How many presidential homes should be in the National Park System?/NPS
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?
Should the 1-acre Tupelo National Battlefield be part of the National Park System??NPS
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
I can't help but to think that if responsible budgeting by Congress was to be ripped from the claws of the parsimonious tea partiers and their ilk, and restored to the true needs of the mandate of the parks, then this debate would fade. The parks have an intangible value, and I believe they should not be put into a profit-making dollarization. Once it was not a budget decision, but one based on a reasoned evaluation of management and mandate, some of these recommendations may be made. No one likes to live under the dictates of Mrs. Grundy.
Fair enough, D-2. I am a discredit to the parks. But at least I sign my name. Why have you not done so? I'll tell you why, and it's what I have been driving at. Park Service management does not want this debate. It rather wants to assure Congress and the American people that the only debate needed is from within. I am not saying that I am "right," but yes, I am saying that this debate is necessary. As for your insinuations, you tip your hand. You want the National Park Service to be PC--telling the "whole story" about our founding fathers. Trigger warning. Freed African-Americans owned slaves, too--lots of them. I will be happy to tell the whole story about Washington and Jefferson, just so long as you don't forget that, either. Meanwhile, I suggest we stick to the point. We still have far more parks than we can afford.
Veritas (Harry Butowsky)
Thank you d-2, I agree. I do not think Dr. Butowsky has this right, you pointed it out very well. There are some excellent books on these issues, Dwight Rettie, "Our National Parks" has an excellent discussion on why we do not want to decommission units of our park system. A book coming out on July 15th, "Your Yosemite", by Bob Binnewies is just excellent, addresses Dr. Butowsky's concerns very well. Both Dwight Rettie and Bob Binnewies were distinguished managers for the NPS, I am afraid Dr. Butowsky is speaking mainly from his point of view, I respect that, But I must disagree with him.
"I can't help but to think that if responsible budgeting by Congress was to be ripped from the claws of the parsimonious tea partiers and their ilk, and restored to the true needs of the mandate of the parks, then this debate would fade"
Rick, what happened when the dems were in full control? Massive increases in the park budget? No. In other words, despite your attempts to politicize everything, this issue has nothing to do with "tea partiers and their ilk. If you actually paid attention to HB's op-ed you would understand that much of the fiscal burden placed on the NPS has nothing to do with "the mandate of the parks".
Eric..
I understand your attempt to defend your extremist politics, including transference or saying that only I politicize the conversation and also the patronizing manner you attempt to ever so gently correct me.
That said, I'll go ahead and stand by my opinions. Your disagreement does nothing to invalidate them, but it does remind me why I try not to interact with you. Bye.
'Your disagreement does nothing to invalidate them"
But the facts do. When dems where in control, the funding for the Parks did not grow materially. It isn't a political issue as you try to make it. But it is no wonder that budgets and fiscal discipline are alien to you.
d-2, you may have your disagreements with Harry (most of which seem to be based on self-preservation of the sources) but I for one appreciate the discussion. As is typically the case the "science" isn't settled and shutting down dissent is not the way to get to the solution. I thank Kurt presenting diverse views.
This is indeed a thought-provoking article worthy of a serious discussion. Thanks to Kurt and NPT and the author for having the courage to publish it! D-2's angry, semi-coherent reply is a good example of why NPS senior management will probably never take such a discussion seriously. They are too obsessed with More, at any price, to care about sustainability. This attitude that the NPS is somehow above reform or even criticism will ultimately cause far more harm than the criticism itself.
Human caused climate change, our war-machine economy, and the unchecked population explosion will put the entire national park system under tremendous pressure in coming decades. Recent NPT stories about capitulation to special interests at Katmai and Big Cypress tell me the current NPS leadership is not up to the challenges ahead.
The past few years' Best Paces To Work surveys suggest the NPS is one of the most poorly-managed federal agencies. Note especially all the pink (lowest quartile) scores in management categories and the accelerating downward trend in 'Effective Leadership: Senior Leaders':
http://bestplacestowork.org/BPTW/rankings/detail/IN10
Even in the very unlikely event that NPS funding was increased dramatically, I doubt much would trickle down to the actual parks or be applied to the largely self-inflicted maintenance backlog. The majority of any increase would probably be spent as it has for decades, on more top-heavy, crony-riddled, non-transparent, whistleblower-crucifying, special interest-appeasing, development-oriented bureaucracy at the Regional and DC offices.
It's time for triage to stop the bleeding; transferring management of the presidential homes and minor historical sites would be a good start, but I would also include most of the NRA powerboat playgrounds and urban parks in any NPS downsizing. IMO, a "closing commission" would be futile if it's not part of a broader management reform commission.