Service gave a great talk at the meeting, using words like commitment, partnerships and future investment in some deferred maintenance. Their actions speak differently. The base budget for Mount St. Helens is
$500,000. Mount Lassen National Park a comparable Park Service Unit is $5,300,000.
The total US Forest Service budget for Region 6 is $457,000,000. It would seem that if the new regional forester really feels passionately about Mount St. Helens, she would stand up to her line officers and to Washington DC, and commit 1% of her total budget to a base budget at Mount St. Helens of $4,500,000. This action would make a statement of commitment by the Forest Service to the worlds special place Mount St. Helens! "

northender wrote on Nov 22, 2008 9:07 AM:

" No, NO, NO Ms Wagner, The Gifford Pinchot needs a bail out! Just print as much cash as needed and carry on! Get with the program . Or better yet...Just sell the park directly to China. "

Cheney119 wrote on Nov 22, 2008 9:58 AM:

" I completely agree with dogshead the Forest Service has such a mixed mission they can't properly manage a unique scientific treasure like Mt. St. Helens. The Forest Road 99 disaster the last two summers proves the Forest Service is not up to this job. Their forest fire fighting mission which is never funded sufficiently has led to zero access to Windy Ridge for two years and is a perfect example of how we'd be much better off with Park Service management and National Park designation for Mt. St. Helens. "

snow shark wrote on Nov 22, 2008 11:22 AM:

" The park idea is horrible for us hunters and outdoor loving people. You have to pay to enter parks, and no hunting is allowed. This is a bad idea! "

northender wrote on Nov 22, 2008 3:08 PM:

" As time goes by, and nature takes its course, Fewer visual remains of the eruption will be evident. Coldwater and Johnston ridge will be the only viewpoints. Very few will travel to closed access areas or one open site unless an eruption is likely or in progress. The truth is that monies should not have been spent on expensive centers! Do not make another mistake with government control that will limit or prevent access and use by locals that have grown up experiencing all this area has to offer! Say no to a national Park takeover! Close Johnston Ridge and stop further waste of tax revenue! "

cheney119 wrote on Nov 22, 2008 6:24 PM:

" snow shark you can hunt anywhere, but this is a unique area where hunting is just plain inappropriate! Protect this area it is a scientific and research area that should receive national park designation now. Nobody cares where the 5% of the people who STILL hunt go to hunt. Hunters are a TINY NUMBER OF OUTDOOR USERS. Leave this unique wilderness alone. "

cheney119 wrote on Nov 22, 2008 6:33 PM:

" Did National Park designation restrict Mt. Rainier? Yes and rightfully so. Local conrol only means exploitation and destroying the resource. People flock to Mt. Rainier and that's because of park designation saved it. You only care about your stupid silly personal interests. Would Mt Rainier be better with hunting? Come on people get real, Mt Rainier is a national treasure and with National Park designation so could Mt. St. Helens. Why don't you people look ahead 50 years instead of worring where you'll shoot your next elk. Consider your grandkids instead of your damned freezer. "

bizowner wrote on Nov 22, 2008 7:09 PM:

" Hey Cheney119 - I agree with you... just let me draw my Margaret Tag first with my saved-up points then you can make it a park... ha ha.. "

Loowit wrote on Nov 22, 2008 7:41 PM:

" Turning the Monument into a Park is just plain STUPID! It would create a tangled web of agencies, rules, red tape, and waste! Trails and roads would wander between agencies, with the USFS still in charge of most roads. For example, the 99 washout would still be a usfs responsibility, and Parks don't "share" their cash on joint roads. With a Preserve, we could have three SETS OF RULES, perhaps on the same trail or road. It happens today at N.Cascades. A trail goes from USFS (hunting ok) to national Park (no hunting) to Nat. Recreation area (hunting ok). The parks rangers sit on the boundary and write tickets for "having firearms" as legal hunters try to get travel the trail. And forget the fish. The park service has a policy to eliminate planted fish. Mt. Margaret lakes will be home for only salamanders. Park Service ==no campfires, no pets, no horses, no bicycles, no snowmobiles, no fish, no fishing, , no hunting, no huckleberry picking, no mushroom picking, no disbursed camping, no disbursed backpacking. If you do camp and hike big brother is always watching--don't forget to sign up a year ahead and get the pile of permits! But some of you who don't like hunting could be happy, they might decide to shoot our overpopulated elk from helicopters at night, like at Rocky Mt. Nat Park spending $18 million in tax dollars. "

rocketdad wrote on Nov 22, 2008 10:27 PM:

" cheney119, I am not sure where you get your figures, but hunters ARE NOT a tiny number of outdoor users. Approximately 1/3 of the adult male population of this state participates in hunting or shooting sports in one fashion or another be it with a rifle, shotgun, muzzle loader, bow and arrow, handgun, spear, slingshot, etc.

Also, sales of hunting and fishing gear makes up roughly 1/3 of the overall dollars spent on outdoor recreation in the state of Washington. Personally I think it would be better to let the hunters hunt the elk on the mountain than to have 20% of them starve to death over the winter..thats right..20%. "

loowit wrote on Nov 23, 2008 7:46 AM:

" FOR SALE: Our Natural Heritage. Price $4Million Bucks. Are you willing to sell? That is what this debate is about,selling our children's outdoor heritage, not "filling the freezer". I want my children to have a REAL connection to this land. Not the sterilized, pavement-and-permit National Park "experience". If you really care about the land and your children, keep Mt. St. Helens as a National Forest, where a few freedoms still can be found. "

northender wrote on Nov 23, 2008 10:02 AM:

" Over the years, up to the time of the 1980 eruption,I enjoyed many experiences at or near Mt.St. Helens. A portion hunting deer and elk, times fly fishing off Harrys dock and being run off by the old grouch. Watching my cousins clean the cabins that Harry rented. We picked huckelberries, rode tobogins and tubes up at the turn around. Camped at Harmony falls as bears rifled through our camp site. Woke in the morning on july 4th to snow! The day after graduation, took my dads old wood Tollycraft to spirit lake with a couple friends,went to the middle of the lake and jumped in....nearly froze. Watched my cousins from Kansas water ski on the lake till there skin turned blue from the cold. Spent time there with the Y.M.C.A. and scouts. Visited friends that had cabins nearby. Snow shoed at the lake wnen snow was above the roof of buildings. The last snow shoe adventure was march of 80...I saw my uncle there plowing snow for the state. He had a fellow riding with him... It was David Johnston.My uncle said to me... You would not be up here if you knew what was going on! Two days later the first black ash was visable on the peak.I and hundreds or thousands of local people have memories of like events that connect them to this area. I will be the first to claim my gready feelings of this area we speak of! NO National Park designation! "

cheney119 wrote on Nov 23, 2008 10:10 AM:

" New figures from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service show that the number of hunters 16 and older declined by 10 percent between 1996 and 2006 -- from 14 million to about 12.5 million. Nationally that's less than 1% of the male population nationally. I'd say you are full of bs if you say 1/3 of all Washington males hunt give the national statistics. But bs is all I hear when it comes to hunters. What it must be like to see every problem through a rifle scope. If you don't like the natural process of winter kill, bring back their predators. Look what wolves did to improve the herd in Yellowstone, your rifle removes the best healthiest animals and weakens the herd. This area should be a national park and closed to hunting, especially when you are talking about such a TINY NUMBER OF HUNTERS compared to the population as a whole. But I'm wasting my breath on hunters, good thing the country has you out numbered 277.5 million to 12.5 million, given that I'm surprised hunting is still allowed at all. "

northender wrote on Nov 23, 2008 2:40 PM:

" I believe that more government control over Gifford Pinchot will leed to restrictions of use...Dont step there or dont touch that! Also, more government funding means strings are attached giving bureaucrats the final planning decisions. Let this area be used by anyone wanting to go there under existing forest service regs. with modifications allowing further access and use of lakes as in the past. Open trails and access roads. Future generations deserve the chance to enjoy this treasure! "

Cheney119 wrote on Nov 23, 2008 5:26 PM:

" I really wonder if you'll have visited a National Park. What do you people think will be lost? I guarentee you that much more will be saved. Go to Olympic, North Cascades, or Mt. Rainier and see what has been saved from the axe, or the summer home. The Forest Service is a joke, they allow clear cutting for heaven sakes. Last year there was a proposal to start mining up there on the Green River, that is authorized by the Forest Service, yet not even considered by the Park Service. The Forest Service idea of multiple use is not designed to preserve the unique character of Mount St. Helens. I have not heard ONE convincing reason to keep the Forest Service which has completely dropped the ball, Forest Road 99, closing Coldwater Ridge, what other examples do we need to make people realize that Park designation is needed. "

dogshead wrote on Nov 23, 2008 8:50 PM:

" The discussion is not whether to change MSHNM into a National Park. The question is who would better mamage MSHNM. The National Park Service manages every other National Monument in the county, very nicely. The National Park Service would have been on top of the situation where weyco sells their land to private individuals so vacation homes could be built overlooking Coldwater Lake. I don't think that allowing homes above Coldwater Lake protects the Monument for our chidren. To northender- Spirit Lake provided many wonderful memories, true. But by the 1970's an overwhelming patchwork of clearcuts had spread over the land....right up to the Spirit Lake Basin. This was Forest Service/tree farm management, close to destroying Spirit Lake. Unless all you folks want to quit have kids and grandkids....the world becomes more populated...and population density requires more rule and regulations. Stop blaming government....blame babies for being so adorable. Over population is THE cause for all our social ills. "

loowit wrote on Nov 25, 2008 8:03 AM:

" You pro-park people need to do some research! Get a map and study boundaries. The Monument is already preserved by law. No logging, no mining, no drilling, no dreaded clearcuts. That mine proposal was outside the Monument. A National Park designation would attract MORE development to our timberlands. Just transferring the land to the park service would not affect ownership and rules outside its boundaries. Most roads and trailheads would still be on USFS land. And to claim the USFS clearcuts now is a JOKE. The Dept. of Wildlife even knows that elk in the Nat. Forest are starving because of no logging. They can't eat trees. Because I've studied the boundaries, I would agree that the Monument itself needs expanded, but it doesn't need to be park service. "

Top Jobs
More Top Jobs
Top Garage Sales
More Top Garage Sales
Top Rentals
More Top Rentals