Scenic Overlook  ::  January 2006

In this issue:

• National Treasures Threatened by Proposed National Park Service Policies
• Local Victory in National Billboard Battle
• Another Door Closed for Billboard Removal in Wisconsin
• Conservation Easements Survive...And Thrive
• Scenic Nevada's Last Chance Scenic Places

National Treasures Threatened by Proposed National Park Service Policies

When the National Park System was created in 1916, the original law, termed the Organic Act, instructed the brand-new National Park Service (NPS) to preserve the parks "by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the employment of future generations." Ever since, through what are called Management Policies, the NPS staff and Secretaries of the Interior, have sought to fulfill that original idea. The policies are the set of principles and practices that guide park managers in the day-to-day operations of the parks. They are as much statements of philosophy as they are a handbook for operations. From 1918, when the first Management Policy was issued, until now, the core philosophy about the role of the parks and the government's approach to their maintenance and preservation has changed very little.

But today, the Bush administration is attempting to alter the fundamental principles that underlie the National Park System by revising the management policies in such a way that significantly weaken the long-standing emphasis on the preservation and conservation of the parks' natural resources, and which seem to open the parks to increased commercialization and destructive visitor activities. These proposed changes -- for the first time in the history of the National Park System -- diminish the core principle that in managing the national parks, conservation stands above all other goals, including visitor use. (It's worth noting that the current proposal, though troublesome, is not nearly as bad as an earlier draft that evoked a firestorm of opposition and was subsequently altered to the form it is in now, demonstrating that the protection of the park system has significant public and political support.)

The public comments on the proposed management policies are due by February 18, 2006. Scenic America will file formal comments in the near future, and anyone with a concern about this issue should do so as well.

General Philosophy: From the time the first management policy was drafted in 1918, conservation has been the highest and primary value, and all other concerns were secondary. Yet, in Section 1.4.3, which is called "The NPS Obligations to Conserve and Provide for Enjoyment of Park Resources and Values," the Administration proposes to remove the sentence that says that the "fundamental purpose" of the park system "begins with a mandate to conserve park resources and values... and so applies all the time, with respect to all park resources and values, even when there is no risk that any park resources may be impaired." That clear and unambiguous statement about what the national park system is all about is removed and superseded by proposed language that states that "The Park Service recognizes that activities in which park visitors engage can cause impacts to park resources and values, and the Service must balance the sometimes competing obligations and of conservation and enjoyment in managing the parks." Note the word "balance." It is on that single word that much of the destructive power of the proposed rules hinges.

Until this new policy was proposed, balance was not the issue. In fact, tellingly, the proposed policy also strikes out a sentence that says, "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 predominant." It then strikes a long list of references to court mandates that variously refer to resource conservation as "primary" and "overarching," and the parks having "but a single purpose, namely, conservation."

This single change in philosophy affects the interpretation of all the proposed rule changes that follow it. By placing the protection of park resources on the same level of importance as the use of the park by visitors, the proposed changes unilaterally alter the purpose of the National Park System and overturn nine decades of policy within one of America's most popular and treasured resources.

Billboards: Like many of the changes proposed by the administration, language that seems benign or subtle may contain hidden within it seeds of long-term damage. For example in Section 9.3.5, the current language says billboard advertising "will be discouraged on approach roads outside of parks where it would adversely affect a park's scenic values." The proposed language seems to weaken that position by telling park managers to work with the local community, businesses, and transportation officials to "help reduce the impacts of billboard advertising near approach roads outside of parks." "Will be discouraged" and "reducing the impacts" are not necessarily the same thing. "Reducing impacts" concedes that something is going to be there and you want to make it as acceptable as possible. "Will be discouraged" is a clear statement of opposition. Additionally, there is potentially a lot of leeway in defining what "reducing impacts" actually means. Who defines what constitutes a reduction, or an impact, for that matter? What had been an unambiguous statement of principle about fighting billboard blight in gateway communities near the parks is now open to interpretation, weakening the hand of park managers dealing with the issue.

Additionally, the language that currently states that "NPS policy does not prohibit 'donor recognition' which occurs when the NPS publicly thanks an individual, corporation, or some other entity for their gift or service," was changed to say that "NPS policy encourages appropriate 'donor recognition'..." This seemingly small, but significant, shift in tone is a reflection of the Bush administration's efforts to open the national parks to corporate sponsorship opportunities. (See Director's Order 21 and a reaction from Senators Bingaman and Alexander.)

The Use of the Parks by Visitors: There are several places within Section 8 of the policies that reflect the subtle shift in priorities of the administration. For instance, the old rules (Section 8.1.2) say that, "...negative or adverse environmental impacts are never welcome in national parks, even when they fall far short of causing impairment. For this reason, the Service will not knowingly authorize a park use that would cause negative or adverse impacts unless it has been fully evaluated, appropriate public involvement has been obtained, and a compelling management need is present. In those situations, the Service will ensure that any negative or adverse impacts are the minimum necessary, unavoidable, cannot be further mitigated, and do not constitute impairment of park resources and values."

The proposed new rules instruct the park managers that "When a use is causing or would cause unacceptable impacts, the Service will seek first to manage the use in a way that will eliminate unacceptable impacts and, when necessary, restrict or disallow the activity." In other words, in the current system, potentially disruptive or harmful activities are first evaluated, held to a very high standard, and only approved if the harm can be mitigated before the use occurs and there is a really good reason to do it. In the proposed rule, the burden is on the park manager to try to find a way to make potentially harmful activities less damaging than they would otherwise be.
In the real world, park managers compelled to go through a "let's make this work" exercise will be put in difficult positions trying to stop what they know to be deleterious activity. It's the difference between telling your small child that she can't ride her bike in the street because it's dangerous and knowing it's dangerous but trying to find some way to make her safe by giving her lights and flags and reflective clothing. If your primary goal is protection you take one approach. If your goal is making everybody happy you take another.

Until now, the primary and overriding goal of the National Park Service has, by law and by practice, been conservation and protection. The management policies of the administration radically alter that by making the use of the parks as important as the protection of them. Scenic America strongly believes that in so doing, the parks will be severely damaged, threatening the very characteristics that draw people to them in the first place, and jeopardizing a national system of natural and cultural treasures unsurpassed in the world.

Submit Comments to the National Park Service.

(top)

Local Victory in National Billboard Battle

Special interest lawyer for the outdoor advertising industry, E. Adam Webb, was booted from Eden Prairie, Minn., this past month when a federal judge threw out a case brought by Webb over local sign regulation.

Webb has been making his way across the country applying to erect massive billboards and then sues when his application is rejected. Webb takes advantage of weaknesses in local sign ordinances in an effort to open up more land to unprecedented billboard construction.

In the Eden Prairie case, Webb was applying to build 20 five- to seven-story billboards along a highway. Minnesotans are still waiting to see what happens in another case filed by Webb in nearby Bloomington, Minn. Eden Prairie and Bloomington have since changed their billboard policies, but in some instances, even this has not keep a city safe from being retargeted by a similar special interest lawsuit.

DONATE: Please help Scenic America support cities and towns across the country defend against this insidious legal assault on billboard regulation. Scenic America is raising funds to hire a permanent technical staff position to provide direct support to communities fighting this well-financed attack.

(top)

Another Door Closed for Billboard Removal in Wisconsin

The politically powerful outdoor advertising industry and other business interests, working within the context of an anti-environmental legislature, have succeeded in banning amortization of billboards in cities and towns throughout Wisconsin. Late last month, Governor Jim Doyle signed the anti-amortization bill into law, even though he had vetoed a similar proposal in 2004.

Amortization can be one of a community's most effective tools for removing illegal and non-conforming billboards and reducing blight. Generally, amortization works by requiring that signs not complying with local regulations be removed within a certain time period (generally 5 to 15 years), giving the nonconforming sign's owner a reasonable amount of time to recoup his investment and be fairly compensated for the loss. Absent amortization, local governments have little recourse short of outright purchase to get rid of offending signage, a prospect that is usually prohibitively expensive.

Citizens for a Scenic Wisconsin actively opposed the bill, but faced a well-financed battle waged by a powerful coalition, including the outdoor advertising industry and manufacturing, construction, and business interests. As Chuck Mitchell, executive director of Citizens for a Scenic Wisconsin, stated, "The level of special interests supporting the bill was overwhelming."
The Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, which reported on donations by parties that supported the bill to current legislators and Governor Doyle, showed that Doyle received 40% of his campaign contributions ($553,312) for the first half of 2005 from those special interests. Current legislators have received almost $7 million in contributions from this same lobby in the last eight years.

For more information about the legal use of amortization in sign control, visit the Citizens for Scenic Florida website, which contains extensive information on the subject: www.scenicflorida.org. Scenic America's well-regarded publication, Fighting Billboard Blight also contains information on this and related issues and is available for purchase on our website.

(top)

Conservation Easements Survive...And Thrive

Early last year, the Joint Committee on Taxation of the U.S. Congress issued a scathing report on easements, including both conservation and historic preservation facade easements. The report focused on abuses of the system, and seemed to spell doom for the entire easement concept. But land conservation organizations, including Scenic America, fought back and the legislative threat seems to have abated.

Conservation easements are one of the most important tools available to promote scenic and land conservation. In exchange for a tax benefit, landowners create a legal agreement with private nonprofit land trusts or government agencies in which they agree to restrict the activity that occurs on the property in perpetuity in order to protect "natural, scenic, or open-space values" of the land.

Legislation passed the Senate in November 2005 that included reforms in the appraisal process (where the bulk of abuses have occurred) and, significantly, does not create new limits on conservation easements. In fact, the bill has expanded tax incentives, particularly for middle-income landowners, by allowing deductions to be taken for 15 years and raising the limit on deductions to 50 percent of a donor's income (and 100 percent for farmers and ranchers). The House bill, which is less generous with tax incentives, will not be taken up until later this year and those concerned with the issue should remain vigilant.

The good news is that regardless of the final legislative outcome, the immediate threat to this critical part of the land conservation toolkit has been blocked.

MORE INFORMATION:

Scenic America recently published an Action Guide -- Scenic Easements: A Tool to Conserve America the Beautiful -- which focuses on the use of conservation easements to protect scenic resources. It is available through the Scenic America Bookstore.

The Land Trust Alliance has taken the lead on this issue and additional information can be found at www.lta.org.

(top)

Scenic Nevada's Last Chance Scenic Places

In an effort to highlight potential dangers to scenic beauty in the state of Nevada, Scenic Nevada launched LAST CHANCE Scenic Places. Like many areas throughout the United States, Nevada faces threats to its visual beauty from billboards, sprawl, and poorly planned commercial development.

This project will culminate in a booklet highlighting landscapes throughout Nevada with distinctive beauty and character that are at risk due to neglect, development or poor public policy. The booklet is scheduled to be published later this year, and will serve as a resource not only to the general public, but also to the public officials that play a role in shaping the future of Nevada's scenic beauty.

To learn more about LAST CHANCE Scenic Places and how to nominate a scenic place in Nevada visit www.ScenicNevada.org.

(top)