Editor's note: Harry Butowsky spent 36 years working for the National Park Service as an historian. In the following op-ed, he outlines concerns he has with the current direction the National Park Service is being taken.
As we begin 2015, which marks the 99th year since the establishment of the National Park Service and National Park System, some troubling trends are more and more apparent. A short review of recent articles should give everyone who supports our parks reason to pause and think about the future.
For example, a recent article in National Parks Traveler, Mount Rainier National Park's Staffing Woes Impact Winter Fun at Paradise, deserves notice. According to this article: "One of the busiest weeks of winter has brought heavy snows to Mount Rainier National Park in Washington state, but staffing woes have closed the sledding and snow play areas at Paradise, frustrating locals and businesses in the areas close to the Nisqually Entrance in the park's southwestern corner."
In addition, a recent press release from the National Parks and Conservation Association stated the following: "The National Park System has been damaged by compounded budget cuts over recent years. The October 2013 16-day government shutdown came on top of a long-term pattern of declining budgets followed by the damaging and indiscriminate across-the-board sequester cut. This pattern threatens the long-term protection of our national treasures and the countless local economies that depend on American families and international visitors having a safe and inspiring experience."
The simple fact of the matter is that the defense authorization bill, recently signed by President Obama, creates seven new national parks and expands nine existing parks, adding roughly 120,000 acres to the park system. The legislation, however, provides no additional funding for the expansion.
These stories raise an obvious question. How long can the nation continue to expand the National Park System and not fund our existing and new parks to the minimum level that the American people deserve and the resources require? When will we reach the breaking point, or perhaps are we there now? Parks are popular and important but what is the meaning of our National Park System when we have so many parks that they cannot be managed and supported? Can we continue to expand our system of national parks forever with no comparable increase in staffing and funding to operate and maintain those parks?
These reports are issued and then forgotten. They go nowhere because they do not represent serious consideration and hard thinking about how many parks we need and how many we can manage in the current fiscal climate.
This is a question that those of us who support the National Park System need to address. This is the question that the National Park Service should address. Over the past several years we have had been many reports and proposals on how to manage the future of the National Park System. Several reports over the last 10 years have provided a vision for the Service’s second century. A Call to Action (2011); America’s Great Outdoors: A Promise to Future Generations (2011); the National Parks Second Century Commission Report, Advancing the National Park Idea (2009); and The Future of America’s National Parks (the Centennial Report, 2007). These reports are issued and then forgotten. They go nowhere because they do not represent serious consideration and hard thinking about how many parks we need and how many we can manage in the current fiscal climate.
Today, the National Park Service lacks the leadership it needs to survive and prosper in today's fiscal climate. The management of the National Park Service lacks the will and insight needed to make the important decisions that will address the lack of resources needed to maintain our parks.
The problems of today are not difficult to discern. The national parks need to have an adequate number of rangers to provide for the safety of the visiting public. Roads, bathrooms and other public facilities need to be kept in a state of repair. Park visitor centers need to be manned by National Park Service employees who can respond to questions and help visitors enjoy their park experience. The Service needs sufficient numbers of professional cultural and natural resource managers to work with the parks and to serve the visiting public. At this time the service is losing the very professional staff it so urgently requires through retirement and buyouts.
So what can be done at this time? To start I recommend the following initial steps.
1. We should not stop the expansion of the system, as time moves on and new areas of historical and natural significance become apparent, but let us do so in a rational manner and not through large and unfunded omnibus bills. We have a process to ensure that parks are thoroughly studied, national significance and suitability and feasibility requirements are met. Let us follow our process.
Today, the National Park Service lacks the leadership it needs to survive and prosper in today's fiscal climate. The management of the National Park Service lacks the will and insight needed to make the important decisions that will address the lack of resources needed to maintain our parks.
2. At this critical time, the National Park Service with the support of Congress needs to examine the total number of national parks to determine which can be transferred to state, local or private communities to manage. Not all parks and historic sites are equal. Some will do quite well under the management of state and local jurisdictions. Indeed, many poorly managed and funded sites will do better.
3. The National Park Service also needs to implement a zero-based budgeting system that will look at all of the Regional and Washington, D.C., offices and programs to determine what is the value of the money we spend on these programs and what is the value that is returned to the American people for this effort. If a program or position does not produce tangible results, then it should be eliminated.
4. The National Park Service maintains many grant programs which are popular and worthy to many people. Some of these programs include the American Battlefield, Historic Black Colleges & Universities, Japanese American Confinement Sites, Native American Graves Protection & Repatriation Act, and National Center for Preservation Technology, Preserve America, Save America's Treasures and Tribal Heritage. These programs were started years ago for good and worthwhile reasons, but do they need to continue? At the very least, the National Park Service needs to ask this question.
The National Park Service has budgeted thousands of dollars for public relations campaigns to celebrate its 100th anniversary 2016. While this will serve as an effective way to gain public support for the National Park Service, a portion of this funding ought to be diverted to thoroughly examine the National Park System to ensure the longevity and health of our parks. We need to eliminate any duplication and waste that may be present to effectively manage our scarce resources (including both funding and personnel) in a more strategic and logical manner.
We cannot do more with less. In the final analysis, if we do nothing then we can only sit by and watch the entire system spiral down and collapse under poor management, excessive numbers and waste. I do not believe this should be the legacy of Stephan Mather, Horace Albright and the founders of the National Park Service in the 21st century. The American people deserve better.
Dr. Harry A. Butowsky retired on June 30, 2012, from the National Park Service in Washington, D.C. where he worked as an historian and manager for the National Park Service History e-Library web site. He is the author of World War II in the Pacific, a National Historic Landmark Study, six other landmark studies, as well as 60 articles on military, labor, science and constitutional history. Dr. Butowsky teaches History of World War I and World War II at George Mason University. His Ph.D. is from the University of Illinois.
Dr. Butowsky manages npshistory.com, which contains thousands of NPS reports and articles.
Comments
Sorry, but the support or opposition to park proposals is NOT a unilateral function of NPS. Testimony on legislative proposals must be approved by the Department of the Interior and the Office of management and Budget before it is given to Congress. Moreover, there have been many instances when park proposals were opposed in testimony, yet still passed by Congress. Look, for example, at virtually any new park authorized during the Reagan years. But it is also important to know that Congressional Committee staff are generally acutely aware of the support or opposition of the Service or the Administration soon after a study has been completed. The expedient move, then, is to simply not schedule hearings on a proposal that will be strongly opposed -- proposed parks generally have enough support in their host districts and States that no Member of Congress wants to be associated with one that fails.
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