Unless Congress averts a staggering budget "sequestration" early next year, the National Park System will be devastated by underfunding that could force the Park Service to shutter more than 100 parks, according to the National Parks Conservation Association.
The NPCA drew that conclusion after the Obama administration on Friday released a report from the Office of Management and Budget that projected how the sequestration -- a slashing of government budgets aimed at reining in the federal deficit -- could impact government agencies. That report said the Park Service would have 8.2 percent of its annual budget, or $218 million, cut under sequestration if Congress doesn't act to more deliberately cut costs.
“Make no mistake that if Congress fails to prevent this cut, national parks and local communities who depend on their business will suffer,” NPCA President Tom Kiernan said in a release. “We are deeply concerned that this cut could lead to the closure of more than a hundred parks.”
According to the parks advocacy group, the park system already suffers "from an annual operations shortfall of $500 to $600 million, which means there are insufficient rangers and other staff to care for our national treasures and serve visitors. Park budgets have already been slashed over the last two years, and as Congress debates how to address the deficit, the report out today clearly indicates that our national heritage is at risk in the near future."
The OMB report projects that under sequestration the Park Service would have $183 million cut from its daily operations budget, $13 million from its construction budget, $5 million from its National Recreation and Preservation program, $8 million from Land Acquisition and State Assistance program, $5 million from its Historic Preservation program, and $4 million from other programs.
"NPCA’s analysis indicates that the cut of $183 million to the operation of national parks would very likely lead to the furloughing—or indefinite closure—of national parks," the group's release said. "A cut of this magnitude would also likely lead to the loss of many park rangers, particularly during the busy visiting season."
“Not only would the National Park Service have fewer rangers to educate visitors, plan visits, and respond to emergencies, but parks would not have the funding they need to adequately maintain hiking trails, protect wildlife, preserve historic buildings, or keep visitor centers and campgrounds open for visitors to enjoy,” said Mr. Kiernan.
NPCA has pointed out that the Park Service budget represents just 1/14th of 1 percent of the overall federal budget. At the same time, the group says, national parks "support $31 billion in private-sector spending and 258,000 jobs each year."
“Our national parks are at a crossroads. Making the right choice to invest in national parks will not only protect our national park legacy, but benefit local economies and communities nationwide,” the NPCA president said.
Support Essential Coverage of Essential Places
Comments
Boon for gateway towns? Would that mean drastically increased visitation to these environmentally sensitive sites. Which is it? Save them or increase the NPS bureocracy?
NPS employees in the parks are typically doing more than one job for very little pay. May there be some bloat at the top, sure, but is that not the case with every organization, private or public? As with most organization, the people that work for the NPS (or USFS or USFWS, etc.) do a tremendous job with very little. If you not value the job they do, that is your choice, but please not slight the exceptional job that most federal employees on public lands do day in and day out!!!
Obviously means an economic boon to the gateway communities outside the sensitive sites within the parks.
Not sure where this false choice comes from. How about preserve the places, and in doing so, provide an economic boost to the communities that comes from the millions of Americans who want to visit these preserved places?
"What we need are caring citizens with great ideas that love this country and it's parks, so we can run them on a smaller budget. Shuttering parks threats is fear mongering!"
It really isn't "fear mongering." How do you suppose that the NPS is supposed to operate a park without people to keep the visitor centers open, fix the bathrooms, patrol the roads and manage the ecosystem?
If you want parks, you'll pay for them. If you don't want them, fine, admit it - but don't pretend that you love them. You don't love them enough to properly fund them, apparently.
And please don't tell me you care about the deficit - the GOP has proposed increasing military spending. More bombs and tanks, less campgrounds and rangers. That's what you support - don't pretend otherwise. Own it.
At some point people will be discovering a reality far different from what you've been promised by deceptive politicos because that's what they think you wil accept rather than the hard choices that need to be made. They will not be living the nightmare that the public will be. Forget the social issues and take care of business or it'll be Lord of the Flies in some degree. I love the parks and know the realities of nature. What we are living now is not natural. There will be a correction. To what degree, that is the only undecided. Take a look at what is transpiring around the world while our Pres. is meeting with JZ and Letterman but not the Israeli Prime Minister. Unbelievable!
military spending. More bombs and tanks, less campgrounds and rangers.
Travis,
I was in NYC 9/11/01. I saw the second plane hit the twin towers. I saw people walking dazed in the streets covered in ash. Yes, I want more bombs and tanks because I know that those that want to destroy us have no care for our parks. If you think isolationism is the answer, I suggest you go check out some early twentieth century history to see where that got us in the past.
To Anonymous 653pm...
[No wonder why you are anomymous].
If I ever 'forget the social issues' and live your fearing-Lord-of-Flies bleak and paranoid life, I won't worry about your threatened 'correction'. I'll worry about having my own page in DSM-IV.
You go ahead and live in fear. I'm going to continue to be concerned about the 'social issues', like helping the next person and living a balanced life, including supporting the parks and the Park Service. That works for me. Sorry about your world.
Rick B, didn't intend to go blow to blow but maybe you should note the Anon post before your "balanced" post. I do not live in fear but do have concerns as does the other Anon who saw the second plane go into the Trade Towers in NY. I realize the elephant in the room is barely obvious to many who have kept their deal going somehow. I do support the parks or rather the park experience to those that visit the resource. By that I mean people of all stripes somehow make their way to something much bigger than all their own deals that somehow put things in perspective and go back to life changed and much improved. I do not worship the geography but the maker. I feel there are threats, major threats to all you and I cherish. It's not fear but great concern. Wish you no ill will. I just wish people would recognize the threats to what has allowed us to be so blessed. A bus tour through a Park and photo opportunity by the present occupant of the WH does not suggest any reverence for what you and I both revere . Everyone's a pawn to him. Just my impression but I'm running with it.
Blessings to you