Gale Norton vs. Acadia National Park

National parks management 2006 policy revisions


Will jet skis break the serenity?

Been wondering what is happening with management of our national parks recently? I was jostled a bit today by this story:

Friends of Acadia faults NPS policy proposal
Thursday, January 12, 2006 - Bangor Daily News

ACADIA NATIONAL PARK - Jet-skis in Echo Lake? Snowmobiles roaring throughout the park's network of carriage trails? Cell phone towers rising over Cadillac Mountain?

These dire predictions are in the minds of officials at Friends of Acadia, who are alarmed at the changes that might be in store for Maine's only national park if a proposed rewrite of the National Park Service's 2001 basic management policy statement is passed.

Critics of the rewrite fear that the changes will make protected areas more vulnerable to development and technology. They also worry that conservation of public lands will no longer be the foremost goal of the park service.

``The proposed changes from the plain language seem to lessen the standards by which the national parks will be protected by the National Park Service," Ken Olson, president of the nonprofit park advocacy group, said Wednesday. ``It seems to be contrary to the Organic Act of 1916, the act that created the park service."

Olson wrote to NPS officials on Friday to register his dissatisfaction with the proposed changes.

``Friends of Acadia believes the re-draft of the policies is unnecessary at this time," Olson said in the letter. ``We feel that some of the changes suggested for the 2006 version create an impression that the National Park Service is moving away from a resource management protection emphasis to one of broader use."

Len Bobinchock, deputy superintendent of Acadia National Park, declined to comment on the policy draft until next week, when all park staff will have had the chance to register their thoughts about the proposed changes.

Maine Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe wrote in October to Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton expressing their concerns about what they characterized as efforts by the Department of the Interior to modify the park service.

``We are concerned that ... the primary mandate of the National Park Service to err on the side of preservation appears to be de-emphasized in the draft," the senators said.

Snowe and Collins mentioned the relative speed of the rewrite process and questioned the need for policy change so soon after the 2001 revision. In the past quarter century, park management policies were revised only twice, in 1988 and 2001.

``Both versions underwent much more extensive professional review than the current draft, both were made available to the public for comment for long periods of time, and both were virtually identical in their interpretation of the meaning of the key language of the National Park Service Organic Act," the senators said.

The strong cautionary words from Friends of Acadia join those of the state's senators and other advocacy groups such as National Park Service Retirees, who have spoken out against the policy change.

``The National Park Service is one of the most respected agencies in government," Olson said. ``We want the park service to retain that high position, the high esteem it has in the public's eye."

I saved a handy copy of the draft revisions here. Go here for the Park Service's own somewhat convoluted page on the revisions.

I started to wade through this document. The first thing that hits you is a denial from Park Service Director Fran P. Mainella that ``what you may have heard or read in the media" means that the revision will ``increase the likelihood of more snowmobiles, cell towers, personal watercraft, commercial activities, reduced air quality or other activities currently governed by law or regulation in the national parks."

Maybe. But in just a brief reading, I see reasons to raise flags of worry. Trust in the intentions of the Bush Administration in any area is in short supply these days, and it's not hard to see why.

Here is one such proposed park policy revision (p. 178-9):

A new form of recreational activity will not be allowed within a park until after an environmental analysis has determined if a park manager determines that it will not result in unacceptable impacts on park resources. Restrictions placed on or values consistent with the criteria in 8.1. Management of recreational uses that have been found to be appropriate approved according to the criteria in 8.1 will be limited to the minimum that which is necessary to protect park resources and values, and promote visitor safety and enjoyment.

This changes the whole approach to evaluating ``new forms of recreation", doesn't it? In the current policy, an environmental analysis must show that there will not be an adverse impact. The new draft leaves it up to a park manager to say that an impact is unacceptable, or the ``new'' use can just happen. Right? Tell me if I'm reading this wrong. Not hard to see how heavy-handed orders from above would find it easier to force all sorts of ``new'' motorized assaults on our parks, despite constant commentary to the contrary seen throughout the document--``There is no substantive change to this section".

There is way too much here for me to do much more with it right now. But do check out this extensive analysis from The Coalition of National Park Service Retirees.