A National Parks Conservation Association campaign launching today is designed to rally public support against threats facing such iconic national parks as Yellowstone, Yosemite, and Grand Canyon with hopes the Obama administration will step up and use the tools and authority it has to protect the parks.
"The public knows that there are problems in the parks, but it does take an advocacy group sometimes to elevate the dialogue," said Kristen Brengel, NPCA's senior director of legislation and policy. “Our effort is to make sure we’re amplifying these issues and engaging the public.”
At 9 a.m. EST today the park advocacy group was launching a social media campaign on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and other channels to raise the profile of threats facing parks from coast to coast:
* In Florida the campaign zeroes in on Biscayne National Park and efforts by the National Park Service to create a marine reserve zone in a bid to improve the health of fisheries and the only tropical coral reef system in the continental United States.
* At Grand Canyon National Park in Arizona the group points to the prospect of a mega-development just south of the park's boundary, a development some fear could disrupt the park's groundwater flows.
* In Wyoming, Yellowstone National Park's bison herds need a sound management plan that will "(E)nd the senseless slaughter of bison and provide these living symbols of wild America with more room to roam..."
* In Utah energy development on public lands threatens the viewshed and natural sound at Arches National Park.
There are other parks threatened by development and resource issues, such as Acadia National Park with large crowds brought to the park by cruise ships, Bryce Canyon National Park with a surface coal mine not far from its borders, and national parks and preserves in Alaska where state wildlife regulations often impinge on natural predator populations in those parks.
By focusing this campaign on parks such as Yosemite National Park and its issues with air pollution, Grand Teton National Park with inholding issues, Glacier National Park with nearby energy development, and even Colonial National Historical Park in Virginia confronting the prospect of a massive electrical transmission line strung across the landscape, NPCA hopes to leverage public concern specifically for these places and also raise the national conversation about protection for national parks.
“The reason we think this campaign will strike a cord with the public is these are mostly iconic park units," said Ms. Brengel during a phone call Tuesday.
Interior Department officials have the requisite authority and tools at hand to take steps to protect the parks, the advocacy group maintains:
* At Biscayne they could speed the adoption of regulations for the marine reserve zone;
* at Yellowstone the federal agencies involved in wildlife issues could press for quicker resolution of the bison management conundrum;
* at Grand Teton it could possibly get the National Park Foundation to work to raise private funds, much as it did to finance repairs to the Washington Monument, to close the gap in purchasing private inholdings within the park from the state;
* at Colonial the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers could be directed to conduct a full-blown environmental impact statement before deciding on the proposed transmission corridor;
* at the Grand Canyon, the Forest Service doesn't need to issue the permits and rights-of-way to allow a project on the scale of the one now proposed;
* at Mojave National Preserve in California the administration could deny the permit being sought for a 2,000-acre solar farm nearby and require that it be relocated;
* for clean air and vistas at Yosemite and other parks, the Obama administration could "close loopholes and strengthen park clean air protections so polluters aren’t let off the hook," and;
* at Glacier National Park the administration should cancel energy exploration leases for the Badger Two-Medicine area outside the park, rather than allow exploration.
In the case of Glacier, the U.S. Forest Service already is on record opposing the leases.
"This administration can do something to get us closer to protecting these national parks. They don’t need a court, they don’t need Congress, they can do it themselves," Ms. Brengel said.
NPCA officials are counting on the social media campaign will convince the adminstration to do just that.
“If action isn’t taken by the Obama Administration now, park visitors could see a mega-mall outside Grand Canyon and energy development in sensitive wildlife habitat right next to Mojave. Fortunately this administration has the opportunity to make decisions now that will protect and enhance these iconic national parks for future generations," said Mar Wenzler, NPCA's vice president of conservation programs, in a release. "Through our Parks in Peril initiative, National Parks Conservation Association will mobilize our more than one million supporters across the country to encourage the administration to seize its unique opportunity to protect our incredible national parks.”
Comments
You are making the standard mistake of static analysis. You assume that if the price was increased that there would be no change in rancher behavior. How much impact does the 2.7% have. I'm not aware of any studies on that specific question but there is plenty of economic evidence that lower costs leads to lower prices (look at gas prices today). But if 2.7% is 80-% cheaper, that implies a 2 percent reduction. The beef industry sold $127 billion in the US last year. 2% of $127 billion is a lot of money.
Below market price and below cost are two very differnet things. The Feds do charge below market (and the American taxpayer benefits). The Feds cost is virtually zero, so if they charge anything, they are not "below-cost". The same holds true for oil and gas. I skimmed through your linked report and saw nothing that quantified any damages. The industries pay billions of dollars annual in lease fees, I see nothing that suggest the Feds pay anywhere near that for cleanup. But if it makes you feel better, I do believe that lessors should pay for restoring the property as it was when they have completed their extraction. But then, I believe current regulations already require that.
Folks, I just started to research "damage from fracking" and the data was overwhelming. Of course, at the same time I realized that it is so overwhelming that no one open to being educated about it would start from a denial point of view, so I'll simply leave it to Eric to "do your own research". I'm not going to butt my head up against that wall.
Wild claims yes - most dismissed by the likes of the EPS - data no. Please show me "data" from an independent source that shows systematic and irrepairable damage to federal lands due to fracking.
Anon's post excellently illustrates one of the greatest challenges we who support public lands and parks are facing.
To be honest, I had completely forgotten about Fort Monroe. It's far from where I live and there are so many other very pressing challenges to our parks and public lands that it was easy to let it slip from mind.
It's terribly difficult to get information out a public that is being swamped by so many "Big Crisis of the Day" sound bites. So many that perhaps many of us have simply tuned them out unless they are close enough to bite our butts every day.
That's exactly why we need NPCA and Traveler and Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance and any others willing and ready to speak up and try to spread the messages that need to be spread.
Obama Phones??????
Huh? This telephone assistance program started in 1984! Who was president in 1984?
Snopes says: claiming that "the Obama administration created a program to give free cell phones paid for by taxpayer money to welfare recipients." All the elements of such statements are erroneous or exaggerated:
The Lifeline program originated in 1984, during the administration of Ronald Reagan; it was expanded in 1996, during the administration of Bill Clinton; and its first cellular provider service (SafeLink Wireless) was launched by TracFone in 2008, during the administration of George W. Bush. All of these milestones were passed prior to the advent of the Obama administration.
Just a couple of minutes of Google searching shows that this program is not funded by any taxpayer money. Want to try again, Comrade?
As for the claim that the government would lose money if grazing fees were not coming in, that's simply the kind of stuff we find around waterholes where cattle graze. The AMU is so low that it doesn't come anywhere near covering the costs of maintaining the grazing lands we so generously provide to ranchers.
Be careful, Comrade. Vet your sources more carefully.
Yes and like many programs it started small with well intended purposes to help the truely needy. This program has been dramatically expanded into a $2 billion + give away by Obama. Regardless of who or when it was started, it is now a $2 billion + give away. Personally, I would rather see that money go to the parks.
is not funded by any taxpayer money.
Really? Where does it come from? The phone fairy?
Tell me Lee, how much money is spent "maintaining the grazing lands" that wouldn't be spent if there was no grazing?
Yes, I totally agree. I only listed the large natural areas where expansion could protect the park from damaging activities on adjacent lands. But Fort Monroe National Monument and numerous other smaller -- but equally important -- areas are also seriously threatened by adjacent development. Fort Monroe is now split in two with key lands in between proposed for an ill-conceived commercial development project.
Fortunately, as Anon noted below, there is a chance ot take care of this problem by expanding the existing Fort Monroe monument to include the lands in between. Virginia's governor and a conservationsts support such an expansion.
I hope President Obama takes action to add the lands between to the existing monument. These lands are state owned, so all it takes is a transfer to the Department of the Interior and a proclamation by the President under the Antiquities Act. The time for action is now.