NPS Controversy
|
||
|
Additional Resources Latest Draft of Revisions to the NPS Management Policies Second Draft of Revisions to the NPS Management Policies OAH’s Official Comments on the Second Version To Help Protect National Parks National Parks Conservation Association (advocacy group for national parks) National Coalition for History (advocacy group for the historical profession, including the presentation of history in the nation’s parks) |
In his first major announcement since taking over as Secretary of the Interior, former Idaho Governor Dirk Kempthorne reaffirmed the National Park Service’s (NPS) commitment to conserving natural and cultural resources. His decision came as a welcome surprise to environmentalists and cultural stewards and seems to have put an end to a controversy that has raged within the NPS for the past year (1).
Secretary Kempthorne announces the release of the draft revised NPS Management Policies on June 19, 2006. Pictured (from left) are: NPS Director Fran Mainella, Tom Kiernan, president of the National Parks Conservation Association; Frank Hugelmeyer, president of the Outdoor Industry Association; and Rep. Steve Pearce (R-NM), chairman of the House Subcommittee on National Parks. (Department of Interior Photo by Tami Heilemann.) Since last summer, the agency, which oversees the national park system, the National Historic Landmarks program, and the National Register of Historic Places, has been divided over a proposed revision to the NPS Management Policies. Any revision of this document is cause for scrutiny because it outlines the guiding principles on which all caretakers of national park units must base their decisions about the day-to-day and long-range governance of the sites and resources under their purview. This most recent round of revisions proved significantly more controversial than usual, however. Many agency watchdogs accused the NPS administration of maneuvering to privilege recreational enjoyment over the preservation of the nation’s natural and cultural treasures. Indeed, after the release of the proposed revisions for a public comment period, the spokesperson for the Coalition of NPS Retirees declared, “All indications are that nearly 90 years of consistency in interpretation of the legislative mission of the National Park Service is at the brink of crumbling and that the National Park System is in jeopardy of suffering a ‘hostile takeover’ by recreational (primarily motorized) and commercial interests” (2). Within this climate, Secretary Kempthorne’s decision to scrap most of the proposed revisions was heralded as a return to the NPS’s preservation mission at the expense of the immediate gratification of recreational uses. The controversy over the management policies began in August 2005 when Department of the Interior deputy assistant secretary Paul Hoffman, a former congressional aide to Dick Cheney who has never worked for the National Park Service, drastically revised the NPS Management Policies. Hoffman’s revision would have allowed any activity—such as the installation of cell phone towers or the use of motorized vehicles in wilderness areas—that did not create an irreversible impact on park resources as well as permitted the sale of religious merchandise within park boundaries (3). However, when this draft was leaked to the press, it created such an outcry that NPS director Fran Mainella convened a group of NPS employees to revise Hoffman’s proposed changes. A press release from the National Park Service claimed that “nearly 100 NPS career professionals” had contributed to this revision; however, when asked, NPS leaders reportedly could not produce a list of employees who had been consulted. The second draft of the revised management policies was opened for public comment in October 2005. Although these revisions mitigated some of the more outlandish aspects of Hoffman’s draft, critics of the revision claimed they continued to represent a significant departure from previous policies. One concern, noted by Bruce Craig of the National Coalition for History in the NCH Washington Update, was the removal from the introduction of the exact language of the 1916 Organic Act, which states that the NPS mission is “to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and wild life therein . . . in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for future generations” (4). For their part, NPS leaders insisted that the proposed changes did not signal a departure from NPS’s role as protector of resources. Gale Norton, then secretary of the i nterior, declared, “I believe that current and future enjoyment of the parks depends upon maintaining unimpaired park resources.” NPS deputy director Stephen P. Martin claimed that the revised policy “does nothing to change the park service’s mission,” stating that “Passing the resources on in as good, or better, condition to future generations is a key premise of the draft” (5). Yet many outside parties remained unconvinced. In official comments, key groups urged that the previous edition of the management policies (revised in 2001) remain in place. Those making these recommendations included the George Wright Society, a professional organization for resource managers; the National Parks Conservation Association, an independent advocacy group; the National Coalition for History; and Senator Lamar Alexander, vice chair of the Senate Subcommittee on National Parks (6). The third incarnation of the revised management policies—those announced by Kempthorne in June 2006—did not go so far as to avoid any changes to the 2001 edition. However, this latest version boldly removed most of the wording that had caused such concern. At issue in the second revision were a series of changes that seemed to be opening the door for the destruction of natural and cultural resources. For instance, the words “preserve” and “protect” were systematically replaced by the word “conserve,” which carries a less stringent connotation. Another section of the draft required park managers not only to “communicate and consult with” outside interest groups (as required by the earlier versions) but also to “cooperate” with these stakeholders, potentially requiring the NPS to bow to outside pressures when making long-term decisions concerning resource protection. These linguistic maneuvers do not appear in Kempthorne’s latest version (7). With specific regard to history in the parks, the latest version of the management policies removes a proposed section on appropriate uses for park sites that described the importance of “authenticity” for the visitor experience. One example of “authenticity” was described as “historical events and places presented accurately and without contrivance or judgment.” Such phrasing could conceivably have required historians within the agency to present visitors with a series of historical “facts” without offering any analysis or context with which to understand the information (8). The new version dispenses with this troubling language, but unfortunately it fails to explicitly support professional development and, in particular, disciplinary training for cultural resource managers. Such support was included in the 2001 edition of the management policies and is particularly important in this era of budget shortfalls, where NPS staff people are at times being asked to cover job duties beyond their areas of expertise. As of press time, the latest incarnation of the NPS Management Policies is still in draft form. The public comment period has closed, but the final document has not yet been released. Thus, a final assessment of the changes facing managers and historians within the NPS is not yet possible. But whatever the end result, the controversy surrounding the revision of the NPS Management Policies should serve as a reminder to the historical profession that the protection of the nation’s historical treasures is not guaranteed. We have a responsibility to participate in the stewardship of the buildings, landscapes, documents, and artifacts that are the windows onto the U.S. past, both for us as researchers and for the public at large. Susan Ferentinos is Public History Manager at the Organization of American Historians. Endnotes
|
|
