data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/6183f/6183f2d554b81a1c5c69497c4cd4496ebcddecc2" alt="Parks in Peril Parks in Peril"
A National Parks Conservation Association campaign launching today is designed to rally public support against threats facing such iconic national parks as Yellowstone, Yosemite, and Grand Canyon with hopes the Obama administration will step up and use the tools and authority it has to protect the parks.
"The public knows that there are problems in the parks, but it does take an advocacy group sometimes to elevate the dialogue," said Kristen Brengel, NPCA's senior director of legislation and policy. “Our effort is to make sure we’re amplifying these issues and engaging the public.”
At 9 a.m. EST today the park advocacy group was launching a social media campaign on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and other channels to raise the profile of threats facing parks from coast to coast:
* In Florida the campaign zeroes in on Biscayne National Park and efforts by the National Park Service to create a marine reserve zone in a bid to improve the health of fisheries and the only tropical coral reef system in the continental United States.
* At Grand Canyon National Park in Arizona the group points to the prospect of a mega-development just south of the park's boundary, a development some fear could disrupt the park's groundwater flows.
* In Wyoming, Yellowstone National Park's bison herds need a sound management plan that will "(E)nd the senseless slaughter of bison and provide these living symbols of wild America with more room to roam..."
* In Utah energy development on public lands threatens the viewshed and natural sound at Arches National Park.
There are other parks threatened by development and resource issues, such as Acadia National Park with large crowds brought to the park by cruise ships, Bryce Canyon National Park with a surface coal mine not far from its borders, and national parks and preserves in Alaska where state wildlife regulations often impinge on natural predator populations in those parks.
By focusing this campaign on parks such as Yosemite National Park and its issues with air pollution, Grand Teton National Park with inholding issues, Glacier National Park with nearby energy development, and even Colonial National Historical Park in Virginia confronting the prospect of a massive electrical transmission line strung across the landscape, NPCA hopes to leverage public concern specifically for these places and also raise the national conversation about protection for national parks.
“The reason we think this campaign will strike a cord with the public is these are mostly iconic park units," said Ms. Brengel during a phone call Tuesday.
Interior Department officials have the requisite authority and tools at hand to take steps to protect the parks, the advocacy group maintains:
* At Biscayne they could speed the adoption of regulations for the marine reserve zone;
* at Yellowstone the federal agencies involved in wildlife issues could press for quicker resolution of the bison management conundrum;
* at Grand Teton it could possibly get the National Park Foundation to work to raise private funds, much as it did to finance repairs to the Washington Monument, to close the gap in purchasing private inholdings within the park from the state;
* at Colonial the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers could be directed to conduct a full-blown environmental impact statement before deciding on the proposed transmission corridor;
* at the Grand Canyon, the Forest Service doesn't need to issue the permits and rights-of-way to allow a project on the scale of the one now proposed;
* at Mojave National Preserve in California the administration could deny the permit being sought for a 2,000-acre solar farm nearby and require that it be relocated;
* for clean air and vistas at Yosemite and other parks, the Obama administration could "close loopholes and strengthen park clean air protections so polluters aren’t let off the hook," and;
* at Glacier National Park the administration should cancel energy exploration leases for the Badger Two-Medicine area outside the park, rather than allow exploration.
In the case of Glacier, the U.S. Forest Service already is on record opposing the leases.
"This administration can do something to get us closer to protecting these national parks. They don’t need a court, they don’t need Congress, they can do it themselves," Ms. Brengel said.
NPCA officials are counting on the social media campaign will convince the adminstration to do just that.
“If action isn’t taken by the Obama Administration now, park visitors could see a mega-mall outside Grand Canyon and energy development in sensitive wildlife habitat right next to Mojave. Fortunately this administration has the opportunity to make decisions now that will protect and enhance these iconic national parks for future generations," said Mar Wenzler, NPCA's vice president of conservation programs, in a release. "Through our Parks in Peril initiative, National Parks Conservation Association will mobilize our more than one million supporters across the country to encourage the administration to seize its unique opportunity to protect our incredible national parks.”
Comments
" The "majority" would rather get their handouts than fund the Parks."
Is that you, Mitt? Or are you talking about ranchers with grazing allotments or oil companies, hedgefund managers, or other similar partakers at the American Buffet of Subsidies?
Be sure to read the article today about starving land managment agencies.
reducing livestock grazing on public lands would be a net loss for American taxpayers
Documentation? Its common sense. Rancher pays X for grazing. Fed government receives X. If they no longer graze, Fed government gets zero. That is a loss to tax payers. In addition, rancher has to pay higher fees on private property, that raises the cost of his product. American taxpayers pay more. That is a loss to taxpayers.
As to fracking and mining damage, you made the claim, you provide the documentation that they create massive damage and the cost of cleanup to the Feds exceeds Fed receipts.
See answer to Michael
What about them? I suspect you don't have a clue about the issue or the reality. But as part of overall "entitlement" reform, I would give up carried interest. Of course that would raise a small fraction of what getting rid of Obama phones would raise. Its an an easty target to beat up on hedge fund managers, its much harder to face the reality that it is a non-issue. Meanwhile the spending on Obama phones matches the entire NPS budget for operations.
But to stay on point, whether its your entitlements or your perception of other's entitlements, the NPS isn't the priority for either group.
EC, should the government lose money on grazing fees and subsidize a small percentage of livestock growers (supposedly just 2.7 percent of the country's livestock growers graze on U.S. Forest Service and BLM lands)?
Especially when fees on state lands and private lands can be many-fold greater?
http://www.sltrib.com/news/1410101-155/grazing-lands-blm-livestock-135-fee
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-869
For some reason my long Fort Monroe comment is listed under "anonymous." In fact I've been deeply, and quite visibly, involved in the struggle to save Fort Monroe for over a decade. Thanks. Steve Corneliussen (Kurt, if you fix it, maybe then just delete this reply? Thanks.)
Kurt, that "subsidy" is reflected in lower prices to the consumer. Would I prefer the government exploit otherwise underutilized land to lower the cost to the consumer. Absolutely. Same is true for oil and gas, coal, etc. Note, this is a far different "subsidy" than taking monies from productive activities and giving it to a select group of recipients.
EC, if just 2.7 percent of the nation's livestock growers graze their cattle and sheep on public lands, how much benefit is that $1.35 AUM charged by the Forest Service and BLM vs. the $7-$8 being charged on state and private lands providing shoppers?
Can you cite any study that addresses prices affected by the low federal fees vs. the higher private and state fees, where supposedly the bulk of livestock -- upwards of 97 percent -- are grazing?
And if the low fees are costing the federal government $110+ million, could the coin be flipped and it said that taxpayers would benefit from higher grazing fees on public lands?
I don't have the answers to these questions, but I think they're critical to the perception that federally subsidized grazing fees benefit either the consumer, taxpayer, or public lands.
Hi EC,
I think Kurt's comment adequately supports my contention on below-cost public land grazing. Regarding oil and gas development, you say:
A recent article summarizes a study released in June, which extensively covers this issue:
"Oil companies are drilling on public land for the price of a cup of coffee. Here's why that should change." https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/06/16/oil-companie...
According to the article:
You can find the full study at the New York University School of Law's Institute for Policy Integrity website http://policyintegrity.org/files/publications/DOI_LeasingReport.pdf