NPS Permitting Process?

[Guest CaptHawke]

In a story from the The Courier-Journal (Louisville, KY) there is a line:

 

"Marcia Keener, a policy analyst for the National Parks Service, said geocachers are supposed to go through a permitting process so they don't destroy habitat, but none have done so."

 

Anybody know what this is all about. Back in March we were told "..geocaching is illegal in NPS areas"

 

I've tried to contact Ms Keener directly at Marcia_Keener@nps.gov, but she hasn't replied.

 

There is an interesting piece of NPS documentation ORDER #53: SPECIAL PARK USES" which goes into the datails of special use permits. On the surface it states:

 

"A special park use is a short-term activity that takes place in a park area and:

 

Provides a benefit to an individual, group or organization, rather than the public at large;

Requires written authorization and some degree of management control from the NPS in order to protect park resources and the public interest;

Is not prohibited by law or regulation; and

Is neither initiated, sponsored, nor conducted by the NPS."

 

and

 

"The National Park Service may permit a special park use if the proposed activity will not:

 

Cause injury or damage to park resources; or

Be contrary to the purposes for which the park was established; or

Unreasonably impair the atmosphere of peace and tranquility maintained in wilderness, natural, historic or commemorative locations within the

park; or

Unreasonably interfere with the interpretive, visitor service, or other program activities, or with the administrative activities of the NPS; or

Substantially impair the operation of public facilities or services of NPS concessioners or contractors; or

Present a clear and present danger to public health and safety; or

Result in significant conflict with other existing uses. "

 

Great! However, there is a ton of legal paper work involved in getting a special use permit, and it can include performance bonds, liability insurance, property insurance and hold harmless/indemnification. If this is what Ms Keener is refering to, no wonder no one has gone through the process. Any lawyers out there want to take this on?

 

 

[This message has been edited by CaptHawke (edited 19 July 2001).]

[Guest Jebediah]

ible into such strongholds. It sounded good to most people, "protect the land!", so anyone opposing the rigidity of such designations was immediately labeled as anti-environment or pro-developer, even if all they wanted was a little trailhead access, a water cache to bring desert areas within hiking range, or fewer crowds and redtape B.S. Nope, it was NP, NM or nothing. So the smokey bear hats and the attitudes arrive, the campgrounds go up, trails and 'permitted uses' are parceled out by the simple expedient of personal bureaucratic bias towards varying modes of travel and sport (hiking, climbing, horseback riding, mountain bikes) the administration office quadruples in size, and the NPS starts talking user fees and liability concerns.

 

NPS actions receive much greater scrutiny from environmental litigation groups as well. Any NPS decision not to their liking may well be taken to court, forcing NPS to spend even more money they don't have and undertake additional impact studies at the very least. Safer not to permit anything.

 

Great system.