National Park Service Would Loosen Controls on Noise, Commerce

By J.R. Pegg

WASHINGTON, DC, February 16, 2006 (ENS) - The proposed revisions to the National Park Service's management plan will not weaken protections for national parks, a top Park Service official told a House panel Wednesday. But that pledge did little to assure critics, who say the National Park Service and the Bush administration have failed to adequately explain why the changes are necessary.

Testifying before the House Parks Subcommittee, National Park Service Deputy Director Steve Martin acknowledged concerns about the proposal and said the final document will make clear the agency's "primary duty is to protect the national parks and … ensure that future generations will have the same opportunities for enjoyment that we have today."

National Park Service Deputy Director Steve Martin (Photo courtesy NPS)

The new guidance is a "radical rewrite of management policies" that lacks "a clear statement favoring conservation," said Delegate to Congress Donna Christensen, a Virgin Islands Democrat and ranking member of the subcommittee. "This reinterpretation of the National Park Service's core mission cannot be justified."

Critics point to the removal of language stating that Congressional intent of the 1916 law that created the National Park Service – and subsequent court decisions – recognize that conservation is predominant when there is a conflict between conserving resources and values and providing for enjoyment of the parks.

Instead, the new language reads, "The service must balance the sometimes competing obligations of conservation and enjoyment in managing the parks."

Other changes and language in the document appear to loosen controls on noise and commercial activities within the parks and allow increased recreational activities such as snowmobiling as well as the use of off-road vehicles and personal watercraft.

Christensen asked Martin why the deleted passage has not been reinstated if the aim of the rewrite is not intended to alter policy.

"Right now our feeling is – not to prejudge – is that it should be put back in," said Martin, a 30 year veteran of the National Park Service and former superintendent of Grand Teton National Park. "We may add additional language as well. It is at the core of what we do and we feel it needs to go back in but we also want to be fair to the process."

The agency's guidelines were last revised in 2001, which updated a 1988 version. The current drive to revise the document was sparked by a request in April 2002 by then committee chair George Radanovich, a California Republican.

Snowmobiles in Yellowstone National Park (Photo courtesy Save Yellowstone)

But one witness told the subcommittee that the Bush administration's transition team was keen on revising the document as early as January 2001 – only two weeks after its release.

The current proposal is "the result of review first proposed by transition personnel five years ago," said Bill Horn, an Interior Department Assistant Secretary under the Reagan administration and a member of the Bush administration's Interior Department transition team.

It is "standard practice" to review policies and regulations of the outgoing administration, said Horn, a lawyer who has previously testified before Congress on behalf of snowmobile manufacturers and the Alaska legislature.

Horn said the 2001 rewrite failed to consider that courts have consistently bowed to the agency's interpretation of the statute – not the "best reading of the law." The document undermines the agency's ability to manage the parks for the enjoyment of the public, Horn told the panel.

"If your foundation statement misrepresents the basic statute, then this basic mistake permeates the document," Horn said.

Martin said he believes the 2001 guidelines "were good and provided good guidance."

"I also believe that they could be improved," he said. "We can always improve how we do business."

But Martin struggled to convince Democrats on the panel that the process was not being driven by the Bush administration.

"I do believe that the rewriting of this document is back in the hands of the National Park Service and the primary responsibility for making clarification and corrections is ours," Martin said.

The final document will be reviewed by an advisory board, the agency's leadership council and employees, Martin said, and is subject to approval by Interior Department officials and the National Park Service Director.

The Park Service is accepting public comments on the proposal through February 18.

Park advocates say the draft is a dramatic reinterpretation of the National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 and remain unconvinced the final document will consider their concerns.

The new document makes management guidelines " more vague and unclear than what is currently in use," said Bill Wade, chair of the executive council of the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees.

Wade, a 32 year veteran of the Park Service and former superintendent of Shenandoah National Park, said the broad opposition to the proposal from nearly all except the recreation industry reflects suspicion of the Bush administration's political motives.

"The basic issue is trust, and frankly we have some concerns about the trust of the current leadership of the Interior Department and the National Park Service," Wade told the subcommittee.

"They have ignored science, research and scholarly analysis in parks. They have ignored the preferences of the American people," Wade said. "We have little confidence that they will pay much attention to the comments currently being received from the public on the draft policies unless they are the comments they want to hear."