A new year is dawning on the National Park System. What would you like to see there in 2018?/Acadia National Park sunrise by Colleen Miniuk-Sperry.
New Year's Day is the day we're supposed to make resolutions. Let's take a pass on that for now, though, and instead look at things we'd like to see across the National Park System and with the National Park Service in 2018.
1. That courts hold that President Trump had no authority to strip 1 million acres, collectively, from Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante national monuments in Utah.
This could become a landmark legal decision. While presidents in the past have altered the size of some national monuments, none has ever broken one up as President Trump's proclamation calls for, and The Antiquities Act only gives presidents the authority to create, not destroy, national monuments. Then, too, when the Federal Land Management and Policy Act was adopted in 1976, the House committee that crafted the requisite legislation said, "that that law 'would also specially reserve to the Congress the authority to modify and revoke withdrawals for national monuments created under the Antiquities Act."
Not to be overlooked is the argument that a president has no authority through either the Constitution or an act of Congress to rise above Congress's authority under the Property Clause, "which provides that '[t]he Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States.'"
2. That a director be nominated, and confirmed, for the National Park Service.
We can't recall if there ever was a president who waited so long, or simply ignored the matter, to nominate a director. But are there many candidates for this job? Acting Director Mike Reynolds, who not too long ago had his title changed to "Deputy Director, Operations Exercising the Authority of Director," has had to quietly accept the Trump administration's moves to reverse the ban on disposable plastic water bottles in parks, watch as it cleared the way for a nearly 7-mile-long line of transmission towers cross the James River near Historic Jamestowne and Colonial National Historical Park, listen to Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke say Park Service staff are good at cleaning restrooms but not managing campgrounds, tell the Park Service to take another look at bans against the use of greasy baits for hunting bears in Alaska, and see a presidential budget proposal that would cost nearly $400 million and about 1,200 jobs from the Park Service.
3. That Congress finally accept its responsibility to address the estimated $11.3 billion maintenance backlog in short fashion.
Money to address this issue doesn't seem to be the issue, as the Republican Congress just passed an overhaul of the tax code that most analysts say will add $1.5 trillion to the national deficit. Too, Congress this past fall in short fashion wrote a check for nearly $52 billion in emergency funds in connection with Western wildfires and Hurricane Harvey.
4. That Secretary Zinke drop his surge pricing scheme for 17 national parks and begin lobbying Congress to fully fund the National Park Service.
The secretary's surge pricing scheme was a failure from the start. It won't measurably diminish the Park Service's $11.3 billion maintenance backlog, it benefits larger parks to the detriment of smaller ones, it could lead to visitation declines on parks with large local populations that enjoy day trips into the parks, such as Rocky Mountain, Shenandoah, and Acadia. It also ignores Mr. Zinke's earlier pitches that by increasing oil and gas revenues (which he tells us have been realized), the maintenance backlog could be whittled away.
Another potential problem surge pricing could create, a colleague pointed out to me, is pushing more visitation to shoulder seasons. That, of course, would put more strain on a park's natural resources and come at a time when park staff has been reduced. It also could lead to more demands for concessions services (think lodging, dining, etc.), and those concessionaires in turn might seek higher park fees to fund the cost of retaining park staff and maintain roads and campgrounds.
If anything, entrance fees (if they're to be collected), should be minimal, for national parks speak to more than just vacations. They protect lands from development, provide valuable wildlife habitat, and provide inspiration and rejuvenation. Once upon a time, there was a "prevailing philosophy that outdoor recreation lands should be open and available to all socioeconomic classes at no cost" because of the benefits they provide.
For those who believe higher individual fees are needed to maintain the parks, 1) insist that donation boxes be installed in the parks; 2) lobby to have a checkoff box placed on tax returns for contributions to the parks; and 3) donate to the National Park Foundation, which spends its revenues on improving the parks (See Traveler's story about the Park Foundation's record campaign in our Top Stories of 2017 post).
5. That more parks move towards establishing caps for visitation.
National parks have well-defined boundaries. As such, they can only handle so many humans with their incumbent footprint. As staff at Zion National Park have recognized, and as other parks (Arches, Yellowstone, Muir Woods) are putting more thought to just how many visitors those landscapes can handle, its only commonsense that limits be established. And if those caps require reservations, so be it.
6. Let's create some more large-scale landscape parks!
Where would these be? Consider the Wind River Range of Wyoming (roughly 2,800 square miles, or 1.8 million acres, mostly U.S. Forest Service), the Sawtooth National Recreation Area in Idaho (1,142 square miles, or 730,880 acres, mostly U.S. Forest Service), perhaps part of the Bitterroot Range of Montana (24,223 square miles, much national forest), or the San Rafael Swell area of central Utah (3,000 square miles, mostly Bureau of Land Management).
7. Volunteers are invaluable, but let's create more NPS jobs.
Many people look forward to volunteering for the National Park Service in retirement. And why not? Great job location, interesting work, fascinating people (mostly), and great off-hours activities. But wouldn't it be better to create incentives, through job creation, for the next generation of national park biologists, historians, archaeologists, landscape architects, interpreters, cultural resource specialists, guides, geologists, museum specialists, etc., etc., etc.
According to the National Park Service, in 2016 there were 240,000 VIPs, or Volunteers-In-Parks, greeting visitors, building trails, leading programs, performing research, or doing just about any task imaginable. That number of volunteers is equivalent to "more than 3,200 additional employees," the agency noted in a transition document to the Trump administration.
Under that transition document, the Park Service has a goal of utilizing 1 million volunteers by 2020. With a four-fold increase in volunteers, and the current administration's goal of cutting 1,200 permanent positions from the Park Service, what will the agency look like if those two goals materialize?
8. That next fall's hurricane season skirt the Caribbean and South Florida.
Sure, that's a big ask, but those regions were pummeled this past year and recovery is ongoing. At the same time, let's hope planners in the parks recognize the growing risks of sea level rise and hurricanes and plan accordingly when it comes to infrastructure.
9. That the Sperry Chalet in the backcountry of Glacier National Park is rebuilt to historic architectural designs.
A throwback to the days when visitors arrived via train on the doorstep of Glacier and set out on horseback across the park, this chalet long has charmed visitors. When a wildfire destroyed it last fall, the Glacier National Park Conservancy stepped up with the financial resources to stabilize it for winter. Park staff are expected to conduct additional structural analysis and a review of the site area to help inform decisions about the future of the chalet complex.
10. That visitors take more responsibility for themselves when they visit parks.
Every year we report on wildfires in the parks started by visitors who fail to properly douse their campfires, and on the need to put down bears because they came to rely on human foods because a careless camper failed to properly store their meals. Let's all take the time needed to become more aware of our behavior and actions in the parks, and not get offended if another park traveler reminds us to clean up after ourselves or douse our fires.
Now, what would you like to see in the parks in 2018?
Comments
y_p_w - Actually the Antiquities Act does not say "only" It is silent on modifications that reduce the size. Perhaps because what one has the power to grant generally they can also take away. That is why it is so dangerous to say our "rights" come from the government.
EC, you have to read the legislation very strictly, no? Since it is silent on modifications to national monuments, it has not extended that authority.
As to the pig book, earmarks no doubt will continue. But why can't some benefit the park system? If you read our Top Stories post, you might have seen the progress Pew Trust's Restore America's Parks has been making in building support for having Congress tackle the maintenance backlog.
But Congress needs to be told to do so; it won't act independently.
Mark, the lands I pointed to for inclusion in the park system already are in federal control via the Forest Service or BLM, so there would be no aquisition costs, per se, just a transfer of authority, as was done with Valles Caldera.
Of course Congress would have to include the funding for the Park Service to manage any additions. But that could be supplemented by transfers of $$$ from the Forest Service and BLM. And these "new" parks would not need all the infrastructure of, say, a Yellowstone, Grand Canyon, or Yosemite. They could be wilderness parks such as North Cascades.
Just setting them aside as part of the park system with relatively minimal improvements would bring great benefits:
* Gateway communities such as Lander and Riverton in Wyoming, Price and Green River in Utah, Stanley in Idaho, and even Whitefish in Montana, would benefit immensely from the prestige and popularity of being located next to a national park.
* Wildlife - wolves, grizzlies, moose, elk, bison, wolverines, mountain goats, bighorn sheep, etc -- would benefit from having millions more acres to roam with either no or very minimal hunting. So, too, would flora, and clean streams.
* The park system itself would gain release valves of a sort from crowding in parks like Yellowstone, Glacier, Grand Canyon, etc.
As the saying goes, they're not creating wilderness any more, and there's a need to protect the remaining landscapes as best we can.
With the National Park Service entering its second century, the time might be extremely ripe to tweak the paradigm that's been in place for the past 100 years.
Here's a Congressional Research Service paper:
http://www.law.indiana.edu/publicland/files/national_monuments_modificat...
And a paper from the Virginia Law Review:
http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3834&con...
I wish that were so. We would be so much better off if the Constitution and Legislation were to be read strictly. Unfortunately both seemed to be stretched to allow/prohibit things they were never meant to do.
Thats your take, my take is that what one can grant one can take away. We will see what the courts say.
Mark - my best guess is that your "decades of property management" is based on a pro-profit basis ... [multiple Fortune 100 Companies"? --- and your repetitive buzzwording of 'portfolio'].
Not that applicable to the federal government, despite the frothing of those who want to monitize the parks. An ancient tribal burial ground. The last of an animal species. Old Faithful. These items of intangible but great value cannot be put at risk by putting them in a "portfolio".
Roger that, EC.
Some comments sound like Republicans are out to "starve children a kill old people." One of the lines we hear out of the Left for years.
It is literally an observation, TA. And you will observe it much more over the past year.We didn't want to observe the fires in California or the massive storm destruction in Puerto Rico either, but there it is.