|
v �1
<br />'a
<br />0
<br />0
<br />Q
<br />--;
<br />every two years and conducts studies in individual parks to
<br />determine how to preserve historic structures — including the log
<br />cabins at Great Smoky. Irn general, says one Park Service specialist,
<br />the air pollution question is "huge," and highly charged because
<br />it is so political.
<br />.Under the Clear Skies Initiative proposed in 2002 by President
<br />Bush, emissions from electric power plants and other sources
<br />would reportedly be reduced by more than 70 percent by the
<br />year 2018. But many view the initiative as an attempt by the
<br />administration to bypass provisions of the 34- year -old Clean Air
<br />Act, which was structured to reduce the same pollutants faster
<br />and in greater amounts. Moreover, under the Clean Air Act, park
<br />managers were given the authority to review applications for
<br />new power plants and upgrades of old ones, and to provide sci-
<br />entific data if it appeared that visibility and resources within the
<br />parks mightbe affected. Clear Skies would abolish that author-
<br />ity unless the new plant or upgrade would be located within 31
<br />miles of a national park.
<br />Bill Wade, who spent the final nine years of his 34- year -long
<br />career as superintendent of Shenandoah National Park (he
<br />retired in 1997), believes Clear Skies is bad medicine for the
<br />parks. In a guest commentary published in the Denver Post last
<br />September, Wade noted Shenandoah's location downwind
<br />from a number of "older and dirty power - plants," and said there
<br />were times "when visitors could not see the valley floor on
<br />either side of Skyline Drive and the rainfall had the pH equiv-
<br />alent of vinegar." Nevertheless, Each year some 8,000
<br />Wade found his park con - bacl<pacl<ers trel<the
<br />fronting a flurry of applications Wonderland Trail at Mount
<br />for new power plants. Thanks Rainier National Parl<, which
<br />to the Park Service's "scientific suffers from a $101 million
<br />ability to analyze and model pol- maintenamebacklog.
<br />lution effects in sources more
<br />than 200 miles away," he wrote, "we were able to modify the
<br />terms of many of those permits and even eliminate one.'
<br />Had Clear Skies then been in effect, Wade says, pollution at
<br />Shenandoah "would be considerably worse today."
<br />Also troubling many people inside and outside the Park Service
<br />was the decision by Sec. Norton to reverse a Clinton administra-
<br />tion ruling that would have phased out the use of snowmobiles in
<br />Yellowstone National Park In an earlier letter to the secretary, as
<br />she was framing her decision, Michael Finley and six other former
<br />officials noted that the agency's own studies verified that protec-
<br />tion of parks and visitors could best be achieved by phasing out
<br />snowmobiles while providing access on quieter, cleaner snow
<br />coaches (buses designed to travel on snow- packed roads), the
<br />option favored by four of five Americans responding to the Park
<br />Service's call for public comment.
<br />I had hoped to discuss these issues with Norton or her top
<br />deputy, Steven Griles, a former lobbyist for the mining and fos-
<br />sil fuel industries, but my requests for interviews were denied.
<br />Instead, I was advised to check out the secretary's speeches
<br />JanuarffeBruary 2004 PRESERVATION 27
<br />F
<br />T'
<br />�`
<br />�s
<br />''b
<br />-.
<br />1
<br />--;
<br />every two years and conducts studies in individual parks to
<br />determine how to preserve historic structures — including the log
<br />cabins at Great Smoky. Irn general, says one Park Service specialist,
<br />the air pollution question is "huge," and highly charged because
<br />it is so political.
<br />.Under the Clear Skies Initiative proposed in 2002 by President
<br />Bush, emissions from electric power plants and other sources
<br />would reportedly be reduced by more than 70 percent by the
<br />year 2018. But many view the initiative as an attempt by the
<br />administration to bypass provisions of the 34- year -old Clean Air
<br />Act, which was structured to reduce the same pollutants faster
<br />and in greater amounts. Moreover, under the Clean Air Act, park
<br />managers were given the authority to review applications for
<br />new power plants and upgrades of old ones, and to provide sci-
<br />entific data if it appeared that visibility and resources within the
<br />parks mightbe affected. Clear Skies would abolish that author-
<br />ity unless the new plant or upgrade would be located within 31
<br />miles of a national park.
<br />Bill Wade, who spent the final nine years of his 34- year -long
<br />career as superintendent of Shenandoah National Park (he
<br />retired in 1997), believes Clear Skies is bad medicine for the
<br />parks. In a guest commentary published in the Denver Post last
<br />September, Wade noted Shenandoah's location downwind
<br />from a number of "older and dirty power - plants," and said there
<br />were times "when visitors could not see the valley floor on
<br />either side of Skyline Drive and the rainfall had the pH equiv-
<br />alent of vinegar." Nevertheless, Each year some 8,000
<br />Wade found his park con - bacl<pacl<ers trel<the
<br />fronting a flurry of applications Wonderland Trail at Mount
<br />for new power plants. Thanks Rainier National Parl<, which
<br />to the Park Service's "scientific suffers from a $101 million
<br />ability to analyze and model pol- maintenamebacklog.
<br />lution effects in sources more
<br />than 200 miles away," he wrote, "we were able to modify the
<br />terms of many of those permits and even eliminate one.'
<br />Had Clear Skies then been in effect, Wade says, pollution at
<br />Shenandoah "would be considerably worse today."
<br />Also troubling many people inside and outside the Park Service
<br />was the decision by Sec. Norton to reverse a Clinton administra-
<br />tion ruling that would have phased out the use of snowmobiles in
<br />Yellowstone National Park In an earlier letter to the secretary, as
<br />she was framing her decision, Michael Finley and six other former
<br />officials noted that the agency's own studies verified that protec-
<br />tion of parks and visitors could best be achieved by phasing out
<br />snowmobiles while providing access on quieter, cleaner snow
<br />coaches (buses designed to travel on snow- packed roads), the
<br />option favored by four of five Americans responding to the Park
<br />Service's call for public comment.
<br />I had hoped to discuss these issues with Norton or her top
<br />deputy, Steven Griles, a former lobbyist for the mining and fos-
<br />sil fuel industries, but my requests for interviews were denied.
<br />Instead, I was advised to check out the secretary's speeches
<br />JanuarffeBruary 2004 PRESERVATION 27
<br />
|