National Academies Report Released: Protecting National Park Soundscapes

Recently, the National Academies Press (NAP) released a report authored by Proctor Reid and Steve Olson, Rapporteurs; National Academy of Engineering; National Park Service; John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center titled, Protecting National Park Soundscapes (2013). The 47-page report (available free with a one-time registration) discusses how,

America's national parks provide a wealth of experiences to millions of people every year. What visitors see—landscapes, wildlife, cultural activities—often lingers in memory for life. And what they hear adds a dimension that sight alone cannot provide. Natural sounds can dramatically enhance visitors' experience of many aspects of park environments. In some settings, such as the expanses of Yellowstone National Park, they can even be the best way to enjoy wildlife, because animals can be heard at much greater distances than they can be seen. Sounds can also be a natural complement to natural scenes, whether the rush of water over a rocky streambed or a ranger's explanation of a park's history. In other settings, such as the New Orleans Jazz National Historical Park, sounds are the main reason for visiting a park.

The acoustical environment is also important to the well-being of the parks themselves. Many species of wildlife depend on their hearing to find prey or avoid predators. If they cannot hear, their survival is jeopardized—and the parks where they live may in turn lose part of their natural heritage. For all these reasons it is important to be aware of noise (defined as unwanted sound, and in this case usually generated by humans or machinery), which can degrade the acoustical environment, or soundscape, of parks. Just as smog smudges the visual horizon, noise obscures the listening horizon for both visitors and wildlife. This is especially true in places, such as remote wilderness areas, where extremely low sound levels are common. The National Park Service (NPS) has determined that park facilities, operations, and maintenance activities produce a substantial portion of noise in national parks and thus recognizes the need to provide park managers with guidance for protecting the natural soundscape from such noise. Therefore, the focus of the workshop was to define what park managers can do to control noise from facilities, operations, and maintenance, and not on issues such as the effects of noise on wildlife, noise metrics, and related topics.

To aid in this effort, NPS joined with the National Academy of Engineering (NAE) and with the US Department of Transportation's John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center to hold a workshop to examine the challenges and opportunities facing the nation's array of parks. Entitled "Protecting National Park Soundscapes: Best Available Technologies and Practices for Reducing Park- Generated Noise," the workshop took place October 3-4, 2012, at NPS's Natural Resource Program Center in Fort Collins, Colorado. Protecting National Park Soundscapes is a summary of the workshop.

CRS Report Released: National Park System: Establishing New Units

The Congressional Research Service (CRS), the public policy research arm of Congress, recently issued the report National Park System: Establishing New Units (Apr. 25, 2013). The 11-page report authored by Carol Hardy Vincent, discusses the following:

Summary

The National Park System (System) includes 401 diverse units administered by the National Park Service (NPS) of the Department of the Interior. Units generally are added to the National Park System by acts of Congress, although the President may proclaim national monuments for inclusion in the System on land that is federally managed. An act of Congress creating a Park System unit may explain the unit’s purpose; set its boundaries; provide specific directions for land acquisition, planning, uses, and operations; and authorize appropriations for acquisition and development. Today, there are more than 20 different designations (i.e., titles) for units of the National Park System, reflecting the diversity of the areas. There is no statute that sets out and defines all the designations, and Congress has discretion in choosing the type of designation for a unit being established.

Before enacting a law to add a unit, Congress often first enacts a law requiring the NPS to study an area, typically to assess its national significance, suitability and feasibility, and other management options. When Congress directs the NPS to prepare a study, the agency must assess whether an area contains natural or cultural resources that are nationally significant, constitutes one of the most important examples of a type of resource, and is a suitable and feasible addition to the Park System. The agency also is to consider certain factors established in law (e.g., threats to resources) to promote the consistency and professionalism of the studies.

The Secretary of the Interior is required by law to recommend annually to Congress a list of areas for study for potential inclusion in the National Park System. The Secretary also must submit to Congress a list of areas previously studied that contain primarily historical resources, and a list of areas with natural resources. Previously studied areas are to be ranked in order of priority for consideration of addition to the Park System. For the first time during the Obama Administration, on August 28, 2012, the Department of the Interior submitted a list of 15 areas for potential study for addition to the Park System and a list of 7 previously studied areas that meet the criteria for inclusion in the Park System and for which supporting data are still accurate and current. The Obama Administration did not submit similar lists in previous years. Instead, during its first three years, the Administration focused on completing authorized studies and other responsibilities.

The addition of units to the National Park System sometimes has been controversial. Some discourage adding units, asserting that the System is “mature” or “complete,” while others assert that the System should evolve and grow to reflect current events, new information, and reinterpretations. A related issue is how to properly maintain existing and new units given limited fiscal and staffing resources. Differences exist on the relative importance of including areas reflecting our natural, cultural, and social history. The adequacy of standards and procedures for ensuring that the most outstanding areas are included in the Park System also has been debated.

It is generally regarded as difficult to meet the criteria and to secure congressional support and funding for expanding the National Park System. Thus, another issue has been whether particular resources are better protected outside the National Park System, and how to secure the best alternative protection. Certain areas that receive technical or financial aid from the NPS, but are neither federally owned nor directly administered by the NPS, include affiliated areas and national heritage areas. Some programs give places honorary recognition. The NPS also supports local and state governments in protecting resources through grants for projects and technical assistance.

CRS Report Released: National Park System: What Do the Different Park Titles Signify?

The Congressional Research Service (CRS), the public policy research arm of Congress, recently issued the report National Park System: What Do the Different Park Titles Signify? (Feb. 20, 2013). The 17-page report authored by Laura B. Comay discusses the following:

Summary

Congress names individual units of the National Park System in the enabling legislation for each unit. In so doing, Congress establishes the range of titles used in the park system. The system’s 398 units currently bear a wide range of titles—national park, national monument, national preserve, national historic site, national recreation area, national battlefield, and many others. This report addresses the significance of the different titles and discusses potential advantages and disadvantages of systemwide recommendations to simplify park nomenclature.

Legislators are concerned with park titles in several ways. First, Congress must determine appropriate titles for individual units when parks are established. Although the laws, regulations, and policies governing the National Park System generally apply to all units regardless of title, some meaningful differences nonetheless exist among the designations. Congress has grouped similar units under similar titles and has authorized resource-intensive activities, such as sport hunting or off-road vehicle use, in some types of units more than in others. In particular, Congress has been reluctant to allow such activities in national parks, but has authorized them in national preserves, national recreation areas, and national seashores and lakeshores, among other areas. A few unit titles are further associated with specific statutory authorities that govern their creation or development. National monuments, for example, can be proclaimed by the President under the Antiquities Act of 1906 (whereas other types of units cannot). National scenic trails and wild and scenic rivers are subject to requirements of the National Trails System Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-543) and the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-542), respectively, as well as general park authorities.

In addition to naming units when they are established, Congress also considers many proposals to retitle existing park units. Among other things, such proposals may aim to increase visitation at a given unit and thus to boost local and regional economies. For example, studies have suggested that the “national park” title attracts visitors and may bring economic benefits. Partly for this reason, local stakeholders have sometimes advocated for a name change to “national park” in units bearing other titles. Those opposing redesignations may be concerned that unwanted restrictions would be pursued along with a change in title.

An issue for Congress is whether the current wide array of park titles should be consolidated. The House Natural Resources Committee explored this question in 2010 hearings. The National Parks Second Century Commission, and the National Park Service (NPS) itself, have recommended reducing the number of park titles to better “brand” the units and make them more recognizable as part of the park system. Such branding could potentially bring more visitors to underrecognized units and thus help businesses in surrounding communities. On the other hand, the current, more loosely structured system maximizes Congress’s flexibility to title units to reflect their unique features.

CRS Report Released: Motorized Recreation on National Park Service Lands

The Congressional Research Service (CRS), the public policy research arm of Congress, recently issued the report Motorized Recreation on National Park Service Lands (Feb. 8, 2013). The 21-page report authored by Laura B. Comay, Carol Hardy Vincent, and Kristina Alexander discusses the following:

Summary

In managing its lands, the National Park Service (NPS) seeks to balance a dual statutory mission of preserving natural resources while providing for their enjoyment by the public. Motorized recreation on NPS lands sometimes brings the two parts of this mission into conflict. Offhighway vehicles (OHVs) have been particularly controversial, with calls for greater recreational access intersecting with concerns about environmental impacts and disturbance of quieter pursuits. NPS’s laws, regulations, and policies generally emphasize the conservation of park resources in conservation/use conflicts, and NPS has fewer lands open to OHV use than do other federal land management agencies such as the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service. The 113th Congress may address motorized recreation in the National Park System, either through broad measures (such as those concerning recreational access to federal lands) or through specific measures affecting motorized recreation at particular NPS units.

ATVs and Oversand Vehicles. Only 12 of the 398 park units are open to public recreational use of all-terrain vehicles (ATVs), four-wheel drive vehicles, and/or dune, sand, and swamp buggies. The extent of unauthorized use of such vehicles is in dispute. Several units are developing pilot education and deterrence programs to address unauthorized use. Legislative measures in the 112^th Congress sought to regulate OHV use at one NPS site, Cape Hatteras National Seashore.

Snowmobiles. Regulatory and judicial actions to allow or restrict snowmobile use have focused primarily on three Yellowstone-area park units. Winter use plans developed by NPS to establish numerical limits on snowmobile and snowcoach entries have been the subject of repeated, and often conflicting, court challenges. Most recently, NPS has issued a draft plan and supplemental environmental impact statement intended to govern snowmobile use at Yellowstone for the 2014- 2015 winter season and beyond. The plan would allow up to 110 “transportation events” per day (defined as the use of either a multipassenger snowcoach or a group of snowmobiles).

Aircraft Overflights. Grand Canyon National Park is at the center of a conflict over whether or how to limit air tours over national park units to reduce noise. NPS and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) continue to work to implement a 1987 law (P.L. 100-91) that sought to reduce noise at Grand Canyon, and a 2000 law (P.L. 106-181) that regulates overflights at other park units. P.L. 112-141, enacted in 2012, contains provisions on air tour management at Grand Canyon, including some less-stringent standards for natural quiet than NPS had recommended in planning efforts. P.L. 112-95 contains provisions to expedite and streamline agency planning actions for commercial air tours over parks generally.

Personal Watercraft (PWC). Since 2003, NPS has completed regulations to open designated PWC areas at 13 units. In July 2010, a federal judge ordered NPS to re-examine environmental assessments justifying PWC use at two of those units but did not overturn existing regulations.

Mountain Bicycles. This mechanized though nonmotorized activity also raises issues of the sufficiency of access to park lands as well as potential resource damage and disturbance of quieter recreational pursuits. Currently, more than 40 NPS units allow mountain biking on dirt trails and/or dirt roads. Mountain biking advocates have worked with NPS to explore opportunities to increase this activity in park units. In July 2012, NPS finalized a rule that eases the process for park superintendents to open trails to bicycles.

Avoiding a Risky Gamble with America’s National Parks -- NPCA

From the press release
"The National Parks Conservation Association recently released a report, “Avoiding a Risky Gamble with America’s National Parks,” outlining in disturbing detail the economic and environmental risks of allocating up to 2.5 million acres of public lands in Utah, Wyoming, and Colorado for commercial leases for oil shale and tar sands development, which is currently being considered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).


Specifically, the report noted that aggressive development would likely result in the following:

•Threaten national treasures and public lands. National Parks Conservation Association has identified eight parks that are most at risk:

•Dinosaur National Monument, Black Canyon National Park, and Colorado National Monument in Colorado;

•Fossil Butte National Monument in Wyoming; and

•Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, Capitol Reef, Canyonlands, and Arches National Parks in Utah.

•Endanger limited water supplies. Producing one barrel of oil from shale or tar sands using current technology could require between one to five barrels (42 to 210 gallons) of water, making access to water a crucial element to new energy development. In Utah, Colorado, and Wyoming, water is already scare and subject to numerous demands from development, agriculture, and power generation.

•Encourage high-risk energy industrialization in the West. Until now, oil shale extraction has been restricted to a few experimental leases on public and private lands as companies attempt to make the process economically viable. Letting it spread across 2 million acres would set a new precedent with uncertain results.

•Risk jobs and local economies. Public lands like national parks, national monuments, and recreation areas are major economic drivers in the West; they also create jobs. In 2010, national park visitation generated $612 million in local spending in Utah, $610 million in Wyoming, and almost $300 million in Colorado, according to National Park Service statistics. According to the Outdoor Industry Association, the recreation economy:

•Supports 65,000 jobs in Utah, and pumps $5.8 billion into the state’s economy;

•Generates $4.4 billion of economic spending, sustains 52,000 jobs and represents 17 percent of all the retail sales and services produced in Wyoming; and

•Racks up $10 billion in benefits and more than 100,000 jobs in Colorado.

Cleaning up the Haze: Protecting People and America’s Treasured Places -- NPCA

Cleaning up the Haze: Protecting People and America’s Treasured Places: Recommendations to Strengthen EPA’s Approach. 

On December 23, 2011 EPA proposed a BART rule exemption that will allow 28 states in the eastern U.S. to avoid compliance with the BART program. EPA will instead allow these states to rely on emissions reductions they may make under the Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR)[3] in order to satisfy their obligations under the BART program to protect Class I air quality. While the emission trading program created by CSAPR will result in significant air quality benefits for many eastern states, it will not require some of the most egregious polluters of iconic Class I national landscapes to clean up their pollution to the same level that would be required under BART.


Cleaning up the Haze: Protecting People and America’s Treasured Places asks EPA to drop its proposed BART rule exemption so that our country’s most iconic natural places are fully protected from unsightly and unhealthy air.

Protecting Our Chesapeake, Protecting Our National Parks -- NPCA

Protecting Our Chesapeake, Protecting Our National Parks is a report, dated November 17, 2011 by the Natinal Parks Conservation Association.

Abstract
"The health of our national parks depends on the health of the landscapes that surround them; therefore, the parks around the Chesapeake face many of the same threats that the Chesapeake and its rivers face.
“Protecting Our Chesapeake, Protecting Our National Parks” explores two historical parks in the Chesapeake watershed, Colonial National Historical Park on the James and York rivers and Fort McHenry National Monument and Historic Shrine on the Patapsco River. It recounts what the rivers looked like before significant agricultural practices, oyster harvesting, and extensive human development. It recommends options to restore the Chesapeake Bay and their national parks to a highly productive ecosystem with cleaner water, fewer toxic contaminants, and more abundant aquatic and terrestrial life. Our national parks help us recognize what has been lost and so help us see what we have the opportunity to regain."

Made in America: Investing in National Parks for Our Heritage and Our Economy -- NPCA

Made in America: Investing in National Parks for Our Heritage and Our Economy is a report, dated November 2011, produced by the National Parks Conservation Association. 

Abstract
"Yellowstone, Gettysburg, the Statue of Liberty and the Flight 93 Memorial are among the many national parks that we, as Americans, own together. Keeping this magnificent collection of places well-managed and open to everyone costs less than 1/13th of one percent of the federal budget— quite a bargain for a park system that inspires visitors from around the world and produces nearly 270,000 private sector jobs across the country.

Yet for the second year in a row, America’s national parks face an erosion of funding necessary to serve the public and protect park resources. And the overall appropriation for the National Park Service (NPS) is nearly $400 million (or 13%) less than it was 10 years ago. Not only will this mean fewer rangers to greet us, help us plan our visits, and respond to emergencies, but it also means that parks won’t be adequately maintained, resources will suffer damage, wildlife will be more vulnerable to poachers, and development threats will increase.

In FY 2011, funding for the National Park Service was reduced by nearly $140 million, including an $11.5 million reduction for operations. In tight budget times, it’s reasonable for the National Park Service to operate frugally. But thrifty operation isn’t enough to keep parks solvent: national parks today receive just 82 cents for every dollar they need to pay for the rangers who are fulfilling the experience of millions of annual visitors and protecting the parks’ treasures. And threats are mounting: according to the recently-enacted Budget Control Act of 2011, if Congress is unable to agree on a level of spending and revenue that reduces the budget, programs from defense to national parks will be subject to a budgetary sequester—which means national park budgets could be cut by as much as 9%.
As this report shows, cuts equal to or even half that amount would be disastrous for many national parks."

National Parks Belong at the Heart of America's Great Outdoors -- NPCA

NPCA's most recent report builds on public comments gathered at regional listening sessions across the country and on the combined policy expertise of the organization to highlight key recommendations for our national parks within the administration's America's Great Outdoors Initiative.

* Connecting Americans to healthy outdoor recreation;
* Providing educational opportunities for young people; and
* Promoting beyond-borders management of national parks and adjacent lands.

Grand Canyon National Park -- Report

This Report, dated August 2010, prepared by the Center for the State of the Parks finds that found that despite the park’s iconic status, diverse natural and cultural resources, and abundant recreational opportunities, the park suffers from many challenges that complicate resource protection and management:

•Current Colorado River management actions do not incorporate adaptive strategies for protecting and restoring native animals, natural habitats, and cultural resources along the river corridor.

•Mines could be developed on lands adjacent to the park, potentially contaminating watersheds and the surrounding environment. In addition, historic mining activities have resulted in environmental contamination in parts of the park.

•Sound pollution from scenic and commercial air plane overflights in the park is a major concern.

•Air pollution from miles away has the potential to obscure scenic vistas, harm human health, and damage park resources.

•Resource protection and visitor services are impacted by a lack of sufficient annual operating funds.

National Parks: America's Best Idea

This six part television series produced by Ken Burns was filmed over the course of more than six years at some of nature's most spectacular locales — from Acadia to Yosemite, Yellowstone to the Grand Canyon, the Everglades of Florida to the Gates of the Arctic in Alaska — "The National Parks: America's Best Idea" is nonetheless a story of people: people from every conceivable background — rich and poor; famous and unknown; soldiers and scientists; natives and newcomers; idealists, artists and entrepreneurs; people who were willing to devote themselves to saving some precious portion of the land they loved, and in doing so reminded their fellow citizens of the full meaning of democracy. It is a story full of struggle and conflict, high ideals and crass opportunism, stirring adventure and enduring inspiration, set against the most breathtaking backdrops imaginable.

Center for the State of the Parks: Park Assessments: Great Basin National Park

This report by the Center for the State of the Parks dated March 2009 finds that natural resources at the park are in “good” condition, with a score of 81 out of 100. The park currently has “good” air quality and “excellent” water quality, but they are threatened by power plants and groundwater withdrawals, respectively, and past grazing practices and fire suppression have degraded park habitats. Staff are working to restore some areas.

Overall conditions of Great Basin National Park’s known cultural resources rated 66 out of a possible 100, indicating “fair” conditions. While the addition of a cultural resources manager in 2003 has greatly benefited Great Basin, additional staff are needed for all programs to assist with baseline research, archaeological surveys, and museum and archival collections upkeep.

Center for the State of the Parks: Park Assessments Harper's Ferry National Historical Park

This Report by the National Parks Conservation Association describes the historical importance of the site and modern threats to its existance.

Harpers Ferry National Historical Park has been the site of a number of historical events. It was a point of supply for Meriwether Lewis’s Corps of Discovery, the site of John Brown’s abolitionist raid in 1859, a key Civil War battlefield, and the meeting place for the Niagara Movement, a 1906 gathering of civil rights leaders. Its position at the confluence of the Shenandoah and Potomac Rivers not only set the stage for such historical events but also makes the park a haven for rare native plants.

According to an assessment by the Center for State of the Parks, cultural resources at the park are in “good” condition, although the park needs adequate on-site museum collection storage space, archaeological surveys, cultural landscape documentation, and historic resource studies. The park also faces an overall lack of funding and staff to care for cultural resources.

In that same assessment, natural resources rated a “fair” score of 75 out of 100. Of primary concern is incompatible development around the park boundaries that impacts the local ecosystem and affects the park staff’s ability to interpret historic events for visitors. Non-native invasive plant species are also a concern.

Recent projects have improved services for the park’s 250,000 annual visitors. These include new trails and wayside exhibits, as well as restoration of the historic Baltimore and Ohio Harpers Ferry Train Station

Congressional Hearings in support of H.R. 2334, Rocky Mountain National Park Wilderness and Indian Peaks Wilderness expansion; H.R. 2632, Sabinoso Wilderness Act of 2007; H.R. 3287, Tumacacori Highlands Wilderness Act of 2007; H.R. 3513, Copper Salmon Wilderness Act; and H.R. 3682, California Desert and Mountain Heritage Act [electronic resource] : legislative hearing before the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands of the Committee on Natural Resources, U.S. House of Representatives, One Hundred Tenth Congress, first session, Tuesday, November 13, 2007.

Dark Horizons: 10 National Parks Most Threatened by New Coal-Fired Power Plants

This Report by the National Parks Conservation Association identifies the ten national Parks most at risk of damage from additional coal-fired power plants; these are: Badlands (South Dakota), Capitol Reef (Utah), Great Basin (Nevada), Great Smoky Mountains (Tennessee and North Carolina), Mammoth Cave (Kentucky), Mesa Verde (Colorado), Shenandoah (Virginia), Theodore Roosevelt (North Dakota), Wind Cave (South Dakota), and Zion (Utah).

The State of Our National Parks: A Resources Index 2008

This 2008 Report by the National Parks Conservation Association compiles and analyzes assessments completed by NPCA’s Center for State of the Parks in a sampling of national parks through a new tool called the National Parks Resource Index, a statistical representation of how natural and cultural resources in our national parks are faring.

The Report concludes that "our national parks did not score well.

On a scale of 0 to 100, the index rates the National Park System’s natural resources, such as wildlife and air and water quality, at 70 points, and cultural resources, including historic buildings and museum collections, at only 61 points. These scores indicate that the challenges to our national parks are serious, but surmountable."