Chapter Nine:
New Directions and a Second Century (1972-1990)
(continued)
Resources Management & Research Come of Age
|
The 1971 Master Plan listed as a goal the
expansion of the parks' "resource-management program." Only a few years
earlier the concept had not even existed. The 1963 Leopold Report
committed the Park Service to a fundamental change of direction in
managing natural resources. The new goal was preservation of natural
scenes and systems in as near a state as possible to that found at the
time of Caucasian entry into the area. However, at Sequoia and Kings
Canyon there existed a large gap between stating such a goal and
achieving it.
As noted previously, the Service's early response to
the Leopold Report at Sequoia-Kings focused principally on giant sequoia
ecology and especially on the trees' relationship to natural fire. By
the middle 1970s, as a ten-year research effort drew to a close, the
challenge became how to implement what had been learned. In the light of
the Leopold policies, much of the parks' first century of management had
been seriously misguided. The suppression of nearly all fire represented
the greatest of these mistakes. Other obvious problems included the
clash of bears and campers in development areas, the effects of intense
human recreation on forests, and the ominous and increasing specter of
air pollution. In 1976, in accordance with the Master Plan,
Sequoia and Kings Canyon national parks separated several employees and
programs from various park work units and reconstituted them as the
"Division of Natural Resources Management." Resource officers were
directed to manage the physical interaction between parks' visitors and
the parks' natural resources. At the end of the year, Sequoia and Kings
Canyon published the Natural Resources Management Plan and
Environmental Assessment, the parks' first comprehensive plan for
limiting and correcting human damage. [26]
This plan called for a wide variety of overdue actions including a full
inventory of the giant sequoias in the parks, implementation of a
natural fire program, hazard tree abatement, bear management, exotic
animal control, water quality monitoring, and campground revegetation.
Another part of the plan identified necessary natural science research
projects. Responsibility for this program fell largely to the parks'
research scientist, a position first filled in 1968 with a fire
ecologist. Completion of an integrated resources management plan marked
the final shift at Sequoia and Kings Canyon from visual to ecological
management, a change that had tentatively begun several decades earlier
with the Meinecke studies of the Big Trees and was formally chartered by
the Leopold board in 1963.
During the following decade the Sequoia-Kings
resource management program and its smaller companion, the natural
science research program, faced rapidly increasing work loads. During
the 1970s, management of natural and man-made fire dominated the
resource management program. Before they ended in 1974, the Hartesveldt
experiments in Redwood Canyon established the necessity of repeated fire
to both giant sequoia reproduction and natural fuel management. In
response, the 1976 Resources Management Plan confirmed the 1968
decision which designated almost 600,000 acres of the two parks as a
"natural fire zone." In such a zone natural fires would be monitored but
otherwise allowed to burn unimpeded, as long as they did not threaten
facilities, recreational users, or parks' boundaries. During the next
several years a number of natural fires burned thousands of acres of
backcountry with the largest acreage coming in the Sugarloaf/Roaring
River country of southern Kings Canyon National Park. At the same time a
program of deliberate fires began in the more accessible sequoia groves
and especially in Giant Forest, where annual fires occurred starting in
1979. Park managers called these fires "prescribed burns" because they
were perceived as a prescribed therapy for forests which had accumulated
unnatural amounts of woody fuel and because they occurred only "under
prescription," that is only under carefully specified environmental
conditions. The fires usually reduced both accumulated fuels and the
density of the forest stand to levels similar to those hypothesized to
have existed in the early nineteenth century.
During the early 1980s, as the effects of the
prescribed burn program began to spread across the landscape, the
program generated both strong support and equally impassioned
opposition. To most ecologists, and even to many parks' visitors,
reintroduction of fire into the sequoia groves was a logical process
that added value to the groves by making them more natural. To these
fire supporters, the scorched giant sequoia bases and sometimes
drastically thinned forest were nothing more than a return to the way
things ought to be. Only a few ecologists questioned the return of fire,
and their concerns were not about the appropriateness of the goal, but
rather the ability of fire as a natural process to effectively restore a
forest so changed by mankind. Other park visitors, however, found the
entire process visually and ethically objectionable. Often these
individuals perceived the groves as "natural cathedrals"places
where any man-made change was a change for the worse. Eventually, in
1985-86, the level of criticism grew so intense that it required a
public airing. On June 30, 1986, a public review of the prescribed fire
program began at Lodgepole in Sequoia National Park. To sift through the
comments and draw them together into recommendations for future action,
the Park Service created a special committee, consisting entirely of
non-Park Service personnel and chaired by Dr. Norm Christiansen of Duke
University. The committee visited a number of recent prescribed burns
and listened to both criticism and support for the program. In March
1987 the committee, dominated by ecologists, released a report
suggesting only minor modifications in the parks' fire management
program. [27] Ultimately the gap between
those who supported prescribed burning and those who described it as
"government vandalism" could not be bridged through even the careful
efforts of a scientific panel. Antiburn forces challenged not technical
methods but rather the philosophical premises supporting the fire
program. Thus, the Park Service again was forced to recognize that
abrupt shifts in management philosophy, such as the Leopold Report and
the infusion of ecology-trained managers, could stir a backlash from
those who had accepted older, traditional policies.
Under the supervision of the division of natural
resources management, activity also increased significantly in the area
of wildlife management. With the Giant Forest deer crisis resolved and
almost forgotten, new problems demanded attention. Programs began to
protect native fish and reestablish additional herds of the sadly
reduced native bighorn sheep. But no other wildlife issue received as
much attention during the period as the interaction between black bears
and park visitors. In the aftermath of the Leopold Report, a new
perspective slowly took hold. The new position held that bears must be
managed as wild animals, not as semi-tame camp followers. From this
position came a prolonged and problem-laden effort to separate bears
from human foods. First came "bear-proof" garbage cans, standard trash
cans held in place by solid pipes topped with heavy lids which opened
like mail boxes. These cans, within a few seasons, largely accomplished
their task of raking garbage away from bears. Unfortunately, this did
not cause bears to stop searching for human food. Instead, marauding
bears shifted their search patterns to focus on less well-protected food
supplies. The new weak spot turned out to be automobiles. For decades
campers had been trained to hide their food from bears by placing it in
their cars. This policy had worked reasonably well as long as garbage
was easily available. With access to garbage now denied, however, the
bears turned to cars with a vengeance. By the early 1980s, damage to
automobiles by bears approached $100,000 annually. Eventually, park
managers adopted an idea first tried in Yosemite, and installed
bearproof metal lockers in each campground in the frontcountry of the
two parks. Although the bear boxes definitely slowed down the bears, no
one was willing to wager that the problem had been resolved for
good.
The late 1970s and early 1980s also witnessed
confirmation of a new and potentially devastating resource threat within
the parksair pollution. During the 1960s visibility in the San
Joaquin Valley areas west of Sequoia and Kings Canyon national parks
dropped noticeably, reflecting the rapidly increasing levels of human
activity in the area. By the late 1960s, many summer days passed in
Visalia without the towering wall of the Sierra being visible at all. In
the following decade visibility loss in the parks became more
commonplace, especially in the western third of Sequoia. Concern began
to develop that air pollution, which consisted of a complex mix of dust,
auto exhaust, farm chemicals, and industrial emissions from as far away
as the San Francisco Bay area, might also have a biological effect. By
1980 this proved to be true, with ozone damage similar to that already
identified in the mountains of southern California becoming clearly
visible. Several years later an elaborate state study demonstrated that
the alpine zone of the two parks was potentially at risk from acid rain
during the summer, when thunderstorms pulled up smog from the lowlands
and mixed chemically active pollutants with rainwater. Yet another study
in the same years suggested that sequoia seedlings suffered significant
damage from ozone pollution. The identification of these problems opened
a new chapter in the long history of resource protection in the two
parks. For the first time, the source of a problem which threatened park
resources was outside the parks' boundaries and thus outside Park
Service control.
Closely tied to the growing resources management
program during the 1970s and 1980s was the smaller but equally important
natural science research program. Most of the program's early efforts
focused on fire, but by the mid-1970s a broader and more eclectic
approach appeared. This reflected the parks' need for information on a
wide variety of issues ranging from wilderness impacts to stock grazing
and black bear behavior. Additional major projects during the 1980s
included support for the state's air quality work, a resurgence of giant
sequoia work focusing on natural fire frequency and reproduction, and
attempts to reconstruct the paleoecology of the Sierra. By the late
1980s, a decade of work by Park Service scientists and cooperating
research institutions had significantly enhanced the ability of parks
managers to understand their increasingly complex resource situation.
Perhaps the most ambitious and complex program undertaken by the
research office during the 1980s was the development of a geographic
information system (GIS). Taking advantage of the power of
computerization, the GIS project aimed to collect and refine all the
parks' many decades of resource information into one centralized
computer system that stored and presented the information in a
geographical framework. As a part of the same project the parks began an
ambitious and detailed full inventory of vascular plants and vertebrate
animalsa step long overdue in the face of modern management
demands. At the same time additional encouragement and support were
given no outside-supported research designed to increase knowledge of
parks' resources. This was in sharp contrast to earlier years when
managers believed that most research such as tree coring or animal
drugging had too severe an impact on the physical resources of the
parks.
In the last two decades of their century the two
parks, while faced with rapidly accelerating resource threats,
nevertheless attempted to realize the vision contained in the Leopold
Report. Through small but professional staffs in the division of natural
resources management and the research office, Sequoia-Kings Canyon
aggressively pursued the elusive goal of shifting towards a more
ecological and systemic version of resource preservation and management.
However, during the tight budget times of the Carter and Reagan
presidencies, the Park Service tried to implement and increase
professional resource management and research programs without any
significant reduction in visitor services. All too often the result was
a program of resource management and research that reacted to problems
instead of anticipating what might happen next to the increasingly
isolated and fragile resources of the two parks.
After a Century of Protection
|
Ultimately, the success or failure of a national park
may be evaluated in several ways. A park can be measured against the
degree to which it succeeds in achieving the goals of its creators. By
another standard, the park can be rated by its ability to preserve the
natural features and systems it contains. By the first measure, Sequoia
and Kings Canyon national parks have succeeded impressively during their
first century, achieving fully the goals expressed in the legislation of
1890, 1926, and 1940. When the second standard is used, however, the
situation is more complex, for in neither park have resource managers
succeeded in the complete preservation of natural resources. At the end
of a hundred years of protection by the U.S. Army, the Department of
Interior and the National Park Service, the natural resources of the two
parks are better protected than those in any other portion of the
southern Sierra. Yet, they are also more threatened than ever before.
Many measures have been developed to protect the parks, including strict
geographic and size limits on facilities, a management philosophy
increasingly focused on preserving all of the parks' natural elements,
and growing resource management and research programs. But, at the same
time, threats to the parks have increased. They include ever heavier
visitation, the resistance of certain groups to curtailment of their
traditional uses within the parks, continuing wholesale changes on
adjacent and nearby lands, the recognition that the parks have become
fragile biological islands, and the potential direct harm to the
biological resources of the two parks which now come from outside both
the parks' boundaries and the political control of parks'
management.
After a century of government control, thirty-five
years of unrestrained European resource assault, and several thousand
years of Native American occupation, what is the state of the land? How
have the varying perceptions, manipulations, and management ideals
affected the human-defined region known as Sequoia and Kings Canyon
national parks? Let us conclude by surveying the resources in segments
and in total. Let us also contemplate the concepts of "national park"
and preservation in light of what has happened.
|