Advisory group says Park Service needs better science

A new report calls on the National Park Service to commit more resources to science, including reinstating an in-house team of researchers to monitor park management and ecology. "Science" - an umbrella term that includes everything from research to scientists to educational information provided to park visitors - has been a hot topic for the agency, which has been accused by outside groups of undervaluing the discipline.

The report, endorsed by NPS Director Fran Mainella, was submitted to the agency by the National Park System Advisory Board, a group of academics, lawyers and others with environmental expertise. It was posted on the NPS Web site last week after a group of retired agency employees accused Mainella of delaying its release.

"What we lacked until now was adequate coordination," said Douglas Wheeler, chairman of the advisory board and an environmental lawyer at Hogan & Hartson LLP in Washington. Research projects at different parks tend to be undertaken when funding becomes available, instead of in a systematic way that would allow NPS to prioritize projects, he said.

NPS uses scientists from the U.S. Geological Survey to monitor the National Park system. The report suggests wildlife and ecosystems would be better understood and managed if NPS had its own cadre of scientists, enabling the agency to develop and monitor a cohesive body of research. The report also recommends that the agency collect and disseminate more information about the parks; one suggestion was to create an electronic encyclopedia of U.S. natural history.

The report noted that "It is critical that the National Park Service raise to a new level its commitment to the fundamental purpose of preserving the parks unimpaired for all time."

The report's suggestions were welcomed by Michael Soukup, associate director for natural resource stewardship and science at the Park Service, who said science and the agency have always had a "tenuous" relationship. "You protect national parks by having long understandings. You can't do that without having folks on-site over long periods of time," he said.

He added that NPS relies on the support of USGS and universities, which are generally engaged in short-term projects for the agency. Prior to most of the federal government's scientists moving to the USGS in the mid-1990s, the Park Service had an in-house team that provided long-term perspectives on parks' ecosystems. "We used to have people who stood in place for decades and developed a sense of what's natural variance versus what seems to be out of kilter," said Soukup.

While the report contains strong recommendations for change, it also found that NPS' Natural Resource Challenge, a 1999 initiative that reemphasized natural resource protection, has been largely successful.

Still, Bill Wade, the coordinator for the Coalition of Concerned National Park Service Retirees, said NPS purposely delayed releasing the report because agency leaders were wary of the suggestion to devote more resources to science.

Lisa Harrison, a spokeswoman for the agency, said the report, which is dated March 2004, was scheduled to be posted Sept. 21, but due to a technical glitch, it wasn't. Harrison said she was not aware that it had not been posted until last week. "Those concerns expressed are unwarranted," she said.

"It's easy for them to say they're not delaying it, they're just reviewing it, but it begs the question, why does it take seven months to do all that? … The only assumption that can be made is the administration and Department of Interior don't want it released," said Wade. In the past, his group of about 350 former NPS employees has called attention to what it considers an alarming trend away from valuing science and protecting natural resources.

"Advisory boards give you a long-term picture of the future for the next two-and-a-half decades, and we weigh that against other issues like operations needs and homeland security…. We're hoping to work toward these goals in the long-term future," said David Barna, chief of public affairs for the agency.

Calling the retiree group a "tempest in the teapot," the Advisory Board's Wheeler noted that the report had a positive assessment of the Natural Resource Challenge. "Science is better supported in [NPS] than it has been. Is it enough? Probably not. But it's not fair to say science isn't getting enough attention," he said.

Outside observers were more skeptical. "The Bush administration has not emphasized science … to the same extent that has occurred under previous administrations, both Republican and Democratic," said Howard McCurdy, professor of public administration with an expertise in science policy at American University. He is also an NPS volunteer.