Jackson Hole news | Jackson Hole feature | Jackson Hole environmental | Jackson Hole sports | Today's News

Senators grill Park Service

Congressional hearing questions rewrite of parks manual.

By Rebecca Huntington

At a Capitol Hill hearing Tuesday, senators charged the National Park Service with operating "in darkness" and trying to "rush" revisions of policies that would dilute protections for America's parks.

U.S. Sen. Craig Thomas, R-Wyo., presided over the hearing of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources' national parks subcommittee. Thomas called the hearing in response to public outcry over draft revisions of park policies. The "Management Policies" are the agency's official manual that guides day-to-day operations in the nation's 388 parks. The policies were last revised in 2001 and, before that, in 1988.

During Tuesday's hearing, senators grilled Deputy Park Service Director Steve Martin, a former Grand Teton National Park superintendent, who defended the revisions.

Martin testified that the new draft policies "maintain our strong commitment to the fundamental mission of the National Park Service to protect and allow for appropriate enjoyment of the parks."

But senators worried Tuesday that the revisions would put too much emphasis on visitor access to the detriment of other values and lead to more cell phone towers, noise, air pollution, snowmobiles and other impacts.

Martin disagreed but said he would consider a request by senators to extend a public comment deadline to 120 days, up from 90 days, to give the public more time to participate in the revisions.

Even so, Sen. Ken Salazar, D-Colo., said he would leave Tuesday's hearing with the impression that the proposed rewrite was "done in darkness." Salazar chastised the Park Service for not involving the Senate's parks subcommittee in the revision earlier and called a 30-day comment extension a "modest request." Salazar also suggested that the issue was so important the Park Service should consider scrapping the revisions and "going back to the drawing board."

Likewise, Sen. Daniel Akaka, D-Hawaii, scolded the Park Service for not trying to garner more support from the public or input from park professionals.

"It just seems to me that it's being pushed and rushed so fast, without getting the wisdom of those who have served in this area," Akaka said.

The revisions first became public after a group of Park Service retirees received a leaked copy penned by Paul Hoffman, an assistant Interior Department secretary and former director of the Cody Chamber of Commerce.

The Interior Department, which oversees the Park Service, quickly backed away from Hoffman's draft, however, and Park Service professionals published a new revision Oct. 19. But critics are calling the new draft "Hoffman-lite."

Both parties fire questions

During Tuesday's hearing, tough questions about the draft came from both Democrats and Republicans. Moreover, six Republicans sent a letter last Thursday to Interior Secretary Gale Norton airing concerns about the revisions. The letter describes the latest revisions as deemphasizing preservation and blurring the Park Service's "primary responsibility" to protect parks.

"We believe the policies should be crystal clear that the national parks are to be enjoyed only 'in such a manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations,'" the letter states.

During the hearing, senators questioned whether the revisions would weaken the Park Service's role in protecting air quality and open the door to more motorized recreation in parks.

Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., one of the letter's signatories, asked Martin whether the draft policies would make it easier or harder to introduce new activities that would create noise or visual impacts in parks. Moreover, he questioned whether the policies would make it easier or harder to deal with air pollution in parks.

Martin responded that the revisions would make it easier for park managers to pass on improved parks to future generations.

But Alexander retorted: "That's not a good answer."

Alexander suggested that he wanted more specifics, such as whether more cell phone towers would be built.

Martin responded that cell phone towers would be less likely to go up under the revised policies. Also, he said the revisions would lead to cleaner air over parks by encouraging park managers to work cooperatively with interests outside parks. Likewise, the policies would strengthen managers' abilities to work with air tour operators, for example, to diminish the effects of those activities over parks, Martin said.

Denis Galvin, a retired deputy Park Service director who spoke for the National Parks Conservation Association, however, disputed Martin's answers.

"Generally, this is a lowering of the standards," Galvin said.

In particular, Galvin questioned Martin's cell phone tower claims, saying that no wording regarding cell phone towers has been changed in the revision and that Congress mandates public lands, including parks, be open to cell phone towers.

"Not one line of that policy has been changed here," Galvin said. "I can't see how you're more protected."

Moreover, Galvin said Congress would have to change telecommunications law to protect parks from cell phone towers.

Another witness, William Horn, a former assistant secretary for Fish, Wildlife and Parks, who worked on an earlier Park Service policy revision, defended the latest rewrite, saying it would allow for "more rational management of visitor use."

But Sen. Salazar challenged claims that the proposed changes would im-prove excellence in the field. Salazar also wanted to know why the revision deleted language that put preservation ahead of visitor enjoyment in cases in which the two goals conflict.

Martin responded that the language may have been "inadvertently" dropped and could be added back in. Martin also said he would "challenge people to read the document as if you were a park manager answering to the public."

But the Park Service also has to answer to the courts, according to Galvin, who said recent rulings have said the Park Service cannot legally allow resources to be impaired.

'No' to more snowmobiles

Sen. Salazar asked Martin whether the draft policies would mean more motorized vehicles, such as snowmobiles, in national parks.

Martin said "no" but added that the revision could allow the Park Service to consider new technologies, such as the Segway electric scooters. As for snowmobiles, he said: "Our commitment to managing them appropriately is going to remain the same."

Salazar seemed unconvinced, suggesting the Park Service go "back to the drawing board" and involve more park employees and park constituents in the process.

Sen. Akaka, meanwhile, zeroed in on the revision's language regarding cultural resources. Akaka noted that the word "preserve" was replaced by "conserve" throughout the document.

"It seems to be a weakening of the commitment to avoid harm to cultural resources," Akaka said.

But Martin disagreed, saying the two words were interchangeable. Martin also stressed his personal interest in preserving cultural resources and said the document strengthens protection of those resources.

Sen. Thomas issued a statement following the hearing lauding Martin for "working closely with the public and the Senate on the policies."

Thomas suggested the Park Service needs to revise its policies to give managers "modern" guidance to be more "forward-looking" while still ensuring park values are protected.

"We had a great deal of interest and input in the national parks hearing today," Thomas said. "I'm hopeful that the Park Service will incorporate the ideas brought to light today."