As the National Park Service (NPS) prepares to begin work, later this year, on a Comprehensive Interpretive Plan (CIP) for Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, it wants the public to be fully informed on precisely those NPS regulations and policies which have emerged, at least in the minds of some, as suspect in the outcry over the removal of the animals from Chellberg Farm: those governing decision-making and planning, for example, budgeting, fundraising, and volunteering.

So NPS has slated a series of five workshops in order to “arm the public and get them a base of information” for participating in the crafting of the CIP, as Deputy Superintendent Gary Traynham explained at the first workshop, on Tuesday night at the Dorothy Buell Memorial Visitor Center.

Its subject: decision-making and planning, presented by Sandra Washington, chief of planning and compliance for the Midwest Region of NPS.

Washington, however, was unable to answer all of the questions asked by some of those still seething over the cessation of operations at Chellberg Farm. Or, at any rate, she was unable to give them the answers they wanted.

Washington opened the workshop by noting that, “at the heart of it,” NPS plans so as “to make better decisions about ways to preserve significant resources for public enjoyment and to prioritize available funds and staff.” More to the point, she said, “it’s what we’re starting tonight as we prepare for a Comprehensive Interpretive Plan.”

Although, at the broadest level, the American public is responsible for planning for NPS, Washington said, practically speaking NPS managers are the most responsible because they are also the ones accountable. “It might seem arrogant or bureaucratic to say NPS is responsible for making decisions about national parks but it’s true.”

Planning typically begins with the scoping phase, Washington said, in which NPS managers seek public input on the relevant issues. Scoping is an “activity,” she observed, “not a single meeting,” over the course of which the public informs NPS managers what they believe the issues should be and how they value the park in question.

Then alternative options--again, provided in part by the public--are weighed and tested against each other.

The best option, in the view of NPS managers, is next articulated in a draft plan, on which the public will be invited to comment.

The draft plan is superseded by the final plan.

And then the final plan is implemented. “The decision is our contract,” Washington said. “Hold us accountable.”

Tom Anderson, executive-director of Save the Dunes Council, appeared to speak for many of the attendees when he observed that, as informational as Washington’s presentation was, it did little to explain the decision-making and planning which specifically went into the removal of the animals from Chellberg Farm. “I think people have more specific questions,” he said.

“I think we’re mixing a lot of things together,” Traynham replied. The purpose of this workshop, he said, is to “arm the public” in advance of the work on the CIP “so you can participate and participate wholly.”

An interim plan, on the other hand,--dubbed “The Plan,” which will be in effect until the finalization of the CIP and which recommended the removal of the animals--was drafted by NPS staff, Traynham said. “The public was not involved in the interim plan and didn’t need to be. We have a daily operational plan. That’s what we do. We don’t come to the public with every operational decision we make. We had to restructure the Interpretive Division.”

If the decision to remove the animals, without public input, is any indication of the future, Charlotte Read said, “I’m frightened to death. You make a decision and tell us about it later.”

A woman in the audience agreed with Read. “The major purpose of the people here isn’t learning about decision-making,” she said. “It’s a specific issue with what was done. The management has tremendous authority. They got rid of the animals.”

“Everything will be questioned,” Washington said. “The farm is not staffed now. They could make the decision to staff Chellberg Farm and stop staffing something else. A Comprehensive Interpretive Plan could say we really want staff at Chellberg Farm and Chellberg Farm is our highest priority.”

“You’re not denying the tremendous authority of (Superintendent Constantine Dillon),” a man responded.

“Oh no, I’m not denying it,” Washington said.

“He can do it and the public has nothing to do for the next 15 months except wait to see if it will change,” the man pressed.

“But you are participating,” Washington observed. Then she asked this question: “To bring the animals back, you must have staff to take care of the animals. What will you give up in the park?”

“What did we give up and get in exchange for this?” the man asked himself.

“Other employees would had to have been furloughed,” Washington said.

There’s been recent hiring at the National Lakeshore, the man maintained.

Yes, Washington said. Five positions in Interpretation became vacant. One was filled.

“Why couldn’t it have been the farmer?”

“Because we decided not to,” Traynham said.

“You decided,” the man replied. “We had nothing to say.”

“This is one of those things that will create tremendous anger,” another man stated. “We’re asked what we value most. We say the same thing. We want Chellberg Farm as a living history farm. If we’re involved in the planning process and we’re dissatisfied, the rage which will occur will be terrible. Tell me how we can get items in the Comprehensive Interpretive Plan.”

“You’re asking how your items can get implemented,” Washington said. “Other people would want to know how their items can get implemented. You’re not the only people who care about the National Lakeshore and what its themes are. I’m not trying to be dismissive. But there are people who would object to closing one thing in order to staff Chellberg Farm. We need to hear what you think is valuable. But this is a national park for the entire nation.”

“I’ve had this same conversation in St. Louis,” Washington added, “when I’ve talked about the Arch. Because they think it’s their Arch. There will be other people who don’t value what you do and they will feel strongly about something else.”

“We don’t think it’s necessarily true you have to rob Peter to pay Paul,” a woman said. “We know there are ways of financially doing this. And we would love to sit down with the superintendent.”

The next workshop is scheduled for 7 p.m. Aug. 28 at the Dorothy Buell Memorial Visitor Center. Topic: interpretation and education.

Posted 7/29/2009