A NATIONAL PARK IN IDAHO?
PROPOSALS AND POSSIBILITIES
Idaho Forest, Wildlife and Range Policy Analysis Group
Report No. 7
by
James G. MacCracken1
and
Jay O'Laughlin2
June, 1992
___________________________
1Research Scientist, Idaho Forest, Wildlife and Range Policy Analysis Group, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 83843.
2Director, Idaho Forest, Wildlife and Range Policy Analysis Group, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 83843.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The efforts of the Technical Advisory Committee, listed below, are gratefully acknowledged. These individuals provided guidance on the design of the plan for this study, and provided technical review of the final draft of the report.
| Dr. Gary E. Machlis Professor of Forest Resources Cooperative Park Studies Unit University of Idaho |
Steve Mealey Supervisor Boise National Forest Boise, Idaho |
| Dr. R. Gerald Wright, Jr. Professor of Wildlife and Range Resources Cooperative Park Studies Unit University of Idaho |
Dr. John C. Freemuth Associate Professor Department of Political Science Boise State University Boise, Idaho |
| Dr. John D. Hunt Professor and Head Dept. of Resource Recreation and Tourism University of Idaho |
Dr. J. Michael Scott Research Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Professor of Wildlife Resources, and Leader, Idaho Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit University of Idaho |
| Dr. Edwin E. Krumpe Associate Professor Dept. of Resource Recreation and Tourism University of Idaho |
Additional technical reviews were provided by Delmar Vail, State Director, Bureau of Land Management, and Dale Crane, National Parks and Conservation Association. Their valuable insights are appreciated.
The following people provided information or additional contacts that were instrumental in preparing this report: Ric Bailey, Hells Canyon Preservation Council; Warren Brown, National Park Service Planning; Paul Fritz, retired National Park Service Superintendent; and Randy Morris, Committee for Idaho's High Desert. Their help is appreciated.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
| Acknowledgements | i |
| List of Figures and Tables | iii |
| Foreword | iv |
| Executive Summary | 1 |
| The National Park Service | 4 |
|
4 |
|
6 |
|
6 |
|
6 |
|
7 |
|
7 |
|
7 |
|
10 |
|
11 |
|
13 |
|
14 |
| Arguments For and Against National Park Designation | 16 |
|
16 |
|
16 |
|
17 |
|
18 |
|
19 |
|
19 |
|
20 |
|
20 |
| Proposals for National Parks in Idaho | 21 |
|
21 |
|
24 |
|
24 |
|
26 |
|
27 |
| Conclusions | 28 |
| Literature Cited | 31 |
| Additional Reading | 33 |
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
| Table 1. National Park System by type of unit, 1989 | 5 |
| Table 2. National Park Service themes | 9 |
| Table 3. Major natural history regions in Idaho and National Park Service themes (by general grouping) | 10 |
| Table 4. Land uses permitted in various designations of public land management units | 12 |
| Table 5. National Park Service management zones, their purpose, and some subzones used for developing National Park management plans | 15 |
| Table 6. Extent of the National Wilderness Preservation System (in millions of acres) by federal land management agency, 1989 | 16 |
| Table 7. Characteristics of 5 areas in Idaho previously proposed for National Park designation | 22 |
| Table 8. Summary of information on proposals for a National Park in 5 Idaho areas | 23 |
| Table 9. Proposed Craters of the Moon National Park and associated Great Rift National Preserve ownership status and acreage | 25 |
| Table 10. Proposed Hells Canyon National Park and Preserve units, acreage by state and current ownership | 26 |
| Table 11. Proposed Sawtooth National Park and National Recreation Area units, acreage, and management goals and uses | 28 |
| Figure 1. Location of National Park Service units and other areas with National Park potential in Idaho | 3 |
| Figure 2. Natural regions of the contiguous United States used by the National Park Service | 8 |
FOREWORD
The Idaho Forest, Wildlife and Range Policy Analysis Group (PAG) was created by the Idaho legislature in 1989 to provide Idaho decision makers with timely and objective data and analyses of pertinent natural resource issues. A standing nine-member citizen advisory committee (see the inside front cover) suggests issues and priorities for the PAG. Results of each analysis are reviewed by a technical advisory committee selected separately for each inquiry (see the acknowledgements on page i). Findings are made available in a policy analysis publication series. This is the seventh report in the series. Others are listed in the inside front cover.
The citizen advisory committee asked the PAG to analyze previous proposals for designating a national park in Idaho. As one member put it, there is a need to "separate myth from reality" with respect to the potential costs and benefits of a national park. This report is an analysis of what is known and unknown (mostly the latter) about the costs and benefits of national park designation. Five areas in Idaho have been proposed at one time or another as national parks--City of Rocks, Craters of the Moon, Hells Canyon, Owyhee Canyonlands, and the Sawtooths. All these areas continue to generate active debate, at least locally. The NPS has studied three of these areas; the outcomes of site-specific agency studies are summarized. Although two of these proposals have resulted in active congressional support, Idaho still does not have a National Park.
Consistent with the PAG's mission to provide only objective data and analysis, no recommendations are offered. Only Congress can create a national park. The views of Idaho leaders are crucial. We hope the information in this report will be useful in the continuing debates over a national park for Idaho.
John C. Hendee, Dean
College of Forestry, Wildlife and Range Sciences
University of Idaho
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this report is to provide information that will help decision makers and others evaluate the numerous arguments, both pro and con, that surface in the debate over National Park potential in Idaho, and to summarize previous proposals for National Park designation. This information will be valuable to resource managers, conservation groups, and state and federal legislators. The analysis considers three major focus questions around which the report is organized:
[1] What is a National Park?
[2] What are the arguments for and against creating a National Park?
[3] Which areas in Idaho have been proposed as a National Park?
[1] What is a National Park? It is a large natural area with one or more natural resources of national significance. Two other criteria--suitability and feasibility--are used to judge the merits of potential National Parks. Only the U.S. Congress can create a National Park. There are 50 National Parks, which are often referred to as the "crown jewels" of our public land management system. Because the National Park Service manages National Parks, park definition is closely linked to the management philosophy and policies of the agency. Thus, two related questions are addressed. How does a National Park differ from a national forest, national wildlife refuge, national recreation area, and other such public land designations? How do the land uses allowed in a National Park compare to those in a wilderness area?
[2] What are the general arguments for and against National Park designation, and how valid are they? Three general arguments for National Park designation and three against are discussed.
Three reasons are offered for establishing a National Park in Idaho: (1) Better resource protection from land use restrictions that de-emphasize resource extraction is perceived by some people as a benefit. (2) The potential for increased tourism and local economic activity is often mentioned as a benefit. (3) A shift in federal agency management philosophy away from extractive use and toward emphasis on recreation management and visitor education are also mentioned as benefits of National Park designation.
Opposition to National Park designation, which can be as strong as support, centers on three arguments: (1) The likely prohibition of existing extractive resource uses--hunting, grazing, mining, and logging--that accompany National Park status also leads to opposition.
(2) Opponents often emphasize the potential for resource degradation due to increased tourism and excessive development. (3) It is argued that National Park Service budgets are already over-extended to the point where existing units are deteriorating, and new parks would just make the problem worse.
Whether any or all of the pros and cons associated with National Park designation become reality depends a great deal on site- specific characteristics and the special provisions that might be contained in the enabling legislation that Congress would design for a new park. Rather than offering generalizations derived from past experiences with existing park units that may or may not apply to new areas under consideration in Idaho, we suggest a focus on specific areas and specific resource management problems that would be associated with a shift to National Park status and could be addressed by enabling legislation. We identify specific areas that have been proposed, but not specific problems.
[3] Which specific areas in Idaho have been proposed for National Park status, and what was the outcome of those proposals? Approximately 62.5 percent of the land in Idaho is publicly owned and managed by the federal government. Although some land areas in Idaho are managed by the National Park Service (NPS), Idaho does not have a National Park entirely within its borders (a small portion of the southwestern edge of Yellowstone National Park is in Idaho). The NPS administers four units in Idaho: two National Monuments, a National Historic Park, and a National Reserve (Figure 1).
Congressional proposals for a Sawtooth National Park began in 1913 and have been actively considered as recently as 1989. There was a congressional proposal for a Craters of the Moon National Park in 1991. Both of these areas have been evaluated by the NPS to determine if they had National Park potential, and both were judged to be nationally significant as well as suitable and feasible for National Park designation. The Sawtooth National Recreation Area was enthusiastically recommended as a combined National Park and National Recreation Area in 1977, but was not approved by the Secretary of the Interior. The Craters of the Moon National Monument was evaluated as a National Park and Preserve, but the National Park Service study team recommended that its status as a National Monument not be changed. However, there is still active interest in designating Craters of the Moon as a National Park and Preserve.
Three other areas have been proposed as National Parks. In 1992, a local citizen interest group proposed a Hells Canyon National Park; another group proposed an Owyhee Canyonlands National Park. The next step in both these cases is study of their potential by the NPS. City of Rocks has some local support, but its 1988 enabling legislation as a National Reserve suggested the possibility of future transfer to the state, precluding serious consideration of this area as a National Park. In addition, City of Rocks is a relatively small area, and half of it is privately owned, presenting feasibility problems.
No recommendations for National Park designation are offered in this report, but that is not to say that the five areas identified are not worthy of National Park status. Because it takes an act of Congress to create a National Park, and reviews of state and local leaders are crucial, such a determination can only be made within the public policy process. We hope this information will be useful in that process.
Figure 1. Location of National Park Service units and other areas with National Park potential in Idaho. (The National Recreation Areas include surrounding lands as part of the proposals. Craters of the Moon National Monument includes proposed expansion from surrounding Bureau of Land Management lands.)