week of 3/20/02
 
 
 

Land swap leads down slippery slope
SMN
Many people have mischaracterized the proposed Ravensford land exchange, involving the Great Smoky Mountains National Park (GRSM), as a matter of protecting scenery versus new schools for the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians (EBCI). The Ravensford tract is 168 acres of resource rich park land, located at the primary North Carolina entrance of GRSM and adjacent to the southern terminus of the Blue Ridge Parkway (BLRI). The proposed land exchange has broad implications for the entire National Park System as well as the resources that are currently protected by GRSM and BLRI.

A large number of organizations and individuals involved in protecting our natural and cultural resources are opposed to the proposed land exchange. There are many valid reasons for protecting the integrity of the GRSM. One argument shared by the National Parks Conservation Association is that the National Park Service (NPS) lacks the legal authority to conduct this proposed land exchange and, therefore, the land exchange would set a dangerous legal and NPS Management Policy precedent. It would represent the first step down a very slippery slope. Which private interest will be next to ask for a piece of one of our national parks for development?

Our national parks are rare and sacred places where all people can seek solace, peace of mind and adventure. One thought-provoking argument for protecting these national sanctuaries is that our parks represent one small exception to Manifest Destiny, the well-known and misguided philosophy that helped shape the history of the United States. The philosophy of Manifest Destiny has been, and remains, an enemy of both Native American culture and our environmental heritage. John L. O’Sullivan coined the phrase in 1845 when he wrote: “the right of our manifest destiny to over spread and to possess the whole of the continent which Providence has given us ....” This concept was used to provide guidance and moral authority as the people of this country claimed the land and exploited its natural resources. Neither human settlements nor groves of old-growth forest were allowed to stand in the way of this “progress.” One very wise decision made by our federal government was the creation of the National Park System in 1916 to set aside land and protect it unimpaired for the enjoyment of all generations. I feel this argument places the debate over the proposed Ravensford land exchange in the proper context.

The Ravensford tract happens to be rich in natural and cultural resources. The most recent information from the NPS is that 55 species new to science have been discovered on the tract. The various ecological communities that make up the Ravensford tract are extremely rare both locally and globally. An ongoing archeological analysis of the tract has uncovered abundant prehistoric Native American, as well as Historic Cherokee and Euro-American artifacts, with Paleo-Indian artifacts dating back at least 9,000 years. The findings support the listing of the Ravensford tract on the National Register of Historic Places in 1981. NPS has published this information, along with a number of additional studies of the resources on the Ravensford tract online at www.npslandexchange.com.

The BLRI visual analysis survey of the Ravensford tract published by the Department of Interior states, “Parkway visitors consider the Raven Fork River Valley view among the most coveted, a rare icon view.” That study concludes that the existing scenic integrity of the Ravensford tract is “very high,” with a total score of 13 out of a possible 18: if the tract were developed, the “site would be rated with a very low scenic integrity,” and its score would drop to 1. The resources of both BLRI and GRSM would be threatened by any kind of development on the tract, including a three-school building complex. In the face of all of these wonderful resources, NPS cannot ignore its responsibility to protect our parks, unimpaired for all generations.

Arguments that suggest that denying the EBCI’s request for the Ravensford tract effectively denies their ability to build new schools are both disingenuous and patently false. It is important to note the recent adoption of the Cherokee Business District Master Plan (CBDMP). This document points out on page 4.1 that Cherokee is currently experiencing retail growth and, “With a large amount of flat to rolling land, opportunities exist for development of large facilities such as a shopping area or hotel as well as a public parking facility.”

The CBDMP also states on page 5.20 that the “elementary school represents one of the most prime parcels of real estate in Cherokee,” and that the school is not the “highest and best use” of this prime parcel. The plan recommends that the current school site could be used for “an outlet mall, festive retail or entertainment uses ....” It is important to note these statements, not because the Cherokee shouldn’t be planning to develop their community but because the CBDMP makes clear the existence of alternative locations for schools. This information tends to contradict statements that no alternative sites exist.

Without exception, people applaud the Cherokee’s commitment to provide their children with the best possible schools. That is not the issue being debated. Attempts to frame the proposed land exchange as scenery versus schools only draw critics away from the real issues. NPCA, and many others opposed to the proposed land exchange, have two hopes. First, that the NPS protects the integrity of the National Park System and the resources of GRSM and BLRI. Second, that the Cherokee build their new schools on a site outside the boundary of our most visited and arguably our most biologically significant national park.

Gregory S. Kidd
Associate Director, Southeast Regional Office
National Parks Conservation Association