An Interpretive New Deal — In the beginning, we were all the same — generalist hunter-gatherers, each family or community group responsible for collecting their livelihoods from nature’s larder. But with the serendipitous domestication of plants and animals, our generalist past slowly began to wither.

It soon became possible for one family to grow enough food to feed not only themselves but other families too. Those who were not compelled to farm began to concentrate in villages or cities and specialize in other trades — the world’s first artisans.

As these artisans moved away from food production, the more vulnerable they became to shortages in the food supply. In a drought year, the farmer’s family might be able to grow enough food for themselves but not enough to trade for the artisan’s handicrafts. After assessing the grim reality of this predicament, the artisan is beset with choices: lower the trade value of your goods so that you can put something meager on your family’s table or be starved out of your livelihood. Such are the facts of life in a stratified state society, and it should not come as a surprise that the rules have not changed appreciably from the Neolithic to the present day.

Looking upon the state of interpretation in the National Park Service today, there are many striking parallels to the struggling artisans of millennia past. And though many of these hardships are not endemic to interpreters, for the purposes of this column I live in a Tilden-centric universe. For the most part, gone are the days of the jack-of-all-trades park ranger. And among the myriad specializations that the ranger profession has splintered into, interpretation seems to frequently find itself in what historian Barry Mackintosh characterizes as a constant “state of crisis” (from Interpretation in the National Park Service: A Historical Perspective [1986]).

On Feb. 15, 2004, somewhat disheartened by the paucity of interpretive positions being advertised on USAJOBS, I began to keep a record of all permanent park ranger (0025 series) vacancy announcements.

Though the results are far from scientific, they do seem to confirm that, at least in the 0025 realm, interpreter positions are on the decline. During the past six months, 16 permanent field interpreter positions have been advertised. In addition, 10 supervisory interpreter positions have been announced.

By contrast (and I certainly do not intend to minimize the importance of protection rangers or superintendent/management assistants but we share the same series and thus are fodder for comparison), during the same six-month period, there were announcements for 95 permanent field protection rangers, 40 supervisory protection rangers and 48 superintendent/management assistants. And perhaps ominously for the future of field-level interpretation, there were also announcements for 14 permanent and 18 term park guides.

Sixteen field interpreters, 10 interpretive supervisors and 32 park guides in six months. These numbers are, to say the least, discouraging for interpreters, but they are not new trends. I chose to highlight staffing because it was one tangible that I was able to quantify, but it is certainly not the profession’s only shortcoming — there are crusty visitor center exhibits of avocado green and burnt orange approaching their golden jubilee; there are waysides in need of replacement; there are trail guides and site bulletins that go unpublished from lack of funding; there are schools turned away from understaffed education programs; the list goes on and on. Interpretation is certainly not expendable to a park operation, but its quality and vitality are permitted to wither in fiscal droughts.

Is there a solution to this feast or famine conundrum? Perhaps. Natural resources has successfully implemented its Natural Resource Challenge to improve the state of air, water, geologic and biologic resources in the parks and revitalize and expand natural resource programs. To date, more than $100 million has been appropriated to meet the challenge.

Cultural Resources is seeking to improve the state of many archaeological and historical sites through the Vanishing Treasures Initiative with a requested appropriation of $60 million over 10 years. Perhaps it is time to consider the comprehensive improvement of interpretive services in national parks through a similar nationally funded initiative over and beyond already strapped park budgets. Call it an Interpretive New Deal or something similarly pithy, but a 10-year campaign to rehab antiquated visitor centers, print new interpretive publications, expand community education and outreach programs, and replenish lapsed interpretive staffs would pay huge dividends, both to the public and to the profession.

And though it might only be a temporary reprieve, the profession and the visitor would at least be better off at the beginning of the next famine than they were at the beginning of the present one.

Maintenance

Maintenance and Resource Protection Team Building — The idea that facility and maintenance operations are a resource protection tool is a mainstream concept that is accepted servicewide, especially when one considers the level of effort and dollars that goes toward environmental protection programs and employee training.

Environmental park audits and the Environmental Management System are just a couple programs designed to ensure that facility and maintenance operations manage environmental risks, specifically to ensure that the activities and materials needed to keep a park facility management program effective and efficient, does not adversely affect or harm the staff doing the work or the resources that are being maintained.

However, it is important to expand this concept or relationship between facility and maintenance operations and resource protection. Maintenance management is complex and can easily adversely affect the full range of resources a park as whole has been tasked to protect and preserve.

Certainly, improper use and storage of hazardous materials is the most obvious, but maintenance and repair of historic structures, lack of routine and cyclic maintenance of roads drainage structures, failure of underground water and sewage systems, poorly planned construction projects, emergency repairs requiring excavations, all have the potential of significantly harming or even destroying critical natural and cultural resources. Fortunately, maintenance staffs are fully aware of these risks and do everything possible to avoid doing anything that will harm the facilities and associated resources. When something does go wrong it is usually a result of a lack of resources or unforeseen circumstances and not a lack of planning, training or desire to do the best job possible.

The understanding by all park staff that a maintenance operation plays a key role in the operation and protection of critical park resources is important. With this understanding maintenance staffs are more readily included in overall park planning and operational strategies at all levels. Effective interdivisional relationships are enhanced and play a large role in sending a positive message to maintenance field staff that their work is important and critical to effective management and operation of the park and the resources it protects. Positive and effective interdivisional relationships allow for better communications between work groups, better problem solving and sharing of available resources.

My experience has been that the day-to-day grind of keeping facilities operating, maintaining and repairing what broke the day before, and responding or preparing to respond to the next maintenance emergency does not keep maintenance staffs from needing to feel part of the team. Too often maintenance accomplishments are viewed as singular in their relationship to the broader park goals of resource protection. Although very much appreciated and supported by management and other park staff, these accomplishments are not always seen as a specific resource protection tool or program on the same plane as other park programs such as natural, cultural and science programs. And if they are we don’t always communicate it to staff.

The most effective park management program is one that best communicates park goals and objectives to all operational teams, and in return, generates an understanding and commitment to achieve those goals and objectives. Understanding and appreciating that overall resource protection is everyone’s responsibility maintains a common thread of commitment and dedication to the work at hand and builds stronger team relationships. I guarantee that your maintenance staffs see themselves as valuable and important to the protection and preservation of parks resources. Do you?

Protection

Remembering the Storm King 14 — As I write this on July 6, 2004, a small group of remarkable people gather around a bronze monument over 1,000 miles away to honor 14 fallen heroes. Ten years ago today, the South Canyon Fire blew up on Storm King Mountain overlooking Glenwood Springs, Colorado, leaving in its wake the bodies of 14 of our brothers and sisters: Nine hotshots, three smokejumpers and two helitacks.

The loved ones of the fallen firefighters deliberately requested a quiet, simple ceremony rather than heavy media coverage, crowds and inappropriate fanfare. Local firefighters were welcome to attend and pay their respects, but the families did not wish for folks to travel long distances and converge on their special time en masse. They wished to recognize in their own private way the tragedy that irrevocably bonded them together forever.

Ten years. It’s hard to believe so much time has passed. I remember it now like it was yesterday. I was traveling to a different fire in northwest Colorado, and my crew passed through Glenwood Springs three hours before the blowup. We would not learn of the ensuing firestorm until the next morning’s safety briefing on our own fireline.

I traveled to Glenwood Springs a year after the fire to attend the dedication of the Storm King 14 monument. The ceremony was beautiful. Never before had I seen so many rugged folk, clad in ash-stained Nomex, wipe away so many tears with calloused hands. Listening to the children sing was the hardest.

The unveiling of the monument itself had the most lasting effect. Family members pulled suspension lines from a red, white and blue parachute that covered the statue. As they gently pulled the p-cord, the silk of the chute gracefully — and symbolically — fell to the ground. That was brilliant!

I was amazed at the raw, human emotion the artist skillfully captured in that piece of bronze. Each discipline is represented — three brothers and sisters, poised shoulder to shoulder, ready for action. The smokejumper stands tall, in full jump gear. The hotshot, chainsaw on her shoulder, is frozen in mid-step as she presses forward down the line. And the helitack . . . his eyes gaze hauntingly toward Storm King Mountain itself, looming in the distance. Again, the foresight was ingenious.

After the unveiling, I took some time to walk in the firefighters’ boots along the Storm King 14 memorial trail. Here again, the planners of the memorial demonstrated thoughtfulness and attention to detail. “Rugged and reverent” were the two themes they wished to achieve.

Visitors will take away three distinct experiences from their walk on the mountain. First, amongst the green regeneration they will notice clues of a blackened ghost forest that once stood. As one hikes through the hallowed ground, even an untrained eye will observe signs that some years ago a fiery beast roared up these slopes.

Secondly, the average visitor, who will surely not be as fit as the average firefighter, will find himself winded only partway along the trail. This was the planners’ intent. Maybe, they thought, visitors stopping for a breather, carrying only their camera and cell phone, might try to imagine what it was like trying to outrun a fire fully clad in firefighting gear carrying handtools and chainsaws.

Lastly, the tread of the trail itself has its own intrinsic symbolism. It is different from most other trails because much of it was actually carved by the hard work of the very souls its purpose is to memorialize. Much of the trail is the original handline built by the firefighters before the blowup sent them racing for their lives.

Just below — excruciatingly close to — the top of the ridge, visitors will encounter what matters most: 14 white granite crosses bearing silent witness that our brothers and sisters fought and died together here. Each cross stands in exactly the spot where each firefighter fell. And each bears the name of an American hero:

The monument and trail memorialize the fallen 14, but their families wish for them to serve as a tribute to all firefighters everywhere.

I found a poem at the site of the memorial particularly moving. I don’t know who wrote it, but it captures beautifully how all firefighters are brothers and sisters:

~ Kevin Moses, Big South Fork

Resource Management

The Natural Resource Challenge has reportedly achieved its primary goals — to substantially increase the role of science in decision-making, revitalize and expand natural resource programs, gather baseline data on resource conditions, strengthen partnerships with the scientific community, and share knowledge with educational institutions and the public. The Challenge was initiated in 1999, partly in response to attention that resulted from publication of NPS historian Richard West (Dick) Sellars’ 1997 book, Preserving Nature in the National Parks: A History.

In the ensuing five years, the NPS received base increases of nearly $80 million for natural resource science and preservation efforts. Across the nation, 22 monitoring networks have been established, where scientists and resource managers have emphasized completion of basic resource inventories and development of long-term monitoring plans. Sixteen exotic species management teams are operating in 209 park units. To engage scientists and the public in enhanced information exchange, 13 research learning centers have been established; 16 Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Units help parks improve their science capabilities by contracting or cooperating with a myriad of member universities and other resource-based agencies. Base increases helped 36 parks develop or expand their natural resource management programs through added staff positions and projects aimed at conserving native species. And specialists who provide technical assistance to parks were added to the geologic, water, air and biological resources divisions of WASO. These are important accomplishments, though their success does not eliminate the continued need for existing field staff in many disciplines to share in resource inventory, monitoring, protection and restoration activities.

This winter, the NPS adopted a policy of “no net loss” to ensure that the number of law enforcement positions would not fall below FY2003 levels. An interesting turn of phrase — the term “no net loss” has long held meaning to natural resource specialists, as applied to the government’s policy concerning wetland resources or, in the case of the ecosystem I work in, grizzly bear habitat. “No net loss” means maintaining the amount of resources — or, for every acre that cannot be retained, another should be restored, hopefully as close as possible to the area that suffers the loss. So, I can relate to the concept as applied to law enforcement ranger positions. As such a policy is implemented (hopefully without unacceptable cost to other needed positions, including those in interpretation and resource management), may it go beyond counting the number of staff that hold law enforcement commissions. In Ranger and elsewhere, I am heartened to hear consistent semantics about maintaining the tradition of “resource” rangering; but personnel from both protection and resource management emphases often bemoan the apparent loss of time — if not interest and skills — that protection rangers spend on resource orientation.

I submit that our continued “resource challenge” will be to minimize the net loss in knowledge and contribution of protection rangers to tasks that preserve not only visitors and their experiences but also park natural and cultural resources.

~ Sue Consolo Murphy, Grand Teton