Interior Department reorganization could change how national parks, public lands are managed

Show Caption Hide Caption Interior Secy. Zinke flies special flag to show he's at the office Interior Secretary, Ryan Zinke, showed up on his first day in office on horseback, and now he’s got a very interesting way of letting people know whether he's there or not.

WASHINGTON – Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke is moving forward with a plan to relocate thousands of federal employees across the country as part a major reorganization that aims to put the department’s resources closer to the national parks and other public lands that it manages.

The department has included $18 million for the reorganization in the budget request that it sent to Congress on Monday.

The proposal will be forwarded in the next couple of weeks to the nation’s governors. Other details will be made public during congressional hearings on the department’s proposed $11.7 billion budget, Zinke told reporters earlier this week.

Zinke argues the restructuring, which is expected to begin this year, is needed to cut red tape and better manage the natural resources and cultural heritage sites the department is charged with protecting and to preserve them for future generations.

“It’s time to look 100 years into the future to make sure we are organized to address the challenges we know are going to occur,” he said.

The Interior Department manages 500 million acres of public land, a fifth of the total surface area of the United States. Of that total, some 85 million acres are part of the National Park Service.

The proposal would divide the country into 13 regions, the boundaries of which would be based upon watersheds and geographic basins rather than by individual states. Employees in some key agencies within the department, such as the Bureau of Land Management and the Bureau of Reclamation, could be relocated to the western United States to bring them closer to the resources they are tasked with managing.

The goal, Zinke said, is to place an individual park or asset in one region, which would it easier for employees to work together and avoid some of the management headaches that can occur when more than one federal agency is involved. Right now, for example, a salmon stream located near a lock or dam could fall under the jurisdiction of multiple federal agencies.

More: After Bears Ears, Trump administration ponders more changes to national monuments

To carry out his vision, Zinke will need the approval of Congress, which must sign off on the relocation of a large number of federal employees. So far, the proposal has gotten mixed reviews among lawmakers.

"Moving the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to Colorado would bring the agency closer to the vast public lands we all cherish and share, and that is a good thing,” said Rep. Jared Polis, D-Colo. “We have a strong and growing outdoor and recreation industry across our state that relies on public lands that helps make Colorado an excellent candidate for the new BLM headquarters.”

Other Congress members said that while they are generally supportive of restructuring federal agencies, they are concerned that offices would be eliminated or that individual states would be placed in multiple regions under the proposed boundaries. Tennessee, for example, would be placed in two regions. Colorado would be split among three.

“The secretary's idea of creating common boundaries could lead to a more efficient operation, but I want to make sure that splitting Tennessee into two regions doesn't create some unintended problems,” said Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn.

Sen. Martin Heinrich, D-N.M., called the reorganization “concerning” because, he said, it appears to eliminate the Navajo Regional Office of the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

“A change of this magnitude should only come after extensive, meaningful government-to-government consultation with the affected tribes,” Heinrich said. “On its face, this looks more like a dismantling than a reorganization.”

Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo., supports efforts to move more of the federal government out of Washington but thinks that any relocation should improve the Bureau of Land Management’s work with state and local partners, his office said.

More: National Park Service proposes new $70 entrance fee at popular parks

Advocacy groups also have raised concerns about the restructuring and its impact on the National Park Service.

“We’re chiefly concerned about the lack of detail, in particular for a Park Service that has been struggling with considerably insufficient staffing and other budgetary challenges,” said John Garder, a senior director with the National Parks Conservation Association.

Garder said the Park Service is currently operating with 11 percent fewer employees than just five years ago. “While there may be opportunities for efficiencies, which are always welcome, we don’t want to see the role of the National Park Service diminished,” he said.

Park advocates also are worried about “the morale expense” of reshuffling federal employees, whose jobs may be relocated or abolished, said Phil Francis, chairman of the Coalition to Protect America’s National Parks, which represents nearly 1,400 current, former and retired Park Service employees.

“It will affect many, many people’s lives, people who have dedicated maybe 10, 20 or 30 years of their lives to serving the American public,” said Francis, former superintendent of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park in Tennessee and North Carolina. “I just don’t believe the outcome will produce results that are worth the investment.”

Zinke said he doesn’t expect any layoffs will be necessary because the reorganization will take several years. Sixteen percent of the department’s 70,000 employees are already eligible for retirement, he said, and that number will jump to 40 percent within five years.

As employees retire, their positions could be reclassified and their jobs moved closer to the front lines “where they belong,” he said.