- Essential Guides
- Essential Guide To Paddling The Parks
- Essential Park Guide, Winter 2013-14
- 2013 Essential Fall Guide
- Essential Friends + Gateways Magazine
- Friends Groups And Gateway Communities Support Parks
- Friends of Acadia
- Trust For the National Mall
- Gateways To Retirement
- Blue Ridge Parkway Foundation
- Boone's High Country
- Glacier National Park Conservancy
- Best Kept Secrets
- Grand Canyon Association
- Natchez Trace Compact
- High Tech Tools For Parks
- Pigeon Forge, Gateway to Smokies
- West Yellowstone, Gateway to Geysers
- Secret Sleeps
- Yellowstone Park Foundation
- 2012 Essential Friends
- Ensuring Excellence in the National Parks
- Essential Friends: The Flip Book
- Friends of Acadia
- Friends of Big Bend
- Blue Ridge Parkway Foundation
- Friends of Great Smoky Mountains National Park
- Glacier National Park Fund
- Grand Teton National Park Foundation
- Shenandoah National Park Trust
- Yellowstone Park Foundation
- Partner With Traveler
Centennial Projects: Do They All Prepare the National Parks for the Next 100 Years?
A $12 million jazz museum. Marketing the parks for a specific industry. Installing composting toilets. These are some of the centennial projects that the National Park Service believes will "add sparkle to America's 'Crown Jewels.' "
Am I the only one wondering how?
The National Park Service's Centennial Initiative is a year old, and on its birthday Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne and NPS Director Mary Bomar traveled to Yosemite National Park to roll out 201 projects viewed worthy of launching the NPS and its 391-unit park system into its second century.
"These proposals, and the ones to follow over the next 9 years, represent the cornerstones of a new century for the National Park Service and a new era of partnership with the American people," Mr. Kempthorne told reporters at a sun-drenched Yosemite on August 23.
Multi-use hiking and biking trails. Wayside exhibits. A new boat. Centennial parties for Glacier and Zion national parks. Installing utility connections. Shouldn't these projects be funded out of the Park Service's annual operations budget, and not considered bellwethers of the next century of America's national parks movement?
"When history is written, the Centennial Initiative will be second only to the creation of the National Park Service itself," proclaimed Ms. Bomar.
Get the Flash Player to heard this audio.
Only history will determine if that statement rings true. At this point, with this list of projects, and with the existing guidelines, it's simply too early to say. Don't misunderstand. There are some very notable projects contained within the 201 the Interior secretary and Park Service director released:
* At Assateague Island National Seashore there's a proposal, in partnership with the Maryland Coastal Bays Foundation, to create a Partnership for Marine Resource Environmental Education and Conservation.
* At Biscayne National Park, a partnership with the University of Miami and South Florida National Parks Trust aspires to launch Coral Reef Rejuvenation: A Community Program.
* At Lake Mead National Recreation Area officials want to work with the Outside Las Vegas Foundation to create a "floating classroom" and "create Internet linkages with schools."
* At numerous park units there are proposals to foster future park advocates by working with today's students.
* At Mesa Verde National Park, a suggested project would Assess, Document, and Preserve Mesa Verde's Cliff Dwellings for Future Generations.
* At Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve, the proposed Healthy Heart-Healthy Park initiative would use field trips to connect children physically, mentally, culturally and spiritually with the park.
But such projects are intermingled with ones to build toilets, connect utility lines, rebuild trails, and produce podcasts that, presumably, would be outdated by the time the Park Service celebrates its centennial in 2016. And what about the $1.5 million proposal to collaborate with the Alaska Travel Industry Association on a marketing program, one that seemingly would directly benefit Alaska's cruise-ship industry and not that state's national parks? How does that better the parks for the next century?
And then there's the $12 million "world-class jazz museum" proposed for the New Orleans Jazz National Historical Park. We already have a National Jazz Museum in Chicago, the National Jazz Museum in Harlem, and jazz exhibits at the Smithsonian.
And even if this country needs yet another memorial to jazz, shouldn't the National Endowment for the Arts, and not the National Park Service, underwrite it?
Then, too, there are a handful of centennial projects that would aid wildlife: one to restore critical habitat for the endangered American crocodile and wading birds on Cape Sable in Everglades National Park; another to protect and restore rare bird habitat and seabird nesting colonies on Channel Islands National Park; one to evaluate the possibility of restoring fishers at Olympic National Park; another to restore the endangered Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle at Padre Island National Seashore.
These wildlife projects are all worthy, but shouldn't the Park Service be addressing these issues now under both its mission to preserve natural resources and the Endangered Species Act, rather than banking on Congress's funding of the Centennial Initiative to get the job done?
Among my concerns with the lengthy list of projects is the fact that to even be considered for this list, a project needed to already have a partner lined up with funding. Which makes me wonder whether there were some great ideas, ideas that truly would help move the National Park Service into its second century, that didn't make the cut because they so far lack private-sector financial support?
I'm not the only one who noticed that requirement.
"The only parks to get on the list are ones that had partners ready to make written financial commitments, or so we were told. So we didn't have any such partners. It's interesting then to see at least one park on the list where their partner is 'donation box' monies they've already collected," says one park employee. "We're not supposed to be lobbying Congress but isn't that what this is, to create pressure to pass the public-private part of the budget?
Here's another comment, again from someone inside the NPS:
The problem with the whole centennial challenge thing is that you must have a commitment from another funder for 50% right now - not that you will commit to raise the 50%. It's obscene - I personally believe it is a way for Bush et al to say, "See, we offered to spend $100 million but you couldn't raise the match."
Many good and worthy (some much better than the ones PROPOSED) never got further because of that rule. The list that is being touted is not the final list - these are just the projects that have been certified as Centennial Challenge projects. There is no guarantee that any of them will be funded. Plus this is just 2008's list - could the NPS really obligate that many projects in one year? I doubt it.
As with much in this administration, it is just smoke and mirrors.
And therein lies a serious, potentially fatal flaw with the administration's approach to the Centennial Initiative. It's very possible that without private-sector partners no project, no matter how worthwhile, will go forward because the president's proposal requires a dollar-for-dollar match of the federal funding. So if no one wants to contribute to a Museum of the National Park Service, one proposal that is glaringly absent from the list unveiled in Yosemite, it won't get built in the near future. While the Park Service could try to fund it internally, the agency's current construction schedule is so deep that it could be years before such a facility is constructed.
That's one reason why the Centennial Initiative proposal forwarded by Representatives Nick Joe Rahall of West Virginia and Raul Grijalva of Arizona might be a better option: It would provide an additional $100 million annually for the next decade without need for a private match.
When Secretary Kempthorne and Director Bomar discussed the Centennial Initiative with reporters earlier this summer, they both talked about how the initiative would sweep across the national park system, touching all units, and that there would not be "haves" and "have nots." And yet, that is just what seems to have happened at this stage. Of the 201 projects deemed worthy, they touch only 116 park units, or less than a third of the total.
The biggest winner? Hands down that would be Yosemite, which has 16 projects among the 201. Why so many? Because The Yosemite Fund has some of the deepest, if not the deepest, pockets among the foundations that support America's national parks. Each of the 16 Yosemite projects carries The Yosemite Fund as a partner.
Among those parks shut out? Grand Canyon, which apparently has no friends with deep pockets.
True, more parks could become involved in the next nine years as more wish lists are rolled out ... if the Centennial Initiative is alive. Don't forget, Congress hasn't bought off entirely on this mission, and the next president could scuttle it long before 2016 arrives.
Beyond that, how much help would the Centennial Initiative provide towards whittling away the Park Service's $8 billion maintenance backlog? At first glance, the 201-project list would do little. That wasn't lost on the Tucson Citizen, which had this to say about the initiative:
The federal government needs to assess and address the most critical needs in our park system, which turns 100 on August 25, 2016. Instead, the Centennial Challenge is based not on the most dire circumstances but on whether parks were able to secure private partners.
The Centennial Initiative is a bold initiative, but it shouldn't be governed by money trails, nor focused solely on concrete projects. Not only should it look toward the future, it also should bolster today's NPS and national park system. And it should examine the organizational health of the National Park Service, its mission, and, dare I say, the appropriateness of each unit of the park system.
As I've previously noted, the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees long has suggested creation of a non-partisan National Park Service Centennial Commission that would be charged with, among other things, identifying an effective organizational model for the governance of the park system and Park Service.
“Enlightened national leadership must create the circumstances to begin this dialog on behalf of the broadest public interest. The commission will develop a report, or series of reports, on the status of the national park system, the issues the system faces, constraints that impact the system and challenges to be faced in the new century,” coalition member Rob Arnberger said recently.
“The commission’s work would examine alternatives for addressing these issues and constraints that must be engaged, including fiscal and human resources required to accomplish the mission of the system for the long term. The commission’s work will result in a plan…a template that the American people can look to in assuring that our most special places stay protected and special for a second century."
There remain nine years until the Park Service's centennial. While the Centennial Initiative to date has spurred interest in that celebration, much work remains to be done, both inside and outside the parameters of the initiative.