This is another in a series of blogs looking at issues at other national parks in light of the ongoing disputes here at Cape Hatteras National Seashore about access to our beaches.
Most issues here at the seashore eventually boil down to the interpretation of the dual mission of the National Park Service, which is to preserve lands for future generations while providing public access for recreation.
Sure, parks were created to curtail development of some natural areas, but the Organic Act of 1916, which established the National Park Service, says that the purpose of the NPS shall be “to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.”
Congress also addressed the dual mission when it established Cape Hatteras as the nation’s first national seashore in 1937.
That legislation reads:
Except for certain portions of the area, deemed to be especially adaptable for recreational uses, particularly swimming, boating, sailing, fishing, and other recreational activities of similar nature, which shall be developed for such uses as needed, the said area shall be permanently reserved as a primitive wilderness and no development of the project or plan for the convenience of visitors shall be undertaken which would be incompatible with the preservation of the unique flora and fauna or the physiographic conditions now prevailing in this area.
Again, Congress envisioned a dual mission for the seashore.
And, in 1940, Congress passed legislation changing the name of the seashore from the Cape Hatteras National Seashore to the Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area.
That change was made to specifically allow hunting in the seashore, but, again, Congress was thinking about the dual mission.
The “recreational area” was used by the National Park Service to refer to the seashore into the early ’60s when it was shortened back to “national seashore.” However, Congress has never taken any action to officially change the name.
It’s clear — at least to many of us — that Congress intended the national parks to be enjoyed.
However, in recent years, the environmental groups have taken an increasingly aggressive role in forcing the Park Service to put preservation above recreation.
That’s been happening at Cape Hatteras and at many other national parks across the country.
The case in point today is the Big Cypress National Preserve in the Florida Everglades.
Big Cypress has been involved in a series of lawsuits since 1995 over the use of the land. The lawsuits have been filed or joined as intervenors by just about every environmental group you can think of — and some you’ve never heard of before.
The conflict there also boils down to recreation vs. preservation, and, especially, the use of off-road vehicles on the preserve’s many miles of trails.
In 1996, the Park Service took over about 147,000 acres of land, known as the Additional Lands. At first, it was placed off-limits to ORVs until a management plan could be developed.
When the management plan was finally completed in 2010, it included about 130 miles of ORV trails. In 2011, two separate lawsuits were filed by environmental groups challenging the Park Service’s plan.
At issue again is the Park Service’s mandate to manage lands for both preservation and recreation.
And again, environmental groups are charging that the plan puts rare species of plants and animals at risk and allows ORVs to destroy the area to such an egregious degree that it violates the Organic Act.
Environmental groups have long argued that the Organic Act requires that preservation must always trump recreational use if there are conflicts.
However, a federal judge in these Big Cypress cases has disagreed.
On Sept. 19, U.S. District Judge John Steele ruled in favor of the National Park Service. Furthermore, in that ruling, he specifically rejected the principle that preservation must always trump recreation.
This is the part of the judge’s ruling that has gotten the attention of the litigious environmental groups:
The overarching legal principles Plaintiffs seek to establish are simply not that easy. The conservation mandate of the NPS Establishment Act was tweaked by the subsequent Preserve Act and the Addition Act, both of which required multiple use management, which included the allowance of hunting and at least some recreational ORV use. As was previously stated, multiple use management is ?a deceptively simple term that describes the enormously complicated task of striking a balance among the many competing uses to which land can be put.? The Court rejects Plaintiffs? argument that every NPS decision must favor preservation if there is a conflict with another goal. This would not be ?striking a balance.? The Court finds that the substantive decisions by the NPS did not violate the Organic Act or the Establishment Acts.
In another part of the ruling, the judge refers to a magistrate’s report on the lawsuits, which, he said, “understated” the fact that the parties are “fairly polarized.”
No determination will please everyone, and recent history has demonstrated that almost any NPS determination related to recreational ORV use in the Preserve or Addition results in litigation. The record demonstrates extensive, good faith efforts by the NPS to make appropriate Wildlife Act assessments. After a de novo review of the record, the Court finds that the 2010 re-assessment of wilderness eligibility was not the result of manipulations based on politics, but the result of agencies attempting to arrive at appropriate decisions.
Steele’s ruling may have little or no value as a precedent in other federal judicial districts. If it should be upheld on appeal, it could be more significant.
However, in an Oct. 6 article in National Parks Traveler, directors of several environmental groups were quoted wringing their hands, lamenting, and expressing their disappointment.
And, the groups were further concerned in the article that Park Service Director Jon Jarvis declined to comment on the ruling because it was the subject of ongoing litigation.
The plaintiffs in the lawsuits have until Nov. 24 to appeal the ruling.
Indeed, the National Parks Conservation Association asked on Oct. 17 for a rehearing on certain issues in the case.
A member of the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees, Rick Smith, was quoted as saying, “For a long time our policies have said that preservation is the first priority. Now the court seems to be saying that we have to ‘strike a balance,’ whatever that means. I am sure that recreationalists will seize that phrase to try to justify activities that are resource-damaging.”
Imagine that. The National Park Service might have to strike a balance, “whatever that means.”
Can you just imagine the horror of it?
Click here to read Judge John Steele’s ruling in the Big Cypress National Preserve case.
