You are here

NPCA Voices Serious Concerns With Proposed Reorganization Of Interior Department

Share

This map has been prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey to reflect the 13 regions Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke wants to reorganize his agencies into/USGS

A low resolution map of the United States, unclear goals, lack of public input, and mixing agencies with different missions and approaches to land management are among the concerns cited by the National Parks Conservation Association in comments it provided on a proposed reorganizaton of the Interior Department by Secretary Ryan Zinke, who seems in a rush to complete the task.

The Interior secretary is proposing to divide the country into 13 watersheds, and reorganize his various agencies -- the National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, U.S. Geological Survey, Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, and Bureau of Ocean Energy Management -- in some fashion to manage the resources in those watersheds.

To date, there has been little information distributed to the public to review and understand the secretary's end-goals. Secretary Zinke has expressed concern that Interior hasn't gone through a reorganization in a century, that many of his agencies have their own regional organizations, and that they approach management issues differently.

"Today, the National Park Service has its own [administrative] regions. The Fish & Wildlife Service has its own regions. The Bureau of Reclamation has its own regions," he told the editor from Outdoor Life. "So how does that play out in the field? Well, if you have a trout and a salmon in the same stream; the salmon is managed by the National Marine Fisheries Service. The trout is managed by me [Department of Interior], the water might be managed by the Forest Service but downstream it’s managed by the Bureau of Reclamation, and if it flows through an Indian reservation it’s managed by me, via the Bureau of Indian Affairs through a water compact.”

While the U.S. Geological Survey has released a map reflecting the 13 regions, it's of low quality and lacks definition. Raising more concern is that Secretary Zinke wants to begin the reorganization in Alaska during the current fiscal year, which runs through September. 

In his comments to Interior, John Garder, NPCA's senior director of budget and appropriations, said the park advocacy group believes in seeking efficiencies, but said "the problems to be addressed are unclear and the solutions vague and problematic."

"We are concerned that this proposal has been pursued to date without sufficient transparency and without solicitation off the views of numerous stakeholders at the outset," he wrote.

Among more specific concerns Mr. Garder cited:

* There's been a lack of transparency as to goals, policy shifts, and priorities envisioned by Secretary Zinke;

* For such a "massive" undertaking, the expressed time-line could be expected to take years to fully implement and as it has been described is "neither a realistic nor responsible timeline...," wrote Mr. Garder.

* The various agencies within Interior have different missions and expertise. "If a reorganization leads to neglecting or undermining the role of an agency, then it threatens management decisions that undermine resource and wildlife protections," he noted.

* NPCA understandably is concerned that the reorganization would adversely impact the National Park Service and the National Park System.

"Any plan for departmental reorganization must keep in mind that the NPS' key statutory mandate for the National Park System units under the Organic Act is to 'conserve unimpaired' the natural and cultural resources therein. It is critical that this mission is actively supported by the other DOI agencies," Mr. Garder wrote. "We urge this proposal must not be used a an excuse to undermine NPS' expertise, role, and views regarding land-use decisions, such as permitting being considered by other agencies. Consolidating roles and management decisions in this regard threatens to do just that."

On the other hand, he noted, "(A) DOI department-wide reorganization offers the Secretary a clear opportunity to achieve federal consistency with the preservation and visitor enjoyment mission of the NPS, thus greatly reducing interagency conflicts, by explicitly requiring interagency land-use management coordination and consistency with the NPS mission."

"In the absence of such a policy shift mandate for the multiple-use agencies of DOI, the proposed draft reorganization plan has the potential for deeply damaging, and potentially irreversible results for the preservation of national park resources, as well as serious diminution in the quality of park visitors' experience," continued Mr. Garder. "The DOI reorganization threatens to put agencies with diametrically opposed missions into even more direct conflict, which threatens to imperil national park policy and professional management."

Comments

This thing would cost millions.  DOI is not DOD and the concept of a joint command makes little sense  This is a way to cut out Bureau Leadership and have direct command by the Secretary. 


This seems to echo some of the Nixonian attempt to "modernize" government.  Change for the sake of change in attempting to make it look like the administration is actually doing something isn't necessarily what's actually needed.  But it can provide good smokescreen cover for other things that are going on.  And deliberate vagueness inside the smokescreen is an excellent cover for perfect incompetence. 


I went to a private high school which was closed and sold after my junior year. How did they lay their ground work? Starting two years before they brought in a new football coach who ascended to be administrator shortly. He pushed through a change in the school colors, the school mascot, rewrote things like school song and school motto, and basically changed so many of the little things that were the glue that held us together. Nothing was familiar any more.

Zinke's plan sounds similar. Disestablish the internal lines of communication and tradition, then break it up and crush it.


If they're looking to do it along watershed lines, then it makes no sense to divide California's Central Valley into 2 regions, since north and south both flow out through San Francisco Bay. And considering that the Bay Area gets much of its water supply from the Tuolumne River, stored in Hetch Hetchy and other reservoirs, it makes no sense having that watershed in a separate region. And Nothern California is a completely separate watershed from Oregon (except the Klamath River) and Washington. And the Columbia/Snake River watershed is divided into 3 parts?

It's strange.

 


Add comment

CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.

The Essential RVing Guide

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

The National Parks RVing Guide, aka the Essential RVing Guide To The National Parks, is the definitive guide for RVers seeking information on campgrounds in the National Park System where they can park their rigs. It's available for free for both iPhones and Android models.

This app is packed with RVing specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 parks.

You'll also find stories about RVing in the parks, some tips if you've just recently turned into an RVer, and some planning suggestions. A bonus that wasn't in the previous eBook or PDF versions of this guide are feeds of Traveler content: you'll find our latest stories as well as our most recent podcasts just a click away.

So whether you have an iPhone or an Android, download this app and start exploring the campgrounds in the National Park System where you can park your rig.