You are here

Traveler's View: The National Park Service's Perplexing Director

Share

Published Date

March 14, 2024

Charles "Chuck" Sams came to the National Park Service's directorship as an outsider being counted on to improve employee morale, fight harassment in the agency, oversee how millions of Great American Outdoors Act dollars were being spent, and, as some believed, to be "a leader that NPS employees will admire and respect."

But in the more than two years since he was confirmed, while Sams has generally kept a low profile, he has generated concern with some of his actions.

Disbanded The National Leadership Council

Though an outsider to the National Park Service when he was confirmed, Sams had a wealth of experience to tap, from three deputy directors to regional directors and dozens of superintendents across the National Park System who came up through the ranks. And there was the National Leadership Council (NLC), a band of Senior Executive Service NPS veterans who would gather with the director a few times a year to discuss what issues of merit were surfacing across the more than 85 million acres of the park system.

National Park Service Director Chuck Sams

National Park Service Director Chuck Sams/NPS

"The NLC was a deliberative body, a place to hear from the field and from [Washington headquarters] and discuss the top issues, debate the merits and downsides and if possible come to some conclusions that can guide decisions by the director," Jon Jarvis, the Park Service director during President Obama's two terms in office, told me.

That would seem like a great deliberative body to help Sams deal with the myriad issues that confront the parks and the Park Service.

But in January he surprisingly, and quietly, disbanded the NLC.

Sams also never reached out to Jarvis for his thoughts on the merits of the council.

"I heard that he said he talked to his predecessors and they told him the NLC was an ineffective decision-making body," Jarvis said. "First, I do not know which of his predecessors he asked, but he never contacted me. If he had, I would have said that the NLC was never designed nor intended to be a decision-making body. A group that large is generally too big to make decisions."

Rather, he said, the council was to provide the director with information.

"I expanded the NLC from just the [regional directors] and the [associate directors] to include the [Senior Executive Service] superintendents. This gave voice to park leaders who were dealing with the issues like climate change, concessions, visitation, maintenance backlog, fires, housing, morale, etc.," Jarvis said.

With the recent decision by Mike Reynolds, a nearly four-decades-long NPS veteran who served as park superintendent, regional director, acting Park Service director during the Trump administration, and most recently as Sams' deputy for external and congressional affairs, to retire later this month, another layer of deep NPS experience and knowledge has been peeled away from Sams' coterie. It also leaves just one deputy director, Lena McDowell, with a deep NPS resume. The other deputy director, Frank Lands, came from the Army just two years ago.

"Now that he has disbanded [the NLC], Director Sams and his deputy director, Frank Lands, neither of whom have NPS experience, will be making decisions without any field input," noted Jarvis. "That is a problem."

Precedent-Setting Decision

Another troubling decision by Sams came in October when he signed off on a request to allow the Jemez Pueblo in New Mexico to kill either a bald or golden eagle in Valles Caldera National Preserve for cultural purposes.

It was a decision that drew criticism not just for the hastiness with which it was made, but for the precedent it appears to have set when it comes to killing wildlife within the National Park System.

That decision, made just five weeks after the pueblo made the request, clearly conflicts with Park Service regulations that prohibit the taking of wildlife. Those regs specifically block the "use, or possession of fish, wildlife, or plants for ceremonial or religious purposes, except for the gathering and removal of plants or plant parts by enrolled members of an Indian tribe in accordance with 36 CfR § 2.6, or where specifically authorized by federal statutory law, treaty..."

That section does not allow for the taking of wildlife.

According to the Park Service Management Policies of 2006, a compendium of directives for superintendents, superintendents are allowed to "designate certain fruits, berries, nuts, or unoccupied seashells that may be gathered by hand for personal use or consumption if it will not adversely affect park wildlife, the reproductive potential of a plant species, or otherwise adversely affect park resources." 

While a Park Service director can waive sections of the Management Policies, Sams has not said whether he took that route. And why the urgency before reaching a decision? Couldn't the Park Service have said it would openly weigh — in public — the conflicting mandates for a similar request next year?  

In reaching his decision, Sams — no doubt sensitive to cultural issues from his own background as a Cayuse and Walla Walla — noted that "[W]hile NPS would not typically allow take of an eagle under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, the issuance of the permit for take of a golden or bald eagle in this instance supports the park purpose to provide cultural connectivity between the Pueblo of Jemez and their ancestral lands and is consistent with the thousands of years of human use of the park for hunting and gathering, seasonal habitation, and ceremonial pilgrimage for which the park was established to protect."

That said, it's highly unusual for the NPS director to sign off on such a request; usually a park superintendent or regional director will do so. Sources within the Intermountain Region of the Park Service were told that Sams would make the decision, though they would be given a chance to review it. But they only had days, so experienced career staff, who understand both natural and cultural resources law and policy, were removed from any meaningful input. 

Also, the lack of public notice or discussion seemed to short-circuit the National Environmental Policy Act process. 

There are a variety of mechanisms for notifying the public of the availability of EAs and EISs, including the Federal Register, direct or electronic mailings, press releases, website updates, newsletters, and on PEPC. You are encouraged to use electronic communications and digital media whenever possible to facilitate public review and comment. One tool that is particularly useful for disseminating information and facilitating public comments is the PEPC system, which is specifically designed to help with collection, management, and analysis of public comments. The standard NPS practice is to accept written comments by mail, at public meetings if applicable, at a park unit headquarters, and online through the PEPC system. The preferred method for receiving comments is through the PEPC system; this should be clearly communicated in public outreach materials requesting comments.--NPS NEPA handbook

In skipping the public comment period, Sams said that, "NPS did not have time to circulate the [environmental assessment] to the public because of the limited window of time between application submittal and the start of the ceremonial period within which the proposed eagle take would occur. Public comment on an EA is only required to the extent practicable and due to the circumstances, NPS determined public review was not practicable."

Again, why the rush?

Frank Buono, who has worked in almost every aspect of national parks for almost 30 years, told the Traveler in November that while the Code of Federal Regulations "contains an exception for existing Federal law or treaty rights. ... Jemez Pueblo has no treaty right to take eagles in Valles Caldera or the adjacent Bandelier National Monument."

While Buono said "numerous Native American tribes and pueblos" have connections with Valles Caldera, and some "do not support ceremonial take of eagles," it was not clear from the environmental assessment prepared on the request or the Finding Of No Significant Impact signed by Sams whether the Park Service consulted with other tribes and pueblos on this request.

A number of retired Park Service managers and wildlife biologists recently wrote Interior Secretary Deb Haaland about the matter, asking that she take "immediate steps to ensure that the recent unlawful event at Valles Caldera does not stand nor recur in any other unit of our National Park System."

"On October 18, 2023, Director Chuck Sams violated the protective mandate of the National Park Service. He did so by signing a Finding of No Significant Impact for NPS approval of Jemez Pueblo members to take, kill, and remove park wildlife (a bald or golden eagle) from Valles Caldera National Preserve, New Mexico," the letter's opening read. "Sams' decision has no precedent in the history of the National Park System and significantly weakens the fundamental underpinnings of the Organic Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and subsequent laws."

The letter added that, "[A]ny treaty rights for tribes to take eagles, the Supreme Court ruled in 1986, were supplanted by the [Bold and Golden Eagle Protection Act]. Except where specifically and explicitly provided for in a park enabling act, requests by Indian tribes, or others, to take eagles, living or dead, is in clear violation of NPS rules at 36 CFR 2.1 unless a legislative remedy to this matter is enacted."

It added that, "[S]hould the Secretary or the Director wish to alter these protective mandates, it is to Congress they must turn to address the broad public policy considerations involved here. These decisions cannot be left in the hands of political appointees of any Administration."

Sams has not explained his decision.

Life In The Trenches

While Sams came to the directorship with the No. 1 goal of improving employee morale, it's too early to tell if he's succeeding. The annual Best Places To Work in Federal Government survey continues to give the Park Service low scores. One section of note in the survey ranked the Park Service 396th out of 432 agencies concerning "the level of respect employees have for senior leaders, satisfaction with the amount of information provided by management and perceptions about senior leaders’ honesty, integrity and ability to motivate employees."

Against that sentiment, the Park Service last fall appointed a superintendent of the Appalachian National Scenic Trail just five years after an Interior Department investigation determined that he had "committed criminal violations by submitting false travel vouchers and by accepting more than $23,000 in meals, lodging, and other in-kind gifts from non-Government organizations."

While Sams might not have been directly involved in that appointment, it doesn't speak highly of the tone the director had established when he came to the job. Beyond that, it would be highly unusual for a GS-15 superintendent to be hired without approval from the director’s office. If Sams did not know of it, that would also not speak well of leadership of the agency. 

There also continue to be complaints — and lawsuits — across the park system stemming from allegations of harassment, discrimination, and retaliation. What steps are, or has, the director taken to address those issues?

As the most popular federal agency, one that oversees an incredible collection of parks thanks to taxpayer dollars and which last year attracted more than 325 million visitors and generated more than $50 billion in economic activity, it's incumbent for the Park Service to strive for full transparency in its decision-making and operations. The agency as a whole has yet to reach that goal, and Sams' actions fall short.

Comments

So the bureacrat used the tribe's late application as the basis for eschewing regulations intended to protect NPS resources for all Americans.  So if I submit my backountry permit late does that mean I can camp whereever I please?

I will cite Orwell's Animal Farm when the pigs who led the revolt against the corrupt farmers became indestinguishable from other neighboring farmers once they came to control the farm...


The NLC has always been what the Director at the time wants it to be.  For Director Jarvis to speak that it is the only place to get field input is disingenous.   Director Jarvis had an NLC but he also divided it up into smaller groups of 3-4 DC based/RD staff that made all the real decisions.  The Budget Executive Committee and the Executive Committe it what they were called.  I would caution you not overstate what the NLC was as a body.  There are hundreds of years of NPS experience in the current SES/GS-15 ranks today (even after Mike Reynolds retires) providing input to the Director.  The process just might not be like it was in 1991, 2009, 2016 but it doesn't mean it isn't happening.      


This is an interesting Traveler's View.  A lot of it based on hersay, and "sources" and really lack of any substantive information.  Like a 5th grade slam book.

The NLC.  Where is the National Park System Advisory Board?  That is the real story. Secretary Bernhardt's DOI engaged the NP Advisory Board more than this current DOI-and that was after many of them resigned in mass protest over Ryan Zinke not meeting with them.  There will be an NPS Advisory Board meeting in May.  Maybe NPT can cover that meeting and ask DOI about why the last Administration valued the National Park System Advisory Board more the current Administration.  This NLC thing is just a few Superintendents who rather than address the issue within the agency go to NPT.  

Precedent Setting Decision.  Quoting NPT - "it's highly unusual for the NPS director to sign off on such a request; usually a park superintendent or regional director will do so. Sources within the Intermountain Region of the Park Service were told that Sams would make the decision, though they would be given a chance to review it. But they only had days, so experienced career staff, who understand both natural and cultural resources law and policy, were removed from any meaningful input."   So, what you are saying here is career staff were given the opportunity to review.  How many days are needed to review a 21-page EA?  1, 2, 5?  Did this decision break any law?  Probably not.  Did this decision break any policy?  Not sure.  Was there precedent?  Maybe - but setting precedent isn't against the law or policy.  Aren't leaders supposed to make precedent decisions? Didn't Jon Jarvis in 2010 proclaim to Eastern Band of Cherokee that the NPS laws and regulations that protect park resources from native religious and traditional gathering were "wrong." Was that precedent?  The hyperbolic claims of former NPS staff on this decision get tiring and perhaps these claims might be more about preference or personal feelings towards the current Director than anything of real substance.  But, NPT readers haven't seen the letter posted so we can't really just the accuracy of what is being claimed.

Director Sams has gone on record supporting employee housing, supporting psychological safety and strengthening tribal relations.  Not everything is perfect in the NPS - but not everything is a disaster either.  The excessive moralization on this superintendent hire is puzzling.  Move on!!  Those in the NPS ranks who have been the subject of an OIG investigation know when the subject is you - watch out!  This article might be good for your readers -  Why an OIG Investigation Seems (and Actually Is) Unfair to Government Employees | Kropf Moseley (kmlawfirm.com).  Quoting from the article - "There's no right for the target of the investigation to challenge the evidence or the finding of wrongdoing. A burden of proof, standing alone, is completely meaningless when the other side can't challenge the evidence and when there is no neutral arbiter to decide whether the OIG met the burden.  In a criminal case, the government had to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt."  Please note in the case NPT speaks to here, DOJ chose to not pursue criminal charges.  The article further points out that "in an OIG investigation...there are no rules of evidence...there is no right of appeal because there's nowhere to appeal it. Once the OIG decides you did something wrong, then that's the final decision...Given that an OIG investigation lacks so many of the procedural protections given to defendants in criminal cases, it's hard not to conclude that OIG investigations are fundamentally unfair." 

Please get down from the pulpit, be a less judgmental, and understand there might be multiple sides to any situation and context does matter.   


Peter Wisner:

Issuing a permit for anyone to kill an eagle in an NPS unit for anything other than legitimate research is a clear violation of federal regulations. In other words, it's AGAINST THE LAW. There's no ambiguity there.

You cited former Directo Jarvis' announcement that he did not like the regulation that existed at the time prohibiting Native American collections of plants or minerals. But you neglected to say that when Jarvis announced NPS would not enforce that reg that he did not like, he got tremendous pushback from PEER and others and had to back down. To his credit, then, he initiated a new rule making which took a few years. But it DID NOT include wildlife taking. Had Director Sams  said he doesn't like that rule,because it omits wildlife,  he could/should have initiated a rule change. But he has no authority to ignore the existing regulation, any more than Jarvis did. 

Lastly, the review afforded to the Intermountain Region professional staff was a sham as it was clear the decision had already been made by the Director.   

"James Longstreet"
a national park superintendent 


The question, Peter Wisner, is where should the National Park Service place its ethics bar? 

As the previous commenter noted, Director Sams didn't just set a precedent with his decision in the Valles Caldera case, but broke NPS regulations. The NEPA process outlines how controversial decisions are to be handled, and this case fell short in some areas. As you note, Director Jarvis ran into a similar situation back in 2010 with the Cherokee at Great Smoky Mountains National Park and their request to collect vegetation (ramps). When he faced criticism from PEER and others, he reversed course and went through the process to promulgate a rule to allow the collections. Director Sams could have taken the same approach.

As for the Ed Clark, if you read the OIG report you know that he was presented with the evidence and acknowledged in his meetings with OIG investigators that he knew his ethical responsibility and the regulations and that he violated them. 

Clark acknowledged that he knew the ethics rules and admitted that an ethics employee had explained to him by email how to use Form DI-2000 to request approval for travel-related payments from non-Government sources. Clark acknowledged that receiving payments from the Foundation and not completing the appropriate documentation were his “error” and his responsibility. He said that his repeated disregard of regulations concerning the acceptance of travel-related expenses was an oversight and due to his own “sloppiness.” — OIG report, Allegations of Conflict of Interest At Gettysburg National Military Park, page 6.

Even if OIG was hard on Clark, the violations were crimes regardless of whether DOJ declined to prosecute. 

There have been other cases in recent years, including one involving a Northeast Regional director who acknowledged running up nearly $11,500 in personal travel that he billed the Park Service for, and also collected nearly $6,000 in pay and per diem on some of these travels while not working. Today he's an associate director of the Park Service. Even Jarvis was found by the OIG to have skirted ethics.

What messages do such cases and their outcomes send to the field and those who aspire to climb the ladder?

As for the letter to Secretary Haaland, here's the entirety of it: 

February 23, 2024

Hon. Deb Haaland

Secretary, Department of the Interior

1849 C Street, NW

Washington, D.C. 20240

Dear Madam Secretary:

On October 18, 2023 Director Chuck Sams violated the protective mandate of the National Park Service (NPS).  He did so by signing a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for NPS approval of Jemez Pueblo members to take, kill, and remove park wildlife (a bald or golden eagle) from Valles Caldera National Preserve, New Mexico.  Sams' decision has no precedent in the history of the national park system and significantly weakens the fundamental underpinnings of the Organic Act, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and subsequent laws.

It should be noted that no previous Director has ever made such a decision.  This is the first, and thus far, the only time. But it sets a precedent that succeeding administrations can and will cite, possibly resulting in future permitting of wildlife take in the parks.  Significantly, the NPS acted unilaterally with no public review or consultation with other Tribes.  The Environmental Assessment (EA) appears as though it was veiled from the public until the decision was made.

Few ideas reverberate with more resonance through the history of the national parks than that they are strict sanctuaries for animals, a status that may be waived only where Congress directly and specifically provides otherwise, as it has for approximately 70 areas of the national park system. From the enactment of the Yellowstone Hunting Act in 1894 (28 STAT. 73), the NPS has defended this principle doggedly and successfully in courts. Most notable was the NPS defense of a challenge by the National Rifle Association in NRA v. Potter (1986).   Approving the Jemez use of their Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) permit in Valles Caldera undermines this bedrock principle.

Any treaty rights for Tribes to take eagles, the Supreme Court ruled in 1986, were supplanted by the BGEPA.  Except where specifically and explicitly provided for in a park enabling act, requests by Indian Tribes, or others, to take eagles, living or dead, is in clear violation of NPS rules at 36 CFR 2.1 unless a legislative remedy to this matter is enacted.

No disrespect is meant for Tribes when we state that the traditional and religious taking of wildlife is conduct that may occur in our nation's park lands only where Congress specifically provides for it.  Congress has created and protected the national park system with an array of statues, beginning in 1872.  Should the Secretary or the Director wish to alter these protective mandates, it is to Congress they must turn to address the broad public policy considerations involved here.  These decisions cannot be left in the hands of political appointees of any Administration.

We are writing to you as retired NPS employees and partners with many decades of experience in these issues. We would ask that immediate steps to ensure that the recent unlawful event at Valles Caldera does not stand nor recur in any other unit of our national park system.  We appreciate your reverence for our nation’s heritage and ask that you protect your legacy as Secretary from any arbitrary and capricious action that harms the future of our national lands.

Cordially,

Deborah Bird

NPS ret.,

Superintendent,

Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area, WA

 

Frank Buono

NPS-ret.,

Deputy Superintendent

Joshua Tree National Park, CA

 

Gary Davis

NPS-ret.,

Chief Ocean Scientist

 

Mary Foley, Ph.D.

NPS-ret.,

Regional Chief Scientist

NorthAtlaniic/Northeast Regional Office

 

Elizabeth Johnson

NPS-ret.,

Deputy Associate NPS Director,

Natural Resource Stewardship and Science

 

Bob Krumenaker

NPS-ret.,

Superintendent,

Big Bend National Park and Rio Grande Wild & Scenic River, TX

 

Elaine Leslie, Ph.D.

NPS-ret.,

Chief,

NPS- WASO Biological Resources Division

 

Kent H. Redford Ph.D
Archipelago Consulting
Portland, Maine, USA

 

Raymond Skiles

NPS-ret.,

Wildlife Biologist and Wilderness Coordinator

Big Bend National Park, TX (1991 – 2018)

Douglas W. Smith

NPS-ret.,

Senior Wildlife Biologist

Yellowstone National Park

 

Richard Smith

NPS-ret.,

Associate Regional Director, Resources Management

Southwest Regional Office

 

Michael Soukup

NPS-ret.,

Associate NPS Director,

Natural Resource Stewardship and Science

 

 


All the hand wringing over the taking of one eagle by one tribe in one US park comes off as highly ironic. Here we have an entitiy of the USG, which stole the land to begin with, telling a tribe what they can and cannot do with one animal on ancient tribal lands that are currently managed by the Feds, under the guise of being a "National Park". The FACT of the matter is that the USG has broken most every treaty should be the #1 factor in all decisions made going forward. I hope this is a precident. The tribes have inalienable rights, no matter what the career idiots say. And the fact that a list of park superintendents opposes the decision to defer to the tribe here says more about how little Park Service Careerists feel about Native Americans.   


In reaching his decision, Sams -- no doubt sensitive to cultural issues from his own background as a Cayuse and Walla Walla 

 

Huh?  Federal employees represent ALL OF US.  Federal employees should NOT be making decisions based on  their backgrounds, tribal, religious, ethnic, ideological affiliations--or any other basis other than what the law says they can do and what is in the best interests for ALL OF US.

It's clear that this decision to allow the murder of an eagle was one based in racism.  It's 2024--we're well beyond such UNAMERICAN ideas.  Not in my name, not in my parks.


Thank you for this, Kurt. There are a lot of disturbing things raised here. However, I am particularly concerned from my perspective as someone who has worked for almost 40 years to protect native wildlife species and their habitats.

We face a planetary emergency of climate change, loss of biodiversity, and their devastating impacts on humans. This emergency is the result of short-sighted and reckless actions of humans in destroying and degrading the natural world.

There no justification for anyone to be deliberately slaughtering a member of a species that not too long ago listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act -- especially in a national park. No cultural rationale makes this acceptable.

The fact that the Director of the National Park Service would approve of killing native wildlife -- especially without going through a legitimate NEPA process -- is inexcusible and outrageous.


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 easiest way to explore RV-friendly National Park campgrounds.

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

Here’s the definitive guide to National Park System campgrounds where RVers can park their rigs.

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

You’ll also find stories about RVing in the parks, tips helpful if you’ve just recently become an RVer, and useful planning suggestions.

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

FREE for iPhones and Android phones.