A plan that allows national parks to claim a cut of the profits from the commercial applications of scientific discoveries made within their borders is getting mixed reviews from conservation groups.

The plan, which will likely go into effect early next year, has important implications for researchers who study the unique microbes found in Yellowstone’s thermal features. One such research effort led to the discovery of an enzyme that is now worth millions of dollars and is used around the world in DNA research.

The Park Service finalized environmental documents for the profit-sharing plan Monday.

Yellowstone spokesman Al Nash said the final document addresses some criticisms of the concept, including the lack of protections for park resources and the lack of transparency over the negotiation process.

“This is not about someone coming in with shovels and backhoes and taking material from the park and selling it,” he said. “The benefit sharing addresses something that’s often referred to as bioprospecting. We’re addressing research that may start with removal of material to fill a couple petri dishes or a couple of test tubes.”

Nash said one important part of the plan is the separation of the current permitting process that researchers must undergo from the negotiations over the profit sharing.

Not money for potholes

“Nothing in this [environmental impact statement] changes the current rigorous process of review of any research permit in Yellowstone or any other park,” he said. “If somewhere down the road a researcher believes a commercial product may be viable based on research done in the park, we would begin negotiating an agreement so the park would get some benefit from that commercial product.”

The benefit, whether it’s money or some other compensation, would go back to the park in which the discovery was made. Further, that benefit would be directed toward research in the park or protection of resources.

“It’s not money that would then be used to fill potholes,” Nash said. “What we’re envisioning is maybe some access to some lab facilities, or money that would go back into our own research or resource management and protection efforts.”

Nash said the Park Service will keep tabs on the commercial applications of park research through the existing research and permitting process, which requires researchers to file annual reports that are then reviewed by park staff.

“Frankly, the expectation is that this [environmental impact statement] would impact a very small number of researchers because most of the work that is done in the parks is solely to gain knowledge,” Nash said. “We have protected some very special ecosystems. If you want to research some special places, we are the best place to look.”

Support not unanimous

While conservation groups were largely supportive of the plan, Jeff Ruch, executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, said the document is unnecessary.

“This is a solution in search of an opportunity,” he said. “There’s nothing that this allows them to do that they can’t already do, but it sets up a cumbersome mechanism that will probably cost taxpayers more money than it will earn them.”

Ruch also said problems still exist with transparency and the ability of the Park Service to keep track of the research.

“If the permit has expired, they have no way to enforce it,” he said.

Mark Pearson, national parks program director for the Greater Yellowstone Coalition, said transparency was a problem in previous drafts, but now the Park Service seems to have resolved the issue.

“They’ll provide copies of all their agreements” unless the information provides competitors an advantage, he said.

“We were supportive of the idea that it emphasizes the science and research benefits of our national parks, as long as it was an aboveboard and transparent agreement,” he said.

Pearson also said he’s glad the money or other benefits would stay in the park to benefit resources.

“It seems like it’s a much better deal than having it disappear somewhere in the federal Treasury,” he said. “They’re definitely making a promise to plow it back into research efforts in the affected parks.”

Patricia Dowd, Yellowstone program manager for the National Parks Conservation Association, also approved of the plan.

“If park resources aren’t impacted and commercialized, then this is something we can support,” she said.