New National Park/Wilderness Area in Washington? (Updated with poll) (Seattle: 2013, houses)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I've been thinking, Washington has amazing scenic beauty, rivaling any found throughout the United States. Not saying that it should, but If Washington was to get a new national park, where would it be? Not all national parks need to be "overly touristy." Take North Cascades National Park for example: Even though it is located somewhat close to Seattle, it only receives on average 19,208 visitors a year, compared to 2 million visitors at Mount Rainier National Park. There's something about a feeling of pride I get when thinking and visiting Washington's great national parks, and I find myself constantly thinking about "hypothetical what-ifs."
There are many areas in Washington worthy of national park level. Judging based on exceptional natural beauty, preserving wilderness and wildlife, and the opportunity for building new trail, campground, and visitor center facilities, where should this hypothetical new national park be?
Also, national parks can include wilderness areas within them. Something like 98% of Mount Rainier National Park is a designated wilderness area. Same for Olympic National Park and North Cascades.
Places that are worthy of national park beauty:
1. "Mount St. Helens Volcanic National Park" It's currently a National Monument, under the Forest Service.
-Already has visitor centers and national park facilities. All that's needed is official conversion to the park service. It would give Mt. St. Helens a much higher budget---it so badly needs it. The monument is already struggling financially keeping some of these world-class visitor centers open. It's interesting to note that Lassen Peak National Park has more than double the budget that the Mt. St. Helens NVM has.
Mount St. Helens Summit Crater Panorama:
Eruption:
Map of destruction:
2. Mount Baker and Washington Pass expansion for the North Cascades National Park.
In the past, there was a movement for a Mt. Baker National Park. With stunning ridges, glaciers, and natural scenery, Mt. Baker is a likely candidate for a park. It currently has visitor centers at Heather Meadows, where many people come to see views of Mt. Shuksan from Picture Lake, and Mt. Baker from Artist Point. Mt. Baker is located just outside of the North Cascades National Park's northwest boundary. The Washington Pass, as well as the entire eastern portion of the North Cascades are not part of the national park, yet it features equally rugged mountains and rivers. Including Washington Pass, a popular stop along the North Cascades Highway, would just "make logical sense."
Glaciers cloaking Mount Baker:
Washington Pass Overlook:
3. "Mount Adams Volcanic National Park" (including the Mt. Adams Wilderness)
Although labeled the "Forgotten Giant," Mount Adams is very impressive. Standing at 12,276 feet it is the second tallest mountain in Washington and the third tallest in the Cascade Range. It is also the largest volcano by eruptive volume in Washington, and the second largest in the Cascade Range after Mt. Shasta. Mount Adams boasts the Adams Glacier, the second largest glacier in the contiguous United States after the Carbon Glacier on Mt. Rainier. This mountain also boasts some of the largest and most extensive lava flows in the entire state. Only the nearby Big Lava Flow to the southwest of the mountain exceeds Mt. Adams' Aiken, Muddy Fork, Takh Takh, and the Adams Creek lava flows in sheer size. Not only that, but featuring wildflower meadows comparable to Mt. Rainier's Paradise, dramatic canyons in the east, and deeply crevassed glaciers on its upper slopes, it is one of the most beautiful mountains in the world. Roads at Mount Adams, especially to Bird Creek Meadows, are in BAD need of maintenance---which a national park could provide. If Mount Adams was to become a national park, the circumnavigational Round the Mountain Trail, which when hiked in conjunction with the PCT and Highline Trail, nearly encircles the mounatain, will almost surely get completed---a long time dream that the original planner of the "Round the Mountain Trail" had envisioned.
Mt. Adams from timberline meadows, Courtesy of allisonoutside.net:
Bird Creek Meadows on Mount Adams (Photo courtesy of photographer Darryl Lloyd):
Link to the Friends of Mt. Adams website. Check it out if you want, and learn more about Mount Adams! Friends of Mount Adams
Takhlakh Lake below Mount Adams:
Hellroaring Overlook Panorama, courtesy of deanmyerson.org.
To see more of his hikes that he took, check out his blog! It's great! Welcome to Dean's Place | Dean's Place
4. "Alpine Lakes National Park," which would include the breathtaking and popular Enchantment Lakes area and the Glacier Peak Wilderness. Rivaling the North Cascades for sheer beauty, glaciers, and untamed wilderness, this area would become a "drive through or explore on foot" type of national park. Its main artery roads would be the existing Highway 2, forming the north boundary, and the existing Icicle Creek Road, which heads into the heart of the rugged wilderness and provides the main access to the Enchantment Lakes hiking/backpacking area from the town of Leavenworth.
Alpine Lakes Wilderness:
Mount Stuart, at 9,451 feet, is the highest peak in the area, and the second highest non-volcanic peak in Washington:
The Enchantments:
5. "Glacier Peak National Park," which just like the one above, would be primarily a "drive-through or travel on foot" kind of park. The only roads in the park would be the currently existing roads we have now. It would serve at a "wilderness national park," having a feel of an Alaskan national park.
6. "San Juan Islands National Park" which would unite all of the national monuments, landmarks, and state parks in the San Juans. Park boundaries would go around private land and houses, of course! The San Juan Islands already draw on average some 2 million visitors a year, even rivaling Mt. Rainier National Park!
7. "Scablands National Park" which would protect a small, representative portion of the scablands for visitors to see. The Scablands are unique in the U.S. in that it's series of canyons, cliffs, potholes, and rock-protrusions were carved out by the Mizzoula Ice Floods, which teared through the Columbia Basin during the last glacial advances.
Examples of the Scablands:
Palouse Falls:
Dry Falls:
8. Extend the Olympic National Park boundaries right down to the sea---which was what was originally planned just before the park's establishment. The president wanted to connect these two pieces together (I forgot which president though). The Olympic National Park is divided in two, with the skinny coastal strip cut off from the rest of the park. It would protect the fragile rainforests along Highway 101 for all visitors, and would secure the protection of one of Washington's great natural wonders.
Map of the park:
Location: We_tside PNW (Columbia Gorge) / CO / SA TX / Thailand
34,705 posts, read 58,022,681 times
Reputation: 46172
Great... more places for the FEDs to close during the next 'sequester'. I have met FAR too many people who had spent thousands of Dollars to travel to National Parks after school was back in session and had booked travel in advance and ended up 'locked out' of USA properties.
I'll stick with the current designations... I don't need any more 'Friends-of-the-Gorge' or such watching my every move with binoculars, and keeping me sequestered to 'pay-per-byte-Dial-up', cuz they won't allow cell towers, repeaters and Satellite dishes. Oh yes..., the privilege of living within a National Protected area..
Yes, WA has some nice areas.. it is a GREAT idea to keep them Washington's (not DC).
JMHO... YM(agenda)MV
All of the land mentioned above is already Federal land, StealthRabbit. It belonged to the federal government long before there was a Washington state.
Why do you want all the regulations and restrictions that come with National Park designation?? Is there not enough regulation in your life??
Those areas are already protected under Forest Service management in most cases.
The one exception is the San Juan's. Yes, the Federal Government should start buying private property and creating a National Park before it is trashed. That would make a dandy National Park once the homes are removed.
See Pt. Reyes National Seashore in California. We can have just as special spot in the San Juan's.
Great... more places for the FEDs to close during the next 'sequester'. I have met FAR too many people who had spent thousands of Dollars to travel to National Parks after school was back in session and had booked travel in advance and ended up 'locked out' of USA properties.
I never said that it should actually happen, what I meant is what place in Washington is "national park" worthy in terms of scenic beauty. The generalization is that all national parks represent the most scenic and special areas in the entire nation. For example: Mount Rainier is scenic enough to be a national park, whereas Mount Hood is not quite scenic enough to compete with Mount Rainier NP, and the rest of the national parks of the U.S. (although I've met some Oregonians who think Mt. Hood is a national park. Crazy, huh?) The way I see it, designation represents a "scenic quality rating scale," with national parks above national monuments, which are above forest service wilderness areas, then comes national forests, then state parks, county parks... etc.
Yosemite, Giant Sequoia, and Kings Canyon all represent the best scenery in the Sierras. Rocky Mtn National Park, Glacier, Yellowstone, and Grand Teton all represent the best in the Rockies. Great Smokey Mountain NP and Shenandoah are for the Appalachian Mtns; and Mt. Rainier, Crater Lake, North Cascades, and Olympic NP are for our Cascade Range. All I'm asking is do these four parks truly represent the best of the best scenic beauty in the Cascades, or are we still missing something important in the NW park system? (like Mount St. Helens, for example)
Quote:
Originally Posted by StealthRabbit
I'll stick with the current designations... I don't need any more 'Friends-of-the-Gorge' or such watching my every move with binoculars, and keeping me sequestered to 'pay-per-byte-Dial-up', cuz they won't allow cell towers, repeaters and Satellite dishes. Oh yes..., the privilege of living within a National Protected area..
Yes, WA has some nice areas.. it is a GREAT idea to keep them Washington's (not DC).
JMHO... YM(agenda)MV
Actually, wilderness areas and national forests, which currently manage these places, are all managed by the national government, not the state. Washington is in charge of state forests, like Capitol State Forest, and many state parks. Plus, I don't need cell phone reception when I'm camping at a rustic campground 25 miles into the mountains. I don't mind the fact that nearly the entire Gifford Pinchot National Forest (my fav. forest since childhood) has no cell reception.
Personally, I agree with keeping these places under their current designation. As much as I love Mt. Adams and wish it wasn't ignored and left in the background, behind some other mountains that I know of --->>> i.e. Mt. Hood, I still love it's rustic, secluded, and uncrowded trails much more than all the benefits and praise "park status" would give it. This is only a "what if."
Why do you want all the regulations and restrictions that come with National Park designation?? Is there not enough regulation in your life??
Those areas are already protected under Forest Service management in most cases.
The one exception is the San Juan's. Yes, the Federal Government should start buying private property and creating a National Park before it is trashed. That would make a dandy National Park once the homes are removed.
See Pt. Reyes National Seashore in California. We can have just as special spot in the San Juan's.
I don't; but like I said, a national park represents the most scenic areas in the entire nation. What I'm asking is what place in Washington is deserving of that status, not whether it should in real life or not.
I hope that the North Cascades NP is expanded. The other parts are certainly worthy in their scenic value.
I think it would be great if the Olympic NP were expanded a bit, but the Olympic NF is a really productive forest, so I doubt it will ever happen. Still, it would be nice if there were more rainforest areas protected.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I never said that it should actually happen, what I meant is what place in Washington is "national park" worthy in terms of scenic beauty. The generalization is that all national parks represent the most scenic and special areas in the entire nation. For example: Mount Rainier is scenic enough to be a national park, whereas Mount Hood is not quite scenic enough to compete with Mount Rainier NP, and the rest of the national parks of the U.S. (although I've met some Oregonians who think Mt. Hood is a national park. 
