Climbers, backcountry travelers, and even front-country campers at Grand Teton National Park will face longer response times if they get in trouble this year as a result of federal budget cuts, according to the park superintendent.
Rangers that patrol the Tetons, Jackson Lake, and the Snake River will be stretched a bit thin by the budget sequestration, potentially leaving visitors to fend for themselves for a while if they are hurt or lost.
“We’re trying to minimize the impacts on visitor services these cuts would have. However, there is no way to take this reduction without reducing the amount of services we provide," Superintendent Mary Gibson Scott said Monday during a telephone call with reporters.
All park visitors could notice a reduction in services, as the need to trim $700,000 from Grand Teton's budget is leading to reduced seasonal ranger staffing, closed visitor centers, and closure of some areas of the park, she said.
“We know there will be delays in responding to search and rescue, as well as medical emergencies and law enforcement," the superintendent said. "Our responsibilities I take very seriously on both employee and visitor safety. We are trying to maintain those functions to the degree we can. I just think that we will have delays in pulling together if there’s a major search and rescue, being able to pull all the resources we need.”
Grand Teton averages 70-75 search-and-rescue incidents a year, ranging from aiding visitors who twist an ankle and looking for lost children to rescuing climbers from the mountains.
Across the National Park System park managers are cutting here and there to bring their budgets in line with the across-the-board cuts agreed upon by the Congress and the White House. Parks such as Yellowstone and Acadia are pushing their spring opening dates back a month, some campgrounds will remain closed in places like the Blue Ridge Parkway and Great Smoky Mountains National Park, and backcountry toilets might not get pumped out.
Multiplying the problems created by the sequestration is the fact that those cuts are heaped on a general budget shrinkage, Superintendent Gibson pointed out.
“These cuts come on top of a flat budget for the past four fiscal years, and when adjusted for inflation our budget has actually declined by approximiately 8 percent over that time period. That number is prior to sequestration taking effect," she said.
A bit more than half of the $700,000, some $372,000, in cuts are being made by reducing the ranks of seasonal rangers by 26. While the park hires approximately 180 seasonal rangers each year, only about 90 of those are paid for through Grand Teton's base operating budget. The other 90 are funded through grants targeted at specific projects, such as removing invasive plants or maintaining trails.
"We depend on our seasonals to operate the parks during the summer, staffing the visitor centers, road patrol, managing wildlife jams, firefighting, search-and-rescue and emergency response, and custodial, such as cleaning restrooms," the superintendent explained.
As a result of fewer seasonal rangers, hours of the Craig Thomas Discovery and Visitor Center at Moose, the Colter Bay Visitor Center, and the Jenny Lake Visitor Center will most likely be reduced this year, she said. However, the Laurance S. Rockefeller Preserve Center and the Flagg Ranch Information Station will be closed entirely, as will the Jenny Lake Ranger Station.
"We will also not be able to provide ranger-led interpretive or education programs as we have in the past. We will provide limited programs at visitor centers ... although we will not provide the typical array of programs, such as the campfire talks and the majority of ranger-led walks," said Superintendent Gibson.
Areas that will be closed include the Spalding Bay, Two Ocean Lake, and Schwabacher's Landing areas, as the park lacks the staff to maintain the restrooms and trash at those sites, she said. Eight dispersed-site campgrounds along the Grassy Lake Road in the John D. Rockefeller Parkway also will not open this summer, the superintendent added.
While the park is delaying its snow removal operations on the Teton Park Road by about two weeks, until April 1, snowfall was not great this past winter and the park staff should be able to open the road on schedule on May 1, she said. "Other roads will be allowed to naturally melt out this spring. These include Moose-Wilson, Antelope Flats, Signal Mountain Summit, and Death Canyon," the superintendent added.
"This has not been an easy exercise for any park manager. To try and figure out, in the middle of March, how you'll run a park in full summer operations (with reduced staff and funding)," Superintendent Gibson said. "We’ve had to actually withdraw offers to seasonals that were already made, as we realized what cuts we would have to make when we got our numbers and what the percentages were."
Comments
Individual parks are simply pawns in this game. On the big board, the situation is that government is too big, spends too much on many of the wrong things. The tax-payers cannot support all the government we currently have in perpetuity and it's gonna change one way or the other.
Meanwhile, individual parks can manage their budget to minimize the impacts of budget cuts on visitors, you know, the group that pays for all of this. It appears that either the administration, the department, the agency or individual parks have decided that they will take another tack and show the taxpayers that these cuts are unwelcome.
Young, hardworking, ambitious park employees would do well to recognize that government is going to be smaller in the near term and determine whether their future lies in continued agency work or a private enterprise endeavor of some sort. Older, more entrenched bureaucrats may elect to stay with the ship regardless of consequences.
Just out of curiosity, MikeG, where would you make cuts in park budgets to minimize impacts on visitors? That's not a facetious question, as I've asked superintendents if they were cutting certain programs specificially to impact the visitors for PR sake and they insist they're not. So if you have some inside knowledge of how that can be accomplished, it'd be good to know.
Would you really expect them to answer that they were?
In all honesty Kurt, the answer as to where to make the cuts is hard to answer without full line item operating budgets to review. Why aren't these public? It does seem, however that the "cuts" to services are disproportionate to the actual decline in funding and some superintendents have bucked the trend indicating that cuts will be minimal (RMNP).
Of course I wouldn't expect them to admit to that, EC, but for all those who are condemning the Park Service for doing just that...a little evidence would be good, and be good fodder for a story. As you have noted so many times over the months, casting aspersions without supporting evidence shouldn't go without questioning.
How about we shut down every program, study, interpretive walk/talk, capital investment et al that include the words "sustainable" or "climate change". We could probably save 10s if not 100s of millions of dollars without any dicernable impact on the visitor experience.
[added]. As to evidence of hyped claims re sequstration, a quick google search will turn up dozens of examples. Not neceassarily NPS related, but there is no reason to believe they aren't under the same pressures to claim the sky is falling. Once again true transparency with publicly disclosed line item budgets would be quite revealing. I wonder why we dont get those? Actually, no I don't.
No I don't have any inside knowledge but I do know that the Congressional appropriation is not written for individual parks but for the NPS as a whole.
Here's where I'd start: The NPS is currently 401 units with the new designations last week by Executive Order. I would prioritize parks by their site significance and reduce operations, transfer to state or local governments or close parks that are deemed less important for public visitation. I would use savings to continue operations for the sites Americans visit.
While I have my own opinions on what units may be 'less significant' I'll use the comments from a group that is absolutely crazy about the NPS, the National Parks Travelers Club. For those who may not be aware of this club, these people are the rabid 'stampers' that can be found at any NPS unit stamping their Passports. The club has well over 1,000 active members and the goal of many is to visit every unit in the system.
Last week they had a forum question on whether any NPS units should be considered for 'demotion' to some other status. Club members responded with suggestions including NRAs, what the suggestor called the 'booze and boating' crowd back to state governments, Hot Springs NP. A recurring question in the forum and one I've had myself, Why in heck is this place a National Park?
Their list included some 25 sites mentioned by name that people thought warranted something other than inclusion in the NPS system. They included 'delisting' sites like Tuzigoot and Walnut Canyon NM's, the LBJ Memorial Grove, Aztec and Grant-Khors.
They suggested combining administrations for several areas suggesting the southwestern group including Mesa Verde, Chaco Canyon, Aztec, Gila Cliff Dwelling and for Sequoia, Kings Canyon National Parks. Other opportunities exist. The Black Hills group. The Northern Arizona Group. The Washington State group. Combining admin functions could be made to show savings although I know agencies hate it with a passion. Yellowstone, Grand Teton, Rockefeller parkway could be another.
Presidential sites were considered 'haphazard'. Herbert Hoover, Andrew Johnson, Taft, Garfield, T. Roosevelt and others. Surely there is a better way to manage these sites through admin efficiencies, transfer, closure or privatization.
Personally, I'm a huge Abraham Lincoln fan. When I last visited the Lincoln sites, I wondered specifically about the Lincoln Birthplace and Boy hood home sites. Other than the physical location, there is nothing on either site that represents Mr. Lincoln specifically. Do we really need parks with large, well staffed visitor centers there?
I'm not an objector to the NPS system, in fact we plan all of our vacation and other travel to include sites. The system is currently too large to be sustained and efficiencies will have to be made. It's true that some of the minor sites are wonderful. Sites like Pipespring NM, Alibates NM, Cowpens NB have great stories to tell. Can we continue to tell them all in an era of decling budgets or can we change management strategies with resulting efficiencies?
Recently we visited Mt Vernon. Every American should get a chance to visit there. A truly wonderful site. It is managed by a private ladies group with no federal dollars involved. Same for Monticello. These sites create jobs and support local businesses too, they just don't happen to be government jobs.
Recent additions to the system have been largely political and in my opinion, don't warrant inclusion. Cesar Chavez, most if not all of last weeks sites. I know they came from Executive Action and not NPS direction. I'd consider them bastard stepchildren I guess. They will further dilute the limited amount of money available for the system.
A couple of personal candidates: Congaree NP. Wasn't NM status enough? Homestead NM of America? Really?
We haven't even mentioned the various Regional office staffs. I'm certain a few bucks could be saved in each of those with little discomfort.
Mike,
Well done.
Mike, years ago former U.S. Rep Jim Hansen of Utah suggested removing Great Basin NP from the system, saying one visit was enough for anyone. That generated quite a bit of backlash. Point being, most units of the National Park System have very loyal followings, and trying to remove them wouldn't be easy or popular. And that's beside the natural, cultural, or historical significance.
While I don't necessarily disagree with some of your points, laying them out there and getting politicians to go along with them is something else if recent headlines are any evidence. Pinnacles National Park? All the stories about the millions and millions of dollars of economic development tied to units of the park system?
Under your proposed exercise, I fear that units without large and well-organized local communities would be cast aside first, regardless of their value. Yellowstone is benefiting now from community support to help gets its roads plowed. I asked the superintendent of Isle Royale the other day whether her "gateway" communities would step up with funds to offset her budget cuts, and she said they simply aren't as organized or have the wherewithal. Should Isle Royale be cast off?
I found Cape Lookout National Seashore to be an outstanding park, one that protects the truly wild nature of a seashore setting. But it lacks the political support of neighboring Cape Hatteras or Cape Cod. Should it be jettisoned?
Regarding another point you raised, some parks already have shared administrations. Sequoia and Kings Canyon, for one, and Grand Teton and John D. Rockfeller Parkway for another. Could you add Yellowstone to those and make it a trio? Maybe....but whoever was presiding superintendent would need a lot of support staff and a nice travel budget (try to get from Mammoth Hot Springs to Moose, Wyoming, in winter) to juggle all the issues/politics that surround those parks. Would any savings be realized?
Would a moratorium on new park units be the answer or help? That's a difficult question, as the recent tiff over whether there was support for First State National Monument or Rio Grande del Norte National Monument demonstrated. Congressmen alleged there wasn't public input on those, and the public pushed back. So how do you decide which site is appropros and should be added, and which we simply can't afford?
Could there be better accounting in the Park Service? Very possibly, as a recent report we cited noted that federal agencies have turned a blind eye to recommendations from their own Inspector generals that could save upwards of $67 billion. (No word on whether Interior's IG produced a dollar figure for the NPS).
Going forward, I think the sequestration just might point to areas where money can be saved. I'm not convinced, however, that "prioritizing" which units are deserving to be in the National Park System is a good approach, or that units could be transferred to states, many of which are struggling with their own state park systems.