Around the National Park System there's talk of changing the name of Craters of the Moon National Monument, building a visitor center at Rim Village, and raising an ecological monitoring station at Yellowstone National Park.
Craters of the Moon in Idaho is just the latest park system unit that has been the topic of a name change, in large part due to tourism economics. Monument Superintendent Dan Buckley doesn't want anything to change but the name. He doesn't believe there's a need to enlarge the monument, which currently covers 753,000 acres, though the bulk of that technically is controlled by the U.S. Bureau of Land Manageent. And he doesn't think there's a need for a bigger budget or more staff.
At Southern Idaho Tourism, officials say calling the monument a "national park" would help bring tourists to the region, as many visitors to the National Park System focus on "national parks."
"I think it wil get people to stay longer and enjoy the many other things that we have to offer," Debbie Dane, the organization's executive director, told the Idaho Statesman newspaper.
Is Craters of the Moon "park quality"? Within its boundaries are wide expanses of lava flows that were laid down during the past 10,000 years. Astronauts trained at the monument back in the 1960s, and NASA continues to conduct research there, according to the Idaho Statesman.
Located in a sparsely populated area of southeastern Idaho, the monument attracts about 200,000 visitors a year.
In southern Oregon, meanwhile, officials at Crater Lake National Park are discussing a formal visitor center building for Rim Village. What's being envisioned is a two-story building that would contain 9,500 square feet of space and which would cost about $5.5 million. The building would have room for an auditorium, exhibit space, and administrative offices.
Crater Lake Superintendent Craig Ackerman said the envisioned visitor center would help orient park visitors to other areas of Crater Lake worth exploring, and so reduce crowds at Rim Village during the busy summer months.
How to fund it is a hurdle to overcome. A check for the $5.5 million from Congress isn't anticipated, and so officials are looking at donations, fundraising, and using entrance fees. Regarding entrance fees, the park has proposed increasing the entrance fee from $10 per vehicle per week to $25 per vehicle per week.
A proposal has been made to have an ecological monitoring station built in Yellowstone National Park about 9 miles east of Mammoth Hot Springs near the Blacktail Plateau. The facility would be part of the National Ecological Observatory Network, which is underwritten by the National Science Foundation.
Yellowstone has been identified as a “core” site for the Northern Rockies Domain for installation of monitoring infrastructure for a 30-year period. The facility would operate to monitor the impacts of climate change, land-use change, and invasive species on the ecosystem, according to a release from the park.
The proposal currently is open to public comments. It's footprint alone in an area of the park that has no structures or human footprint other than the Grand Loop Road that passes by is something to consider.
Construction of the monitoring facilities would require installation of electric service, conduits, limited fencing, a small instrument building, and a meteorological platform tower which would extend about 20 feet above nearby trees. As many as 55 instrumented sampling plots would be established near the site. Equipment to gather aquatic data would be installed at a smaller site about 2.5 miles west of this core facility. Some of this infrastructure would likely be visible from a few locations along the Grand Loop Road. These sites, among others that meet the project objectives, will be considered and evaluated during the planning process.
Public comment is being taken through December 21. You can read more about the project, and comment on it, at this page.
Story Categories:
A 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.
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.
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
I do think Craters of the Moon is of park quality. There's two seasons I think worth witnessing - in spring time when the oddly shaped monkeyflowers bloom all over the black desert, while the sage brush is a vibrant green tinge from soaking up the snowmelt. And of course winter, when the snowpack is at least chest deep, and the air is a crisp and dry. It's a black and white paradise under a blue bird sky, most of the time. I also think Craters should be part of a larger protected park and preserve that includes the pioneers, up into the boulder-white clouds and SNRA, but that's a fight for another day.
I hesitate when thinking of Craters of the Moon being a national park - that would make it more crowded and touristy. I like it the way it is, especially the blm area outside the monument border.
I'm curious how a visitor center in Rim Village will alleviate crowding in Rim Village. I haven't been there yet (hope to in May). but typically, visitor centers bring crowds...
National Park unit names are not reflective of their quality. This is a myth that has no basis in law or spirit of the NPS. There is nothing at all that says, for example, that Cuyahoga Valley National Park is of a higher status or quality than, say Aniakchak National Monument or Apostle Islands National Lakeshore. This is an unfortunate stereotype that we should be educating against. Too many people think if it is "National Park" it has a higher "status". Only in the minds of some of the public it does. But not in any other real way. It is an illusion, a psychological marketing trick.
I hasten to add, I do know the difference between those designated by Congress and those by Presidential Order, and yes, those designated by Congress have a higher degree of protection. BUT the focus should be on the legal means of protection not on the name.
Dahkota, I don't think it would ever see over a million visitors a year. Even during some of the better economic years, the SNRA always topped Craters in terms of Visitation when you look at regional visitation statistics. Craters gets roughly 250,000 visitors per year. The SNRA gets about 350,000. The dirt roads leading out to the expanded part of the monument are well off most people's radar too. Not many trek deep into the backcountry per year, and literally during summer that's almost impossible unless one was willing to brave high heat on black lava, and hauling many gallons of water. Every time I did go into the backcountry, I had it to myself. There's also not enough front country camping spaces and hotels are all in either arco or carey, so I think it would be similar to what happened at places like Black Canyon of the Gunnison or Great Sand Dunes when they upgraded. There would be a small spike in visitation, but nothing like you see at Yellowstone, etc.
And Orcabait, I don't disagree with you on your sentiments, but I do think there is a slight difference, although places like Cuyahoga and Hot Springs really distort the meaning when you compare them to the other spots. A lot of the National Monuments signed off on the antiquities act are definitely not as well protected as what you find in parks that were stamped with congressional approval. But Craters is one of the original National Monuments, and is deserving of the name change, especially when places like Black Canyon of the Gunnison, Great Sand Dunes, and Congaree have been upgraded for similar purposes. It is a marketing trick, but it does put it on the international radar, especially in terms of potential visitionan, than if it was still labeled a National Monument.