Most of us who own land with natural, scenic, or historic significance are proud of it. We believe we have the right to live on and use our land, but we also want to use it wisely ("conservation") and not destroy the values in it which we admire and protect. We enthusiastically talk to anyone who seems to share our common interest.
But there is an underlying force at work about which most landowners have been naively unaware: those whose "common interest" amounts to: "We both want it." I am not referring to covetous neighbors, but to the "preservationists" -- the political activists in the organized environmentalist movement who react with fear and horror at the thought that something, sometime, will "change" your property, and that they can't guarantee it's strict preservation forever because you own it.
As one strategy, preservationists lobby for state or federal acquisition of your property, regardless of whether you want to give up your land or your way of life. They follow an almost standard formula: they decide behind closed doors what they want, then mount a publicity campaign claiming that your land is "threatened" (at root because it is privately owned), that it is "nationally significant" (because they describe it in emotional, poetic terms), and that it ought to be "protected" as a park for the "common good" (which is what they call displacing one group of people -- the owners -- for the benefit of another more affluent and politically powerful group -- themselves).
That's the direct approach.
A more indirect approach uses land "registry" programs, which purport to merely "list" sites in private ownership. Registry programs do not always authorize land acquisition or regulatory prohibitions through the program itself, but are referenced by other State or Federal laws -- either already on the books or planned for the future after private owners are locked into the program. This provides some measure of control and, preservationists hope, buys time for future action.
Land registration as such is also used politically as a keystone in the later publicity campaign for further controls or outright acquisition: "This land has already been recognized as 'nationally significant', it is on the [some official] list of 'most threatened areas', therefore ..."
Enrollment in a land registry program is usually through one of two
methods: 1) the landowner signs up through appeals to his pride in his
property after being assured that it is entirely voluntary, just an
"honor" bestowed upon him with no strings attached except possibly for
"assistance", or 2) the landowner is signed up without his knowledge;
if he finds out, he is promised that it is entirely voluntary, just an
"honor" -- etc. etc. -- he is morally intimidated, disarmed by the
lies, and doesn't know what to do about it until it is too late, if at
all. If he screams loudly enough, he is attacked in a publicity
campaign insisting he is misrepresenting an innocent "non-regulatory"
registration program or destroying some "national interest".
Of the many State, Federal, and International registry programs,
the National Park Service runs two major -- but little known to the
general public -- compilations dealing exclusively with "national
significance": the National Historic Landmark (NHL) Program --
concerning historic sites -- and the National Natural Landmarks (NNL)
Program -- concerning "natural" areas.
A peculiar aberration of democracy governs the designation of
Historic Landmarks (36 CFR 65): owners get to "vote", but the Park
Service counts everyone ("voting" or not) as favoring designation
except for those who register notarized letters of opposition. (Think
what this approach could do for electing incumbent politicians!). An
entire area encompassing multiple ownerships is designated regardless
of individual objections. When a majority of landowners object, the
site is still registered as a "nationally significant", "eligible" NHL
-- a double list scheme providing an illusion of respect for owner
consent.
Most of the over 1,900 NHLs are historic structures on small land
areas subjected mostly (today) to local regulations such as zoning
laws (or more serious local Historic District regulations). Their
owners often feel they know what they are getting into, typically
wishing to maintain a historic structure, and sometimes receive
financial assistance. Others, however, are maneuvered into an NHL
because it triggers local or state laws taking their property rights.
All are in deeper than they think -- as described later there are big
plans for the future of both NNLs and NHLs. The focus of this article,
however, is the Natural Landmark Program.
The National Park Service's National Natural Landmarks Program is
currently the most controversial of the two NPS Landmark Programs.
like other registry programs it is advertised (sometimes sincerely by
those who don't know any better) as "voluntary", a "benign
designation", an "honor", and a "cooperative" effort to advise
landowners on the protection of the natural features of their land.
They'll even loan you a Bronze Plaque. The NNLP is in fact a feeder
program ensnaring landowners in a quagmire of planned progressively
stronger land use prohibitions and outright acquisition.
The NNLP is now entangled in a nationwide scandal called
"Greengate" by nationally syndicated columnist Alston Chase. The
expose grew out of an independent investigation making extensive use
of the Freedom of Information Act and begun by a Maine grass roots
organization, the Washington County Alliance, on the "downeast" coast
of Maine. The Alliance's investigation was motivated in 1988 when
landowners on the coast smelled a rat -- the National Parks and
Conservation Association [NPCA] had just proposed taking a large part
of the county for a new National Park. Downeast landowners also
objected to a just discovered, but long ago secretly planned, NNL
designation, and encountered a complete lack of accountability by NPS
and State planners who refused to stop the "evaluation" in what they
kept insisting was just a "voluntary" program.
To illustrate -- A 1982 report recommending 144 new sites for the
National Park Service's Natural Landmark Program revealed explicitly:
"The question of secrecy and publicity is a hot topic which will
undoubtedly come back to haunt us over the years if this document
becomes generally available to the public." It did.
Intervention by the Maine Congressional delegation
helped lead to a national "moratorium" and "internal review" of the
program. The NPS has announced the coming of new regulations in the
Federal Register and the Inspector General has scheduled an audit
early this year to determine if the "Program is conducted in an
effective manner and in compliance with Federal laws and regulations."
But knowledgeable sources concerned with the direction of the program
privately suggest that Program personnel are oblivious to their
ethical problems and expect the whole thing to blow over with a few
patches intended to give only the appearance that all has been fixed.
Meanwhile, organized preservationists such as the NPCA and the
Wilderness Society have been lobbying -- in part using the connections
of a former NNL employee -- to increase funding by over $1 million
while opposing regulations that would protect landowners' rights,
claiming that "A site's significance is a characteristic of the land
unrelated to everchanging patterns of ownership." Part of their
agenda is the illusion of landowner consent using the NHL double list
scheme, without permitting "landowner objection to thwart the
evaluation process." The two powerful environmental lobby
organizations threaten "vigorous opposition" if they don't get their
way.
Some key points on today's National Natural Landmark Program:
The Interior Dept. Solicitor admitted in 1980 that it is
"arguable" whether land areas can be included as "historic objects".
Congress, however, has implicitly condoned the program by subsequently
referencing it in other legislation, including appropriations --
apparently not realizing the NNLP's origin, nature, and commitments of
voluntarism to landowners. "The strongest indication of Congressional
ratification", the Solicitor argued, "is direct reference to the
Natural Landmarks Program in subsequent legislation. 16 U.S.C. 1a-5
[for example] requires the Secretary [Park Service] to annually notify
Congress of all areas included on the Registry of Natural Landmarks
which exhibit known or anticipated damage or threats to the integrity
of their resources and to include Landmarks in recommendations of
areas for [National] park status." The legality of the program,
especially without full landowner informed consent, remains
controversial.
Current NNL regulations in 36 CFR 62 do not require owner
consent for evaluation or designation, but do have provisions --
widely ignored nationwide -- requiring owner notification before
evaluation, and owner permission for on site inspections (often
done by air, water, or previous reconnaissance when not through
direct trespass or false pretense for entering the property).
Also frequently ignored is a provision omitting "scenery" from
the supposedly "scientific" criteria. The NPS notified
preservationist political interests of upcoming regulation
changes but appears to have, once again, failed to notify most
private landowners.
Unlike the mostly small historic sites, there are 587 Natural
Landmarks ranging from 1 to 1,878,200 acres (in Alaska). Almost 40%
are over 1,000 acres with about 13% over 10,000 acres. About half
encompass thousands of private owners, many never even identified by
the NPS in this supposedly "cooperative" program. The rest are listed
as exclusively public ownership, but may include additional private
inholders the NPS never tried to identify.
NPS now admits that 15 formerly private NNLs have already been
acquired for the National Park System, but has not disclosed those
acquired by other Federal or State agencies or those that became
Federal parks with the assistance of the NNL evaluation process before
even reaching NNL designation.
Tens of thousands of sites have been surveyed with varying degrees
of intensity without owner knowledge. Over 3,000 of these are on an
open-ended "backlog" queue for "potential" Landmarks ready for formal
evaluation and designation. (The largest, again in Alaska, is -- so
far -- 8.63 million acres.) A large portion have already been
"evaluated" and are ready for designation (or more), depending mostly
on the political climate.
In 1988 the National Parks and Conservation Association (NPCA), a
legislative lobby organization working closely with the NPS, produced
a 10 volume tract for Congress and the NPS recommending how the NPS
should be operated and expanded by millions of additional acres.
A major theme in the NPCA recommendations is accelerated use of
Landmarks -- both Natural and Historic -- for the creation of new
Federal parks. Calling Landmarks "Ladies in Waiting", the NPCA urged
that "The candidate sites and landscapes have already been identified
-- they are long overdue for protection." In other words, we now know
where they are so let's drop the pretense and go get 'em.
The NPCA is not advocating a new strategy, it merely decried that
the existing agenda had not reached its anticipated "potential". Paul
Pritchard, now president of the NPCA, was responsible for the Natural
Landmarks Program as a Deputy Director in the Carter Administration
during a frenzy of activity under what they called the "Backlog
Program". The concept of the Landmark Programs as "feeder programs"
for new parks and other means of taking control of private land is
obviously not new to him.
To NPS's chagrin, NPCA also reprinted a 1983 NPS internal list of
349 "National Natural Landmark Theme Study Recommendations for
Additions to the National Park System", saying, "NPCA felt this pool
of sites so significant as to warrant its publication." The "pool"
includes "potential" Natural Landmarks as well as those already
designated.
The NPS has for decades used a "theme driven" classification system
to identify "gaps" in the National Park System that planners think
should be filled by new acquisitions. Basically, they suffer from what
psychologists might call the Noah's Ark Syndrome: they want (at least)
one of everything in every region of the country where it occurs -- as
defined, for example, in the 1972 two volume Park System Plan for both
natural and historical sites. The Landmark Programs are used to scour
the country in search of "representations" targeted for eventual
acquisition to "fill the gaps."
While the NPS publicly denies the connections between the NNL
Program and new park planning, a 1986 internal memo by a top NPS
official regarding a decision on whether or not to list NNLs in an
updated Plan put it bluntly: "the [NNL] Program has been compiling new
park recommendations derived from natural region theme studies since
1971... Additionally, we have ... all the new park Section 8
recommendations made since 1976... [but] any contemplated revision of
the 1980 revised Plan should exclude any information or actual sites
recommended to fill gaps. This information, as you know, is very
politically sensitive, which is why the enclosed compilation has never
been distributed outside of NPS." "My staff and I stand ready to
assist you," the loyal lieutenant concluded, "in ... revising the
Plan again, interpreting or evaluating specific site recommendations
to fill gaps, etc."
Another memo confirmed: "This list, and the actual letters of
recommendation we have on file which were used to compose it, is not
widely known about even in NPS.... The List represents the best data
we have for identifying potential candidate sites for addition to the
National Park System. It should not be incorporated in the 1980
document update, but remain a separate in-house compilation."
And in July, 1989 the then new NPS Director, James Ridenour, issued
a formal policy on criteria for new park creation, including what he
called the "reconnaissance phase". A key point: "Areas that have been
designated as NHL's or NNL's have been determined to be nationally
significant and require no further analysis of significance if being
studied for potential addition to the National Park System."
Yet last April, NPS Associate Director F. Eugene Hester answered a
query by Sen. Bob Packwood (R-OR), who was concerned with the
revelations in the Alston Chase "Greengate" columns: "I can assure
you," emphasized Hester, "that the National Park Service, through the
NNL Program, in no way is involved in a campaign for 'federal control
and takeover' of private lands... NNL designation is an alternative
method for encouraging the protection of nationally significant sites,
not a first step for adding units to the National Park System."
This was only a few months after a top NNL staffer confirmed in an
internal memo about a meeting last year of NNL Coordinators from
across the country reviewing the program: "It was acknowledged there
always has been real connections between the NNL Program and the
National Park System Plan."
The preservationists and the NPS know that there are too many
Natural and Historic Landmarks for Federal acquisition of all of them,
at least in the near future, and have taken steps to buy time and at
least tie up targeted sites through other means. After all, the NNL
Program was started because, as Ronald Foresta lamented in America's
National Parks and Their Keepers (1984), "too much of the nation's
land had passed into private ownership", and even in the early 1960's
they knew that the cost of direct acquisition was too much. Something
had to be done to at least make some inroads. "Therefore," Foresta
wrote, "in 1962 the National Natural Landmarks Program was
established."
Later, an absurd 1972 national bond proposal seeking to "buy back
America" for a $100 billion to get us out of "private ownership"
failed, as did other attempts at Federal land use controls and
statutory control over Landmarks in the 1970's. The lobbyists are
back now with the proposed $1 billion/year American Heritage Trust
Fund legislation for land acquisition now being promoted in Congress
with hundreds of co-sponsors. The bill emphasizes Landmarks by
providing special subsidies to States that acquire privately owned
Landmarks.
But the latest attempt at legislative control of Landmarks is the
National Heritage Conservation Act, being worked on by NPS, NPCA, the
National Trust for Historic Preservation, and other preservationists.
A 1989 proposal for the Conservation Act planned for court
injunctions, fines up to $25,000/day and imprisonment for owners
"impairing" a Landmark or park by actions inside or outside the site.
It would also authorize a $10 million/year Emergency Fund for Federal
acquisition of privately owned Landmarks by "donation, purchase from a
willing [under these circumstances?] seller, or by condemnation with
the consent of the owner". And it would retroactively authorize the
Natural Landmark Program -- indicating that they know its legal
foundations are shaky.
Reviewing the draft legislation, NPS director Ridenour told his
staff in a 1989 memo that the "goals are noble", but warned that the
bill would not pass because "it simply tries to do too much and
threatens too many individual freedoms." "I'm not sure of the
position we would take," he wrote.
Ridenour directed his staff "to begin thinking about putting
something together a little less broad in scope." "Keep in mind the
problems of passing legislation that changes the name of the game for
all the national landmarks, both historical and natural, that are
already on the list," he wrote, "You can't just throw in new rules
after the game has been well underway for a number of years. That
would be inviting the 'I told you so' from the Chuck Cushmans
[National Inholders Association] of the world."
A scaled down version "a little less broad in scope" (and without
the jail terms and fines for this phase) was introduced as S.3105 by
Sen. Dale Bumpers (D-AR) late in the last session of Congress in
anticipation of a campaign to pass a version this year. The bill is
reportedly this year's top priority for House Parks Subcommittee
Chairman Bruce Vento (D-Minn).
The goal of S.3105 is "to provide for a highest degree of
protection and preservation of the Nation's heritage of natural and
historic places" which include "units of the National Park System,
national historic and natural landmarks, and sites on the National
Register of Historic Places".
Slipped into the "definitions" section where it is made to look
noncontroversial is retroactive authorization for the Natural Landmark
Program -- with no provisions for landowner notification or consent
before evaluation or designation.
Legislating a broad new category of lands (including Landmarks) for
Federal intervention called the "nationally significant heritage
resource", the $25 million a year Heritage Conservation Act would
authorize: "the development of comprehensive management programs, and
planning and decisionmaking processes" for private land in and near
Landmarks and National Parks, as well as: "implementation of actions
which will maximize [their] protection and preservation."
For those who manage to avoid its intended web of
State/Local/Federal controls and acquisition, the bill creates an
official "list of endangered places" for Congressional action. The
list would be based on criteria for "damage and threats" to be defined
by NPS and which are to include "the introduction of visual or audible
elements that are inconsistent with the interpretation or public
enjoyment of the site." Private property? "Benign", "honorary"
designation? "Voluntary"?
Whether the goal of ultimate control of Landmarks is advanced with
passage of the Heritage Conservation Act or in smaller pieces tacked
onto other bills and incrementally slipped through Congress late some
night without even the knowledge of most Congressmen, the long term
consequences to private landowners of a Landmark "evaluation" are
intended to be as inevitable as a fatal push into quicksand.
National Park Service Landmarks
Natural Landmarks
...the National Parks and
Conservation Association [NPCA] had just proposed taking a large part
of the county for a new National Park. Downeast landowners also
objected to a just discovered, but long ago secretly planned, NNL
designation, and encountered a complete lack of accountability by NPS
and State planners who refused to stop the "evaluation" in what they
kept insisting was just a "voluntary" program.
"The question of secrecy and publicity is a hot topic which will
undoubtedly come back to haunt us over the years if this document
becomes generally available to the public."
NNL Operation
Authorization.
Regulations.
Internal Guidelines.
Personnel.
Tens of thousands of sites have been surveyed with varying degrees
of intensity without owner knowledge. Over 3,000 of these are on an
open-ended "backlog" queue for "potential" Landmarks ready for formal
evaluation and designation.
Noah's Plan For "Ladies In Waiting"
A major theme in the NPCA recommendations is accelerated use of
Landmarks -- both Natural and Historic -- for the creation of new
Federal parks. Calling Landmarks "Ladies in Waiting", the NPCA urged
that "The candidate sites and landscapes have already been identified
-- they are long overdue for protection."
[The] Plan put it bluntly: "the [NNL] Program has been compiling new
park recommendations derived from natural region theme studies since
1971... Additionally, we have ... all the new park Section 8
recommendations made since 1976... [but] any contemplated revision of
the 1980 revised Plan should exclude any information or actual sites
recommended to fill gaps. This information, as you know, is very
politically sensitive, which is why the enclosed compilation has never
been distributed outside of NPS."
Another memo confirmed: "This list, and the actual letters of
recommendation we have on file which were used to compose it, is not
widely known about even in NPS.... The List represents the best data
we have for identifying potential candidate sites for addition to the
National Park System. It should not be incorporated in the 1980
document update, but remain a separate in-house compilation."
...the NNL Program was started because, as Ronald Foresta lamented in America's
National Parks and Their Keepers (1984), "too much of the nation's
land had passed into private ownership"
New Teeth On The Way
...the Conservation Act planned for court
injunctions, fines up to $25,000/day and imprisonment for owners
"impairing" a Landmark or park by actions inside or outside the site.
It would also authorize a $10 million/year Emergency Fund for Federal
acquisition of privately owned Landmarks by "donation, purchase from a
willing [under these circumstances?] seller, or by condemnation with
the consent of the owner".