PUBLIC LANDS: NPS retirees express concerns with plan to elevate Colo. monument to park
Scott Streater, E&E reporter
Greenwire: Monday, April 28, 2014
A coalition of former National Park Service employees says it objects to a proposal by Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) and Rep. Scott Tipton (R-Colo.) to redesignate the Colorado National Monument as a national park, arguing the plan as written could ultimately compromise the Park Service's mission to preserve the site for future generations.
The proposal being circulated by Udall and Tipton to redesignate the monument as "Rim Rock Canyons National Park" through a possible bipartisan bill "raises such significant concerns that we have to wonder whether it was drafted in order to stop progress toward redesignating Colorado National Monument as a 'national park,'" Maureen Finnerty, chairwoman of the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees, wrote in a five-page letter sent to both lawmakers.
"Unfortunately, the draft legislation to redesignate Colorado National monument as a 'national park' omits essential provisions that would assure preservation and enjoyment of the park's resources and values, while including other provisions that would undermine long-term management and protection and create more of a local park than a new unit of the National Park System," Finnerty wrote. "Because this 'Rim Rock Canyons National Park' would be a 'national park' in name only, [the coalition] would oppose the legislation as currently drafted."
The national park proposal was devised by a five-member committee composed of local community leaders near the monument appointed last year by Udall and Tipton, whose House district includes the monument in western Colorado.
Udall and Tipton have asked the public to review the proposal and the outlines of a proposed bill and submit comments to them. Depending on the public feedback, Udall and Tipton would then file a bipartisan bill, likely by the end of the year, to designate the monument as the 60th national park.
Changing the status of Colorado National Monument to a national park would require congressional approval, but it would not affect the management of the site, which has been under the control of the National Park Service since President Taft in 1911 used his authority under the Antiquities Act to designate the 20,500-acre site a national monument.
Spokesmen for Udall and Tipton said the coalition's letter is the kind of detailed feedback they need before deciding whether to file a bill.
"Congressman Tipton anticipated that many different views would be expressed during the public comment process on the community working group's proposal," Josh Green, a spokesman for Tipton, said in an emailed statement.
The proposal to redesignate and rename the monument "is based on a years-long, bipartisan and community-driven process" that will not move forward without gathering "input from Mesa County and Colorado residents, leaders and business as well as national stakeholders," Mike Saccone, a spokesman for Udall, said in an emailed statement.
"Sen. Udall welcomes the input of groups like the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees, and he encourages others to weigh in as well," Saccone added.
Though the coalition of retirees does not endorse the proposal being circulated by Udall and Tipton, it does support the idea of elevating the Colorado National Monument into a national park.
But changes are needed, wrote Finnerty, the former superintendent of Everglades and Olympic national parks.
For one, the current proposal does not "recognize Colorado National Monument's extraordinary resources, values, and experiences," and she recommended renaming it the "Colorado Canyons National Park" to better reflect what was "envisioned for this place over 100 years ago" by John Otto, who in 1907 first lobbied Congress to designate the site a national park.
"What is especially troubling about this draft legislation is that it contains no language concerning the essential reason for establishing a national park, i.e., preservation of its outstanding resources and values for the enjoyment of present and future generations, but rather contains many provisions that make achievement of that goal more difficult," Finnerty wrote.
One of those provisions, Finnerty wrote, is included in a section of the proposed bill titled "No Buffer Zones" that could "substantially restrict" the Interior secretary's ability to protect park lands.
"It seems to say that the Secretary does not even have the well-established right of all property owners to take action against activities occurring on adjacent lands that interfere with the use and enjoyment of his or her property. This unacceptable language could allow a local nuisance to devalue a national asset without legal recourse," Finnerty wrote.
Another provision in the proposal that concerns the coalition calls for the establishment of a 15-member Rim Rock Canyons National Park Advisory Committee to help guide management of the new park.
The members would include representatives from local municipalities, such as Grand Junction and Fruita, as well as the Grand Junction Area Chamber of Commerce and West Slope Colorado Oil and Gas Association.
"Although an advisory committee with clear purpose, and with balanced membership committed to the 'fundamental purpose' of the park unit, can be constructive in the right circumstances, this advisory committee has none of those characteristics," she wrote.
"From its membership to its duties to the absence of a termination date, it is clear that the purpose of this 'advisory committee' is to increase the influence of local business and development interests over the administration of the new park under national park laws and policies that have stood the test of time," she added. "This purpose is at odds with the very reason for including the nationally significant and extraordinary federally-owned lands and resources of Colorado National Monument/Rim Rock Canyons National Park in the National Park System."
