Op-Ed| The National Park System: Some Thoughts In 2015

It all points to Jarvis and the direction he has led the NPS.  His abuse of fees and dishonest managers are bearing the fruit of their underhanded tactics today.  Why else would the NPS need a media campaign to maintain relevancy?  Instead of spending millions to get people into the parks, how about cutting entrance fees.  Na.  That would make too much sense when you can spend good taxpayer money in other ways. 

Dr., you nailed it. 

Unfortunately, Dr. Butowsky is entirely correct.

Now what to do about it?

Some will blame Jon Jarvis, but the real blame lies a few notches higher in our government heirarchy. 

Yeah Lee,  Heaven forbid anyone in the NPS is actually to blame for the loss of relevancy in the NPS.  Unreal.

Stating that he is correct has to include noticing his phrasing [my emphasis]: "At this critical time, the National Park Service, with the support of Congress, needs to..."

The folks seeking to blame NPS management solely don't acknowledge that the NPS cannot allocate it's own budget, cannot phrase and implement it's own laws and regulations, and so on.

Ron and Rick, agreed.  Your points are what I was trying to say in my clumsy way.  Too many people try to blame the "bureaucrats" when the "bureaucrats" are actually working to carry out mandates imposed by Congress in one form or another.

"At this critical time, the National Park Service, with the support of Congress, needs to...

We've been through this before.  I have yet to see a park unit placed in commission over the objection of the NPS.  This claim was made before and noone answered the challange to identify one. 

it can be extremely difficult politically to take a position against a proposed site that has an influential lobbying effort

There have been NPS managers in the past that have stood up to political pressure. If the NPS wants to move forward, we will need more of them.  My sense says that those in place are more than happy to have their domain expanded. 

Jeepers, Dr. Butowsky.

First:

"Unfunded Omnibus Bills"?  You were in the park service for 35 years.  You must know that authorizing bills are not funded, because they are not appropriations bills. They authorize funds, they don't appropriate funds.  And even though you did not work in the parks, you must know that it would be really stupid for Congress to fund these new parks until their planning was done, and it was determined what kind of development plan is needed, how much money is needed, and when.  Certainly not all at once ! 

And then, you must know  parks compete for the funds.  If the new area is nationally significant, it still must compete against the existing parks to see which priorities are really the most important.  If the new park is the most important priority, it might get funded, meaning the other parks needs are not as great. 

But most likely these new parks will receive minimal funding for the next 10 years and if you really look at these different parks, comparatively little after that. Their budgetary impact will be small.  Dr. Butowsky, you write as if 120,000 acres will be a disproportionate burden to the national park system.  You should know two things, that there are about 85 MILLION acres of parks and second, that the number of acres has nothing to do with cost.  With the possible exception of Valles Caldera, considering that the area under the US Forest Service partnership was unable to meet its budget, it is not clear how it will achieve its goals.  But otherwise this is not a big expansion, but expecting as you seem to that all the funds for these parks should be in an authorizing bill NOW just makes no sense.

So the basic question is, when you must know that funding comes from appropriations bills, what is the point except rhetoric to suggest there is a problem when an authorizing bill does not include appropriations? And why would you want to give them money before plans have decided how much is appropriate, and when? This is how it has been for 200 years. You are the historian.

Second:

As a historian, what do you make of the very recent article in the National Park Traveler on the short funding woes of Olympic National Park in the 1950s?  Perhaps that over time budgets go up and down, and these temporary woes do not lead to the destruction of the System as you propose.   It is possible your analysis lacks the perspective one should expect from an historian?  Afterall, you mention the sequestration as a primary issue, but is it not true that this year, in the appropriations bill (as appropriate) the National Park Service was given for this year every dollar for park operations it asked for?  Would that not appear to you some effort is underway to compensate for the sequestration?  You mention "fiscal climate."  Isn't it true that that climate has everything to do with an immediate political fight across the government at the start of this decade,  particularly over the question of funding entitlements vs cutting taxes, and is it not clear that this fight is still being worked through before it is settled, and that the NPS budget (1/17th of 1% of the federal total) is a function of this current fight?  As an historian, do you see many examples of states wanting to take back parks and fund and manage them? As an historian, are you aware that when Jimmy Carter attemped zero-based budgeting before, but it fails for a staff-heavy agency like the NPS because you cannot zero-base encumbered positions?  And to move them around costs more than any gain?   And yet you complain that retirements and buyouts eliminate staff, and isn't it true that that the buyouts are happening in your part of the NPS and there you will find that the most expensive positions are the senior people, and that is exactly why buyouts are provided, to save the dollars the senior people cost?  And that younger employees do not cost as much and are not encumbered?  Not that i am in favor of eliminating professional jobs, quite the opposite, but these continual contradictions in this piece in trying to make the case to blame the current NPS managers, rather than fight for the money, just makes one start to sputter.

Third:

You say the omnibus bill is not "rational" and imply that the NPS and Congress did not  "follow the process."  What?  Is it not true that every one of the new parks was studied, EXACTLY as provided in the process?  Is it not true that in every case, the NPS examined the feasibility, suitability and significance of each and found that they fully merited addition to the System?  Is it not true that over the years the NPS rejects 3 out of every 4 areas so reviewed?  I mean, as an historian? Is it not true that the NPS held public meeetings for public input in every one of these cases?  Is it not true than then every one of these new parks had a congressional hearing, and in every one of the cases of the new parks, the NPS testified that it agreed the parks, subject to amendments it recommended, that the areas SHOULD be new parks? 

Was not every new park in this bill then reviewed by the Congressional Budget Office and the OMB? And found not to add significantly to the US deficit or to the NPS? And in nearly every case did not the Congess accept or modify its legislation when concerns were raised by the NPS?  Even in the case of Manhattan Project, is it not true that the NPS held out until the Energy Department agreed not to cease being responsible for the primary clean up costs?  Wasn't that good "leadership"?  And smart? 

What exactly, then, was not followed in "the process"?  Are you saying, Dr Bukowsky, that the problem is that all the parks, even though they all followed the proper process, were all bundled into one bill?  How does that, or did that, compromise the process? 

And you say not all historic site are equal, and some can be managed by others.  Is that not EXACTLY one of the jobs of the NPS new park study system?  And is it not also true that an entire part of that process is to examine whether it would be better if someone else managed the area?  So all these new parks WERE examined precisely for that, and in each case the NPS testified that notwithstanding, not only did they qualify as parks, but the best way to recognize them would be to add them to the System of parks? 

But is it not also true that when you have the history of a person like Harriet Tubman, and her many great accomplishments with important places associated with her memory: do you NOT thing the National Park System is weaker and incomplete without recognizing what a powerful force and symbol she is to the United States? Can you think of  BETTER way to protect and recognize all she represents to the United States OTHER than a national park?  And do you really think buyouts among cultural resource people  in Washington would have been prevented had we not finally recognized her multiple contributions?

 Fourth,

You say that the NPS grant programs should be considered for cuts.  You mention Save Americas Treasures and Preserve America as among those needing this examination.  In Obama's first complete budget did not the NPS recommend eliminating the funding for these programs, and isn't it true they have not been funded since?  You mention Battlefield Protection program.  Isn't it true that a large percentage of those acres purchased end up in the park system?  And isn't it true that it is MUCH less expensive to manage a park with fewer private or incompatible developments?  I mean, does not the Battlefield Protection program save money by eliminating costly repeats of Manassas?  And for the battlefields that stay in non-federal hands, isn't that a good investment when lands and money can be leveraged this way with private or state money? And isn't NOW, when the economy is down, actually the best time to buy land?  If you really believed as you say in this kind of examination, you would have noted that half the money going to land acquisition in the new 2015 appropriation would go to the states, that in fact would protect land without the NPS having to absorb operations charges, so that lands DON'T have to come into the System, AND those dollars are leveraged.  Doesn't the "leadership" of the NPS deserve credit for such cost effective thinking?  Hmm?  Just didn't deserve attention?

Fifth,

in blaming the current leadership of the National Park Service, and saying that the reports do not help because they don't recommend ways to cut the System and the reports are not used and forgotten, where do you get that?  50 years ago, did the reports leading to Mission 66 fail because they did not recommend slashing the System?

Take an example now, are you aware that the Second Century Commission made a big focus on partnerships as a way to help  the NPS (unlike your proposal) carry out the Mission?  For example, it suggests the NPS learn from its succeses with the national heritage corridors, and even cite one as showing how to leverage their federal funds more than 20 to one?  And, has not Director Jarvis in his Call to Action emphasized exactly that, new partnerships to find innovative ways to fullfill the Mission while stretching dollars, and greatly expanding outreach and public engagement?  And in fact have not parks responded?  Have you seen the series of brilliant articles by Kurt about the park partners and the incredible work they are doing in engagement and leveraging dollars?  Isn't that exactly the kind of leadership we need, but that you claim is lacking?  Have you compared the budget of the NPS today with the budget of 50 years ago?  Do you believe that if your program now, that a good study would recommend cuts to the System, if applied then, and all the incredible parks of today since then had NEVER come into the System, it is your contention that the NPS would have received those monies anyway?

And another NPS request that was fully funded was challenge cost share.  Isn't that good leadership from the Director? Doesn't that mean that the NPS money for those parks in this program will be DOUBLED or more by non-NPS sources?  What is wrong with that?  Don't you think that achieving that during your "budget climate" is pretty great leadership?

And on that subject, you speak of "thousands" of dollars being spent to promote the public recognition of the meaning of the 100th anniversary of the National Park Service as a bad idea.  How many of those dollars actually come from the two and a half billion dollar park service budget? 

And now, are you actually really saying that you cannot do more with less?  Well whether you can or not, the Second Century Commission and the Director are pointing to many ways YOU CAN do more with less through partnership.  Through building constituencies.  Through telling the untold stories.  Through introducing young people to the out-of-doors.  There really are people who know how to get more resources by the way they do their work, and that concept flows throughout the Director's Call to Action, but for years and years before that there is a new spirit among non-traditionalists, and one of the differences with the traditionalists is YOU CAN get more than one dollar for every dollar spent. 

[BTW: This is the sort of thing to get behind, not the kind of multiple reorganizations, that take years and years of resources, that have been proposed and failed before, and will lead to no additional support for parks.  Such attempted reorganizations in the past have created a lot of hot air wasted effort, have led to significant employee demoralization and have done nothing to improve the quality of the visitor experience.  Ask anybody.  Especially the originally optimistic, who have lived through any of them.]  

 Sixth,

You speak of "problems of today" and the very first problem you list is the need for an adequate number of rangers to ensure the public safety.  Would you please provide some documentation that the PUBLIC SAFETY HAS GONE DOWN?  Are there more accidents? Significantly increasing number of deaths? Are there fewer searches? fewer rescues?  What exactly is the safety problem you see right now, or perhaps the past 5 or 10 years, from inadequate rangering?

Seventh,

even if you were right that new areas such as these take money away, or that the new park will be underfunded, you ignore the fact that park lands are protected from the kind of transformative developments that will destroy the landscape and the character of the resource.  And, if you would note it in your next article, every one of these new parks emerged from partnerships, so to leverage money well but also to expand the public engagement.  So waiting for the Senate to find more days in the year to pass each new park in a freestanding bill means that you will see resources destroyed, regardless of whether there is money there or not.  Better to fight for the money, of course.

                                    #    #    #

Dr Bukowsky, I realize these points, coming after the great plaudets you received from that distinguished and incessant critic of the national parks, Senator Coburn [who by the way is considered such an extremist even by Republicans that it was comical on C-SPAN watching his colleagues give their goodbye speeches in the Senate, and Senator McCain in his goodbye speech could not even resist saying out loud what all of them call him in private: "Dr. NO"], that you don't have any particular reason to take comments from anyone else. 

But you were very good at what you did in the park service, and i hope you consider this seriously: 

right now is a time to fight for the money. 

Now is the time to work to protect, not find ways of backing away from preservation or established parks.  Now is not a good time to suggest that any of these new parks were inadequately considered (especially when they were !), because there are plenty of people like Senator Coburn who are happy to turn preservationists against each other.  People who vote with Senator Coburn on the Hill are certainly not working to protect our air either, or our water, or any of the other national preservation agencies. You are smart enough to realize that these people are not friends of parks. 

Rather than giving credibility to the enemy, it might be a good idea to recognize the efforts underway now to build the partnerships and the preservation needs this nation will need for the future, not by tearing down, but by fighting for the parks, for the money, for ther partnerships, for the national recognition of the meaning of a NP centennial. 

As an historian you should recognize that turning preservationists against each other is like chopping up a smaller and smaller pie, when what is needed is to encourage the pride and recognition of our American heritage. 

I'd like you to consider how giving NATIONAL recognition as a Unit of the park system to Harriet Tubman will help build American patriotism, and  help us tell the untold stories. 

I'd like you to consider how NATIONAL recognition of the complex story of the building of the Atom Bomb will show that it does not escape our attention of the tremendous significance of the United States since World War II. 

\And I'd like you to consider what it says about a Nation recognizing the first place in America where an entire watershed was harnessed for industry (every tributary with only 10 feet in the entire drop not terraced by dams for industry), what it says about sustainability, what it says about people who built a canal through granite with hand tools, and what it says when those jobs created by those people are simply sent away for greater profits elsewhere leaving a polluted and jobless landscape behind but even more what it says as those people fight now to restore a sustainable landscape. 

These points only representing 4 of the new parks, but they all deserve your strategic thinking.  And think about all the partners all those areas will bring in, potentially to work with you and other, like Director Jarvis is trying to do, to get the support from all sources to protect our heritage.    

"Like Director Jarvis is trying to do, to get the support from all sources to protect our heritage".

Sounds like Jarvis is getting his people to cover these sites with comments because d2 doth protest too much.

D-2 provides a pretty indepth and detailed explanation on why these places should be protected.  Just because sophisticated debate offends does not necessarily make what he stated a conspiracy.  But then again, one can't expect a person that just sees a key word like "jarvis" which instantly triggers their hate emotives to provide good well-thought out debate.  That would be the day!

Gee, backpacker, is that you who is talking about protesting too much.  Remember the backcountry fee?

Rick

I agree with what d-2 says.  While I have the greatest respect for Dr. Butowsky as a historian, he is wrong on another point also.  The beauty of the National Park System is  that each generation of Americans gets to add, speaking through their representatives in Congress, in an Omnibus bill or not, the areas it believes deserve protection in perpetuity.  As a matter of generational respect and equity, we  owe it to these previous generations to provide the highest standard of care possible for the areas they added.  The idea of peeling off some of them to make them state or munincipal areas violates that principal.  Besides, who gets to decide?  One person's Steamtown is another's Salem Maritime.  Someone's Cayuhoga is another's Pinnacles.  I would hate to see the areas added by my generation such as MLK Jr. or Guadalupe Mountains be  pruned from the System.   And historically, the peeling as been the reverse as one can see from Golden Gate and Gateway.

Rick

I’m loath to dissent from Harry Butowsky’s analysis, but dissent I must.

Most critically, I strongly disagree with the zero-based budgeting system  proposed.  Cultural values often do not convert to dollar values. Many of the parks and programs managed by the National Park Service will never be profitable, yet their loss will come at a critical cost to our society. The value of the resources entrusted to NPS reflect understanding of a nation’s human and natural history from which spring lessons of both stability and change. The measurable impacts of climate changes population dynamics of predators, prey, fish, pollinating insects and pollinated vegetation barely begin to teach us what nature has to offer. The effects of war, slavery, and education, understanding of the legacy of everything from the Homestead Act and the Tallgrass Prairie it so dramatically changed to Elwha Dam’s removal and how salmon runs resume, even the varied cultural responses of specific categories of park visitors and neighbors can and should have deep, non-economic benefits far beyond park boundaries.

A commenter on the retirees' listserve recently noted that the NPS share of the national budget is so small that its adequacy to meet park and program needs can be reduced to a simple concept: Priority. If NPS has the popular support it claims, then we should be able to rally the public will that can command a priority for minimum staffing and funding.

A point Harry doesn’t address is fees.  The rush to slap fees on every possible site is a de facto closure of parks to many of the prospective visitors we keep claiming represent our future. It is the young and minorities who are least able to pay fees at every turn. The latest proposal I’ve seen is an administrative nightmare fee along the entirety of the mostly narrow, 184.5-mile-long Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park (Will we build a fence the length of the canal to prevent some non-paying visitor crossing over to the tow-path trail? Maybe we’ll just randomly enforce it when an LE ranger happens upon a hiker without a receipt?) Single-visit fees of $25 are a true impediment to someone working part-time or full-time employed as cashiers, hotel or sanitation workers, or in the construction trades. We’re making them choose cheaper alternatives that lack the exposure to the programs and resources we care for on behalf of them as much as for the lawyers, engineers, office managers, and bankers who increasingly are becoming our core users. Minimum staffing and funding should mean whatever is necessary to assure true public access, with token fees to supplement, not supplant appropriated budgets.

Dr. Butowsky also proposes an active effort to identify and discard those park units that don’t truly expose something exemplary or something typical of a memorable period of America’s human and natural history.  I’m less sanguine about the trustworthiness of such a process, no matter how well intentioned. The park system can and should represent America’s diversity in such a way that most of us can find included places that do NOT inspire us individually, though they may deeply inspire others.  They are about the interplay of human understanding and response. The same place can spark overwhelming awe in one, avid curiosity in another, and plain indifference in a third. I’m not sure we should decide that the indifferent responder should set the standard for what rightfully belongs.

I certainly agree with Dr. Butowsky that we would be feckless and reckless to declare there is some magical number or variety that is “enough” parks. History does not stop. Nature’s special places lose the special protection of owners who die – or whose own priorities change – and the protective distance that once assured remote places needed no special care. I mistrust parks created by legislative fiat without adequate advance professional evaluation, but I remind readers that most of the new parks brought to NPS in December had been studied and found worthy.  New parks should always be on the prospective agenda, but they should be promptly followed  with the money and people needed to run them.

Worthy or not, additions are a problem if the Service is continually asked to stretch existing resources to meet growing demands for both resource protection and visitor use. He invoked the “Do more with less” mantra that I’ve heard articulated in some form throughout the 41 years I served in NPS. He thinks we’ve played that song past it’s end point. So do I. There may have been a time when there was fat to cut, though I never saw it. We’ve been carving the lean meat for a long time now and allowing outsiders to insist there must be gross amounts of “waste, fraud and abuse.” I’ll even concede that, given human nature, the Service’s employment of a lot of humans assures there will be occasional misjudgment and malfeasance. What I won’t concede is that the losses are more than negligible -- or that the Service does not actively watch for them.

I’m less well versed in the varied grant programs NPS administers. For the most part, however, I suspect they make it possible for state, local, and private operators to manage deserving resources that would otherwise be lost  outright or added to the direct workload of the National Park Service. Accordingly, I suspect that slashing these programs would prove short-sighted. If careful analysis contradicts me, I’ll be pleased to be wrong.

Thanks, d-2 and Duncan for some good thoughtful -- and apparently quite knowledgeable posts.  Certainly some things to read and consider carefully.  These two posts and Dr. Butowski's original article illustrate very well the complexity of trying to resolve the many differences of opinion and other forces that influence management of our parks.  They also illustrate how dangerous it is for any of us to lock on to only one set of arguments and cling to them while failing or refusing to consider other possible options.

Thank you all.  Now I'm going to print off hard copies of all these arguments so I can spend a little more time trying to digest it all without getting a stiff neck looking at my computer monitor.

Hi SmokiesBackpacker -- no, sorry, I don't work for Jarvis and never have, and do not even know how he feels about these issues.

In fact, although I do think Dr Bukowsky gives Jarvis a naive and bum rap, i think Mr. Jarvis could fight harder for parks.  I think from President Obama to Director Jarvis to Dr. Bukowsky preservationists and environmentalists and liberals and members of this Administration do not stand up and say what they are FOR and why, instead of falling into the traps of the anti-parks people as Dr. Bukoswky has.  I think Mr. Jarvis has the good excuse because of the dumb provision in the 1998 general authorities legislation that made the Director a Presidential appointee with the advice and consent of the Senate, amended the park planning process Dr. Bukowsky and I refer to by making it nearly impossible for the NPS to propose new parks as it traditionally always did, tried to generate big fees from permits like Film Permits, and went part of the way in reforming Concessions.  Many of these were bad ideas, except what WAS achieved in reforming Concessions thanks to Senator Dale Bumpers and his staff and Mr. Jarvis' brother Destry.  Anyway, one of the results, which the NPS did not propose (the independent park rangers did), of the Director's appointments process and also Jimmy Carter's creation of "senior executives" far more beholding to OMB is that the Directors -- instead of less politicized as the magical thinking of the rangers supposed, became much less willing to fight for park budgets and authorities the way Directors like Hartzog and even Dickinson under the Reagan Administration did.  Directors Stanton and Jarvis at least are professionals, but both seem less willing to fight than necessary, but at least they are not like some of the absolutely intimidated or politically incompetent others we've had since that law  past.  And do not ignore the way it took the Obama Administration a  year to finally select a professional like Jarvis, significantly because a democratic Senator thought it was OKAY to have a commercial business lease, a cultured oyster operation inside a park, and Jarvis would not relent that it was NOT okay.  And so we had caretaker management thanks to that.  So despite what you say SmokiesBackpacker, i wish Jarvis would fight harder for money rather than just play the hand he has been dealt, like fees.

In fact, I detect Dr. Bukowsky is even being evasive and oblique about what clealy bothers him (and me), the way central office professionals have for years been cut.  Instead he makes it seem his concern, his pièce de résistance, about cultural resources is conflated with the problem with parks.  Dr. Bukowsky does not want to tell you that 10 years ago, parks received about 65% of the NPS budget, and now parks get about 90%, particularly the older established parks with large staffs not structured as partneships.  But we hear almost no dramatic stories from professionals or via them from Members of Congress about exciting and valuable things these people DO.  It is not necessary to attack the preservation work of others. Perhaps his real target, and his reason for advocating that unworkable idea (Duncan Morrow's explanation of why zero-based is inappropriate is much better than mine) is he does not want to say he wants to take from existing park budgets, but hopes zero-based funding will magically get him what he will not be explicit about?  Just because you want the money in someone else's budget does not make it "waste." Another thing Duncan Morrow is exactly right about is the way he describes how lean everyone's budget is, and how conscientious almost all are.

I also agree with SmokiesBackpacker and Duncan Morrow on fees.  Again, what is wrong with liberals and environmentalists that they cannot stand on their feet and say it is a GOOD IDEA for parks to be owned by all the people, and be free to enter and enjoy?  And that the Nation should pay this cost, because it is good for America for all Americans to know what they own and the story of America they tell?

In fact, i agree with every thing Duncan Morrow says, although:

I would note that all of the parks in this Omnibus bill were supported in testimony. NONE were passed (in THIS bill that is) over the objections of the NPS. But i am dazzled by the subtlety in his points on how often the NPS position affects the whole process, and even governs congressional outcomes in ways that seem to elude Dr. Bukowsky in his argument. I am reminded of the example of the Blackstone National Historical Park. Despite the power of the sponsor, the Senator radically rewrote his own bill to go more than half way to meet the NPS objections, and now there is a much more flexible park for the NPS to manage.  And probably, much less expensive.  Dr. Bukowsky and SmokiesBackpacker give no 'congrats' to Jarvis for this, even though this seems to be exactly the kind of thing Dr. Bukowsky says the wants, but strangely does not cite.  Thank you Duncan Morrow for the most real and insightful comments yet. 

Finally on this, though, i would say that Congress is not always wrong when it disagrees with the NPS when the NPS turns thumbs down on parks.  We have Members of Congress elected by the people to reflect what people yearn for, and there needs to be interplay between professionals and elected officials, so that the professionals don't get too inbred, or begin to think they do not have to explain why they and their programs deserve the funding they need.  We have had great parks the NPS objected to, from Valley Forge to Shenandoah/Cedar Creek battlefield and many others.  But not in this bill, ALL were duly supported and the process was followed explicitly, AND WORKED!

d-2

Well said.

Eleanor Roosevelt said it best: "If only I had had more time, I would have written you a shorter letter." Dr. Butowsky took the time to craft a shorter letter. That doesn't mean he is right, but it does mean he will get read. I remain suspicious of the rambling argument that never gets to the point.

Does everyone mean to say that the NPS is above reproach? That is all Dr. Butowsky is saying: We need to take a look. We know what the "process" is; we know what the hurdles are. But again, the history is writ large with the problems of adding to the national park system without the funding. That all started in the Parks Barrel Era, led by George Hartzog and then Phil Burton. Did it work? It sure expanded the bureaucracy, and the "mission," but what did it actually save? The expansion of Redwood National Park, for example, came after 39,000 of its 48,000 acres of old growth had been lost. When I brought that up to Phil Burton, Secretary of the Interior Cecil Andrus wisked me out of the room. We spent the next 20 minutes in the stairwell, Andrus trying to convince me I was wrong. The picture showing how wrong I was is on page 124 of NATIONAL PARKS: THE AMERICAN EXPERIENCE, fourth edition.

The NPS claims an $11 billion backlog. How is that to be addressed? What constitutes that backlog? Good projects or just a "wish list" that at bottom is local pork? If we can't save the redwoods for the nation, why save Hanford for Washington State? That is how I read Dr. Butowsky. If you interpret that as disloyal, well, that is what good citizens ask. Do we need it? Can we take care of it properly? Can we do it without "partnering" with the devil? I know; a B-2 bomber costs more than the Park Service. But then, Washington State still wants both. Our congressional delegation did not give up a thing, but yes, who will have to pay for that?

If every moment of history "belongs" in a national park, where will it ever end? And if ends with cutting redwoods because the budget somehow could not pay for both, is that the end we really want? Again, that is how I read Dr. Butowsky. But good, he struck a nerve.

Dr. Runte--It is good that he struck a nerve.  It's a public debate ws need to have, one that I was hoping would be generated by the run-up to the Centennial, not the Defense Authorization bill.  And the debate should not be aired only on the pages of NPT but in all forums dedicated to the conservation of our natural and cultiural heritage.

Your question about the "backlog" is a good one.  In the parks in which I worked, the backlog meant trails that were not rehabbed, roofs not repaired that had reached the end of their expeccted life cycles, roads not chipped and sealed that had developed surface defects, boardwalks that had become safety hazards, etc. I saw little pork in such cyclic maintenance tasks.  They do become, however, increasingly expensive to deal with the longer they are ignored. 

Let the debate continue!

Rick

Dr. Runte:

Wasn't Cecil Andrus right to try to protect all he could at Redwoods?  Is that what you are saying?

Al:

I wish I could read Harry Butowsky's piece as benignly as you do. I can't get there.

There’s an irony here. I’ve known both you and Kurt Repanshek longer than most who visit the Traveler, but I’ve been content to be a passive reader of the Traveler until Harry’s post. That one spurred me to join so that I could comment.

I see Harry’s post as well-intentioned and potentially actively harmful to the long-term well-being of the National Park Service and the System of parks and programs it administers.

There really is a political faction that finds almost all government, specifically including parks, as more burden than benefit to the people. Harry's piece aids that perspective by suggesting several things that are not true.

First, the new parks created in December’s legislation were all subject to NPS review and support. So nothing new came in over outright objection from NPS or the Administration.

Second, to my knowledge, the only time authorization and funding came from the same law was when Steamtown NHS was authorized directly in an appropriations bill without benefit of any Congressional hearings or Park Service studies. Eventually, that worked out, but initially it was a nightmare.

Third, there is no precedent to suggest that disposing of some parks or grant programs will free up funding for things that NPS would value more highly. It is very likely that OMB and Congress would react to the elimination of a park or program by eliminating the associated funding, too.

Fourth, NPS has disposed of parks in the past with mixed results. Re-opening that door could be an invitation for those who see opportunities for themselves trumping public values. Can you see the good folks of Marin County given a chance to declare Muir Woods overburdens them? How many different times and ways have people proposed intrusions on Manassas Battlefield that could be easily revived? Is transferring away some marginal site worth the risk of losing something that many think has transcendent value? To me, the worst  current park property is not an affront to the rest.

A closely related issue is how many protected sites are required to understand the nuances of the Civil War or the World War II internment of Japanese-Americans. I’ve even heard it said that the Sierra Nevada doesn’t need so many protected areas. My guess is the balance points are highly personal to some people and a matter of little interest to other.

Fifth, the backlog. Deferred maintenance often means increased restoration costs. Delayed scientific studies may mean we’ll lose an opportunity to learn things that could inform important decisions. Resource protection and human safety can be put at risk. And ranking the importance of what is needed most will always be somewhat subjective, though the NPS has worked hard to make it as objective as possible. Having no immutable way to choose and rank the deficiencies does not make those deficits less authentic.

Finally, Washington is your home state, but I take strong exception to the notion that Hanford is being saved “for Washington.” To me, it is being saved for the American people. Like many others, I’m hopeful the Service will prove capable of representing to visitors and correspondents the complex meanings of the Manhattan Project sites, but I have no doubt that it is an essential piece of our national story.

Duncan

Folks,

Great discussion as always. My compliments to Dr. Butowsky.  No easy answers to the issues facing the NPS.  Plenty of blame to go around.  While I share some of the sentiments about priceless resources, etc., it is not the reality in the field.  As someone responsible for a $12M per year park budget, I can tell that all resources have a cost. The bottom line is that we cannot afford "priceless."   Decisions have to be made everyday about park priorities, staffing, fixed v discretionary cost, etc.,   

There is no doubt the Service can use additional funding, but there is plenty that can be done in house to reallocate resources and develop a more flexible and responsive organization.  IMO we are top heavy, over-graded and in love with our own processes. A good start would be to flatten the organization, push more FTE to the field, eliminate the self-inflicted gunshot wounds along with the micromanagement of the unaccountable bean-counters in WASO.  

d-2 where did you get your numbers? "Dr. Bukowsky does not want to tell you that 10 years ago, parks received about 65% of the NPS budget, and now parks get about 90%.."

Might want to take a look at the Greenbook - about half of the NPS budget goes to the parks, a little more than $1.3 B.  The rest of the NPS budget - roughly another $1.3B goes to Regional and WASO offices and external programs.   

Going back to lurk mode.  Kurt thanks for the articles.  The discussions that they generate are "priceless".

B

Duncan, you know the history as well as I. I know you have read NATIONAL PARKS: THE AMERICAN EXPERIENCE, including the chapter "Ideals and Controversies of Expansion." We will continue having these debates until we decide what exactly a national park should be. Meanwhile, do you mean to suggest that expansion is not "political?" But of course it is, and always will be. My good senators here in Washington State knew exactly what they were doing. They may be Democrats; they may be liberals, but they like bringing home the bacon, too. With every senatorial contest now costing upwards of $20 million, they need something to show their constituents that they "care."

And so the national park SYSTEM stays underfunded, along with the system that is the country. Why ? Because there is nothing jazzy about taking care of what you have. It is called maintenance and maintenance is boring. The best photo op is with waving hair. Cut the ribbon, senator! Wave at the crowd! Get your mug shot on tee-vee.

I ran for mayor of Seattle and heard the same from my team. So I waved and waved and waved. And then I told Seattle what it needed to hear. We cannot afford all of this stuff. Oops! That "stuff" is what people want. Now we are stuck with the stuff people wanted, including a boring machine deep in the Waterfront Tunnel that hasn't moved in more than a year. Who will "pay" to "free" the drill--Big Bertha, as we call her? Why, the taxpayers! They are loaded, right? No need to make choices when the money is limitless.

Again, all you say is true, except that the money is never limitless. But tell that to the people who want something. I did, and lost two to one.

Al:

I have read your book and I take it down from the shelf from time to time along with several others on parks and related topics. I return particularly often to Todd Wilkinson's 1998 book, "Science Under Siege," subtitled "The Politicians' War on Nature and Truth."

I would never propose that legislative actions are not political. I don't even think they can be nonpolitical. But I still think of the old definition of successful politics: "The art of the possible." We used to hire political officers to do the compromising we knew was needed to make things work. We chided them for doing what we wouldn't, but we knew we needed them to do it. We kept our virtue and they got the work done. The object was to achieve something, even if you can't get all you seek. In exchange, you also give the other side something, but they don't get all they seek, either.

Somehow, we've turned instead to a political all-or-nothing strategy: "If I can't have all I want, I won't let you have anything you want, either." In the long run, it's a self-defeating strategy. But it's an important part of the reason why we need to be careful about offering concessions to critics who offer nothing in return.

The Redwood expansion was a tragedy for what was lost that could have been saved just a decade earlier. But what came under the original Redwoods Act was what was possible at that time. Had we declined that as "not enough" then there wouldn't have been the possibility of even an inadquate expansion ten years on. I'm not sure it was all stumps, either. The expansion lands did save  some redwoods. They also provided opportunities to forestall erosion and loss in lands already protected, so they were a benefit to the forest that had been saved.

Is preserving a building at Hanford comparable to saving a redwood tract? Maybe not, but a lot of people need the physical structure to provide context for what happened there.

A homebuilder I once knew said that he learned to his chagrin that some people have no visual imagination. They cannot view plans or schematics and comprehend what the final structure will look like. They can be bright, educated and articulate, but unable to translate from two dimensions to three. The physical legacy of buildings and boulders creates a depth of meaning that may be unnecessary if that same translation comes naturally to you.

How many veterans of Yosemite actually accept that Google street-view images can do justice to the experience of encountering the valley in its splendor? Why should it surprise us that the built environment is similarly different in person than in image or imagination? The minuscule boarding house where Thaddeus Kosciuszko lived in Philadelphia is as striking in its way as the Liberty Bell or Independence Hall. The physical structure is its own message; once seen, you understand a Revolutionary hero was living humbly while there.

Duncan

et tu, brutusman:

I am looking at it by Appropriation, not field vs central offices, but the way a budget analysist would understand it.

It is not perfect of course because Construction money may end up benefitting a park, same way Land Acquisition.

But if you go back, say to  the end of the Clinton Administration to the last couple of years Operation of the National Park System has gone up over $800 M, while Construction, Land Acquisition (internal and "external" [hateful word]), and other "external" appropriations such as Historic Preservation Fund, Urban Parks, and Recreation and Preservation -- all have gone down proportionally.  I believe ONPS for 2015 will be getting close to that 90% figure, whereas when I joined the Service it was around 50%.

You may preserve a virtuous distinction between the field part of this operation and central offices, but from most other perspectives it is no less artificial than the soldier in the battle of the buldge who thinks of himself as defiantly independent of the people who ship him supplies, or plan the effort, or obtain the funds, etc.

Although I agree with some of what you say, you must be as aware as anyone that parks themselves are less "flat" than they were 20 years ago, as more money sustains full time mid level staff.   And with a park of $12 m you must also be aware that a park of $400,000 or $1.2 m will depend heavily upon central office staff in a way you or better funded parks never even think about.

And although i have a lot of antagonism to some of the accountability programs, that as far as i can see are required by DOI or OMB but provide no program improvements, although they do serve to back off OMB and Congress with the illusion of accountability, but at a very high price of diversion and distraction.  I do think the Service needs a way to measure accomplishment, something that is not redundant but in fact is built into effecient and streamlined management.  But that is not what we  have.  You must be aware that as positions disappear and others take the additional responsibilities on, the additional responsibility should mean higher grade.  When i joined we had only 3 GS 15 superintendents.  We have many more now, not to mention SES.  But some of the work imposed on the Service from OMB and Congress and DOI has to happen and does take higher graded people.  Superintendents and RDs can be held criminally accountable in an environmental audit, something I'd never heard of years ago.  The salary increases over the years for senior permanent staff sucks out all the funding for seasonals or SCS.  Much of  this lack of flatness is not within the control of the Service, and continuing to suck staff away from innovative programs and mentoring from Regions or WASO is one reason why problems like the Effigy Mounds situations happen.  Not to mention the generally unimaginative liaison work in the case of many parks with public constitutencies or with Congress.  Since many superintendents lack some of these essential skills, which the Service pays for every day, it would be great, wouldn't it, to have a critical mass of skilled people in central offices who can share the skills and standards of excellence with mid level park people.  Plus many of the "external" partnership programs have skills parks don't know that they need, but are essential in these times.  We need to make sure this skill repository does not drift away, and instead need to set up cross-training between parks and such partnerships. 

Merely flattening the organization and depleting central offices will not give the Service a sustainable system.

Dr Runte:

I guess i was not clear.  Everyone understands of course it would have been better had the redwood landscape of 1967 survived.

But, to ask the question again, are you saying that Andrus and Burton should have walked away from trying to preserve as a park Redwood Creek as it existed in 1978?

Because if it was important to preserve what was left, at this last possible moment to do so, and worth the huge effort to get the legislation and appropriations through, can you imagine how it would have appeared to Cecil Andrus if you were just shaking your fist at the sky,  and would have been willing to discourage Phil Burton from taking the task on, or deriding his commitment to do so? 

The complaints about the past must have appeard pretty meaningless, or even damaging, to the vital challenge of the moment to Andrus, a genuine environmental hero. 

If Andrus really thought you chose that moment to discourage Burton right at the last moment of opportunity for that remaining Redwood landscape, I'll be he felt he had no woodshed large enough.

Were you really telling them to give up the battle, really?  And, that what they were trying to preserve was meaningless compared to your vision of 1967?   I can't believe that.

But Dr. Butowsky was not talking about the "stumps" of the Redwood proposal. He was saying that the despite the park service doing the studies on every one of the new parks in this bill, despite the public hearings, despite reviews from Organization of American Historians, despite WASO, OMB and CBO reveiw, despite Congressional hearings, despite the favorable testimony of the National Park Service, the process was not proper and you and he, you think, believe these areas are just: "stumps?"

PS:, the Manhattan Project national historical park is a multi-state park.  

Hi D-2. Of course I am not arguing that anyone should have "walked away" from Redwood Creek, trees or no trees, since yes, as Duncan points out, it is a critical watershed for the entire park. All I am saying is that the "process" of compromise Duncan and you so beautifully describe is the problem. Now with 400 plus parks under that process, how many more can the system stand? Andrus was arguing that yes, the "process" had been changed. And Burton had changed it. Get your book back from the publisher before it is dated! A New Day has arrived!

Well, no, and again, you beautifully describe why nothing has changed. We need to take (accept) what is achievable, or words to that effect. And so Muir's comment, "Nothing dollarable is safe," because only what is not "dollarable" can be achieved. That was in chapter 3 of my book (out of eight). I didn't need to write a chapter 9 honoring Phil Burton. Everything leading to his contribution (100 years of give and take) was in the first eight chapters. Of course, I got to Phil Burton in the second edition, then with Alaska as a further incentive.

Dr. Butowsky and I are writing as historians. We know where all of the skeletons are buried. And we know, because we are historians, than accepting skeletons has serious risks. Once you believe in a "balance of politics," you may never get over that belief, and yes, always take what you can get instead of what you really need. Had David Brower done that in the Grand Canyon fight, the canyon would have had at least one dam. Had Carsten Lien not written Olympic Battleground, who knows what Olympic National Park would look like now?

I agree: Some people just can't "see" it unless there is something to "see"--a building, a fort, a battleground. That is why we have the historical parks. And I happen to like Streamtown, too. Just look at the fifth edition of Trains of Discovery. But I know that everything has limits, and I know that those limits are under constant strain. At heart, I think Dr. Butowsky really wanted to talk about the History Division, which, on the eve of the Park Service Centennial, no less, has virtually been ignored--and gutted. But of course, who needs American history when the country is spinning out of control?

And so the politicians try to say they are still in control. See? We are still establishing new national parks! Yes, but they have no idea how they will fund them except by fund-raising, as it were. Some private partner will ride to the rescue and save us. Meanwhile, perhaps we will need to raise some fees. Whatever happened to the idea of funding the parks properly from the public treasury, with fees as just a reminder of the privilege of entering the parks as part of our common heritage?

That is all Dr. Butowsky is asking having seen his history website gutted to the bone. And what a terrific website it was. I didn't have to walk out of the house to find any public document on the national parks. I still don't, but now on his private website. History at the NPS? The politicians are saving the sites, but they sure are not saving the history. Give Dr. Butowsky a break. He is riding to the rescue--just as all of the politicians want--and doing it all for free.

I want to thank everyone for reading and taking the time to reply. While I believe we all support the National Park Service and the National Park System, we do not necessarily agree on what needs to be done at this critical time. That said, I appreciate that we can have a constructive dialogue about these issues here. I am responding to some of your concerns.

1.       I am concerned with the continued spate of articles about the lack of staffing and funding in our national parks. At the same time, I am concerned with (what I see as) the rapid growth of the number of parks. (Yes, I do understand the difference between authorization and funding bills.) I hope that these new parks receive the funding they need to operate successfully.

2.       I do not believe we should stop the expansion of the National Park System. As I said, time moves on and history evolves. New areas of natural beauty and consequence should always be identified and added to the system. However, I suggest we slow the pace of growth in order to appropriate address our fiscal and resource constraints. (Yes, I agree Congress has created this problem, and it will be up to Congress to solve it.)

3.       I am not familiar with any of the proposed new parks, but I am sure that some sites, such as the   Harriet Tubman site in particular, would be excellent additions to the system. I hope Congress will fund this new park to preserve the resource and provide the quality visitor experience that should be part of the site.

4.       I think some respondents thought I was casting aspersions toward the leadership of Director Jarvis—this is not the case. However, Director Jarvis is the head of the agency and as such he does have responsibility to lead it. I am curious to hear his thoughts about the current state of the National Park System and what he sees for its future. Perhaps he has already made his thoughts known on this matter. If so, I am not aware of it.

5.       D-2 is correct that new areas must compete with existing parks for funds. I believe this is called “thinning the blood.” Does D-2 think the service cannot fund new parks or keep them on minimal life support? I suspect local Congressional members (and other vested stakeholders) may have other opinions.

6.       I worked on many park plans in my 36-year career. During this time, some of my proudest achievements were studying areas of significance and recommending the preservation of those areas via state, local, or private ownership or other means.  Many substandard sites were kept from becoming National Parks though the planning process.

7.       I am pleased to hear from D-2 that many of the grant programs I cited are working and should continue. This is positive. If a program works, saves the resource, and is cost effective, then it should continue. But the NPS still ought to look at all of its grant programs to identify weaknesses.

8.       I understand that some historic and natural areas are under threat from development, but there are ways to preserve these areas without them becoming National Parks. There are other programs (such as the National Register of Historic Places, the National Historic Landmarks program, and affiliated area designation) that could be used to preserve these sites.

9.       Finally, I want to make it clear that I have always opposed National Park entrance fees. Our parks have been bought and paid for by the American people and should be freely available to all. The fee system discriminates against poorer Americans and should be abolished.

Since I have responded more than I’d initially set out to do, let me summarize my thoughts:

1.       We cannot continue to expand the National Park System at the current rate and not fully fund these new parks. At some point, the system will break.

2.       We need to look at the entire National Park System and decide which parks can be better served by other agencies. This has been done in the past. Parks are created by Congress and can be decommissioned by Congress. In 2015, I recommend Congress establish a commission to study the entire National Park System (including the regional and Washington offices). We should be realistic. The continued lack of funding is degrading the entire National Park System and we must identify opportunities to reduce spending on programs that could be cut or transferred to other entities. These are difficult decisions, but I believe they need to be made by a committed leadership. That said, if there are other solutions to the lack of funding and resources despite the rapid growth of the system, then we should discuss those.

3.       Finally, I see nothing wrong with the concept of zero-base funding. Either programs and offices produce results worthy of the money spent on them or they do not. This approach is in line with the current administration’s goals for improving government performance while being more efficient and effective for the taxpayer (see Performance.gov for additional information).

Harry - I agree with you in most respects with two exceptions.  1) I have no problem with some fees being charged for the major parks.  The closer the payer is to the user the better, whether its parks, healthcare. road maintenance or any other service.  It may be more burdensome to the poor but that isn't discrimination    2)  To claim the corrent adminsitrations goal is to become more efficient and effective is laughable.  Performance.gov may be a minor figurehead program but the primary goal of this adminstration is to expand the role of government and control of your life at any cost. 

Yes, EC, your denial aside, when you categorically exclude any group from the services and facilities of government, you are discriminating. Saying use of a program, ". . . whether its parks, healthcare. road maintenance or any other service," should require a payment, you are discriminating against those who cannot afford those payments. I hope you don't get hit by a car and have an ambulance driver check your wallet before agreeing to provide you emergency treatment or transport you for medical care.

As to Harry, I am most troubled by his argument that the National Register or National Landmark status can forestall threats to properties without bringing them into the National Park System. Since we've all agreed here that any addition to the Park System should meet established criteria, this stance would mean allowing the loss of properties that meet the criteria. Moreover, National Register and Landmark listings are recognitions, not protections. The owners still have the full authority to use such properties to test dynamite, if they so choose. Then, the Park Service, with all its might, can remove the property from its list of recognized sites. Period. That's a pretty soft protection tool.

And, you can call me cyncial if you like, but I simply don't trust a systematic effort to identify the "less worthy" parks to be honest. For example, consider Manzanar. It doesn't spark the same depth of interest or ease of access as Independence Hall or the Statue of Liberty. Located in a harsh climate zone, it is also susceptible to a worse rate of detrioration than many other structural parks. I don't foresee it ever being financially self-sustaining. Its assets, as an exemplar of an important facet of America's history are largely intangible and won't alter a balance sheet. It belongs. We should fight to keep it in the Park System and also fight for the tax support required to sustain it.

Duncan

when you categorically exclude any group from the services and facilities of government, you are discriminating.

That is true, but charging a fee does not "categorically exclude" anyone.

Charging a fee categorically excludes anyone who can't pay.

Maybe a different example would help: You're charged with a terrible crime you didn't commit, but you can't get bail until you're tried and you can't get tried until you pay the salaries of the judge, the bailiff and the court reporter, the cost of the courtroom, and the fees paid to jurors. In short, justice for you depends on payment by you. If you can't afford those payments, we'll keep you in jail and charge you room and board. Then you'll have to find a way to pay or work off that debt. Your inability to pay prevents your access to justice. If that applies to everybody in your circumstance, that's a categorical exclusion.

Access to public parks is no different. If anyone who can't pay can't get in, that is also a categorical exclusion.

Duncan

Charging a fee categorically excludes anyone who can't pay.

Somehow, I think someone who has the money to drive to Yellowstone or some other National Park has the money to pay a  $20 entrance fee.  Or should we pay for their ride and hotels to get to the park, their food while they are there and of course, their kids need some souveniers?

I guess we should just give everything away for free becasue some people can't buy everything. 

Where is Lee when we need him with his "entitlement mentality" accusations. 

1. Many parks are close to major populations, so travel cost and distance isn't a factor.

2. Yellowstone has neighbors, too, so it doesn't cost everyone a lot to get even there.

3. Access isn't the right to use everything in the park. From the beginning, parks have always had concessioners, allowed to charge fees for lodging, food, transportation, etc. The concept of limiting government services to "inherently governmental" functions was not an invention of the Reagan Administration. Reagan and following Administrations, however, have chosen to redefine what constitutes "inherently governmental." (That's a whole separate debate).

4. I actually believe that citizenship does confer "entitlement" to much of what the government manages. I especially believe that clean air, clean water, and park access are components of the right to the "pursuit of happiness." Nobody owes you happiness, but we do owe you the opportunity to seek it.

5. I also don't expect every useful government project or program will benefit me. I've lived or visited in most states, but I've never been in Oregon. The state of their highways has no impact on my life, but I'm still willing to pay taxes that improve their highways as well as mine and I certainly think Crater Lake merits permanent preservation and availability to the public.

6. I also own a Golden Eagle Passport, which grants me lifetime free access to parks anyway, so the amount of the fees doesn't affect me at all. I still don't think they should be an obstacle to anyone else's access.

I still don't think they should be an obstacle to anyone else's access.

That is your opinion, not mine.  I would rather see the parks get the money and put it to use for their betterment. 

EC, those two goals are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they work all too well together. Increased efficiency increases the ability of government to control every aspect of your existence.

Duncan, thanks for pointing out that, as citizens who are taxpayers, there are certain government functions to which people are actually entitled.

That is far different from the attitude so often exhibited by people who have managed to claw their way to an upper level of society -- too often by taking unfair advantage of those same entitlements -- who then denigrate and try to deny privileges of citizenship to people they deem to be beneath them.

The Tea Party and Mr. Romney with his comment about the 47% come quickly to mind.  So do many of the millionaires who now infest Congress.  It's kind of like the old kid's game King of the Mountain.  Some folks figure that if they climbed to the mountain top, they now own the summit and there's no room up there for anyone else.

Duncan, thanks for pointing out that, as citizens who are taxpayers, there are certain government functions to which people are actually entitled.

And Mr Romney was right, those "poor" that can't afford the $20 to enter a park are the same 47% that aren't paying any taxes yet still feel "entitled".