Guest Column: Will The National Park Service Centennial Bring Positive Change Or Merely Business As Usual?

This is an excellent article that has put into words many of the vague worries that have nibbled on me for several years. It contains a number of ideas that, I believe, deserve some very careful consideration by everyone who treasures our parks and historic places.

The author mentions a possibility that I've heard of before, but have never really considered. One that might need to part of any careful consideration of the future of our parks -- and that is the idea of turning our parks over to some kind of trust like the Smithsonian. The trick, however, will be ensuring that the trust is indeed trustworthy. Perhaps, though, if enough people care and are willing to work on the idea, it could be possible.

I've long believed that the three greatest threats to our parks are MONEY, POLITICS (and politicians), and GREED that follows money. (Or are those really just a single threat?) A fourth one, however, may be even more insidious than those, and that would be an American public that doesn't really care.

Two of Ms. Moritch's final paragraphs seem, in my opinion, to sum up almost all the challenges faced by our parks: "When will the agency that has been charged with one of the most important missions in the world—caring for some of the most beautiful and sacred places on Earth—find the courage to shift its focus away from economics, and the destructive consequence of this emphasis: the need to pursue ever-increasing visitation?

My suggestions to the NPS as it moves into its second century are: add more land to the system and keep it wild; simplify operations (e.g., remove extraneous infrastructure and don’t build anything new); restore a balance between visitor enjoyment and resource protection; provide for visitor needs, not wants; focus the visitor experience on park resources; figure out how to resist political/economic pressure; and spend the bulk of your energy, time, and money on protecting and restoring park resources…unimpaired."

Thank you, Barbara, for giving us all some serious fruits for thought.

Lee, to your idea of turning our parks over to a trust, you might check out today's Parks Beyond Borders story on the Bahamas' National Parks. According to the story, the Bahamas National Trust is "the only non-governmental organization in the world responsible for managing the national park system of a country."

Thanks for the tip, Randy. I had skipped over that article this morning. I'll have to go back and be sure to read it. Without your note, I might not have done so.

This is one of the best articles ever published in The Traveler, and I do mean one of the best. Above all, Ms. Moritsch reminds us what the National Park Service should never be, in Horace M. Albright's words, "just another bureaucracy." Sadly, so much of this so-called centennial planning is merely the work of bureaucrats. The agency is chock-full of good people who want to do the right thing, and they are rarely invited to attend any of it. Mr. Jarvis, are you listening? I recommend Barbara Moritsch for your next committee appointment, whatever that committee might be. This is what the American people need to hear from your committees instead of the repetitive mishmash Ms. Moritsch cites here. Years ago, I recall the brave superintendent of Steamtown National Historic Site who made over his abandoned railroad tunnel into a Halloween graveyard. All of the graves were the Park Service's broken promises, and there was a newly opened grave for the Vail Agenda. The headstone, already cut, was simply propped up against the dirt. Not one of the Park Service dignitaries present could pass that headstone without laughing out loud. They got it. We all get it. These "reports" are just to prove that some bureaucrat is "busy." Broken promises come from bureaucracies. Vision comes from the heart. Barbara Moritsch has a heart as big as any I have ever known. She loves you and from that love has the courage to say what needs be said. Let her do a report for you, Mr. Jarvis. No one will ever be digging a grave for that.

I to enjoyed the Barbara Moritsch article on Traveler. Barbara makes an important point, we do need to consider carefully new development in our National Parks, not just respond to the increasing visitation pressure with even more facilities. A good example is Yosemite National Park where the NPS has been wrestling with Wild and Scenic River Plans for the Merced and Tuolumne Rivers since 1987. The current draft preferred alternative for the Merced River corridor is a case in point. Like all efforts, there are proposals that some like and others that people are opposed to. For example, the plan is calling for restoration of roughly 250 campsites in Yosemite Valley to replace the more than 500 removed post 1997 flood. The plan is not calling for much in the way of new motel/hotel development, but does single out some visitor uses by proposing to eliminate the bike stands, raft rentals, ice rink and horse stables. Weather I support all these uses or not, it is interesting to note these activities would be eliminated commercially when they do get visitors out of their cars and into an outdoor experience. Private, bikes, rafts, etc, would still be permitted. Perhaps the most confrontational issue is the effort to reduce the day use automobile congestion on both park roads and Yosemite Valley. Excessive congestion occurs on roughly 70 days of the peak 100 day visitor use season where roughly 7000 plus cars in the Valley are competing for roughly 5000 parking places at any one time. Currently, this is managed by an 18 person traffic unit that first tries to squeeze in every last car possible into a parking place and then transfers to intersection control officers whose primary purpose is to just keep the traffic moving. As Barbara so eloquently points out, the preferred alternative is leaning toward accommodating these ever increasing day use autos by building more parking lots with all the utilities, restrooms, etc. needed to service same. Its an interesting situation for the park and does beg the question Barbara poses. If we cannot determine a visitor use level for a finite resource, then the only alternative is to build the infrastructure necessary to handle it (or trash the place). I am wary of the suggestion that our parks be turned over to a non-profit or private sector/public sector partnership. My humble experience to date has been that these programs and the boards appointed to oversee them are adopting, more and more, the corporate board model so prevalent in America today. These entities are top down organizations that tolerate little in the way of grass roots participation in their decision making process or citizen input of any kind. At least, with our congressional representatives, we can have serious input into our agency operations. Even better are the grassroots citizen groups who can influence change if motivated to do so. Thank you Traveler for a very thought provoking and well researched article. My opinions are expressed with much humility as I am certainly no expert on any of this.

Ron, your thoughtful essay above was excellent. You're certainly more of an expert than many of us and you've shown your good sense every time you've posted here.

(Just one critcism, though. Could you break your posts into paragraphs so old eyes like mine can read them more easily?)

Thanks again, and I hope other readers appreciate your words as much as I do.

rmackie - I have to take issue with your characterization of the corporate board model. Unlike government entities such as the NPS - corporate boards are the most sensitive to citizen (customer) inputs. If they aren't, they will be out of business. Unfortunately, ineffective government never goes out of business.

I'm with Moritsch - like the rest of government, the NPS need to downsize. Building more parking in Yosemite isn't going to reduce parking congestion, only increase the number of cars. Roads, parking lots, park facilities are like closets, no matter how big you make them, they will fill up.

We are running Trillion dollar deficits. This cannot continue. The government MUST downsize or we will go into financial ruin. Then see how much money your parks get.

The best suggestion in this article is to move the National Park Service out of the historically corrupt Department of the Interior. An NGO or Trust could hardly do worse than the modern commercialized, top-heavy NPS. The bloated bureaucracy that wastes many millions producing the empty rhetoric this author describes hardly seems a "bargain" to me and definitely needs to be downsized. Especially when it's own employees rank it near the bottom of all federal agencies in management catagories:

/2012/12/national-park-service-still-lags-best-places-work-survey-federal-agencies22574

Is downsizing really necessary? How about just wise use of resources and far less pandering to special interests whose main motives are profit for themselves?

Is downsizing really necessary?

Yes- When you are running trillion dollar deficits, downsizing is necessary. I assume you don't spend 50% more than you make every year.

And I will add - that nothing is "non-discretionary". While we are obligated to pay our committments of the past, those commitments where based on discretionary decisions. We can make the discretionary decisions now to dramatically reduce our future obligations.

Exactly. Isn't that what I said?

When you question the need for downsizing it sure does not sound like you are advocating downsizing.

If I correctly interpret what Ms. Moritsch is saying, she and I agree that downsizing is less important than using sensible discretion in what is spent and what it's spent for. That, in itself, might result in some downsizing -- or it may not.

But until special interests and their dollar driven influences upon government can at least be reduced, there's not much chance of anything that will make good sense and truly be of benefit to anyone but them.

Lee, there will alway be "special interests" and dollar driven influences. NPS is but one of them. They are not going to go away. Nevertheless we need to overcome their influences and voluntarily downsize across the board. Otherwise, we will be downsized in a most unpleasant way.

And isn't sensible discretion the key?

Not if it gets in the way of getting where we need to be. Besides, your definition of "sensible discretion" is unlikely to be the same as mine.

re: "your definition of "sensible discretion" is unlikely to be the same as mine."

And therein lies the challenge for our system of government, especially in the current political climate, where there is too much reluctance for parties to admit that solutions often lie somewhere between the extremes.

Yes, it probably is. But I'll respect you although I may try to present my case for my beliefs.

The problem arises when we begin quibbling over the meaning of minute terms and words and try twisting what someone else has said. It's exactly that kind of thing that gets in the way of getting to where we need to be. (Wherever that might be . . .)

Perhaps if we would listen respectfully to one another without seeking to fog things up, we'd be more able to find that elusive place we need to be.

I've presented my ideas and now it's time for others to decide if they are worthwhile or not.

Creating the MAINE WOODS NATIONAL PARK in time for 2016 would be a nice way to ring in the hundredth birthday!

there is too much reluctance for parties to admit that solutions often lie somewhere between

Unfortunately, in between sometimes doesn't work. If a non-swimmer wants to cross the river where it is 5 feet deep and someone else wants to cross where it is 10 ft. Crossing at 7.5 ft will still end up in a drowning. If one side wants a balanced budget and the other wants to spend 50% more than they take in a compromise of 125% will still bankrupt the country. We may disagree on what should be cut but since the vast majority of the budget are entitlements and unconstitutional spending, those expenditures have to bear the brunt of the reductions.

"entitlements and unconstitutional spending" all depends upon one's opinion and is not necessarily fact. That's why we have a Supreme Court.

No Lee its not ones opinion it is historical fact. The fact that Congress and the SC want to ignore those historical facts makes it "legal" but not necessarily constitutional. But then Constitutional or not, this level of spending can't be maintained without disasterous results.

Great article. I have a suggestion for how to improve the NPS and get it ready for the 2016 centennial. My suggestion will improve the low employee ranking AND save money. It's called STOP PROMOTING INCOMPETENT AND POOR PERFORMING NPS EMPLOYEES. I could provide 5 examples for every year that I have worked for the NPS, of this phenomenon. The Park Service is no different from the Catholic Church. Someone is abusing a park, we will just transfer them or promote them to some where else. Instead of holding upper management accountable, people are just shuffled along. This concept of not dealing with problem children has led to the low rankings, poor morale, and poor management of national parks. If you want to have a more effective, more protected, and more efficient NPS for the 2016 centennial, quit playing whac-a-mole with poor management. If you don't dump the moles, they're just going to pop up some where else. If you are a poor superintendent in the lower 48, than you are going to be a poor superintendent in a cushy new job at Katmai National Park. The demise of the Park Service will not be from what ever political party is in the White House, it won't be from a lack of funding, and it won't be from a lack of visitors, it will be from the enemy within. The call is coming from inside the house, NPS. The enemy is you.

It's too bad that this very interesting article got wrapped up with general budget debates. With about 0.1% of federal spending, the NPS is irrelevant to the budget debate.

Of course, Barbara's arguments for less development in the parks would (mostly) save money and make a teeny-tiny contribution to better federal budgeting. It would (mostly) preserve the natural resources better, too.

Thanks to the people above who talked about reforming staff, rewards, and reporting lines (Interior). That's an important conversation here.

Mundsy is correct about the biggest problem facing the NPS. The agency seems to be run by, and for the personal and professional aggrandizement of, an incompetent and corrupt itinerant manager class. They come to a park for a few years, change everything around so they can document their “leadership,” then move on after 3-5 years, at taxpayer expense, taking an entirely undeserved promotion and leaving a shambles in their wake. In some ways the NPS is divided between local staff who are focused on a particular park, and transient staff focused on the NPS as a whole. In general, the parks function because of the locals and in spite of the transient managers.

If there is any accountability for management, I haven't seen it in 20 years in the NPS. Nobody has ever come to me, or any other field employee that I know of, and asked what I think of management's job performance. I have seen managers utterly destroy the program they are supposed to be running, and just continue to move up as if nothing had happened. The NPS has a super accelerated Peter Principle thing going, where people move far and fast above their level of incompetence, based entirely on connections, sucking up, and not rocking the boat. The rot seems to be working its way down, as incompetent yes men hire incompetent yes men, to the point where we even have them in the field now.

There needs to be a serious accounting in this agency. It needs to be done by an outside organization that doesn't have connections to NPS insiders, and that has some kind of dispensation from OPM for expedited firing of permanent employees. After cleaning out the Washington and regional offices, they need to go park to park, talk to everyone, and decide who stays and who goes. A lot of expertise could be lost, but if it was done well, it would mostly be the dead weight. It would be traumatic, but the NPS would come back much stronger.

After that, there needs to be continuing oversight to ensure that this doesn't happen again. Competent, ethical, dedicated managers need to be hired, and encouraged to stay in their jobs. Hiring needs to be reformed so good people can move up. The NPS needs to stop paying employees to move, unless a position really can't be filled locally. Park operations need to be audited regularly, on the ground. The patronage networks must be prevented from forming again. Upper managers need to be told to stay away from Congress. End the Bevinetto Fellow program, and when someone's career track doesn't appear to reflect their abilities, investigate. This kind of oversight would be a drag on an organization with good managers, but it is absolutely necessary with the current crop. Maybe someday we will get to the point where we have a self sustaining, well functioning agency, but we are nowhere near that today.

I agree that NPS priorities are warped, and seem focused on political and financial gain for the agency and its highest managers, at the expense of the parks themselves. I disagree that resource preservation should be formally placed above visitor services, not because I don't think it is important, but because in practice it already is, and I think the balance needs to move back toward the visitors a little bit.

Where I have worked, nobody in authority speaks for the public. Visitor services and public safety have almost collapsed. The ranger division is a shell, and roads, trails, and campgrounds are falling apart. The one division that is thriving is resource management. They dominate the planning process by sheer numbers, and tend to have tunnel vision. Since they see no value in visitor services, even the most temporary, insignificant “impact” of a project is too much.

The idea that the NPS should expand its scientific capacity sounds good, but if it means expanding what it currently has, I don't think it is really a good idea. Currently there is a great deal of research being conducted by park staff, sometimes for the graduate work of permanent RM employees, with large crews of seasonal employees doing the field work. I think research is better left to the universities. They are better at it, and have a large supply of cheap, qualified labor. NPS resource management should focus on environmental protection and compliance, and project work like invasive species removal. Hire competent generalists for planning and compliance positions, and maintain relationships with universities. Make small grants and logistical assistance available for graduate students willing to do specific research the park needs.

The NPS is an agency funded by the public, and it gets its legitimacy from serving the public. There is certainly infrastructure that could be removed or abandoned, but biologists should not be deciding what the public needs. Their instincts could run toward making the parks into research reserves where the public is not really welcome. There has to be give and take. Roads, trails, and campgrounds are expensive, but they allow the public to enjoy the parks, and without them, public support for parks and the NPS would rightly fall.

Hear, hear, willj for NPS Director!

But if the resource is not preserved, what will there be to enjoy in the future? That's the challenge that has dogged our parks ever since their earliest days.

We're In agreement with willj.'s narrative above. Our view:

Among the serious threats in national park operations rarely discussed

openly operates within the NPS through loyal cronyisms leading to

"fraudulent glowing" job performance reports (not seriously merit

based by any external peers).

Frequently, the NPS High Command rewards incompetence with

the classic "Peter Principle Solution" as we have witnessed at

Crater Lake NP in that both Natural Resources and Interpretation

Divisions have been homesteaded by very difficult personalities,

one claiming to be a scientist without credentials and bureaucratic

to the point of blocking scientific inquiry/debate into natural resource

questions. The latter personality rewarded for being AWOL and

apathetic toward many friends with a sincere interest in communicating

the value of park resources to the visiting publics. So, why does the

NPS Embrace such gross incompetence, lacking Leadership skills ?

Obviously, these complex personnel issues will not change for the 2016

Second Centennial PR.

Coming really serious Fed Budget cuts will generally harm the

younger, lower-graded personnel with a potential to change the

system. One special NPS Superintendent was quoted saying: that "our

best people are my seasonals passionate about the park's values."

Often, NPS Management is transferred to new park vacancies based

on their perceived need to maximize the last three years pay grade

compensation for the best pension benefits. Redwood NP has been

a very difficult park with complex natural resources issues; yet, we

have witnessed repeated new management selected without sincere

RNP interest transferred for relatively short periods: So, It's been

primarily EGO-driven, for the best Federal Pension benefits, sadly.

http://www.triplicate.com/News/Local-News/A-redwood-farewell