Subject: U.S. Congress Urged to Buy National Park "Inholdings"
***********************************************
Forest Networking a Project of forests.org

8/25/99
OVERVIEW & COMMENTARY BY EE
Large contiguous areas of intact forest ecosystems are required to 
maintain diversity and functionality.  National Parks in the United 
States, though defined more on "monumentalism" than on ecological 
worth, are nonetheless the United States' last best chance to save 
representative intact landscapes composed of native species and 
community diversity.  The following article highlights one obstacle to 
better biodiversity conservation in National Parks--that of 
"inholdings"--parcels of land within park boundaries that are 
privately owned.  Many of these lands may develop commercially.  There 
is potential for inappropriate and polluting land uses within and 
adjacent to U.S. National Parks.  Any habitat conversion there could 
fragment and diminish ecological systems.  The National Park Trust 
reports that for a relatively small amount of money, some $70 million, 
the connectedness and quality of interior areas of National Parks 
could be maintained and improved.
g.b.

*******************************
RELAYED TEXT STARTS HERE:

Title:   Park Groups Asks Congress to buy `inholdings' for public good 
         National Parks vs. private land
Source:  MSNBC, http://www.msnbc.com/news/ENVIRONMENT_Front.asp 
         The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Status:  Copyright 1999, contact source for permission to reprint 
Date:    August 25, 1999 
Byline:  Miguel Llanos


Mojave National preserve includes dunes among its 1.6 million acres. 
The National Park Trust wants to see 86,000 acres of privately owned 
land with the preserve bought for the public good.
                                                                           
AUG. 25 -  A park preservation group on Wednesday claimed that some 
200,000 acres of privately held land within the nation's park system 
are in "imminent" danger of being developed or resold. The National 
Park Trust listed 20 "high priority" sites covering 110,000 acres 
and urged Congress to come up with the estimated $70 million it would 
take to buy them for the public good. 
                                                                            
The danger that this land could be sold for development, bulldozing, 
clear cutting or for other destructive purposes constitutes the single 
greatest threat to the system of national and state parks," Trust 
President Paul Pritchard said in a statement released with the report 
on the 83rd birthday of the National Park Service.
       
The Trust claimed that even though purchases of private lands have 
increased in recent years, so too have the number of acres of private 
land in public parks. In the last decade, it added, private property 
within America's parks rose by 1.6 million acres - a 35 percent 
increase.
       
Some six million acres within the 84 million acres of the national 
park system are privately owned, and Pritchard claimed that "on any 
given day 200,000 acres are under an immediate threat."
       
PLEA TO CONGRESS
"... private citizens should demand action at all levels of 
government," Pritchard added, noting that Congress has been slow to 
approve purchases even though it has more than $5 billion available 
through a Land and Water Conservation Fund.
       
The 1965 fund allows some $900 million a year to go towards 
acquisitions.
       
Still, Congress has been reluctant to come up with money for land 
purchases. The report said that in 1998 only $23 million was provided 
for national park land acquisition, a tenth of what the National Park 
Service had sought.
       
This summer the House and Senate approved about half of the $295 
million the Interior Department had sought for its "land legacy" 
purchases, including funds earmarked to buy private land in and 
adjacent to federal parks.   
     
RESPONSE FROM CONGRESS
A staffer on the Republican-run House subcommittee for national parks 
took exception to the report on several fronts, noting first that the 
Clinton administration only in the last few years has asked for 
acquisition funds.
       
As for the threat to parks, the source asked, "What's imminent? Who 
knows what that means." In most cases, he wagered, "nothing's going 
on" with the property.
      
The source also noted that inholdings are often property that was 
there before a park was created or expanded and in those cases "it's 
not fair to turn around and point the finger at private property."
      
PRIORITIES BIG AND SMALL
In its report, the Trust claimed the threat to parks from the 
development of private land within park boundaries -- known as 
"inholdings" -- is growing significantly because the value of these 
lands in many cases has skyrocketed. 

Logging, energy exploration, mining and subdivisions were cited as 
examples of what's planned for many of the inholdings. The National 
Park Service has also identified development of inholdings as a threat 
to the system.
       
The Trust report cited 110,000 acres of privately owned property in 
and adjacent to 20 parks, valued at more than $70 million, as being at 
greatest risk of being developed or re-sold for commercial purposes.
       
The Trust's "top targets" list (see end of story) ranges from 9 acres 
within the Cape Cod National Seashore in Massachusetts to 86,426 acres 
in California's Mojave Desert.
        
NONPROFIT BUYBACKS
While pressuring Congress remains a major strategy, the Trust and 
other groups are also raising money to buy back land themselves for 
the public good.
       
Through donations, the Trust recently bought 10,000 acres of tallgrass 
prairie in Kansas, and will own the land while the National Park 
Service operates it as a park. 

In another example, the nonprofit Wildlands Conservancy recently began 
negotiations to buy 430,000 acres parceled out checkerboard-fashion in
and around Joshua Tree  National Park and the Mojave National 
Preserve, both in  California.

But even here final approval will depend on $36 million coming from 
the federal government. So far, the Senate has agreed to come up with 
only $15 million and the House none at all.
        
National Park Trust's Top 20 Targets 
The Trust identified these areas as their top 20 "high priorities" and 
estimated their purchase prices. In all, they encompass 110,000 acres 
and $70 million would be needed to buy them for the National Parks 
System. 

* Everglades National Park (Fla.): 17,321 acres, $20 million

* Gettysburg National Military Park (Penn.): 99 acres, $5.7 million

* Saguaro National Park (Ariz.): 250 acres, $2.8 million

* Mojave National Preserve (Calif.): 86,426 acres, $7.1 million

* Apostle Island National Lakeshore (Wisc.): 54 acres, $250,000

* Wrangell-St. Ellis National Park (Alaska): 1,000 acres, $1.7 million

* Weir Farm National Historic Site (Conn.): 13 acres, $2.5 million

* Cuyahoga Valley National Recreation Area (Ohio) 243 acres, $2.5 
million

* Blue Ridge PArkway (N.C. and Virginia): 40 acres, $225,000

* Anteltam National Battlefield (Maryland): 315 acres, $2 million

* North Cascades Complex (Wash.): 225 acres, $1 million

* Golden Spike National Historic Site (Utah): 532 acres, $400,000

* Olympic National Park (Wash.): 204 acres, $2.5 million

* Stones River National Battlefield (Tenn.): 112 acres, $4.3 million

* Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historic Park (Maryland):: 722 
acres, $800,000

* Cape Cod National Seashore (Mass.): 9 acres, $2.8 million

* Keweensaw National Historic Park (Mich.): 11 acres, $2.4 million

* Hawaii Volcanoes National Park (Hawaii): 1,950 acres, $3.5 million

* Fredericksburg and Spotylvania National Military Park (Virg.): 557 
acres, $6.3 million

* Pecos National Historic Park (New Mexico): 375 acres, $1.8 million

###RELAYED TEXT ENDS###  
This document is a PHOTOCOPY for educational, personal and non-
commercial use only.  Recipients should seek permission from the 
source for reprinting.  All efforts are made to provide accurate, 
timely pieces; though ultimate responsibility for verifying all 
information rests with the reader.  Check out our Gaia's Forest 
Conservation Archives & Portal at URL= http://forests.org/  
Networked by forests.org, grbarry@students.wisc.edu