White Space
The four-wheel-drive road along Salt Creek in Canyonlands National Park (Utah) has become a symbol of the emphasis placed on resource preservation in the 1999 draft NPS Management Policies. The road was closed in 1998 after federal district court in Utah ruled the National Park Service has no authority to allow activities that permanently impair park resources.
chick_fagan@nps.gov
Senior Program Analyst, WASO Office of Policy;
Washington, D.C.
Back to Chapter 1: New Horizons
Natural Resource Challenge addresses natural resource protection needs
by Abigail Miller and Douglas K. Morris
Thrusts of the Natural Resource Challenge
Resources Careers implemented
by Kathy M. Davis
Natural resources law and policy course revived for superintendents
by Carol McCoy, Bob Karotko, and Sharon Kliwinski
NPS establishes environmental leadership program
by Shawn Norton and Dan Kimball
From local to regional: A new focus for air resources protection
by Bruce Polkowsky
Award-Winner Profile--Kathy Davis
by Chick Fagan
In 1998, the Southeast Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA) prevailed in federal district court in Utah, vacating an NPS decision to keep open a popular four-wheel-drive road in Canyonlands National Park (see the related story on the following link: Natural Resource Year in Review--1998). Not initially a big case, this issue has had significant consequences for the Park Service as a whole, and has influenced the revision of NPS management policies for the protection of natural and cultural resources.
In early 1999 the draft management policies were under internal review. The draft included wording that would require managers to err on the side of resource protection when making decisions that pit visitor enjoyment against resource preservation. This refuted the "balancing test" that many NPS managers believe applies to their decision-making process. The notion of a balancing test stems from the 1916 NPS Organic Act, which states that the fundamental purpose of the parks 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."
Variations in the interpretation of this clause have led to inconsistency across the national park system in the way decisions have been made. Some managers view this clause as requiring them to give equal weight to resource conservation and public enjoyment. Others believe it gives them discretionary authority to favor either conservation or public enjoyment. The draft policy language was intended to bring more consistency to NPS decision making by adopting a single interpretation that the dual objectives of resource protection and public enjoyment do not carry equal weight, because public enjoyment cannot be sustained if park resources are unacceptably damaged or compromised.
However, neither the balancing test nor the draft language adequately took into account one of the most important phrases in the Organic Act: "unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations." The importance of this phrase was driven home when the court ruled the National Park Service has no authority to allow activities that permanently impair park resources. Internal deliberations over a possible appeal forced the Park Service to more thoughtfully examine its position. Ultimately, the Park Service did not appeal the court's basic finding that, when the law says "unimpaired," it means unimpaired. Instead, the finding was accepted as a valid—albeit alternative—basis to conclude that, when there is a conflict between conservation and enjoyment, conservation is predominant.
"When there is a conflict between conservation and enjoyment, conservation is predominant."
The new policies acknowledge that providing opportunities for public enjoyment is a fundamental part of the NPS mission. But they emphasize that recreational and other activities, including NPS management activities, may be allowed only when they will not cause impairment or derogation of a park's resources, values, or purposes. The sole exception is when an activity that would cause impairment or derogation is directly and specifically mandated by Congress.
The most difficult challenge for NPS managers will be to determine when an otherwise allowable adverse impact crosses the threshold to become an impairment. This determination must be made as part of an environmental analysis, using insights provided by science.
White Space
This material is from Natural Resource Year in Review--1999; published by the National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, August 2000 (publication D-1406)
/YearInReview/yir/yir99/pages/01horizons/04fagan_suwa.htm
Last Updated: 09/26/00
Webmaster: jeff_selleck@nps.gov