New policy will guide the National Park Service in the stewardship of natural and cultural resources at places like Mesa Verde National Park/NPS
A policy enacted last week updates the National Park Service’s guidelines for stewardship and reaffirms the agency’s “predominant” duty to protect natural and cultural resources.
Director’s Order 100, signed December 20 by Park Service Director Jonathan Jarvis, provides internal guidance for making decisions about how parks are managed. Three criteria – best available science, adherence to the law, and long-term public interest – will drive a bureau-wide shift toward interdisciplinary collaboration, increased scientific literacy, and more training.
“Our overarching goal of resource stewardship is to manage the resources under our care in an environment that is undergoing continuous change that is not yet fully understood,” Director Jarvis said in a release. “With this guidance, NPS employees will be better able to protect the extraordinary resources of the National Park System, provide visitors with transformative experiences, and ensure parks are a core of a national conservation land- and seascape.”
In particular, the order adopts two policies: the precautionary principle and adaptive management. The precautionary principle requires Park Service managers to err on the side of caution to prevent resource impairment when there is uncertainty about a decision’s impact. Adaptive management encourages adjustments to these decisions as outcomes become clearer through monitoring and better scientific understanding.
“Our staff and our visitors see ecological change in the parks every day – rapidly shrinking glaciers, plant communities in competition with non-native species, and wildlife contending with land use and habitat changes that challenge their traditional movement and migration pathways,” Director Jarvis said.
Director’s Order 100 in part updates the 1963 Leopold Report and implements recommendations from the 2012’s Revisiting Leopold: Resource Stewardship in the National Parks. It takes into account social, cultural, and demographic changes, such as increased visitation, climate change, invasive species, pollution, and new disciplines of science that have helped expand the understanding of natural and cultural systems.
While the order serves as internal guidance, park and resource management affects visitors, park partners, concession providers, and other stakeholders.
“We heard from some recreationists and concession providers worried that this policy will restrict visitor enjoyment of parks, and we heard from some environmentalists that it doesn’t do enough to protect natural and cultural resources and the values for which these parks were created,” Director Jarvis said. “I think this is the right policy to help us to meet our mission to protect and preserve parks while providing for their enjoyment today and for generations to come.”
Director’s Order 100 also calls on the agency to:
- Enhance and diversify its workforce
- Require scientific literacy of superintendents and those seeking leadership positions
- Provide resource stewardship training to its employees
- Integrate stewardship goals in its management documents
The comprehensive information and operational details to assist employees in implementing Director’s Order 100 will be developed by NPS subject matter experts in the months ahead.
Comments
I would also add that every employee be given a library of five books that detail the history of the National Park Service. These books should be read within the first year of service for all new employees. What the National Park Service needs is a dedicated and educated work force that knows the history and mission of the agency.
I offer a counterpoint to Harry. NPS employees and managers are already well-steeped in agency mission and culture. But each Park has its own unique landscapes and resources, unique problems, a complex and unique history and legislation, with unique inter-governmental relationships, tribal relationships and local constituency. It typically takes 3 years for new managers to fully understand what the issues are, how to tackle them, and what its "moving parts" are - who and what can help (or hinder) them and how to get things done. In that learning period, they can easily take inadvertent missteps, or be so distracted "putting out fires" they have little time to see the big picture, recognize festering problems or set real priorities. By the time they've learned their Park, they're looking forward to their next career step and posting elsewhere.
I'd rather see everyone reading the library of books on each Park's unique natural science and history, and its unique administrative and legislative history, on its unique role in regional or national history, and on the science that informs our understanding of it. Or simply talking to the community.
"Park units" are not interchangable! This "revolving door" of Park managers would benefit more by focussing their attention learning more about their own unique Park, less on the agency.
RodF said it very well........"Park units" are not interchangable! This "revolving door" of Park managers would benefit more by focussing their attention learning more about their own unique Park, less on the agency.
I am quite amazed when NPS sends a 'Mesa Verde type' manager to a National Seashore or a Seashore Manager to Yellowstone. Talk about upping their learning curve at the new location. Initial spot decisions by the new manager, guided by internal staff opinions may have a large ripple effect or cause a Park to regress.
With that being said let me make this observation... NPS chose David Hallac (Seashore Background) to be the Superintendent of Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area. David is the best Superintendent we've had at the Seashore in 20 years. I believe the revolving door at Cape Hatteras has stopped revolving! He is a problem solver, addresses issues that are longstanding and does not sweep problems under the 'rug'. The Islanders and those of us that are perennial visitors for the last 30+ years are glad he landed here.
The other thing that amazes me is the culture of 'burying' managers that are in trouble at their current park in another where they are out of sight. It reminds me of offensive Clergy being moved from a church in the US and 'buried' at one in Central America as if their offensive nature would somehow change for the good. NPS needs to FIRE managers that violate their responsibilities not 'BURY" them somewhere else. The days of hiding anything from the public spotlight is over! Only people that are living in a 'protected' environment are safe and NPS is one of those environments.......Jarvis is a prime example.
I totally agree with you RodF. The most important document in any park's library is a current park administrative history. This should be given to every new employee to read first. Unfortunately most of our parks do not have an administrative history. The writing of these histories of each park should be given the highest priority by the next Director of the National Park Service. As you say, "Park Units are not interchangeable" This is why having a current park administrative history for each park is so important.
While we're on the subject of writing history, let us not forget how long it takes to write it. Both of my major academic books were ten-year projects. Who in government bureaucracy wants to pay for that?
From my experience, most administrative histories are found wanting because most are done on the cheap. And yes, because they fail to put THAT national park within the context of American culture. A park is not an island within the culture. Park units may not be interchangeable, but American culture is the force governing them all. If a park superintendent better knew American culture, he or she would be a better manager from Day One.
Instead, what most superintendents know is bureaucracy. It is all they have been taught. In college today, they escaped American History and went straight into Management, picking up Women's Studies, perhaps, but little else.
I couldn't disagree more with RodF that managers should be focusing their attention "on their own unique park, less on the agency." That sounds like my students who complained about the "distribution requirement." But why should I be taking Classics and Philosophy? I'm going to be an engineer! Yes, and you're also going to be a citizen of the country--and the world. If you don't know the Big Picture, how do you hope to survive in the Small One? In the national parks, if you don't know how the national park idea began--and how the culture shaped it--how do you hope to argue with that culture what a national park is and/or should be?
I believe that is what Harry means. If you don't know the national parks from the top down first, it's a bit late to be learning them from the bottom up. I have a book that does each. Has your superintendent read either? I rest my case.
I agree with RodF and Hatarasfevr that retaining key park personel over a long timeframe is beneficial to the system. More so than a continually revolving door where each park is just a quick stepping stone to somewhere else. The organic act is not a hard concept to understand. However, it seems that certain parks remain broiled in bureaucratic gridlock that lacks creativity and foresight and this revolving door could be a major reason why it occurs. Secondly, a lot of important research specific to that park takes years, if not decades to achieve, so striving to keep that knowledge in a generational chain as employees age, and retire is important. Handing that knowledge, and research down to the next generation, or younger employees ready to take the torch that they have trained for many years to carry should be seen as beneficial to achieving the mission of the NPS.
Keep repeating that lie. Maybe it will come true again one day.
Anonymous on December 28, 2016 - 2:22pm....... I am always amazed at people with strong comments that are gutless and post as Anonymous.