ANPR members submitted these comments to NPS management regarding the draft 2006 NPS Management Policies.

ANPR is the only organization that represents current NPS employees and partners from all professions and disciplines, so it is uniquely positioned to comment as a group on these proposed changes with both specificity and weight.

Consolidated Comments

Comments on Inside Front Cover and Introduction

It concerns me that the intent given by our Directorate as why the revisions to the 2001 Management Policies are necessary seems disingenuous. That stated intent is:

"The policies are being updated to improve their clarity and to keep pace with changes in laws, regulations, socio-economic factors and technology. The revised policies will also improve understandings among NPS managers, and between NPS managers and the public, regarding how decisions are made in protecting park resources and providing opportunities for public enjoyment of the parks."

In my opinion the draft provides less clarity to NPS employees for decision-making and fails to keep pace with changes in law, specifically case law.

In the Introduction section of the draft a "Hierarchy of Authorities" for NPS decision makers is referenced. Understanding this hierarchy is crucial to all public policy and decision makers. Unfortunately the draft language muddles the order of these authorities and leaves out one very important authority that does limit the parameters of public policy and decision makers. The correct order of these authorities for the NPS is:

The U.S. Constitution

Treaties (with sovereign nations)

Federal Statutory Law

Federal Case Law

Executive Orders or Proclamations

Federal Regulations

Departmental policy

NPS Management policies

NPS Director's Orders

Park level guidance (i.e., General Management Plans, site specific plans, annual performance plans, etc.)

All guidance must be non-conflicting with those authorities ranked higher on the list. To that end, agency policy can never trump Federal statutory law or Federal case law. While the draft uses the term "public law," and it could be argued that this includes both Federal statutory law or Federal case law, the draft rarely references Federal case law and the binding effect it has on our policy and decision making ability. I will be referencing this discussion point in several other paragraphs below.

The draft uses the term "balance" under the discussion of Unacceptable Impacts and at other locations within the document. This is an overreach of the policy maker and it violates the "Hierarchy of Authorities" principle described above. Congress made its intent clear as to the purpose of the National Park Service with passage of 1916 Organic Act and the 1970 General Authorities Act (as amended in 1978). There is no "balance" of preservation and enjoyment. Both shall be provided; however, the enjoyment prong of this purpose has a qualifier on it, that being retaining resources in unimpaired status. There is no qualifier on the preservation prong. Preservation will occur without exception, and enjoyment will occur as long as it does not conflict with preservation. Use of the term "balance" muddles the clear distinction between these prongs as established in Federal statutory law and repeatedly supported by Federal case law. In this regard the draft conflicts with Federal statutory law and Federal case law and therefore cannot be binding on NPS decision makers. The draft also continually makes the statutorily mandated NPS purpose less clear than the 2001 NPS Management Policies, and therefore does not even meet the original intent of those that proposed the revision in the first place. Any discussion, listing, or referencing of these two prongs of our purpose in NPS Management Policies must contain the qualifier on the enjoyment prong to be accurate and non-conflicting with higher authorities, and to be usable to NPS decision makers. The draft does not meet this test.

In the Introduction section the draft wording indicates that within the draft there should be no distinction made between the words conservation, preservation, or protection. It further indicates that these words are interchangeable within the draft unless a specific provision of Federal statutory law is being discussed, and in these cases the draft says it will use the same terminology as the law. So, if this is the rationale for the terminology used then why does the draft change the word preservation (in 2001 NPS Management Policies) to conservation at almost very opportunity [sections 4.1.4, 5.3.1, 5.3.1.2, 5.3.5, 5.3.5.4.5, 9.1.2, 9.1.3.1, 9.4, 10.2.2, etc.]? Or add conservation to a list at other locations [sections 5.1.3, 5.2, 5.3.5.5.6, etc.]? If there is no distinction between the terms, then why was change necessary? I can only assume that the authors of the 2006 draft know full well that there is a difference in these terms, both in contemporary American language and in a legal definition sense.

As described in numbered paragraph 2 above, the distinction between these terms for National Park Service use has been clearly defined in Federal case law (a higher authority), and therefore using them in a manner that conflicts with Federal case law reduces clarity and renders them non-binding on NPS decision makers. This is in direct opposition to the clarity intent described by the draft's originators. There are approximately a dozen Federal case law judgments that support the definition of these terms. The one most applicable I will mention is National Rifle Association v. Potter, 628 F.Supp.903 (D.D.C. 1986). In this decision the Federal courts explained the use of the term "conservation" in the 1916 NPS Organic Act, what the word meant in 1916, and how modern American language has clarified the distinction between the terms "conservation" and "preservation." To paraphrase the court's judgment, it described that in 1916 the word conservation had two meanings which were either ¹a multiple use definition (which in 1916 was known as utilitarian conservation - utilizing natural resources over time for the greatest good to the greatest number of people without gross waste) or ²a strict protection definition of natural resources independent of use or enjoyment. The court's conclusion was that Congressional intent was that the NPS' purpose was meant to be under the "strict protectionism" definition and that in today's American language that the proper word to use is preservation. Today's use of the term "conservation" no longer means this "strict protectionism" that Congress intended. Therefore, by Federal case law there is a legal difference between these terms as it relates to the NPS. If the originators of the 2006 draft are really interested in policy clarity for NPS decision makers then they should reiterate this legal standard in official NPS policy until such time as it is changed by Congress or overturned by the Federal courts. "Preservation" is the correct legal term to use throughout the NPS Management Policies unless the document is quoting the 1916 Act verbatim. To do otherwise ignores the rule of law, exposes the appearance of a devious and politically motivated intent, and puts NPS decision makers at odds with following the law or following "what the boss says." The rationale used in this case, that was based on a U. S. Supreme Court decision [Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 467 U.S. 837, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984)], has now been upheld in several Federal judgments at U. S. Court of Appeals level for several Federal Judicial Circuits. Ignoring this is bad and illegal public policy and should not be an option.

Throughout the document the terms "public use" or "enjoyment" have been added in many new locations, often in lists of the purpose or intent of the draft policy. I have already discussed in numbered paragraph 3 that to increase clarity the qualifier for public use or enjoyment should always be used to avoid the perception that the items in these lists have equal weight as currently written. In addition, the construction of the sentences often is in variance to one of the most prevalent writing or speaking styles in the world. This style is often described as The First Among Equals. In this style the writer or speaker will always first say or write the most important thing or phrase among a list of equals. Federal statutory law and Federal case law makes preservation the most important prong of our purpose, not only by specifically stating that this is so, but also by listing it first. It should also be listed that way in NPS policy [example - "preservation of resources and enjoyment that does cause or lead to impairment of resources or values"] every time such listings are used in the document.

Appropriate Use

The draft states "(t)he Park Service will always (emphasis added) welcome activities that are appropriate to the parks." The term "always" is extremely problematic especially when combined with the subsequent statement which includes "uses that may represent new technology." "Always" does not allow any deviation. We recommend the removal of the word "always" in this sentence.

This section is the first of many throughout the document that permits, and in some cases encourages, "impacts" as long as they do not lead to "impairment." The policy, as a cornerstone of the Management Policies, leads us down a dangerous path. Impacts are identifiable. Permitting or encouraging impacts up to the level of impairment is contrary to the fundamental purpose of the National Park Service. Impairment, as evidenced by the number of threatened, endangered or extinct species, is oftentimes hard to assess until it is upon us. One cut, several cuts, perhaps even a hundred cuts may not bring on death, but keep progressing, and one gets to the level of a "death by a thousand cuts."

The Park System Resource Protection Act (more commonly referred to as 19jj) provides that "any person who destroys, causes the loss of, or injures any park system resource is liable to the United States for response costs and damages resulting from such destruction, loss or injury." This law has been extremely successful in ensuring the American taxpayer is "made whole" for impacts or damages to park resources. The policy allowing acceptable impacts up to impairment will make it difficult, if not impossible to apply this law to individuals who negatively impact park resources.

The draft requires the "best scientific information available" to be "used" in the decision making process. This is an admirable goal until one evaluates its sometimes negative consequences. Only a handful of national park units have Science Advisors or the ability to procure or encourage science. Absent available resources to obtain the "best scientific information" the policies would require us to "use" (which is specifically stated in the draft) the best scientific information. The "best available" could sometimes be what one person witnessed on one day; hardly the type of information that should guide a decision regarding park resources.

For example, when developing the California desert's general management plans several years ago, the only science available addressing the impacts of livestock grazing on desert tortoise was a science project contracted by the parties interested in continuing livestock grazing in desert tortoise habitat. This "best (only) available science" expounded upon the virtues of livestock grazing on desert tortoise, concluding that since one scientist had observed a tortoise munching on a cow pie (which has been roundly questioned), cattle must be good for tortoises. The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service had listed the desert tortoise as threatened, noting the decline of the population in areas impacted by cattle grazing. At that time, however, there was little available science. Park managers were faced with making a reasoned decision, absent science other than the paper discussed above, about the management of livestock grazing in national park units. If these draft policies were in place, the managers would have been mandated to use the advocate's science, lessening the ability to protect resources and a listed species.

Unacceptable Impacts

While we understand the good intentions of this Introductory Chapter to clearly define terms used within the document, we find that many of these definitions only lead to further confusion. For example, the definition of "unacceptable impacts" has lead to the raising of more questions than answers. Following are our questions:

1. Does the term "unacceptable impact" only apply to "use"? This is implied in this section, but is not actually stated. Or, is the list of impacts that would keep something from being an "appropriate use" also the list that should be used for determining the appropriateness of all park actions? If this definition and list only relate to "use" we recommend that the heading of this section be changed to read "Unacceptable Impacts Resulting from Use."

2. What is the difference, given the definitions, between something that causes "unacceptable impacts" and something that causes "impairment?" We see virtually no difference, which could lead many to believe that as long as a proposed use does not rise to the extreme impact level of "impairment," it must automatically be deemed "acceptable."

3. It seems that another layer of confusing jargon has been added to a decision-making process that many in the public already find confusing. Explaining to the public what constitutes a "significant" impact, as park managers are required to do in the new Director's Order on civic engagement, is already a difficult task. Another layer has now been added, that of the "unacceptable" impact. The difference between a "significant" impact and an "unacceptable" impact needs to be clearly delineated. Can a significant impact be acceptable? Can an unacceptable impact not be significant?

4. What is meant by the term "unreasonably interfere with?" Unreasonable to whom? Unreasonable to park managers or unreasonable to an activist group?

Hierarchy of Authorities

The section is misleading and needs independent legal review.

Policy Development

The requirement that "(a)ll (emphasis added) policy must be articulated in writing," demonstrates a lack of understanding of "policy." Policy can be developed or demonstrated by the allocation or programming of a budget or in a variety of other ways. There are a variety of policies throughout the Service which guide our management (i.e. employee, housing, internal operations, etc.) yet not appropriate for this document or publication and public input. Policy should guide the overall decision making process; however, it is virtually impossible to address every given circumstance with which managers are faced in a written policy.

Footnote Number 1

Important to those of us with much pride in our organization is the proper use of our name, the "National Park Service." The use of the term "Park Service" and "Service" is inappropriate in such an important document. We suggest using a search and replace function in the document to change all references to "Park Service" or "Service" to either "National Park Service" or "NPS."

Inside Front Cover

p.1 line 27 - "provide access to our Nation's natural and cultural heritage" is a key phrase, especially "providing access" and "heritage". These concepts are essential to DOI's role in managing lands for the public trust, are not captured in the replacing language, and need to be retained.

p.1 lines 29-33. Drop "Encourage and", beginning sentence with "Provide…" but keep the rest of this paragraph up through "…American taxpayer." It is vital that we continue to carry out scientific research to support our objectives, and it should be stated, as well as developing and using resources in an environmentally sound manner. Do not delete. However, "…honor[ing] special responsibilities" as stated in line 26 is a good replacement for line 34. p.2 line 1&2 - Much rationalization has surfaced from Washington as to why it is okay to switch from "preserve" to "conserve" in the rewritten management policies. The argument on p.3 under "Conserve, Preserve, Protect" is not adequate justification for the change on page 2. The key differences between preserve and conserve are that "preserve" includes the concepts of preventing harm, protecting, and maintaining, whereas "conserve" lacks those but adds "not wasted". When looked at in this light, there is a major difference between the two ideals, and the Park Service's mission most certainly falls within the former. "Not wasted" has significant variance in interpretation based on the values or needs of the specific user/manager and prevailing political pressures. Dredging for gravel in a pristine salmon spawning stream would be considered "not wasting" to some - as would many other kinds of natural resource harvesting, but parks are about protecting and maintaining for future generations, not using regardless of ultimate loss or damage. In keeping with the Organic Act, we must maintain the "preserve unimpaired" philosophy. Even if the change is "not intended to, or should be construed to…" as stated on p. 3 line 19, changing the language in the management policy opens the door for changes in management based on political pressure (why else are you suggesting the wording change in the first place?)

Introduction

p.3 lines 9-21. Delete paragraph. Especially it is repeated again almost verbatim on p.11. Parks should be conserved, preserved, and/or protected based on Congressional intent in their enabling legislation, and it is not appropriate to use the Management Policies as a broad-sweeping brush to change all or any parks' purpose.

p.4 line 12 - change to "cause irreparable harm"

p.5 line 4 - add "this and" future generations

Introduction-

p.3, line17: insert often "…these words are often used interchangeably,"

p.3, lines 18-21: delete entire last sentence and replace with …"statute, or where a specific word is intended to be used explicitly.

For me and many in the public, the words preserve and protect imply a higher level than conserve and I don't think they are always interchangeable and they should not be as such in this document. Conserve means to avoid wasteful or destructive use, while preserve means to keep safe from injury or harm or to keep intact. They are not the same as one implies a lower level of coverage. I do not think conserve should be inserted instead of protect or preserve throughout this document.

p.4, line 6: delete words "will always" and add plural s to …welcomes activities…. My rational for this change is that we may not welcome activities, however appropriate, when certain conditions arise, for example when conflicting activities are competing for same time/space or when too much use is overwhelming park staff or the resource.

p.4, line 24: insert first …mitigated first or eliminated….

p.4, line 34: delete "and enjoyment"

p.4, line 36: change "enjoyment' to use ...and visitor use in managing…. This addresses a fundamental issue that I have always held in regarding the Organic Act and the mission statement and one I will address again later. The terms enjoyment and use are NOT the same and no attempt to use them interchangeably should be made. Even though they may mean similar things in many circumstances and one may imply the other or vice versa, enjoyment does not necessarily result in use! Many, including myself, have enjoyed parks such as Grand Teton simply by seeing the mountains from afar, outside the park. Similarly, one may enjoy a park's resources simply by seeing a photo of a special animal or by hearing or reading about an event that the park commemorates. Many such examples exist and this fundamental issue of enjoyment should not be tainted by its nexus with use. (Enough on the soap box! :)

p.5, line 4: Replace the word "degrade" with change and replace the word "preclude" with deprive, …cumulatively change resource conditions so as to deprive future…. Not all impacts are negative or degrading and impacts need not prevent or preclude future generations from enjoyment before they are considered unacceptable.

p.5, lines 17 - 22: This section on Third-party Enforceability that states the policies are not enforceable as law seems to remove the NPS from public accountability. I wonder if this is appropriate.

p.7, lines 17 - 21: "Compliance and Accountability" additions. Same comments as above on p.5, lines 17 - 22

Comments on Section 1

I believe that section 1.4.3 of the draft is a misleading statement of what the Federal courts have said. While Chevron did say that agencies have discretion to make a "permissible interpretation" of Federal statutory law if Congressional intent was unclear, the courts have also made it clear that Congressional intent was that the NPS' purpose is preservation with enjoyment that must fit into the context of preservation. Section 1.4.3 appears to attempt to weaken this legal standard by policy, thereby reducing clarity for NPS decision makers.

In sections of the draft like 1.4.3.1 where "cause an unacceptable impacts" is discussed there is too little detail to give decision makers the specific guidance they need. "Unacceptable impacts" must be described in terms of immediate or cumulative over time so that proposed uses of parks can be evaluated in that context.

In the decision making criteria of section 1.4.3.2 of the draft "engage the public" is listed before "best scientific information available." See numbered paragraph 5 above - The First Among Equals rule. If a conflict between science and public consensus exists, science should always outweigh engaging the public in NPS decisions about resource preservation as long as Federal statutory law and Federal case law relating to NPS units exists in its current form. Public consensus has its place in the political arena and can get laws changed if that is the remedy the public desires. Additional in section 1.4.5 of the draft "civic engagement" does not carry the same weight in impairment decision making as scientific information and it should not be implied in policy as such. Civic engagement is an excellent tool when higher authorities allow managerial discretion, but it has little place in decision making when the statutory requirement is clear.

In section 1.4.4 of the draft when describing the NPS' statutory requirement the language "generally enforceable by the federal courts" is added. I dislike the use of the word "generally" here. The statutory requirement is enforceable by the federal courts. There is no "generally" about it as is evidenced by approximately a dozen cases. Using "generally" reduces the clarity of a manager's adherence to the statutory requirement.

Section 1.4.6 of the draft has it correct, resources first, values (including enjoyment) second subject to the non-impairment standard. This format should have been adopted for the rest of the draft document!

1.1 The National Park Idea

In paragraph 3, the writers of this document have virtually altered the meaning of the Organic Act with the change of one word in the newly added paraphrasing of the Act. Certain words quoted from the act have been interspersed with slightly different words that are not in quotes. The sentence we refer to states:

In 1916, Congress created the National Park Service in the Department of the Interior to "promote and regulate the use of the federal areas known as national parks, monuments, and reservations," and to "conserve" the resources and values in these areas "unimpaired" for (emphasis added) the enjoyment of future generations (16 USC 1).

When looking at the complete quote from the Organic Act, as is quoted in section 1.4.1 of the draft management policies, it becomes quite obvious that the writers have changed the word "and" to the word "for." While this is only one word, it results in a significant change in meaning. The use of the word "for" implies that the only reason to conserve resources is "for" public use. This puts public use at a much higher level of importance than conservation. The use of the term "and" in the Organic Act does not put public use at a higher level of importance than conservation. Indeed, the use of the term "and" clearly shows the writers of the Acts' intentions that conservation prevail over use when the two are in conflict.

1.3.3 Feasibility

The feasibility evaluation criteria dramatically changes measures under which we consider the addition of new park units. Funding has never preceded the establishment of new park areas. It is unreasonable to include the availability of funding and its trade-off with funding for existing park units prior to determining whether or not to include a unit in the National Park System. Setting that standard will preclude the establishment of new park areas because Congress does not provide an appropriation in advance of the establishment of a new park.

1.4.3 The NPS Obligations to Conserve and Provide for Enjoyment of Park Resources and Values

The comments above in Section 1.1 about the change of the word "and" to "for" also apply in this section. In fact, the change is even more blatant in this section as the writer's interpretation of the Organic Act is directly preceded by the actual quote from the Act. Clearly showing the attempt to alter the intent of the Act. If, as will most likely be argued, the change of words does not constitute a change in meaning, then why was the word changed? The interchange of words within this document adds confusion and reduces credibility for the entire draft.

This section is now a dramatic change in philosophy, allowing impacts as long as they are not "unacceptable," which is contrary to law (Organic Act, Park Resources Protection Act (19jj), Redwood Act and a number of park specific Acts). Further, this is an arbitrary and subjective standard and will likely lead to disagreements between park managers and those proposing uses which result in impacts. While an individual impact may be unavoidable and not rise to the level of permanent impairment, "acceptable" impacts could likely lead to an inability on the part of park managers to conserve resources.

This section provides another example where use seems to take precedence over the preservation mission. The move from "leave them unimpaired" to "balancing conservation and enjoyment" is in direct conflict with the Congressional intent of laws governing the management of national park units.

Congress specifically requires the National Park Service to authorize activities and manage parks areas "in light of the high public value and integrity of the National Park System and shall not be exercised in derogation of the values and purposes for which these various areas have been established." (NPS General Authorities Act, P.L. 91-383).

We are confused, therefore, as to why the following sentence that was in the 2001 policies was deleted in the 2005 draft:

Congress, recognizing that the enjoyment by future generations of the national parks can be ensured only if the superb quality of park resources and values is left unimpaired, has provided that when there is a conflict between conserving resources and values and providing for enjoyment of them, conservation is to be predominant.

Deputy Director Stephen P. Martin stated in his testimony before the Senate subcommittee on National Parks that "the policies clearly underscore that when there is a conflict between use and conservation, the protection of the resources will be predominant." Mr. Martin stated before the subcommittee exactly what used to be in the policies rather than what actually is in the 2005 draft. If the intent was to keep the NPS mission intact and to have conservation be predominant, why then was the sentence that very clearly stated this direction deleted in the 2005 draft? The removal of the above statement, which served in the 2001 policies to clearly guide NPS managers in carrying out the letter and spirit of the Organic Act, results in an ambiguous policy.

We are also confused as to why the next sentence that was in the 2001 policies was deleted from the 2005 draft:

This is how courts have consistently interpreted the Organic Act, in decisions that variously describe it as making "resource protection the primary goal" or "resource protection the overarching concern," or as establishing a "primary mission of resources conservation," a "conservation mandate," "an overriding preservation mandate," "an overarching goal of resource protection," or "but a single purpose, namely, conservation.

While we are not legal experts, we assume that these court decisions are still valid and serve as precedence. Why, then, is this sentence deleted from the draft and replaced with "[t]he courts have recognized that the Service has broad discretion in determining how best to fulfill the Organic Act's mandate." This change results in a complete disregard for the court rulings referred to in the 2001 policies.

The 2001 policies also state that "NPS managers must always seek ways to avoid, or to minimize to the greatest degree practicable, adverse (emphasis added) impacts on park resources and values." This sentence has been changed to read "NPS mangers must always seek ways to avoid, or to minimize to the greatest extent practicable, unacceptable (emphasis added) impacts on park resources and values." Why was this change made? Don't we always want to attempt to minimize adverse impacts, no matter what their degree? This change implies that we will now only attempt to minimize impacts that qualify as "unacceptable." In fact, if the impact is "unacceptable," then wouldn't we not only want to "minimize" the impacts, but actually change the action so that it does not result in "unacceptable" impacts at all?

Along with the Congressional requirement to study new areas for inclusion into the National Park System, the Secretary is required to annually report damage or threats to parks. The draft management policies, in allowing impacts up to the level of permanent impairment, could require we report our activities to Congress as damaging or threatening to resources.

This section also requires "scientific study and public involvement" before the manager can take appropriate steps to protect the park's resources. Clearly, park managers often do not have the fiscal resources available to procure a scientific study; therefore, public involvement would stand alone to "resolve concerns" which, oftentimes, is a small minority of the public advocating the use.

We recommend the language of this section in the 2001 policies be reinserted in its entirety.

1.4.3.1 Appropriate Use

Uses, which are defined in this section as being "appropriate", include "uses that have occurred historically in a park." There are a number of uses which have occurred historically in parks which are not appropriate with current knowledge and our conservation mission. For instance, many parks historically fed the black bears; we now better understand the consequences of that practice. The golf course and airstrip in Yosemite National Park were historic uses which had an impact, but did not rise to the level of impairment. This section would provide an argument for those individuals desiring to see the golf course and airstrip return.

Many parks were established because of their historic uses and the desire of Congress to increase the protection of the park area by designating it a national park unit. Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area was set aside by Congress to preserve open space and limit the historic rampant development. Mojave National Preserve was set aside, in part, in response to the damage caused to this fragile environment by the cross-desert, Barstow to Vegas, motorcycle races. This was a historic park use. The list continues. Channel Islands National Park designation modified the historic harvesting of aquatic species. At Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks and Redwood National Park, park designation prevented the historic logging of trees. In Olympic National Park elk were historically hunted for their teeth, causing concern from the Boone and Crockett Club which lobbied for the park's designation. John Muir, concerned about the sheep grazing which he referred to as "hoofed locusts," was successful in getting that historic practice eliminated with the designation of Yosemite National Park.

Congress has recognized a hierarchy of public lands and uses. They charged the United States Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management with managing lands for "multiple use" purposes. The National Park Service has been mandated with managing land for the protection of our nation's natural and cultural treasures. This is not to categorize any one mission as "higher" or "lesser," rather it is meant to point out that there are different management agendas for different lands set aside by Congress. This appropriate use section seems to change that intent by Congress, morphing the National Park Service into the Bureau of Land Management or United States Forest Service.

1.4.3.3 Park Purposes and Legislatively Authorized Uses

The wording in this section modifies the legislative intent of most authorized uses. The draft policy states that "(i)n the administration of mandated uses, park managers must allow the use." Typically, uses are "authorized" and, over time, phased out through a voluntary elimination of the use by the authorized user, through a "willing seller" avenue or in a variety of other ways.

Livestock grazing is a use oftentimes authorized by Congress. To use the term "mandated" changes the typical intent of Congress. Further, terms such as "mandated" and "must allow the use" does not provide for an avenue by which the use can be eliminated in a positive, proactive fashion. Again, to use the example of livestock grazing, park managers have successfully negotiated willing seller buy-outs using private funding to eliminate livestock grazing in a national park unit. This language could be used to argue against the permanent retirement of grazing allotments, rendering the acquisition of the grazing permit meaningless.

1.4.5 What Constitutes Impairment of Park Resources and Values

The modified language in this section significantly weakens the protection standard recognized by the National Park Service for decades. The addition of terms such as "but does not necessarily," "necessary," "key," "identified," and "as being of special significance" weakens the assessment of impacts as relates to impairment. Routinely, new species are discovered in national park units, yet they could have been unknown when developing the park's general management plan. The 2005 draft standard lessens the park manager's ability to protect these previously unknown species. Many General Management Plans are outdated, with funding for new or revised plans limited. Obviously, a discovery of a new, rare or endemic species, would require special care for its protection; however, the manner in which these policies are now written would make it difficult, if not impossible, to protect them.

The addition of the term "significant" in the first sentence adds to confusion about impact levels. With something as critical as impairment, where resources could be damaged beyond repair, the term "significant" needs to either be more clearly defined or removed. Indeed, the Organic Act and the General Authorities Act never use the term "significant." Why then, add another ambiguous term?

1.7.5 Human Capital (including all sub-sections)

While these are vital programs and essential to the workforce, we question the wisdom of superficially including them in the National Park Service management policies. These policies are contained in other documents which provide greater policy detail.

1.8 Civic Engagement and 1.9 Partnerships

The tone set in these sections is condescending and inappropriate. It is written in such a manner that it lectures park managers and assumes we have not been actively engaged with the public and civic groups and entities as a course of doing business. Managers of national park units can be proud of the long tradition we have of engaging the public, civic groups, local governments, congress, and partners. We could not have achieved the demonstrated and long-standing success without doing so. We recommend the changing of such phrases as "will encompass," to "encompasses" and "will acknowledge" to "acknowledge" and "will welcome" to "welcome" because the use of the word "will" implies that we have not engaged the public at all in the past. The management policies are not the place to expound on perceptions which are not accurate.

1.10 An Enduring Message

This section discusses the famous letter written by Secretary Lane to Director Mather on May 13, 1918. The letter outlines Lane's vision for the National Park Service and in the first sentence states "(e)very activity of the Service is subordinate to the duties imposed upon it to faithfully preserve the parks for posterity in essentially their natural condition." Twenty-three elements are contained in that letter which remain as important today as they were in 1918. Yet, the draft "interprets" Secretary Lane's guiding principles and changes their intent in such a manner as to accommodate the draft's shift in direction from preservation to use.

Chapter 1

p. 13 line 17, 24, 26, & 30 - keep "protected"

p. 13 line 31 - good call! Delete as indicated.

p. 17 line 8 - "adverse" is still the better term. Do not change. Keep also original language for line 11/12.

p. 17 line 19. "enjoyment" should not be changed to "use". The Organic Act is specific in this regard.

p. 17 line 19-36. Suggested language completely changes the concept of this paragraph, and incorrectly disregards previous rulings of the court. KEEP lines 19-23 as written, ending with "...is predominant." Also keep the sentence on line 28 beginning with "The Park Service recognizes…" and the last sentence of the paragraph beginning on line 32 with "Because the enjoyment…"

p. 17 line 39 on, addition of "Section 1.4.3.1 Appropriate Use" - The Organic Act specifically states "… provide for the enjoyment…" and "…as will leave them unimpaired…" (emphasis mine). Nowhere do we find the word "use", and nowhere does it allow for "successful mitigation", "temporal, spatial, or numerical limitations", or "adaptive management techniques". Unimpaired is unimpaired, and we don't want to go where this section of the Management Policies are trying to take us. "Unacceptable impacts", "unreasonable interference", "significant conflict", and "diminished opportunities" are all phrases that would open up huge gray areas that in no way help park managers determine where to draw the line, or give them guidance in determining acceptable activities. And even though it is stated on p. 5 line 17, and again on p.7. line 16 that the NPS cannot be sued for not following these policies, you can bet that Joe Blow will use section 1.4.3.1 to justify why they CAN do something! Also, the wording in 1.4.3.1, such as "uses that may represent new technology", or the same "mitigation" argument, are in direct conflict with language under the 'new' 1.4.4, "The relevant legislation…must provide explicitly…for the activity…" I recommend removing all of section 1.4.3.1 and 1.4.3.2 (pages 17, lines 39-41, & 18, lines 1-34). However, 1.4.3.3 is relevant to the Mission and helps clarify activities that may conflict between various park areas. Leave as written.

p. 19, line 14 - go back to original language on p. 17, line 38.

p. 19, line 15, do not add "generally".

p. 19, line 32, delete "have followed a process including civic engagement as well as" and "of". Protection of resources should be based on sound science and not the whims of 'today's' special interest group.

p. 21, line 17 & 18 - leave as written. Proposed changes muddy the water and are unnecessary.

p. 21, line 29 - leave as "preserve". Same for p.22, line 4.

p. 22, line 5 - "potentially harmful activities" seems much more proactive, effective, and appropriate when it comes to protecting the resource. I believe this sentence should be left as written.

p. 23, Section 1.7. Line 21, with the sentence that begins "However, unless park managers…" - the range of concepts used as an example (IT, finances, & HR) are only the tip of the iceberg in reporting requirements that come down out of Washington. If this section is only meant to address "business", i.e. administrative, then the title of the section should be changed to "Business Practices" or something else more accurate. If not, a wider range of examples should be used to cover the full range of disciplines. But, doesn't this paragraph really belong with 1.7.4 on page 28, under Management Accountability? Also, many small parks have a very minimal staff to comply with the variety of reports required - such responsibilities fall on the same 4 or 5 people for everything. To reflect this, on Line 25, add "National and regional NPS managers will, however, take into consideration local staffing levels and the cumulative impacts to park operations whenever new or additional reporting requirements are put into place."

p. 30, line 17-28 - This paragraph sounds like an intentional slap and/or finger-pointing that are not appropriate for this document. Reword it so it doesn't sound like it falls just short of naming names. Suggested wording, for lines 17-24: "The Service will continue to build necessary and appropriately sized new facilities to meet its mission when no other alternatives are available. Such construction will be analyzed to determine long-term impacts on the park's operational budget, and stay within minimal functional requirements. Each project will undergo a comprehensive review process to ensure…"

p. 31, line 14-15 - What do we mean by "improved maintenance of facilities." Does this mean the concessionaire is responsible for all maintenance, more maintenance, or what? Needs to be more specific.

p. 34, Line 6, change "achieving" to "helping achieve".

Chapter 1

p. 12, lines 7 - 11: Same comments as above on p.3, lines 17 - 21.

p. 13, Section 1.3.2 and 1.3.3: Leave the words protected and protection as is without changing them to "conserved" and "conservation". Conserve implies a lesser level to me.

p. 16, lines 39 - 40: Keep the first sentence about the "fundamental purpose" as is, including begins with a mandate to conserve park resources and values. The supplemental acts by Congress and court decisions have declared that resource protection trumps visitor enjoyment, all the time.

In Section 1.4.3

p. 17, line 8: Leave the word adverse as is without changing to "unacceptable". These imply two different standards and NPS should minimize adverse impacts before they become unacceptable.

p. 17, line 12: End the sentence after the word "impairment". Delete the …or diminish visitor experience over time.

p. 17, lines 13 - 36: The re-write of this entire section again attempts to minimize the overarching single, mandate that resource protection trumps visitor enjoyment which has been clearly stated by Congress and by the courts. The changing of other forms of enjoyment (line 19) to uses (line 28) is unacceptable! As stated earlier on my soap box about the similar issue on p. 4, line 36, enjoyment and use are not the same thing. The changes proposed in lines 28 - 36 misrepresent the mandate for the NPS to protect resources, where in fact the park manger does not have "broad discretion" in balancing preservation versus activities causing impacts. I favor leaving this entire section as it was.

p.18, lines 15 - 19: In addressing appropriate uses, the proposed text says they "…may include uses whose impacts can be successfully mitigated or eliminated through…." I suggest replacing the words can be with the words, "… whose impacts are first successfully mitigated or eliminated…." It is much better to be proactive and prevent impacts first, rather than try to mitigate or eliminate them after the fact and have to deal with other unexpected consequences or side affects.

p. 18, line 26: Similar comments as on p. 5, line 4. Change the word preclude to deprive and add the words current and so the sentence reads, … "so as to deprive current and future generations from enjoying….

p. 19, line 5: Add the words within limits after the word use. "…managers must allow the use, within limits; however, they do …." Mandated uses for certain park areas, such as special access for example, must be allowed, but reasonable parameters on how, the type, and when the access is permitted must be allowed and court rulings have held such parameters are legal.

In Section 1.4.4

p. 19, line 14: Retain the word certain after allow and remove the words from activities. "…discretion to allow certain impacts within parks, …."

In Section 1.4.5

p. 19, line 29: Leave the sentence as it was, with out the word significant. The Organic Act does not say impairments must be significant to be prohibited, but rather it says "unimpaired".

p. 20, line 9: End the bullet after the word "document". Remove the extra, unnecessary qualifiers, "as being of special significance."

p. 20, lines 13 - 15: This section is addressing impairment, so leave that word as the first word of the sentence. All those listed activities/actions may cause impairment, not just impacts that may lead to impairment.

In Section 1.4.6

p. 20, line 29: End the bullet by changing the word "impairing" to impairment or leave it as it was. "… that can be done without impairment."

In Section 1.4.7

p. 21, line 18: This seems redundant. End the sentence after the first impairment. Remove the second statement, "or reduce the impacts as needed to eliminate the impairment."

In Section 1.5

p. 22, lines 4 & 5: Leave the sentence as it was as the rewrite appears to limit the amount of effort the NPS will use to protect against threats. Again, the change of protect to conserve implies a lesser level of protection. Potentially harmful activities may include things that may not necessarily become an impairment, for example a one-time, immediate safety issue.

Section 1.7

Under Section 1.7.1 - Managing Information: I have some general comments rather than specifics line by line as there is a lot of new added text. I see a potential disaster of major consequences if all NPS information is made uniform, placed into one inter-connected computer system and is not available for use in other forms. We already become paralyzed when a small scale computer failure locks up the system. What will happen if a significant security breach affects our super-computer? I do not believe these electronic systems are infallible and can be completely protected without continuous maintenance and maybe not even then. Look what happened to the NPS when a legal, court-ordered freeze on our computer/internet systems related to the Indian Trust Lands issue was implemented. A second general point about information management I'd like to make is that the NPS is becoming too involved on reporting requirements. Many times I have heard staff comment that we are spending too much time reporting on what we are or are not doing, to the point of not being able to get our CORE activities completed. The increasing practice of Washington wanting information immediately, without sufficient lead time, is counterproductive. Are we headed towards an NPS where everything is "managed" by computers? What about field staff that actually get there hands on the natural resources we are mandated to protect? Thirdly, a general comment about uniformity and conformity. Because of the wide range of parks and resources, sizes locations, and diversity, I strongly believe, ONE SIZE DOES NOT FIT ALL!

Under Section 1.7.4.1 - Financial Sustainability

The CORE process that many parks are currently involved with is showing that many of us can no longer "do more with less". I like the text that states we will strive and will attempt to meet the management goals rather than "shall" and maybe this is recognition of the facts being presented by the CORE process. I do not believe the best management practices of the public sector and international conglomerates/businesses are necessarily the answer. One size does not fit all in the NPS. I think there should be a statement added in this section that the NPS will continually work towards getting Congress to adequately fund the agency.

Under Section 1.7.4.3

Reduce the size of the first paragraph to two sentences as much of the proposed new text is unnecessary. The Service will continue to build necessary and appropriately sized new facilities to meet its mission and will implement a comprehensive project review process. To ensure that projects are essential to the mission, achievable, and sustainable, the Service will deploy Servicewide training, a project tracking system, and an accountability system. Also eliminate the entire last paragraph in this section.

Under Section 1.7.4.5

I like this. With our budget challenges, lets increase our funding by getting a reasonable return from concessions that utilize the public resources for private, financial gain.

Under Section 1.7.4.6

I think the last bullet in this section is one of the most critical statements in this entire chapter. "The goal of these efforts will be to ensure that … there are adequate funds and staff to conserve and protect the resources for which parks are responsible, and provide for the enjoyment of the same." Somehow it should be given more emphasis and the public should be made aware of the current shortcomings, possibly by "making it more transparent."

All of Section 1.7.5

This proposed text about Human Capital sounds good, but I wonder if it is necessary in this document. I also question whether it will do anything to counter the perceived belief by many NPS employees that their jobs will be outsourced. This section should be shortened and made more concise.

Section 1.8

Same for all this text. It needs to be shortened and more concise. How about a couple sentences like, The Service will embrace civic engagement as a fundamental principle and practice with the public and stakeholders on many levels. By welcoming diverse public involvement, resource stewardship will be advanced and the resources and values in the parks will be better protected.

Under Section 1.9

One of the major partnerships than many NPS areas have is with various law enforcement agencies and this is not listed. I think law enforcement should be added on p. 34, line 12 right after the word demonstrations, or some other appropriate place in that list.

Also on p. 34, line 20: Leave the sentence as is without adding the "and providing for their enjoyment." Again, I see this as an attempt to lessen the overriding mandate of preservation of resources. In this current political climate there appears to be an agenda of reducing the general protection of the environment across the board and the NPS should be leading the fight to preserve it.

The last paragraph in this section could also be shortened or eliminated by adding a single sentence to the preceding paragraph. On p.34, line 29 add: The Park Service encourages consultation through public processes, including "consensus-based management", on proposed NPS actions and will engage such actions when appropriate in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act.

In Section 1.10:

The new text once again appears to undermine the overriding principle that resource protection trumps visitor enjoyment or use. Leave out the proposed text about public enjoyment in lines 33 - 35, p. 35.

Comments on Section 2

In section 2.1.2 ( & again in section 2.1.3) under the analysis section there are 4 bulleted items. The 4th item is "socioeconomic impacts and interests beyond park boundaries." These factors cannot be given the same weight in analyzing NPS management actions as the requirement in Federal statutory law and Federal case law. The existence of NPS units and the resources they contain almost always have favorable socioeconomic results on communities adjacent to them. That is a positive outcome until those results begin to trump the requirement in Federal statutory law and Federal case law to preserve park resources. Congress did not create National Park System units as local economic engines and unless Congress changes Federal law to reflect socioeconomics outside the park as a purpose, then it should have no weight involving NPS management decision making unless both the preservation and enjoyment not causing or leading to impairment prongs are completely satisfied.

Chapter 2 Cover Page Summary Statement

The quote from Mr. Stagner seems to imply that park managers have not considered use in the general management planning process. As the need for revising the management policies is in question, the inclusion of items such as these, taken out of their full context, only reinforces the premise that the rewrite was to emphasize use over preservation.

2.2 Major Elements of NPS Park Planning and Decision Making

The deleted section provides a logical, rational process for park planning and decision making. The new language confuses that direction and seems to ignore 16 USC 1a-7 which requires, as its first criteria, General Management Plans to contain measures for the preservation of the area's resources.

2.3.1.4 Public Involvement

The changes to this section are dramatic and significant. National park units are created by Congress for all Americans. This section moves the influence of a nation to the local level. Public involvement at the local level without a national perspective, oftentimes, leads to a planning process having a limited scope, dismissing the nation's values. The interests of local parties, while vital to the planning process, are different than that of national interest groups such as the Sierra Club or National Parks and Conservation Association. The planning process cannot be weighed in favor of one over the other. In addition, while it is important and ideal to have consensus (as is required in this section), park managers must still follow the law.

Chapter 2

p. 37, line 4 - keep "preserve".

p. 37, line 14-25 - The rewrite of this first sentence leads the reader to believe the primary purpose of park planning is to involve the public and have them make the decisions. Park managers are the decision-makers, with input from the public. It's much better as originally written, with the simple change of adding "consistency," just before the word "logic" on line 14.

p.37, line 30 - Delete entire line.

p. 37, line 36 & 37 - "quality of visitor experience" is a much better and more valid phrase than "impacts on … visitors". In this instance, "impacts" can be both negative (they are annoyed or inconvenienced) or positive (they came away with new understandings). This leaves managers with unnecessary ambiguity. Keep the "quality" statement.

p. 38, line 16 - "public service" has a totally different meaning than "services for park visitors". A very large part of our public service is providing park visitors with places for contemplation, reflection, and reverence. These are not "services", and may in fact be in direct competition with such services as roads, recreational facilities like ski resorts or ORV areas, trinket shops, etc. We irreparably destroy one of our biggest resources (quiet) with such "service".

p. 38, line 16 - need to keep the word "sustainable". Do we need "larger"? It's a given by adding the last phrase.

p. 39, line 3-8 - Why a park was established, resource conditions, and visitor experience (in that order) should always be considered when making management decisions. How did this fall to "in the interim", with civic engagement and best available information becoming the preferred and primary route to planning? Each park was created by a law, which must be honored first and foremost.

p. 39, line 13-23 - The primary component of the foundation document must be the park's enabling legislation. This should be specifically listed just before "mission". I also question why the public and other agencies need to be at the table. Such involvement will greatly diminish the ability of the agency to do its work. It would be "writing by committee", and nothing would get accomplished. Park managers are, for the most part, professionals who understand about and care deeply for the resources under their charge. If they are not, their incompetence or lack of consideration should be dealt with through proper disciplinary action or removal. The public needs to be informed, and have the opportunity to comment, but they don't need to be at the table.

p. 41, lines 3, - All levels of planning? There need to be some sideboards here, since parks make plans every single day. "Significantly affecting…" something needs to be stated here.

p. 41, lines 11-14 - I don't know what this means, but I don't think it supports the NPS Mission.

p.41, line 22 - Why change "visitor use" to "appropriate uses"? Are we suddenly talking about some other kind of use that does not involve visitors, and if so, what would it be? If we are, how does that tie in to the "conserve scenery and natural and historic objects… and provide for enjoyment of same…"?

p. 43, lines 9-29 - The meaning of this section has been changed entirely with this rewrite. It is crucial that General Management Plans be based on sound, scientific study of park ecosystems and analysis of park resources, in fact - these criteria are core to determining park management. And yet this idea has been completely dropped in favor of involving the public. Leave as originally written.

P. 47, line 4 - Delete the word "plans", to read "Program management planning…"

p. 48, line 20 - I'm sorry, but the term "foundation document" is being overused and is starting to be annoying. Where did we come up with that? It reminds me too much of the term "foundation garment", i.e. girdle. Hmmm, is there a correlation here?

p. 49, lines 25-28 - Sounds like a good idea!

Comments on Section 3

In the Introduction section of Chapter 3 of the draft this is the change: "the Service will cooperate with federal agencies; tribal, state, and local governments; nonprofit organizations; and property owners to provide appropriate protection measures and to protect property rights. Cooperation with these entities will also be pursued, and other available land protection tools may be employed when threats to park resources originate outside boundaries." The change to "may" from "will" violates Federal statutory law (16 USC § 1a-1) which says "shall," and therefore is not binding on NPS decision makers. Congress made it abundantly clear when they passed this law that they were unhappy with the NPS's reluctance to use other land protection tools to remove threats to park resources that were occurring outside Redwood National Park. That statutory requirement has not changed and it cannot be waived by policy. This Federal statutory law is now also supported by Federal case law which has occurred in the intervening years such as U.S. v. Moore (1986). Moore was the Governor of the state of West Virginia at the time of the suit.

3.3 Land Protection Plans

The "minimum interest" standard may impact the ability of private property owners to sell their entire interest in real property within a national park unit if they so wish. This standard, newly required by these draft management policies, may be viewed as an infringement on private property rights impinging on the owner's right to sell his or her full interest to the National Park Service.

The language requiring an owner to remove all of his or her property from the land before acquisition could deny an individual's right to relocation of personal property, in direct contrast to the laws passed by Congress.

3.8 Condemnation

While everyone can agree that condemnation is a tool not usually desirable from a management perspective, it still is a necessary tool. This section, modifying existing management policies, weakens management's options.

Chapter 3

p. 53, line 9 - Is it really the responsibility of the NPS to protect private (or non-NPS) property rights? A better term would be respect property rights.

p. 53, lines 23-32 - well written!

Comments on Section 4

(Most critical comments are marked in red)

MP now adds a new kind of natural resource: an "associated value" or "associated characteristic." In the existing policy, natural soundscapes and clear skies are both listed as physical resources, a subset of natural resources. In the new draft, they are relegated to associated characteristics. The latter also includes "scenic views, " which is the very first thing listed in the Organic Act (scenery). There is no mention of how associated characteristics and values are to be treated but it seems likely that the rewrite gives them less importance when evaluating impacts and potential impairment.

Introduction, first paragraph after bullet list.

Introduction, last line.

Change from "preservation" to "conservation," despite assurances in Chapter 1 that the words are synonymous, is a significant reduction in commitment of protection.

4.1, 1st paragraph, 1st sentence. (General Management Concepts)

New text paraphrasing Chapter 1 changes the job of preserving park resources and values unimpaired from the "core or primary" responsibility of NPS managers to the "overarching" responsibility. On the surface, this seems fine, saying that preservation is the top priority. The paragraph and much of what was in Chapter 1, however, stress that impairment is prohibited but impacts that are not impairment are fine. There is a new emphasis highlighting that preservation from impairment is the top job, as distinct from preservation itself. Both this interpretation and the use of the word "overarching" in this context are a misread of the federal court ruling in Bicycle Trails v. Babbitt (1996). The court reviewed the 1970 General Authorities Act and the 1978 Redwood Amendment and concluded that both the intent of Congress and the words of the legislation clearly required NPS to manage all units of the National Park System consistently, regardless of whether they were national parks, monuments, recreation areas, etc. The court interpreted the mandate to require the NPS to "treat all units … with resource protection the overarching concern." I.e. the federal court told the NPS that resource protection, not just protection of resources from impairment, is the most important thing.

4.1, 4th paragraph.

Paragraph is all about the "practicability" of achieving natural resource objectives. While some caveat is reasonable, the new policy provides excuses for NPS managers to reduce their objectives and commitment to resource protection. Two things are particularly disturbing: in the next to last sentence, "availability of resources" and "management priorities" are listed as reasons why a resource protection objective may be less practicable. Those would be self-fulfilling, as less commitment by management now means it is OK to not try very hard to protect resources. Lastly, a new requirement is being established to "determine the degree of practicability for each park through the planning process." This could institutionalize a park's approach, however lukewarm, to resource protection. It should not be added to the planning program. If it is, it should be subject to full public involvement.

4.1, bullet list after 4th paragraph.

Per above section, "practicability" is now (unnecessarily) added as qualifier for when we would attempt to restore natural ecosystem functioning. As this is a list of exceptions to a non-intervention general rule, it adds nothing.

A new (4th) bullet is dangerously added, permitting intervention in natural systems "when necessary to provide for appropriate visitor enjoyment." Despite the qualifying words that follow, this explicitly puts visitor enjoyment above resource protection, inconsistent with decades of federal court rulings.

4.1.1 (Planning for Natural Resource Management)

Added qualifier that only parks "with a significant natural resource base" are now required to do long-range resource management planning (RMP) will allow park managers to avoid planning for their resources if they deem them less than significant. The old qualifier "as appropriate" was also inadequate. In lieu of either, MP should say that all parks with natural resources will plan for them. If the resources are minor features, or "not significant," than the process can be simple and straightforward - but it should still be done. If the proposed wording changes stays, then we may see a situation where a park is required to complete a Fire Management Plan (FMP) (section 4.5) because it has any "vegetation capable of burning" but it is not required to do a (natural) resource management plan if managers deem the resources less than significant. Yet FMPs are supposedly adjuncts of RMPs.

4.1.3, 1st paragraph, last sentence. (Evaluating Impacts on Natural Resources)

Deletion of word "aggressive" in relation to the requirement that environmental evaluations incorporate mitigation measures clearly shows that the new emphasis is that park managers be less-than-aggressive. The previous emphasis was emphatic and the lack of emphasis now is sad.

4.1.5 (Restoration of Natural Systems)

In contrast to 4.1, the "practicable" qualifier used throughout this section is appropriate. Here, it tells managers to attempt restoration when there's a reasonable chance of success. Earlier, it had the negative impact of eliminating restoration even as an objective if it wasn't all but assured of success.

4.2, 4th paragraph (Studies and Collections)

Again, change from "protection" to "conservation" is an unfortunate diminution of emphasis.

4.2.4 (Collection Associated With the Development of Commercial Products)

Entire section is poorly written, and the passive tense is very awkward. First sentence: "… is an authorized activity that currently is not being implemented." It is being done, e.g. at Yellowstone. The existing "don't do it unless" tone is entirely appropriate and should not be excised in favor of a friendlier attitude towards commercial exploitation.

4.3.1 (Research Natural Areas)

4.3.2 (Experimental Research Areas)

4.3.6 (Biosphere Reserves)

4.3.7 (World Heritage Sites)

New caveats that such areas should only be designated "when such a designation does not unacceptably impact the values and purposes of the park" is completely unnecessary, as nothing managers do, unless authorized by Congress, is permitted to do so. Implicit in the new text is a lack of support from the NPS for these designations, especially with all the new qualifiers put in about Washington approval. The effect of these clause will be to discourage the recommendation of new special designations because managers may now wonder who will define the values and purposes of the park, and whether or not any objections will be cause for denial. What is left out from both old and new policy is whether or not these designations are subject to a NEPA analysis and public involvement. They should be, and should be explicitly encouraged to be parts of GMPs.

4.4.1.3 (Definition of Native and Exotic Species)

Exotic species were formerly defined as "those species that occupy or could occupy park lands directly or indirectly as the result of deliberate or accidental human activities." The new MP changes "human activities" to "introduction." This could have the undesired result of preventing a park manager from considering a species as exotic that has expanded its range due to changes in land use in the region outside the park, despite the fact that said species would never have made it to the park in the absence of such human activity.

4.4.2, next-to-last paragraph (Management of Native Plants and Animals)

Lengthy new text on cooperating with other entities strongly suggests that if the other entities are not in favor, the NPS will not take a particular action. Text should be rewritten to require consultation and communication, and to encourage working toward consensus, but to reserve in no uncertain terms the NPS ultimate decision-making authority and responsibility.

4.4.2.2 (Restoration of Native Plants and Animals)

New qualifier requiring the consideration of the impacts on opportunities for enjoyment once again strongly suggests that enjoyment comes before resource protection. If resource protection is the overarching responsibility (as said in new 4.1), then this doesn't have to be said and shouldn't be. Everything NPS does is subject to the Organic Act and the subsequent court interpretations and each time MP adds this type of qualifier if will have the result of discouraging all but the risk takers from undertaking any proactive management to protect or restore resources.

4.4.2.5, second bullet. (Maintenance of Altered Plant Communities)

Addition of word "historic" to existing word "cultural" is unneeded. When would "historic" not fit under the "cultural" definition?

4.4.3, last bullet in first section (Harvest of Plants and Animals by the Public)

Commercial fishing is now (and previously) limited to when it is "specifically authorized by statute or regulation." There are a few cases where the legislative history of a park clearly indicated that Congress intended to permit commercial fishing but did not so state explicitly in the legislation. Vague words such as fishing "consistent with state laws" coupled with the language of the legislative history ought to be sufficient to not require a painful rulemaking for an activity which may have been appropriately permitted consistent with the way the MP were written at the time a park was established.

4.4.3, paragraph preceding last section of bullets, and bullet list.

So many times throughout this chapter, the caveat has been added to assure whatever action is being contemplated does not adversely affect some other park value. Here, the reverse is true! In relation to stocking of animals for recreational harvesting purposes, the caveat "such stocking will not impair park natural resources or processes." This coupled with the second bullet (continual stocking by a government agency) clearly will permit the NPS to stock exotic animals if it has been done before, regardless of impact on park values! This caveat should not be removed. In fact, the section should be expanded to not deal solely with stocking the NPS may undertake, but to address how complicit it is appropriate for the NPS to be in stocking actions of other agencies in park lands or waters, or even in areas adjacent to park lands or waters where migration across boundaries will occur.

4.5, second paragraph. (Fire Management)

The pros and cons of the newly proposed automatic granting of cooperating agency status for fire management planning to "eligible adjacent communities, state and federal agencies, and tribal governments" is entirely dependent upon what is an eligible cooperator. This needs to be defined with some qualifiers; it should not be automatic.

4.6.1 (Protection of Surface Waters and Groundwaters)

New wording that the Service will "manage to perpetuate … waters as integral components of park … ecosystems" is unclear. Does this mean that it will be our objective to perpetuate these conditions? That management actions will always be consistent with such perpetuation? Or we will muddle through and perpetuation will be the result, however unlikely? Suggested improvement to the wording, per the model of 4.8.2.3: "Surface and groundwaters in units of the national park system will be protected, preserved, and managed as integral components of the unit's natural resource systems, and for public education, interpretation, and scientific research."

4.6.2, second paragraph. (Water Rights)

Changing "all" to "in most instances" regarding the perfecting of water rights in the name of the United States opens a huge loophole for the protection of park water rights.

4.7.1, last paragraph (Air Quality)

First sentence. Previous use of the word "aggressively" in regard to how the NPS will work to remedy existing and prevent future air quality degradation may have been too much. But the Clean Air Act gives the federal land manager the "affirmative responsibility" to do so, and this proactive approach should be enshrined in MP.

Fourth sentence. New sentence limiting the Service's ability to deal directly with permitting authorities in the case of adverse air quality impacts, subjecting them to the concurrence of the Assistant Secretary, is technically consistent with the Clean Air Act. But everything NPS does is subject to DOI review. By explicitly enumerating this control here, NPS is acknowledging, if not encouraging, the decision to be politically-driven.

4.8.2 (Management of Geologic Features)

New wording says NPS "will protect geologic features from unacceptable adverse impacts." That suggests that some adverse impacts are acceptable, an odd concept considering the legal framework of the NPS. The entire chapter has gone to great lengths to avoid ever using the word "human" in regard to impacts, especially adverse ones, on natural systems. But here we have seen it gone too far. The original wording (NPS "will protect geologic features from the adverse effects of human activity") says it far better. Like in many other places in the chapter, though, perhaps the better policy would be for the NPS to "strive to protect" etc.

4.8.2.3 (Geothermal and Hydrothermal Resources)

First paragraph. Suggest making last sentence mirror wording of surface and groundwater section exactly: "Thermal resources in units of the national park system will be protected, preserved, and managed as integral" (not critical) "components of the unit's natural resource systems, and for public education, interpretation, and scientific research."

Second paragraph. Should superintendents not work to prevent all impacts caused by the development of thermal resources? Why limit it to unacceptable adverse impacts? If preservation of natural systems is the goal, changes to those systems should be part and parcel, even if the changes don't rise to the threshold of unacceptably adverse.

4.9 (Soundscape Management)

New draft completely eliminates first sentence: "The NPS will preserve, to the greatest extent possible, the natural soundscape of parks." Coupled with a change (paragraph 3) from wherever "possible" to wherever "practicable, " this has the result of decreasing emphasis on preserving natural sounds and subjecting restoration efforts to a cost-benefit analysis.

4.10 (Lightscape Management)

Like with soundscapes (4.9), the standard of intervention is regrettably downgraded from wherever "possible" to "practicable." In the first sentence, the implicit definition of lightscapes in the old MP as "natural resources and values that exist in the absence of human-caused light" has been replaced with the anthropogenic observation that these are "enjoyed by many visitors." Without a definition, however, what is it that the visitors enjoy?

In sections 4.1.5, 4.2.1, and others the descriptor "when practicable" has been added as criteria for restoration or other worthy preservation goals. It seems to me that this descriptor is too limited. As Starker Leopold said in his 1966 report to Congress on the condition of wildlife resources in the National Parks, "Just because a goal cannot be fully achieved does not mean that it should be approached." So maybe what we are trying to say to pursue those preservation goals or parts of preservation goals that are practicable considering funding, staffing, potential for success, etc.

If "Research, including the collection of nonliving or living material, or parts thereof, that is intended to support investigations that may lead to the development of commercial products is an authorized activity that currently is not being implemented." and "Such research and collecting may be permitted only in limited circumstances, and managed under appropriate federal authority." is true, then the NPS Management Policies should indicate what that "appropriate federal authority" is. This will clarify for decision makers why it would be allowable to permit collection that may lead to the development of commercial products but not allowable for other types of collection such as personal consumption. I am not aware that such a federal authority currently exists, so I'd like to see it in writing for myself. If such a federal authority does not exist then the only way to allow this would be to amend an individual parks enabling legislation.

In section 4.4.1.2 of the draft I see the removal of the word "evolutionary" from the text as politically motivated. The National Park Service has an obligation to present scientific fact. Evolution is scientific fact, regardless of whether one believes this process occurred randomly or because of some greater power or creator. The word evolution should not be stripped from this document to appease a political appointee or a political agenda.

Section 4.4.2 of the draft states "In particular, the policy calls on the Service to consult with state agencies on certain fish and wildlife management actions, and encourages the execution of memoranda of understanding as appropriate to ensure the conduct of programs that meet mutual objectives." Another sentence should be added to instruct the NPS decision maker that it is policy to "conduct programs that meet mutual objectives" as long as those programs or objectives don't conflict with Federal law or regulation. Don't lead us back (with poorly written policy) back to a time when State Fish & Game Departments asserted that what they classify as fish and game inside NPS units were still the property of the state. This argument has already been decided in Federal case law in favor of the NPS. We don't have "fish and game" inside NPS units. We have natural resources that including wildlife and fish. We manage for natural process including those that support fauna. We do not manage for "fish and game" unless specifically authorized by Congress to do so.

Sections 4.4.3 and 8.2.2.5 of the draft discuss "recreational fishing" and reasons that this activity is allowed unless specifically prohibited. This justification is wrong by both Federal statutory law and Federal case law. It flies in the face of every argument our agency has made in Federal court to protect park resources from consumptive uses. It opens the agency up to charges that we have been "arbitrary and capricious" in our preservation decision making and therefore has the potential to weaken preservation for all other consumable resources inside park units. We have lived with this anomaly since parks were first created and it gets more glaring as time goes by. Its about time we, as an agency, have the gumption to tackle this problem. Recreational fishing is a consumptive use. It allows park resources to be removed from parks. Some parks (like Great Smoky Mountains National Park) have specific statutory legislation that permits recreational fishing. That should be the standard for all parks just as it is with other consumptive uses. Congress is the decision maker for consumptive parks uses, not the Secretary, the NPS Directorate, or individual park superintendents. Let's correct this now!

Section 4.7.1 of the draft now lists the Assistant Secretary For Fish, Wildlife, and Parks "as the federal land manager for park units under the Clean Air Act." I do not know if this is a new designation or if has always been this way. It seems to me that it is inappropriate to have this politically appointed position as the sole representative for parks under the Clean Air Act. Political appointees often give their first allegiance to the current President because they serve at his/her pleasure. Such important decisions should be guided by law, not by political winds. For this reason I believe the appropriate decision maker should be the NPS Deputy Director.

4 Natural Resource Management

The definition of the term "natural condition" has been altered in the draft policies in such a way that could lead to the weakening of the interpretation of the Clean Air Act by the NPS. It is conceivable that, under the draft policies, pre-existing air pollution could be considered part of the baseline air quality condition when making determinations of impairment. We recommend the removal of "but not necessarily the absence of humans," in order to reduce the threat of increased air pollution being deemed "acceptable" in parks.

4.1 General Management Concepts

Policies should be developed in a positive, idealistic manner. If the challenge is to preserve park resources, the negative comments presented in this section that outline why it may not be possible in many parks, is defeatist.

4.1.1 Planning for Natural Resource Management

Adding "with a significant natural (emphasis added) resource base" brings us back to the days when we viewed park units such as Lake Mead National Recreation Area as only a recreation area, where the natural and cultural resources were not recognized. We are proud to have progressed beyond that point and today understand the value of Lake Mead's resources to the Las Vegas area as well as to the nation as a whole. Species protection, advancement of science, research and education, and the preservation of significant examples of the Mojave Desert, are all preserved in this unique unit. We recommend the removal of the above addition to the policies.

4.1.5 Restoration of Natural Systems

The addition of terms such as "unnaturally," "when practicable" and "if possible" weaken the intent of this section significantly.

4.3.6 Biosphere Reserves and 4.3.7 World Heritage Sites

Either of these designations is an honor for the park and the National Park Service. Rather than the suggested changes contained in the draft management policies which portray a negative, suspicious outlook to these nominations, the sections should discuss the honor and prestige for these park units.

4.4.2 Management of Native Plants and Animals

The addition of consultation with state agencies on fish and wildlife management actions weakens the Congressional intent of laws relating to the National Park Service as well as years of precedent-setting court rulings. Park managers, as a regular course of action, consult and partner with state fish and game organizations; however, on those rare occasions when conflict occurs, the park manager must enforce federal law, perhaps in conflict with state desires. Congress provided the National Park Service with exclusive jurisdiction over wildlife in national park units. This section weakens that direction.

4.4.2.1 NPS Actions That Remove Native Plants and Animals

The addition of "public hunting on lands inside the park when authorized in the establishing legislation" is a dramatic change from decades of resource protection. Opening the possibility of public hunting for reducing populations can rapidly expand into moving "national parks" towards "national preserves."

16 USC 26 provides a penalty of $500 and imprisonment of up to six months for "any person guilty of violating any regulation…with reference to the management and care of the park, or for the protection of the property therein, for the preservation from injury or spoliation of timber, mineral deposits, natural curiosities, or wonderful objects within said park, or for the protection of the animals, birds, and fish…" In a number of specific park legislations this requirement also specifically identifies hunting.

4.4.2.2 Restoration of Native Plant and Animal Species

4.4.3 Harvest of Plants and Animals by the Public

If the management policies have been determined to be in "need" of updating, updated resource protection methodologies and philosophies ought to be incorporated. Simply because a governmental agency has continually stocked native or exotic wildlife or fish for recreational harvesting purposes is no reason to continue this practice. The best scientific and resource management practices should be employed.

4.4.4.2 Removal of Exotic Species Already Present

In addition to adding the requirement to consult with "local" agencies, we recommend the addition that park managers must consult with groups, individuals and interests on a national level.

4.6.2 Water Rights

The addition to this section weakens the National Park Service's position in what, in the west, is often a contentious legal issue. Rarely can water rights be adjudicated "cooperatively" and the protection of those rights is oftentimes essential to protecting the resource. This is particularly true in the arid west where the National Park Service might be faced with issues involving entities such as Metropolitan Water District or the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. In situations such as this, the Property Clause is often used in the protection of park resources. This section should give managers clear direction as to what our legal authorities are to aid in the protection of park resources.

4.7.1 Air Quality

This section provides another instance of "working cooperatively" and perhaps neglecting our requirement to protect resources. Park managers work with neighbors and partners cooperatively. This is a long-standing management practice of the National Park Service. Parks could not succeed without managers who share this philosophy. Previous management policies have recognized this fact, but provided managers tools and guidance for protecting park resources. The draft policies not only change that direction, but now, as evidenced in this section, move the decision making authority to the level of Assistant Secretary, Fish, Wildlife and Parks.

4.8.2.3 Geothermal and Hydrothermal Resources

This section provides another example of adding "unacceptable adverse" to impacts implying that managers need not work to prevent other types of impacts that do not reach the level of "unacceptable." This could lead to a lessening of preservation and conservation efforts. Managers should be encouraged to work towards preventing all types of adverse impacts, no matter what level they reach.

4.9 Soundscape Management

In this highly technical and "noisy" world in which we live, the protection of natural soundscapes in the National Parks is critical. In the first paragraph, the deleted sentence "(t)he National Park Service will preserve, to the greatest extent possible, the natural soundscapes of parks" should be restored to emphasize and underscore the importance of natural soundscapes to the values of the natural and cultural resources of the parks. Further, the deletion of the phrase "soundscapes exist in the absence of human-caused sound" weakens protection of NPS soundscapes. Impact to any natural soundscape feature, be it the chorus of songbirds at dawn or the utter quiet of remote wilderness, is solely the result of human causes and this should be reflected in policy.

The draft policy indicates that the NPS "will restore degraded soundscapes wherever practicable and will protect natural soundscapes from degradation due to unacceptable noise." The use of the word 'practicable' instead of 'possible' implies that the NPS could use funding or lack of funding as a reason for not protecting this resource. Soundscapes are natural resources that should be preserved and protected with all other resources without concern about funding.

The comments in the previous section also directly relate to this section.

4.10 Lightscape Management

Lightscapes "that exist in the absence of human-caused light" has been replaced by lightscapes which are mainly "enjoyed by visitors." This serves to weaken lightscape protection in parks and ignores mounting research that shows that light pollution can have major adverse impacts on behavioral processes in a large variety of animals as well as on physiological processes in plants.

Chapter 4

p. 61, line 11 - keep "preserves"

p. 61, line 15&16 - "natural soundscape" is the resource/value we strive to maintain/restore, so wording should be left as is rather than changing to "sound". This could be interpreted to mean preserving the now "historic" sounds of aircraft, automobile traffic, and other mechanized modes of transportation or urban sounds that people flock to National Parks to get away from. There are very few places left on this earth where humans can experience true quiet. Same goes for "clear skies" vs. "air".

p. 61, line 22 - add the adjective "diverse"

p. 62-63, lines 32-21 - This is very well written.

p. 63, line 28 - delete the word unacceptable.

p. 66, line 27 - keep "preserving"

p. 66, line 34 - "when practicable" would open a HUGE can of worms, and make this area so gray we would never find our way out of the fog. Park managers (or wallet holders) would be able to use the "budget card" indefinitely, and resources might never be restored. Do not add suggested language.

p. 67, line 1 - see above

p. 67, line 19 - see above. Keep sentence re: relocating facilities in "safer" areas.

p. 69, line 16 - keep "necessary"

p. 71, line 9,11, & 16 - added language re: implementation seems unnecessary. Original language is much more straightforward in providing guidance to park managers.

p. 73, line 3 - Does the Director get to have a say in whether new park units are established? It isn't clear why the NPS Director needs to approve biosphere reserve nominations. All nominations should be evaluated on their merits w/o "interference" by political factions. This paragraph does not state who nominations go to or who makes such a determination, but, assuming it is a scientific body, they would be the ones to determine whether nominations have merit. If the Director must be involved, it might be more appropriate for the Director to approve the designation after the subject matter experts have had the opportunity to weigh in (and therefore providing the Director with all pertinent information).

p. 74, line 30 - Even though this sentence is prefaced with a "such as…", the number and specificity of species listed seems almost absolute. For instance, many more species of birds besides just warblers migrate in and out of parks and have shrinking populations, yet they seem excluded. It might be best to leave off the "such as…" list.

p. 78, lines 31-34 - If instructions re: destroyed animals are going to be this specific, should it also be mentioned that they should not be left near main public traffic areas (vehicular or pedestrian) to avoid unnecessary controversy?

p. 83, line 14 - language regarding impairment needs to remain, as this should be the first consideration when considering stocking - especially exotic species.

p. 88, line 23-24 - proposed wilderness and wilderness study areas should be treated the same as wilderness until such designation is decided. Omitted language should be retained.

p. 89, lines 11-13. The use of the word "rights" at both the beginning and end of this sentence causes a great deal of confusion. Is the last added sentence fragment necessary or even correct grammatically? What do we mean here?

p. 93, line 31 - states "…pursued by the Service's cooperation…" Should it be "pursued through …"?

p. 100, line 29 - the word "practicable" leaves restoration open to political pressures and other factors not complimentary to resource (soundscape) preservation. Possible or feasible are more appropriate terms.

Chapter 4

p. 61, line 11: Leave the word preserve instead of replacing it with conserve.

p.61, lines 15 - 23: The removal of clear skies and natural soundscapes from the list of physical resources and listing them as "associated characteristics" has led some to believe they will no longer receive the same level of protection. Most people associate clear skies with clean air which allow for enjoyment of the scenery, which is specifically listed in the Organic Act as being a reason for protection. I do not believe the word sound should replace natural soundscapes in lines 15 -17, as a physical resource. Many parks, especially historical sites and memorials, are places of reverence and preserved for quiet meditation and solemn reflection. The sounds ("noise") from a radio or "boom box" may be unacceptable impacts, where natural sounds made by rain, wind and birds are usually acceptable. Another more extreme example is that of the nearly constant sound of aircraft flying low over the Grand Canyon that impacts solitude and other values.

p. 61, lines 25- 27: I agree that humans should be considered part of most (but not all) natural landscapes. I do not agree with the definition of natural condition to describe the condition … "in the absence of human dominance"…, however. Humans being in a natural area do not make it unnatural, but I suggest that certain activities and/or structures do, even if they do not dominate the landscape. By redefining natural to allow an unspecified level of man-made impacts, whether it be air pollution that impacts scenery or sounds that impact one's enjoyment of solitude or quiet, this proposed change degrades what is "natural".

p. 61 - 62: The added text about the practicability of management of complete ecosystems and natural resources seems unnecessarily long. It could be shortened into a concise idea with a couple sentences. I suggest keeping only the last three sentences with one minor change (p.63, lines 16- 21), "The goal of protecting natural resources and values … and management priorities." In the last sentence replace the words the degree of with the words long term, so it reads, "The Park Service will determine long term practicability for each park through the planning process."

p.63, lines 27 - 28: This addition attempts to put visitor enjoyment on or above the level of resource protection, which it is not, according to Congress and the courts. As stated before resource protection trumps visitor enjoyment. I 'm in favor of eliminating that statement entirely, or at the very least change the last few words lead to unacceptable adverse impacts to cause impairment. In addition to the above issue, a second point of concern is that of changing the level of constitutes impairment. The current standard is simply "impairment" and the proposed unacceptable adverse impacts seems to imply something much more detrimental.

p. 63, line 36: Same exact comment as above regarding unacceptable adverse impacts. As stated before, I am against lowering the standard (or even the perception) of impairment.

p.68, lines 34 - 35: Same comments about unacceptable adverse impacts versus impairment.

Under Section 4.3.7

The added language seems unnecessarily long. I do not think all the technical requirements need to be included in this document. I suggest eliminating both the new and existing text in the first paragraph (lines 25 - 35), after the first sentence, ending with "…World Heritage Convention." Also leave the text as it was in lines 36 - 39. What is sustainable tourism? Unless the NPS receives additional funding and staffing, I do not believe the NPS should be promoting any more tourism. Our CORE processes are indicating the NPS cannot sustain current levels of services in many parks within the expected funding projections.

Under 4.4.1

p. 74, lines 6 -10: The paragraph starts off by stating the NPS will maintain …. The proposed addition in line 10 of strive to achieve this maintenance, seems to contradict the first statement. Leave it as it was.

p. 75, lines 23 - 24: I agree with the proposed changes about removing exotic species "where reasonable, practicable and consistent with park priorities".

p. 76, lines 17 - 18: I question whether or not the last sentence is in fact true. I do not know if "genetically modified organisms exist solely due to human activities". I do not have problems with the addition of this sentence if in fact the above is true.

Under 4.4.3

p. 83, lines 14 - 15: The proposed removal of "such stocking will not impair park natural resources or processes, and:" is once again an attempt to lessen or remove the impairment prohibition. That text should be left in.

Under 4.4.4.1

There appear to be some typos where the words "it is" are repeated unnecessarily in bullets.

Under 4.5 - Fire Management

No specific comments, however, a general comment about the requirement that all parks with vegetation capable of burning will prepare a fire management plan …. Do we have one and/or does our Emergency Operations Plan suffice? Others with more expertise should comment on this section.

Under 4.6.2

The proposed changes in this section appear to have specific legal consequences and a lawyer may need to interpret it for us.

Under section 4.8.2

The proposed changes once again attempt to reduce the level of protection afforded due to adverse effects and replace it with unacceptable impacts.

p. 99, line 8: Same general comment about changing or qualifying impacts to unacceptable adverse impacts with regard to prevention or protection.

Under 4.9 - Soundscape Management

The proposed removal of the first sentence and especially the words "preserve, to the greatest extent possible" gives the impression that a lesser level of protection for natural soundscapes is acceptable. I am opposed to this change. I also addressed the issue of sound and noise earlier on p. 61 comments.

I agree with the added language that addresses noise. Noise is subjective and what is acceptable will vary depending on circumstances. One size does not fit all and each park (superintendent) should be able to determine what is unacceptable.

p. 101, lines 6 - 11: I think the words adversely affected should be left in line 8 rather than replacing them with "unacceptably impacts". In addition to keeping the last part of the last sentence (lines 10 - 11), I also think the words employees or should be added just before the word "visitor". The last sentence would read, "…or duration, adversely affects the natural soundscape or other park resources and values, or that exceeds levels that have been identified as being acceptable to, or appropriate for, employees or visitor uses at the sites being monitored." The proposed deletion of that last phrase may eliminate the requirement to protect employees from excessive noise. This may or may not be a safety issue. For example, the noise levels at the entrance station at West Yellowstone (Yellowstone NP) during the winter when hundreds of snowmobiles pass by the attendant have been found to be harmful and are unacceptable.

Comments on Section 5

There are several areas within this chapter which have been modified and now include people who have "strong connections" to a park unit on the par with Native American populations traditionally associated with the park site. This appears to weaken the place Native Americans and tribes have traditionally held in participating with park management.

Chapter 5

p. 111, lines 4-5, same comment as for Natural Resources, p.73, line 3.

p. 111, line 32 - What kind of harm might be considered "acceptable" when cultural resources are involved? "Avoiding harm" seems more appropriate language for such irreplaceable resources.

p. 112, line 30 - how are we going to consult with someone without communicating with them? Isn't this redundant?

p. 112, line 30 - Requiring a superintendent to "cooperate" gives the impression that outside parties have a large say in management decisions. i.e. "If you cooperate with us, there won't be any trouble." Let's just stick with "consult".

p. 115, line 24 - Would it be better to say "Protecting and Conserving Cultural Resources"?

p. 117 - lines 25-29 - This language should be left as originally written. Requiring long-term studies before setting use limits only exacerbates the problem - cultural resources are irreplaceable, and this would cause the resource to continue to be negatively impacted or destroyed before use limits are imposed. Use limits can be imposed and then pulled back if resulting studies indicate this is appropriate.

p. 118, line 23. After "…property's preservation." Add "Any proposed use of historic property will be evaluated as to it's appropriateness in the context of the story or history preserved by the park unit; those uses which would be in conflict with park values or cultural history will not be approved."

p. 122, line 35 - Insert hyphen after "partner". (last word runs onto next page)

Chapter 5

p. 106, lines 8 - 16: Some questions arise as to why this section is recommended for removal. Is it because of expected funding shortcomings and the NPS can't support this type training? Are the "relevant cultural resource competency requirements" no longer going to be required? Cultural resource staff should comment on this.

p. 110 - 111 concerning World Heritage List Designations: I commented previously about this issue under Section 4.3.7. (Too long and regarding promoting tourism.)

p. 115, line 24: The proposed change in the word Preservation to Conserving once again gives the impression that a lesser level of management concern or protection is advocated. I favor leaving the word preservation as it was.

p. 116, lines 24 - 25: I suggest the exception to smoking in historic structures be eliminated; "(except those used as residences in which smoking is permitted by the park superintendent)". I don't think that is justified.

Under User Capacities - 5.3.1.6

p. 117, lines 24 - 36: I strongly disagree with the proposed change about setting and enforcing carrying (or user) capacities! The first sentence should remain in this document, unchanged. "Park superintendents will set, enforce and monitor carrying capacities to limit public visitation to, or use of, cultural resources that would be subject to adverse effects from unrestricted levels of visitation or use." I see this as another attempt to allow for more (possibly unrestricted) use at the expense of the resource. The added text about performing all those studies, etc. before imposing limits is not always possible. I am not opposed to performing those studies, etc. but they should not be a prerequisite nor a reason why carrying capacities will not be enforced. Limiting use is not a politically correct notion, but sometimes it is necessary.

Under 5.3.3

I question why the section is recommended for deletion. It seems the part about receiving "fair market value" is appropriate. Others with more expertise on leases and agreements, need to review this section.

Under 5.3.4

p. 119, line 19: I suggest the addition of the words "other Native American groups" be added after "… affiliated Indian tribes" and before "and native Hawaiian organizations." As the statement reads, it seems that consent is necessary from only those two listed groups.

Under 5.3.5

Once again the changing of preservation to conservation implies a lesser level of protection. To me and others preservation implies keeping the resource intact and unharmed, whereas conservation implies preventing destruction or improper use. I recommend leaving the words preservation as they were.

Under 5.3.5.3

p. 127, lines 1-9: I agree with the proposed changes to include the words rural lifestyles and rural residents in this section. I agree that ANILCA applies to these folks also and not just Alaska Natives.

Comments on Section 6

Section 6.2.1.3 of the draft states, "established use of motorboats, motorized watercraft, oversnow vehicles, and small aircraft do not make an area ineligible for wilderness designation." I believe that a statement like the one found in section 6.2.5 should be added here (the cessation or termination of the nonconforming use(s) will be required upon designation).

6.2 The Wilderness Review Process

We are unclear why in the 2005 draft, the term "suitability" has been changed to "eligibility" when the Wilderness Act itself uses the term "suitability." Changes such as these lead to credibility issues associated with this draft.

The Wilderness Act of 1964 requires that "(w)ithin ten years after September 3, 1964 the Secretary of the Interior shall review every roadless area of five thousand contiguous acres or more in the national parks, monuments and other units of the national park system and every such area of,…under his jurisdiction on September 3, 1964 and shall report to the President his recommendation as to the suitability or nonsuitability of each such area…for preservation as wilderness." The 2001 policies recognized the fact that many park units that were indeed established prior to 1964 had not yet had a suitability assessment completed, as was required by the Act. The 2001 policies, therefore, gave these park units 1 year to complete such an assessment and get the National Park Service in compliance with the law. The 2005 draft, on the other hand, removes all of the language requiring that all NPS units comply with the law in a timely manner. These changes seem to have left the door wide open for some park units to remain out of compliance with the law into perpetuity.

The writers of the 2005 draft have also removed the following statement: "(a)ll lands administered by the National Park Service, including new units or additions to existing units since 1964, will be evaluated for their suitability …" While the Wilderness Act only addressed park units that were in place on September 3, 1964, the National Park Service, as a world leader in preservation and conservation recognizes the need to assess all park units for wilderness suitability, regardless of when they were established. Furthermore, the 2005 draft policies do not allow for park managers, who know their resources best, to initiate a wilderness review process if their unit was established after September 3, 1964. If their park unit was established after that date, the 2005 draft policies would only allow for that review if it was requested by the Secretary or the Director. NPS units such as Buffalo National River, Congaree Swamp, Cumberland Island, and Guadalupe Mountains, which were established by Congress after 1964, would very possibly not obtain the wilderness designations they have today, were the 2005 draft policies in place in the past. One must ponder what other suitable wilderness areas may not even be assessed if these draft policies are adopted.

6.2.1.1 Primary Criteria for Determining Eligibility

The subtle changes in this section will ensure most lands not be considered for wilderness eligibility/suitability. Currently, throughout all land management agencies, there are numerous areas of wilderness with private in holdings. Further, development exists or has existed in many wilderness areas. The designation of wilderness allows the removal of development and return to more natural conditions. The addition of "federally owned" and "undeveloped" while on its surface seems to be logical will ensure that no future lands are considered "eligible" for wilderness. We must bear in mind that it is Congress, not the National Park Service nor the Department of the Interior, with the authority to designate lands as wilderness. This section changes congressional intent.

6.3.1 General Policy

The change in this section that states "(l)ands that were originally deemed wilderness eligible, but which were not included in the wilderness recommendation sent to Congress, will no longer be managed under the provisions of these chapter 6 policies," is a complete departure from the high standards that the American people expect from the National Park Service. If an area has been deemed suitable for wilderness, then the wilderness review process should continue until the area is either designated as wilderness or denied designation. During the time that designation is being considered, the area is still "eligible" and should be managed under the provisions of Chapter 6. Simply halting the process mid-way through is unacceptable and is not in line with the 2005 draft's mandates regarding civic engagement.

6.4 Wilderness Use Management

The statement "(s)uperintendents should use the least restrictive management prescription available and practicable to meet the resource protection needs while accommodating public use" is inappropriate. This minimizes the protection of lands Congress designated as wilderness and weakens a superintendent's ability to manage to the highest standards. The Wilderness Act states in Section 2.(a) that wilderness areas "shall be administered for the use and enjoyment of the American people in such a manner as will leave them unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as wilderness, and so as to provide for the protection of these areas [and] the preservation of their wilderness character…" No where in the Act does it state that agencies only need to meet this objective when it is "practicable."

6.4.6.2 Mineral Development

The first sentence contains the word "valid" before "rights" which could prove problematic in an acquisition process. Conducting a mineral examination to determine whether a mining claim is valid is costly, easily running more than $50,000. Oftentimes, unpatented mining claims can be obtained and eliminated from a willing seller for a minimum consideration.

6.4.6.3 Grazing and Livestock Driveways

The first paragraph makes reference to "allotment management plans." Generally these are plans completed by the Bureau of Land Management or the United States Forest Service as they address each allotment in isolation. The National Park Service typically completes a "livestock" or "grazing" management plan for units of the National Park Service where grazing is authorized.

Chapter 6

p. 137, lines 2-14 - Wilderness ceases to be wilderness when is becomes easily accessible. "Easily accessible" means roads, and motorized conveyances with their related noise, odors, pollution, & rapidity. All of these are in direct conflict with the ideas, values, challenge of self-reliance, and tranquility that IS wilderness. The proposed change in language is outright blasphemy to the intent of the Wilderness Ideal. Areas with wilderness characteristics MUST be managed as if they were already wilderness, or the wilderness values will be lost forever. To "fix" this paragraph, take the three sentences starting on line 9 beginning with "The Park Service has stewardship…", put them at the beginning of the paragraph, drop the last phrase "while making it accessible…" and then keep all original language.

p. 138, lines 1-15 - Removing these two paragraphs takes away accountability of park managers to assess lands for wilderness suitability. Although the one-year requirement may make this policy difficult to accomplish, it is still important that it be accomplished at some point. Recommend keeping the language, but changing timeframe to two years.

p.138, lines 26 & 31 - in an effort to remain politically correct, and to eliminate the possibility of future loopholes for the female gender, perhaps we should stick with "human". Get rid of reference to Wilderness Act on line 24.

p. 142, lines 4-13 - The changes outlined in this paragraph are a total reversal of former NPS policy. Potential wilderness, regardless of whether recommendations have gone forward to Congress or not, should continue to be treated as such unless specifically removed from consideration. Otherwise, irreversible damage may be done through development and access decisions. Keep language as formerly written.

p. 143, lines 21-26 - This paragraph apparently intentionally disregards the purpose of wilderness on the larger scale of ecosystem preservation for the sake of planet earth, and the non-human flora and fauna therein. Delete the words "the public purposes of" from line 22, then continue "…conservation of recreational, scenic, scientific, educational, spiritual, and historical values. Delete "optimum" on line 24. On line 26, change to "…while also ensuring the preservation of intact ecosystems, natural processes, and tranquility found therein.

Chapter 6

General comments: I am opposed to the overall general tone of the proposed changes regarding wilderness management in the NPS. I support the concept of Stewardship, but when it comes to wilderness, I believe the word "preservation" is more appropriate and necessary, as set forth by the 1964 act of Congress which created the National Wilderness Preservation System. I am strongly opposed to the changes in the first paragraph (p. 137). I am also opposed to the general notion of changing the policy of managing potential wilderness areas or "study" areas from one of protection until a Congressional determination has been made regarding potential designation to a less protective management practice of opening them up for more access or use. This essentially removes the safeguards that prevent impairment and weakens interim protection.

Under 6.2.1

I am strongly opposed to the proposed deletion of the first two paragraphs on p. 138, under the section on Suitability. This is a major shift in policy from the old. I think the agency should identify "suitability" and let Congress determine "elgibility" or designation. I therefore am opposed to changing all the suitability words to eligibility.

Under 6.2.1.1

p. 138, lines 21- 24: I am opposed to the addition of additional qualifiers by inclusion of the words, federally owned, undeveloped, and (especially this last and very significant and) under this "Criteria" section.

p. 139, line 7: Same comment as above with the change of or to and. It is adding another qualifier and this should not be changed.

p. 139, lines 13 - 28: I believe the removal of all this text is another attempt to limit some of the "potential wilderness lands" from study and possible future inclusion as wilderness. I am opposed to this deletion.

p. 140 - 141, I am opposed to the deletion of the entire section on Potential Wilderness.

Under 6.3.1

I believe the NPS is primarily responsible for Management and everyone is responsible for Stewardship. I am opposed to changing these two words in the context of this document. I believe wilderness in the NPS needs to have active management and the current use of Wilderness Management Plans is a reasonable and acceptable way to do it.

p. 142, lines 5 -13: This is a major change in policy, as stated in my general comments above. I am strongly opposed to the idea (and specific text) that potential lands … will no longer be managed under the provisions of… these wilderness categories. Keep the text, "policies apply regardless of category." Do not allow or mandate the NPS to lessen interim protection for potential wilderness lands.

Under 6.4

p. 152, line 35: Once again the change of limit to manage is a move to prevent a manager from enforcing carrying capacities. As stated above, I am opposed to such changes, as sometimes limiting use, however unpopular, is necessary.

p.153, lines 1 -3: As stated several times above, resource protection trumps visitor use. I am opposed to the proposed changes in that last sentence, especially …"available and practicable …while accommodating public use."

p. 153, line 21: Same comment as above. Keep the text as is about …while providing for acceptable use limits."

p. 153, line 30: Do not change the word generally to always because some times education is not enough, may not be readily available or timely, and may not be appropriate for criminal acts. p. 154, lines 15 -16: I agree with the proposed additions about wilderness in Alaskan parks.

Under 6.4.3.1

p. 154, lines 30 - 38: This appears to me to be a reversal of policy on recreational uses in wilderness, where "…changes in patterns or increased levels of use will not be authorized, except …." is replaced with a policy of "will be authorized". The exclusion of the sentence on CAT Xs under NEPA, implies to me that such exemptions will be forthcoming. Again, this simply minimizes the protection of the resource at the whim of public use.

Under 6.4.3.2

p. 155, lines 1 -7: Leave No Trace principles have been recognized as appropriate for wilderness management within the NPS. By keeping the word will, as opposed to changing it to should, we will be held to a higher level of protection for our wilderness resources.

Under 6.4.5

p. 156, lines 24 - 26: I'm in favor of keeping the qualifying conditions imposed in the first sentence, regarding sponsorship of wilderness events. Same reason-resource protection.

Comments on Section 7

The general tone of the changes to "Chapter 7: Interpretation and Education" is extremely disappointing. Instead of making positive changes that clarify and reinforce the mission of NPS interpretation, changes de-emphasize the status of interpreters and educators as professionals, reduce the expectation of high quality services provided to the public, and weaken the role of interpreters in promoting stewardship of the parks.

One can only imagine the reasoning behind such changes in a time when the profession is already under strain from reduction of funds, increased reliance on volunteers and partners, and difficulty funding properly-graded career positions with adequate professional training.

• Gone is the entire section dealing with Interpretive Competencies and Skills. Reference to the Interpretive Development Program, the very backbone what makes interpreters and educators professionals, is stripped. Are we to conclude that it is no longer the case that "a high-quality interpretive and educational program requires a well- trained staff"? How are professionals to achieve high quality services without professional standards and the guidance of peers? What could possibly be the reason for excluding this core program, and the requirement that professional interpreters (and park partners) participate?

Though a statement about professional training for all disciplines has now been added to an earlier chapter, it is now so vague as to be almost meaningless. References to specific professional training and competencies for each discipline should be kept in the Management Policies, otherwise in reality they will not be offered to employees in tight budget times.

• Verbiage changes in this section are alarming! Instead of "maintaining the organizational capability to deliver high- quality interpretive services," the Service will now strive to do so. Instead of resulting in "an understanding of a park's resources," education programs should do so, and no longer need to "provide learning experiences linked directly to clear objectives." Instead of "offering a wide variety of personal service programs," parks should strive to offer them.

These are just a few examples of how verbiage is watered down throughout the section to remove standards of excellence. What could possibly be the reason for this, except to continue to set the bar lower for a profession that managers deliberately want to keep withering away?

• Gone also are standards for outreach beyond park boundaries, while the standard that the visiting public merely enjoy themselves and express their opinion is elevated. Parks no longer "have a responsibility to offer interpretive and educational opportunities to members of the public who are unable to make on- site visits," they are only encouraged to do so. The statement "…the terms 'visitor' and 'park visitor' are defined as anyone who uses a park's interpretive and educational services, regardless of where such use occurs," is also eliminated. These changes give the impression of a deliberate attempt to reduce the visibility and effectiveness o