Editor's note: Harry Butowsky spent more than three decades working for the National Park Service as an historian. With the NPS facing a maintenance backlog of billions of dollars, and a budget that struggles to keep up with needs, he questions not only whether a hold should be placed on additions to the National Park System, but whether some culling of the system needs to be done.
It is time to rethink the direction and management of the National Park System. It is time to ask if the system has grown so large that it is unmanageable and not fundable.
In the 99 years since the founding of the National Park Service, the National Park System has grown from less than 20 parks to an enormous bureaucracy far beyond what Stephen Mather and Horace Albright envisioned; it has become much more complex than preserving and managing park sites.
The Park Service now has responsibility for managing a broad range of programs; its legislative mandate has grown to include clean air and water, protection of archaeological resources, historic preservation, endangered species, wild and scenic rivers, 40 national heritage areas, large cooperative landscape projects, and environmental protection. The National Park System has expanded from a collection of the great scenic parks to hundreds of diverse sites and programs.
The list of new responsibilities is endless. As the Park Service's mission has grown in complexity, so too has the enormousness of the issues the agency faces - along with the cost of maintaining these programs.
We now have 407 National Parks and $11.5 billion in a maintenance and budget short fall. Not enough you say? Then just wait for the President or Congress to create another 20 or 30 national park units.
If you do not think this will happen then think again. A quick search of the web will uncover many potential new national monuments and parks under consideration.
So how many parks are enough? Why stop at 450 units? Why not go to 500 units? After all, what is a little maintenance and staff shortage when there are so many potential sites for national parks?
For some supporters of the National Park Service, growth is good and not a problem. In his recent essay, Preserved and Enlarged Forever (The George Wright Forum, Vol. 32 No. 1, 2015), Rolf Diamant offered his opinion that new parks will not degrade the system and that growth is not only inevitable but good. The money may not be there today, but it will follow.
Well, let me offer another opinion and let us face the facts. We have too many national parks now and cannot afford them all. As an agency the National Park Service needs to make the dollars fit the number of parks we have. The obvious answer is to start divesting ourselves of some marginal units. Yes, we need to get rid of parks and not add to the total. There is nothing new or radical about this. It has been done in the past and it can and must be done now.
The Case for Delisting Units
Anyone wanting to understand this statement should read, Gone, But Not Forgotten: the Delisted units of the National Park System by Alan Hogenauer, and Former National Park Service Units: An Analysis by Barry Mackintosh.
In his article, Mr. Mackintosh states that, "Between 1930 and 1994, 23 units of the National Park System were transferred from National Park Service administration to other custody." (Not included in this number are areas authorized but never established as park system units, such as Georgia O'Keeffe National Historic Site and Zuni-Cibola National Historical Park).
So, let us accept the fact that the National Park Service has delisted parks in the past for many reasons.
Why should we do this now? I will give you're an overriding reason. We have a maintenance backlog of $11.5 billion that is growing and not likely to get better in the future.
The National Park Service is not the only government agency with a large maintenance backlog. One has only to look at the recent tragedy in Philadelphia with the derailment of the Amtrak express to New York and the failure of Congress to vote additional funds to repair the Amtrak system to see the larger government-wide dimension of this problem. While the ultimate cause of this train derailment has not yet been determined, a mandated braking system for the curve in Philadelphia was not in place.
Along with the maintenance backlog, we have a staffing crisis. There are not enough people to staff the front desks, do interpretive tours, and provide for critical maintenance and visitor protection services in the parks. Money and people simply do not match the need of the agency.
If we are going to delist parks then, let's take presidential units as one example. We have no fewer than 27 units commemorating presidents. The question to be answered is: why do we need each of these units? The next question is, why do some presidents have parks commemorating their presidency but not all presidents (for example, why Kennedy, Johnson, Carter and Clinton but not the Bushes, Reagan, Nixon, or Ford? In 2017, will we need to establish an Obama Birthplace NHS?)
We should examine the Jimmy Carter National Historic Site and ask why can't it be turned over and managed by the Carter Foundation? The same can be said for President William Jefferson Clinton Birthplace Home National Historic Site being managed by the Clinton Foundation. The Reagan Ranch is not a National Historic Site, yet it is being managed by the Young America's Foundation. Both Mount Vernon and Monticello are managed by private entities (Mount Vernon Ladies' Association and Thomas Jefferson Foundation, Inc., respectively). Both are no less nationally significant than other presidential sites, yet neither have a National Historic Site designation, nor are they NPS managed, and yet they are well-maintained, ably interpreted, and highly regarded.
The same can be said for Civil War parks and battlefields. Brices Cross Roads National Battlefield Site is just one acre in size, yet adjacent to this site is a 1,330-acre property managed by the Brice's Crossroads National Battlefield Commission, Inc.
Why can't the one-acre National Park Service site simply be turned over to the Commission to have them manage?
Tupelo National Battlefield is one-acre in downtown Tupelo. Again, why can't this unit be turned over to the city of Tupelo? We have more than 70 units of the National Park System that commemorate the Civil War. I would suggest that in this era of declining revenue, the Park Service is managing too many parks dedicated to this history - let's have state or private entities manage some of these units.
Let's consider the issue of the growing number of parks that interpret the Internment of Japanese Americans in World War II. Do we need four Japanese-American Internment units (Manzanar, Minidoka, Tule Lake and Honouliuli)?
What is the true value of having four units and possibly another unit at Heart Mountain in Wyoming. (The National Park Service has given the Heart Mountain Wyoming Foundation some grant money to help them in their goal to manage the site.) Minidoka and Tule Lake lack interpretive integrity (most especially Tule Lake, since the small site is surrounded by the rather run-down town of Newell). Minidoka has no extant buildings, with a few original structures now located on adjacent farming properties, but they've all been radically altered from the original.
I don't see why scarce NPS funds should be spread out so thin to so many sites pertaining to this theme instead of focusing funding on making Manzanar the premier site to interpret this theme.
The real and only viable option in my opinion is for Congress to set up a park "closing" commission similar to the base closing commission established several years ago to get rid of substandard and excess military facilities. Closing in this case could include either delisting units or transferring ownership. In essence, the principal focus of this commission would be to evaluate what our current National Park System should comprise and provide recommendations to the Park Service director for future designations to 'round out' the system.
While I'm advocating a leaner National Park System, this commission should also evaluate the merits of transferring ownership of non-NPS managed National Monuments (BLM, USFS, etc.) to National Park Service jurisdiction, if such a transfer would help to improve site integrity (Tule Springs Fossil Beds National Monument is a recent example of a transfer from BLM to NPS jurisdiction).
The Case for Transferring Ownership
Perhaps the National Park Service can adopt a Parks Canada approach - have units declared national historic sites/parks (future and existing designations alike) and yet have other entities simply manage those sites. In Canada, there are 972 National Historic Sites, but only 168 are administered by Parks Canada - private and provincial entities manage the vast bulk of the designated National Historic Sites in Canada - why couldn't the same approach be taken here in the U.S.?
The important fact to keep in mind here is that all monies and personnel savings should remain with the National Park Service and be distributed to the remaining parks. There is no reason to close facilities if we lose the money saved.
Of course, one possible political risk of divesting NPS units would be some folks wanting to turn money-making parks over to the states - Grand Canyon National Park certainly comes to mind. Such a move would weaken the remaining parks by the loss of this asset (beyond the fiscal perspective, the knowledge gained by staff managing this park would preclude employees transferring that knowledge to other park units when they are relocated), so there are indeed risks of such a process being hijacked for political purposes.
Does that mean we should not have this discussion and take a comprehensive look at the system and see if our current system adheres to the ideals that Mather and Albright envisioned? I think we owe it to them to have that discussion.
Comments
Definitely a discussion worth having. Perhaps the 100th anniversary would be a good time to revisit the scope of the NPS. A great combo would be reduced units and expanded funding. Meanwhile, I'm on my way to my favorite, Yellowstone, today.
Thanks for a thought-provoking article. I certainly agree about the role of other organizations in running presidential homes, especially those of recent, current and future presidents, where there are other organizations capable of running them.
A good example is the "George W. Bush Childhood Home." The suburban house in Midland, Texas, is already operated as a "historical site" by an n.g.o, yet in 2013 a local congressman started efforts to get the NPS to study it for addition to the national park system. As to the Clinton Birthplace in Hope, Arkansas, there's no question the Clinton Foundation has more than enough cash flow to run that one.
Great article, Mr. B. I would like to see new administration that values visitation and the wishes of stakeholding communities instead of increasing their fiefdom and ruling like Kings and Queens. A guy I know cornered Jarvis the other day to express concerns and Jarvis couldn't answer any of the guys' questions. This is the same NPS director that refuses to answer emails from the proletariat. Huge disconnect with these bureaucrats and the public they are supposed to serve.
A serious and thought-provoking article. I've often wondered at presidential sites. How many are there for Clinton alone? Three?
How many of our current parks (using the term very broadly) are direct results of some Congress critter seeking a load of bacon to haul home to impress the folks?
Harry's idea of establishing a commission similar to BRAC sounds good. But how do we keep PolyTicks out of it?
I run the website you linked about new National Park proposals, undiscoveredamerica.org/proposed-national-parks/. I'm a pragmatist above all things, and while I hope for a large expansion of the NPS in the future, I'd also be very happy to see some lands transferred to different agencies, as well as some NPS sites decommissioned. I think this is a reasoned approach.
Still, let's not forget that many people/companies/politicians want the parks to have smaller budgets every year. That way they won't be properly maintained and they can be sold off for private interests. It makes the most sense to fight for greater funding for current and future parks, while also decommissioning areas that could be taken care of with other means. It wouldn't hurt to make some of the places you mentioned into affiliated areas, but allow them to keep their designations.
There are a number of worthwhile solutions to the budget, visitation, and historical significance, so let's not throw all out weight behind decommissioning while there are other options.
zrf brings up some excellent points -- and once again greed rears its ugly head. There are a lot of developers in this state who are constantly drooling in hopes that they might someday be able to get their paws on some choice land so they slap up a few mega-mansion vacation homes for those who can afford them. One such parcel sits just outside the Needles Unit of Canyonlands.
Even though it may be necessary and even desirable to divest the NPS of some areas, it really needs to be done with extreme caution.
As someone familiar with the several efforts to delist Saguaro National Monument (which each seemed like good ideas at the time), I'm cautious about blanket recommendations for reducing the number of parks. Also, I don't think history stopped at some date in the past: I support continually adding new units that preserve and interpret cold war and civil rights sites now before they disappear, as well as filling in lacuna in our historical coverage such as Reconstruction. That said, I don't think we need quite as many childhood homes or units about single individuals (especially about their childhood or non-important parts of their lives). However, those small units tend to have very small operating costs, and few enough facilities that they don't add up to a rounding error in the deferred maintenance number.
But, perhaps the NPT community can use this as a spur to concrete thinking about what we value in parks?
What criteria _should_ such Park Closing Commission use?
Cost-effectiveness? Visitors per year? Visitors per acre? Visitors per appropriated dollar? Economic impact on the surrounding communities?
Or something about span (in the mathematical sense) of diversity/uniqueness of resources or interpretation, implicit in the example of 4 being too many WW2 internment sites? How many sites should we preserve for the Revolutionary War? The Civil War? How many western forts? What about natural resource parks? Do we only need 1 or 2 examples protected and interpreted as parks per ecosystem, biome, or geologic feature? Should there be separate criteria and lists for cultural/historic v natural resource parks?
Should there be a national recreation area within a 2 hour drive of the majority of the population? Should NRAs be run by other agencies instead? Should battlefields & military cemeteries be run by other agencies instead?
What questions/criteria should I have mentioned that I am blind to?
If these comments aren't the appropriate venue, perhaps Kurt could set it up as a reader participation day?
"have that discussion?" These articles by Dr. Butowsky are so depressing. Partly because they are never "a discussion." Factual refutations that remove the substance to these articles make no difference to him, they are just repeated over and over. But the most depressing is that such a wonderful site with such wonderful features as "National Parks Traveler" these things that are so damaging to the Parks and to preservation. Just last week, "Property Rights" lobbyists who's job it is to undermine parks and land preservation follow Dr. Bukowsky's stuff point by point. Just as before the last election a Senator hostile to parks used them. The National Park Traveler thus became the major support for the effort being cranked up to kill the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Why, Traveler, would you do this?
Presenting Dr. Bukowsky as qualified because of his years in the parks is also another error. He did not work in Park Studies, because if he did he would give a fair explanation of why the Congress and, thus, the Park Service, must begin with the assumption that the future may require this historical representation. He would tell us, and does not, that the reason Reagan did not want the NPS to manage the site is because they wanted to control the message, and did not want the values of the Nation reflected at the site, but their own spin. He would have explained that at Mount Vernon the Park Service had serious doubts about the preservation decisions made when air conditioning was installed, done not for preservation but to maximize paying customers. He, if he knew, would have explained how long it took for Monticello to even begin to tell the whole story about Jefferson.
Or, why not get someone qualified in park partnerships to explain why connect a small park site with an adjacent but larger partnership area? A qualified or honest professional would have explained that the highly honored former Deputy Director of the NPS through both Republican and Democratic administrations, Denis Galvin, has given talks all over the country about the reasons this is such an effective conservation strategy, or that the Second Century Commission made a special trip to the national historical park in Salem, a site of only a few acres that is surrounded by the Essex National Heritage Corridor the size of an entire county. Because, as any qualified professional in park planning and partnership knows, because the park site is what leverages the outside funding and support while the presence of the national park ranger and park administration brings national recognition to the entire site. The Conservation Study Institute in Woodstock VT has conducted many examinations of how to leverage federal funding effectively and this is one of the best ways. Why did not Dr. Bukowsky, with his 30 years experience, note that the Second Century Commission in its deliberations determined that the very best heritage partnerships often are this paring of park with surrounding land managed by partners?
Dr. Bukowsky continues to ignore the fact, pointed out in the past, that the NPS has repeatedly in the past looked into the sites claimed not to be qualified, site by site, and found the charge overwhelming untrue. Each park study, ignored by Dr. Bukowsky from previous criticisms, examines each new park proposal to determine if -- assuming it is in the national interest to protect it -- the site can be managed by States or others. Dr. Bukowsky ignores points made in the past that the sort of sites he lists as disposable are not the sites that cost a significant part of the park budget. So his 'solutions' would not save the Parks money. He ignores the points made in prior criticism that many of these sites bring in congressional interest and budget increases. He ignores the points of the past that the current budget problem for parks is not about the parks, but a larger fight over taxes vs medicare, and parks are only being used as a political football, not because they are unaffordable, but because they matter to Americans and give vacuous politicians and lobbyists a chance to get an audience for their anti-government rhetoric. Dr. Bukowsky ignores previous exceptions that several times in the past there were temporary problems funding park facilities, but the money eventually is appropriated. There were examples in the 1950s, examples in 1980. Dr. Bukowsky, in ignoring that his rationalization is a fig leaf that the parks could be managed by someone else, avoids answering the question about the failure to preserve these sites is a loss to America. Dr. Bukowsky ignores the earlier criticism that land set aside as park, even when maintenance monies are scarce, are protected from destruction, or mining or inappropriate development. Dr. Bukowsky ignores these and several other fatal flaws, yet National Park Traveler has now printed three of these damaging, inaccurate and unresearched pieces.
On the site of homes of Presidents, I think it would be useful -- not for the phony reason of saving money but for the point of national significance -- for the national park service special resource park study to look harder at the question of whether the "home" site embodies the special significance of the President involved. Some Presidential houses obviously do. Harry Truman home, for one, clearly captures what makes Truman distinctive. True, the study team would say, it is hard before the judgment of history is in to decide what makes a President distinct, but they can identify the site before it loses its original features (for example the T.Roosevelt birthplace had been destroyed before the park service was able to get it). The Lincoln home in Springfield: would you say Lincoln as a successful local lawyer and active local politician is the (or "a") key thing that would convey to future generations something that would measurably deepen their sense of Lincoln's? Do you think Mount Vernon, demonstrating that Washington married a woman with money and had slaves, do you think that home is the best way to say why Washington is important? Congress would have to let the park service know to change direction, and possibly risk the loss of places like Harry Truman's home that looks like the man just walked out of it, with his own hat and coat still on the hat rack, and his books he read himself still on the shelves. Dr. Bukowsky has the brimming confidence of the total amateur in partnership to think that, beyond the inevitable historical bias, you can count on groups like the Carter or Clinton foundations for preservation in perpetuity.
The most irresponsible thing in the National Parks Traveler putting its name above these apparently substantial but ultimately empty bits of magical thinking, is a point that just begins to tease in this piece at Dr. Bukowsky's brain: the idea that once started, dismantling parks systematically as proposed would quickly get out of control. This is not like the Mar-a-largo site, park for little more than a year of Marjorie Merriweather Post's ownership; notwithstanding that Dr. Bukowsky and the Traveler somehow fail to tell us just how much actual money could have been saved by those previous de-authorizations, eccentric as they were; eccentric exceptions that only the most frightfully politically inexperienced would want to use as the foundation of a new national policy for parks. We just saw at the end of the last Congress just how little finesse Congress showed in the Defense Authorization Bill in just turning over land to state or development plans with no protections for the future AT ALL. The lands that get taken are the ones with commodity value, like mining, oil, gas, shopping centers, ski lodges, suburban McMansions. People with perhaps even less concern about Japanese internment camps than Dr. Bukowsky, and perhaps even less concern of the dangers of constantly hammering away at the idea that parks are not for perpetuity.
So if the National Parks Traveler is myopic enough to believe that the funding problem for parks is either permanent, caused by or about the parks, (and I am sure that other than these three pieces no one at the National Parks Traveler is so myopic), then why not use the time and space to think about strategies to generate the missing appropriations? Why not explain to the Dr. Bukowsky's of the world how the budget works, so that they can actually tell us in dollar how much different bizarre alternatives would actually save, and where the real cost are, and how to generate money where it actually is needed?
Instead of killing off what the parks are about, killing off the preservation of places of national significance that studies show are feasible and suitable to qualify as parks, instead of unimaginatively throwing up our hands in despair, why not do something brilliant about preservation?