You are here

Cuts To Grand Teton National Park's Staff Will Delay Emergency Response, Close Some Facilities

Share

Budget cuts will translate into longer emergency response time by Grand Teton National Park rangers, and some closed facilities, this summer. Photo by QT Luong via www.terragalleria.com/parks.

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

Interesting suggestions, Mike. In each of the "delistings" you have proposed, there are nearby local communities whose economic well-being depends on the tourism that is generated by being close to a place that has "national" attached to it. And once you begin listing proposals for delisting or deauthorizing, you run into the problem of what seems supefulous to you or to the "stampers" might be horribly important to others. One other minor problem is that most states could not afford to take over these areas and manage them. In fact, the reverse is the most common event--a state or municipality no longer able to afford the management of an area works with its congressional delegation to authorize the feds to asssume the management and, of course, the costs for operation and maintenance.

Park superintendents are faced with a really difficult choice in relation to sequestration. They have little flexibility as the cuts were to be across the board. So, they can't decide that, for instance, the administration or interpretive division will take the vasst majority of the cuts. They have to cut the protection, maintenance and resources management divisions also. Or that can't say that we aren't going to buy anymore supplies for the rest of the fiscal year. That's not across the board.

Your other suggestions are being explored. Some areas are already being managed as "cluusters" with a single superintendent. Many administrative fuctions have been centralized to avoid duplication of effort. A decade or so ago, the NPS consolidated its ten regional offices into seven.

It's always interesting to me to reflect on how additions to the National Park System occur. It's normally because a group of citizens get together and decide that a particular place is worthy of protection in perpetuity. Each generation of Americans, speaking through its elected officials, gets to decide which places it wishes to add. In my opinion, it's a matter of generational equity and respect that this generation takes care of those sites added by previous generations. If we as a nation decide that the System is complete now and that no more sites should be added, all we need to do is to convice the Congress and the President that that is the case. Of course, that assumes that no important hisorical events will occur, that no individuals will leave an indelible mark on our society and culture or that no congressional delegation will decide that its "Congaree" deserves national recognition.

Rick


I understand the politics are difficult. No not just difficult, maybe even impossible.

I see the Postal Service losing billions annually. I also see that they have made a serious effort to reduce staff, identify efficiencies and make proposals that just might allow them to survive for a while. I also see Congress working against them with many of their proposals. I know the opinion of the USPS held by the public and so do you.

What I don't see is any effort by the NPS (or other agencies) to recognize that things are changing and they're going to have to make some changes. I don't see any effort in Interior or Agriculture to identify waste and deal with it in lieu of reducing services. I see all of these people building bullwarks to defend their current positions on the chance this is a temporary storm. It isn't.

The NPS had better be leaders in the eyes of the public or they risk losing the special place in the heart of the taxpayer that they currently hold.


Thanks to Kurt, Rick Smith and Mike G for the three comments immediately above. Add add value to the discussion.


Mike...

I'm afraid that the absolutism of "I don't see any effort on the part of..." weakens your argument. I may be a bit closer to the rubber meets the road, in that I'm married to a park employee, and many of my friends and neighbors are parkies. The efforts are every day conversation points. You may quibble with the efforts on the part of this or that manager or employee, but they are definitely there.

As a retired nurse, what I see in the 'prioritizing' that is being discussed above is the principle of triage. Deciding who will live and who will die. It is always easier when you are dealing with strangers. Of course, as mentioned above, a decision by someone who doesn't know or agree with or recognise the value of a park may not be the best decision.


Mike G and Kurt, both great points. It is always hard to make cuts. And priorities would differ depending on who you ask (politician, john Q public, Park supt., or park personel). I find it good and bad for the areas around Yellowstone to help with snow removal. Will this mean the park will expect this in the future? The Businesses in the Yellowstone area said it means about $2 million in business, but what profit did the two weeks cost them? The park helps their business by proximity and it is great to see them donate for the good of the park. Should our parks be beholding to donations to continue, or should we mainly rely on taxes to fund them? I always thought there ought to be a spot on our tax form next to the "do you want to give a dollar to presidential campaign fund" and say "would you like to donate to the NPS for upkeep and maintenance."


Rick, Your comments are appreciated. I was never a 'parkie'. I don't know 'parkies' either. I am just a visitor who likes the parks and helps pay the bills. When I said "I don't see any effort" I meant that as an unassociated citizen who reads a lot, keeps up on the news and looks for discussions regarding the things I'm interested in, like parks. I think I'm probably a more "typical" citizen than you are in relation to the NPS. My comments were meant to reference the average Joe who visits Yellowstone but thinks about his tax bill and is worried about the debt his government continues to pile up. I think the NPS and other agencies should be more public about their thoughts, concerns and planning efforts. You know, the transparency we were all promised in 2008.

In my career I dealt regularly with 'triage' and I am very familiar with it. You're right, it is often a live or die process. I am not qualified to assign triage to the NPS but the management at the highest level of the NPS is. I expect them to do it and deal with the costs, financial, personnel related and political. I think it would help them immeasurable if the process were able to be viewed by the interested public.

Rick Smith. Thank you for your comments. I want to see the system of parks in America grow but I want it to do so through the normal process and within the limits of our budget. The recent additions through the Antiquities Act are abominations in my view. They are excessively political, add little to the system and dilute the resources available to the other units in the system. Lets go back to the introduction of bills to Congress, ensuing debate and designation for units that survive the process.

I acknowledge that we will have to mend our political system so that it operates again. That may take a while but as an optimist I have to conclude that it will be worth the effort.


I like your use of "triage" Which to me means; who needs the most help first. I am sure our gov't is riddled with projects that have already earmarked funds that could be delayed for a latter date when funds are better. Probably the NPS could also have some of these. But the some parks are riddled with lots of road and maintenance projects that keep getting pushed back. It would be nice if the one in charge of the NPS could triage instead of a blanket cut.


Mike, for what it's worth, and you probably know this, the current administration isn't the only one to turn to the Antiquities Act to create monuments that might not merit such designation. And Congress has forced through legislation to create dubious parks -- First Ladies National Historic Site? -- more than a few times.

As for introduction of bills, the current system rewards those with close ties to the chairman/woman of the committees. In the case of Rio Grande del Norte National Monument, backers of that monument claim to have written Rep Bishop, who chairs the subcommittee on national parks and public lands, requesting him to hold a hearing, but he declined....and then lamented that the president's use of the Antiquities Act circumvented public participation.

Rep. Doc Hastings, who is lobbying for a Manhattan Project National Historical Park that would stretch across three states, criticized legislation to create a Castle Nugent National Historic Site in the U.S. Virgin Islands, stating that "many Americans will never be able to afford to visit there." Never mind that the site would be in the U.S. Virgin Islands, and quite a few Americans live there.


Add comment

CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.

The Essential RVing Guide

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

The National Parks RVing Guide, aka the Essential RVing Guide To The National Parks, is the definitive guide for RVers seeking information on campgrounds in the National Park System where they can park their rigs. It's available for free for both iPhones and Android models.

This app is packed with RVing specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 parks.

You'll also find stories about RVing in the parks, some tips if you've just recently turned into an RVer, and some planning suggestions. A bonus that wasn't in the previous eBook or PDF versions of this guide are feeds of Traveler content: you'll find our latest stories as well as our most recent podcasts just a click away.

So whether you have an iPhone or an Android, download this app and start exploring the campgrounds in the National Park System where you can park your rig.