Reorganization

Are we flourishing yet?

Natural resource management will flourish if sufficient numbers of well-trained staff are provided at all levels of the restructured NPS." That was the fundamental statement of the 1995 Report of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Natural Resource Management in the National Park Service, convened at the behest of then Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks George Frampton. He had approved the 1994 NPS restructuring plan upon the condition that the Park Service make "natural resource management flourish" in the future.

Restructuring was supposed to accomplish a shift of resources to the lowest levels to help parks meet their responsibilities, and some of this happened. At the end of 1996, there were more natural resource management professionals in parks than in 1995. As expected with this reorganization, significantly fewer resource professionals were in support offices, including the Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Directorate, at the end of 1996 than in 1995. However, the numbers do not paint the entire picture.

Many parks are now doing what former central office staff once did and finding they have less time to accomplish their own park needs. Ironically, the greater the expertise in the field, the greater the demand the field resource managers have for technical assistance. Staff that remain in central offices find themselves less able to provide service to the field, due to fewer numbers and the demands of the new and different bureaucracies that have developed in place of regional offices. Coordination and consistency between offices is a struggle and technical expertise in central offices, and in some offices of the USGS Biological Resources Division, has decreased dramatically.

There are also several successes to report. Some of the increase in natural resource positions in the field has come from superintendents who have voluntarily restructured their own workforces. More parks are sharing staff. Some new professional "circuit rider" positions have been established, providing expertise to several parks. Remaining project funds appear increasingly to be going to small parks that had trouble competing under the old system. Both clusters in the Midwest have chosen to assess their own park bases to create new sources of funds for critical projects. Parks in the Northeast have developed a Natural Resources Strategic Plan that calls for no net loss in natural resource positions or funding. The managers support the plan, and it is working. The lack of clear central office structure has also allowed ad hoc personnel assignments on strategic issues, such as aircraft overflights in the Intermountain Region.

The picture as a whole shows some promise, but many in the ranks are disillusioned. Our preoccupation with restructuring in times of limited budgets has precluded the major reinvention that we had hoped for.

Other articles in the "Meeting Demands" chapter: