Science In Our National Parks

When national parks were first established there was little understanding of the resources they contained. Park boundaries often failed to include the complete ecosystems and often did not encompass enough land to support critical habitats. Over the years this lack of understanding has led to resource management issues, loss of resources and in some cases small problems have turned into large ones.
It is unquestionable that the mandate of 1916 that established the National Park Service and protected irreplaceable examples of our nation’s ecological, cultural and historic heritage, but the current science and research program of the national parks is fragmented and lacks the direction that it needs in order to research, understand and preserve these national treasures. The current science program in the park service also has to share its funding with the resource management division. This collective management approach often discounts or reduces the importance of one or the other of these very valuable activities, research and management.
The current Park Service research and resource management practice is divided into three levels as follows:
I. In the Washington office
II. In 10 regional offices
III. In individual park units
The Washington office develops policies and standards, sets priorities, and coordinates research programs. The 10 regional offices conduct and coordinate most of the research that take place within each of the individual park units leaving us with not one plan but ten different plans, each one different in every way. Through contracts and agreements some parks arrange to have research conducted with parties outside of the park system often including universities or independent researchers, while in other parks most of the research is conducted by park personnel. The National Park Service maintains a smaller research staff than any other federal agency making it almost impossible for park personnel to conduct the necessary research.
In the early 1960’s, when the first assessments of the NPS science programs were being conducted, two reports gave significant recommendations regarding the current science program. Both the Leopold report (named after A. Starker Leopold) and the Robbins report (named after William J. Robbins) recommended strengthening the science program. The Robbins report of 1963 states:

Research by the National Park Service has lacked continuity, coordination, and depth. It has been marked by expediency rather than long-term considerations. It has in general lacked direction, has been fragmented between divisions and branches, has been applied piecemeal, has suffered because of a failure to recognize the distinctions between research and administrative decision-making, and has failed to ensure the implementation of the results of research in operational management…It is inconceivable that property so unique and valuable as the national parks, used by such a large number of people, and regarded internationally as one of the finest examples of our national spirit, should not be provided adequately with competent research scientists…as elementary insurance for the preservation and best use of the parks.

Although this report clearly stated the inadequacies found in the current science program there was little done to address the recommendations made in the report. Later in the 1970’s the parks were still plagued with the problems of inadequate funding and argument over who would direct such work. Again in 1977 another report, the Allen and Leopold report, recommended that the NPS give science and research more say in planning and policy making, and again little action was taken. Groups such as the National Parks Conservation Association and The Conservation Foundation published more reports criticizing the management plan and drew widespread public attention on the threats to the parks. Then in 1980, under congressional pressure the NPS conducted an extensive and comprehensive assessment of the parks and their threats. This report documented serious, extensive problems in the parks and recommended these actions: conduct a comprehensive inventory of park resources; establish accurate baseline data and conduct monitoring to detect changes in resources and ecosystems; focus attention on threats associated with adjacent lands; and improve the ability of park managers to quantify and document the effects of various threats. Ironically these were the same suggestions made by previous independent reviews of the parks management plan. Nine years later another report known as the Gordon report criticized the NPS for not fulfilling its obligations to the management and research of their resources. In all over a dozen major reviews over a period of 30 years had all suggested the same thing, and all met with little or no efforts to implement the recommendations.
Our parks today are faced with a myriad of threats. Often the unique qualities, attributes, and resources that led us to preserve such parks are being destroyed. They are subject to a diverse array of human influences, damage to air and water quality, noise pollution, erosion, and an array of inappropriate activities that threaten the aesthetic characteristics and jeopardize the integrity and stability of their ecosystems. For example, the Exxon Valdez oil spill of 1989 severely damaged coastal habitats in Kenai Fjords and Katmai national parks. The extent of the damage is unknown because inadequate research, understanding, and cataloging of park species and ecosystems had not yet been conducted. These are but some examples of the importance that research and science plays in understanding our parks and their resources. It is critical to understand cause and effect relationships within our parks in order to understand if a change to that system is a natural fluctuation or if it is an unintended consequence of something else. The concept that parks are isolated and removed from adjacent human influences is faulty. Boundaries alone will do nothing to ensure the health of our parks. We need long term monitoring, research, data collection and critical and systemic analysis of information in order to understand the threats to our parks. Our world is dynamic and ever changing, we need a plan to include science and research in our parks that is able to adapt and change with our world.
The National Parks Conservation Association’s Center for State of the Parks program was developed in 2002 to assist the parks in assessing threats to the parks and understanding their resources. They frequently conduct studies within parks to determine threats to the parks and to advocate for more funding for research. These studies are then made public and can be viewed at http://www.npca.org/stateoftheparks/reports.html. The reports and database created by these studies makes available critical information for congress and the public in order to provide up to date and accurate information needed for decision making and funding.
Since the national parks are our canaries in the coal mine and often are the first places that experience quantifiable information about environmental changes and threats they provide critical information regarding global environmental change. It is obvious that our parks have the potential to enlighten us about our natural world, yet this potential has yet to be realized and tapped. This is why it is vitally important that they develop a thorough, comprehensive, and ongoing research plan that involves NPS researchers and scientists as well as independent scientists in order to ensure its longevity and accuracy. The time has come to realize the potential that our parks have to offer for our understanding not only of the parks themselves but of our changing world and its natural processes. It stands to reason that if the National Park Service was created and charged to protect our most treasured natural resources science should play a crucial role in that process.

Works Cited:
States., United. Science and the national parks. Washington, D.C: National Academy, 1992. Print.