Editor's note: Joan Anzelmo had a long and distinquished career with the National Park Service, one that included tenure as superintendent of Colorado National Monument. Among the issues she had to grapple with during her stint at the monument was whether to allow a professional bike race to pass through the monument. She declined the request for reasons outlined in the National Park Service's Management Policies. When the Park Service's Intermountain Region last week announced that it would take a new approach to deciding what activities were appropriate in Colorado National Monument, she was understandably puzzled because of how it could affect the bike race. She explains why in the following guest column.
Beginning in December 2010, and most recently on August 14, 2012, the National Park Service has repeatedly told the Grand Junction Local Organizing Committee (GJLOC) for the USA Pro Challenge that it cannot utilize Colorado National Monument and its Rim Rock Drive, which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, for a stage of the USA Pro Challenge bike race.
So you can imagine my surprise when on Friday, November 9, the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel, whose publisher is on the GJLOC, ran an exclusive story about a process the Park Service would implement when considering appropriate activities in the monument, including a reconsideration of the professional bike race. The article included quotes from Colorado Gov. Hickenlooper, GJLOC member John Hopkins, NPS Intermountain Regional Director John Wessels, and monument Superintendent Lisa Eckert.
Public to get a say on monument
Feds seek local input on activities inside the park
The local organizing committee that sought to conduct a leg of the USA Pro Challenge bicycle race along the 23 miles of Rim Rock Drive saw the Park Service announcement as an opening.
“It’s a good opportunity to more fully explore how we might make available the type of event we’ve been talking about,” said John Hopkins, chairman of the local organizing committee, calling it a “very positive development” for the community in general.
Gov. John Hickenlooper called the announcement a step in the right direction that will “ensure that the public has input when it comes to protecting and enjoying this national crown jewel. We appreciate the National Park Service’s interest in having an open and honest dialogue with the community about activities in the monument.”
Later that same day, the Park Service issued a news release that announced a process to begin in January that would look at all manner of activities, events, and commercial services to decide which would be appropriate for the monument. The subsequent news stories and editorials said the Park Service would invite the community to help the agency determine what should be permitted and what should not, whether weddings, family reunions, special events, rock climbing, and even the professional bike race. That's a rather unnecessary and pricey process to my way of thinking when specific regulations and policy already exist to evaluate and determine what is appropriate or not.
Are you scratching your head yet? I certainly have been.
The Bike Race Has Been Reviewed Before
The National Park Service went through a massive and expensive national public involvement process in 2005 and 2006 to update its Management Policies, the guiding field manual for how to manage the parks. The result of that long and costly process was the updated 2006 Management Policies that give greater weight to resource protection, even over visitor services.
These policies flow from the NPS Organic Act. Consequently, Park Service superintendents are specifically directed to follow these policies and to protect park resources first and foremost. Complementing the 2006 NPS Management Policies are the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) and other agency directives and guidelines.
When I served as superintendent at Colorado National Monument and in other posts ranging from Yellowstone and Grand Teton national parks to the Director’s Office in Washington, D.C., I always followed Park Service policy to guide my decisions and all of my public communications. No more so than when I evaluated the first proposal from the GJLOC requesting to hold a stage of the USA Pro Challenge in Colorado National Monument.
The policies and Code of Federal Regulations were clear on how I would evaluate and decide this request. However, I made sure to consult with my supervisor, Regional Director John Wessels, various Interior Department solicitors, fellow Park Service superintendents, staff in the agency's Office of Policy as well as the special permits staff, and eventually with Park Service Director Jon Jarvis.
Despite the nasty assault I received in the community and the non-stop intense political pressure from Gov. Hickenlooper and many elected officials, including U.S. Rep. Scott Tipton and U.S. Sen. Mark Udall, to force the race, it was reassuring and Park Service mission-affirming to have both Regional Director Wessels and Director Jarvis emphatically support the decision I made not to permit the stage of the USA Pro Challenge inside of Colorado National Monument.
It was reaffirmed on several additional occasions while I was still at Colorado National Monument and after I retired. Most recently, on August 14, 2012, Regional Director Wessels in a letter to the GJLOC informed them that the Park Service would not permit the professional bike race in Colorado National Monument. This was the third time that Regional Director Wessels informed the GJLOC why the Park Service would not permit the pro bike race. Subsequently, members of the GJLOC confirmed to the news media an additional meeting with RD Wessels and Secretary Salazar during September on the subject of the race.
Surprising Change Of Heart?
So Friday’s news as reported initially by the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel and later by the Denver Post, and stories in Greenwire, as well as editorials in both the Daily Sentinel and the Denver Post were shocking. Again elected officials were quoted as praising the Park Service for its new decision-making process regarding the pro bike race with headlines stating “Monumental Change of Heart” and “NPS Change of Policy.”
Adding to the chorus of those stating the Park Service would re-evaluate the pro bike race was the Intermountain Region’s spokesperson and associate regional director, Rick Frost. In a Greenwire story on Tuesday, November 13, Mr. Frost was quoted as saying:
"I think people are making too much of the race itself," said Rick Frost, associate regional director of communications for NPS's Intermountain Region in Denver. "Nothing about what we're doing here represents a policy change. This is an effort to engage the public, and to help them understand the process by which special-use permits are granted. We want to work with them to help them understand the things we can and cannot do and to show them where there's flexibility to do things and where there's not." However, Frost said all special-use activities will be up for discussion, including ongoing proposals to run a segment of the bike race through part of the monument.
Perhaps if Rick Frost had faced the unrelenting pressures I faced daily as park superintendent, including personal threats and attempts to get me fired during the protracted race debate, he would never say, “I think people are making too much of the race itself” or so badly confound the NPS message on its policy which expressly prohibits professional sporting events inside the nation’s national parks and monuments.
I remain hopeful that Director Jarvis, who has faithfully carried out the National Park Service mission throughout every step of his field-oriented career, will make the Park Service position crystal clear on this issue for Colorado National Monument and for all other units of the National Park System as a tangible manifestation of the agency’s Call to Action."
Comments
Lee - so now one must bring benefits? What benefits do the other 1500 visitors a day bring to the Momument?
But if you want potential benefits - try the list I provided before:
"Isn't it possible they will come for both the race and the park? Might they come for the race, be awed by the park and become long standing park patrons? Might the millions that would be watching the race on TV see the park and be inspired to visit it and other parks - or make a donation to the park(s)? Seems to me that the parks could only come out winners.
Or could those benefits be trumped by negatives such as closing the park to other visitors for a day, litter, trampling of vegetation and biotic soil, safety concerns, increased maintenance costs, need for additional park staff to handle set-up and clean-up and a host of other potential problems?
Would it be another case of socialize the expenses and privatize the profits? Should my taxpayer dollars be spent to support something that is intended to put money in someone's pocket. (It is, after all, a professional race.) Or would we taxpayers be assured that this event would provide a profit for our park?
That's the point -- benefits and unbenefits (if there is such a word) are entirely in the eye of the beholder. That's what makes situations like this so emotionally charged and so difficult to adjudicate "fairly."
Ok, I've tracked down a letter Ms. Anzelmo wrote to detail the reasons why she declined to issue the requisite permit for the 2011 race in the park. Here are some of the details and impacts she pointed out in reaching her decision:
* The Park Service's Management Policies do not allow a park to permit an event that requires the closure of an area normally open to the public when that event is "conducted primarily for the material or financial benefit of a for-profit entity; or which awards participants an appearance fee or prizes of more than nominal value; or requires in park advertising or publicity (unless the event is co-sponsored by the Service) or; charges a separate public admission fee."
* "According to the proposal, there would be approximately 144 cyclists in 16 to 18 teams, approximately 49 support vehicles, potentially 16 feed zone support vehicles, a wide variety of support equipment, large number of race support personnel and volunteers, and it would require closing the Historic Rim Rock Drive to accommodate three full laps of this race stage potentially for up to six hours..."
* "According to the proposal, the historic overlooks along Historic Rim Rock Drive would also be needed to accommodate race support services, vehicles, and spectators. The proposal calls for helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft to be utilized for race television coverage and for race communictations."
* "The proposed race route would have the racers travel along the exceptionally narrow and precipitous Historic Rim Rock Drive, where crowds would likely be stacked up to view the racers and inadvertently trample native vegetation and fragile biological soil crust, accelerate rockfall along steep shoulder sections of the road, damage historic stone walls, disrupt flight patterns and nesting of birds of prey including golden eagles and peregrine falcons, disrupt desert bighorn sheep mating behavior, and litter the route and adjacent canyon terrain with paper, plastic, food and beverage debris."
* "During the month of August (when the race was proposed--ed.) Colorado National Monument receives as many as 3,000 visitors daily, making it one of the most heavily visited months of the year. The proposed race would displace park visitors including commercial bus tour groups which average 3 or 4 per day with upwards of 30-50 passengers per coach, displace Glade Park residents and Glade Park commercial vehicles that use Historic Rim Rock Drive as their primary right-of-way access, disrupt visitor services, displace interpretive programs and disrupt the overall operations of Colorado National Monument and its cooperating association's retail store located in the visitor center."
Founding Fathers, these are concrete impacts. The benefits you allude to are speculative, highly so.
How would money come to the park? I can see money leaving the park in terms of the personnel costs involved to manage the event, costs which I would guess already have grown quite substantial even without the race in terms of the time the superintendent(s) and officials in the Intermountain Region Office have devoted to this matter in recent years, not to mention other personnel. And then there's the lost cost of entrance fees the park normally would collect from those 3000 or so visitors it typically sees on an August day.
Beyond that, I've been involved with and attended quite a few events, ranging from World Cup ski races to small-town bike races, and the impacts brought by traffic, people, concessions, and vehicles are quite substantial in landscapes much flatter and more spread out than those you find in Colorado National Monument. To say there wouldn't be impacts is truly viewing the world through rose-colored glasses.
Oh for God's sake, just tell them NO! Its not like there isn't any other place in America to go race your bike. For them to put forth the proposal in the first place is bold, arrogant, and self-serving, just for starters. They think they are owed this, deserve this, and will keep nagging until they get it, just as all spoiled children do. Maybe Ms Anzelmo isn't there anymore, but her points as listed by Kurk still exist, and ought to stop this foolishness in their track. If anyone in the Park Service, regardless of their level, is still considering a yes to this atrocity, fire them, for they do not have the welfare of the parks in their mind or in their heart.
You people sure get worked up..... the news release sez what exactly angers most of you..."public to get a say on monument".
Sure, there are negative impacts from an event like this. Just like there are from the 3,000 people a day who visit in August. Negative Impacts can be mitigated. Positive impacts will also come from an event like this. One of you has stated the 'worst case' situation.... people everywhere walking on the ground, lining the raceway, helicopters, caravans of support vehicles! Litter! Compacted soil! Another one says what about Yellowstone, Yosemite? The hordes will destroy all we love!
Baloney.
The park is public. The public pays for it. The public has a right to ask for uses other than what the NPS has magnanimously allowed in the past. Currently commercial tour buses traverse this and other parks daily. Concessionaires operate within many parks making money for themselves and the NPS. Helicopters fly over parks shuttling tourists. Snowmobiles tour in winter. This bike race is no more than that. A single day, some disruption of what is normal. If allowed, the event organizers should be required to pay for costs of the event..The park gets a lot of unusual exposure. More people become interested in the spectacular scenery and plan to visit.... Live goes on....
The National Park Service and the fabulous sites it oversees is nothing without the visitation of an adoring public. Public use should be encouraged, not strangled in the crib....
Other than the issue of "trampling vegetation" and the concurrent concerns in that paragraph - I don't really see anything that is particularly negative - certainly not to the long term protection of the resources. And I would claim the "trampling vegetation" is as (if not more) speculative than my positives.
Can you show where such damage occurred at prior venues? Say Independence Pass, a similarly "sensitive" area, were one of the legs was held last year?
This exchange of opinions is a fine illustration of why people like Joan Anzlemo are needed. Someone needs to try to referee between various widely separated opinions and interests, weigh them against things like the NPS management guidelines, laws, and other requirements and then make a decision. No matter what the decision is, it's almost a certainty that there will be some awfully upset people.
We are a nation of wide divergency and we see that clearly in postings here.
It remains to be seen where all this dust will finally settle. But when it does, I hope we will all have the graciousness to accept it and then move forward as fellow Americans. If we could put hurt feelings aside, accept the decsion (until we can work to change it in a civilized manner), roll up our sleeves and make it all work our country would be much better off.
The objection is VERY valid, as it happened to me. I had travelled across the continent from my home in Missouri with a short opportunity to see Olympic National Park, specifically the Hoh Rain Forest. I had a one day window to be there, I would have liked more, but that's the way life is. Upon arrival, we were told we couldn't go to Hoh as the road was closed to film a commercial for a car company! A commercial enterprise, to make profit for Honda (I think it was Honda) denied me the possibly once in a lifetime chance to see the Hoh Rainforest.
The arguement that an area of a national park, any national park, should EVER be closed to the public, for the benefit of a commercial enterprise is VERY valid.