he Department of Interior is taking a red pen to documents that lay down the mission of the National Park Service, and the results may be felt for years to come.
The Park Service’s management policies guide the daily decisions of superintendents as they pursue the goal of guaranteeing the preservation of parks for the future while providing for the enjoyment of park resources. Although some might consider the process a tedious clarification of bureaucratic policies, it’s a meaningful exercise that will have dramatic effects on the way we experience our national parks.
The troubles began in August, when Paul Hoffman, an Interior political appointee, sought to rework the Park Service’s management policies, which he characterized as outdated. Although it’s true that the Organic Act established the Park Service’s priorities in 1916, the principles laid out in the document were working well by any measure. The management policies had even undergone moderate changes as recently as 1988 and 2001, during lengthy processes that involved plenty of public input. Even so, Hoffman offered a radical revision that would have lowered the benchmark for preservation, allowing any and all activities that do not cause park resources to become “permanently impaired.” Parks could presumably be open to logging, mining, and oil and gas exploration, even at the expense of wildlife, as long as those species could possibly be reintroduced at some future point. This new document expanded the potential number of snowmobiles in Yellowstone, Jet-Skis in Everglades, and off-road vehicles in countless parks like Joshua Tree and Mojave; increased the likelihood of loud and unsightly airplanes flying over national parks such as the Grand Canyon and Great Smoky Mountains; made way for greater air pollution in Shenandoah’s skies and light pollution that would obscure stargazing at Chaco Canyon; and limited the options available to park rangers interested in securing the fate of animals in Grand Teton, Glacier, and countless other parks.
Immediate media response to the proposal coupled with extreme pressure from NPCA and other conservation groups prompted the Department of Interior to back away from the initial draft. A second draft was offered up weeks later, and that document is open for public comment until February 18.
“The second draft of the management policies is less extreme than the Hoffman draft, but, honestly, that’s not saying much,” says Craig Obey, NPCA’s vice president for government affairs. “The new policies still weaken longstanding legal mandates that preserve the country’s heritage; they seem to reflect the notion that our national parks are resources to be used up rather than unique places set aside to reflect our heritage for generations to come.” The current draft still leads the national parks toward greater commercialization and exploitation, increased air pollution and noise pollution, and widespread motorized vehicle use—activities that may well bolster private industry, but are clearly not welcomed by most visitors.
At a hearing of the Senate Subcommittee on National Parks on November 1, Deny Galvin, NPCA Trustee and former Park Service deputy director with 38 years of service, questioned the need to revise the management policies once again: “Nearly 300 million people visited the parks last year, and we know from surveys that they ‘enjoyed’ them,” Galvin said. “Despite this, there are those who suggest that NPS management of the parks is too restrictive, or that the parks are locked up, or lack access. Nothing could be further from the truth. The fundamental reinterpretation of the Organic Act that is being proposed in the rewrite of the management policies does not make it a better document for agency manager’s guidance…but replaces…the clear guidance of the 2001 edition with muddy, unclear, and too-broad discretion left to NPS managers and administration appointees.”
The Department of Interior has issued a related proposal on a separate track that aims to increase philanthropy efforts within parks. Efforts to raise funds for the parks are to be applauded, but several potential inadvertent consequences are troubling: Overly zealous recognition of corporate giving could quickly lead the parks to attain a commercialized feel, leading the walls of visitor centers to be covered in corporate logos. If park staff were expected to garner funding through philanthropy, they may struggle to complete their traditional responsibilities. The risk that philanthropy will be used to supplant government funding rather than provide a greater level of excellence is troublesome.
And there’s still more. In September, Rep. Richard Pombo (R-CA) alarmed many park lovers when his committee contemplated an even more outrageous idea. Just as Congress began pursuing the budget-reconciliation process—designed to bring federal spending in line, given rising deficits and costs associated with Hurricane Katrina—Pombo’s committee drafted legislation to sell off 15 national parks to corporate interests to reduce the federal deficit. The legislation would have also required parks to sell commercial naming rights to trails and buildings. Once word got out to the public, representatives for Pombo quickly characterized the notion as a “brainstorm of all the possible alternatives,” then simply “a joke,” and finally an unpalatable alternative to opening the Arctic Refuge to oil drilling. NPCA’s reaction prompted media attention that led Pombo to disown the idea.
Still, the reconciliation bill contains a damaging provision that would allow private companies to purchase old mining claims staked on government property, including land that has since become part of a national park. Before the turn of the century, Congress passed the 1872 Mining Law allowing anyone to buy government land for a pittance, hoping to bolster the mineral industry and prompt economic growth. But in 1994, Congress recognized that this land giveaway was no longer fiscally responsible, and a moratorium was placed on any claims that hadn’t yet been sold. Pombo’s bill would lift the moratorium and resume the land giveaway; several national parks would be affected. The bill also removes an old provision requiring the land be viable for mineral development, which means that parkland with so-called “unpatented claims” could be used to erect condominiums or shopping malls, among other uses. National parks such as Mojave, Death Valley, and others contain more than 18,000 acres that could be sold to private interests if the legislation passed. At press time, the House and the Senate had yet to determine the final language of the bill to be delivered to President Bush.
NPCA has already done much to shape the debate and will continue doing so. To let those in Washington know your thoughts on potential changes to the management policies, visit www.npca.org/stoptherewrite. For updates on important park-protection issues, visit www.npca.org/take_action.
The Department of Interior is taking a red pen to documents that lay down the mission of the National Park Service, and the results may be felt for years to come.
