You are here

Building A National Park From Scratch

Share
Mythical Glacier Canyon National Park

How would you manage mythical Glacier Canyon National Park?

If you were given 500,000 acres from which to design a national park, how would you do it, where would you start? Would you see your role as protector of this unique ecosystem, or developer?

Your landscape -- mythical Glacier Canyon National Park -- is near the northern border of the United States, with deep, boreal forests rimming plunging canyons through which rivers roar. Wolves, grizzlies, wolverines, moose, elk, mountain goats and bighorn sheep are at home here, as are golden eagles and falcons, and the lakes and rivers are flush with native trout fisheries.

It is, if you will, an untouched ecosystem. You are the final arbiter of what to do with this verdant wilderness sanctuary. How many roads would you approve, how many lodges, what activities would you deem appropriate? Would you designate portions as official wilderness, would hiking and mountain biking trails traverse the park, what fees would you charge?

Would you have multiple tiers of lodging prices, or one across-the-board style of lodging for one set fee to make it as affordable for as many as possible?

Understandably, this is an academic discussion, (unless you happen to own 500,000 acres and would give it over to the National Park System). But at the same time, it's a sociological one as well to see where we stand today. From this discusson, it might be extrapolated to the real-life discussion of how the park system we have should evolve in the 21st century.

There are those who no doubt would want to locate four or five lodges within our Glacier Canyon National Park. And possibly some who would want to locate the lodges outside the park, with only a few dead-end roads leading into the core for use in transporting backcountry travelers to trailheads and river put-ins. Others might opt for snowmobile trails and hunting seasons.

How much development is enough, and how much is too much? Is this park intended to truly preserve the natural resources and settings and provide a place for relaxation, inspiration, and rejuvenation, or is it envisioned as a human playground, one to be cut with adrenalin-pumping experiences -- hang-gliding, zip lines, BASE jumping? Would you cap visitation on a daily basis? Annual basis? 

Answer these questions and you just might see the future of the existing National Park System. More and more adrenalin sports are standing at the gate, demanding access. Other interest groups want more lodges (but at what prices?), others want to place human activities at the top of the scale, with wildlife management decisions flowing from there, and more demands in general are being placed on the national parks and what roles they should play.

Comments

If you were given 500,000 acres from which to design a national park, how would you do it, where would you start?
It's already happened, Kurt. It is called the Great Smoky Mtns National Park and the land was given to the NPS by generous residents of North Carolina and Tennessee.
And now we have to pay the NPS to use it.
Why does everything NPS related have to be focused on money? Because that is what the NPS values. Money. Not access, wilderness designation or adherence to the organic act. Money. The root of all things NPS.,
The descendants of the same folks who donated these lands to the NPS have some thoughts about this. But the NPS sure doesn't care. Money, money, money.


Sweet, if you don't like it then stay out. More room for me!


The questions somewhat imply a natural resources / scenery park, not a historic / cultural park, so that's how I'll answer.

I'm almost the complete opposite of NormalReaction. I'm a preservationist/conservationist, who would design for sustainable/resilient ecosystem first, then develop to maximize visitation enjoyment while minimizing impacts to the ecosystem and to other visitors. I don't see roads and major facilities as the answers to all visitor needs, but want more small, tactical solutions to reduce barriers to enjoyment and reduce the impacts of enjoyment. How do I encourage many visitors to ride a shuttle instead of drive their car, or ride a bike even if they might get tired and need a ride back? Even my geometry ends up being the inverse of NR's, with a rim instead of hub, and probably fewer spokes.

500,000 acres is ~25x30 miles. not big enough for large wildlife, and certainly not big enough to cut up into smaller fragments by putting roads and major development in the middle. I'd conserve/protect the core, so I'd keep the only main road around the perimeter as a scenic parkway (with sufficient visual buffers on the outside of the parkway), with some gaps, tunnels or wildlife overpasses if necessary for connectivity to nearby FS, Parks Canada, etc. wildlands. I would have a few roads as spokes to interior trailheads and specific features (think Badger Pass & Glacier Point), but those spokes would have shuttles/trams at least during peak season, so they wouldn't need massive parking lots in the middle of the park and at every trailhead. Those road spokes would have parallel paved bike paths, and the shuttles would have bike racks. Some of the other spokes would be mountain bike trails, some might be bike/tram only. I'd keep parking, stores, etc., on the perimeter road, generally at the intersections of the main spokes.

I think such a park could eventually support 2-4 lodges dispersed around the perimeter (located by features that occur near the perimeter), along with at least that many developed large campgrounds (even hookups in parts of the campgrounds to reduce the running of generators, and wifi and cell coverage in these developed areas). That lodging and camping would be only 1/2 - 1 mile in from the perimeter road: enough to buffer the noise and preserve the nature views, but keep all that night activity outside of the core for wildlife. Concessionaires could offer a range of price/comfort points both within and between lodges; I wouldn't maximize income by making everything priced like the Ahwahnee or Lake Louise. I'd also have smaller, less-developed campgrounds (think old-school FS campgrounds with vault toilets, water every few sites, and overbuilt tables) a couple of miles in on a few of the spoke roads, some or all tent camping only (_large_ trailers & motorhomes and generators at the larger perimeter campgrounds only). There would be backcountry camping for backpackers, and maybe even along a multi-day mountain bike loop. Depending on the wildlife, I might allow a couple of groups of seasonal yurts or tents (with mattresses, vault toilets, and dinner) in part of the back country for folks who can hike but can't carry large packs. They would have to be set up to keep the per visitor impact less than that of backpackers (hence the toilets).

I would not have any legislated wilderness, but the core wildlife area would be de facto wilderness by being managed for the wildlife. Motorized vehicles would be prohibited from much of the core, and alternatives such as shuttles would reduce the impacts of parking lots & such where not prohibited, and make it easier for folks to enjoy the park without their vehicles. My design also greatly reduces road use in the core at night, when more animals are on the move and affected by traffic. It is likely that bicycles would be prohibited from trails in some areas in some seasons, but allowed in others. Especially sensitive areas might be closed to hiking as well, seasonally if that is sufficient.

What I'm trying for is a set of facilities that make enjoyment easier for a wide range of folks, including the current majority who never make it 200 yards from their vehicle, while mitigating parking lots, noise, & such that we are trying to get away from. How do I make a shuttle up a spoke more attractive than driving your own vehicle and fighting for parking or just never stopping? How do I make it ok to try riding a bike even if you haven't for decades? For camping, I'd want a concessionaire with low-cost rentals of basic camping equipment: simple tents, sleeping bags, air mattresses, propane stoves & pots & dishes (also kayaks, bicycles, small boats, etc.). This would let non-traditional visitors try camping, and help folks who fly across the country and rent a car to get there. There would be hiking trails of varying lengths from shuttle stops to park features, some ADA-compliant, and a sparse mesh of backcountry trails to allow multi-day backpacking trips. With the shuttle system, neither day hikes nor multi-night backpacking (or mountain biking) need be loops, helping spread such visitors across more of the mid-country (not developed, but not core protected area). Maybe being able to spend 3-4 days backpacking across the park, then a 2 hour perimeter shuttle ride back to where his vehicle is parked, will make SPB willing to pay $5 a person above the entrance fee for the trip?

Ranger programs would be not just nature hikes and campground campfire presentations. I'd want narrated tours on the shuttles, maybe even a night time tram tour viewing wildlife (not every night). I'd also want programs like intro to camping on some Friday afternoons (how to pitch your rented tent!) with a simple happy/social hour, and even occasional organized / coordinated newbie weekends (6th grade camp for groups of kids and parents). Yes many of us who grew up camping enjoy it and know how to do it, but many others would enjoy it. The equipment investment and learning curve make it hard for folks who have never been camping to find out if they like it.
I would be fine with one or more concessionaires just inside or adjacent to the park having zip lines, BASE jumping, etc., ways some people enjoy the outdoors and nature. Those activities are mostly daytime, so have less effect on buffers and some connectivity. I would keep them out of sight of the features other visitors came to see: the zip line doesn't go through the spray of Old Faithful or a major waterfall, or across the Grand Canyon. I draw the line at go carts & putt putt golf and unrelated (in my opinion) activities of Gatlinburg & Estes Park ("get off my lawn" says the old guy): there will be plenty in gateway towns a couple of miles away.

Entrance fees are a hard call, as I want to encourage a sense of park ownership in all citizens. I consider most of the conservation for the enjoyment of future generations aspect to be taxpayer business, but am ok with user fees covering current operating costs. To the extent that equipment rental, shuttles, newbie programs, etc., help reduce other barriers, I don't think $20-50 for a weekend or week visit for a family or small group is a barrier to visitation even from folks who don't go to parks. This is a large natural resource destination park, not a small national monument or urban-adjacent recreation area. [Compared to the current NPS fee structure, I'd lower the fee for folks entering on public transportation or bikes relative to that for private vehicles.] I wouldn't want separate fees for the shuttle system or ranger programs; such activities i want to encourage would be covered as part of the entrance fee. I'd have different prices for different campground amenities, including a nominal fee for backcountry camping permits (sorry, SBP). Most sites would accept reservations, but a fraction would be walk-up.


SBP--
I look at it another way: the fine citizens of North Carolina and Tennessee don't have to pay for the management of the land and facilities by themselves; not the trail maintenance, not rebuilding after the landslides and road washouts, not the protection from poaching, not cleaning the restrooms, even though those locals are the majority of the users. NPS (in the name of all of us US citizens including locals) has to pay for that, while locals get the ease of enjoyment of having the park within an hour or 2 drive. How much would your state legislatures or county governments allocate to manage the lands? What would Cades Cove look like today if the land hadn't been gifted to and then managed/protected by NPS? What would be on Clingman's Dome? Heck, how many of the watersheds would have been logged and a lot less enjoyable for you or me to hike in?

The GRSM establishing legislation prohibits entry fees, so your beef is with camping fees, (specifically backcountry camping permits). We all understand by now that you think such use should be free in GRSM, with everything paid out of the NPS federal appropriations budget. I'd be happy if Congress decided to fund all of NPS that way. Heck, I'd be happy if Congress funded all parks so that they didn't need entrance fees, only camping and other usage fees. But, from the perspective of many other parks, GRSM is something of a giant sucking sound. There are other parks with base funding of <$1 per visitor (_well_ below GRSM's appropriation) that still have to protect the natural and cultural resources for future generations, and maintain & interpret them for the enjoyment & education of current visitors. By law Rec Fee (80% retained entrance fees) cannot be used for salaries of permanent employees, so they can't fund interp rangers. They have to be spent on projects directly benefiting visitors, so can't support natural resource management, or routine & cyclic maintenance. They cannot be obligated before they are accrued, and less than 20% can be carried over from one year to the next, so parks can't save up for larger expensive projects. That's all dictated by law, not NPS policy choice. When such a park needs a new restroom, it's SOL if that costs more than 115% of the annual rec fee income: put the request into the queue at the region and maybe in 8-10 years it will get to the top of the list.

In the spirit of Kurt's post, I'd actually like to read what _your_ dream GRSM would be. What would be your ideal for the set of natural and cultural features at GRSM? How would you change access and usage? What if any of the threats to the resources would you address (hemlock wooly adelgid, nitrogen deposition, stream & lake acidification, etc.)? Which of the old farm houses & such would you preserve, and which would you let decay in place? What about small family graveyards? I'm not worried about how to pay for it, nor if it is possible to get from the current to that state, I'm curious what your vision for the park is. I think I'd learn something about GRSM.


Let me know when your park is up and running because I WANT TO VACATION/CAMP THERE. :-)


The long-winded anonymous addressing SBP was me (tomp2). Somehow when I log in from one computer I get to be tomp2, but logged in from another computer I am an anonymous coward.


Dear Anonymous,
During the shutdown the citizens of TN did pay for the operation of the park. However,
My dream would to one day be able to get on this blog and not have cloaked NPS employees defending their lifestyles and bottomless money needs. 79000 out of a purported 10 million visitors pay to use the GRSM. They are called backpackers. Yet the Cades Cove loop road remains free. It is outside of the oft cited deed restriction but is kept free because the collective chambers of commerce in Gatlinburg and Sevier Co would never allow it. It would keep rednecks from constantly circling the 12 mile loop with doors open creating bear jams and drinking beer illegally while throwing cans out their windows. And if rednecks can't circle the loop then the buffets and go kart tracks and outlet malls in pigeon forge would see a reduction in hotel night visits.
It's all about money. And if that respect, the NPS and Sevier County chambers of commerce are in league. They have both whored themselves to the highest bidders, that is the collective mission of the NPS and those who profit from these public lands.
So my vision would be to remove economics from the National Parks and protect them first from the rapists in the NPS and the economic rapists in the private sectors. Concessionaires drive the fee impetus presently. When did they get such sway? I'd say about the time Jon Jarvis brother became one of them, wouldn't you, Jarvis?


I'd give the money back. The national parks we currently have are so poorly mismanaged, we do not need to add any more to the system!


Add comment

CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.

The Essential RVing Guide

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

The National Parks RVing Guide, aka the Essential RVing Guide To The National Parks, is the definitive guide for RVers seeking information on campgrounds in the National Park System where they can park their rigs. It's available for free for both iPhones and Android models.

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

You'll also find stories about RVing in the parks, some tips if you've just recently turned into an RVer, and some planning suggestions. A bonus that wasn't in the previous eBook or PDF versions of this guide are feeds of Traveler content: you'll find our latest stories as well as our most recent podcasts just a click away.

So whether you have an iPhone or an Android, download this app and start exploring the campgrounds in the National Park System where you can park your rig.