|
�i
<br />i
<br />I
<br />of park funds came from nonfederal sources. Now, private dol-
<br />lars —and volunteer hours —cover a quarter of Great Smoky's
<br />annual expenses.
<br />But the park is hardly thriving. Like many of the National
<br />Park System's 388 units, Great Smoky Mountains has a budget
<br />inadequate to both serving its visitors and protecting its
<br />resources. And maintaining roads and rehabilitating struc-
<br />tures already show a combined backlog of $150 million.
<br />Some of Great Smoky's 177 historic buildings— including the
<br />nations largest collection of pioneer log cabins —are in desperate
<br />need of repair. The park endures other problems: Invasive
<br />pests, such as the woolly adelgid, blight Fraser firs andhemlocks;
<br />poachers steal native plants for the floral trade; and traffic con-
<br />gestion on peakweekends can turn the road to Cades Cove into
<br />a movable parking lot.
<br />Similar problems besiege almost every heavily visited
<br />park —and have done so for many years. This administration,
<br />like its predecessor, inherited them. But now many career pro -
<br />fassinnals within the National
<br />Park Service feel that they are
<br />under siege, as well as the parks
<br />they manage. Morale in the
<br />agency is clearly in decline,
<br />though employees are reluctant
<br />At Shenandoah National
<br />Parl<, where the brook trout
<br />fishery has been damaged
<br />by acid rain, pari< worl<ers
<br />monitor water conditions.
<br />administrators who in August 2003 addressed an extraordinary
<br />letter to President Bush and Gale A. Norton, the secretary of
<br />the Interior, asserting that the administration's policies were
<br />"contrary to the mission of the National Park Service." Signed
<br />by four former Park Service directors and 118 retired regional
<br />directors, superintendents, chief rangers; and other managers,
<br />the letter cited poor air quality and intrusive energy develop-
<br />ment in and around the parks, then went on to deplore "orga-
<br />nizational restructuring and management practices ... that
<br />devalue or ignore the advice and opinions of professional
<br />career leaders." This had prompted, the writers contended, "the
<br />premature departure of a number of highly respected senior
<br />employees, either from forced moves or from frustration lead-
<br />ing to retirements."
<br />One of those employees was Karen Wade, who left the
<br />Park Service last September after a career of 40 years, most
<br />recently as director of the Rocky Mountain regional office, with
<br />supervision over some 90 units in eight states. "I resigned," Wade
<br />told me, `because I felt I could no longer serve this administra-
<br />tion as a senior manager. Our advice was neither sought nor con-
<br />sidered when we offered it.
<br />The letter to the President and the secretary also accused the
<br />administration of "strangling the very core of park stewardship,
<br />sidestepping the important issues that are facing the parks,
<br />and ignoring the operational budgets of the parks.... [and] not
<br />following the mandate to preserve the essence of the places that
<br />collectively represent our national heritage. "
<br />to speak of it for the record, and several senior officials asked
<br />that their names be withheld from publication.
<br />Former Park Service officials can afford to be less guarded.
<br />Michael V Finley, who retired in 2001 after serving as superin-
<br />tendent at Everglades, Yosemite, and Yellowstone national
<br />parks, told me, "I was in the Park Service under six presidents.
<br />It was never as bad as this." Then, as an afterthought, Finley
<br />added, "I guess you'd rather be writing an inspiring story about
<br />the national parks and the Park Service, but writing an obituary
<br />can be important, too."
<br />Finley is one of a coalition of former senior Park Service
<br />26 PRESERVATION JanuarylFebruary 2004
<br />THROUGHOUT THE PARK SERVICE TODAY, and among the
<br />retired officials who signed that letter, one issue provokes great
<br />concern: the perception that the administration disregards sci-
<br />entific opinion in making policy decisions, even when these
<br />adversely affect the health of the national parks. They "have
<br />launched an attack on science in the parks," says Roger G.
<br />Kennedy, who served as director of the Park Service from 1993
<br />to 1997. "They don't trust the professionals."
<br />Over the years, air pollution has ranked as one of the most
<br />serious threats to the health of the parks and, in some cases, of
<br />their visitors. The agency's own Air Resources Division issued
<br />a report in 2002 stating that "air pollution currently impairs vis-
<br />ibility to some degree in every national park." The worst visi-
<br />bility occurs at Mammoth Cave, Shenandoah, and Great Smoky
<br />Mountains national parks. Brook trout fisheries at Shenan-
<br />doah have been damaged by acidification, and high levels of
<br />ozone have injured foliage in the Appalachian parks as well as
<br />at Sequoia, Kings Canyon, and Yosemite in California. A concern
<br />for the health of visitors and employees at some parks, notably
<br />Acadia, has compelled officials to post ozone alerts when ambi-
<br />ent levels exceed standards set by the EPA.
<br />The Park Service has put much effort into studying the
<br />effects of air pollution on parks and monuments. It has a team
<br />in the national capital area that deans and waxes the monuments
<br />
|