[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 180 (Friday, September 15, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56003-56004]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-23732]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service


Notice of New Policy Interpreting the National Park Service (NPS) 
Organic Act

AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of new policy.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Director of the NPS has approved ``Director's Order #55: 
Interpreting the National Park Service Organic Act.'' This Director's 
Order adopts section 1.4 of NPS ``Management Policies'' in advance of 
adopting the entire 10-chapter volume. We have done this so that all 
NPS employees will have access to our official interpretation of the 
1916 NPS Organic Act (16 U.S.C. 1) and the 1978 amendment to the 
National Park System General Authorities Act of 1970 (16 U.S.C. 1a-1). 
These statutes, taken together, are the primary source of guidance for 
managing the national parks. All NPS personnel must conduct their work 
activities and make decisions affecting the national park system in 
conformance with the interpretation in this Director's Order.

ADDRESSES: Director's Order #55 is available on the Internet at http://www.nps.gov/refdesk/DOrders/index.htm#new. Requests for paper copies 
should be sent to: NPS Office of Policy, Room 2414, Main Interior 
Building, Washington, DC 20240. Copies may also be obtained by calling 
(202) 208-7456.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Chick Fagan at (202) 208-7456.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A draft of proposed revisions to NPS 
``Management Policies'' was issued for a 60-day public review and 
comment period, beginning January 19, 2000 [65 FR 2984]. We 
subsequently considered all the comments received, and will adopt the 
year 2000 edition of Management Policies in the near future. However, 
due to the importance of instituting as soon as possible a Service-wide 
interpretation of the most salient provisions of the Organic Act and 
General Authorities Act, we have issued Director's Order #55 as a means 
of adopting section 1.4 of ``Management Policies.'' This Service-wide 
interpretation will help all NPS employees understand their legal 
duties in managing the national park system, and will help ensure the 
law is properly and consistently applied throughout the national park 
system.

Comments on Draft Section 1.4

    Sixteen organizations and individuals commented on section 1.4 of 
the draft ``Management Policies.'' Their comments and our responses are 
summarized below. Most of the comments listed are summaries or 
consolidations of comments that shared similarities.
    Comment #1: The NPS Organic Act gives equal weight to the NPS's 
obligation to conserve park resources unimpaired, and to the NPS's 
obligation to provide opportunities for public enjoyment. This is not 
properly reflected in the NPS's proposed policy.
    Our response: Congress, recognizing that the enjoyment by future 
generations of the national parks can be assured only if the superb 
quality of park resources and values is left unimpaired, has provided 
that when there is an unavoidable conflict between conserving resources 
and values and providing for enjoyment of them, conservation is to be 
predominant. This is how courts have consistently interpreted the 
Organic Act, in decisions that variously describe it as making 
``resource protection the primary goal'' or ``resource protection the 
overarching concern,'' or as establishing a ``primary mission of 
resource conservation,'' a ``conservation mandate,'' ``an overriding 
preservation mandate,'' ``an overarching goal of resource protection,'' 
or ``but a single purpose, namely, conservation.''
    Comment #2: It is virtually impossible to provide opportunities for 
enjoyment without causing at least some degree of impairment. The NPS 
should acknowledge this fact and not use the Organic Act as a pretext 
for curtailing the level of public use and enjoyment allowed in 
national parks.
    Our response: The Organic Act and the General Authorities Act 
prohibit impairment of park resources and values, not all impacts to 
park resources and values. We have revised section 1.4 to make that 
distinction clearer.
    Comment #3: The definitions of ``enjoyment,'' ``resources and 
values,'' and ``impairment'' are critically important to how the NPS 
will implement the policy. As written, they are too unclear; or will 
allow too much (or too little) discretion by decision-makers.
    Our response: We have revised the definitions to make it easier to 
understand how these words apply within the context of the overall 
policy. We have also revised text at other key points to help make the 
overall policy clearer and, in the process, reduced the need for more 
explicit definitions.

[[Page 56004]]

    Comment #4: Some parks were established because of their natural 
qualities, some because of their historic qualities, and some because 
of their recreational qualities. Since these parks and their resources 
are not all the same, the policies should not treat them as if they are 
all the same. (Conversely, another commenter felt that a stronger 
statement should be included to remind readers that all parks deserve 
the same level of protection, regardless of what they are called.)
    Our response: The Organic Act states the ``fundamental purpose'' of 
all national parks, national monuments, and reservations managed by 
NPS. A 1978 amendment to the NPS General Authorities Act ``further 
reaffirms, declares, and directs that the promotion and regulation of 
the various units of the National Park System. * * * shall be 
consistent with and founded in the purpose established by'' the Organic 
Act, and that, ``The authorization of activities shall be construed and 
the protection, management, and administration of these areas shall be 
conducted in light of the high public value and integrity of the 
National Park System and shall not be exercised in derogation of the 
values and purposes for which these various areas have been 
established, except as may have been or shall be directly and 
specifically provided by Congress.'' These statutory provisions make it 
clear that the mandates of the Organic Act and the General Authorities 
Act apply equally to all units of the National Park System, except as 
Congress may have directly and specifically provided otherwise.
    Comment #5: Federal courts have consistently reaffirmed the 
policies interpretation that, when there is a conflict between 
conserving resources and values and providing for public enjoyment, 
conservation is to be predominant.
    Our response: This point has been added to the policy text.
    Comment #6: The proposed policy presumes that the first line of 
defense against impairment should be to limit public enjoyment. The NPS 
should instead examine other remedies before placing unnecessary 
restrictions on public enjoyment.
    Our response: This interpretation of these laws makes it clear that 
NPS may not allow the impairment of park resources and values, but it 
does not establish any presumptions or preferences as to what 
management steps must be taken to avoid those impairments. However, 
other parts of ``Management Policies,'' particularly Chapter 8: Use of 
the Parks, include NPS policies that are relevant.
    Comment #7: Impairments caused by actions that were reviewed and 
approved as acceptable in the past should be exempt from eliminating 
the impairment.
    Our response: The Organic Act and the General Authorities Act do 
not include any provisions to exempt prior authorized activities from 
the prohibition on the impairment of park resources and values.
    Comment #8: The policy should be clear that as-yet undiscovered 
resources must be protected from impairment, in the same way that known 
resources must be protected.
    Our response: We agree that the resources and values which the 
Organic Act protects are not limited to those that we happen to know 
about today. We believe the policy is sufficiently clear on this point.
    Comment #9: The new policy requirement for an ``impairment review'' 
by the NPS will be costly, contentious, and burdensome.
    Our response: For the past 30 years the NPS has been complying with 
the requirement of the National Environmental Policy Act that we 
evaluate the environmental consequences of our proposed actions. We 
plan to integrate into the NEPA compliance process the new requirement 
for a determination that there would be no impairment of park resources 
and values from a proposed activity. We do not expect it to make the 
management decision-making process appreciably more costly, 
contentious, or burdensome.
    Comment #10: The policies set forth in section 1.4 need to be 
supplemented by additional directives and procedures to help ensure 
their effective implementation.
    Our response: We will judge over the coming months whether field 
managers have difficulty applying the policy, and we will issue 
supplemental guidance, as necessary.

    Dated: September 8, 2000.
Loran Fraser,
Chief, Office of Policy.
[FR Doc. 00-23732 Filed 9-14-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-70-P