National Park Service Director Jarvis has written U.S. Rep. Rob Bishop, chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, to state the agency's opposition to legislation that would open up dozens of streams and rivers in Yellowstone and Grand Teton national parks to packrafts/Yellowstone River Delta by Jim Peaco, NPS
Legislation aimed at opening streams and rivers in Grand Teton and Yellowstone national parks to packrafters would undermine the authority of the National Park Service to manage these parks and "set a very poor precedent," says National Park Service Director Jonathan Jarvis.
The director laid out the agency's opposition to the Yellowstone and Grand Teton Paddling Act in a letter (attached) to U.S. Rep. Rob Bishop, chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee that last month supported the legislation drafted by U.S. Rep. Cynthia Lummis, R-Wyoming. Her measure specifically directs the Park Service to allow packrafters access to 50 streams in the two parks.
Among those 50 segments are 4.3 miles along Spread Creek from Grand Teton's eastern boundary to the Snake River, 6.8 miles of Pilgrim Creek from Grand Teton's northeast boundary to Jackson Lake, 26.7 miles of Yellowstone River from Yellowstone's southeast boundary to Yellowstone Lake, and 5.7 miles of the Mountain Ash Creek in southwestern Yellowstone to the creek's confluence with the Falls River.
Director Jarvis said the legislation would subvert the Park Service's authority under the National Park Service Organic Act to manage the resources in the two parks.
"The bill would diminish the ability of park managers to meet their responsibilities under the NPS Organic Act and other laws to provide for pub!ic enjoyment, ensure visitor safety, and address adverse effects to resources at those units and also would set а poor precedent for the NPS," he wrote in the letter sent Nov. 13. "There may be no other scenic resource like this in the United States, and possiЬ!y the world, where visitors can experience large intact river systems and their environments in а wild, ecologically pristine state."
Rep. Lummis in 2014 introduced legislation to open waters in the two parks to packrafters after discussing the matter with members of the American Packrafting Association. That initial effort was short on specifics, but gave the Interior Department and the Park Service three years to assess the paddling potential of nearly 7,000 stream miles in Yellowstone, and dozens more miles in nearby Grand Teton.
While the measure was not taken up last year by Congress, Rep. Lummis reintroduced a similar measure early this year. That legislation, if enacted, would give the Park Service three years to study the potential streams that could be opened to paddle sports such as packrafting, kayaking, and canoeing and assess what impacts could be created; prevent additional commercial paddling operations beyond what currently are in place, and; somewhat restrict where paddlers could go in Grand Teton. But during last month's committee meeting she amended it with language that opponents maintain would force the Park Service to open up more than 400 miles of streams to paddlers.
The Park Service fears the congresswoman's legislation, if enacted, could lead to significant resource damage in the parks.
"These rivers are sensitive nesting and breeding grounds for wildlife, home to endemic and endangered species, spawniпg grounds for native cutthroat trout, апd some of the last streams in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem for Arctic grayling. Opening these waterways will increase the risk of the traпsmission of aquatic invasive species like zebra and quagga mussels, Eurasian watermilfoil, whirling disease and others," wrote Director Jarvis.
He also pointed out that paddlers already have access to 163 of the 168 lakes in Yellowstone, and to 26 miles of the Snake River in Grand Teton, as well as to numerous lakes in that park.
Between holidays, scheduled recesses for both Senate and House, and major issues such as the nation's debt limit and budget yet to be resolved, whether this legislation will gain further attention this session is questionable.
Comments
There's so much talk about packrafters being banned, but that's not at all true.
a) Packrafters aren't "banned." They can paddle on almost 200 lakes in Yellowstone, dozens of miles of river in Grand Teton and hundreds of miles rivers and creeks outside of the national parks.
This small group of packrafters are upsest (many paddlers actually agree with the NPS) because they can't go on every creek and stream they want in the national parks, including places where they would be disturbing miles of currently relatively undisturbed wildlife habitat in a single float. There are many, many places to paddle both in and outside of the national parks.
b) This small group of packrafters who say they've been ignored can still access those backcountry areas like everyone else. But they have to do it through an existing use. The park service can't take on every new use for every new recreation fad that comes along (in this case, lightweight packrafts that can float smaller streams than other craft and cost several hundred to several thousand dollars a piece).
It's a national park, not Disneyworld.
Smokies, if you have any evidence that Jarvis's decisions were influenced by his brother's lobbying efforts, let us see it.
I have no evidence of that, EC. But evidence of a policy change towards a concession driven NPS under Jarvis is abundant. And it should be troubling to all public lands users. Just look at the new FLREA legislation pending. Jarvis knows where his bread is buttered and caters and is catered to accordingly. The days of the constant mantra from NPS of "this is what works best for the NPS" instead of what works for the public lands users is facing the test of public scrutiny and failing miserably. The worm is turning. Folks are realizing that public lands are slipping from public hands into the pockets of commerce. And Jarvis has steered the ship into these waters.
Sorry Smokies, that anon post was me (can't figure out why it keeps logging me out). The "accusations" I was referring to was the one related to the Jarvis's which you admit you have no evidence of. But with your closing line, I see you are comfortable in Lee's camp of making baseless accusations.
I'm still trying to figure out the mustache-phobia. I've got a beard, and I've seen small children get scared of bearded men because when they were much younger some grumpy old man scared them, but your mustache fear is puzzling.
My moustache fear was learned in adulthood. It tends to preceed manipulation of data and trumpted up fees to use public lands. (and it is, apparently, a prerequisite for indoctrination into the hierarchy of the NPS kool aid club)
Smokies probably has one thing right when he wrote: "Just look at the new FLREA legislation pending. Jarvis knows where his bread is buttered. . "
The problem isn't so much with Jarvis as it with a multi-headed hydra called Congress.
One of the most bitter facts of American life today is that attempts by Congress to use their power often means that the head of a government agency -- and not just the NPS, but most others too -- must dance to the tune of the Congressional pipers or risk severe harm to the organization they are responsible to try to manage. When our parks are used by members of Congress as pawns in their games, alert managers sometimes find that relatively small battles may have to be forfeited in order to save the entire organization and the public they are trying to serve.