Editor's note: This updates with reaction from the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees.
Failure by Congress and the White House to avert a budget sequestration by March 1 will force the National Park Service to reduce visitor services, shorten hours of operation, and possibly even close areas to the public, according to Park Service Director Jon Jarvis.
Across the country, units of the National Park System are being asked to figure out how to cut hundreds of thousands of dollars, more in some cases, from their current budget allocations. Yellowstone National Park shoulders the heaviest burden in terms of pure dollars, as it's being asked to outline cuts totaling $1.75 million from its FY 2013 budget of $35 million, according to documents sent from the director's office.
The system-wide planning exercise is aimed at cutting 5 percent from the Park Service current budget.
"It is critical that the NPS is able to provide specific and tangible results of an across-the-board 5 percent cut," Director Jarvis said in the directive (attached below), which was obtained by the Traveler. "We expect that a cut of this magnitude, intensified by the lateness of the implementation, will result in reductions to visitor services, hours of operation, shortening of seasons, and possibly the closing of areas during periods when there is insufficient staff to ensure the protection of visitors, employees, resources, and government assets.
"Parks must be specific in their descriptions and include the number of visitors affected and an indication of the effect on nearby communities and businesses," the director continued.
To help attain the 5 percent cut, parks were directed to immediately halt hiring permanent employees (though hires already in progress may continue). While they may continue planning for seasonal workforces, they were directed not to extend any offers. Non-essential travel is to be halted, overtime suspended, acquisitions of supplies and equipment are to be reduced, and on-staff employees who are subject to furlough should have their furlough periods extended to "the maximum length allowed..."
Director Jarvis did ask parks to schedule staff furloughs in ways that would "avoid compromising the health and safety of visitors or the protection of resources and assets."
At the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees, officials said the cuts, if enacted, would be devastating.
“This is very troubling and it has the potential to turn already budget–strapped national parks into ghost towns,” warned Maureen Finnerty, a former superintendent of Everglades National Park who chairs the Coalition's executive council. “This would be devastating for America's national parks, for the nearly 300 million Americans who visit them, and for the irreplaceable natural and cultural resources the parks were established to protect.
"Additionally there will be steep impacts to the private sector - the hundreds of concession businesses operating inside of the parks, the stores operated by cooperating associations in park visitor centers, not to mention the economies of the communities adjacent to parks and entire states that depend so heavily on both tourism and other spending done by the parks.”
Joan Anzelmo, a long-tenured Park Service veteran who was superintendent of Colorado National Monument before retiring last year, said the proposed cuts couldn't come at a worst time "with Americans set to return to national parks in big numbers in the spring and summer."
"We sympathize with current National Park staffers, who are feeling an acute sense of chaos building as they run in circles trying to figure out so late in the fiscal year how to meet these harsh cuts, protect park resources and serve the public," said Ms. Anzelmo. "This is no way to run America’s National Park System."
The dollar amounts parks were being asked to identify in cuts ranged from $1,000 from the $29,000 budget for the Natchez Trace National Scenic Trail to the $1.75 million at Yellowstone.
Some other examples of cuts across the park system include:
* $1 million from Grand Canyon National Park (FY13 budget of $21.3 million)
* $689,000 from Denali National Park ($13.8 million)
* $1.25 million from Gateway National Recreation Area ($25.28 million)
* $944,000 from Great Smoky Mountains National Park ($19 million)
* $477,000 from Cape Hatteras National Seashore ($9.7 million)
* $1.4 million from Yosemite National Park ($29 million)
* $316,000 from Mammoth Cave National Park ($6.4 million)
* $95,000 from Arches National Park ($1.9 million)
* $1.6 million from the National Mall and Memorial Parks ($32.3 million)
* $622,000 from Shenandoah National Park ($12.5 million)
* $390,000 from Acadia National Park ($7.9 million)
* $76,000 from the Appalachian National Scenic Trail ($1.54 million)
Parks were to begin reporting their projected cuts to the Park Service's central budget office in Washington, D.C., by January 31, with the rest reporting by February 11.
At the Natural Resources Defense Council, officials said exacting such cuts from the Park Service would do little to solve the country's fiscal mess.
"Spending on these health and natural resources programs make up just a little more than 1 percent of the federal budget. So cutting them more deeply—because they’ve already taken a hit in past budget cuts —will hardly dent the deficit, but it will damage popular programs that benefit all Americans," the group said earlier this month.
Additionally, the group has said the sequestration could harm the National Park System by:
* Leading to closures of campgrounds and visitor centers;
* Cutting the ranks of rangers, and so impacting visitor safety;
* Lengthen emergency response times in the parks;
* Lead ot an increase of vandalism and looting;
* Decrease or delay the monitoring of endangered species and other scientific work;
* Leading many visitors to the parks, "including international tourists who spend their money in businesses that provide thousands of jobs," to go somewhere else on vacations.
With the possibility of FY 2014 having a potential 8 percent cut, things look really grim for the 2014 visitor season in the parks, and none too rosy for this year.
Comments
Well since corporations don't really pay taxes but merely pass through your payments, not really. But then, I don't know many corporations that are net reciepients of government money. Perhaps you can identify some.
Only the Keynesians looking to bankrupt our country. Oh and it has worked so well so far - again eyes rolling.
It's going to be very interesting -- and funny -- to listen to all the whining and whimpering that's bound to come from those who want cuts when they suddenly find themselves being inconvenienced by them.
Like here in Utah when someone mentioned that Hill Air Force Base was going to lose some jobs. Our Congresscritters went even nuttier than usual.
Let them whine and whimper. Sometimes treatment for your ills requires pain.
Another idea, along with investigating the cost of arming all those rangers, would be to weigh the costs of the National Park System's court system against its benefits.
People may not be aware that a number of national parks, such as Yosemite, have their own courthouse and judicial infrastructure. Here's a description of the judicial machinery at Yellowstone:
"Yellowstone has its own jail, court, and magistrate, all of which are housed in the new Yellowstone Justice Center opened in 2006. The new Center includes a courtroom, judge’s chambers, interview rooms, ante room, temporary holding facility (four cells), law enforcement offices, administrative support spaces, and evidence and records storage areas, and a sallyport for loading/unloading prisoners. In the event the NPS has more prisoners than they can accommodate at the Justice Center, they have an agreement with the West Yellowstone Police Department to house prisoners there temporarily if necessary."
In 2011, a federal magistrate (a type of judge) earned $160,080. Add benefits and employer contributions to that, perhaps amounting to 40% or 50% of salary.
Yellowstone has its own FBI agent! "An FBI Special Agent is assigned to Yellowstone . . . to provide investigatory assistance for crimes that are beyond the scope of those handled on a daily basis by the park’s staff (i.e., homicide, rape, etc.)."
How many of those serious felonies occur in Yellowstone?
Well, admittedly there is the case of the "low-life lawyer Clay McCann who brutally shoots and kills four campers on Yellowstone Park land in Idaho west of the Bechler Ranger Station, and later shoots two people riding in his car in the same area." But, not surprisingly, it's a fictional case, found in a novel by C.J. Box. :-)
Here's one possible itemization of the return on Yellowstone's judicial apparatus: a bunch of low-level crimes like poaching, mushroom collecting, and snowmobiling out of bounds: http://www.nps.gov/yell/planyourvisit/upload/press_releases.pdf.
Undoubtedly a serious crime occurs at Yellowstone occasionally, but really, is its own magistrate, its own FBI agent, four jail cells, and a number of administrative subdepartments necessary? If the NPS has a 5% budget reduction, maybe the Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho counties that the park occupies can take over the work.
The point is not that the court facilities are necessarily a waste of money. But maybe they are. How many parks have them? And what would one prefer if one had to choose: closed campgrounds, unmaintained trails, and reduced access hours, or a jail and a courthouse?
fascinating post Imtnbike. I had no idea. Federal law enforcement across resource management agencies frequently has little law enforcement to do. Agencies like the USFS and BLM also have armed agents. They are few and usually, widely scattered. Much of the public land west has minimal county enforcement so feds fell they have to have their own. Maybe they're right but there is little serious enforcement for them to do. Largely trespassing, liquor violations with minors, damage to natural resources, etc. Costs are high for these positions as well....
Because BLM had no specific budget for law enforcement, the costs were spread across all of the other activities, fire, forestry, recreation, arch, planning etc. I think the forest service situation might be the same.
Lee, I don't think anyone 'wants cuts'. It's apparent to anyone who looks that our government has grown too big and cuts are inevitible. I'd much rather see targeted reductions to those areas of government that are duplicitive or not effective or wasteful than to those areas that provide value to tax-payers. I think the NPS and parks are one of the valuable areas, but that doesn't mean they don't have areas for meaningful reductions that won't affect services.
We're gonna have to get to the point where we deal with not only the deficit, but the debt as well and it's going to be 'unpleasant' to say the least....
MikeG, I agree. But at the same time, it has been very interesting to note that in many cases the very people calling for cutting or trimming or reducing or whatever word one chooses to use, are the very same ones who loudly decry any attempt to make those adjustments in something that might affect them.
We're all in this together and we will all need to be prepared to make whatever sacrifices and personal adjustments may be necessary. What worries me most of all is the tendency of our lawmakers to overlook waste and instead focus on things that don't have powerful special interests behind them. I think it will be essential that we all keep our eyes open to try to ensure that any cuts or reductions or whatever you call them will be made evenly -- without regard for what involved parties may be able to contribute to the lawmakers' campaign funds. It will be tragic if some Americans are hung up to dry while others come out of this even more wealthy. Let's make sure political corruption and graft is not part of the "solution."
And where do our parks fit into the picture? I suggest you watch the Yosemite film that was posted on Traveler this morning. Maybe before this mess is finished, we will REALLY need our parks to maintain our national sanity.