[Senate Hearing 109-313]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 109-313
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE'S DRAFT MANAGEMENT POLICIES
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS
of the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
TO
RECEIVE TESTIMONY ON THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE'S DRAFT MANAGEMENT
POLICIES, INCLUDING POTENTIAL IMPACT OF THE POLICIES ON PARK
OPERATIONS, PARK RESOURCES, INTERACTION WITH GATEWAY COMMUNITIES, AND
SOLICITATION AND COLLECTION OF DONATIONS
__________
NOVEMBER 1, 2005
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
26-508 WASHINGTON : 2006
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico, Chairman
LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska RON WYDEN, Oregon
RICHARD M. BURR, North Carolina, TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
MEL MARTINEZ, Florida MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
CONRAD BURNS, Montana MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia JON S. CORZINE, New Jersey
GORDON SMITH, Oregon KEN SALAZAR, Colorado
JIM BUNNING, Kentucky
Alex Flint, Staff Director
Judith K. Pensabene, Chief Counsel
Robert M. Simon, Democratic Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Democratic Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on National Parks
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming, Chairman
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee, Vice Chairman
GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
RICHARD M. BURR, North Carolina RON WYDEN, Oregon
MEL MARTINEZ, Florida MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
GORDON SMITH, Oregon JON S. CORZINE, New Jersey
KEN SALAZAR, Colorado
Pete V. Domenici and Jeff Bingaman are Ex Officio Members of the
Subcommittee
Thomas Lillie, Professional Staff Member
David Brooks, Democratic Senior Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Akaka, Hon. Daniel K., U.S. Senator from Hawaii.................. 2
Alexander, Hon. Lamar, U.S. Senator from Tennessee............... 2
Bingaman, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from New Mexico................ 3
Castleberry, Don H., Member, Executive Council, Coalition of
National Park Service Retirees, Former Director, Midwest
Regional, National Park Service................................ 24
Galvin, Denis, Former Deputy Director, National Park Service
(Retired), on behalf of Board of Trustees, National Parks
Conservation Association....................................... 10
Horn, William P., Former Assistant Secretary for Fish and
Wildlife and Parks, Department of the Interior................. 18
Martin, Stephen P., Deputy Director, National Park Service....... 5
Salazar, Hon. Ken, U.S. Senator from Colorado.................... 3
Thomas, Hon. Craig, U.S. Senator from Wyoming.................... 1
APPENDIX
Responses to additional questions................................ 47
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE'S DRAFT MANAGEMENT POLICIES
----------
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 2005
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on National Parks,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m., in
room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Craig Thomas
presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CRAIG THOMAS, U.S. SENATOR FROM
WYOMING
Senator Thomas. I will call the meeting of the National
Parks Subcommittee to order.
This is an oversight hearing of National Park Service
management policies.
Thank you all for being here. I am particularly pleased to
have some regional directors here from the Park Service, and I
want to welcome our witnesses for today's subcommittee hearing.
The purpose of our hearing, of course, is to review the
National Park Service's proposed management policies, including
the potential impact of the policies on park operations and
park resources, interaction with gateway communities,
solicitation and collection of donations, and revised manager
hiring policies.
National parks, of course, are special places that
symbolize the American spirit. Each park was established by the
Congress for a specific purpose and, of course, must be managed
to sustain that purpose. The management policies we are here to
discuss are intended to guide employees as they seek to
maintain the resources for the current and future public
enjoyment.
We were all reminded of the public interest in national
parks when people were made aware of the plans to revise the
management policies. Some overreacted by concluding that the
internal working document was destined for implementation. We
know now that it is a work in progress.
I would like to commend Steve Martin and the members of the
National Park Service policy development team for being
responsive to public concerns. The purpose of this hearing is
to continue to obtain public input and to ensure the National
Park Service is well informed as they complete the document.
Again, I would like to thank all of you for being here.
Certainly we have been involved in this process for a very long
time. I personally believe the purpose of the parks, of course,
is to maintain the resources and, at the same time, allow the
public to enjoy those resources. We, of course, have had a good
deal of experience with that in some of our parks in Wyoming
and so on.
So in any event, thank you all for being here.
Senator Akaka.
STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL K. AKAKA, U.S. SENATOR
FROM HAWAII
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Of
course, thank you for scheduling this timely hearing to review
the National Park's draft management policies.
While I appreciate the effort that has been made to improve
this proposal from the earlier drafts, I question the need for
such a sweeping revision so soon after the current policies
were approved. I am concerned about the process for developing
the proposed policies and also whether the new policies will
provide park managers with clear guidance on the significance
of protecting park resources, both natural and cultural.
In addition to the proposed management policies, I would
like to raise another Park Service management issue that I
believe is very problematic. A few weeks ago, the Director
issued new requirements for the hiring of park superintendents,
assistant superintendents, and deputy superintendents at the
GS-13 grade and above, all career Civil Service positions. The
new policy also covers program managers at the GS-15 level.
Under the new policy, prospective candidates for any of
these jobs must be vetted by the Park Service leadership in
Washington, D.C. In addition to providing a statement of the
job candidate's experience, competencies, and potential for
management excellence, the regional offices will also be
required to provide the Park Service leadership with a
statement of the candidate's ability to lead employees in
achieving the Park Service's Legacy goals, Secretary Norton
four C's agenda, and the President's management agenda.
I am very concerned that this new requirement will add a
political element to the hiring and promotion process for
career employees that is inconsistent with the Federal Civil
Service laws. I look forward to exploring the new requirements
in my capacity as the ranking member of the Senate's Federal
Workforce Subcommittee. We need to ensure that the hiring and
promotion of all Federal employees is carried out in a manner
consistent with the Government's merit principles and free from
political interference.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to welcome our distinguished
panel of witnesses this morning, and I look forward to hearing
more about these issues. Thank you very much.
Senator Thomas. Thank you, sir.
Senator Alexander.
STATEMENT OF HON. LAMAR ALEXANDER, U.S. SENATOR FROM TENNESSEE
Senator Alexander. Mr. Chairman, I have got a lot to say,
but I think I will wait until I hear the witnesses. I want to
thank you for calling the hearing.
I am deeply concerned about the first revisions, and the
second revisions I am trying to read and understand. I wrote
the Secretary of the Interior, along with five other Republican
Senators, to make it clear that there were a number of us who
were concerned, and the number is larger than that. I guess
what I want to find out is why we are doing this and whether it
really is consistent with or undermines the Organic Act, which
has existed since the parks were created, that creates a strong
bias toward preservation and conservation in our National Park
System.
So I look forward to hearing the testimony, and I thank you
for calling it.
Senator Thomas. Thank you for postponing your statement.
Senator Bingaman.
STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF BINGAMAN, U.S. SENATOR
FROM NEW MEXICO
Senator Bingaman. Mr. Chairman, I will take the opportunity
to give a short statement too, rather than totally postponing
it.
I agree with what Senators Akaka and Alexander have said
about the real question being what is wrong with the current
policies that were updated, as I understand it, as recently as
2001. Why are we doing a major revision of those? Is there some
restriction on the public's right to access to the parks that I
am not aware of? That is, I guess, a question.
Another issue that I wanted to just mention that obviously
I am going to ask some questions about is this whole move, as I
see it--and maybe I am misinterpreting it, but it seems to be a
move toward authorizing the Park Service employees to solicit
donations, to allow donor recognition in national parks, to
allow for the first time, the naming of rooms in park
facilities after corporate sponsors, after private sponsors. I
have real concerns about this whole commercializing of our
national parks which I fear might be an outcome from this. So I
will have questions about that as well.
Thank you.
Senator Thomas. Thank you, sir.
Senator Salazar.
STATEMENT OF HON. KEN SALAZAR, U.S. SENATOR
FROM COLORADO
Senator Salazar. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for
holding this hearing on a very important issue. I associate
myself with the introductory comments that have been made by my
colleagues. I have an opening statement that I will submit for
the record.
Let me just say that I too am very troubled by the proposed
changes, and I hope that what this hearing does is provide the
witnesses an opportunity to provide an explanation to this
committee as to what the reasons for these changes are and,
second, what will be the results on our National Park System if
in fact these proposed changes are implemented.
It seems to me that there is also a significant question
that we all ought to have on our minds, and that is why this
process came about in the way that it did, in contrast to the
prior processes where the National Park Service's rules have
been changed in the Reagan administration, as well as during
the Clinton administration, where it seemed that there was the
kind of consultation over a long period of time that resulted
in changes to these rules. I do not see that that has occurred
here from what I have been able to tell and from what I have
heard from people who are on the ground. So I too bring
concerns and have a number of questions that we will get to
during the question and answer period.
[The prepared statement of Senator Salazar follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Ken Salazar, U.S. Senator From Colorado
Thank you Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you holding this hearing today
and giving me and the rest of the Subcommittee members an opportunity
to discuss these Draft Management Policies. As the Chairman is well
aware, National Parks represent the crown jewels of our natural
heritage. These special places have been set aside to be preserved for
the enjoyment of our generation as well as for the enjoyment of future
generations. The only way to accomplish this is to consistently manage
our National Parks so that the resources are not harmed, period.
To help set the tone for this hearing, I would like to read a
quote:
There can be nothing in the world more beautiful than the
Yosemite, the groves of giant sequoias and redwoods, the Canyon
of the Colorado, the Canyon of the Yellowstone, the Three
Tetons; and our people should see to it that they are preserved
for their children and their children's children forever, with
their majestic beauty all unmarred.
That was President Theodore Roosevelt.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Theodore Roosevelt, Outdoor Pastimes of an American Hunter,
1905.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Chairman, in light of the overwhelming popular support our
National Parks enjoy, the relatively short time period since the last
management policy revision, and the simple guiding principle for the
management of our National Parks set forth in the 1916 Organic Act; I
ask: shouldn't we continue to manage our National Parks as Theodore
Roosevelt so eloquently laid out, in a way that preserves these
national treasures not only for current generations, but for future
generations as well?
I am deeply troubled by the sweeping and fundamental nature of
these proposed changes to the Park Service's Management Policies, which
have stood the test of time. Mr. Chairman, I am not convinced that
there is a compelling reason for these changes. According to the
National Park Service, visitor satisfaction has not been below 95%
since 2001.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ NPS began collecting statistics on visitor satisfaction
beginning in 1998, in conformance with the Government Performance and
Results Act passed by Congress and the Clinton Administration in 1993.
Since those statistics have been collected, the level of visitor
satisfaction has consistently scored at or above 94 percent. For years
1998 to 2004 the ratings were 95%, 94%, 95%, 95%, 95%, 96%, and 96%
respectively. Margin for error cited by the Park Service is 6%, with a
confidence level of 95%.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I look forward to getting a candid assessment of these proposed
changes from Steve Martin, who has served for 30 years with the
National Park Service, and from Denny Galvin, who served as Deputy
Director of the National Park Service under three Presidents--Ronald
Reagan from 1985 to 1989; Bill Clinton, from 1998 to 2001; and George
W. Bush, from 2001 until his retirement in 2002.
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Senator Thomas. Thank you, sir.
Let me again welcome the witnesses. The Honorable Steve
Martin is Deputy Director of the National Park Service. Mr.
Denis Galvin, former Deputy Director of the National Park
Service, is retired. Is Mr. Horn here? Would you care to take
your seat, Mr. Horn? We will have you all at the same time.
Bill Horn, former Assistant Secretary Fish and Wildlife and
Parks of the Department of the Interior; and Mr. Don
Castleberry, former Midwest Regional Director of the Park
Service, also retired.
I thank all of you for being here. We look forward to your
comments, and obviously there will be some questions. Your
total statements will be made a part of the record. Kind of
capsulize them a little. Then we will get on to the discussion
with the members. So again, thank you.
Mr. Martin, would you like to begin please?
STATEMENT OF STEPHEN P. MARTIN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, NATIONAL PARK
SERVICE
Mr. Martin. Yes, and Mr. Chairman, thanks for providing
this opportunity to appear before your subcommittee. We look
forward to having the dialog and a chance to discuss these
issues.
I am a 30-year veteran of the NPS, having served as a
ranger, resource manager, superintendent of three parks,
regional director, and deputy director for the NPS. With me
today are also, as you mentioned, some of our members of the
leadership council, and at the end we could certainly introduce
them. They are willing to respond to questions if you have that
interest, or we can certainly come meet with any of you at any
time.
The NPS management policies provide guidance for managing
the National Park System and offer the public an understanding
of our management practices and goals. These policies are based
on laws, executive orders, proclamations, and regulations that
govern the NPS, as well as departmental policies and
longstanding NPS practices. This document, like the management
policies that have preceded it, pursue the highest standard of
conservation and enjoyment of our parks, the 388 units, that
welcomed over 287 million visitors last year.
We feel the current draft document, if read as a whole,
strengthens the guidance to park managers to ensure that there
is a commitment to the fundamental purpose of the National Park
System as set out in the NPS Organic Act of 1916.
The overarching message of this draft document is to
continue improving how we manage parks. You may hear about what
has been taken out of the current policies, but you need to
take some time to think about what has been put in as well. To
quote from the draft: ``to protect park resources and values to
ensure that these resources and values are maintained in as
good or better condition for the enjoyment of present and
future generations.'' This is the first time we discuss passing
on to future generations parks in better condition. We also try
to communicate that. We welcome people to use their parks and
to help us to protect the parks. If something in this draft
document seems inconsistent with these goals, we must reiterate
that it is a draft and we will resolve that inconsistency as we
continue to improve it based on public and our employee input.
The policies embrace the fundamental concept that when
there is a conflict between use and conservation, conservation
of the resources will be predominant. For example, the draft
states that ``when there are concerns as to whether an activity
or action will cause impairment, the Service will protect the
resources,'' and it also states that ``when proposed park uses
and the protection of park resources come in conflict, park
managers are obligated to ensure that the purposes for which
the park was created are not diminished.'' The term
``diminished'' was used because we do not want to wait for
impairment, but to step in to protect resources as the problem
arises. This is logical because inspiration and enjoyment
cannot occur without the preservation of the resources.
In revising the 2001 policies, we also tried to change the
perception some had that our message may have become strident.
We must be open to working cooperatively with others in the
practice of park management. This does not change what we do,
but how we conduct ourselves as park managers.
The revision defines appropriate use and establishes a
clear process for managers to use professional judgment in
determining what uses are appropriate. It defines unacceptable
impacts, a proactive concept not found in the 2001 document
that is designed to prevent impairment. We have been asked why
are you revising the policies now, and we admit that some of
what occured during the document's rollout was unfortunate and
caused a lot of uncertainty and suspicion.
But the answer is simple. It is about excellence. The world
is changing and we continue to strive for excellence.
Excellence means improving our guidance on not only preventing
impairment, but on preventing unacceptable impacts. Excellence
means increasing the understanding of appropriate use and
making sure that this part of the mission is not overlooked.
Excellence means keeping the key management decisions in the
hands of the managers defining professional judgment.
Excellence means not managing our parks in isolation, but
working with others and engaging them in conservation.
The existing policies do not clearly address management
excellence, and the business practices personal management
sections were weak. As we all know, the climate that we are
doing business in now is very different than it was 5 years
ago. Improved policies are also needed because we face
continuing challenges in managing an array of wonderfully
diverse areas. Parks range from Langston Golf Course in
Washington, D.C. to the 8.5 million acres of Gates of the
Arctic National Park and Preserve in Alaska. Every day without
fail, we are tested when we make decisions on what to do or
what not to do, what to build, what not to build, what to
allow, and what not to allow. To make these decisions, we need
a detailed formula that works for managing the birthplace of
Martin Luther King, Jr., as well as managing the bison herd at
Yellowstone National Park, not a simple litmus test that lacks
practical efficacy. The many additions to this document attempt
to accomplish that difficult task.
The men and women who manage our parks are some of the best
in government, and we ask a lot of them and they deserve good
guidance.
In summary, in 1918, in the very first policy, Secretary
Lane wrote a statement that is still directly quoted in and is
a vital part of our policies today. I quote: ``First, that
national parks must be maintained in absolutely unimpaired form
for the use of future generations, as well as those of our own
time; second, that they are set apart for the use, observation,
health, and pleasure of the people; and third, that the
national interest must dictate all decisions affecting public
or private enterprise in the parks.''
I hope everyone, after all that has gone on, can unite in
support of the goal to work on these policies--they are a
draft--and ensure the best possible management for parks in the
21st century. Let us work together as we continue to improve
this document.
That concludes my statement, and I will be happy to answer
any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Martin follows:]
Prepared Statement of Stephen P. Martin, Deputy Director,
National Park Service
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before your
subcommittee at this oversight hearing on recent draft revisions to the
National Park Service (NPS) Management Policies.
The NPS Management Policies provide guidance for managing the
National Park System and offer the public an understanding of our
management practices and goals. These policies are based on laws,
Executive orders, proclamations, and regulations that govern NPS as
well as departmental policies and longstanding NPS practices. This
document, like the Management Policies that have preceded it, pursues
the highest standard of conservation and enjoyment of our 388 park
units, which now welcome over 287 million visitors a year.
The current draft document strengthens the guidance to park
managers in order to ensure that there is an unequivocal commitment to
the fundamental purpose of the National Park System, as set out in the
NPS Organic Act of 1916, ``to conserve the scenery and the natural and
historic objects therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same
in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the
enjoyment of future generations.''
The overarching message of this draft document is to continue
improving how we manage parks ``to protect park resources and values to
ensure that these resources and values are maintained in as good or
better condition for the enjoyment of present and future generations.''
Toward this end, we allow and welcome the appropriate use of parks.
While we may quote particular sentences from the revised Management
Policies to emphasize certain points, the document is designed to be
used by managers, as a whole, to implement the mission of the NPS to
protect, conserve and provide for the enjoyment of this nation's
incredible cultural and natural heritage. If something in this draft
document seems inconsistent with that goal, we will certainly address
it.
These new draft policies maintain our strong commitment to the
fundamental mission of the NPS to protect and allow for appropriate
enjoyment of the parks. The policies clearly underscore that when there
is a conflict between use and conservation, the protection of the
resources will be predominant. For example, the draft states that
``when there are concerns as to whether an activity or action will
cause impairment the Service will protect the resources,'' and it also
states that ``when proposed park uses and the protection of park
resources come into conflict, park managers are obligated to ensure
that the purposes for which the park was created are not diminished.''
This is logical because inspiration and enjoyment cannot occur without
the preservation of the resources.
The revision defines and welcomes ``appropriate uses'' and
establishes a clear process for managers to use to determine what are
appropriate uses. Appropriate uses are defined as ``a use that is
suitable, proper or fitting for a particular park, or to a particular
location within a park.'' This definition rests within the broader park
system mission mentioned above of conserving park resources and values
while providing for their enjoyment so as to leave them unimpaired for
the enjoyment of future generations.
The question that has been asked about this revision is ``why
now?'' The answer is simple, yet multi-faceted. The world is changing,
and we continue to strive for excellence. Excellence means improving
our guidance on not only preventing impairment but on preventing
``unacceptable impacts'' to ensure that impairment will not be reached.
Excellence means increasing the understanding of ``appropriate use''
and making certain that this component of the fundamental mission is
not overlooked. Excellence means keeping the key management decisions
in the hands of the managers by better defining ``professional
judgment.''
Another answer to the ``Why now?'' question is that the existing
management policies do not address ``management excellence'' and
``sustainability'' with clarity. We face an evolving context of new
technologies, new homeland security challenges, and public demands for
efficient and transparent management practices that affect our
stewardship responsibilities. The NPS must keep pace with these
changes. With changing demographics and with the ever increasing
importance of our NPS stewardship, cooperative conservation, civic
engagement and 21st century relevance are critical. One final answer to
the ``why now?'' question is that some members of Congress have also
expressed an interest in seeing the NPS review its policies.
Revised and improved policies are also needed because managers face
continuing challenges as we preserve the parks while striving to serve
our visitors and partner with our local communities. Every day, without
fail, we are tested when we make decisions on what to do or what not to
do; what to build or what not to build; what to allow or what not to
allow. From these challenges we learn and improve our practices.
The men and women who manage our parks are some of the best in
government. We ask a lot of them and they deserve good guidance. The
courts have recognized that the NPS Organic Act confers on the NPS
broad discretion to manage the National Park System and have left to
its expertise the determination of the best approaches to achieving the
Organic Act's mandate. Within the parameters of the Organic Act's
``fundamental purpose,'' the courts have recognized that NPS may
balance resource conservation and visitor enjoyment in determining
where and when activities are appropriate in park areas.
The ability of an agency to remain healthy and sustainable over
time lies with its willingness to honestly examine its own management
practices and update them periodically to more efficiently and
effectively fulfill the underlying mission. To this end, the NPS held a
series of meetings with field professionals and Department of the
Interior officials over the last few months. More than 100 key
professional staff have worked on the document, including all of the
NPS career national leadership team, many field and program managers,
and the National Wilderness Steering Committee. The revised management
policies, now available for public review, recognize new challenges
facing the NPS, such as homeland security and greater accountability
and transparency, and incorporate advancements in technology with
management tools such as Facility Condition Index. The revised policies
also bring existing guidance up to date with new laws such as those
related to fees; new Executive Orders such as ``Preserve America'' and
``Facilitating Cooperative Conservation''; new Director's Order #75A:
Civic Engagement; and new initiatives such as the ``NPS Legacy
Initiative: Doing Business in the 21st Century''; and the Secretary of
the Interior's ``4C's of communication, cooperation, and consultation,
all in the service of conservation.''
The NPS Management Policies have traditionally served as the
foundation for day-to-day park management decisions. For that reason,
it is of paramount importance that the Management Policies provide
clear and useable guidance that encourages consistency across the
National Park System while celebrating the unique aspects of individual
park units. In the draft Management Policies, managers will find
detailed definitions of key management terms, enabling them to more
clearly anticipate how resources can best be conserved while providing
a positive visitor experience. These definitions ensure that park
managers will always seek ways to avoid or minimize to the greatest
extent practicable, adverse impacts on park resources and values.
In this draft, managers are given guidance on the NPS decision-
making procedures. This includes engaging the public and using the best
scientific information available when parks are planning for facilities
or activities. This concept is further clarified by setting forth a
list of criteria that park managers must apply, using their
professional judgment, to determine what uses are appropriate in a
particular park. Such criteria include, among others, ensuring that
uses do not cause unacceptable impacts, create an unsafe or unhealthful
environment for visitors or employees, or result in significant
conflict with other appropriate uses. For example, in applying the
criteria, a park manager may determine initially that a proposed
activity would ``result in significant conflict with other appropriate
uses'' and must therefore be disallowed. However, by applying a more
sophisticated planning process, the manager may conclude that even
small adjustments in the time or location of activities can avoid or
adequately mitigate the conflict. The revised policies encourage this
kind of forward-thinking management.
Another term of critical importance to park managers is impairment.
The impairment standard comes from the most important statutory
directives for the NPS, the NPS Organic Act of 1916 and the General
Authorities of 1970, as amended. The revised Management Policies
rectify an apparent inconsistency in the definition of impairment
between the glossary and chapter one of the 2001 Management Policies.
The draft Management Policies maintain a firm commitment to not only
protect park resources and values from impairment but also to leave
them in as good or better condition then they currently exist. They
further describe the manager's responsibility to incorporate civic
engagement, the best available scientific, scholarly, and technical
information to ensure that parks are managed for appropriate use and to
prevent impacts from ever reaching the level of impairment.
The revised policies place a new emphasis on management excellence
in other areas, as well. One of the most important of our new
initiatives, the NPS Legacy Initiative, sets goals and objectives for
management excellence, sustainability, conservation, outdoor
recreation, and 21st century relevancy. These goals, as incorporated
into the revised policies, will direct efforts toward areas of vital
importance to the fulfillment of our mission. The revised policies have
been updated by taking into account changing demographics, improving
technology, new ways to enjoy parks, and better science to inform
decision-making. Better baseline data on resource conditions, an
improved understanding of the interrelationships within ecosystems, the
use of best available technology, the application of adaptive
management, and the practice of cooperative conservation may allow new
uses and result in greater enjoyment, with reduced visitor use
conflicts, while maintaining high conservation standards and leaving
the resources in as good, or better, condition for the enjoyment of
future generations.
In addition to improving the internal processes used by park
managers, the revised policies recognize the benefits of external
relationships, particularly in regard to partnerships and other
collaborative activities. The NPS commitment to civic engagement is
founded on the central principle that preservation of the nation's
heritage resources relies on continued collaborative relationships
between the NPS and American society. The revised policies reflect a
renewed commitment to civic engagement, and collaboration with states,
communities, and tribes through effective consultation, participation,
and the use of science in key decision-making processes. The revised
policies incorporate the guidance published in NPS Director's Order
#75A: Civic Engagement and strengthen our commitment to effective
public involvement. For the NPS, true civic engagement is an
institutional responsibility to actively involve communities in our
mission. In the revised policies, inclusive and collaborative public
participation will be emphasized in the planning process, and in
interpretive and educational programming. By enhancing the NPS focus on
partnering with communities and neighbors, we intend to ensure that
sites representing the fullness of the American experience are
preserved.
National park units conserve our national treasures, and it is
these unique settings that draw millions of visitors to enjoy these
special places. One result of this high demand is that, at times, the
NPS must make decisions that are not popular with every group and every
individual. Simply put, the national parks cannot accommodate
everyone's wants and needs. However, we have nearly 300 million
satisfied customers each year who tell us that our decisions are most
often the right ones. The NPS will work hard to maintain this high
level of customer satisfaction. In addition, our partners at the state,
local, and private levels also provide a wide array of opportunities
for the public to enjoy the activities that cannot be accommodated in
the national parks. The NPS is committed to working closely with these
partners in a coordinated effort to meet the nation's needs for healthy
and enjoyable recreational opportunities. The revised policies will
incorporate forward-thinking, Servicewide initiatives to ensure the
continued fulfillment of the mission as entrusted to us in the Organic
Act of 1916.
In summary, the Organic Act continues to guide virtually all of our
management actions. It creates a single NPS mission with several
components, including that future generations will be able to enjoy
National Park System resources only if we successfully conserve them
and protect them from impairment. We think this makes good sense. In
1925, Stephen T. Mather, the first Director of the NPS agreed by
saying, ``The primary duty of the National Park Service is to protect
the national parks and national monuments under its jurisdiction and
keep them as nearly in their natural state as this can be done in view
of the fact that access to them must be provided in order that they may
be used and enjoyed.'' By managing park resources wisely, by evolving
and adapting our policies to keep the parks relevant to the public we
serve, we ensure that future generations will have the same
opportunities for enjoyment of park resources that we have today.
The revised management policies focus on the protection of park
resources and provide a clear reflection of the agency's longstanding
commitment to public enjoyment. The proposed areas of change will
improve the way parks are managed, conserved, and enjoyed for the
benefit of present and future generations.
That concludes my statement, and I will be happy to answer any
questions you or other members of the subcommittee may have.
Senator Thomas. Thank you very much. It is good to have an
old friend from Teton Park here.
Mr. Martin. Yes. Who would have thought it, right?
[Laughter.]
Senator Thomas. Whatever that means, yes.
Mr. Galvin, good to see you, sir.
STATEMENT OF DENIS GALVIN, FORMER DEPUTY DIRECTOR, NATIONAL
PARK SERVICE (RETIRED), ON BEHALF OF BOARD OF TRUSTEES,
NATIONAL PARKS CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION
Mr. Galvin. Senator Thomas, it is a pleasure to be back
before the subcommittee again. Today I represent the National
Parks and Conservation Association, a 300,000-member support
group for the National Park Service and the National Park
System.
I have enjoyed my work with this subcommittee to improve
and expand our superlative National Park System over the years.
I have a prepared statement that comments in detail on the
chapter 1 changes proposed to the current 2001 edition of the
management policies that ``set the framework and provide
direction for all management decisions affecting the National
Park System.''
In 1988 and 2001 as Deputy Director, I coordinated the
process that led to the new editions of these policies, to the
current edition, 2001. I also did that for 1988. It was
initiated and implemented by the National Park Service.
This process, by contrast, was initiated outside the
National Park Service. Its first result was rejected.
Subsequently, national park professionals, many my former
colleagues, performed heroically to rescue that effort.
Regrettably the end result of that effort still falls short.
Policy has a long history, starting with Secretary Lane's
letter in 1918. I have examined many subsequent versions. They
exhibit a remarkable consistency. The 2005 draft does not meet
the level of protection of its predecessors. The 2001 document
is better and should be retained. The current process is flawed
and should be abandoned.
If a revision is needed, it should begin with a scoping
process that is clear about the reasons for change. The
informal reasons for change cited by officials in the media,
cell towers, base jumping, et cetera, are contradicted in the
draft currently being reviewed.
I have several documents referenced in my prepared
statement that I would like to submit for the record that were
pulled off the National Park Service web site that go into the
history of the interpretation of impairment.
I will mention only two sections that are covered in my
prepared statement. Subsection 1.4.3 of chapter 1, which is
called The Foundation, discusses the fundamental purpose of the
National Park System. That is the title of the subsection,
``the fundamental purpose of the National Park System.'' The
existing 2001 language says: ``When there is a conflict between
conserving resources and values and providing for enjoyment of
them, conservation is to be predominant.'' The 2005 draft
eliminates that statement. In the same subsection, ``the
fundamental purpose of national parks,'' it substitutes: ``The
Service must balance the sometimes competing obligations of
conservation and enjoyment in managing the parks.'' That lowers
the longtime standard for managing national parks. I can find
no instance in reviewing over 80 years of policy statements
where the word ``balance'' was used to discuss the fundamental
purpose of our park system.
A new subsection, 1.4.3.1, my colleague, Deputy Director
Martin, mentioned is a new and hopeful attempt to define
``appropriate use.'' However, in the execution, some of the
criteria are troubling. My prepared statement mentions the
removal of concessions facilities and other administrative
facilities from giant forests in Sequoia National Park. There
we were cutting the roots of 3,000-year-old trees to prolong
the existence of substandard 80-year-old facilities. The
successful completion of this project is a success that can be
claimed by many, including this subcommittee. It was
enthusiastically supported by the public. As I read this draft,
I wonder if we would have undertaken the project. It certainly
disrupted the operation of park concessions and certainly ended
a use that occurred historically.
In my career, I had an informal test for appropriate use.
It was two simple questions. What is it doing to the resource,
and what is its affect on current and future enjoyment? If the
answer to either of those questions raised a red flag, I knew
the approach should be truly conservative. The standard of the
Hippocratic Oath applied: ``First, do no harm.''
One of the pleasures of retirement has been to visit
national parks. I have hiked the battle lines of Gettysburg,
enjoyed the tranquility and meaning of Appomattox, seen people
from New York City on a Sunday afternoon fill the picnic areas
at Delaware Water Gap, returned to Yosemite National Park and
Sequoia, the first parks I worked in in the National Park
System. These experiences affirm that we have a great park
system enjoyed by hundreds of millions of our citizens. It is
not locked up. Its quality is a bequest from past generations.
This generation owes it to the future to maintain the standards
that have made it great.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would be glad to answer
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Galvin follows:]
Prepared Statement of Denis Galvin, Former Deputy Director, National
Park Service (Retired), on Behalf of Board of Trustees, National Parks
Conservation Association
Mr. Chairman, and other distinguished Members of the Subcommittee;
it is a pleasure to be back before this Subcommittee again. I recently
retired from the National Park Service after a 38-year career, during
which I served as, among other positions, park engineer, manager of the
professional architecture and design center, associate director, and
deputy director. I have actively participated, as a career
professional, in the agency's interpretation and implementation of the
1916 NPS Organic Act, and all of the other laws given to the NPS to
carry out, at the field, regional, and headquarters levels on a day-to-
day basis for more than three decades, including development of the
1988, and 2001 editions of NPS Management Policies, the official manual
that guides the agency's day-to-day work under these laws.
As is valid for all public laws and all public agencies, it is
appropriate for this Subcommittee to exercise its oversight
responsibilities to periodically assess how the National Park Service
is doing in carrying out the statutory mandates that it has been given
by the Congress and Presidents, and NPCA is pleased to play a role in
supporting that effort on your part. We welcome your oversight, but
strongly believe that the Administration has shown NO need for the
broad and comprehensive changes that they propose to make in NPS
Management Policies.
NPS IS ON TARGET UNDER THE LAW, BUT LOSING GROUND
The fundamental re-interpretation 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. In fact, the proposed
changes would remove the clear guidance of the 2001 edition, and
replace it with muddy, unclear, and too-broad discretion left to NPS
managers and Administration appointees, to judge what is and is not
appropriate use of the national parks. A clear service-wide standard
for day-to-day management decision-making is proposed to be replaced
with a much broader range of choices.
There is clearly NO need to amend the NPS Organic Act, or any of
the other laws governing how our national parks are intended to be
managed. The Organic Act has endured soundly for 90 years, and will
probably be good for another 90 years, at least.
Likewise, there is NO need to re-write Management Policies. For
those narrow subjects that the Administration has asserted were not
addressed in the 2001 edition (homeland security, cell towers,
succession planning, etc,) the issuance of specific Director's Orders
is the operative process already in place to take care of it.
What is needed is for the broad constituency of interests that are
engaged with the National Park Service-- recreation, tourism, gateway
communities, conservation, preservation, and regular ``good
citizens''--to step up their support for their national parks as they
are, and as they are intended to be, preserved unimpaired for future
generations to enjoy. Special interests must give way to the national
interest if the national parks are to flourish in the future.
In 1918, Secretary of Interior Franklin Lane articulated the core
management policy for the NPS, which endures today, ``First, that the
national parks must be maintained in absolutely unimpaired form for the
use of future generations as well as those of our time; second, that
they are set apart for the use, observation, health, and pleasure of
the people; and third, that the national interest must dictate all
decisions affecting public or private enterprise in the parks.''
THE THREAT OF GENERICA
At the White House Tourism Conference here in Washington D.C.
several weeks ago, attended by invited state delegates and key tourism
industry leaders from all 50 states, the opening day keynote speaker
said that the greatest threat to American tourism is the ``Threat of
Generica''--the homogenization of natural and cultural landscapes
across the Nation by commercialization. Another major speaker said that
the counter force to the threat of generica is ``geo-tourism''--more
than eco- or sustainable-tourism, this new philosophy being adopted and
embraced by the tourism industry itself, calls for sustaining the real
places in America, retaining, restoring and sustaining the geographical
character and integrity of a place. That is what will continue to draw
tourists--and the units of the National Park System are already the
very core, the essence, of this geo-tourism. The national parks can, if
adequately funded and staffed, continue to lead this economic engine
for America into the future.
For high quality tourism to be sustained in America, already the
second or third largest economic driver in the USA, nothing is more
important that preserving the unique natural and cultural places that
make up the National Park System, unimpaired.
APPROPRIATE RECREATION
Nearly 300 million people visited the parks last year, and we know
from surveys that they ``enjoyed'' them. NPS concessionaires grossed
over $1 Billion in 2004; surrounding gateway communities and businesses
grossed over another $11 Billion attributable to national park
visitors. Despite this, there are those who suggest that NPS management
of the parks it TOO RESTRICTIVE, or that the parks are LOCKED UP, or
lack ACCESS. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Nevertheless, some want to engage in thrill-type recreation
activities, mostly in various types of motorized vehicles, in the
national parks. Some (but far from all) park gateway communities
complain that they could draw in more tourists if the NPS were ``less
restrictive'' of various uses. These types of demands would seek to
kill the goose that lays the golden egg, and must be rejected or
ignored.
The national parks do not have to sustain all recreation; that is
why we have various other federal, state, local, and private recreation
providers to share the demand, and to provide for those types of
recreation that generally do not belong in the national parks, or that
must be carefully limited. The 1916 NPS Organic Act, emphasizing
conservation for future generations, is substantially different from
the organic laws of the Bureau of Land Management, the US Forest
Service, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the Army Corps of Engineers,
or any other federal agency. The NPS mission is also different from
that of state park agencies, or of county or city park agencies.
Together, these agencies provide for many forms of public recreation--
but not all forms of recreation are appropriate in national parks.
BALANCING USE WITH PRESERVATION IN DAY-TO-DAY MANAGEMENT
OF NATIONAL PARKS
Over the 90 years history of the NPS, there has been much debate
over whether the NPS is achieving the proper balance between uses of
the parks for today, and conserving them unimpaired for future
generations. These conflicts usually erupt over day-to-day management
of particular parks, and the decisions that the NPS makes as it goes
through periodic management planning. It is crucial to this discussion,
however, to note that there is no credible debate over whetherparks
should be used by the American people, the debate centers on how the
use occurs, or sometimes when or where.
The snowmobile controversy in Yellowstone would be far less
significant if there were no impacts on wintering bison and
trumpeter swans;
The off-road vehicle debate at Cape Hatteras would be
moderated if there were no impacts on breeding birds, or if
more of the beaches were limited to pedestrian use;
Shenandoah National Park staff could be less involved with
opposition to adjacent power plants if emission controls under
the Clean Air Act were being enforced at a higher standard, and
if the scenic vistas from the park's overlooks were as clear as
they were 50 years ago;
NPS staff at Mojave National Preserve, where hunting is
allowed by law, oppose the artificial wildlife watering holes,
known as guzzlers, not because they oppose hunting, but because
these devices dry up the natural springs at higher elevations,
and concentrate wildlife unnaturally, exposing them as easier
targets to both natural and human hunters;
Professional NPS staff at Glacier Bay National Park limit
the number of cruise ships allowed in the park at a time, both
due to impacts on whales and other wildlife, and to maintain
the quality of the visitor experience, both for cruise ship
passengers and other park boaters;
The buildings and associated utility lines for the Giant
Forest Lodge in Sequoia National Park were killing the big
trees, so NPS had them removed, and had its concessions
partner, Delaware North, build a brand new lodge in a better
location, still serving the visitors, but without impact to the
giant Sequoias.
For the NPS professionals, conserving the parks unimpaired for
future generations is synonymous with offering park visitors today a
high quality experience. Scenic vistas should be clear, natural sounds
should dominate over man-made noises, native wildlife should be
abundant and visible for visitors, historic sites such as battlefields
should look like they did when the historic events occurred, park
visitor facilities should not be located so as to disturb the natural
scene or the cultural landscape.
Viable alternatives to expanded use and commercial development in
parks should be provided outside the parks, on other public lands, or
in gateway communities. Natural and cultural resources of the units of
the National Park System must be maintained and in some cases improved.
Preservation is the key to continued success of the NPS in fulfilling
its statutory mandate, and also to sustaining the core destinations
that fuel the tourism industry.
INTERPRETING THE NPS ORGANIC ACT
It is the task of professional NPS managers, through the public
process, to determine what is appropriate and what is not in the
National Park System units. The ``litmus'' test for distinguishing
between the permissible and the impermissible begins with the 1916 NPS
Organic Act itself, and the key statutory provision that states that:
(The National Park Service) shall promote and regulate the
use of the Federal areas known as national parks, monuments and
reservations hereinafter specified . . . by such means and
measures as conform to the fundamental purpose of the said
parks, monuments and reservations, which purpose is to conserve
the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the
wildlife therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same
in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired
for the enjoyment of future generations.
Simply put, the NPS Mission is to provide for enjoyment of the
parks in a manner that leave them unimpaired. Uses that impair the
parks are illegal. Giving a precise definition to the term
``impairment'' is the job of the NPS career managers who are charged
with implementation. In addition, federal courts have also rendered
opinions that interpret the ``impairment'' provisions, and in every
case, have agreed with the current interpretation.
Congress has clarified its intent in statutory use of the term
``impairment'' only once, in the 1978 amendment to the NPS General
Authorities Act, which states that
Congress declares that the national park system, which began
with establishment of Yellowstone National Park in 1872, has
since grown to include superlative natural, historic, and
recreation areas in every major region of the United States,
its territories and island possessions; that these areas,
though distinct in character, are united through their inter-
related purposes and resources into one national park system as
cumulative expressions of a single national heritage; that,
individually and collectively, these areas derive increased
national dignity and recognition of their superb environmental
quality through their inclusion jointly with each other in one
national park system preserved and managed for the benefit and
inspiration of all the people of the United States; and that it
is the purpose of this Act to include all such areas in the
System and to clarify the authorities applicable to the system.
Congress further reaffirms, declares, and directs that the
promotion and regulation of the various areas of the National
Park System, as defined in section 2 of this Act, shall be
consistent with and founded in the purpose established by the
first section of the Act of August 25, 1916 to the common
benefit of all the people of the United States. The
authorization of activities shall be construed and the
protection, management, and administration of these areas shall
be conducted in light of the high public value and integrity of
the National Park System and shall not be exercised in
derogation of the values and purposes for which these various
areas have been established, except as may have been or shall
be directly and specifically provided by Congress.
Current NPS policy is to interpret the 1916 ``non-impairment''
standard, and the 1978 ``non-derogation'' standard as having the same
meaning and intent. That little has changed since the NPS was
established and given the task of managing the national parks can be
seen in the similarities between the first NPS policy statement
interpreting the Organic Act, which stated that:
Every activity of the Service is subordinate to the duties
imposed upon it to faithfully preserve the parks for posterity
in essentially their natural state,
and the language from the 1978 Senate Committee Report on the General
Authorities Act amendment that stated that:
The Secretary has the absolute duty, which is not to be
compromised, to fulfill the mandate of the 1916 Act to take
whatever actions and seek whatever relief as will safeguard the
units of the national park system.
In the concluding paragraph to ``The National Park Service Act of
1916: A Contradictory Mandate?'' the late Dr. Robin Winks, Yale History
Dean and former Chairman of both the National Park System Advisory
Board and NPCA Board of Trustees, clearly articulates his conclusion
that there is no contradiction in the clear intent of Congress in the
1916 Act, and that resource preservation trumps access and use when the
two conflict in the determination of the professional managers of the
parks.
Arguably the intent of Congress with respect to any single
act cannot be perfectly divined or proven. The intent of
Congress across a number of related acts, and as adumbrated by
other acts that bear upon the related group, may more nearly be
understood. The paper has attempted to judge that intent. It
has argued that the language contained in the preamble to the
National Park Service Act of 1916 is not, in fact,
contradictory; and that Congress did not regard it as
contradictory. . . . Further, it is argued that subsequent
legislation, and numerous interpretations of related
legislation by the courts . . . sustain the view that there was
and is not inherent contradiction in the preamble to the Act of
1916. The national Park Service was enjoined by that act, and
the mission placed upon the Service was reinforced by
subsequent acts, to conserve the scenic, natural, and historic
resources, and the wild life found in conjunction with those
resources, in the units of the National Park System in such a
way as to leave them unimpaired; this mission had and has
precedence over providing means of access, if those means
impair the resources, however much access may add to the
enjoyment of future generations.
(Attached to this testimony is a copy of Dr. Winks' paper, ``The
National Park Service Act of 1916: A Contradictory Mandate?'',
submitted for the Hearing Record.)* www.nature.nps.gov/Winks/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Retained in subcommittee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day-to-day management of a national park is complex, as is
determining whether a particular type or amount of use would cause
impairment, and thus not be allowed to occur in the park. The sound
judgment of the career NPS park professional is the best means we have
to make this determination, coupled with a public process that allows
the American people to understand the complications and competing
interests. Putting the national interest, and the long-term benefit to
the park's resources, ahead of the immediate accommodation of use has
always been and should continue to be, the primary factor indicating
the right decision for park managers to make.
THE ADMINISTRATION HAS NOT MADE A CASE FOR PROPOSED REVISIONS TO
MANAGEMENT POLICIES, CHAPTER I, THE FOUNDATION
Overview
From the first NPS Management Polices, issued in 1918, up until the
most recent edition, issued in 2001, the process of policy development
has followed a fairly common routine, with the periodic (every 10 years
or so) review of existing NPS policies being initiated by the
professional rank and file employees of the NPS, due to recent changes
in law, federal court decisions interpreting law, or exposure to new
scientific information.
Management Policies are primarily to give clear direction to the
professional managers of the NPS so that there is consistent adherence
to policy service-wide, and so that each manager has a clear and
comprehensive basis for understanding what he/she is to consider when
making management decisions. On the other hand, regulations are
promulgated to enable enforcement of laws and policies on park users.
These two tools, policies and regulations, must be consistent and
clear, if NPS managers are to be able to do their jobs.
For purposes of this hearing, we will focus our comments on a
comparison of Chapter 1: The Foundation from the 2001 edition of
Management Policies to the changes proposed in the current draft of
Chapter 1 that are out for public comment. During the public comment
period, we will develop a thorough and detailed, line-by-line analysis;
for the present, a review of Chapter 1 will be sufficient.
The interpretation of the NPS Organic Act that is contained in the
proposed new version of NPS Management Policies is misguided. It
misinterprets the intent of Congress, it ignores numerous federal court
decisions, and it greatly weakens the professional judgment of the NPS
career mangers that have worked under the various NPS laws for over 90
years. Our analysis of key sections of Chapter 1 follows:
The Foundation
Chapter One of the 2001 edition of Management Policies is entitled
The Foundation and is intended to give additional clarity to the clear
purpose of the National Park Service as stated in the 1916 NPS Organic
Act.
The 2001 edition of Management Policies gave a very detailed and
clear articulation of how to interpret the 1916 Organic Act's basis
mandate. In contrast, the new draft significantly muddies the waters,
and has the effect of letting each manager judge for him/herself
whether a particular use or form of enjoyment is appropriate or not,
and will or won't cause impairment, without the clear guidance that the
2001 edition of Management Policies provide.
The fundamental purpose of NPS, as set by the 1916 Act, is to
promote and regulate uses that do not impair parks, and prohibit all
others. Yes, the NPS mission is about use and enjoyment, but these are
types, amounts, and even timing of uses that are first judged to be
compatible with conserving park resources unimpaired.
By all accounts, including NPS-commissioned visitor surveys, the
hundreds of millions of people who visit the parks annually enjoy these
parks. But, due to NPS management, certain uses that certain people
might also enjoy in the parks are prohibited. It seems that these new
proposed changes to Management Policies are intended to make it more
difficult for NPS to prohibit some types of uses that it heretofore has
done. The changes lower the standard by which appropriate uses are
judged, by adding a variety of qualifiers, modifiers, and vague, fuzzy
guidelines to what were previously much more clear guidelines for
judging appropriateness.
1.4.3 The NPS Obligation to Conserve and Provide for Enjoyment of Park
Resources and Values
The 2001 edition of Management Policies clearly defines the 1916
Organic Act's ``fundamental'' purpose of the NPS as two-fold:
1) to affirmatively conserve park resources and values all
the time, even where there is no particular threat or risk at
the moment; this is a mandate for proactive, not just reactive
park natural and cultural resource management. When Congress
added the mandate for reliance on scientific research to guide
park management in the 1998 Thomas Bill (P.L. 105-391),
Congress was essentially directing the NPS to assure that its
actions would continue to conserve park resources and values,
based on the findings of park-based applied research,\1\ not
just in response to user-caused impairments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Section 202 of P.L. 105-391 states that ``The Secretary is
authorized and directed to assure that management of units of the
National Park System is enhanced by the availability and utilization of
a broad program of the highest quality science and information.''
Section 206 states, in part, ``The Secretary shall take such measures
as are necessary to assure the full and proper utilization of the
results of scientific study for partk management decisions.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2) To provide for enjoyment, but only enjoyment that occurs
in a manner or means that leaves the park's resources and
values unimpaired.
The 2001 Edition further states, ``NPS managers must always seek
ways to avoid, or to minimize to the greatest extent practicable,
adverse impacts on park resources and values.'' Avoiding adverse
impacts is necessitated by both the first element of the single
purpose, as well as the second element.
The proposed draft significantly revises the interpretation of the
Organic Act by treating its mandate as a balancing act between
conservation of resources and values and visitor enjoyment.``The Park
Service recognises that activities in which park visitors engage can
cause impacts to park resources and values, and the Service must
balance the sometimes competing obligations of conservation and
enjoyment in managing the parks.''
This interpretation of the Organic Act's fundamental purpose for
the NPS is not accurate. While there is clearly a difference between
impacts and impairments--NPS may permit certain impacts to park
resources and values so long as they are not impairments--the
professional judgment that is called for to distinguish between impacts
and impairments is clearly different than one that seeks to balance use
with conserving . . . unimpaired.
By eliminating the separate Organic Act requirement to conserve
park resources and values, the proposed draft relaxes the standards by
which a park manager would judge the condition of park resources and
values. The draft replaces the phrase ``adverse impacts'' used in the
2001 edition with the term'' unacceptable impacts,'' a far more
indefinite term, that leaves the park manger with little guidance,
broad discretion, and an expectation that he or she will ``balance''
use with conserving . . . unimpaired.
In fact, the park manager does not have ``broad discretion'' as it
is defined in the proposed draft. While federal courts have shown
deference to the federal decision-maker in questions about defining
impairment, these same courts have universally upheld the paramount
mandate of the Organic Act to conserve park resources and values
unimpaired, even to the extent of reducing or eliminating a particular
form of use.
The proposed draft adds two new subsections, on ``1.4.3.1
Appropriate Use,'' and ``1.4.3.2 Unacceptable Impacts,'' both of which
seek to emphasize that balance is required under the Organic Act. Both
subsections are comprised of lists of items that would be acceptable or
unacceptable uses, but this approach is only valid if you assume that
the NPS park manager's only obligation is to balance use with resource
conservation.
Another new subsection ``1.4.3.3 Park Purposes and Legislatively
Authorized Uses'' in the proposed draft properly distinguishes between
mandated uses and authorized uses, but fails to note that authorized
uses are discretionary with the NPS manager and may be prohibited if
the manager judges the impacts of such use to be unacceptable.
Curiously, this section fails to note the important fact that
individual park enabling statutes sometimes have the effect of
modifying the applicability of the Organic Act to a specific park or
aspect of management of that park. This was a hallmark feature of the
1988 edition of Management Policies which was carried forward into the
2001 edition. The proposed draft seems much more intent on allowing
maximum manager discretion than in adhering carefully to the intent of
Congress.
1.5 External Threats and Opportunities
This section of the 2001 edition of Management Policies has been
completely eliminated from the proposed draft, apparently in keeping
with the Administration's policies that the NPS authority and
responsibility stops at the park boundary. While it is true that NPS'
direct authority is much reduced outside park boundaries, there are
numerous other laws, including the Clean Air Act and the Surface Mining
Act that mandate special protections for national parks, and that
afford the NPS a measure of responsibility in determining the extent of
impacts to park resources and values.
Elimination of this section is a significant deficiency of the
proposed re-write of Management Policies.
In substitution, the new draft adds a new section entitled
``Cooperative Conservation Beyond Park Boundaries.'' While this is a
good addition as it is proposed, it in no way substitutes for the 2001
edition's section on External Threats. They address two very different
things. As noted in numerous previous studies, the majority of external
threats to national park resources and values are caused by the
actions, or inactions, of other federal agencies, and need a directed
and aggressive response from the NPS.
``Cooperative Conservation'' as it has been defined by Secretary
Norton has been primarily focused on actions that can be taken by the
NPS, and other land managing agencies, to work constructively with
neighboring landowners, especially private landowners, and adjacent
gateway communities. This is a good policy as far as it goes, but does
not address the elimination or mitigation of external threats to park
resources from other federal agencies. Both sections are needed in
Management Policies.
1.7 Management Excellence
This section of the proposed draft is greatly expanded from the
2001 edition of Management Policies, some of it appropriate, and some
of it curiously inappropriate, and most of it better placed elsewhere
in the follow-on Chapters of the document.
1.7.2 Accessibility for Persons with Disabilities
This subsection, while important overall to NPS facility design,
belongs in portions of Chapter 8 Use of the Parks, and Chapter 9 Park
Facilities, rather than in the Foundation Chapter, which should remain
focused on interpretation of the Organic Act. This subsection will also
likely be subject to significant re-writing in the near future, when
the federal Access Board promulgates its long-awaited regulations and
guidelines on access to recreation facilities, and to outdoor developed
areas.
1.7.4.4 Facilities Management, 1.7.4.5 Business-like Concession
Program,1.7.4.6 Budget Performance and Accountability Programs,
1.7.5 Human Capital, 1.7.5.1 Career development, Training and
Management, 1.7.5.2 Succession Planning, 1.7.5.3 Workforce
Planning, 1.7.5.4 Employee Safety and Health, and 1.7.5.5
Workforce Diversity
These are all new subsections of the proposed draft, and do not
belong in Chapter 1, some do not belong in Management Policies at all,
but certainly are misplaced, and seem only to serve to dilute the focus
of Chapter 1 away from what was heretofore its main purpose, to explain
and interpret the fundamental law of the NPS, the 1916 Organic Act.
1.9 Partnerships
While the Partnership section is generally good and parallels the
2001 edition, a significant addition has been proposed which could
impact the integrity of the National Park System if it were to be
implemented as stated.
The problematic statement reads ``In the spirit of partnership, the
Service will also seek opportunities for cooperative management
agreements with state or local agencies that will allow for more
effective and efficient management of the parks, as authorized by
section 802 of the National Park Omnibus Management Act of 1998.''
However, section 802 of the National Park Omnibus Management Act of
1998 specifically and exclusively authorizes cooperative agreements
.with adjacent state and local park agencies, not just any state or
local agency, and was intended to appropriately take advantage of
opportunities for shared management responsibilities where adjacent
land managers have similar missions and purposes.
As proposed, the language of this subsection is much too broad,
opening the proverbial Pandora's box of opportunities to dilute and
diminish the resources and values of the national parks.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify here today, and I would be
happy to answer any questions.
Senator Thomas. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Horn, it is nice to have you back, sir.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM P. HORN, FORMER ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR
FISH AND WILDLIFE AND PARKS, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Horn. A pleasure to be back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you
for this opportunity to testify on National Park Service
management policies.
For background purposes, I had the privilege as serving as
Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife and Parks from 1985 to
1988 and, in that capacity, personally oversaw and participated
directly in the rewrite of the management policies that
culminated in the 1988 version that stayed in force and effect
until 2001.
I think it is safe to say that we are blessed with an
incomparable National Park System that is used, enjoyed, and
cherished by millions of our citizens, and maintaining and
enhancing this public support is the key to assuring the long-
term conservation of this system. To that end, I commend the
National Park Service and the Department for seeking to amend
its management policies to be more consistent with the 1916
National Park Organic Act and correct the deficient features of
the 2001 version of these same policies.
Now, the starting point of all of these discussions has got
to be the mandate set forth by Congress in the 1916 Organic
Act, which is simply to conserve park resources and to provide
for use and enjoyment of the same. Sound management policies
must faithfully track the law, and particular attention needs
to be paid to the specific language that Congress adopted
nearly a century ago. The mandate is articulated as a single
purpose. The language in the statute is ``which purpose is.''
It is not two purposes with one primary and the other
subordinate.
Congress also prescribed in 1916 that resources be
conserved, not preserved.
And last and of critical importance is the express purpose
of conserving these resources and leaving them unimpaired. To
quote the statute, that is to assure ``for the enjoyment of
future generations.'' From a close reading of the statute, it
is very evident that public use and enjoyment is inextricably
embedded in the single fundamental purpose of our park system,
and the 1916 Act, read as a whole, is a mandate for an active
management program to facilitate such use and enjoyment.
Now, the only subsequent prescription that arises from the
1916 Act is to assure that park resources are ``unimpaired.''
Now, advocates of public use restrictions invariably define
impairment so broadly that many traditional activities can be
deemed to cause impairment and therefore be prohibited. For
example, the Clinton administration's 2000 rewrite of the NPS
policies at section 1.4.5 disturbingly singled out three kinds
of activities as sources for impairment: ``visitor
activities,'' ``NPS activities in the course of managing a
park,'' and ``activities undertaken by concessioners,
contractors, and others operating in the park.''
The disconnect between the Organic Act and the 2001
policies is illustrated by the fact that these specific
activities are expressly authorized in sections 1 and 3 of the
1916 Act. Nonetheless, despite their express representation and
provision in the 1916 Act, they were tagged as the sources of
impairment in the 2001 management policies. In my mind, that is
a clear element of disconnect that was worthy of correction.
The Organic Act was enacted with specific contemplation
that some resource impacts would attend visitor use and
enjoyment. Imagine today trying to build a fraction of
Yellowstone's 200-mile loop road system or even one of its
historic hotels or lodges. It is an absolute certainty that
alleged impairment would be the basis for objections to this
form of visitor development. Obviously, Yellowstone's roads and
visitor service centers have an impact. Yet, it was decided
years ago, consistent with the Organic Act standard, that such
impacts were acceptable to facilitate reasonable levels of
public use and enjoyment. And I think it is clear that the vast
majority of Americans would still agree that the effects of
these developments do not constitute an illegal impairment of
Yellowstone's wonderful resources.
Accordingly, the term ``impairment'' must be defined
reasonably and consistently so it does not become a weapon to
be used against the use and enjoyment mandate from the basic
Organic Act. The definition proposed in the new management
policies in my opinion better reflects the law and the need for
balance, consistent with the single purpose articulated by
Congress in 1916.
Now, let me close with a plain observation about the
political process and the National Park Service's policies.
Under the Clinton administration, the management policies were
written, rewritten with strong guidance from then Assistant
Secretary Bob Herbst. In 1987 and 1988, as Assistant Secretary,
I directly oversaw and personally and actively participated in
the rewrite that culminated in the 1988 policies. In the 1999-
2000 period, President Clinton's appointee, then Assistant
Secretary Don Berry, also personally participated and oversaw
the process that produced the 2001 management policies. To
suggest somehow that active participation and guidance from the
Assistant Secretary's office is unprecedented is frankly utter
nonsense. Complaints about politics being involved in this
remind me of the famous line in Casablanca about I am shocked
there is gambling going on here. There has always been active
political participation over the last 20 years in all of these
rewrites because of the issues that are involved. People care
deeply about these things.
Let me just say this. If Deputy Assistant Secretary Paul
Hoffman's participation in this process makes him guilty, then
I think you better outfit former Assistant Secretaries Herbst,
Berry, and myself for orange jumpsuits as well.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Horn follows:]
Prepared Statement of William P. Horn, Former Assistant Secretary for
Fish and Wildlife and Parks, Department of the Interior
Mr. Chairman: My name is William P. Horn and I appreciate the
invitation to appear before the Subcommittee to discuss National Park
Service (NPS) Management Policies.
INTRODUCTION
It was my privilege to serve as Assistant Secretary for Fish,
Wildlife and Parks under President Reagan and work on the development
and articulation of appropriate NPS management policies consistent with
the 1916 National Park Organic Act. We are blessed with an incomparable
National Park System that millions of our citizens use, enjoy and
cherish. Maintaining and enhancing this broad public support for our
Park System through sound management is the key to assuring the
conservation of its resources for future generations.
Any inquiry into NPS Management Policies must start first with the
1916 Act. Its basic mandate is to ``conserve the scenery and the
natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide
for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will
leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations'' and
management policies and actions must adhere to and fulfill that
mandate. Unfortunately, there are interests and advocates who seek to
effectively rewrite this basic statutory mandate and impose park
policies that focus on only one half of the original Congressional
admonition. These same interests often pose the basic policy issue in a
form overtly hostile to traditional visitor use: ``are we wise enough
to support'' management that ``preserves natural wonders for our
children by preserving them from us.'' \1\ Contrary to these interests,
Congress has never intended that parks be managed as ``biospheres under
glass'' or managed in an exclusionary manner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ F. Cheever, 74 Den. U. L. Rev. 625, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Management policies that genuinely reflect the law must provide an
appropriate balance that recognizes both elements of this single
mandate. To achieve this goal, it is critical that the 2001 NPS
Policies be rewritten in manner consistent with the Organic Act. As
detailed later in this statement, the 2001 Policies misrepresented the
1916 Act from the outset and irretrievably set those policies on a
wrong and illegal course. I commend the leadership at NPS and Interior
for engaging in the legally necessary rewrite of NPS policies.
1916 ACT
The 1916 Act was the product of four years of intense Congressional
deliberations involving critical opinion leaders of the day such as
Frederick Law Olmstead, Jr. (the designer of New York City's Central
Park) and Stephen Mather (later first Director of the National Park
Service). Although National Park units had been in existence since 1872
(i.e., Yellowstone), there was no unified management of these units nor
any mission statement to govern and direct management. Indeed, there
was no National Park Service and units like Yellowstone were
administered by the U.S. Army. A battle was also underway to resolve
whether parks management should be lodged within the Department of the
Interior or committed to the U.S. Forest Service, created in 1905, then
headed by Chief Gifford Pinchot. The 1916 Act was designed to correct
these deficiencies and resolve this critical bureaucratic dispute.
In addition, President Teddy Roosevelt's bold actions and
articulation of conservation policy were already a decade old. The
National Forest System and the U.S. Forest Service had been created.
Similarly, Roosevelt had begun the National Wildlife Refuge System in
1903 dedicated to conserving biological (i.e., fish and wildlife)
resources. The nascent Park System had just suffered the bruising Raker
Act battle that authorized the construction of Hetch Hetchy Dam within
Yosemite National Park. Park proponents wanted to maintain the impetus
from the Roosevelt years and protect against other Hetch Hetchy's.
Two of the primary interests supporting the 1916 Act were the
railroad and automobile industries. The Act was seen as a means of
facilitating opportunities to enjoy scenic vistas and encourage
tourism. Only the year before, Yellowstone's road system, built by the
U.S. Army, had been opened to auto traffic with much fanfare.
It is reported that Olmstead authored the basic mandate included in
the Act: ``. . . the fundamental purpose of the said parks, monuments,
and reservations, which purpose is to conserve the scenery and the
natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide
for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will
them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations. ``16 U.S.C.
1, Aug. 25, 1916. Particular attention must be paid to the specific
language adopted by Congress. Note first that it is articulated as a
SINGLE PURPOSE (i.e., ``which purpose is''); it is not two purposes
with one primary and the other subordinate. Congress also prescribed
that resources be ``conserved'' rather than ``preserved.'' The term
``conservation,'' as articulated in that era by the likes of Teddy
Roosevelt, included elements of use in contrast to the more
preservation-oriented rhetoric of John Muir, founder of the Sierra
Club. Note too that the resources singled out for conservation are
tangible matters: scenery, natural and historic objects, and wild life.
Of critical importance is the express purpose of conserving resources
and leaving them unimpaired: to leave them in that state ``for the
enjoyment of future generations.''
Public use and enjoyment is inextricably embedded in the single
fundamental purpose of our Park System. Moreover, ensuring future use
is the underlying purpose of the non-impairment standard. To argue that
``resource preservation'' is the single, dominant overarching purpose
of the 1916 Act, to the detriment of visitor use and enjoyment, is
simply wrong and not borne out by a close reading the actual statutory
language.
The debate over section 1 always focuses on its famous last phrase.
Additional meaning, however, can be gleaned from earlier parts of the
provision. The beginning of the sentence gives the charge to the then
new National Park Service: ``The service thus established shall PROMOTE
AND REGULATE THE USE of the Federal areas known as national parks.''
(Emphasis added.) A statute that expressly admonishes NPS to promote
use and assure visitor use and enjoyment can hardly be read to
authorize exclusionary preservation policies.
A close reading of section 3 of the Act further demonstrates
``preservation'' per se was far from the minds of the 1916 Congress.
Section 3, still part of the U.S. Code (16 U.S.C. 3), expressly
authorizes forest management when needed to ``control the attacks of
insects of diseases or otherwise conserve the scenery or the natural or
historic objects'' in any park. Similarly, it provides authority for
the ``destruction of such animals and of such plant life as may be
detrimental to THE USE OF any said parks.'' (Emphasis added.) In
addition, the section provides the original authorization for the
concessions program to facilitate public use and allows grazing within
parks, except Yellowstone, when deemed ``not detrimental'' to the
primary purpose for which a park is created. Overall this is a mandate
for an active management program to facilitate public use and enjoyment
of the Park system. No intellectually honest reading of this Act can
support the notion of treating large ``natural'' units of the Park
System as unmanaged, untouched biological preserves with visitors to be
kept on the other side of the glass or fence.
1978 ACT
Congress supplemented the 1916 mandate with 1978 amendments to the
Organic Act by enacting a key sentence in a new section: ``The
authorization of activities shall be construed and the protection,
management; and administration of these areas shall be conducted in
light of the high public value and integrity of the National Park
System and shall not be exercised in derogation of the values and
purposes for these areas have been established. . . .'' 16 U.S.C. la-
1. Federal courts have essentially deferred, pursuant to the Chevron
standard, to a permissible agency interpretation that this language
provides more emphasis on resource conservation. I would note though
that Congress did not amend the original section 1 language and added
this supplemental provision in a separate section of the law. It
creates no conflict with the original mandate other than to add a new
term, ``derogation'', which many construe as a synonym for
``impairment.'' The proposed Management Policies appropriately, and
permissibly, treat these terms as one standard. (See 1.4.2).
MANAGEMENT POLICIES
It is critical the NPS Management Policies 2001 be rewritten
consistent with the 1916 Act. Those policies got the law wrong from the
very outset: the opening ``Foundation'' of the policies states ``The
National Park Service must manage park resources and values in such a
manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the
enjoyment of future generations.'' It is intellectually dishonest, and
contrary to law, to deliberately delete from this paraphrase of the
Organic Act the express references to the ``enjoyment of the same.''
The 2001 Policies distort the law from the very beginning and never
recover. In contrast, the proposed Policies accurately reflect the
actual law and Congressional intent. (See 1.1). By getting it right
from the start, the proposed Policies do not veer off from the course
charted by Congress nearly a century ago.
IMPAIRMENT
The only substantive prescription in the 1916 Act is to assure that
park resources are ``unimpaired'' and definition of this term has
become key. Those seeking to restrict public use and enjoyment
invariably define ``impairment'' so broadly that a vast array of
traditional park visitor activities can be deemed to cause impairment
and, therefore, be prohibited. For example, the Clinton
Administration's rewrite of NPS Management Policies stated ``AN IMPACT
TO ANDY PARK RESOURCE OR VALUE may constitute impairment.'' (Emphasis
added.) NPS Management Policies 2001, 1.4.5.
The same policies go on to provide that an ``impact'' that simply
``affects'' a resource or value can also constitute impairment. Id.
Lastly, any impact that ``would harm the integrity of park resource or
values'' is proscribed although ``integrity'' is never defined. Id. The
2001 Policies disturbingly note only three kinds of activities that
might cause impairment: ``visitor activities''; ``NPS activities in the
course of managing a park''; and ``activities undertaken by
concessioners, contractors, and others operating in the park.'' These
are the specific activities expressly authorized in sections 1 and 3 of
the 1916 Act (public use and enjoyment, park management to facilitate
use, and concessions). Policies that contradict specific Congressional
directives are clearly illegal and a rewrite of these misdirected
provisions is needed.
As previously noted, the purpose of the non-impairment standard is
to conserve resources for future visitor enjoyment. Clearly, the
Organic Act was enacted with specific contemplation of active programs
to facilitate use and enjoyment and with the clear understanding that
some levels of impact or effects on resources would be fully acceptable
in pursuit of this objective. It is noteworthy that Yellowstone's road
system was upgraded and opened to automobiles in 1915. At the same
time, that Park included a number of grand Victorian hotels to
accommodate the public. Demonstrably this kind and level of development
was deemed fully acceptable by the drafters of the non-impairment
standard especially since Stephen Mather went on to press successfully
for similar development in other parks during his post-1916 tenure as
NPS Director. One legal historian has written ```enjoyment reasonably
required access and at the time roads, trails, hotels, campgrounds and
administrative facilities did not seem unduly invasive. The act cannot
have meant that `unimpaired' was to be taken in its strictest sense,
particularly since the act included specific approval for certain
inevitably compromising actions: leasing for tourist accommodation was
the most obvious example.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ R. Winks, ``The National Park Service Act of 1916: A Contrary
Mandat''; 74 Den. U. L. Rev. 575, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In contrast, imagine today trying to build a fraction of
Yellowstone's road system or even one of its historic hotels or lodges.
It is an absolute certainty that ``impairment'', especially the very
low impact threshold in the Clinton-era policies, would be THE basis
for objections. Obviously the 233 miles of pavement associated with the
famous ``Loop'' road system and six major visitor services centers
(Mammoth, Roosevelt, Canyon, Lake, Grant Village, and Old Faithful)
have an ``impact'' on Yellowstone's resources. Undoubtedly, the roads,
parking lots, boardwalks to thermal features, bridges, cabins, hotels,
restaurants, visitor centers, support facilities, employee housing,
ranger stations, and headquarters offices have some adverse impact on
the natural environment and compromise in some fashion the
``integrity'' of the same environment. Yet it was decided years ago,
fully consistent with the 1916 Act, that such impacts were acceptable
to facilitate public use and enjoyment of our first National Park. I
would submit that the vast majority of American citizens would still
agree that the effects and consequences of these developments do not
constitute an illegal impairment of Yellowstone's wonderful resources.
The 1916 Act clearly contemplates a professional balancing exercise
to achieve both parts of its mandate and NPS Management Policies must
reflect the same. To that end, the term ``impairment'' must be defined
reasonably and consistently so it does not become a weapon to be used
against traditional use and enjoyment. Most Americans find satisfactory
the present on-the-ground state of affairs in our Parks regarding
visitation and use and would be aghast if they realized that the 2001
NPS management policies effectively define many of these uses as
illegal. I would suggest that an appropriate definition of impairment
would recognize that some adverse effects are acceptable to facilitate
use and enjoyment so long as those effects do not materially or
significantly alter ecological processes or have appreciable adverse
impacts on scenery, wildlife, and other natural resources. This would
be consistent with the ``material'' impact standard used to define
permissible activities on units of the National Wildlife Refuge System
(that standard was first adopted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
in the mid-1980's and affirmed by Congress in 1997).
Fortunately, the definition of ``impairment'' in the proposed
Policies (see 1.4.5) is consistent with the 1916 Act, its obvious
intent, and practical experience derived from a century of park
operations. The proposed definition ensures that use and enjoyment will
be managed to assure that what we see and enjoy today in our Park
System can be seen and enjoyed by our children and grandchildren.
RESOURCES AND VALUES
The 1916 Act references the conservation of tangible resources:
scenery, natural and historic objects, and wild life. In 1978, Congress
added that NPS management ``shall not be exercised in derogation of the
values and purposes'' for which Park System units were created. 16
U.S.C. 1a-1. The same provision makes references to the ``high public
value'' of the System. Id. Since then it has become common for some to
refer to ``resources and values'' as if the two are synonymous. See NPS
Management Policies 2001; 1.4.6. Advocates have similarly seized on
this language to press for more social management by NPS. For example,
one commentator writing about ``loving them to death'' (i.e., Parks)
argued that ``NPS must refuse the whims and desires of popular demand
and instead exert a strong hand . . . to create an [visitor] EXPERIENCE
worthy of this [1916] mandate.''(Emphasis added.) \3\ This and other
references to ``experiences'' are illustrative of an efforts to insist
on more and more social management in the name of resource
preservation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ D. Herman, 11 Stan. Envtl. L. J. 3 (1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A greater measure of intellectual rigor is needed to ensure that
policy decisions regarding public use and enjoyment distinguish
properly between tangible resources and more subjective, intangible
values including the subjective personal ``experiences'' of different
park users. For example, clean water is a tangible resource. A healthy
elk herd is a tangible asset as is a stand of red mangrove trees. In
contrast, subjective aesthetic appreciation falls into the category of
values.. A mountain climber on Denali gets dropped off by ski plane and
relishes the silence when the plane departs; he later is disturbed and
upset when another plane carrying flightseers passes by prompting him
to write NPS demanding restoration of ``natural quiet''. In my
experience, many of the most contentious Park System management battles
involve ``values''--disputes among and between user groups over the
most appropriate way to enjoy our parks.
Unfortunately, there is a trend toward treating the personal
aesthetic values of some users as a resource. By the alchemy
ofpolitics, those values get transmuted into ``resources'' and become
the basis for management actions detrimental to other traditional user
groups. It is fully appropriate, and necessary, to conserve genuine
resources to fulfill the mandate of the Organic Act. That Act should
not, however, be misconstrued and be the basis for giving one user
group preferred status and prohibiting the activity of another because
the former raises aesthetic objections. A public institution such as
NPS has an obligation to all of our citizens and should strive to
accommodate a variety of park uses and users as long as they do not
impair bona fide resources. The authors of the Policy rewrite should be
applauded for making clearer distinctions between uses (and users) and
resources and values. Both the Natural Resource Management sections
(Chapter 4) and the ``unacceptable impact'' provisions distinguish
between resources and values and ``appropriate uses.'' (See 8.1.1;
8.1.2). The improved intellectual clarity that arises from the new
language is overdue.
MANAGEMENT OF USES
The proposed NPS Management Policies also do an excellent job in
curbing the tendency for managers to opt first for ``lock the gate''
decisions. A disturbing trend in recent years has been the inclination
of park managers to almost immediately select closures or prohibitions
in dealing with use management issues. Instead of seeking to manage
uses to conserve resources or to accommodate different users, it has
been too easy to simply post a ``closed'' sign. The proposed rewrite
takes a far more professional, and refreshing, approach. It prescribes
intermediate steps to manage, mitigate or avoid resource impacts or
user conflicts. Only when management cannot correct a problem are
closures or prohibitions prescribed. (See 8.1.2). This is such
elemental common sense that it is sure to become controversial.
Thank you again for the opportunity to appear today and present
this overview of NPS Management Policies and the 1916 National Park
Service Organic Act.
Senator Thomas. Thank you, sir. I appreciate it.
Mr. Castleberry.
STATEMENT OF DON H. CASTLEBERRY, MEMBER, EXECUTIVE COUNCIL,
COALITION OF NATIONAL PARK SERVICE RETIREES, FORMER DIRECTOR,
MIDWEST REGIONAL, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
Mr. Castleberry. Thank you, sir. I appreciate your holding
these hearings, Senator, and allowing me to appear before you.
My name is Don Castleberry. I live in Arkansas. I had the
privilege of a 32-year career with the National Park Service. I
was a park ranger, a park manager of five different parks,
deputy director of the Mid-Atlantic Region, director of the
Midwest Region, and I also acted as associate director for
operations in my last year of employment.
Since retirement, I have served on a number of boards,
including NPCA, and am now on the executive council of the
Coalition of National Park Service Retirees. This organization
is made up of 430-plus now former employees of the National
Park Service. These are all people who committed their working
lives to the things we are talking about here today, the
national treasures. We came from a broad spectrum of political
orientations and affiliations. We would all be happier home
fishing and writing our books and tending our gardens and
playing with our grandchildren, but we do care about these
resources and we are making the effort to let these concerns be
known. We are convinced that this is a critical time in the
life of our national treasures and we could not stand by and
allow them to be compromised by narrow, short-term private
interests.
The development of these new policies, as you have heard,
took place under the guidance of Mr. Hoffman, who was
mentioned. One of the advantages of speaking last is you get to
hear what the others said. I was around during some of those
times too, like Mr. Horn and Mr. Galvin, and I would say, from
what I have heard, there was a considerable difference between
the involvement of Mr. Hoffman and the involvement of the
political appointees in past efforts. This seemed as though it
was a sort of secret thing that took place in a smoke-filled
room somewhere with the Park Service employees being selected
and pledged to secrecy and threatened almost.
We have heard about the August draft and how it was
disavowed really by the Department as being not what they
wanted to put their name to. When it reemerged in its new form,
it had been revised and I would say softened. Some of the
wording had changed. But we have looked at it very carefully,
and we have studied side by side the original version, the
Hoffman version, and the current version. And our assessment is
that the current draft is simply the Hoffman draft
uncomfortably dressed in a rumpled, ill-fitting ranger uniform.
This is the first time such policies have been started that
the superintendents out in the field, the very people who are
going to be using these policies, were not brought in and made
a part of the effort. One would wonder why they are only going
to get to comment on it after it is a document that is out for
public comment instead of being a party to it from the
beginning.
All these National Park Service people that are here,
virtually all of them, are friends of mine, people I have
worked with, people I respect highly. This is not their
product. I doubt if any of them would stand behind them if they
were allowed to speak out without fear of retaliation.
Mr. Akaka mentioned the new personnel policies that we have
learned of, and they frighten us too because we can see the
sort of pushing down of a litmus test loyalty to this
administration's political slogans being taken down right to
the grade 13 and mid-level managers, limiting their frank input
from knowledgeable people who are going to actually be living
with these policies and increasing the intimidation factor.
Our assessment, the assessment of all 430 of us who have
lived with these things before and helped to write them in the
past, is that in not one single instance does the proposed
change increase the likelihood of park resources being
preserved unimpaired. Former Director Roger Kennedy described
this strategy as the August draft being a threat to take off a
leg, the October draft as being an offer to take off a foot and
hoping that we will be relieved at the somewhat diminished
harm.
Mr. Chairman, the harm has only been diminished or masked,
not eliminated. The members of our commission, whose jobs are
not at risk, know these issues, and we can say what the current
employees cannot say. There is no need for any amputation at
all and no amputation is acceptable. We challenge the
Department to explain why these revisions are needed, who
initiated them, whether they are better or worse than the
current policies. We have been there. We know the answers. They
are not needed, and they are not only worse, but if they are
adopted, they will place the integrity of our national park
system in jeopardy.
Thank you for hearing my testimony, sir.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Castleberry follows:]
Statement of Don H. Castleberry, Member, Executive Council, Coalition
of National Park Service Retirees, Former Director, Midwest Region,
National Park Service
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, my name is Don
Castleberry. Thank you for holding this hearing on a subject so vital
to our nation, and thank you for allowing me to express these views. I
had the privilege of a 32-year career in the National Park Service,
during which I held such positions as Park Ranger, Park Manager (of
five different parks), Deputy Director, Mid-Atlantic Region, Director,
Midwest Region and (acting) Associate Director-Operations, in
Washington. I served six years as member, Board of Trustees, National
Parks Conservation Association and am now a member of the Executive
Council, Coalition of National Park Service Retirees.
The Coalition of National Park Service Retirees is over 430
individuals, all former employees of the National Park Service, with
more joining us almost daily. Together we bring to this hearing more
than 12,000 years of experience. Many of us were senior leaders and
many received awards for stewardship of our country's natural and
cultural resources. As rangers, executives, park managers, biologists,
historians, interpreters, planners and specialists in other
disciplines, we devoted our professional lives to maintaining and
protecting the National Parks for the benefit of all Americans-those
now living and those yet to be born. In our personal lives we come from
a broad spectrum of political affiliations and we count among our
members, five former Directors or Deputy Directors of the National Park
Service, twenty-three former Regional Directors, or Deputy Regional
Directors, twenty-seven former Associate or Assistant Directors and one
hundred and eight former Park Superintendents or Assistant
Superintendents.
The proposed changes to National Park Management Policies provide
one of the clearest examples of why this coalition, which never seemed
necessary until two and a half years ago, has come together. Believe
me, there are few among us who would not prefer to be writing our
books, tending our roses, enjoying grandchildren, or volunteering at a
National Park. We have coalesced because this is a critical time for
the treasures to which we devoted our careers. It is a time when this
nation may decide whether to retain the benefits of victories painfully
won over 130 years of National Park history or to risk losing them to
narrow, short-term, and private interests.
The parks are often called national treasures--the crown jewels of
our republic--but they are far more than that. They are repositories of
information against which human progress--or its opposite--can be
gauged. They are touchstones of who we are as a people and even as
members of the human race. They are the best hope for preserving the
cultural record that defines American civilization and the biological
diversity upon which life itself depends. For evidence that the people
of the United States know this, simply recall the times a few years
back when the Federal government was shut down due to budget disputes.
Network news explained the meaning of that crisis to ordinary citizens
by answering just four fundamental questions:
will the nation be defended
will the Social Security checks be issued
will the mail be delivered, and
will the National Parks be open?
Congress, in its Act of August 25, 1916 created the National Park
Service and charged it with a duty to provide for enjoyment of the
parks ``in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired
for the enjoyment of future generations.'' If that left doubt of
Congressional intent; the Redwoods Act Amendments of 1978 clarified
that when use conflicts with preservation for future generations,
preservation must prevail. Since 1916 nine Republican and seven
Democratic administrations have followed these directions in reasonably
consistent and evenhanded ways. Management Policies of the National
Park Service, through which law is applied in detailed and specific
ways to what actually happens in the parks, have been revised
occasionally, although not frequently, the last two times in 1988 and
2001.
The draft of proposed Management Policies of the National Park
Service that was released for comment on October 19, like its earlier
version--Deputy Assistant Secretary Paul Hoffman's rewrite that became
public information in August--is a drastic and dangerous departure from
a longstanding national consensus. It is driven neither by law, by any
conservation need, or by any failure of practical application. Little
has changed since the present Policies became effective only four years
ago.
The Department of Interior has suggested that the present policies
need improvement, but section 5.3.5.1 provides abundant evidence that
improvement is not the goal of these proposed revisions. That section,
dealing with access to and use of cultural resources, in both the
present policies and the proposed revision, contains the statement:
``These regulations are currently under review, and NPS policy is
evolving in this area.'' If improvement of policy were really the goal,
this nearly four-year-old statement surely would by now have been
supplanted by some actual new policy.
If improvement cannot be demonstrated as the goal, one must
conclude that the motivation stems from the personal agendas of a few
nearly anonymous appointees in the Department of Interior who know that
they could not achieve the same goals by asking the Congress to change
the laws.
This is the first time since Assistant Director Tolson started
writing administrative policies back in the 1940's that superintendents
and their staffs have not been included in any proposed re-writes of
such policy documents. Under the new process the vast majority of
superintendents and staff members only input into the proposed
revisions would be to comment, as members of the general public, after
the policies have been developed.
During this past summer, Deputy Assistant Secretary Paul Hoffman
labored quietly to create a draft of Management Policy revisions,
carefully limiting knowledge of his work to a small number of others
and forbidding them to share it broadly.
Since the need for a revised policy did not originate from NPS
career employees, nor from the visiting public, a reasonable question
emerges, as to its origin. When asked, the political employee, Mr.
Hoffman declined to identify anyone who had urged the changes.
After Hoffman's disastrous proposals were exposed in August, public
reaction was so powerful that the Department of the Interior quickly
disavowed them, calling the draft ``devil's advocacy,'' and ``intended
to promote discussion.''
Aside from noting that the national parks are more in need of the
advocacy of an angel than of a devil, one can only wonder how much real
discussion might be generated by a draft passed hand to hand among a
gagged and silent few.
In a chilling parallel action, new personnel policies, instituted
by the NPS director, subject career employees to a ``litmus test'' of
loyalty to this administration's political objectives, as a condition
for promotion, further limiting candid input from knowledgeable
professionals.
One also might ask ``what is the rush?'' Why a 90 day process when
in the past, such efforts could take years, and involve a wide range of
NPS employees, in an open, participatory process. With rushing can come
mistakes. In matters of such overriding importance, should not the
guiding principle be ``first do no harm?''
The next step of an appointee who had been embarrassed by exposure
but who remained determined to have his way was entirely predictable,
he would assemble a group of National Park Service professionals,
dictate the goals of changes to be made, direct them to find language
that the public would accept but that would still achieve the goals,
and require them to come back and negotiate even the palliative
language with him. That, Mr. Chairman, is what we are reviewing today.
Although the October draft is being attributed to 100 National Park
Service employees, it is in fact the Hoffman draft, forcibly and
uncomfortably dressed in a rumpled and ill-fitting Ranger uniform.
Although entire sections, such as the ones dealing with wilderness
and grazing, still look much like the Hoffman draft, for the most part
the October draft simply uses softer language to make the same changes.
Examples follow:
1. The Hoffman policies deleted from section 1.4.3 include
two critically important policy directives from congress that
are included in the existing 2001 policies:
Present Park Service policies deleted by Hoffman: ``Congress,
recognizing that the enjoyment by future generations of the national
parks can be ensured only if the superb quality of park resources and
values is left unimpaired, has provided that when there is a conflict
between conserving resources and values and providing for enjoyment of
them, conservation is to be predominant.''
(This mandate)--``is independent of the separate prohibition on
impairment, and so applies all the time, with respect to all park
resources and values, even when there is no risk that any parks
resources and values may be impaired.''
From the 1916 Organic Act of Congress creating the National Park
Service: ``The--National Park Service--shall promote and regulate the
use--of national parks--as provided by law, by such means and measures
as conform to the fundamental purpose to conserve the scenery and the
natural and historic objects and the wildlife therein and to provide
for the enjoyment for the same in such manner and by such means as will
leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.''
A 1978 act of congress further emphasized preservation in the
Redwoods Amendment ``Congress further reaffirms, declares and directs
the promotion and regulation of various areas of the National Park
System--shall be consistent with and founded in the purpose established
by the first section of the Act of August 25, 1916, to the common
benefit of all the people of the United States. The authorization of
activities shall be construed and the protection, management, and
administration of these area shall be conducted in light of the high
public value and integrity of the National Park System and shall not be
exercised in derogation of the values and purposes for which these
various areas have been established, except as may have been or shall
be directly and specifically provided by congress.''
The effect of the Hoffman deletion of these two paragraphs deletes
the clear mandate of congress in the management of national parks that
the primary purpose of managing parks is preservation of the resources.
2. A specific application of the Hoffman changes that weaken
the Park Service mandate to preserve resources includes this
change to planning for cultural resources.
Present Park Service management policies direct park planners to
``always seek to avoid harm to cultural resources.'' The Hoffman
rewrite directs park planners to ``always seek to avoid `unacceptable'
harm to cultural resources.''
The effect of this Hoffman rewrite is to direct that there is
acceptable harm to cultural resources, in direct conflict with current
policies that direct planners to always seek to avoid harm.
3. A Hoffman deletion allows visitor activities to degrade
the experience of other visitors to the park.
Present Park Service management policy deleted by Hoffman: ``the
Service will not allow visitors to conduct activities that unreasonably
interfere with--the atmosphere of peace and tranquility, or the natural
soundscape maintained in wilderness and natural, historic or
commemorative locations within the park.''
The effect of the Hoffman deletion allows uses by some visitors to
unreasonably interfere with the experience of the park by other
visitors.
4. The Hoffman rewrite weakens the protection of natural
soundscapes in a park:
Present Park Service management policy deleted by Hoffman: ``The
National Park Service will preserve to the greatest extent possible,
the natural soundscapes of parks.''
The Hoffman rewrite adds: ``The National Park Service will restore
degraded soundscapes wherever practicable and will protect natural
soundscapes from degradation due to unacceptable noise.''
The effect of the Hoffman deletion and change requires the park to
determine what is unacceptable noise, and practicable restoration,
rather than a simple directive to preserve the natural landscape.
5. The Hoffman rewrite deleted a clear direction on use of
equipment, vehicles and transportation systems.
Present Park Service policies deleted by the Hoffman rewrite: ``Use
of motorized equipment: where such use is necessary and appropriate,
the least impacting equipment, vehicles, and transportation systems
should be used.''
The effect of this Hoffman deletion removes the direction to use
the least impacting equipment in a park including all vehicles and
transportation systems.
6. Strong words that require ``preservation'' of resources
have either been adjoined to or supplanted by weaker words like
``conservation,'' or diluted by adding ``as appropriate.''
7. Previously clear sentences have been replaced by vague
language that will be more subject to error or challenge in
court.
8. Present Management Policies provide examples that help a
park manager identify ``traditionally associated peoples'' such
as tribal groups. The proposed draft replaces the examples with
fuzzy guidance that might place a gateway city's chamber of
commerce on an equal footing with native peoples who have
occupied a park's lands since time immemorial.
9. New requirements to ``cooperate'' with outside groups, in
lieu of present requirement to ``collaborate,'' threaten a park
manager's ability to protect park resources on behalf of all
the people of the United States when a small number of park
neighbors have different ideas.
In not one single instance does a proposed change increase the
likelihood of park natural or cultural resources being preserved
unimpaired, but they do significantly decrease THAT likelihood.
Former Director Roger Kennedy has accurately identified the Hoffman
strategy. The August draft threatened to take off a leg. The October
draft says ``no, no, we will only take off a foot,'' and hopes we will
be relieved and grateful at the somewhat diminished harm. It was the
bitter duty of the career National Park Service employees to whom the
Department of Interior is now attributing this draft to diminish the
severity of the amputation. They did the best they could, but harm has
only been diminished or masked, not eliminated. Fortunately, there are
over 430 National Park Service retirees whose jobs are not at risk, and
we can say what the career employees cannot--that there is NO need for
any amputation at all, and any amputation is unacceptable.
Mr. Chairman, the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees
challenges the Department of the Interior to explain why this revision
is needed. The public certainly did not ask for it--95percent of
American park visitors rate their visits good to excellent. Perhaps the
Department, instead of telling us that 100 National Park Service
employees worked on the draft could tell us what percentage of National
Park Service career professionals believes the October proposal is
actually needed--specifically whether it is better or worse than the
policies now in effect. We have been there and we know the answers--
they are not needed and they are not only worse than the present
policies but if adopted they will place the heritage of all Americans
in extreme jeopardy.
Thank you for allowing this testimony, thank you for your continued
vigilance on behalf of the national parks, and thank you for the
actions you will take to assure that they can continue to be enjoyed by
this and all future generations in unimpaired condition.
I will be happy to answer any questions.
Senator Thomas. All right, sir. Thank you very much. We
appreciate all of your testimony.
Now we will go to questions and responses. I hope we can,
on both sides, cut through and get right to the issues so we
can have fairly concise questions and fairly concise answers so
we can come away from here with some ideas.
Just again to sort of summarize, Director Martin, what
would you say are the reasons for updating the policy?
Mr. Martin. I think that the first thing I want to say is
that the current policies that we are operating under are good.
I think, though, that we felt that--and again, setting aside
the draft that Paul Hoffman did--there were a number of things
under the policies that perhaps from the perspective of
Washington I think could have further clarity to the field, and
that is how you describe impacts to a community, how you
describe them to users, and how you encourage them to join you
in preventing impacts.
As an example--and Mr. Galvin mentioned it, but the
existing policies, and the ones that were in prior to that I
think were good, and they have all been committed to conserving
resources. But in 2001, a cell tower did go in at Old Faithful,
and that cell tower probably did not impair Yellowstone
National Park, but we would have termed that an unacceptable
impact in the current draft. And we had to go back in and take
that tower down, lower it, and make it so it just did not
impair the resources, but prevented unacceptable impacts. And
that is just one example of how we can always strive for doing
a better job, and I think that is what we are trying to do, and
to communicate it to the field, to the people who have to
implement those policies not just for here in Washington.
Senator Thomas. Thank you.
Just very briefly, would you agree that this is the Hoffman
proposal in a different uniform?
Mr. Martin. No. And I also must say that I think debate is
good. There were a number of superintendents that helped with
this. And it is now out for very, very, very extensive review.
But I do not believe that that is the case, and I think that we
are striving to do a good job in these circumstances as we look
into the 21st century.
Senator Thomas. Thank you.
Mr. Galvin, you indicated that when there is a different
position, it is very clear how it ought to be taken. Of course,
as you know, there are different views and you have to balance.
Do you not have to have some balance between conflicts, in this
case between preservation and use? Are there not decisions that
have to be balanced?
Mr. Galvin. Yes. I have no problem with the concept of
balance. My testimony says it really is not a fundamental
purpose of national parks, which is where it is placed in the
current draft of the policies. We have got something around
here that goes back to 1918. My statement I believe is
historically accurate. That word ``balance'' never appears when
you are talking about the fundamental purpose. Certainly you
have to balance use and impacts as a manager of a park. There
is no question about that.
But the historical interpretation of the Organic Act is
not, as my good friend, colleague, and former boss, Bill Horn,
outlines it today. He quotes Robin Wenks in his prepared
statement. Robin Wenks researched the history of that act more
than anybody I know, and his conclusion was that the
conservation purpose was predominant, and this draft eliminates
that statement.
Senator Thomas. Thank you.
Mr. Horn, you questioned the need for any sort of a change.
Was there a need for a change when you were involved, and if
so, why did you do it?
Mr. Horn. Well, I think the perceived need in the mid-
1980's was that our review of the policies that had been put
together in the 1970's did not faithfully and accurately
reflect the direction provided by Congress in the 1916 Organic
Act and that the policies could do a better job. I would submit
that my review of the 2001 policies is that they are deficient
and they do not track the 1916 Organic Act as faithfully as
they ought to.
I can give you one other example, just sitting here,
talking about how you manage a variety of uses and how do you
deal with the questions of impairment and uses and resource
conservation. Section 8.2 of the 2001 policies says that when
you have got some problems dealing with uses, basically the
first step is you temporarily or permanently close the area.
The second step is you prohibit the particular use, and the
third step is you otherwise place limitations on the use to
ensure that impairment does not occur.
It strikes me that that is totally backward, because
visitor use and enjoyment is an inextricable part of the basic
statutory mandate, that the proper order would be step one, you
establish limitations on use to ensure that impairment does not
occur, and if sound management cannot eliminate the impairment,
then you go to closure, then you go to prohibition. That is the
exact order that is now reflected in the rewrite. It is dead
opposite in 2001, and I just do not see that as being fully
consistent with Congress' nearly century-old admonition.
Senator Thomas. Thank you very much, sir.
Senator Akaka.
Senator Akaka. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Martin, I have three questions concerning the recent
revision to the hiring process for GS-13 grades and above,
including park superintendents and deputy superintendents. The
October 11 memo from the Director establishes a process that is
deeply disturbing to me as a senior member of the Subcommittee
on Oversight of Government Management, as well as the Federal
Workforce and the District of Columbia, which has jurisdiction
over Government employees' issues.
My first question is whether other bureaus in the
Department of the Interior have similar policies reaching into
the career managerial levels of the Civil Service to determine
their adherence to the President's management agenda, such as
the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Reclamation. And
also, what about other Federal agencies?
Mr. Martin. I can speak only to our bureau just because
that is what I am familiar with. They have not let me dig into
Fish and Wildlife Service and some of the other bureaus, so I
am not familiar with those, but I am sure we could provide that
information.
I think the Director's interests were--and we as career
people spend a lot of time and have throughout my career in
working with the administration, to implement things, again,
like the President's management agenda, which is for better
business practices, which is a big factor in what we do now. I
would say that it is consistent with policies that have been in
place in one way, shape, or form for a long time. I talked to
George Hartzog on that a week or so ago, and he said he used to
approve everybody to the GS-9 level in Washington.
I have a memo here from Don Berry saying GS-15's, career
people, should be cleared with him. I think you can find that
that has been an interest because these positions are so
important.
I will tell you I think it was not Fran's intention to do
anything but be aware of what is going on within the work
force, to make sure managers were aware of her goals, of our
goals, and of the President's goals. We have heard about a
litmus test, and that is absolutely not true. The Regional
Directors propose and make the selections, but it is totally
appropriate for the Director to know who those folks are.
When I was hired in 1994 to be a GS-14 superintendent at
Denali, I had to wait a couple of months while my name was
circulated in Washington to make sure that I was okay. I guess
I am one of those that somehow got through, so they do not
catch everything. But I do not see that as different than the
current policies in place.
Senator Akaka. But, Mr. Martin, I am troubled by what could
be seen as a move to politicize Civil Service promotions. Would
you please explain how promotion reviews for about 1,000
positions, which are to be reviewed solely by the Director,
will be carried out in a manner consistent with the
Government's merit principles and free from political
interference?
Mr. Martin. We adhere to those. Regional Directors make the
selections and then they let the Director know what is going
on. If we have broader issues--and I think this was the case
under Bob Stanton as well in trying to diversify the work
force--we move people from position to position as they have
personal needs or the agency has needs. But it is not about, I
think, any unreasonable political involvement. But again, GS-
15's, which are the subject of the current policy that Fran
just sent out, have gone down to the Assistant Secretary's
office for review for as long as I can recall. So that is not
something that has changed.
Senator Akaka. I have been very concerned, as I continue to
mention, about what is happening on these levels. What evidence
would you require to assess how an individual is able to lead
employees in achieving the Secretary's four C's and the
President's management agenda?
Mr. Martin. Having been a superintendent for a long time--I
have just recently stepped into the central office--I would say
that more now than ever before it is important that we learn
how to engage others in conservation. I think if we are going
to be successful for the long term, it is going to be not by
giving anything away, not by impairing resources, but by
working with others to better communicate; to strengthen how,
for the long haul, we make these parks sustainable and we
continue to protect them in an ever-growing complexity of
times. And I think that that is the commitment that we have in
our hiring; we are looking for managers who can do it all.
Business practices is an example. There were times when the
Park Service virtually ignored those. When I went to Tetons as
superintendent, there was no one responsible for management of
the business that had been trained in that particular field.
Look at the Denver service center. We just did not think about
business in the same way that we must now, you know, building
outhouses that were extremely expensive. They were really nice,
though.
But now we have to own up to the citizenry and say how we
are spending their money, and I think that it is important that
we realize how those changes are taking place, that we step up.
That is what we are looking for managers to do, the whole
package, and it is a huge job we ask of them. And that is all
that we are about.
Senator Thomas. Thank you very much.
Senator Alexander.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank
you for holding this hearing. I think it is very important and
I appreciate the chance to ask the questions. I think the
testimony has been terrific.
Mr. Horn, I think you were very straightforward because I
think basically what I heard you say was that there was an
election after 2000 and the 2001 documents were a holdover from
the last administration and needed to be changed and these are
some changes that are better.
There has been some talk of politics, and I want to spend
just 60 seconds on that. I come from one of the most Republican
areas in the country. We have never elected a Democrat to
Congress since Lincoln was President, and our primary interest
in the area, as conservative Republicans, is the Great Smoky
Mountains. And we do not want more big towers with red flashing
lights in them. We do not want more low-flying airplanes, and
we want cleaner air.
That is why I was deeply concerned by this first draft that
came out. It may be that this redraft that is coming in
corrects all that. But it is a big burden to carry now. It
would be like sending out a warm-up singer to the Grand Ole
Opry that was so off key that it ruined the rest of the night.
So I am very skeptical even about this redraft.
I see, for example, in the documents that I am going
through, stricken out words that say that where there is a
conflict between conserving resources and values and providing
for enjoyment, conservation is to be predominant. Those who
have read it say that it demotes clear skies to an associated
characteristic, deletes scenic views as a highly valued natural
resource, removes the overarching guiding principle that has to
do with sound. I think noise pollution and visual pollution and
clean air over next 25 years is going to be massively important
in our parks, as they become more sanctuaries in an age which
is more and more technological.
Mr. Martin, let me ask you. Let us just take one park. I
know there are 288. They are all different. They should be
managed differently. Let us take the one I know the most about.
We have 10 million people who come to the Great Smoky Mountains
every year. A lot of them are from east Tennessee and North
Carolina. How will this redraft make the air cleaner? How will
it make it less likely we will have noise? How will it make it
less likely that we will have big, tall towers with red
flashing lights called cell towers that we can see?
Mr. Martin. Well, we certainly share all of those concerns
with you. I would like to go back to the first statement that
had been taken out of section 1.4.3. There is a lot added back
in, several key sentences, that talk about the very things that
you have concerns about. Again, it is a draft, and if somehow
that remains unclear, as we move through the public process, we
will certainly correct that concern.
Two, in the air quality section--we actually put in, before
chapter 1, some key definitions that are absolutely important.
One is to understand what an unacceptable impact is and what
appropriate use means. And if you use that test of unacceptable
impact, we would not allow any increasing impacts. And I think
we share a concern in this document about increasing impacts--
and we share the concerns that you just mentioned, and that is
why this document talks about passing parks on better to future
generations in a better condition. That is our goal.
In the specific air quality section--I have seen some of
the information that has been circulated, but what this draft
says--and again, I recognize and I accept the scrutiny and
skepticism based on some of the concerns about a draft that was
never meant to have public review that got out. It did.
Senator Alexander. In a way that almost makes it worse.
Mr. Martin. It makes our job certainly difficult.
But the National Park Service has the responsibility to
protect air quality under both the 1916 Act and the Clean Air
Act, and the Service will assume an aggressive role in
promoting and pursuing measures to protect park resources from
the adverse impacts of air pollution. In the case of doubt as
to the impacts of existing or potential air pollution on park
resources, the Service will err on the side of protecting air
quality and related values, which are those values of clear
skies. They are the values of the experience the visitor gets,
and they are the values in this document of the viewshed that
you see when you stand in those mountains and look out. And we
encourage people to work cooperatively with others on it.
So we share your concerns and understand your skepticism.
Senator Alexander. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask to
include in the record a letter from six Republican Senators to
the Secretary of the Interior, October 27, expressing our
appreciation for the redraft and our concern about some aspects
of it.
Senator Thomas. It will be included.
[The letter follows:]
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC, October 27, 2005.
Hon. Gale Norton,
Secretary of the Interior, 1849 C Street, N.W., Washington, DC.
Dear Madam Secretary: We are writing to express our concerns about
ongoing efforts in the Department of the Interior to modify the
management policies of the National Park Service.
We had deep reservations with the preliminary draft that initiated
this process, particularly suggestions to de-emphasize the Park
Service's preeminent park protection role and weaken the Park Service's
role in protecting against reductions in air quality. We were also
extremely concerned about changes to the definition of ``impairment.''
We are encouraged that the new draft, which was published for
public comment on October 19th, includes many improvements from the
prior draft. Our preliminary review, however, has turned up some
substantive changes of concern and we urge you to give these special
attention.
First, we are concerned that despite improvements, the primary
mandate of the National Park Service to err on the side of preservation
appears to be deemphasized in the draft. At best, this change appears
to blur, not clarify, the Park Service's primary responsibility to keep
the parks protected for the future. We also are concerned that some
changes with the potential for weakening the Park Service's role in
protecting park air quality and increasing the potential for
inappropriate motorized use in the national parks appear to be
retained. We look forward to discussing our concerns with you during
the comment period and are pleased that Chairman Thomas will be holding
a hearing on this matter in the National Parks Subcommittee.
The national parks are cherished by the American people and revered
around the world. They are America's cathedrals--living repositories of
our history and culture, and places for personal and spiritual
reflection. Current management policies, which were last modified only
four years ago, provide enormously important guidance to national park
managers. Throughout their visits and comments, the American people
have let it be known, year after year and by overwhelming margins, that
vigorous protection of park resources has enhanced, not encumbered,
their enjoyment.
We acknowledge and thank you for the positive changes made in
relation to the preliminary draft. We still question, however, the need
for requiring the Park Service to change its policies so quickly after
publication of the last revision in 2001. The Department's first
principle in rewriting Park Service policies should be to do no harm.
The test should not be whether these changes improve on the preliminary
draft, but whether they protect our national legacy better than the
2001 edition.
The quick process that is unfolding at this time appears
inconsistent with that principle and with the need for careful
deliberation about possible policy changes. A matter of this importance
deserves substantial public dialogue, not merely a brief opportunity
for written comments. Over the past 25 years, the Park Service
Management Policies have been revised twice--in 1988 during the Reagan
Administration, and in 2001 during the Clinton Administration. 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.
We request that you move forward with this review in the most open,
careful, and deliberate process possible, and allow for broad public
input and vetting of these and any other changes. We believe the
policies should be crystal clear that the national parks are to be
enjoyed only ``in such manner and by such means as will leave them
unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.''
Sincerely,
Lamar Alexander, Mel Martinez, Susan M. Collins,
John Warner, Olympia Snowe, Lincoln Chafee,
U.S. Senators.
Senator Thomas. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Bingaman.
Senator Bingaman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Martin, in your testimony, you make it very clear
that--you say--and I think this is an exact quote from your
testimony--``when there is a conflict between use and
conservation, the protection of the resource will be
predominant.'' Now, that language is also in the current
manual, as I understand it. Why do we not just leave it there?
Mr. Martin. I think that maybe we should have done that
from the amount of interest that single sentence has had. But
we clarified it in several different ways. Again, this is
looking at a field manager who is on the front line. What does
that statement really mean? I think what we tried to do is
clarify for them that it is not just about reconciling that
particular instance, but it is about understanding those
impacts. It is about preventing impairment. So we have that
language, and it is spread in 9 or 10 or 11 times throughout.
Again, recognizing now--and that is why we are having this
public comment period--that that statement is important. That
is why it is in my testimony, and I feel like that is something
that we need to evaluate as we go through public comment.
Senator Bingaman. Well, I would hope you would. It strikes
me that deleting that language is an odd way to clarify it. I
would think the more obvious way to clarify it would be to
state it again and underscore it or elaborate on it, if you
thought that was necessary.
Let me also ask about another issue that you really did not
address and none of the other witnesses did, but it concerns me
particularly about this draft proposal that we have got or
draft provision on fund raising and donations, Director's Order
number 21 on donations and fund raising. This seems to me to go
substantially further than the Park Service ever has in setting
out and contemplating essentially corporate or other
sponsorships of different features in the national parks, which
concerns me. I have always thought of the national parks as
sort of a commercial-free zone where I did not have people
selling me Pepsis and things when I went in there. I mean, I
have got nothing against Pepsi, or anything. I did not have
people flacking some particular consumer product.
But this talks about donor recognition through benches,
bricks, or paving materials, plaques, or other features may be
allowed as part of a donor recognition program. The naming of
rooms in a park facility is allowed as part of an approved
donor recognition program. Corporate logos and name scripts on
event facilities and signs and literature at all such special
events, provided that the size and scale and scope and location
of the corporate logos and name script does not dominate the
event. And distribution of free products if they are related to
the event. For example, you could have an Anheuser-Busch
plastic bag if it related to a cleanup day, presumably, or some
corporation, or anything that is consumable is okay, I mean,
even if it is promoting a corporation.
It strikes me this is a slippery slope and a very major
change, particularly since, as I understand this order, it
contemplates for the first time permanent designation of some
of these aspects. That has never been done before. There has
always been some possibility of having an event at a national
park but never sort of permanently designating. I do not know
how far you could go with this, but the language seems to me to
contemplate a lot of things that would be of concern to me.
Do you have a point of view on this? Are you prepared to
testify on it today?
Mr. Martin. Sure. I can speak to it and we can certainly
provide you any additional information as well.
It is something that is of great importance and great
concern and where we definitely need significant clarification.
In the 1990's, we began to get more and more into partnerships,
and in fact, something that was done in the 1990's is a donor
recognition, as you walk up to Old Faithful, that talks about
donation of those boardwalks.
So I think that there was a need for clarity to the field
and in the parks as we work with businesses. I will tell you,
those of us like myself who were rangers and resource managers
and suddenly are thrown into superintendency ranks and have to
deal with partners, we needed that kind of clarification. We
were all over the board on what we were allowing.
I think what this document does--and, again, it is out for
public review, and if there is a lack of clarity, we have got
to fix it. But it recognizes that this is going on. It went on
at Mount Rushmore, Ellis Island, Yellowstone Park, all of those
places. The Ranger Museum at Yellowstone, I think, had
recognition of Conoco who helped donate to make that possible.
And so it is to clarify that, and what this stresses is the
importance of every single one of these having a plan in place
before you go about it and do it.
Also, we have tried to professionalize our business ranks,
and this is something that we have worked with Senator Thomas
and others on through concessions and are now having spill-over
into this to where we have more professional business staff
that are working with these businesses. I think we are
searching because we need those partnerships. I think we have
right now 150 friends groups serving 160 parks that donate $17
million annually, and we need guidance for that.
So we certainly need the criticism. We will review it. If
we have gone too far, we will change it, but it is the goal to
provide that balance out there.
Senator Thomas. Thank you.
Senator Salazar.
Senator Salazar. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
First, let me say, Mr. Martin, I respect you and I respect
the Parks Director, Fran Mainella, and so I hope you do not
take my comments as disrespectful to the jobs that the two of
you have to carry out.
Second of all, my questions have to do with the
appreciation I think that a Republican President, President
Roosevelt, put out for his wish and his dream for a national
park system. Obviously, we have lots of quotes from him. I am
just going to use one and that is where he said in 1916--I
quote--``Our duty to the whole, including the unborn
generation, bids us to restrain an unprincipled present-day
minority from wasting the heritage of these unborn
generations.'' And he continues on. But I think at the end of
the day, what he was really talking about there was the concept
of impairment of these national crown jewels that we have.
I have a couple of questions for you with that preface.
First, when the early rules were released, there were a number
of employees who came out and were critical of the early draft
that had been released, I think by Mr. Hoffman. Are the
employees who have been critical of the drafts that have been
released, including perhaps this current draft, in jeopardy at
all in terms of their employment for having been critical of
the articulated proposed policies and rules of the Park
Service?
Mr. Martin. The answer is no, and if they were, I guess my
job might be in jeopardy too because I think I too was critical
of that first draft, and yet I am allowed to be here today. I
think that draft was never intended to represent the view of
the Secretary or the director or myself. It was really put
forward as something to spark some debate, and it certainly did
that. But when we started our revision, we started with how we
make 2001 better, and we had that other draft set aside over
here.
Senator Salazar. Let me just say, Mr. Martin, I think as
this process goes forward, that the opportunity for the
National Park Service's employees and their superintendents to
be able to comment on this draft is something that I will do
everything as one Senator to try to make sure that they have
whatever protection is needed. I think the protection is
already provided under the law.
Let me ask you the second question that I have with respect
to this process, and that is that I think that part of the
reason we are having this committee hearing today is, frankly,
we do not understand what it was that was the true motivation
of what you were trying to accomplish. I think all of us here
can recognize that from time to time it is important to revise
rules and to make them better. It is part of the life of an
organism.
But it seems that there was something hidden, something
done in the dark of night, something done in the back door
closets to try to come up with a new set of rules to accomplish
some purpose that we are trying to define here. For that very
bad set of proposed rules to come out in August, for people in
the Park Service to come out and say it is totally turning the
direction the parks have taken for the last nearly 100 years in
the wrong direction, and then for all of us that were here
already in November, just a few months later, looking at a
whole new set of revised policies, I guess my question to you
is if you could sum it up in a sentence or two what is it that
is the purpose behind the revisions of these rules?
Mr. Martin. I think it is to continue to improve how we
manage the Service for the 21st century. Again, I would also
add, in one more sentence, I think it is very complex and there
are lots of different reasons. I would love to sit down with
you and talk more about it because there are many different
forces at play, and it is our job as the career civil servants
to buffer those forces and to listen if there is legitimate
criticism----
Senator Salazar. What were some of those forces that were
most at play that led to the impetus, if you will, of the
National Park Service to rewrite the rules? Give me the top two
forces.
Senator Martin. Yes. There were interests by the members in
the House committee that led the Director a couple of years ago
to say that she would take a look at revising the policies. So
that is certainly one.
I think that there was some lack of clarity in the field,
and some of us felt that it is always good to take a look at
how we do business and especially the business aspects of that.
This 2001 draft really does not talk about how we do the
business of stewardship, how we support our employees, how we
train them, and so I think those were a couple of the key
reasons. But I think that there are many, many others.
Senator Salazar. I see my time has run out. Mr. Chairman,
will we have an opportunity to go through another round of
questions?
Senator Thomas. We will have another round, yes, sir.
Senator Murkowski.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate
your calling this hearing.
Alaska is the beneficiary, if you will, of, I guess it is,
in excess of two-thirds of the national parks that are in this
country. So, of course, we take a very keen interest in what is
going on with its policies and its management.
Mr. Martin, the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation
Act, ANILCA, does require that the National Park Service manage
its lands in Alaska differently than it does in other places.
Just a very brief summary from you, if you will, as to what
those differences are and explain how the management policies
will take account of these differences.
Mr. Martin. Well, we addressed that, and in fact, Marsha
Blaszak, who is here with us, helped us on this revision that
is on the table now. She pointed that out to us a lot, that
Alaska was different, and having worked there, I understand
some of that myself.
There are areas in Alaska that have been around since 1917,
1918, and some of those are managed very closely to the way
parks in the lower 48 are managed. But then, as you know, we
have the 1980 Lands Act that gave us many areas. How wilderness
is managed up there is different, and access to inholdings, and
subsistence. So there are many, many areas where there are
these differences, some of them very pronounced and others I
think are very subtle. I think we have worked very hard in
Alaska and very hard on the national level to make sure that
that understanding by our managers is key, and I think that we
have been pretty successful in that over the last few years.
And certainly that has evolved as well.
Senator Murkowski. Let me ask you about the inholder
situation. As you know, these are one of the stakeholder groups
in Alaska that, wrong or right, for better or worse, create
some controversy within the National Park Service. We hear from
them on a regular basis. And there are many of my constituents
who believe that it is the policy of the National Park Service
to manage that relationship with pretty much a heavy hand. And
there are some that believe that it is the policy of the
National Park Service to essentially coerce these inholders
into moving out, selling out to the National Park Service at a
favorable price. And I guess I would ask you what the policy is
as it relates to the inholders. Is this accurate?
Mr. Martin. We respect existing rights and it is our goal
to treat people professionally. And there are cases where we do
have interest in private lands, but there certainly should be
no coercion or anything less. We respect that while they have
it and we work----
Senator Murkowski. Do you have any specific policies or
anything written that indicates that respect of those
individual rights?
Mr. Martin. We actually tried to write some of that into
this document to talk about that, and it is not just inholder
rights, but we have other things that have been, by
legislation, by Congress, given to us where we have grazing in
some parks or mining in some parks or those things that are all
provided for by legislation. We talk about how we need to work
with those folks so that they understand the importance of the
parks. But we have to give full respect to the rights that they
have under the law, and I believe we are doing that. And I
think we tried to clarify some of that in this document.
Senator Murkowski. Let me ask you, Mr. Horn. You have been
a long-term observer of the National Park Service and the role
in Alaska. Do you think that the National Park Service is
living up to the requirements of ANILCA in the management of
the Alaska units?
Mr. Horn. I think in general the answer is yes. I think we
disagree periodically on points here and there but I think the
relationship with the agency and many of the traditional user
groups has improved dramatically over the last couple years.
I would say in the context of this immediate management
policy, another one of the deficiencies in the 2001 document
was--I thought it was inadequate in its cross references to the
variety of very, very important ANILCA-driven exceptions. From
my review of the 2005 draft that is now out, the current
document does a much better job of addressing the ANILCA-
related issues Mr. Martin just referred to, compared to the
2001 document.
Senator Murkowski. You say it is better.
Mr. Horn. Yes.
Senator Murkowski. Is it good?
Mr. Horn. We will be working on some comments for some
folks. I believe that they could do a better job in tightening
up some of those cross references in a variety of areas. It is
not optimal, but it is certainly superior to the 2001 document.
Senator Murkowski. We will look forward to those coming.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Thomas. Thank you.
We will have a second round. I am just going to ask you
some short questions and hope you can give us a short answer to
them.
Mr. Martin. I will try my best.
Senator Thomas. Mr. Castleberry, you were concerned about
the management direction given by the administration. Do you
believe the administration from the highest levels should have
an opportunity to set its direction, not talking about
politics. I am talking about direction. Do you not think that
is appropriate?
Mr. Castleberry. Indeed, I do. In fact, throughout the last
half of my 32 years, I spent either working here in Washington
or in senior regional position in which I interacted with
Members of Congress and the administration in office, both
parties, all the time. There was never any question about those
roles. It does disturb us at times when there appears to be, as
I believe Mr. Akaka mentioned, a sort of driving of the
partisan politics deeply down into the----
Senator Thomas. Well, most everybody agrees with that, and
that is not really what is being done here. But there ought to
be a policy, and frankly, I am disturbed sometimes that the
higher level management in the park does not take more interest
in the policy. Now, the details need to be left on the ground,
but there are policies to the region and so on that need to be
implemented, it seems to me.
Mr. Martin, what do you think is the most significant
change that has taken place between the 2001 and what is being
proposed?
Mr. Martin. I think it is hard to boil it down into a
single thing, but in the shortness, I think it is clarity to
the field professional, and I think it is beginning to talk
about the concept of passing on parks improved to future
generations because we have that task at hand as well.
Senator Thomas. Thank you.
Mr. Galvin, you have talked, of course, about not needing
this change. Would you have made any change? What would be the
single most important change you might have made in the 2001
policy?
Mr. Galvin. You mean if I were updating the 2001 policies?
Senator Thomas. Would you have updated it or would you have
just left it as it was?
Mr. Galvin. Well, I would not feel an urgent need to update
them, but there would be a couple of areas I would look at if I
were given the task of updating them.
One is particularly the resource management sections. As
scientific research comes in, we learn more about, for
instance, the impact of unnatural noise, sounds in parks. We
learn more about the impact of natural light on things like the
Ridley turtles on the barrier islands.
I think I would look at how strong the cultural resource
management sections are in promoting parks for educational
purposes.
Those would be the areas I would look at I think.
Senator Thomas. Thank you.
Mr. Horn, what would be your top recommendation to the Park
Service to improve the current proposal?
Mr. Horn. As I indicated to Senator Murkowski, I think the
cross references to ANILCA probably needs to be made a little
bit more dramatic and with some greater detail. But I think
overall maybe some additional clarity in terms of the whole
exercise of how do you deal with uses and how do you manage
them. I do commend the agency because I think that the
hierarchy that they have built into the present document in
terms of when you are dealing with uses, you try to manage them
first. If you cannot manage them and you cannot deal with
impacts, then you go to closures. I just think that that one
fundamental change in the present proposal is sort of worth its
weight in gold, and I commend them for it.
Senator Thomas. Thank you.
Mr. Castleberry, times change. There are now more parks.
There is more pressure to do other things, whether it be
historic sites or whatever, to extend the responsibility of the
park. More people are visiting. What would you think would be a
change that might be necessary? What would be your high
priority if you were asked to make any policy change?
Mr. Castleberry. Well, first let me say that I sympathize
with any of you who tried to read all of these and understand
them, as complicated as it was. I am familiar with all these
and I still could not make sense out of a lot of the changes.
We, our coalition and myself speaking for myself, cannot
see why we would have done anything different.
Senator Thomas. You would have made no changes at all.
Okay, thank you.
Senator Akaka.
Senator Akaka. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Martin, talking about cultural resources, throughout
the cultural resources section, the word ``conserving'' has
been continuously inserted, along with ``preserving'' cultural
resources. With respect to cultural resources, can you please
explain the differences between the terms?
My concern stems from the fact that conservation with
respect to harvestable resources means sustainable use, but you
cannot do that with cultural resources. If we lower the
standard and expectations for cultural resources, they will be
lost forever. So my question is, with respect to cultural
resources, can you explain the differences between the terms
``conserving'' and ``preserving''?
Mr. Martin. Yes, and if I can--again, this is before the
first chapter. So I guess we need to clarify this because even
as we start to use this document, there is a section on the
terms, ``conserve,'' ``preserve,'' and ``protect.'' This is on
page 4 of this draft, right up front before the foundation
document. Basically what it says is that it is clear from
legislative history of these statutes, from case law, and
direction from Congress that the choice of these phrases is
interchangeable. And we make it clear that the choice of any
one of these words within these policies is not intended to,
should not be construed to imply a greater or lesser
restriction on opportunities for visitors or the level of care
of park resources and values.
And so because we have laws that say ``conserve,'' and we
have laws that say ``protect,'' basically what we said is there
is a lot of debate about this, so let us just say that
Congress, the public, all of us expect us to take care of these
resources with the highest value. Let us not get caught up in a
single-word argument. Again, they are up front in this document
that that high level of care, whether we say ``conserve,''
``preserve,'' or ``protect,'' is the same, except in the
document where the law says ``protect.'' We try to balance that
as much as possible. But we meant one definition and we have
that in here.
Senator Akaka. There seems to be, Mr. Martin, a weakening
of the commitment to avoid harm to cultural resources. As
proposed, the Park Service will only seek to avoid unacceptable
harm rather than all harm to natural resources. If this
interpretation is correct, could damage, deterioration, or
misinterpretation of cultural resources occur under the
proposed guidelines?
Mr. Martin. I would say no. And I believe we are
strengthening our commitment to that. It is something that I
have a personal interest in. I have worked in parks that have
had very significant natural and cultural resources. And I
really feel the document does everything it possibly can to
strengthen that language. Again, if inadvertently, in some of
the things we have tried to do, that is the case, we will
certainly take a look at it, but that was in no way, shape, or
form the intent. So we will work with you and would be glad to
sit down and discuss any concerns that you have in that regard
because that is a very, very, very important part of what we
do.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Thomas. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Alexander.
Senator Alexander. Thank you.
Following up the chairman's suggestion of short questions,
I have got two short ones.
Mr. Martin, do you think, given the amount of interest in
this, it might be wise to extend the comment period from 90 to
120 days?
Mr. Martin. Again, I cannot make that commitment, but I
certainly think that is something that we need to address. I
believe that we do not want to----
Senator Alexander. Well, let me just ask you. Short answers
too, please.
Mr. Martin. Yes, I am sorry. I care a lot----
Senator Alexander. So would you consider that with the
Secretary?
Mr. Martin. Yes, absolutely.
Senator Alexander. Thank you.
Second, I will ask one question for each of the four of
you. Do you believe that this latest draft of the park
management policies would make it easier or harder to introduce
into the national parks uses that would add noise, add visual
impacts or clean the air? Will it make it easier or harder to
add noise, visual impacts, or to clean the air?
Mr. Martin. They are three very different things, but I
would say that this will protect all of those, and I think it
will make it easier for managers to make sure that we start to
pass on parks in a better condition to future generations. So I
guess I would say that it will provide the guidance when it is
done. It is only a draft. It would actually make it better for
that and also better for users.
Senator Alexander. Well, that is not a good answer because
if I am a park manager, am I more likely to put up a big cell
tower, more likely to allow an overflight, and more likely to
have cleaner air or less likely? Which are stricter?
Mr. Martin. I would say that this document would make it
more likely that you would not put up that cell tower as was
done at Old Faithful. I think it would make it more likely that
you would have cleaner air because you would work cooperatively
with people outside the park boundaries, and I would say that
this strengthens our ability to work with the air tours and
others to make sure that we diminish those effects on park
resources.
Senator Alexander. Mr. Galvin?
Mr. Galvin. I sort of have different answers for different
categories. I think, generally, this is a lowering of the
standards.
I would like to talk about cell towers a little bit because
it is very interesting to me. Not a word in this document on
cell towers has been changed. The 2005 draft is exactly the
same as the 2001 draft. Not a word of it has been changed. I
was personally involved with the House in trying to get the
1996 Telecommunications Act changed to acknowledge wilderness
areas, parks, et cetera. We were unsuccessful in getting that
changed, so the Telecommunications Act simply says cell towers
are okay on public lands, all public lands. And the policies
reflect that direction of Congress. They say park
superintendents will accept applications from FCC licensees for
cell towers. It then says you have got to do NEPA, you have got
to stick with the National Historic Preservation Act, you have
got to protect park values.
But not one line of that policy has been changed here. So I
cannot see how you are more protected from cell towers than you
were in 2001. I think the act should have been changed, but we
were unsuccessful in getting that changed.
Senator Alexander. Is there time for Mr. Horn to answer?
Senator Thomas. Yes, sir.
Mr. Horn. Mr. Chairman, I do not think it fundamentally
changes or makes it easier for cell phone towers, noise, et
cetera. I think the fundamental change is it provides for more
rational management of visitor use. I think that is the better
change in the change in the document.
Mr. Castleberry. It fuzzes up the picture and makes it more
difficult to be sure when you are facing an individual question
at the park level. The change does. It makes it easier for the
undesirable things to happen.
Senator Alexander. Thank you.
Senator Thomas. You have got 45 seconds left.
Senator Alexander. I will give them back.
Senator Thomas. Senator Salazar.
Senator Salazar. Thank you very much.
Let me go back to this question of impairment of our
national parks. Mr. Martin and Mr. Galvin, the question is to
both of you. I have heard Mr. Martin testify that these
proposed rules would help with excellence in the field in the
management of our parks, that they were prompted, in part,
because of a congressional interest in the House of
Representatives. But at the end of the day, I think why there
is so much concern about this issue here before all of us is
whether or not this is really lessening the standards that we
have had historically for national parks.
I go back to the existing policy that we have, subsection
1.4.3 of the management policy, which says that ``Congress,
recognizing that enjoyment by future generations of the
national parks can be ensured only if the superb quality of
park resources is left unimpaired, has provided that when there
is a conflict between conserving resources and values and
providing for the enjoyment of them, conservation is
predominant.'' Fran Mainella in testimony in front of this
committee several years ago reaffirmed that same principle, and
yet that language was deleted from this policy.
So I ask both of you to respond to me, in terms of what the
impact will be from the deletion of this language on the
nonimpairment provision that was previously in the policies.
Mr. Galvin.
Mr. Galvin. Well, they substitute the concept of balancing
between resource protection and use, and I think that is a
flawed concept. I do not think it has been in policy ever.
And I might say I am perfectly happy with the 1988 chapter
on this. I think the 2005 chapter is a diminishment from that.
The difference between the 2001 version and the 1988 version
came about because there were two court cases in which judges
told the Park Service even you cannot impair park values, one
at Canyon Lands and one at Glacier.
Senator Salazar. So, Mr. Galvin, what you would say is that
the concept of balancing is actually a retreat from the
nonimpairment standard that is currently in the policy.
Mr. Galvin. As stated in subsection 1.4.3 of the
fundamental purpose of parks, yes, Senator.
Senator Salazar. Mr. Martin, how would you respond to Mr.
Galvin on that point?
Mr. Martin. I would say that if you read the whole document
and did not hinge it all on one statement, you would find that
his concerns were completely met. I think we are also saying
that this is a draft, and if inadvertently we have dropped a
sentence that is that significant and important, we should add
it in.
But we also would challenge people to read the document as
you would if you were a manager charged with this incredible
responsibility in the field answering to the public, answering
to everyone. And I think you would find that as you look at
what an unacceptable impact is--take the cell tower--yes, we
have that obligation that Mr. Galvin talks about, but if you
are going to put one in, you want to make sure that it has no
harmful impact. But again, so the cell tower still exists at
Old Faithful. We just did it differently to make sure that
there were no unacceptable impacts. And I think that is what
this document does as a whole.
But it is a draft and if we have inadvertently dropped a
sentence, then I would say let us have a strong discussion
and----
Senator Salazar. Let me just say, Mr. Martin, I want to
associate myself with the letter that my Republican colleagues
and Senator Alexander drafted on October 27, which has been
inserted into the record today, because I think my colleagues
are accurate in their description of the need to be very
careful and very thoughtful.
I will still walk away today after this hearing with this
impression that this rewrite of the policy was somehow done in
darkness and without the understanding of a lot of people who
should have been involved, including this committee,
recognizing that there was a need from the point of view of
parks to revise policies. I think that his very modest request
of another 30 days for public comment is one that the National
Park Service should very much adhere to.
Mr. Martin. Absolutely.
Senator Salazar. Let me ask one other quick question, and
it has to do with respect to snowmobiles. Under the current
policy, it basically says that a variety of motorized equipment
has the potential to adversely impact park resources, et
cetera. And then that has been deleted and in its place it
says, ``There are many forms of motorized equipment and
mechanized modes of travel. Improved technology has increased
the frequency of their use. In some areas and under certain
conditions, the use of mechanized equipment and mechanized
modes of travel may be determined to be an appropriate use.''
In your estimation, Mr. Martin, does this mean that we are
going to have more motorized vehicle travel on our national
parks than we currently have today?
Mr. Martin. No. I think that it will allow us to consider
some new technologies like Segways and other things where
appropriate. But you have to read up front the definition of
appropriate use, which does not diminish values and other
things.
But as it pertains to snowmobiles--and I know that has been
out there a lot--the executive orders, the regulations,
everything are the same, and our commitment to managing them
appropriately, like I think we are trying to do now, is going
to remain the same.
Senator Salazar. I will just conclude, Mr. Chairman, by
thanking you again for the hearing and also suggesting to the
Park Service that this is such an important issue for all of us
that it might we worthwhile to go back to the drawing board and
take a look at revisions where you try to bring not only the
parks' employees but also the constituencies for parks, as well
as this committee, along with you as you move forward with
those revisions.
Senator Thomas. Thank you very much.
Any closing comments from any of the members?
Senator Akaka. Mr. Chairman, yes. A concern I have, Mr.
Martin and to all of you, is the last time the Park Service
undertook revision of its management policies was in 1996,
culminating in a new document in 2001. Senator Alexander raised
this concern too. That amounts to 5 years for review and input,
and the input from career professionals was extensive at that
time. It set a course for the Park Service that has been met
with wide public acceptance in that time and growth in national
park units that reflect diversity in U.S. history. This time it
will take less than a year and a half to set in place
management guidelines that will affect the Nation's most
popular visited destinations, and that is a concern and
something for us to think about. Have the professionals been
included in the rewrite? It just seems to me that it is being
pushed and rushed so fast without getting the wisdom of those
who have served in this area.
Thank you very much.
Senator Thomas. Thank you very much.
Well, gentlemen, thank you. We appreciate it. We would like
to have the opportunity to give you some written questions
after this hearing, if we may, and ask you to respond to those.
Obviously, it is clearly an important issue. There are
differing views. I think most everybody agrees on the
priorities of maintaining the resource. On the other hand, if
you are going to have a resource, then the people who own the
resource ought to have an opportunity to visit it. We have been
through a lot of this in terms of snow machines in Yellowstone
Park as a matter of fact, and I think it determines that you
can have both. You can maintain the resource and have some
regulations which allow people to be able to utilize it.
By the way, I believe the Park Service has done a good job
over the last several years. They have dealt a lot with the
concession issue. They have done a lot with the management part
of the entire park, and as the parks grow bigger, that becomes
an important item. They dealt with the financing and the
business aspects. So we want to thank you for that.
And thank you for being here. Thank you for your opinions,
and we will look forward to working with you.
The committee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:39 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIX
Responses to Additional Questions
----------
Responses of Don Castleberry to Questions From Senator Thomas
Question 1. How did the Department of the Interior involve Regional
Directors and senior executives in the review process for the
Management Policy revisions during your career?
Answer. In my experience, the need for revisions would be discussed
and decided during routine meetings of ``the Directorate'' (generally
made up of the Director/Deputy Director, Associate Directors and
Regional Directors). This would typically be done as a result of some
change in the law, or to respond to some need for guidance/direction,
perceived by the group, in response to new issues or conflicts.
Subject-matter professionals from within NPS would then be used to
draft various sections and chapters, with opportunity for full field
review(often multiple times) BEFORE going out for public review.
Question 2. The NPS is now seeking public comment on the Draft
Management Policies. Do you agree with the process or could you
recommend a better way to go about changing management policies?
Answer. I do NOT agree with the currently proposed process. It
would, be my opinion that NPS should halt the current, flawed, process
and begin a focused, amendment approach, using the 2001 policies as the
base, making only essential amendments to these existing policies,
based on clearly articulated needs.
Question 3. How important were management policies to day-to-day
operations when you served at unit level and later as Regional Director
of the National Park Service?
Answer. They are critical tools in maintaining consistency of
management decisions throughout the Service. They were a ready desk
reference, guiding most day-to-day decisions. Generally speaking, NPS
is a ``decentralized organization'' with wide latitude being delegated
to individual park managers. As a park Superintendent, usually located
far from my supervisors (Regional Director, Director), I studied these
policies, used them to guide my decisions in order to assure that I was
operating within the law, and consistent with NPS authority. As
Regional Director, I used them to guide planning for newly-authorized
park units, and for development of General Management Plans, as well as
to develop my response to issues, conflicts, and, essentially, all
decisions involving the parks--including such matters as Concession
management, land acquisition, human resource management, and perhaps
most important, resource management and protection.
Question 4. The Draft Management Policies addressed during the
hearing is a draft subject to revision in the near future. What would
be your top recommendation for the National Park Service to use to
improve the Draft Management Policies?
Answer. As indicated in my reply to question 2 above, I believe the
appropriate way to improve the policies is (as specified in the 2001
policy document)--``NPS policy is usually developed through a concerted
workgroup and consensus-building team effort involving extensive field
review, consultation with NPS senior managers, and review and comment
by affected parties and the general public. All policy must be
articulated in writing and must be approved by an NPS official who has
been delegated authority to issue the policy. Policy must be published
or otherwise made available to the public--particularly those whom it
affects and those who must implement it in the Washington office,
regional offices and parks''. This process was ignored with the current
revision. At the least with a proposed revision of this magnitude, the
beginning should have been a public scoping process that explained WHY
certain changes were deemed necessary. That question, in my opinion,
has not yet been answered fully to the public, nor to the NPS employees
who will use the policies to carry out their duties.
Question 5. On October 11, 2005, the NPS Director distributed a
memo to the National Leadership Council entitled Revised Procedures for
GS-13, GS-14, and GS-15 Selections.
a. Are you aware of the memo?
b. Did any such policy exist while you were an NPS employee?
c. How does such a policy affect the morale of career employees?
Answer. (a) Yes, I have read the referenced memo. (b) I do not
recall a formal policy on this subject in my experience. From time to
time, there were directives requiring higher-level review or approval
for selection of either certain designated positions, or positions, at
or above certain grade levels (often with the stated purpose of
assisting in the placement of personnel in special circumstances). I do
not recall ANY directive outlining an expectation that certain
conditions (other than the knowledge, skills and abilities for the
position, contained in the vacancy announcement) would be used to
evaluate or approve selections. Certainly, in my experience, there was
NEVER even a hint that political loyalty would be a factor. (c) I am
certain that this policy is having a significant dampening effect among
the employees of NPS (along with the already widespread fears of
reprisal and retaliation) on the willingness of mid- and senior-level
employees to be candid in expressing their professional judgments about
the way the Service is being managed and how their parks are being
affected. For example, I am in contact with numerous former co-workers
who are still employed in NPS, several have indicated they are
unwilling to comment on the proposed management policy revisions, out
of fear that their comments could be viewed as ``not supporting the
Secretary's 4-Cs and the President's management agenda''.
______
Birch, Horton, Bittner and Cherot,
Washington, DC, December 27, 2005.
Hon. Craig Thomas,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Parks, Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The following are my responses to the written
questions submitted to me following the November 1, 2005 hearing on
National Park Service Management Policies.
Question 1. You mention in your testimony that the 2001 management
policies are inconsistent with the 1916 Organic Act. Could you
summarize the most egregious deviation form the law and what legal risk
does the Park Service face if the policy remains unchanged?
Answer. The 2001 version of National Park Service (NPS) Management
Policies, adopted in the final days of the Clinton Administration,
include a number of provisions inconsistent with the letter and spirit
of the 1916 National Park Service Organic Act. For example, an express
part of the fundamental purpose of all NPS units is to ``provide for
the enjoyment'' of port units. 16 U.S.C. 1. In the 2001 Policies,
this key phrase is deleted from the ``foundation'' statement that
introduces the Policies. This deliberate deletion of the visitor
``enjoyment'' reference means that Policies misrepresent the law from
the very start and set the Policies on a course inconsistent with the
Organic Act.
The single ``fundamental purpose'' of the Park System, as
articulated in the 1916 Act, ``IS to conserve the scenery and the
natural and historic objects and the wild life therein AND to provide
for the enjoyment of the same in such a manner and by such means as
will leave them unimpaired for the ENJOYMENT of future generations''
(emphasis added). The 2001 Policies focus too heavily on the
``conserve'' portion of the single purpose and systematically diminish
the emphasis on visitor enjoyment. For example, section 8.1 of the 2001
Policies concludes a review of the Organic Act by stating that the law
``impose[s] on NPS managers a STRICT MANDATE TO PROTECT park resources
and values, and a responsibility to actively manage all park uses and
when necessary, to regulate their amount, kind, time, and place''
(emphasis added). This narrow and strict focus on only one half of the
1916 directive is inconsistent with that Act.
Similarly, the Organic Act expressly directs NPS to (1) provide for
visitor use and enjoyment, (2) actively manage Park units for this
purposes, and (3) enter into operating concessions agreements to
facilitate visitation. 16 U.S.C. 1, 3. Contrary to these statutory
directives, the 2001 Polices specifically identify each of these
activities as a source of illegal ``impairment''. See Sec. 1.4.5.
Congress could not have established the ``no impairment'' standard in
section 1 of the Organic Act and then directed NPS to engage in
activities in section 3 that would violate this standard. Accordingly,
the identification of these statutorily authorized activities as
sources of impairment is inconsistent with the 1916 Act.
The anti-visitor enjoyment bias that permeates the 2001 Policies is
further demonstrated by language in section 8.2. When confronted with a
visitor activity that may cause problems, Park managers are directed to
close the area to the use, prohibit the use, or, to limit the use--in
that specific order. To be consistent with Organic Act and its emphasis
on visitor enjoyment, this order must be reversed so that initial
efforts are aimed at managing a visitor use to eliminate or avoid
problems (and allowing the use and ``enjoyment'' to continue) and only
if good management cannot fix or ameliorate a problem should the
options of closure or prohibition be employed.
Question 2. Was there ever a need to revise the management policies
while you were serving as Assistant Secretary? If not, why not? If so,
what were the circumstances and why were the policies changed?
Answer. During my tenure as Assistant Secretary of the Interior for
Fish, Wildlife and Parks, senior policy makers concluded that NPS
Management Policies adopted in the late 1970's did not appropriately
reflect the purpose of the Park System outlined in the 1916 Act. In
addition, the Policies did not provide the clarity of direction we
thought was necessary for effective management and conservation of Park
resources. Efforts commenced in 1987, directed by my office, to rewrite
those Policies. The rewrite was completed shortly thereafter resulting
in the 1988 NPS Management Policies which remained in force and effect
until January, 2001.
Question 3. The Draft Management Policies addressed during the
hearing is a draft subject to revision in the near future. What would
be your top recommendation for the National Park Service to use to
improve the Draft Management Policies?
Answer. At this point, I have no top recommendation for amendments
to the proposed new Policies. However, I do expect to be submitting
comments to the agency including recommendations for alterations before
the close of the public comment period.
Question 4. On October 11, 2005, the NPS Director distributed a
memo to the National Leadership Council entitled Revised Procedures for
GS-13, GS-14, and GS-15 Selections. As a former Assistant Secretary of
DOI, do you think it is necessary to have written procedures for
selecting applicants for GS-13, GS-14, and GS-15 positions and is it
appropriate to require employees to support the ``President's
Management Agenda''?
Answer. It is completely appropriate for the Assistant Secretary's
office to issue guidance for and participate in the selection of senior
personnel within NPS at grades 13 and higher. Similar guidance and
review procedures were in place during my tenure as Assistant Secretary
from 1985 to 1988. During my confirmation by the U.S. Senate, it was
stressed repeatedly that I would be held accountable and responsible,
by the Congress, for the activities and conduct of the agencies under
my supervision (i.e., NPS and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). If
Congress insists on such accountability, it must ensure that confirmed
personnel have the authority and responsibility to effectively oversee
the agencies, and agency personnel, under their purview. In contrast,
if the Assistant Secretary is stripped of such authority, Congress and
its committees must not then seek to hold that office and individual
accountable.
In addition, it is appropriate to require senior career personnel
to support the ``President's Management Agenda.'' He is after all the
head of the Executive Branch, is provided with Constitutional authority
to direct the activities of all Executive Branch employees, and is held
accountable by Congress for management of the federal agencies
including NPS.
Question 5. Do you believe that intangible park values such as
natural sounds, night skies, etc. are ``park resources'' and should be
protected?
Answer. Conservation of intangible values has a role in park unit
management. It is critical, however, to distinguish between those
values that are tantamount to resources as compared to the subjective
aesthetic values of individual users or groups of users. Solitude is a
prime example of a value that is highly dependent, and variable,
depending on personal aesthetics. A summer beach visitor to New York's
Gateway National Recreation Area, considers solitude as 100 feet
between his beach towel and that of another beach goer. A backpacker in
Alaska's Gates of the Arctic National Park, considers solitude being
the only visitor in a 100 square mile area. ``Natural quiet'' is
another value that can be highly subjective. Visitors seeking to climb
Mt. McKinley in Denali National Park are almost always dropped off by
ski planes. NPS has received complaints from climbers that their
enjoyment of ``natural quiet'' is being impaired by other visitors
taking flightseeing tours of Denali from small airplanes (usually flown
by the same company that dropped off the mountain climbers). Obviously,
``natural quiet'' here is almost totally in the ear of the beholder.
Management policies must clearly distinguish between these values
as a resource and these values as aesthetics. Where the former is
clearly identified, actions to conserve the resource is fully
appropriate and necessary. Where the latter is at issue, NPS must not
try to transmute aesthetic values into resources. Moreover, management
for subjective aesthetic values must be considered openly and honestly
and decisions made with regard to the 1916 Act, the purposes for which
individual units were established, and the obligation of a public
agency to treat all citizens fairly.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify on November 1 and
provide these additional answers for the record.
Sincerely,
William P. Horn.
______
Responses of Denis Galvin to Questions From Senator Thomas
Question 1. Mr. Galvin, you were Deputy Director when the 2001
management policies were adopted.
a. What was the impetus for preparing the 2001 management policies
and what type of public involvement was there in the process?
Answer. It actually came from the OMB directive to cut regulations
(the Paperwork Reduction Act). The directive was to completely revise
the directives system: Management Policies--Special Directives--
Operating ``How to'' Manuals. As in 1988, it was entirely an NPS
decision to revise the policies, it was not dictated by the Department
of Interior. I was deeply involved in the 2001 rewrite. There was
extensive, internal review and the draft was sent out for public
comment twice. Some of the chapters went through two or three
iterations before being finalized.
Question 1b. What do you consider the most significant change
brought about by the 2001 policies?
Answer. It was most certainly the expansion of Chapter 1, The
Foundation. (Actually, Ch. 1 in the 1988 policies is called the
introduction). So, the introduction took on what is now (2001) the
Foundation. This chapter increased in size from 4 pages to 15 pages,
greatly expanding because of judicial findings questioning NPS' ability
to define impairment. There is more talk in the 2001 policies about the
Organic Act, impairment, and mitigation. This resulted in
superintendents having less discretion in defining what is impairment.
A court finding even stated that not even the NPS could impair
resources. Additionally, the 2001 policies added information about
soundscape and lightscape management due to important biological
research that became available. In 1988 these subjects were treated as
visitor use rather than ecological issues.
Question 2. What do you see as the most significant change in the
current draft policies when compared with the 2001 document and what
impact will it have on the day-to-day operation of individual units?
Answer. That would be the shift in Sec. 1.4.3 to balance use with
preservation in day-to-day management of national parks. Chapter 1 of
the 2001 edition of Management Policies is entitled The Foundation, and
is intended to give additional clarity to the clear purpose of the
National Park Service as stated in the 1916 NPS Organic Act. The 2001
edition of Management Policies gave a very detailed and clear
articulation of how to interpret the 1916 Organic Act's basic mandate.
In contrast, the new draft significantly muddies the water, and has the
effect of letting each manager judge for him/herself whether a
particular use or form of enjoyment is appropriate or not, and will or
won't cause impairment, without the clear guidance that the 2001
edition of Management Policies provides.
Question 3. How important were management policies to day-to-day
operations when you served as Deputy Director of the National Park
Service?
Answer. Management Policies are primarily to give clear direction
to the professional managers of the NPS so that there is consistent
adherence to policy service-wide, and so that each manager has a clear
and comprehensive basis for understanding what he/she is to consider
when making management decisions. I trained literally thousands of park
managers on Management Policies, and would instruct them to pull them
out at least once a year and read them. In training classes at Albright
Training Center, I would offer case studies and instruct participants
to go back to the policies to craft management decisions; this produced
consistency. It is absolutely required for a park manager to know the
Management Policies when faced with a possible court decision.
Question 4. The Draft Management Policies addressed during the
hearing is a draft subject to revision in the near future. What would
be your top recommendation for the National Park Service to use to
improve the Draft Management Policies?
Answer. I feel that in every respect, the 2001 Management Policies
are superior to this current draft, and would urge NPS to abandon this
flawed rewrite. If they insist on moving ahead, I strongly recommend
that they move forward in the most open, careful, and deliberate
process possible, beginning with a scoping process.
Question 5. On October 11, 2005, the NPS Director distributed a
memo to the National Leadership Council entitled Revised Procedures for
GS-13, GS-14, and GS-15 Selections.
a. Are you aware of the memo?
Answer. Yes.
Question 5b. Did any such policy exist while you were an NPS
employee?
Answer. No. This is absolutely unprecedented, not to mention
unworkable, bringing that number of candidates to Washington for
interviews. Getting a job applicant's package through was not an
expeditious thing. Nobody in headquarters has ever wanted to look at
GS-13's or GS-14's. Certainly Sr. Executive level (SES) and GS-15's
would be brought to Washington; but bringing GS-13 and GS-14 candidates
would be a bureaucratic nightmare and a very costly endeavor.
Question 5c. How does such a policy affect the morale of career
employees?
Answer. In my opinion, adding bureaucratic restrictions on movement
are never good for morale.
Responses of Denis Galvin to Questions From Senator Akaka
Question 1. In your written testimony, you commented that ``Special
interests must give way to the national interest if the national parks
are to flourish in the future.'' Is the ``national interest'' you refer
to the general idea of the standard for non-impairment of national
parks? What would you identify as the ``national'' interest?
Answer. Yes, the rub always comes with resource protection over the
interests of user groups, and that is what NPS is charged with
defending. Congress sets land management policies with the passage of
the Organic Act of 1916, the Endangered Species Act, the National
Historic Preservation Act, etc. thereby giving the National Park
Service the authority to defend resource protection which is in the
national interest.
Question 2. Is it correct to say that in your view, the
encouragement of too many specialized uses will lead to homogenization
of the national park experience, and away from the uniqueness of
experiences in individual parks?
Answer. Yes. The National Park Service is one of the great
government products where the citizenry enjoys its history and culture.
There is great diversity in the National Park System, with 388 units
celebrating everything from historic battle sites, the homes and lives
of celebrated Americans, recreation areas, to our nation's most
magnificent natural scenery in its national parks. Nearly 300 million
people visited NPS sites last year, and surveys repeatedly show that
over 95% of respondents say they enjoyed their visit. People who enjoy
recreating at Disneyworld and watching NASCAR value national parks for
the special places they are. For high quality tourism to be sustained
in America, nothing is more important than preserving the unique
natural and cultural places that make up the National Park System,
unimpaired.
Responses of Denis Galvin to Questions From Senator Feinstein
Question 1. What is the risk that these new management policies, in
combination with the new rules about fundraising, could lead to
pressure on park administrators to push the boundaries of what
constitutes ``acceptable impacts''? For example, there exists the
possibility that a desire by park managers to raise money from private
sources, plus potential corporate donors who ask for access in return
for donations, could lead to activities in the parks that run contrary
to the long-term conservation goals of NPS. What do the new rules do to
prevent this type of scenario?
Answer. In answer to the first part of the question, what is the
risk that these new management policies, in combination with the new
rules about fundraising, could lead to pressure on park administrators
to push the boundaries of what constitutes ``acceptable impacts''? In
searching through the Management Policies, the subject of donors and
fundraising appears in four places:
Chapter 7 Interpretation and Education: 7.6.2 Cooperating
Associations excerpting, ``Associations may accept donations on
behalf of the Service when appropriate, and when conducted
through approved fund-raising efforts'' That section, although
re-numbered 7.5.2 in the 2005 draft, is not changed.
Chapter 9 Park Facilities: 9.3.5 Advertising excerpting,
``NPS policy does not prohibit `donor recognition' which occurs
when the NPS publicly thanks an individual, corporation, or
some other entity for their gift or service to the NPS.'' The
reader is referred to Directors Order 21. The 2005 draft
changes ``does not prohibit'' to ``encourages''. It also refers
to Directors Order 21.
Chapter 9 Park Facilities: 9.6.5 Donated Commemorative Works
excerpting, ``Names of donors will be discouraged from
appearing on commemorative works. If they do appear, donor
names will be conspicuously subordinate to the subjects
commemorated.'' The 2005 draft does not change this section.
Chapter 10 Commercial Visitor Services: 10.2.5.5 Donations
to the NPS excerpting, ``the National Park Service will not
solicit or accept donations or gifts from entities that have,
or are seeking to obtain a contract, lease, or other business
with the Service. . . Further guidance on donations is
available in Directors Order 21.'' The 2005 draft does not
change this section.
In summary, the changes in this area do not appear major. It is
imperative that the changes proposed to Directors Order 21 be
consistent with this policy direction. The dangers cited in your
question are very real. National Parks are fundamentally public
institutions and should remain so. The financial support from the
general tax base dwarfs the existing and potential amounts to be
received from any other source. These are NATIONAL parks and should
remain so.
______
Responses of the National Park Service to Questions From Senator Thomas
Question 1. What are the reasons for updating these policies in the
first place?
Answer. The National Park Service (NPS) strives to attain the
highest possible level of management excellence allowing us to provide
our managers and staff with the tools they require to best meet our
mission. As a result, NPS Management Policies have been periodically
reviewed and updated. In addition the NPS and the Department of the
Interior received repeated requests from the House Subcommittee on
National Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands to re-write or at least
substantively review Management Policies 2001. At an April 25, 2002,
hearing Congressman Radanovich, who was then chairman of the
subcommittee, was especially emphatic about this request. He again
inquired about a review in a June 6, 2002, letter to Director Mainella.
In a September 24, 2003, letter to Chairman Radanovich, the Director
stated that the NPS had begun a systematic review of the Management
Policies to assure they were in alignment with both the Organic and
General Authorities Acts, and with Secretary Norton's 4 Cs--
``Consultation, Cooperation and Communication, all in the service of
Conservation.'' In a follow-up question regarding the status of a
review of Management Policies, asked by Senator Bingaman from a May 10,
2005, hearing before the Senate Subcommittee on National Parks, the
Director responded that the NPS Management Policies issued in 2001 were
under review in the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Fish and
Wildlife and Parks, and until that review is concluded, we will not
make any decisions about whether or not we plan to seek any changes in
the Management Policies. At a December 14, 2005, House Subcommittee on
National Parks hearing on the NPS Organic Act, Congressman Pearce,
Chair of the Subcommittee, reaffirmed ``that it was this Subcommittee
in April 2002--not Deputy Assistant Secretary Paul Hoffman--that
initiated an evaluation of the 2001 NPS Management Policies when then-
Subcommittee Chairman Radanovich requested Park Service Director
Mainella to review the 2001 Management Policies . . .''. Congressman
Pearce also stated, ``I am pleased that the Department of the Interior
and the National Park Service had the courage--despite a campaign
against it--to evaluate its management policies and find areas where it
can improve operations.''
As a practical matter, the Management Policies are reviewed nearly
every day, and we always seek ways to make them more helpful to our
field staff and ensure that they accurately reflect our statutory
responsibilities. One of the routine elements of this review process is
to ensure that NPS policies are consistent with Departmental policies.
An especially noteworthy outcome of the review process and the 2002
hearing was the development of Director's Order #75A: Civic Engagement
and Public Involvement. (Director's Orders are a convenient mechanism
for updating Servicewide policies without the necessity of republishing
the entire Management Policies document.) The NPS believed that
Director's Order #75A would address at least some of Congressman
Radanovich's concerns, as well as complement the Secretary's 4Cs
initiative. Also, the NPS Wilderness Steering Committee had embarked on
the task of updating Director's Order #41, which addresses wilderness
stewardship policy.
Management of the national park system is always a matter of
interest to the Department, and the Assistant Secretary adopted a
fiscal year 2005/2006 goal to ``Improve the NPS Management Policies.''.
Deputy Assistant Secretary Paul Hoffman, who provides policy guidance
to the NPS, was tasked with lead responsibility. In June of 2005
Congressman Pearce, the new chairman of the subcommittee, expressed his
expectation that the Service's ``systematic review'' would culminate in
a revised edition of Management Policies. Because the Deputy Assistant
Secretary's draft was already in progress, the Director informed
Chairman Pearce that the new draft of Management Policies would be
completed by September 2005. In July 2005, the Deputy Assistant
Secretary presented for NPS's review his initial recommendations for
updates to the policies. This document was intended to be a starting
point for discussion. NPS career employees were then assigned to review
and evaluate the 2001 Management Policies. For example, we knew that we
needed to place more emphasis on civic engagement and public
involvement; update the planning procedures in Chapter 2; correct some
aspects of the wilderness stewardship procedures in Chapter 6; and
discourage construction projects that are excessive in size or cost, or
too expensive to operate.
There are new laws, executive orders, and regulations that impact
park management since the policies were last updated in 2001. NPS now
has increased responsibilities for homeland security, such as
protecting national icons against attack. There have also been changes
in the demographics of visitors, rapid population growth around parks,
improvements in technology that provide new ways to enjoy parks or
reduce adverse impacts on resources, and a new focus on civic
engagement and cooperative conservation. These changes, combined with
expectations from Members of Congress, prompted the review and update
of the management policies.
Question 2. If I'm a visitor to a national park and these new
Management Policies went into effect, what would be different from my
eyes?
Answer. The expected benefit from the revisions relates more to how
the NPS accomplishes things rather than what it does, that is protect
parks for future generations and allow their use consistent with that
goal. In the short term, a visitor to a national park would experience
no change as a result of implementing the draft management policies;
the same standard of excellence will apply. Over time the NPS decisions
should be supported more by communities, result in fmancially viable
alternatives that could be implemented, and resources would be improved
resulting in the parks which are better preserved for future
generations (e.g. improved fire management and control of exotics).
There should be improvement in natural and cultural resource conditions
as well as the physical resources (e.g., improvement of buildings
through improved facility management). The appropriate use of parks
would also be emphasized resulting in continued enjoyment of parks by
current and future generations. Despite criticisms to the contrary, the
draft management policies are intended to, and do, maintain the
fundamental policies underlying the NPS Organic Act and other
regulations or laws, but also provide more clarity and improved
approaches to ensure that the Organic Act's objectives are, in fact,
achieved. For example, the draft policies direct more clearly than
earlier versions that ``park resources and values are [to be]
maintained in as good or better condition for the benefit of future
generations.'' It is our intent that as a result of these policies, the
only differences discernible to park visitors over time will be
improvements (e.g., restoration of park resources, better planning and
implementation of park projects). The draft management policies' new
emphasis on cooperative conservation, the legacy goals of the
Administration, sustainability, and management excellence should also
support this goal.
Question 3. What are some of the areas of these Draft Management
Policies, as you say, make it more beneficial and user-friendly for
park managers?
Answer. The proposed revisions to the management policies provide
more clarity, flexibility and tools for superintendents and park
managers in determining each park's unique needs. The draft policies
outline ways to make decisions that are better supported by science and
the public, thus more effectively accomplishing the goals of managers.
The document also outlines more professional training for managers
giving them the tools to better manage the parks. This draft was
written as a whole by park managers, not segmented like the previous
document. This better integrates all of the administrative resources
making managers more effective.
For the first time, park managers will find clear procedural
direction for making management decisions because the draft policies
define important terms such as ``unacceptable impacts,'' ``appropriate
uses'' of parks, and ``professional judgment''. These often used terms
can be easily misconstrued and misused. Offering a single agreed upon
definition for each term will result in greater understanding and ready
and consistent application by park managers in order to better protect
park resources and values, and provide for the enjoyment of the same.
In addition, the draft policies explicitly describe management
tools that are intended to assist park managers in solving some of the
complex management problems facing parks today. These tools include the
use of adaptive management, the use of best available technology, and
the principle of cooperative conservation.
Finally, the draft policies focus on management excellence and
sustainability by prioritizing a comprehensive project review process
that will ensure that ``projects are essential to the mission,
achievable, and sustainable as well as practicable and reasonable.''
Question 4. The public comment period ends February 18, 2006. How
do you intend to use the public comments?
a. What are the comment opportunities for employees and how do you
intend to use their comments?
b. What is the process for finalizing the management policies?
c. When do you expect to have the final document available for
public release?
Answer. Comments from all sources (internal and external) continue
to be collected and processed by NPS Office of Policy staff. Comments
may be submitted through a variety of methods, including email; the
Planning, Environment and Public Comment (PEPC) web page; and via
regular mail. Once the comment period closes, all comments will be
reviewed, analyzed, and organized by subject and content. The NPS
policy staff together with NPS subject matter experts and field staff
will make recommendations for revising the draft policies based upon
the substantive comments received during the comment period. We expect
many additional career professionals at all levels of the organization
to be included in preparation of the final. The recommended revisions
will then be submitted to NPS senior leadership for approval. A final
draft will then undergo close review and final editing by a broad group
of NPS professionals including NPS and DOI managers. The Director may
also consult with other knowledgeable parties such as the NPS Advisory
Board. The new edition of Management Policies 2006 will be finalized
upon the Director's signature.
The NPS will then prepare a document summarizing the content of the
comments and the NPS response to those comments. The summary will be
posted on the web and the public will be notified of its availability
and the availability of the final Management Policies, via Federal
Register notice, via e-mail notice to anyone who has specifically
requested to be notified and via a broadly distributed press release.
While the NPS has not set a publication date for the final document, we
expect it to be completed in 2006. This depends in part upon the type
and number of public comments and the time required to respond
adequately.
The final document will consider Congressional input as well as
comments from the public (including the issues raised in these
questions) before any final decisions are made. Although each answer
will not repeat that we will consider all comments--both internal and
external--in adopting a final version of the new management policies,
that is implied in each such answer.
Question 5. Do the proposed policies alter or reduce the effects of
any laws or regulations?
Answer. No, the proposed policies explicitly recognize that ``NPS
policy must be consistent with these higher authorities. . . .'' The
draft management policies are intended to improve the internal
management of the NPS; they are not promulgated as a rulemaking and are
not intended to carry the force and effect of law. Where the text of a
policy relates to a particular statute or regulation, it is the statute
or regulation that controls, not the text of the policy. As in past
Management Policies any policy may be waived by the NPS Director if it
is not in conflict with the law.
Question 6. Please provide justification for the need to `balance'
the management policies now given the fact that `balance' has never
been used as justification in 89 years of park service management, nor
have you been asked to consider `balance' at the direction of this
committee.
Answer. We assume that this question refers to the following
language in Section 1.4.3 of the draft management policies. The use of
the word balance is appropriate in light of recent court interpretation
of the Organic Act and the language in the draft that comes before its
use and the language that follows it.
The Park Service recognizes that activities in which park
visitors engage can cause impacts to park resources and values,
and the Service must balance the sometimes competing
obligations of conservation and enjoyment in managing parks.
This language incorporates the language used by the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the 10th Circuit in Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance v.
Dabney, 222 F.3d 819 (10th Cir. 2000) in interpreting the NPS Organic
Act, as follows:
Although the Act . . . place[s] an overarching concern on
preservation of resources, we read the Act as permitting the
NPS to balance the sometimes conflicting policies of resource
conservation and visitor enjoyment in determining what
activities should be permitted or prohibited. . . . The test
for whether the NPS has performed its balancing properly is
whether the resulting action leaves the resources ``unimpaired
for the enjoyment of future generations.''
Id. at 827. We read the word ``balance'' in this context to mean
that NPS should consider and weigh all relevant information in
determining whether an activity would be an ``appropriate use'' in the
park unit. Among other things, and as the proposed policies make clear,
an ``appropriate use'' would not have ``unacceptable impacts.'' In this
decision-making process, the draft management policies continue to
embrace the fundamental concept that when there is a conflict between
enjoyment and conservation, conservation of the resources will prevail,
as reinforced by the several statements in the draft document cited in
the answer to Question 7b, below. For example, the following two
statements appear in the same section of the draft policies as the
sentence containing the word ``balance,'' as follows:
. . . Congress established the overarching mission for the
national parks, which is to protect park resources and values
to ensure that these resources and values are maintained in as
good, or better, condition for the enjoyment of present and
future generations.
Because the enjoyment of park resources and values by present
and future generations is dependent on their preservation, when
there are concerns as to whether an activity or action will
cause an impairment, the Service will protect the resources . .
.
This approach to managing parks is entirely consistent with past
management, firmly rooted in the resource protection goal while
providing an improved tool for determining appropriate activities.
Question 7. After the 2001 Management Policies were adopted, Fran
Mainella testified before the House Subcommittee on National Parks,
Recreation and Public Lands that ``there can be no outdoor recreation
without protection of the resource first, and if you are going to err,
you will err on the side of the resource.''
a. Does the Park Service still hold to that view?
b. If so, please explain where in the proposed changes that view is
reflected?
Answer. Yes. As a key tenet of the Organic Act of 1916 that is
reaffirmed by the General Authorities Act of 1970, as amended, the
draft management policies repeatedly embrace the fundamental concept
that when there is a conflict between enjoyment and conservation,
conservation of the resources will prevail. The following statements
are a few of the many examples from the draft policies that reinforce
that important and guiding principle.
Introduction: ``When proposed park uses and the protection of
park resources come into conflict, park managers are obligated
to ensure that the resources and values for which the park was
created are not diminished.''
Introduction: Conserve, Preserve and Protect: ``The choice of
any one of these words, within these policies, is not intended
to, and should not be construed to imply a greater or lesser
restriction on opportunities for visitor enjoyment or level of
care for park resources and values.''
Section 1.4.3: ``when there are concerns as to whether an
activity or action will cause impairment, the Service will
protect the resources . . .''
Section 1.4.3: ``. . . Congress established the overarching
mission for national parks, which is to protect park resources
and values to ensure that these resources are maintained in as
good, or better, condition for the enjoyment of future
generations.''
Section 4.1: ``In cases of uncertainty as to the impacts of
activities on park natural resources, the Service will protect
the natural resources . . . and strive to reduce uncertainty by
facilitating and building a science-based understanding.''
Section 1.10: Letter from Secretary of the Interior, Franklin
K. Lane to the first Director of the National Park Service,
Stephen T. Mather, `` `. . . that the national parks must be
maintained in absolutely unimpaired form for the use of future
generations as well as those of our own time . . .' ''.
Section 1.4.1: 1978 amendment to the 1970 General Authorities
Act, ``Congress further reaffirms, declares, and directs that
the promotion and regulation of the various areas of the
National Park System, as defined in section 1c of this title,
shall be consistent with and founded in the purpose of section
1 of this title (the Organic Act) to the common benefit of all
the people of the United States. The authorization of
activities shall be construed and the protection, management,
and administration of these areas shell be conducted in light
of the high public value and integrity of the National Park
System and shall not be exercised in derogation of the values
and purposes for which these various areas have been
established, as may have been or shall be directly and
specifically provided by Congress.''
Question 8. Omitted by the Committee.
Question 9. You have said that the reason for the change from the
2001 Policies is to provide more clarity, but you propose to remove
sections which unambiguously place conservation and resource protection
as the National Park Service's primary purpose. You also propose to
remove language describing how the courts ``have consistently
interpreted the Organic Act, in decisions that variously describe it as
making `resource protection the primary goal' or `resource protection
the overarching concern' or as establishing a `primary mission of
resource conservation,' a `conservation mandate,' an `overriding
preservation mandate,' and `overarching goal of resource protection,'
or `but a single purpose, namely conservation.' ''
a. Does the National Park Service still believe that its
overarching and primary purpose is conservation and resource
protection?
b. If so, how does removing this language provide any
clarification?
Answer. Yes, as the quotes in the above answer to question 7 make
clear. Please review the entire introduction to the draft policies and
all of Chapter one including the many components of Section 1.4 which
includes significant information relevant to this question. The clarity
provided in this document cannot be found by taking one quote out of
context but must be read as a manager would read the document, in its
entirety. This can be found in Section 1.4 as well as Chapter one as a
whole. Section 1.4.1 discusses the laws governing park management,
1.4.2 discusses the terms Derogation and Impairment, 1.4.3 pertains to
enjoyment of resources without impairment, 1.4.3.1 discusses
appropriate use, 1.4.3.2 discusses unacceptable impacts and prevention
of impairment, 1.4.4 discusses the prohibition of impairment, 1.4.5
discusses what constitutes impairment, 1.4.7 discusses decision-making
to avoid impairment. The draft management policies at Section 1.4.3.,
state ``Congress established the overarching mission for national
parks, which is to protect park resources and values to ensure that
these resources are maintained in as good or better condition for the
enjoyment of future generations.'' While the NPS continues to assert
that its overarching mission is the protection of park resources, the
agency also acknowledges its strong commitment to provide for public
enjoyment of park resources and values. As the courts have repeatedly
found in upholding NPS decisions over the years reflecting both
conservation and use, these obligations are not mutually exclusive. The
language within the policies is an effort to recognize the commitment
to resource protection and visitor enjoyment, as expressed in the 1916
Organic Act. Some of the new and revised language embodies NPS's effort
to provide better guidance and tools to park managers for these kinds
of decisions. In addition, NPS staff sought to eliminate redundant and
inconsistent language and to provide clarifying language where they
believed it to be appropriate. We will be carefully considering the
comments submitted from both the public and internal sources to see if
these changes improved clarity.
Question 10. To maintain relevance in the 21st century the National
Park Service must offer sites and programs, such as the proposed
``Peopling of America'' theme survey, that commemorate the history and
culture of all peoples who've contributed to the evolution and
development of this nation.
a. Will rewrites to management policies that require officials to
first consider available funding before making new park feasibility
recommendations (Sec. 1.3.3) undermine ongoing efforts by NPS staff to
tell the full story of the United States?
b. And if so, does that then increase the risk of our national
parks becoming increasingly less relevant to a rapidly growing segment
of the American public?
Answer. No. But one key factor is financial. We have to be prudent
in the selection of new parks. However, both we and Congress, in
considering the establishment of new parks must take into account how
doing so will affect the operation of the remainder of the system.
The NPS is continuing to tell the full story of the United States
through the development of new historical themes, studies, and
interpretive programs associated with the existing national parks. For
example, the Charles Pinckney National Historic Site near Charleston,
South Carolina, was established to commemorate Charles Pinckney and his
role in the development of the United States Constitution. Because of
extensive archeological work undertaken over the past two decades, the
NPS staff at the Pinckney site now interprets the influences of the
African Americans in the development of the property.
In addition, the National Historic Landmarks (NHL) and the National
Register of Historic Places (NR) programs are increasingly recognizing
historic places associated with the nation's diverse cultural groups
through NHL designations and NR listings. The NHL files are digitized
and available to the public, upon request, and the NR nominations
associated with diverse ethnic groups are in the process of being
digitized. Additional NPS programs--the Historic American Buildings
Survey, the Historic American Engineering Record, and the Historic
American Landscapes Survey--also are increasingly documenting
properties associated with the nation's cultural groups. These records
are maintained by the Library of Congress (LOC) and are available
electronically through the LOC website.
Through these and other activities, the NPS is determined to
maintain and enhance the relevancy of the National Park System to all
segments of American society. While the addition of new parks
associated with cultural groups may sometimes be helpful in expanding
the NPS ability to tell the nation's stories, it is not the only way to
address this issue. The existing parks and programs continue to offer
rich opportunities to expand our interpretive opportunities.
Question 11. I assume that something caused current leadership to
take a hard look at its 2001 management policies. Please provide two or
three examples of incidents or management decisions that occurred
within the national park system in the past four years that make it
necessary to revise the management policies.
Answer. Please refer to the answer for question 1. It would be
inaccurate to attribute a single management decision or incident as the
driving force for revising the Management Policies.
Question 12. What changes do you anticipate in park management at
Grand Teton, Denali, Big Bend, Rocky Mountain, Great Smoky Mountains,
Olympic and other parks if these policies are implemented?
Answer. Adoption of the draft polices would result in better
informed decision making at Grand Teton, Denali, Big Bend, Rocky
Mountain, Great Smoky Mountains, Olympic and all other National Park
System units. Many of the proposed revisions made to the 2001 document
were based on the guiding principle of providing park managers with
clear, concise, and relevant statements of policy and procedures on
which to base management decisions. We believe that the final revised
document will achieve that goal. In the draft policies, managers will
find detailed definitions of key management terms and descriptions of
up to date management tools. This draft provides the tools for park
managers to accurately define ``unacceptable impacts'' to park
resources, ``appropriate uses'' of parks, and ``professional judgment''
to facilitate consistent and quality decision making.
Other improvements affecting park management include the draft
policy's emphasis on cooperative conservation and best management
practices. The draft management policies direct managers to develop and
utilize an improved understanding of the interrelationships within
ecosystems and to find solutions to difficult management questions
through the use of best available technology, the application of
adaptive management, and the use of better baseline data. Managers will
also find direction to utilize contemporary business practices and an
emphasis on cooperative conservation and civic engagement. The draft
policies will result in better articulated decision making processes
and cooperative and collaborative relationships with neighboring
agencies and communities. In turn, these will contribute to better
public understanding of the NPS mission.
The draft policies also remove language from the 2001 edition that
appeared inconsistent or confusing. The tone of the document has been
improved so that there is no misunderstanding about the NPS's
commitment to public enjoyment of park resources and values. The draft
policies also make clear that ``in cases of uncertainty as to the
impacts of activities on park resources, the Service will protect the
natural resources and strive to reduce uncertainty by facilitating and
building science based understanding.'' Ultimately, the clear direction
provided in the draft policies would enhance the ability of park
managers to implement sustainable, science based, collaborative
decisions that, in turn, would achieve the ultimate objective of
protecting park resources for this and future generations.
Question 13. Will the proposed policies allow more mining, or oil
and gas leasing, exploration, or production in NPS units?
Answer. No. The draft management policies make no substantive
change in these areas. Oil, gas or mining activities are only allowed
in accordance with valid existing rights at the time the park unit was
established and are subject to reasonable regulation to protect park
resources and values. The establishment of park units eliminates the
possibility of oil and gas leasing taking place or the ability to
locate new mining claims in the park unit unless Congress specifies
otherwise.
Question 14. Do the proposed policies change wilderness management,
wilderness studies or the protection of wilderness characteristics in
areas recommended for wilderness designation?
Answer. The draft Management Policies would not change wilderness
studies or the protection of wilderness characteristics in areas
recommended for wilderness designation. They would change wilderness
management to the following limited extent, as explained in Section
6.3.1:
Lands that were originally deemed eligible [for wilderness
designation], but which were not included in the wilderness
recommendation sent to Congress, will no longer be managed
under the provisions of the [wilderness management] policies.
They will, however, be managed in accordance with the same high
standards to which all other NPS lands are managed. . . . The
National Park Service will take no action that would diminish
the wilderness eligibility of an area possessing wilderness
characteristics until the legislative process of wilderness
designation has been completed. For wilderness eligible and
study lands, no actions that would diminish the existing
character and values of the area will be taken.
Question 15. Is it true that the new policies diminish air quality
standards?
Answer. No. The draft polices at 4.7.1 continue to state that ``the
NPS has a responsibility to protect air quality under both the 1916
Organic Act and the Clean Air Act. . . . The Service will assume an
aggressive role in promoting and pursuing measures to protect these
values from adverse impacts of air pollution. In cases of doubt as to
impacts of existing or potential air pollution on park resources, the
Service will err on the side of protecting air quality and related
values for future generations.''
Question 16. Will the proposed policies expand hunting or
commercial grazing in park units?
Answer. No. Hunting and commercial grazing are uses of park
resources that only occur when authorized or mandated by Congress.
The only change made to commercial grazing at all was to clarify
that a number of park units have within their establishing legislation
or proclamations a specific provision authorizing or directing that
hunting or commercial grazing be allowed. In most cases, this is
because those activities were conducted within the area prior to
establishment as a park unit or were determined to be part of the
historic character of the park. The policies also clarify the
distinction between commercial grazing and the grazing of recreational
trail stock (e.g., stock use for authorized commercial horseback trips.
The draft policies do clarify that Congressionally authorized uses
require the NPS to ensure that these activities are appropriate uses
and the manager may limit or regulate these uses to protect park
resources consistent with the provisions of the enabling legislation.
Question 17. Will the proposed policies allow more commercial
operations inside parks?
Answer. No. Like the current policies, the draft management
policies reflect the applicable legal requirements. The development of
public accommodations, facilities and services in parks is generally
limited by statute to those services that are necessary and appropriate
for public use and enjoyment of the park unit in which they are
located. Various parks are developing commercial services plans with
public input, using best available science and other information in
order to determine the appropriate level of visitor services to be
provided by commercial services.
Question 18. Do the proposed policies replace evolution with
creationism?
Answer. No. The document maintains the long-standing NPS tradition
of commitment to science. Scholarship continues to serve as the basis
for decision making, and evolution is acknowledged as a biological
process present in parks.
Question 19. Do the proposed policies change the role of
superintendents in managing parks?
Answer. The superintendent's role is clarified and strengthened and
it continues to be the park superintendent's job to make decisions
about what uses may be allowed that will provide for enjoyment and
ensure that the resources are kept in as good a condition, or better,
for the enjoyment of present and future generations. The draft policies
provide clear guidance about what is entailed in determining
appropriate uses of parks and provide guidance on what is meant by the
phrase ``in the professional judgment'' of park managers. The draft
policies define ``professional judgment'' as a process that includes
consultation with resource professionals and subject matter experts,
best available science, civic engagement, public input, and cooperative
conservation. The draft policies encourage all superintendents to ask
the same questions, while recognizing that the answers will be unique
to particular resources.
Question 20. You stated in your testimony that development of new
technology has necessitated the need to revise the management policies.
a. Please explain the ``new technology'' that you claim requires
proposed changes.
b. Is any of this same technology utilized by the NPS in managing
the parks?
c. If so, provide examples.
d. Is there a need to expand application of new technologies within
parks?
Answer. It would be difficult to imagine that any government agency
could remain relevant and effective in the 21st century without
embracing new technologies. This is profoundly true within the NPS. The
draft management policies do not direct park mangers to utilize certain
technologies, but they do direct managers to embrace new science and
technology to resolve management issues and to assist in fulfilling our
mission. Park managers must also be aware of what new technologies do
to uses of the parks and both increasing and decreasing impacts on park
resources. For example, the draft policies encourage the use of
adaptive management to incorporate new technologies and scientific
advancements to test their efficacy and applicability in addressing
issues in areas such as visitor use and wildlife management. The
policies also direct managers to incorporate the use of best available
technology (BAT). Currently, park managers use the concept of BAT to
minimize the effects of certain methods of transportation, notably
snowmobiles and snowcoaches in Yellowstone National Park. As new
technologies such as four-stroke motors and quieter airplanes become
available, it is easy to imagine that park managers would incorporate
BAT to minimize adverse effects to park resources and values wherever
practicable and appropriate. The draft polices provide this forward
thinking guidance. New technologies also make possible richer visitor
experience; for example, new ski equipment has changed uses in Grand
Teton, cell phones have affected rescue operations at Denali, bicycles
have changed the use at Canyonlands, GPS has changed route-finding in
many parks, and hand-held audio devices have provided historic and
other narration in various park units. The use of new technologies, as
appropriate, is also consistent with other provisions in the policies,
such as Sec. 1.6, which continues to call for NPS to demonstrate
environmental leadership.
Question 21. The Organic Act of 1916 is the foundation for
operating the National Park System. The law is very direct in outlining
the Park Service's responsibilities and it is enforceable in court.
Page 6 of the proposed policies states that the policies, ``do not
create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at
law. . . .'' Why are the policies needed if they are not enforceable
and the law clearly states your responsibilities?
Answer. Management Policies are necessary to set the framework and
provide direction to NPS employees for making management decisions in
administration of the National Park System and NPS programs. They often
go beyond the text of the statutes and regulations on which they are
based to clarify and provide policy guidance in particular decision-
making situations where the law allows agency discretion. Contrary to
the premise of the question, the governing laws and regulations
(including the Organic Act of 1916) do not always provide clear
direction for a particular management decision. The courts have
recognized such ambiguities, and have also noted the broad discretion
afforded NPS in making various management decisions consistent with the
Organic Act. NPS Management Policies are thus an important tool that
encourages appropriate Service-wide consistency in administering NPS
units and programs. They are policy and not law, however, and while
adherence to Management Policies by NPS employees is generally binding
for internal management purposes only, the policies themselves address
a wide variety of situations, allowing waivers and modifications with
justification.
Question 22. Two years after the current policies were issued, NPS
Director Fran Mainella wrote to the House Resources Committee that she
had ``already begun a systematic review of the NPS Management Policies
of 2001,'' and that ``there may be some areas fin the 2001 policies)
that may be inconsistent with the President and the Secretary's
position regarding access to their National Parks.''
a. What areas of the 2001 policies are inconsistent with the
President's and the Secretary's position regarding access to their
National Parks?
b. How are they inconsistent?
c. What has been done in the 2005 document to correct each
inconsistency?
Answer. We have found that some who read the 2001 policies may get
the mistaken impression that the Service considers access for public
enjoyment a distant and secondary purpose of the parks. We have
therefore taken steps to make it clearer that the Service fully
embraces the ``enjoyment'' dimension of the Organic Act. We have also
rephrased some of the policies in subtle but important ways to replace
what had been a negative statement with a positive statement. This does
not mean that the substance of the policy has changed; it means that
policy is stated in a more positive way so that the reader will be less
likely to infer that the NPS is hostile toward public use and
enjoyment.
Question 23. There are many references to sustainability within
these policies that seem to equate to financing the NPS mission. Given
that we, Congress, provide the NPS funding through the appropriations
process, it could be thought of as usurping congressional powers.
Obviously this is not the intent. Nevertheless, a clear understanding
of sustainability needs to be established. Please explain.
Answer. The concept of sustainability is intended to address the
capacity of NPS to manage the resources--natural, cultural, human,
physical, fiscal--entrusted to the agency in a way that can be
supported over time. This includes better supported decisions that can
be sustained from a policy, a practice, financial soundness and good
scientific basis. Our conversations with members of our appropriations
committees and their staff indicate they expect us to focus on
sustainability and that NPS cannot make decisions that simply assume
future funding increases are always available to pay for its
undertakings. Thus, whether it is the out-year operational implications
of a newly constructed facility, or the short-term cost implications of
hiring a permanent rather than temporary employee to accomplish work,
the draft policies reinforce the need for managers to consider
sustainability. In other instances, sustainability is deployed in
facility design that incorporates low energy usage (such as light
fixtures that turn off after no motion in a room for a specified period
of time), enhanced use of recycled materials, passive heating, and
other similar design approaches that cause a facility to be more
``environmentally friendly''.
Question 24. On October 18 when the revised draft was released the
Park Service issued a press release stating that the revision to the
management policies was being undertaken ``in response to interest from
Congress,'' and that ``park managers had also urged revisions that
addressed the changing needs and circumstances of parks.''
a. What is the ``interest from Congress'' that the NPS is
responding to by changing the management policies.
b. What are the ``changing needs and circumstances of parks'' that
led park managers to urge revision to the policies?
c. Which specific parks have the most urgent and compelling need to
change the management policies and why?
Answer. Please refer to the responses to question 1.
Question 25. The press release also stated that ``nearly 100 NPS
career professionals were involved in drafting or reviewing the changes
over the past few months'': This equates to less than one third of the
managers responsible for implementing the management policies.
a. How many people in the NPS have planning and management
responsibilities?
Answer. The question appears to reference the number of park
superintendents and other upper level NPS managers. Although the
Federal Personnel and Payroll System (FPPS) indicates a total of more
than 3,000 supervisors, managers, and management officials in the NPS,
this total includes many people who do not carry out the level of
planning and management envisioned by the question. The actual number
would be much lower depending upon how planning and management
responsibilities are defined. Our practice is to prepare a draft
document, which is now available, and our intent has always been for
any interested staff to be able to comment once a draft document was
produced.
Question 25b. How many people were involved in the 2001 rewrite?
Answer. It is impossible to say, because the program managers who
provided most of the initial input were not asked to record the names
of all those with whom they consulted or who participated in various
work groups that were set up to focus on particular topics. Also, to
promote efficiency, many of the substantive suggestions for improvement
were consolidated by program managers and regional offices, without a
specific tally of the number of individuals who contributed. We would
estimate at least 300.
Question 25c. Please explain differences in the review processes
between the 2001 and 2005 management policies.
Answer. The 2001 process essentially began with publication in June
1998 of a notice of intent to update the 1988 edition of Management
Policies. The notice asked the public to review the 1988 document and
provide information or suggestions that the NPS should consider. NPS
program managers then produced draft revisions to the 1988 edition
which were circulated for internal NPS review and comment. NPS program
managers considered comments received from the internal review, and a
second draft was released for internal review and comment. Six months
later a third draft was released, for both internal and public review
and comment. In April of 2000, comments received were distributed to
NPS program managers for consideration. During this process, the NPS
was involved in an important lawsuit pertaining to the Organic Act's
prohibition of impairment. Personnel within the Assistant Secretary for
Fish and Wildlife and Parks' office participated extensively in
drafting the policy section relating to impairment. A final draft was
then prepared and underwent final review and editing by senior NPS and
DOI managers. The finished product was approved by the Director in
December 2000.
The 2005 process is just beginning. In July 2005, the Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks presented for NPS's
review his initial recommendations for updates to the policies. This
document served as a starting point for discussion. Starting with a
meeting of the National Leadership Council, consisting of approximately
20 senior NPS managers, NPS career employees were then assigned to
review and evaluate the 2001 Management Policies. At the same time,
they were asked to consider other revisions or additions that would
improve the policies from the NPS's perspective. For example, NPS staff
integrated the policy work that was already completed or underway on
topics such as civic engagement, park planning, and wilderness
stewardship. This career staff work resulted in the draft document that
was issued October 19 for review and comment by the public and by all
NPS employees.
The draft document that was released is by no means a final
product. We expect to receive additional input from hundreds of NPS
career staff who had not participated in the initial stages of this
process. We also expect to receive substantial input from the public.
When the comment period closes on February 18, the comments will be
reviewed, analyzed, and organized by NPS policy staff together with NPS
subject matter experts and other staff who participated in the initial
drafting process. Recommendations for how, or whether, the comments
necessitate refinements to the current draft will then be presented to
the senior leadership team to determine appropriate action. The final
draft will also undergo review by the NPS Advisory Board. In addition
to public review a final draft will undergo close review and final
editing by senior NPS and DOI managers as has been done with previous
policies. The new edition of Management Policies 2006 will be finalized
upon the Director's signature.
Question 26. The Organic Act states ``provide for'' enjoyment as
directing the NPS to allow recreation, there is no requirement to
``provide enjoyment'' the subtle word ``for'' is critically important.
Please show the Committee where the 1916 Organic Act ``requires''
visitor recreation.
Answer. The 1916 Organic Act does not ``require'' visitor
recreation as such, but it does state, as this question suggests, that
part of the fundamental purpose of park areas is ``to provide for the
enjoyment'' of park resources and values so as to leave these resources
and values unimpaired ``for the enjoyment'' of future generations. Our
current and draft Management Policies both note that ``[t]he
`enjoyment' that is contemplated by the statute is broad . . .,
includ[ing] enjoyment both by people who visit parks and by those who
appreciate them from afar . . . [and also including] deriving benefit
(including scientific knowledge) and inspiration from parks. . . .''
Of course, recreation is a form of enjoyment, and the NPS has
welcomed appropriate recreation in the parks from the earliest days.
Recreation in parks has a long history, dating back to the creation of
the earliest parks. The Organic Act, written in that context, clearly
considered enjoyment to encompass, where consistent with protection of
park resources, various forms of recreation. The 1925 management
policies, for example, stated that ``[a]ll outdoor sports within the
safeguards thrown around the national parks by law, should be heartily
endorsed and aided wherever possible. Mountain climbing, horseback
riding, walking, motoring, swimming, boating, and fishing will ever be
the favorite sports.''
The word ``recreation'' itself has a broad meaning, including
everything from quiet inspiration to thrill-seeking. Not all forms of
recreation will be appropriate uses in parks. Management Policies
provide guidance to managers on how to determine what types, levels,
and other specifics of visitor recreation are appropriate in the
various park units.
Question 27. You talk about ``enjoyment'' of the Parks as one of
the fundamental purposes of the National Park Service, but is enjoyment
to include something more than enjoyment of the natural wonders of the
Parks? In other words, enjoyment could include thrill riding on all-
terrain vehicles. Is that included in your concept of enjoyment which
is a fundamental purpose of the Park Service?
Answer. No. The 1916 Organic Act, as amended and supplemented,
states that part of the fundamental purpose of park areas is ``to
provide for the enjoyment'' of park resources and values so as to leave
these resources and values unimpaired ``for the enjoyment'' of future
generations. The governing park law thus contemplates a connection
between the enjoyment and the resources and values to be protected.
People do come to parks for a wide range of enjoyment. To be sure,
those who have climbed Denali or run the rapids of the Colorado River
in Grand Canyon have experienced a thrill. Visitors in the wilds of
Gates of the Arctic have experienced and enjoyed solitude, and those on
the National Mall or Independence Hall have experienced and enjoyed
history. To fully understand what is meant by the draft, please read
the Introduction, Chapter one and Chapter eight.
``Thrill-riding'' on all-terrain vehicles (ATV) would not seem to
have the appropriate connection with park resources and values,
although using an ATV, where authorized, to seek access to park
resources might, provided that unacceptable impacts do not occur. To
help the NPS manager make a decision about any proposed use, the draft
policies expand upon previous guidance in order to determine what
constitutes ``appropriate use'' of, and ``unacceptable impacts'' to,
parks.
Question 28. In numerous examples throughout the document, the
words ``The Service will'' have been replaced with ``The Service will
strive to''. It would seem that this change reduces the goal to making
an effort, rather than achieving a result. Does this imply that if the
NPS fails to maintain resource integrity it has not failed to adhere to
policy because it at least tried? Does this mean the NPS will reduce
its accountability to the American people because it at least tried?
Answer. No. This change will in no way reduce our commitment to
protect park resources or values, to maintain resource integrity, or to
be accountable to the American people. This choice of words is
basically a ``reality check,'' acknowledging that the goals that the
Service has set for itself may not always be totally achievable or
totally within the control of NPS. The term ``strive to'' is not new to
the draft policies; it appears 19 times in the 2001 edition and has
never before been the basis for challenging the Service's commitment to
fulfill its mission.
Question 29. In your proposed new definition of impairment, you
require that an impact be ``significant'' to constitute impairment.
Previously, impairment was considered to be any impact that in the
professional judgment of the responsible National Park Service manager
would harm the integrity of Park resources or values. How do you
explain the addition of the requirement that the impact be
``significant'' if it is not intended to reduce protection for
resources and values?
Answer. This was an attempt to bring clarity to the definition of
impairment. We have not, in any way, diminished the standard. The NPS
still considers any action that would harm the integrity of park
resources or values to be impairment. An impact that harms the
integrity of park resources or values would be significant. We will be
carefully considering the comments submitted from both the public and
internal sources to see if changes in the proposed definition are
necessary.
Question 30. What is the difference between ``significant'' and
``adverse''? Which is harder to demonstrate? (Significant appears to
require 2 tests--one to determine if the impact is adverse and one to
determine if the impact is significant) Why does an impact have to be
significant if it is adverse? Can you give me examples of adverse
impacts that would not be significant?
Answer. ``Adverse'' means unfavorable, undesirable, negative, or
harmful. ``Significant'' means important or of consequence. As used in
the context of the Management Policies, adverse impacts are a sometimes
inevitable result of visitor activities or park management activities.
For example, creating a trail, clearing a scenic overlook, or allowing
visitors to consume wild berries would produce adverse impacts on park
resources. But we often pursue or allow these types of activities
because they help us achieve our broader goals and, relatively
speaking, the impacts are not of great consequence. However, given
different circumstances the impacts could be much greater. For example,
if the trail were created through highly erodable soils, or if the
vegetation cleared from the overlook exposed a sensitive archeological
site, or if the wild berries were an important food source for a
particular bird species, then the impacts might be significant and we
would look for ways to avoid or mitigate the impacts, or refrain from
undertaking the activity. These nuances are sometimes difficult to
discern and to articulate. That is one reason why the draft revisions
call for a determination by park managers whether ``unacceptable
impacts'' will result from an action rather than simply the existence
of ``adverse impacts''.
Question 31. The reference sections throughout the draft seem to
refer back to the 2001 Management Policies. Will these be included to
add further clarification back to the 2001 Management Policies or will
they be updated to refer to the current draft?
Answer. They will be updated to refer to the current draft.
Question 32. Park managers utilize the ``Superintendent's
Compendium'' as a very effective means to insure that management
policies are implemented at each unit throughout the NPS.
a. How does the compendium relate to the Management Policies and
fit in to the Law, Policy and Other Guidance section within the preface
of the document?
Answer. As authorized by regulation (36 C.F.R. 1.5, 1.7), the
Superintendent's Compendium is a written compilation of decisions made
under the Superintendent's discretionary authority affecting operations
at that park. The decisions contained in the Superintendent's
Compendium first and foremost must comply with the applicable statutory
and regulatory provisions involved, and secondarily to the Management
Policies.
Question 32b. Why is there no reference to it?
Answer. The Superintendent's Compendium is a mechanism to implement
legal and policy decisions. Its use is described in regulation, and NPS
has not seen a need to discuss it in Management Policies to date.
Question 33. The 2001 Management Policies included a strong
statement on how park managers should manage visitor use demands
regarding resource protection:
``Congress, recognizing that the enjoyment by future
generations of the national parks can be ensured only if the
superb quality of park resources and values is left unimpaired,
has provided when there is a conflict between conserving
resources and values and providing for enjoyment of them,
conservation is to be predominant.'' (2001 NPS Management
Policies, at 12.)
This directive has been removed in the revised draft. New language
has been added which states:
``The impairment of park resources and values may not be
allowed by the [Park] Service unless directly and specifically
provided for by legislation or by the proclamation establishing
the park . . . The impairment that is prohibited by the Organic
Act and the General Authorities Act is a significant impact
that, in the professional judgment of the responsible NPS
manager, would otherwise harm the integrity of park resources
and values, including the opportunities that would otherwise be
present for the enjoyment of those resources and values.''
(2005 Draft NPS Management Policies, at 1-18.)
a. What difficulties have park managers encountered in the course
of managing parks under the 2001 language?
Answer. The observation noted above is incorrect in that the ``new
language'' is not new; it is carried forward verbatim (except for the
insertion of the word ``significant,'' as explained in the answer to
question 29, above) from Section 1.4.4 of the 2001 edition of
Management Policies. It is accurate, however, that the previously
quoted material (from Section 1.4.3) has been removed in the revised
draft. The wording that was substituted says ``Because the enjoyment of
park resources and values by present and future generations is
dependent on their preservation, when there are concerns as to whether
an activity will cause an impairment, the Service will protect the
resources while taking appropriate steps, including scientific study
and public involvement, to resolve the concerns.''
Superintendents often face difficult decisions about activities in
parks. The draft policies provide greater explanation of what
constitutes an ``appropriate use'' of parks and what impacts are
``unacceptable.'' For the reasons stated in many of the above
questions, we strongly believe that the tools contained in the draft
policies will enable managers to make more informed and thus better
decisions in the future. The draft policies establish a process for
park managers to apply the conservation principles underlying the
Organic Act in order to make future decisions that are well reasoned
and understandable and not considered arbitrary and capricious.
Question 33b. What activities will be allowed under the 2005
language that would not have been allowed under the 2001 language?
Answer. We are not aware of any activities that would be allowed
under the new language that would not have been allowed under the 2001
language. However, the intent of some of the edits to the policies is
to ensure that NPS decision makers (whether at the park, regional, or
headquarters level) give thoughtful consideration to proposed new
activities and be prepared to explain why an activity would, or would
not, be allowed. This change is a reflection of our goal to improve
what some readers have considered a ``negative tone,'' and to more
constructively communicate with all those who would find the parks a
source of enjoyment. By more constructively communicating with visitors
(or potential visitors), NPS managers will better understand the
viewpoints of others and have the opportunity to better communicate the
NPS mission to them. It is possible that improved communication would
result in new activities being allowed through creative management
solutions. But any decision to authorize an activity would be subject
to the stringent criteria for ``appropriate use'' and ``unacceptable
impacts.''
Question 34. Do you feel the changes in the key section 1.4.3 (the
NPS obligation to conserve resources) would in any way compromise our
parks?
Answer. No, as stated in several answers above, the changes made to
Section 1.4.3 of the draft policies were intended to clarify and to
improve the overall tone of the document and to assist decision-making.
The NPS remains committed to the protection of park resources and
values and when there is a conflict between conserving park resources
and values and providing for the enjoyment of them, conservation of the
resources will continue to prevail.
Question 35. Section 2 includes a quote. Why is a quote at the
beginning of Section 2 and no others? Should the quote be removed to
improve consistency?
Answer. Chapter 2 addresses the topic of park planning. Park
planning is a vitally important activity because it is the mechanism by
which the NPS, following extensive input from the public, articulates a
vision for each park's future. Planning is at the crossroads where the
Service's responsibility to conserve park resources and values must be
reconciled with the ways and means by which this and future generations
will be able to enjoy those resources and values. As was stated in the
1988 edition of Management Policies, ``There will inevitably be some
tension between conservation of resources on the one hand and public
enjoyment on the other. The National Park Service is charged with the
difficult task of achieving both.'' We have found that some who read
the 2001 policies may get the mistaken impression that the Service
considers public enjoyment a distant and secondary purpose of the
parks. We have therefore taken steps to make it clearer that the
Service fully embraces the ``enjoyment'' provision of the Organic Act.
One of those steps was to include the quoted material as a reminder to
not lose sight of the fact that the fundamental purpose of all parks
includes providing for the enjoyment of park resources and values by
the people of the United States: Including the quote does not create a
consistency problem. If we were to come upon equally appropriate quotes
for other chapters, we would be happy to consider them, as well.
Question 36. Section 2 includes a time frame for General Management
Plans. Why are there no time frame references for other plans? Please
include time frames for all referenced plans.
Answer. Although Congress has directed the preparation of general
management plans (GMPs) within a certain timeframe in the establishing
legislation for some parks, Congress has not generally prescribed a
specific interval for updating GMPs but has left it to the Service to
ensure that they are prepared and updated ``in a timely manner.'' 16
U.S.C. Sec. 1a-7(b). Updates of GMPs are usually needed every 10-15
years to ensure that they are current, but if conditions around the
park are changing rapidly, updates may be needed more often. These are
broad plans that set overall park direction in terms of management
zoning and desired condition statements. Other park plans tier from the
park's GMP.
Program management plans, which provide a bridge between GMP's and
more specific strategic or implementation plans, are generally reviewed
every 5-10 years to ensure currency.
Strategic plans are prepared every three years and their associated
annual performance plans are prepared every year. These plans provide 5
year and 1 year performance goals to implement the park's GMP and
program plans.
Timeframes for preparing implementation plans vary considerably,
depending on the nature of the plans and the circumstances relevant to
the particular park units. Generally, these plans are short-term and
may be valid for a few years, or until implemented. These are the plans
that provide the specific actions to implement the GMP desired
conditions and the strategic plan goals.
Question 37. In Sec. 4.4.2.2 the Restoration of Native Plant and
Animal Species, you have added a criterion to read, ``The impacts on
park management including the opportunities for enjoyment of park
resources and values have been carefully considered.'' With that new
proviso, could that have prevented the reintroduction of wolves into
Yellowstone National Park?
Answer. No. Given that opportunity for enjoyment of park resources
and values depends on park natural resources ideally being in an intact
condition of integrity, restoring an extirpated species moves a park
closer to integrity and therefore improves the opportunity for
enjoyment. Therefore, while not necessary for the decision to restore
the wolf to Yellowstone, assessing the impact of restoration on
enjoyment, if done objectively, would actually support the decision to
reintroduce wolves rather than prevent it. The interest of so many
visitors to Yellowstone in viewing wolves demonstrates the importance
of this component of ecological integrity to enjoyment of the park.
Question 38. Section 4 of the current policies describe ``scenic
views'' as a ``highly valued'' feature of the parks, but the redraft
deletes the term ``highly valued.'' Congress established that scenic
views in the parks are highly valued by enacting the 1977 Clean Air
Act, which establishes the national goal of preventing future, and
remedying existing, impairment of visibility in national parks and
wilderness areas by manmade pollution. Unfortunately, many parks remain
shrouded in haze, and even if current laws are fully enforced, scenic
views will not be fully restored until 2064.
a. Given the national goal of eliminating visibility impairment in
the parks, and given the decades of concerted effort it will take to
achieve that goal, why has the Department devalued scenic views in the
policy redraft?
Answer. The Department has not devalued scenic values. The Air
Quality section makes it clear that the Service will ``seek to
perpetuate the best possible air quality in parks to protect: . . .
scenic vistas. . . .''. Furthermore, we can assure you that we are
strongly committed to protecting scenic views and will continue to work
with State, federal and Tribal regulators, as well as the public, to
achieve the Clean Air Act's visibility goals.
Question 38b. Shouldn't the Department instead be strengthening the
policies to provide even greater protection of scenic views in the
parks?
Answer. We did not intend the draft policies to cause diminution in
the ability of visitors to enjoy the parks. Management Policies provide
appropriate actions for NPS to take to encourage relevant decision-
makers in other organizations to take necessary steps to protect scenic
views in parks. The draft policies text properly reflects the NPS's
commitment to protecting scenic views and to continue the NPS's work
with State, federal, and Tribal regulators, as well as stakeholders, to
achieve the Clean Air Act's visibility goals.
Question 39. Section 4 of the current policies includes ``clear
skies'' among the core physical resources of the parks to be protected,
but the redraft demotes ``clear skies'' to an ``associated
characteristic,'' a term that is not defined or used elsewhere in the
policies.
a. Why is pollution free air not as essential to the parks as
unspoiled water, soils, topographic features, geologic features, and
paleontological resources, all of which remain among the core physical
resources of the parks?
Answer. Pollution free air is absolutely essential and as important
as other park resources and values. The draft policies recognize
``air'' as a physical resource, and ``clear skies'' as an associated
characteristic, and both are to be preserved in an unimpaired
condition. Clean air and clear skies are needed to maintain the
ecological integrity of parks, reduce impacts to cultural resources of
parks, and ensure effective enjoyment of parks.
Question 39b. Does an ``associated characteristic'' get less
protection than a physical resource?
Answer. No. The draft policy revisions indicate that the
``associated characteristics'' will be preserved as part of the natural
resources, processes, systems, and values of parks. Achieving pollution
free air, however, requires cooperation among a large number of
entities. The Management Policies mention both air as a resource and
clear skies as an associated characteristic. The Clean Air Act refers
to ``air quality and air quality related values'' (such as visibility).
Question 40. In the air resource management section of the current
policies (4.7.1), the Park Service is directed to seek the modification
or denial of any permit for a facility that would harm park air
quality. In the redraft, the Service is directed to first work
cooperatively with permitting authorities to seek ``technological
solutions'' that would eliminate harmful impacts on park air quality,
and to seek modification or denial of a permit only if cooperation
fails to eliminate the impact.
a. What sort of technological solutions are contemplated by this
new language?
Answer. Technological solutions include emission control
technology, pollution prevention techniques, and operational practices
which guarantee protection. The Clean Air Act requires new facilities
to install the ``best available control technology,'' but permit
applicants and permitting authorities take a number of factors into
account in determining what is ``best.''
Question 40b. Does the Park Service have the budget, expertise and
authority to make and enforce judgments about complex technological
solutions at various facilities necessary to eliminate adverse impacts
on park air quality?
Answer. The National Park Service Air Resources Division has the
technical expertise to evaluate and suggest viable technological
solutions and associated emission rates, in large part because the
office reviews permit applications from all over the country and keeps
abreast of the state of the art. For years, the NPS Air Resources
Division has been able to suggest new pollution control technologies
that may not have been chosen by permit applicants for one reason or
another. Where there is an emission control technology or less
polluting fuel that could be practical to implement, we suggest it.
Another means of reducing pollution near parks is by trading emission
credits to reduce the pollution impacting parks. However, we have no
enforcement authority except to ask that the permitting authority
consider our comments.
Question 40c. Does the directive that the Park Service ``work
cooperatively'' with permitting authorities diminish or weaken its role
in defending the parks?
Answer. No, it strengthens it. We have always worked cooperatively
with permitting authorities to secure the best possible protection of
park air quality and related values (including visibility). We are able
to resolve our concerns in this way the vast majority of the time.
Occasionally we have issued ``adverse impact'' findings, which often
encourage the permitting authorities to enter into a dialog with us to
resolve concerns.
Question 40d. Why only permitting authorities, and why not also the
public at large?
Answer. Our communications with permitting authorities, as well as
other data and information about air quality in parks are often of a
highly technical nature and publicly available through the internet. We
share information and correspondence, and work closely with the public,
but we must work closely, often in a technical context, with the
permitting authorities.
Question 40e. Why is this ``associated characteristic'' not
defined?
Answer. The draft policy revisions indicate that ``associated
characteristics'' will be preserved as part of the natural resources,
processes, systems, and values of parks. We will carefully consider
whether additional definition will make this an important factor more
clearly understood.
Question 41. In section 4 of the policy redraft, the term ``natural
condition'' is redefined to include some human impacts on park
resources like air quality. The Clean Air Act and EPA regulations
require that air quality in Class I national parks be returned to
natural visibility conditions, which according to EPA, means no man-
made air pollution impacts on visibility.
a. Would the redefinition of ``natural condition'' allow the Park
Service, EPA or the states to maintain that natural visibility
condition in the parks including some level of man-made pollution?
Answer. No. The Clean Air Act establishes the national goal of no
man-made visibility impairment in Class I areas. Regulations
promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) define
``visibility impairment'' and ``natural conditions'' in a way that does
not allow man-made pollution. States (and Tribes, if they choose) are
required to develop plans that will make reasonable progress toward the
national goal. The NPS policies will be interpreted in a manner
consistent with EPA's definition.
Question 41b. Would the redefinition of ``natural condition'' mean
that some level of impairment of air quality by man-made pollution will
be tolerated by the Department?
Answer. No. The Department interprets the NPS Management Policies
as consistent with statutory and regulatory definitions, and in concert
with the process established by EPA to make reasonable progress toward
natural conditions.
Question 42. While the draft revision does note in Chapter 1 that
the words ``protect, preserve and conserve'' are used interchangeably,
it appears that selective deletions of the word ``preserve'' did occur.
This draft still uses ``preserve'' in a number of instances. It notes
that in Chapter 4, that ``Thermal resources in units of the national
park system will be protected, preserved, and managed as a critical
component of the units' natural resource systems. . . .'' And that
``The Service will actively seek to understand and preserve the soil
resources of parks, and to prevent, to the extent possible (instead of
``practicable''), the unnatural erosion . . .'' ``Preserve'' also
remains in the sections related to geological resources, geological
hazards, and paleontogical resources. ``Preserve'' and the act of
preservation connote a proactive stance towards park resources, whereas
``protect'' and ``restore'' have a more defensive and reactive tone.
But while the term ``preserve'' appears in those aforementioned
sections in 2001 and in the draft revision, it's absent now from the
section on soundscapes. In 2001, the management policies referring to
park soundscapes (4.9) began with the sentence ``The National Park
Service will preserve, to the greatest extent possible, the natural
soundscapes of parks.'' Those policies also stated that the Park
Service ``will protect the degradation of soundscapes due to noise
(undesirable human-caused sound).'' That initial sentence which set a
goal of preservation of natural soundscapes is missing from the new
draft, and the phrase regarding `protection of degradation of
soundscapes' now modifies noise with the adjective ``unacceptable.''
The natural soundscapes of parks seem to be one of the resources and
values that genuinely make some of these places unique. And protection
of park soundscapes underlies some of the most controversial issues
that the Park Service has dealt with in recent years, such as jet ski
use and commercial air tour overflights. Why then does this draft
revision of the management policies omit the goal of preservation with
regard to natural soundscapes?
Answer. The draft policies recognize sound as a natural resource
and natural soundscape as an associated characteristic. Natural sound
clearly cannot be protected if the soundscape of which it is a part is
not protected. While the words ``protect,'' ``preserve,'' and
``conserve'' can have different connotations for different readers, the
proposed policies state at the outset that these three words have
``interchangeable'' (by which we meant ``synonymous'' or ``identical'')
meanings for the purposes of the policies. Therefore, with respect to
natural sound and the soundscape, the proposed policies call for
preventing or minimizing unacceptable impacts to this natural resource.
Although the words ``undesirable'' and ``unacceptable'' have different
levels of intensity, in both cases with respect to soundscapes, the
policy direction is to prevent the intrusion of those noises caused by
humans that either would disrupt the natural processes mediated by the
natural soundscape or reduce the levels of enjoyment experienced by
park visitors. The soundscape policy has been modified to better
reflect the diversity of the NPS system which in addition to many
natural parks includes sites such as the New Orleans Jazz National
Historical Park, the George Washington Memorial Parkway, and numerous
urban sites for which it would be virtually impossible to minimize or
eliminate human-caused sounds.
Question 43. These proposed policies claim that they would hold
individual park managers to be responsible for implementing these
policies yet the requirement that cultural resource personnel should
keep current with scholarship and scientific research is deleted.
Keeping up with current scholarship and research helps to ensure the
integrity of our parks. Please explain this omission.
Answer. We agree entirely with the premise of this question but
highlighting the need for training for only selected personnel was
construed by some to imply that other career disciplines were less
important. For that reason we added a new section 1.7.5.1--Career
Development, Training and Management, to cover training and development
for all employees.
Question 44. Why has the Park Service decided to eliminate the
reference to the Interpretive Competencies and Skills certification
program that is an important tool in developing the professional
interpretive skills of park and concessionaire naturalists? (7.4) Is
this Certification program being phased out?
Answer. There are no plans to phase out the Interpretive
Competencies and Skills certification program. However, highlighting
the need for training for only selected personnel was construed by some
to imply that other career disciplines were less important. For that
reason we added a new section 1.7.5.1--Career Development, Training and
Management, to cover training and development for all employees.
Question 45. In Sec. 7.4.8, a reference to military battle re-
enactments and the related memorial qualities was removed. The NPS
maintains world renowned and revered examples of military strategy and
the tragic events that led to substantial loss of human life. Will this
omission potentially compromise that reputation?
Answer. Absolutely not. The policy remains the same. The only
change is to the explanation for why we have the policy.
Question 46. In the draft revision of the management policies, a
new sentence has been added to the section concerning airports and
landing sites (8.4.8). It says that ``Fully functional, efficient, and
safe operation of airports is important to providing visitors
opportunities to use and enjoy their parks.'' That sentence now begins
that paragraph which still states at its end that ``Whether landing
sites or airports are situated within or adjacent to parks, the
objective will be to minimize noise and other impacts, and confine them
to the smallest and most appropriate portion of the park as possible,
consistent with safe aircraft operations.'' I understand that there are
a few airports in parks, such as Cape Cod National Seashore and Grand
Teton National Park. There are air strips in some parks, like in
Alaska, and helipads, for search and rescue and fire operations. And,
the function, efficiency and safety of airports falls mainly to the FAA
and state transportation agencies. If the Park Service's mission is to
conserve resources, such as natural soundscapes, unimpaired, for the
enjoyment of future generations, why would you give park managers
instructions tying ``fully functional and efficient'' operation of
airports to visitor enjoyment?
Answer. The NPS and the FAA have joint responsibilities for
operations for airports on NPS lands. The FAA is responsible for safe
air operations in United States airspace. The NPS is responsible for
protecting the resources of the park according to the Organic Act and
the specific park enabling legislation. The language change in the
current draft policies was for clarification and does not alter the
ongoing relationship or responsibilities of the two parties. The NPS
will continue to use its designated authorities to ensure that the
airport and related operations maintain the smallest possible footprint
in the park and that the flight paths and noise levels do not have
unacceptable impacts on park resources.
Question 47. Section 8.6.4.4, refers to gas pipelines. This seems
out of place given the section is entitled Roads and Highways. Please
correct.
Answer. The reference to gas pipelines is the same as the language
contained in the 2001 Management Policies, and is intended only to
provide information relating to the absence of statutory requirements
for right of ways on non-NPS roads and gas pipelines.
Question 48. In Sec. 8.6.8.3, Management Plans for Agricultural
Grazing, you have revised the guidance from ``will'' to ``should'' in
the preparation of livestock management plans. It would seem that
livestock management plans are essential in order to protect park
resources; the failure to develop a livestock management plan at
Dinosaur National Monument resulted in extreme livestock damage to
sensitive areas of that park. Can you please explain the reasoning
behind lessening this requirement for action?
Answer. Planning is essential for agricultural livestock grazing.
In some parks, that planning may be best accomplished by a stand-alone
Livestock Management Plan. But in others, the planning may be equally
well addressed in another park planning document such as a Resource
Stewardship Plan. This planning may also be done in a combination of
related plans, such as an Invasive Species Management Plan to address
weeds and insect pests associated with agricultural grazing, and
Vegetation Management Plans to address stocking rates and pasture
rotation schedules.
The mere existence of a plan, unfortunately, does not guarantee
protection of the resource. It is unlikely that a livestock management
plan at Dinosaur would have altered the incident referenced in the
question. By spreading responsibility for livestock grazing management
across multiple work disciplines (natural and cultural resource
management, facilities, visitor use, and resource protection), the
result should be greater, not lessened, success in agricultural
livestock grazing management and resource protection.
Question 49. The glossary does not include definitions for three
key terms impairment, appropriateness, and unacceptable impact. Given
that the document is to provide clarity for park managers all three of
these terms should be included. Please explain.
Answer. These important terms are defined in the Introduction so
they would be understood prior to reading the document. However, to
improve clarity we will also include these definitions in the Glossary.
Question 50. The NPS Pacific West Regional Director prepared a memo
in response to the initial policy document
a. Please provide a copy of the memo.
b. Indicate how the draft management policies were revised to
address each of the concerns pointed out in the memo.
c. Indicate how the draft management policies were revised to
address each of the concerns pointed out in the memo.
Answer. The referenced memo was an internal response to an initial
internal draft document and in some instances may not have accurately
portrayed the intentions of that internal draft. This was an
appropriate part of the internal discussions that led to the draft NPS
policies that are now available for public comment. Each of the 13
specific concerns in the memo was addressed during this process. The
Pacific West Regional Director was an active participant in that
process and in a subsequent communication with park superintendents, he
indicated his belief that the current version ``is much more consistent
with the 2001 Management Policies with the updates about wilderness
stewardship, partnerships and sustainability, and greater emphasis on
defining `appropriate uses' in parks.'' Copies of the memo and
subsequent communication are attached.
Because these documents are important to the United States in
ongoing matters, we advise you that, although we are making it
available for Committee staff review, 1) we do not waive any privileges
or exemptions from disclosure that are attached to it [see Attachments
1 & 2]; 2) we are making it available pursuant to the Committee's
request; and 3) we are making it available at this time only to the
Committee for use by the Committee for its legitimate legislative
functions. We expect that Committee staff will treat information
derived from the review as confidential and take all reasonable steps
to ensure preservation of the government's privileges.
Question 51. Management Policies have been in place throughout the
history of the NPS dating to 1918, and in their current incarnation
since 1975, with three subsequent revisions in 1988, 2001 and the
current draft. With this in mind;
a. What type of disciplinary or corrective action does the NPS take
when employees fail to follow the Management Policies?
b. Is it noted in their personnel file?
c. What impact does it have on the employee's career?
Answer. The appropriate corrective action would be taken depending
on the circumstances.
Question 52. It is anticipated that some sort of training or
briefings will be needed to fully inform National Park Service
employees of the new policies.
a. What is the implementation strategy for the new management
policies?
Answer. As is the case with all NPS policy, managers and
supervisors are responsible for being aware of Management Policies and
ensuring that their employees are, as well. Information contained in
the Management Policies will continue to be distributed through ongoing
training and normal information distribution practices.
Question 52b. What type and how many workshops or other events do
you intend to conduct to train Park Service personnel on the
interpretation and implementation of the proposed policies?
Answer. Teaching the policies will be and has been an important
aspect of our strategy. We would expect to integrate policy awareness
into the ongoing, routine activities of the Service (such as regional
superintendents' conferences, in-park meetings, and the Servicewide
employee development program). Also, the NPS Fundamentals II class
schedule is already underway for FY 06, with a dozen or more classes
planned. Additional classes, meetings, etc. that have already been
planned will include training on Management Policies, as appropriate.
This type of training is ongoing within the NPS, and entails no new
procedures or requirements. Those who are familiar with the 2001
policies will see that there are few substantive changes, and those who
would be most affected by them will have participated in the review and
comment process on the current draft policies. Otherwise, the
substantive differences can easily be addressed in summary documents,
and training can occur at any level that is appropriate in the
organization. The best source of training for employees will be for
them to read the document. For the most part, the document is self-
explanatory.
Question 52c. How will this impact your current budget for training
and travel?
Answer. No additional travel expenditures are anticipated for
training, as the training (materials, subjects, information) will be
modified, as needed, to cover the new policies within previously
planned training programs. Relatively minor additional expenditures may
be necessary for printing the new document or producing it on CD-Rom
when finalized and approved after the comment and review process has
been completed, but those costs are not expected to impact other
programs.
Question 53. On October 11, 2005, the NPS Director distributed a
memo to the National Leadership Council entitled Revised Procedures for
GS-13, GS-14, and GS-15 Selections for review and comment.
a. What led to the development of this memo?
b. For the record, please provide a list of ``Key Leadership
Positions'' for which the Director intends to apply the proposed
procedures?
c. As described in the memo, will the 4-Cs and the President's
management agenda be incorporated into position descriptions for those
``Key Leadership Positions''?
Answer. The memo was developed to provide guidance considering the
hiring review process for key leadership positions in the NPS. As all
of the Regional Directors have been appointed since the last similar
guidance was distributed, the timing of such a memo was appropriate.
Upon review, we believed that the memo could have been more clearly
written. A new memo, prepared in consultation with the National
Leadership Council, has been distributed. A copy of the new memo is
attached which reflects the types of positions that are covered and the
expectations that are necessary for those in leadership positions. [See
Attachment 3]
Question 54. Draft Director's Order 21 was released for public
comment on October 5, 2005.
a. What type of fund-raising activities does the proposed DO-21
allow Regional Directors and Superintendents to perform that they
cannot engage in at this time?
Answer. Currently, Regional Directors and Superintendents do not
have the authority to be involved in raising funds with our partners
yet many of them attend fundraising functions with partners and provide
input relative to projects and related fundraising being proposed. Some
of this activity could be viewed as bordering on fundraising. The draft
Director's Order #21 makes it clear that ``it is the policy of the NPS
to work primarily through its partners for fundraising.'' NPS employees
are expected to develop and maintain professional relationships with
these partners based on mutual understanding of the goals and functions
of both parties.
It is not the intent of the draft Director's Order #21 to imply
that senior managers should or would be authorized to regularly solicit
donations as part of their job: ``NPS will authorize direct
solicitations by NPS employees to such third parties only in limited
circumstances.'' The policy is intended to provide authorized officials
the latitude to work in partnership with our friends' organizations
when and if the need arises, much as they have been doing without
explicit provisions addressing such activities. The authority to
actually solicit donations is intended to be granted only sparingly,
and then only after review and approval by not only the Regional
Director but also the Associate Director for partnership activities and
the Office of the Solicitor.
We intend that fundraising agreements between the Service and its
non-profit partners will make clear all aspects of the superintendent's
role in any fundraising effort. Generally, such agreement language
would most likely state that the superintendent is to support the
effort of the partner, express the park's desire to see the project
funded, and in certain instances may accompany a board member or
volunteer campaign committee member on major gift solicitations or to
fundraising events. The agreement would also indicate when or establish
a process if it is anticipated that a superintendent would co-sign an
appeal letter or otherwise promote the non-profit partner's fundraising
campaign.
Question 54b. How much has the National Park Service collected from
donors during each of the past 5 years?
Answer. The General Accounting (now Accountability) Office, in July
2003, reported that the NPS had 150 Friends Groups (not including the
National Park Foundation or our Cooperating Associations) serving 160
parks, donating $17 million annually. Under the existing version of
Director's Order #21, the NPS did not impose a standardized reporting
system for tracking contributions to the NPS. The revised Director's
Order #21 requires that such a tracking system be established and the
Friends Groups are aware that such a system is both desired and needed
by the Service.
Donations to the NPS come in many forms and have therefore been
difficult to track on a consistent basis. The NPS has just developed an
annual, uniform reporting system that will track donations by
cooperating associations to the bureau. It is likely that a similar
type of system will be instituted with Friends Groups.
Utilizing the existing NPS financial systems, the annual total
contributions received in NPS donation accounts over the past five
years were as follows:
FY 2001: $27,536,965
FY 2002: $15,239,199
FY 2003: $28,966,193
FY 2004: $19,409,761
FY 2005: $27,605,055
Question 54c. Do you expect to increase the NPS fund raising
capability as a result of the new Director's Order?
Answer. The NPS's philanthropic partners have complained since
Director's Order #21 was first written that its language was largely
negative and not conducive to creating an environment in which they
could optimally fundraise on behalf of the National Park Service. The
revised Director's Order was written with many of their concerns in
mind and in the hope that the provisions of the new Director's Order
will enhance their activities. The improved tone of the document, the
clarification of roles of both the NPS and our partners and the degree
to which expectations between the bureau and our partners are
delineated are expected to help our partners to solidify their highly
valued role in supporting the mission of the NPS. Although the public
comment period is still under way, based on their previous comments to
us over the past several years we believe that the revised Director's
Order #21 will create a more positive environment for attracting
potential donors.
Question 54d. If so, what percentage increase do you anticipate
annually?
Answer. We do not at this time have a sense of whether there will
be an immediate increase in donations to the NPS or to NPS fundraising
partners. We have been told by our fundraising partners that an
improved Director's Order #21 has the potential to make their job a
great deal easier in fundraising on behalf of the National Park
Service.
Question 54e. Within the past fiscal year how much time has the NPS
Directorate dedicated to pursuing solicitations?
Answer. Under the Department's previous interpretation of NPS
donation authority, solicitation by Departmental officials for NPS was
limited to that incidental fundraising on behalf of the National Park
Foundation (NPF). By Congressional mandate, the Director serves as
Secretary of the NPF Board of Directors and assists the Foundation in
their fundraising efforts by providing policy guidance, technical
assistance and occasionally contact information. Within the past year,
the NPF has entered into its first formal fundraising agreement with
the NPS to help raise $10 million for the Junior Ranger Program. The
Director has participated in planning meetings and social events
leading up to requests for funding by the Board of Directors and staff.
To our best knowledge, the Deputy Directors have not participated
in solicitation of any type in the last fiscal year.
Responses of the National Park Service to Questions From
Senator Bingaman
Question 1. Can you please provide me with specific examples
(including affected park units) where you think visitor access to
national parks or recreational activities have been improperly denied
or restricted as a result of the current management policies?
Answer. We have no specific examples of where visitor access has
been improperly denied because of the Management Policies. However, it
is important that the policies more clearly reflect our intention that
requests for use of the parks be given full and thoughtful
consideration before a decision is made to deny them. There will be
some proposed uses that are inappropriate and should be denied. But the
decision to do so should be carefully thought out and explained. One of
the purposes of the draft policies is to ensure that new activities,
that do not cause impairment, will be considered as appropriate uses.
Question 2. Along with Director Mainella, you sent out a memo to
all Park Service employees on September 1, 2005 which began, ``in
response to a request by Congress, we are currently reviewing the NPS
Management Policies.'' Can you please tell me what is the
``Congressional request'' you are referring to? Is there legislative
language or committee report language directing such a review? Is the
``request by Congress'' the primary reason the policies are being
revised?
Answer. Please see response to question 1 on page 1.
Question 3. Specifically with reference to the issue of resource
protection and visitor recreation needs, can you tell me what has
changed since the current policies were issued that requires such a
significant revision?
Answer. In light of the Congressional requests noted above, and
believing that greater clarity could be developed, we believe that it
was appropriate to issue the draft policies for comment. On the issue
of resource protection and visitor recreation needs, some draft changes
in text reflect an effort to recognize the commitment to resource
protection and visitor enjoyment contained in the Organic Act. As
indicated in earlier questions, we do not believe that the draft
policies represent a fundamental change in the substance of the NPS'
conservation mission. There are new laws, executive orders, and
regulations that impact park management since the policies were last
updated in 2001. NPS has increased responsibilities for homeland
security, such as protecting national icons against attack. There have
also been changes in the demographics of visitors, rapid population
growth around parks, improvements in technology that provide new ways
to enjoy parks or reduce adverse impacts on resources, and a new focus
on civic engagement and cooperative conservation. These changes,
combined with expectations from Members of Congress, prompted the
review and update of the management policies.
Question 4. Section 8.2.3 of the current policies states that ``the
Service will strive to preserve or restore the natural quiet and
natural sounds associated with the physical and biological resources of
parks.'' The section further provides that ``[w]here such use is
necessary and appropriate, the least impacting equipment, vehicles, and
transportation systems should be used, consistent with public and
employee safety.'' This language has been removed in the proposed
revision, which instead states ``there are many forms of motorized
equipment and mechanized modes of travel, and improved technology has
increased their frequency of use.'' Please explain the problem with the
existing motorized equipment language and why the new language is an
improvement.
Answer. The language above does not quote the policy at 8.2.3 in
its entirety. Section 8.2.3 continues with: ``the management of these
uses requires effective monitoring of resources and visitor experiences
. . . uses and impacts associated with the use of motorized equipment
will be addressed in park planning processes.'' In addition, at 8.1.2
the policies state: ``the Service will consider using the best
management tool or tools for the particular situation.'' These
statements are intended to provide managers with the flexibility to
determine the types of use and levels of use that are appropriate for
the individual unit. The NPS believes that each park is unique and may
have particular circumstances that need consideration. The draft
policies give managers a variety of management tools, including but not
limited to; monitoring, adaptive management and the incorporation of
best available technologies to determine what uses might be appropriate
and at what levels. The draft policies improve the park manager's
ability to decide what mitigating requirements or use restrictions
might provide the best protection for an individual park's resources
and values.
Question 5. The draft policies remove a provision in the existing
policies dealing with potential wilderness (6.2.2.1). Why?
Answer. The discussion of ``potential wilderness'' was moved to
section 6.2.5. We will carefully consider whether the subject of
potential wilderness can be addressed more clearly.
Question 6. As I understand it, the Park Service and the
Solicitor's Office have long interpreted the Organic Act as not
permitting National Park Service employees to solicit donations from
corporations and other prospective donors. In fact, the Director issued
an order less than a year ago stating ``it should be emphasized that
neither the NPS nor its employees has authority to solicit donations.''
I also understand there is a May 1996 Solicitor's Opinion to that same
effect. Has the Solicitor's Office withdrawn its earlier opinion and
advised you that the proposed policy change is legal?
Answer. The question contains several incorrect statements. First,
the general NPS authority to accept donations, found at 16 U.S.C. 6, is
not technically a part of the Organic Act. Moreover, the May 21, 1996
document to which the question refers was not a legal opinion, but
established ``Donation Policy Guidelines'' for the Department and was
signed by the Solicitor and the Assistant Secretary, Policy, Management
and Budget. The Solicitor did guidelines on May 21, 1996 and an opinion
for the Departmental Chief of Staff on July 19, 1994, which address the
issue of ``National Park Service Fund Raising.'' [See Attachments 4 and
5] In that opinion, the Solicitor recognized the authority under
Section 6 to accept donations for the benefit of the System, and went
on to simply state that ``[t]here is, however, no express generic
authority of the Secretary or other Departmental officials to solicit
such donations.'' The opinion further provided:
I find this authority in an amalgam of the Secretary's
statutory role as Chair of the Foundation, the statutory
authorization for the Department to provide facilities and
services to the Foundation on a non-reimbursable basis, and the
Secretary's generic authority to accept donations for the
National Park System, which can be read to imply some authority
to solicit donations, at least in these circumstances
[incidental to a National Park Foundation fundraising campaign
regardless of whether the donations were received by the
Foundation or directly by the Service].
The 1994 opinion only found that the authority to solicit was not
expressed on the face of the statute and concluded that at least some
authority to solicit donations did exist with respect to the
Foundation. In publishing Director's Order 21 in 1998, NPS was
following the May 1996 Departmental policy guidance, not making an
independent interpretation of its laws as the question states.
The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) within the Department of Justice
issued an opinion in January 2001 in which it concluded that the
``express authority to accept gifts, contained in section 403(b)(1) of
the Office of Government Ethics (OGE) Authorization Act of 1996,
includes the implied authority to solicit gifts''. Separate from the
Director's Order 21 process, earlier this year the Department reviewed
and circulated proposed new donation guidelines to replace those from
1996. In view of the 2001 opinion from OLC, the Office of the Solicitor
has concluded that because the NPS statutory authority is essentially
the same as that of OGE, and the 1994 reference that the authority to
solicit was not expressed on the face of the statute merely created an
inference that the authority to accept doesn't imply the authority to
solicit, the 1994 opinion has now been superseded.
The NPS incorporated the language from the Department's then draft
donation policy guidelines in its proposed revisions to Director's
Order #21. This Departmental policy has now been finalized in the
Departmental Manual, and a copy of the Departmental policy at 374 DM 6
is also attached. [See Attachment 6]
Question 7. The National Park Foundation was specifically
established by Congress to solicit donations on behalf of the National
Park Service. The legislative history indicates that one of the reasons
for establishing the Foundation was serious concerns about having Park
Service employees doing so. Why is it necessary for Park Service
employees to solicit donations when that is the legislatively-chartered
purpose of the Foundation?
Answer. The National Park Foundation (NPF) is charged with raising
funds for the NPS to further the conservation of natural, scenic,
historic, scientific, educational, inspirational, or recreational
resources for future generations of Americans. In addition to this
national fundraising partner of the NPS, there exist some 150 other
non-profit fundraising partners of National Parks. These fundraising
partners focus on one or a related group of parks and raise funds and
in-kind support for their partner parks. The NPF generally focuses its
efforts on system-wide fundraising while the park specific fundraising
partners focus on their partner parks.
In many cases (indeed this is the ideal) our park specific
fundraising partners and superintendents work very closely together.
Superintendents are often encouraged to accompany the partner
organization's executive director or volunteer campaign chairman on a
fundraising call or other fundraising function in order to reinforce
the nature of the partnership to the donor and to focus potential
donations to best meet park needs. As the proposed policy clearly
states, NPS will authorize direct solicitations by NPS employees to
such third parties only in limited circumstances. It is not the intent
of the revised Director's Order #21 to imply that NPS employees should
regularly solicit donations as part of their job. Rather, it gives them
the latitude to work in partnership with our friends organizations when
and if the need arises. Moreover, the proposed revision to Director's
Order #21 provides that the authority to solicit can only be delegated
to a superintendent under very strict guidelines requiring review and
approval by not only the Regional Director but also a bureau senior
manager and the Office of the Solicitor. In addition, please see our
answer to question 54.
Question 8. The draft Director's Order #21 would allow for greater
recognition of donors in national parks, including for the first time,
permanent recognition such as the naming of rooms in park facilities
and other permanent features? Why is this necessary and why is it good
public policy?
Answer. While the old Director's Order prohibited permanent naming
as a form of donor recognition, it did allow the Director to approve
such naming on an exception basis. As many as 90 of our parks have some
type of donor recognition within them.
The proposed revision to Director's Order #21 notes that ``there is
no one size fits all approach when working with partners.'' Donor
recognition is one of the areas where a ``one size fits all approach''
is inadequate, particularly given that park partners are competing for
philanthropic contributions in communities where naming is commonly
provided as recognition for gifts to universities and museums. Giving
Park Superintendents the opportunity to recognize donors by naming
rooms in park facilities as part of an approved donor recognition plan
is a way to meet the desires and expectations of donors without
compromising the integrity of a park or the National Park System.
Question 9. The proposal would appear to allow recognition of
corporate sponsors at special events similar to what occurred a few
years ago on the National Mall. In fact, the proposed language appears
to allow greater flexibility to recognize donors than the amendment
Congress adopted in response to the Mall event. Please explain why you
believe the proposed standards are consistent with the amendment
adopted by Congress for special events on the Mall. In addition, please
explain why you believe the proposed standards are appropriate for
special events in other units of the National Park System.
Answer. Our intention was not to allow an inappropriate recognition
on the National Mall or other units. The language for this section had
been drafted with the referenced amendment in mind. The difference
between the language of the amendment and the Director's Order was
brought to our attention during our briefing for the staff of the
Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on
National Parks. During that briefing we indicated we would revise the
language to better reflect the amendment, while recognizing, as
Congress does, that the more stringent policies under which the
National Mall operates are not necessarily appropriate for all units of
the National Park System.
Question 10. Last month Director Mainella revised the procedures
for hiring Park Superintendents and other managers at the GS-13 grade
and above. Under the new procedures, all job candidates must now be
vetted with the Washington Office, and candidates must be assessed in
their ``ability to lead employees in achieving'' the NPS Legacy Goals
(which I understand is a document developed by the Director), Secretary
Norton's ``4Cs'' slogan, and the President's Management Agenda. It
appears the Director is trying to add new politically-oriented criteria
to civil service job descriptions. Please explain why this is
necessary.
Answer. Please see response to question 53.
Question 11. Are the three criteria referenced in the previous
question part of the official job descriptions for the referenced civil
service jobs?
Answer. Please see response to question 53
Question 12. The President's Management Agenda includes a provision
on faith-based initiatives. How does the Park Service evaluate its
employees ``on their ability to lead employees in achieving'' this
agenda?
Answer. The NPS does not evaluate employees based on any faith-
based initiatives, nor is the Department of the Interior a participant
in the faith-based management scorecard. Please see the response to
question 53.
Responses of the National Park Service to Questions From Senator Akaka
Question 1. On October 12, 2005, in response to my inquiry into the
status of the unsigned collective bargaining agreement between the
National Treasury Employees Union and the National Park Service (NPS),
I was advised by the Park Service that it had identified issues in the
collective bargaining agreement that may be inconsistent with
applicable law. My understanding is that the Park Service concluded
bargaining by tentatively agreeing to the language in each article of
the agreement and initialing each article on June 7, 2005. I further
understand that on June 23, 2005, the Park Service agreed that
negotiations on the collective bargaining agreement were complete and
that following ratification by the union, the Park Service would sign
the agreement and submit it to the Department of the Interior for
agency review. It appears that there was sufficient time to raise
concerns during the bargaining process. I would appreciate knowing why
these issues of illegality were raised only after this process was
concluded?
Answer. The NPS has consistently stated throughout bargaining that
many provisions of the proposals put forth by the National Treasury
Employees Union (NTEU) were inconsistent with law, rule and regulation.
These positions were consistently rejected by NTEU. In addition to
these inconsistencies, the proposed contract put forth for signature
contains errors in grammar and spelling, references to agencies and
parties other than NPS and/or the Department of the Interior, and
internal references within the contract to other sections of the
contract that do not exist or are in error.
The Service remains open to resolving these issues through
negotiations and discussions between the parties. NTEU has elected to
abandon bargaining and to litigate these issues through arbitration.
Question 2. As you know, there is an established procedure in the
Federal Service Labor Management Relations Statute for dealing with
illegal provisions in a negotiated agreement. Under the statute, the
Agency head has the opportunity to review a collective bargaining
agreement's compliance with law, rule, or regulation (unless the agency
has granted an exception to the provision) and reject any illegal
provisions. Since the claim of illegality may be asserted through the
agency head review process (and the agency neither loses nor waives its
rights), why has the NPS not signed the agreement and let the
Department of the Interior exercise its right of Agency head review, as
Congress intended when it crafted the statute?
Answer. For the reasons stated in the previous answer, the contract
put forth for signature has numerous errors beyond inconsistencies with
law, rule and regulation. Assuming these other matters were resolved,
and NTEU has thus far refused to even discuss them, the position of the
NPS is that the parties would be best served by attempting to resolve
these inconsistencies with law, rule and regulation outside litigation.
While the Statute provides for addressing these matters through agency
head review, the Statute clearly states that its purpose and intent is
for the ``amicable settlement of disputes between employees and their
employers involving conditions of employment'' and establishes
litigation as a last resort. The Federal Labor Relations Authority has
established several alternative dispute resolution programs and
supports ADR as an alternative to litigation. Additionally, the Statute
establishes specific roles for the Federal Mediation and Conciliation
Service as a means to resolve bargaining issues. The NPS has
consistently sought to resolve issues without litigation.
Question 3. Was there any guidance from the political employees in
the Department of the Interior to re-write the management policies? If
so, please describe it for me. Did the guidance prescribe a focus, like
public access or visitor services?
Answer. Please see the response to question 1 on page 1 of this
document.
Question 4. Was there a report, analysis, or evidence that the
direction of the parks, and guidance to mangers and superintendents,
needed to be adjusted? Can you provide that evidence?
Answer. We are not aware of a specific report or written analysis.
Please see the response to questions 1 and 3 at the beginning of this
document for why adjustments are deemed important and timely.
Question 5. During the hearing I asked several questions about the
October 11, 2005, memo from the Director, and how it would be
implemented. One of my questions was whether other bureaus in the
Department of the Interior have similar policies and memos regarding
hiring policies, reaching into the career managerial levels of the
civil service to determine their adherence to the President's
Management Agenda--such as the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Bureau
of Reclamation? I also asked about other federal agencies. As I
understand it, you responded you would provide this information for the
record. Thank you very much for your assistance on this.
Answer. The memo in question was never intended to direct or convey
that the National Park Service would select employees based on their
adherence to the President's Management Agenda. Neither the NPS or
other bureaus have policies regarding hiring practices that address
adherence to the President's Management Agenda. It is important to
understand that within the Department of the Interior the management
goals that are included in the President's Management Agenda are an
area of emphasis for performance. All of the performance plans for the
Senior Executive Service members reference the priority of the
President's Management Agenda along with other management excellence
goals, management laws and regulations. These are areas of emphasis for
management and for the evaluation of performance, but not for hiring
decisions.
The memo was developed to provide guidance considering the hiring
review process for key leadership positions in the NPS. As all of the
Regional Directors have been appointed since the last similar guidance
was distributed, the timing of such a memo was appropriate. Upon
review, we believed that the memo could have been more clearly written.
A new memo, prepared in consultation with the National Leadership
Council, has been distributed. A copy of the new memo is attached which
reflects the types of positions that are covered and the expectations
that are necessary for those in leadership positions. [See Attachment
3]
Responses of the National Park Service to Questions From Senator
Salazar
Question 1. Colorado's national parks are popular destinations,
which people from all over the world visit for their natural and
historic wonders and qualities. Recent surveys at Rocky Mountain
National Park, Mesa Verde National Park, and the Grand Sand Dunes
National Park confirm that visitors are very pleased with their
experiences at these units when they visit. As this chart demonstrates,
those trends are typical.
If over 90% of visitors are satisfied with their experiences at our
nation's parks, why is this revision necessary? Are you trying to fix
something that isn't broken?
Answer. Please see response to questions 1 and 11 at the beginning
of the document.
Question 2. According to a June 2002 visitor survey at what was
then known as the Great Sand Dunes National Monument & Preserve, the
most popular activities in the Great Sand Dunes includes climbing the
dunes, photography, and wildlife viewing. But as you and other
witnesses have acknowledged, language that would be deleted from the
2001 Management Policies contributes toward enhancing and supporting
the favored activities in the Dunes.
For example, this sentence is deleted from Section 4.9 (Soundscape
Management): ``The National Park Service will preserve, to the greatest
extent possible, the natural soundscapes of parks.''
And this sentence is deleted from Section 8.2 (Visitor Use): ``The
Service will not allow visitors to conduct activities that unreasonably
interfere with . . . the atmosphere of peace and tranquility, or the
natural soundscape maintained in wilderness and natural, historic, or
commemorative locations within the park.''
Why has the Department proposed deleting language that reinforces
the importance of scenic vistas, natural sounds, and other qualities
that draw people to the Great Sand Dunes and other National Parks?
Answer. The proposed policies do nothing to diminish the importance
of scenic vistas, natural sounds, and other qualities that draw people
to the Great Sand Dunes and other national parks. The draft policies
fully recognize scenic vistas, sounds, and natural soundscapes as
either a natural resource or an associated characteristic that draw
people to national parks and which we will do our best to protect.
The policy direction is to prevent the intrusion of noises caused
by humans that either would disrupt the natural processes mediated by
the natural soundscape or reduce the levels of enjoyment experienced by
park visitors. The soundscape policy has been modified to better
reflect the diversity of the NPS system which in addition to many great
natural parks includes sites such as the New Orleans Jazz National
Historical Park, the George Washington Memorial Parkway, and numerous
urban sites for which it would be virtually impossible to minimize or
eliminate human caused sounds. The proposed policies therefore
recognize that a park-by-park decision must be made as to when, where,
and to what extent we must maintain or restore natural sound. To help
accomplish this, a standard has been added to prevent impacts that
would unreasonably interfere with the attainment of a park's desired
conditions, as identified through the park's planning process. If the
planning process identifies an atmosphere of peace and tranquility or a
natural soundscape as a desired condition, then the park would be
required to meet that standard and manage the area accordingly.
Furthermore, although the language referred to was deleted,
similar, or more appropriate, language remains or was inserted
elsewhere. For example:
Section 1.4.6: The ``park resources'' that are subject to the no
impairment standard include . . . the park's scenery, scenic features;
natural visibility, both in daytime and at night; natural landscapes;
natural soundscapes and smells. . . .
Section 4.7.1: [T]he Service will seek to perpetuate the best
possible air quality in parks to protect (1) natural resources and
systems; (2) cultural resources; and (3) public enjoyment, human
health, and scenic vistas.
Section 4.9: Using appropriate management planning, superintendents
will identify what level of noise is consistent with the park's
enabling legislation or proclamation and the management objectives of
the park.
Section 4.9: The Service, through cooperation, consultation, and
communication, will take action to prevent or minimize all noise that,
through frequency, magnitude, or duration, unacceptably impacts the
natural soundscape or other park resources or values.
Section 8.1.2: An ``unacceptable impact'' is an impact that would .
. . degrade resource conditions so as to preclude future generations
from enjoying the resource in as good, or better, condition.
Section 8.2: [T]he experience the Service provides for visitors'
enjoyment is one of ``authenticity.'' Examples of this authenticity
include . . . scenic vistas presented via access that is light on the
land and secondary to the natural landscapes.
Question 3. Because this specific resource-based language is
deleted from several sections of the management policies, a park
superintendent would find it necessary to refer to the fundamental
purpose of the national park service established in the 1916 Organic
Act, namely to protect and conserve park resources and values over all
uses. But many of Mr. Hoffman's proposed revisions of those basic
principles have survived in this draft. For example, the extensive
deletions and changes to section 1.4.3 would undermine the Park
Service's primary purpose, namely to protect and conserve park
resources.
Why are those changes necessary?
Answer. We do not feel that the changes to section 1.4.3 would
undermine the NPS's primary purpose. These changes are intended to
ensure that NPS decision makers (whether at the park, regional, or
headquarters level) give thoughtful consideration to proposed new
activities and be prepared to explain why an activity would, or would
not, be allowed. This change is a reflection of our goal to improve on
what some readers have considered a ``negative tone,'' and also of our
goal to more constructively communicate with all those who would find
the parks a source of enjoyment.
The draft policies continue to apply the conservation mandate that
has long been at the heart of the NPS's interpretation of the Organic
Act. When a conflict arises between conserving park resources and
values and providing for their enjoyment, the process for determining
what are appropriate uses and the mandate that unacceptable impacts not
be allowed ensures that protection of park resources is maintained. The
draft policies contain detailed definitions and processes which enable
park managers to more readily determine how resources can best be
conserved while providing a positive visitor experience. There is no
change in the fundamental policies underlying the Organic Act, but an
improved way to ensure that its objectives are, in fact, achieved.
Thus, conservation is predominant.
Question 4. After the 2001 Management Policies were adopted,
Director Fran Mainella testified before the House Subcommittee on
National Parks, Recreation and Public Lands that ``there can be no
outdoor recreation without protection of the resource first, and if you
are going to err, you will err on the side of the resource.''
a. Does the Park Service still hold to that view? If so, can you
show me where in the proposed management policies that view is
reflected?
Answer. Yes. As a key tenet of the Organic Act of 1916 that is
reaffirmed by the General Authorities Act of 1970, as amended, the
draft management policies repeatedly embrace the fundamental concept
that when there is a conflict between enjoyment and conservation,
conservation of the resources will prevail. The following statements
are a few of the many examples from the draft policies that reinforce
that important and guiding principle:
Introduction: ``When proposed park uses and the protection of
park resources come into conflict, park managers are obligated
to ensure that the resources and values for which the park was
created are not diminished.''
Introduction: Conserve, Preserve and Protect: ``The choice of
any one of these words, within these policies, is not intended
to, and should not be construed to imply a greater or lesser
restriction on opportunities for visitor enjoyment or level of
care for park resources and values.''
Section 1.4.3: ``when there are concerns as to whether an
activity or action will cause impairment, the Service will
protect the resources . . .''
Section 1.4.3: ``. . . Congress established the overarching
mission for national parks, which is to protect park resources
and values to ensure that these resources are maintained in as
good, or better, condition for the enjoyment of future
generations.''
Section 4.1: ``In cases of uncertainty as to the impacts of
activities on park natural resources, the Service will protect
the natural resources . . . and strive to reduce uncertainty by
facilitating and building a science-based understanding.''
Section 1.10: Letter from Secretary of the Interior, Franklin
K. Lane to the first Director of the National Park Service,
Stephen T. Mather, `` `. . . that the national parks must be
maintained in absolutely unimpaired form for the use of future
generations as well as those of our own time. . .' ''.
Section 1.4.1: 1978 amendment to the 1970 General Authorities
Act, ``Congress further reaffirms, declares, and directs that
the promotion and regulation of the various areas of the
National Park System, as defined in section 1c of this title,
shall be consistent with and founded in the purpose of section
1 of this title (the Organic Act) to the common benefit of all
the people of the United States. The authorization of
activities shall be construed and the protection, management,
and administration of these areas shell be conducted in light
of the high public value and integrity of the National Park
System and shall not be exercised in derogation of the values
and purposes for which these various areas have been
established, as may have been or shall be directly and
specifically provided by Congress.''
Question 5. In your proposed new definition of impairment, you
require that an impact be ``significant'' to constitute impairment.
Previously, impairment was considered to be any impact which, in the
professional judgment of the responsible National Park Service manager,
would harm the integrity of park resources or values.
a. How do you explain the addition of the requirement that the
impact be ``significant'' if it is not intended to reduce protection
for resources and values?
b. What is the difference between ``significant'' and ``adverse?''
The revised management policies appear to require both an adverse
impact and one that is significant. Is that correct? Why does an impact
have to be significant if it is adverse? Can you give me examples of
adverse impacts that would not be significant?
Answer. Please see the response to question 29 for question 5a.
``Adverse'' means unfavorable, undesirable, negative, or harmful.
``Significant'' means important or of consequence. As used in the
context of the Management Policies, adverse impacts are a sometimes
inevitable result of visitor activities or park management activities.
For example, creating a trail, clearing a scenic overlook, or allowing
visitors to consume wild berries would produce adverse impacts on park
resources. But we often pursue or allow these types of activities
because they help us achieve our broader goals and, relatively
speaking, the impacts are not of great consequence. However, given
different circumstances the impacts could be much greater. For example,
if the trail were created through highly erodable soils, or if the
vegetation cleared from the overlook exposed a sensitive archeological
site, or if the wild berries were an important food source for a
particular bird species, then the impacts might be significant and we
would look for ways to avoid or mitigate the impacts, or refrain from
undertaking the activity. These nuances are sometimes difficult to
discern and to articulate. That is one reason why the draft revisions
call for a determination by park managers whether ``unacceptable
impacts'' will result from an action rather than simply the existence
of ``adverse impacts''.
Question 6. I've been told that the policies are being updated to
improve their clarity, yet important sections that guide management of
off-road vehicle use seem to have been muddied. For example, the 2001
Management Policies (in Section 8.2.3.1) explicitly reference President
Nixon's executive order on off-road vehicle management, which makes
clear that public land managers must consider resource protection,
public safety and user conflicts when deciding whether to allow off-
road vehicle use. And the language of that section reinforces these
principles. Instead of resting on public safety, minimizing user
conflicts, and resource protection, the new policy with respect to off-
road vehicle use appears to prod managers to allow off-road vehicle
use.
Why do the revised management policies delete the language that
reinforces the Nixon executive order and add a new definition of
``appropriate use,'' which is both confusing and overly permissive?
Answer. The draft policies do not change or alter the direction
given in the Executive Order. The Executive Order and our existing
regulations continue to govern off-road vehicles. The definition of
appropriate use establishes a process by which park managers can make a
determination about whether any particular use would be appropriate in
a park. In determining whether off-road vehicle use might be
appropriate managers are directed to engage the public and use the best
scientific information. This concept is further clarified by setting
forth a list of criteria that park managers must apply, using their
professional judgment, to determine what uses are appropriate in a
particular park. Such criteria include, among others, ensuring that
uses do not cause unacceptable impacts, create an unsafe or unhealthful
environment for visitors or employees, or result in significant
conflict with other appropriate uses.
The intent of the revisions is to provide managers with the
flexibility to determine the types of use and levels of use that are
appropriate for the individual unit. The NPS believes that each park is
unique and that a one size fits all policy is not an effective
management tool. The NPS also believes that Management Policies do more
than simply restate law or regulation: they offer guidance to help park
managers solve real world issues on the ground. The draft policies
direct managers to utilize the best available science and a variety of
management tools, including but not limited to; park planning,
monitoring, adaptive management and the incorporation of best available
technologies, to determine what uses and what levels of use might be
appropriate. The draft policies are intended to give the park manager
the ability to decide what mitigating requirements or use restrictions
might provide the best protection for an individual park's resources
and values, while providing for appropriate visitor activities.
Question 7. For instance, the off-road vehicle language no longer
mentions visitor safety or resource protection. And when considering
whether off-road vehicle use would be an ``appropriate use,'' the
revised draft states, ``The Service may allow other visitor uses that
do not meet all the above criteria (including uses that have occurred
historically and uses that represent new technology).'' The criteria in
sections 8.1.1 and 8.2 largely cancel each other out, and a park
manager is left with historic use and new technology as the primary
standards.
The Park Service has to ensure visitor safety and resource
protection--why is that language deleted? Why is it replaced with a new
definition that appears to prod park managers into considering new
standards? How would a park manager choose between the fundamental
principles derived from the Organic Act and almost one hundred years of
management principles based on that Act, on the one hand, and the new
management policies on the other?
Answer. Please also refer to the response to question 6 above. The
NPS disagrees with the premise that the criteria in section 8.1.1 and
8.2 largely cancel each other out. In the example given, the other
visitor uses (including historic uses) would be subject to the criteria
in 8.1. The NPS also disagrees with the premise that implementation of
the Organic Act and the implementation of the draft management policies
are mutually exclusive. The draft policies must be and are fully
consistent with the Organic Act. The Management Policies do not carry
the force of law; and the Executive Orders that limit off-road vehicle
use on federal lands cannot be, and are in no way, diminished by the
draft policies. With specific regard to visitor safety and resource
protection, off-road vehicle use would be subject to the new (and more
comprehensive) standards for ``appropriate use'' and ``unacceptable
impacts'' rather than the less comprehensive standards in section
8.2.3.1 of the 2001 edition. Under the new standards, if an activity
created an unsafe or unhealthful environment for visitors or employees,
it would not be allowed. Also, if it was inconsistent with park
purposes or values, diminished opportunities for current or future
generations to enjoy park resources, or degraded park resources, it
would not be allowed.
Question 8. The attached National Park Service 10 year analysis of
air quality monitoring data from 1994-2003 depicts worsening air
quality for a number of airborne contaminants at national parks in
Colorado where monitoring data is available. Ozone is worsening at
Rocky Mountain and Mesa Verde national parks. The haziest days are
getting hazier at Mesa Verde, Rocky Mountain and Great Sand Dunes
national parks. Great Sand Dunes has the unfortunate distinction of
being the only national park in the country where scenic vistas are
becoming more polluted both on the clean and dirty days. Nitrate
concentrations in precipitation are worsening at Rocky Mountain NP and
ammonium concentrations in precipitation are worsening at both Rocky
Mountain and Mesa Verde NPs. Nitrogen pollution has a common role in
creating or exacerbating many of these problems.
Why is the Department seeking to weaken its internal policies that
guide its decision making in protecting air quality in our national
parks at the time that its own data shows air quality at national parks
across Colorado are worsening? Shouldn't we be strengthening and re-
doubling our resolve to protect the crown jewels of Colorado? These
crown jewels not only inspire millions of American families but they
are also the foundation of Colorado's tourist economy.
Answer. The draft policies are intended to maintain visitor
enjoyment of the parks by ensuring park resources are protected and
park values are sustained. The Department is not seeking to weaken its
internal policies. Please see the answers to questions 31 through 34
earlier in this document. Management Policies provide appropriate
actions for NPS to take to encourage relevant decision-makers in other
organizations to take necessary steps to protect scenic views in parks.
Specifically, in Colorado the NPS is working closely with the State of
Colorado to address the issues you have identified in order to improve
the air quality at the NPS units in Colorado. For additional
information regarding air quality please see the responses to questions
38 through 41 earlier in this document.
Question 9. The revised management policies would relegate scenic
vistas and clear skies at national parks to an ``associated
characteristic.'' See Ch. 4, p. 3, line 23. But national park visitors
consistently list scenic vistas and clean air as one of the central
features that they highly value. Moreover, since 1977, the Clean Air
Act has included a special program to protect the scenic vistas in the
country's premier national parks. See Clean Air Act Sec. 169A. Congress
pointedly adopted the visibility program to protect the ``intrinsic
beauty and historical and archeological treasures'' of certain federal
lands, observing that ``areas such as the Grand Canyon and Yellowstone
Park are areas of breathtaking panorama; millions of tourists each year
are attracted to enjoy the scenic vistas.'' H.R. Rep. No. 294, 95th
Cong., 1st Sess., at 203-04 (1977). Further, section 165 of the Clean
Air Act defines ``visibility'' as one of the core ``air quality related
values'' of national parks that deserve heightened protection under the
laws program to prevent significant deterioration of air quality.
Why are you relegating the protection of scenic vistas to an
``associated characteristic'' when the Clean Air Act identifies
protection of scenic vistas as a core value and Congress has carefully
crafted a program to protect the vistas at our premier national parks?
Will you remedy this in the final manual and clearly identify scenic
vistas and clean air as a core, integral value to be fully protected?
Answer. Scenic vistas receive the same high standard of protection
as all other natural resources and values. The draft policy revisions
indicate that the ``associated characteristics'' will be preserved as
part of the natural resources, processes, systems, and values of parks.
Achieving pollution free air, however, requires cooperation among a
large number of entities. Clearly, the Management Policies need to
mention both clear air as a resource and clear skies as an associated
characteristic. See answer to Question 39.
Question 10. The revised manual would substantially alter the
definition of ``natural condition'' ``to describe the condition of
resources that would occur in the absence of human dominance over the
landscape but not necessarily the absence of humans.'' See Ch. 4, p. 3,
lines 26-28. This change conflicts with the national visibility goal
declared and codified by Congress in 1977: ``the prevention of any
future, and the remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility in
mandatory class I Federal areas which impairment results from manmade
air pollution.'' Clean Air Act Sec. 169A(a)(1). The goal to restore
scenic vistas to their natural conditions, to remedy manmade air
pollution, was carried out as a central feature of EPA's 1999 final
rules to cut regional haze in national parks and these provisions were
affirmed by the DC Circuit in the face of vigorous industry challenge.
What does it mean to have a definition of natural conditions that
is offended only by human dominance over the landscape? This is
contrary to the Federal Land Managers' affirmative responsibility under
the Clean Air Act and the national visibility protection goal
enunciated by Congress over a quarter century ago. The Clean Air Act
and its implementing rules are manifest that addressing manmade
impairment is a genuine goal, and that we must make incremental
stepwise process toward that end. A standard that supplants natural
conditions with conditions tolerating dominance over the landscape is
doomed to failure and contrary to law.
Answer. Please see the answer to question 41.
Question 11. Over the past 30 years, NPS has repeatedly
acknowledged and admitted its failure to comply with statutory and
regulatory mandates to review and recommend wilderness. In 1993 a NPS
Task Force concluded that ``past agency leadership has not met its
responsibilities for wilderness management'' and that ``many NPS
wilderness studies and recommendations have languished for as long as
20 years.'' In August 2000, the Acting Associate Director noted that a
review of NPS Wilderness Program files ``revealed the extent of the
workload remaining for [NPS] with respect to Wilderness Studies and
Designation'' and admitted that ``[i]t is apparent that in many
instances this is not even recognized as a workload.'' In response to
these admitted failures, the 2001 Policies ambiguously stated that all
lands would be reviewed and such reviews would be done in a timely
manner. The proposed revisions eliminate the clear mandate to study all
lands and to do so in a timely manner.
What assurances can you give that the proposed revisions will keep
NPS from again slipping into a pattern of disregard of statutory and
regulatory deadlines?
Answer. Eighty-four percent of the acreage of the National Park
System is currently either Congressionally designated wilderness, or in
the process of being considered for designation. The vast bulk of NPS
lands have already been reviewed. There are a few remaining parks that
were in existence on September 3, 1964, for which there is a clear
mandate to conduct a wilderness review, that have failed to do so. The
Director's Wilderness Action Plan calls for those parks to complete the
wilderness eligibility determination, and we are committed to
completing that task.
Question 12. The Wilderness Act states that certain uses, such a
commercial enterprises and permanent roads, are prohibited in
designated wilderness ``except as necessary to meet minimum
requirements for the administration of the area for the purposes of
[wilderness].'' 16 USC Sec. 1133(c) (emphasis added). This is known as
the ``minimum requirement analysis'' and is a documented process used
to determine if proposed administrative activities affecting wilderness
are in fact necessary and, if so, how any impacts might be minimized.
The existing Management Policies set forth a two-step process that
tracks directly the Wilderness Act's mandate. See 6.3.5. In contrast,
the proposed revision eliminates the key phrase ``for the purposes of
wilderness.'' As a result the two-step process asks managers to
consider only if the proposed action ``is appropriate or necessary for
administration of the area.''
Was it your intent to alter the Wilderness Act's mandate? If not,
why change the existing two-step process, which clearly articulates the
distinction between wilderness and non-wilderness lands?
Answer. The draft Management Policies would not and could not
change the Wilderness Act mandate. We intend only to clarify how we
implement the Wilderness Act's mandate. Section 4(c) does not state
``for the purposes of wilderness.'' Rather, it states ``for the purpose
of this Act''. In Section 4(a), the purposes of this Act were declared
to be within and supplemental to the purposes for which the areas were
originally created. Some of the activities managers are required to do
in wilderness have nothing to do with the Wilderness Act per se (such
as administering valid existing rights to subsurface minerals, or
restoring historic structures), but these activities, too, need to be
evaluated through the minimum requirement process. Also, of the Section
4(c) prohibitions, permanent roads and commercial enterprises are the
two that are not subject to the minimum requirement provision. They are
prohibited unless specifically provided for in the Act.
Responses of the National Park Service to Questions From
Senator Feinstein
Question 1. The National Park Service (NPS), in contrast to other
federal land management units, has always strived to preserve the
natural environment in the parks. Given this mission, why do the draft
management policies remove the stipulation that when motorized
equipment is used in the parks, only the ``least impacting equipment,
vehicles and transportation systems should be used''?
Answer. The NPS believes that each park is unique and that a one
size fits all policy is not always an effective management tool. The
draft policies direct mangers to utilize sound science and a variety of
management tools, including but not limited to, planning, monitoring,
adaptive management and the incorporation of best available
technologies to determine what uses, as well as what levels of use,
might be appropriate for a park unit. The draft policies would give
park managers the ability to decide what mitigating requirements or use
restrictions might provide the best protection for an individual park's
resources and values.
With that in mind, the language quoted in the question above does
not quote the proposed policy at 8.2.3 in its entirety. The proposed
section 8.2.3 continues with: ``The management of these uses requires
effective monitoring of resources and visitor experiences. Uses and
impacts associated with the use of motorized equipment will be
addressed in park planning processes.'' In addition, the following
policy statements provide managers with flexibility to apply any
necessary limitations or conditions appropriate to protect the
resources and values of a particular park unit:
Introduction: ``[T]he responsible manager will use good judgment to
ensure that uses will not . . . cause an ``unacceptable impact.''
Section 8.1.2: ``The Service will consider using the best
management tool or tools for the particular situation. . . .''
Section 8.1.2: ``When a use is authorized by law, . . . and when it
is reasonably anticipated to cause unacceptable impacts to park
resources or values, the Service will minimize or mitigate the impacts
to the point where there will be no unacceptable impacts; or, if
necessary, the Service will not allow a proposed activity or eliminate
an existing activity.''
Section 8.2: ``If a superintendent has a reasonable basis for
believing that an ongoing or proposed public use would cause
unacceptable impacts to park resources or values, the superintendent
must manage the activity so as to prevent or eliminate the unacceptable
impacts, or reduce them to acceptable levels. As appropriate, the
superintendent may . . . require the use of best available technology
and improved techniques. . . .''
Section 8.2.1: ``In general, carrying capacity should not be
defined in static numeric terms, but rather should (1) describe desired
resource and social conditions, and (2) identify the kinds of policies,
actions, and best available technology that could be implemented to
achieve the desired conditions.''
Question 2. The new draft policies would remove language in older
policies designed to protect air quality and soundscapes in national
parks. What is the removal of this language attempting to accomplish?
Answer. The draft revisions on air quality and soundscapes are not
intended to reduce protection of these park resources and values.
Please see the answers to questions 15 and 38 through 42 earlier in
this document.
Question 3. What is the risk that these new management policies, in
combination with the new rules about fundraising, could lead to
pressure on park administrators to push the boundaries of what
constitutes ``acceptable impacts''? For example, there exists the
possibility that a desire by park managers to raise money from private
sources, plus potential corporate donors who ask for access in return
for donations, could lead to activities in the parks that run contrary
the long-term conservation goals of NPS. What do the new rules do to
prevent this type of scenario?
Answer. We do not believe this will happen. The revised draft
Director's Order on Donations and Fundraising incorporates requirements
from the Department-wide donation policies that all donations accepted
should maintain the integrity, the impartiality, and public confidence
of the Service and the Department. This guidance, in combination with
the other legislative and policy mandates, ensures that decisions by
NPS employees must be directed to promote the long-term conservation
goals of NPS. NPS employees are encouraged to contact their Regional
Partnership Coordinators or the National Partnership Office in the
event that they have any concern about the application of these
policies. NPS would return a donation if, in subsequent conversations
with a donor, it becomes evident that there is an expectation of
special treatment or considerations.