"The Administration apparently undertook a radical rewrite of the Management Policies 2001 not as a substantive exercise but rather as a salvo in a long-running ideological, and often political, battle over resource management issues with the National Park System," charged Rahall and Christensen.

     The Members asserted, "Withdrawal of this proposal is necessary if the agency is to retain the confidence of the Congress and, more important, the public."

     The National Park Service’s (NPS) Management Policies summarizes the authority and responsibilities provided to the NPS by statute and regulation into a manual intended for daily use by park managers. The manual covers all park planning and management issues, including land acquisition, fire management, wilderness, law enforcement, concessions, and a range of other issues.

     Last year, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife and Parks Paul Hoffman undertook a complete rewrite of the Management Policies 2001. Mr. Hoffman’s draft dramatically altered the long-standing interpretation of laws governing the National Parks. Due to internal NPS debate and public outcry, the proposed changes have since been disavowed by the Department of the Interior; however, a new draft, based in part on the Hoffman draft, was released in October 2005.

     In the letter, the Members question why the rewrite was undertaken, noting that the current policies have only been in place since 2001 and, since then, the system has been faced with no significant new challenges.

     "Overall, it lacks precision regarding the National Park Service’s core mission and appears to create unwarranted latitude to allow harm to precious natural resources and places dear to the American people," stated Christensen.

     One change made by the new draft to which Rahall and Christensen object is the rewrite of Section 1.4.3. The new language lacks a clear statement in favor of conservation and seems to require that NPS strive to accommodate activities causing impairment.

     "Given that neither the Organic Act nor relevant case law has changed in the last five years, this reinterpretation of the National Park Service’s core mission cannot be justified," said Rahall.

     Another troublesome section of the draft undercuts NPS efforts to protect Park wilderness, eliminating the long-standing NPS designation of "Potential Wilderness". Protected from development, millions of acres of wilderness lands have been enjoyed by Americans for generations.

     "These changes could lead to the permanent loss of wilderness acreage. Our open spaces provide unparalleled recreational opportunities, and maintaining their splendor for future generations is at the heart of the Park Service’s responsibilities," stated Rahall.

     Christensen added, "Given the missteps that have plagued this process, the deficiencies remaining in the latest draft, and the failure to provide any justification for the rewrite in the first place, we remain unconvinced that this draft should move forward."

     The Subcommittee on National Parks will hold an oversight hearing Wednesday, February 15, 2006. The topic of the oversight hearing is the draft Management Policies and proposed changes to Director’s Order 21, which deals with the acceptance and solicitation of donations to the National Park System.