Friends of CRATER LAKE NATIONAL PARK Volume 5 No. 3 * Fall 2000 Page Three

"TO PROTECT . . . OR TO ENJOY . . . THAT IS THE QUESTION" by Dave Brennan, Chief Ranger As we approach the centennial of Crater Lake National Park, it might be interesting to step back and look at the National Park Service - at who we are and what we're trying to do in managing the national park system. The National Park Service came into being in 1916, when Congress passed a law called the National Park Service Organic Act. To this day, the Organic Act guides park management and serves as an eloquent mission statement. The Organic Act says that the fundamental purpose of national park units is: ".... 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." The challenge over the years has come in interpreting this act. As park visitation has increased over the years, we have struggled with finding the elusive balance point between "conservation" and "enjoyment". Do we favor conservation over enjoyment, and by doing so potentially reduce the opportunities for our visiting public to appreciate national parks? Do we lean towards increased enjoyment and visitor opportunities, and by doing so potentially impair the very resources they come to enjoy? Does the Organic mean that these two aspects carry equal importance in our decisions involving park management? For the past 84 years, questions like these have formed the basis for many interesting debates among NPS managers as we manage parks, make operational decisions, interpret laws, make policies and guidelines, write general management plans, and defend ourselves in lawsuits. I can recall some enjoyable hours engaged in these lively discussions around backcountry campfires! In an effort to clarify what we're doing as an agency, and to take our national parks forward into the next century, in September 2000, NPS Director Robert Stanton signed an important management policy titled "Interpreting the National Park Service Organic Act". In consolidating the Organic Act with other laws, court decisions and agency interpretations that have followed it, this policy affirms that the fundamental and primary purpose of the national park system is to preserve park resources and values. Within this fundamental purpose, we also provide for the enjoyment of park resources by current and future generations. We recognize that some impacts to park resources and values are inevitable, and allow for this in managing for the enjoyment of parks. However, these impacts must not constitute impairment - that is, they must not harm the integrity of park resources or values, including the opportunities that would otherwise be present for the enjoyment of those resources or values. In sorting out this impairment issue, we look at the nature of the impact and its effect on park resources and values, the intent of the legislation that created the park, the importance of the affected resources to the natural or cultural integrity of the park, and the significance of the affected resources in general management plans and other planning documents. Are we, as park managers, still required to use our best professional judgement in determining whether activities will constitute impairment? Absolutely. Will our jobs still consist of finding that elusive balancing point between public use and conserving park resources and values? Without a doubt. Can it be confusing to sift through the maze of laws, policies and public opinions on management issues? Most definitely! I think that the real significance of this brand new directive is that it takes us into the next century by reconnecting us with our beginnings. It requires us to be guided first and foremost by the fundamental purpose of national parks - to provide unimpaired natural and cultural resources, ecological processes, scientific values and contributions to the inspiration and experience of the nation as a whole. We hope that this interpretation serves us well for the next century, so that we can still have this discussion in the year 2100. And for those of you who have been waiting for me to give some specific examples of what constitutes "impact" and "impairment" well, lets share that lively discussion around the next campfire! If you're interested in reading the full text of this policy (Director's Order #55), it is available on the Internet at www.nps.gov/refdesk/DOrders/DOrder55.html Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6