You are here

President's Budget Proposal For National Parks Calls for "Biggest Cut Since World War II"

Share

The Trump administration's 2018 budget proposal was portrayed as devastating to the National Park Service/NPS

President Trump's Fiscal 2018 proposal for the National Park Service would be the "biggest cut to the Park Service since World War II" if enacted in its current form by Congress, park advocates claimed Tuesday.

While Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke told reporters several times during a conference call that the budget would allow the agency "to take care of what we have" across the Interior landscape, which includes national parks and Bureau of Land Management lands, it would cut roughly $380 million and nearly 1,250 full-time positions from the Park Service's current budget.

"If enacted, this would be the biggest cut to the Park Service since WWII. It is difficult to outline the many ways in which this budget drastically undermines America’s treasured places and the people and communities that support and rely on them," John Garder, the National Parks Conservation Association's director for budget and appropriations, said in an email exchange.

As sent to Congress, the NPS budget request seeks $2.6 billion, which NPCA staff calculated as a $378.5 million decrease from the agency's Fiscal 2016 budget, the last enacted budget, not omnibus funding bill, adopted specifically for the Park Service by Congress.

In the accompanying narrative Interior provided with the budget document, the administration said the budget "prioritizes maintaining and preserving NPS lands and assets for the enjoyment, education, and recreation of current and future generations."

However, many national parks have been strained by record visitation the last two years, and this budget would exacerbate that if adopted as written. Mr. Zinke, while allowing that "(S)ome parks are at capacity to maintain the park experience," did not address how the budget would ease that.

Interior staff also did not answer that question directly when pressed. Instead they cited the secretary's commitment to "improving the way government works by being more innovative and more efficient and by collaborating with local communities and outside partners. Plus, we will look at ways to increase revenue," said spokeswoman Heather Swift in an email. "As the secretary said: 'I'm confident we will find innovative solutions for cost reduction, like public private partnerships, and revenue generation that will improve both sides of the books.'"

But park advocates feared how the budget would impact the National Park Service, and the national parks, in the near-term.

"If indeed we lose 1,200 FTEs, that means the remaining staff will have to do less with less," said Phil Francis at the Coalition to Protect America's National Parks. "But I know these people. They will want to continue to do as much as possible. It's just not fair to balance the budget on the back of our employees."

Secretary Zinke, though, maintained that the budget proposal "supports our core responsibilities."

"The budget overall speaks to the core mission of Department of Interior, but it's my job to make sure that we have a budget that answers the bell on our core missions, and represents the best interests of the taxpayers and America going forward," the secretary told reporters Tuesday. "It funds our highest priorities to make sure that we look at safety, security, and infrastructure. As we go forward, my priority is shoring up our infrastructure and shoring up our front lines."

Yet Mr. Francis agreed with NPCA that, if enacted, the budget cuts would be the worst in nearly 75 years for the Park Service.

"We just never had a budget cut of this size," he said during a phone call, adding that the Trump administration was applying some sleight of hand by comparing its proposal to the 2017 omnibus bill as opposed to the 2016 Park Service budget enacted by Congress. "It almost seems as though they're trying to minimize the degree of the cut by comparing it to '17. If you look at the number of FTEs lost, in that permanent full-time category, it looks like almost a 10 percent reduction in permanent staff." 

According to DOI, the proposal would provide $129 million, an increase of $13 million over current levels, for construction needs, and $685.9 million for facility operations and maintenance across the National Park System. The proposal includes funding to rehabilitate the Arlington Memorial Bridge in Washington, D.C., which has suffered from neglect, and Scotty's Castle in Death Valley National Park, which sustained heavy damage from flooding in October 2013.

NPCA analysis of the numbers point to a 10 percent overall reduction in Park Service funding since FY16. The biggest hit would be to the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which would be cut 85 percent to just $26.4 million, down from $173.7 million in FY16, the park advocacy group said.

The Park Service's National Recreation and Preservation Program, which funds "local community efforts to preserve natural and cultural resources," would take a 41 percent cut, down to $37 million, and the Historic Preservation Fund, which "supports Historic Preservation Offices in States, Territories, and tribal lands to preserve historically and culturally significant sites," would be reduced 22 percent, to $51.1 million.

"This is not just a damaging budget, but it's also a dishonest budget," said NPCA's Mr. Garder. "I say that because they compare it to the '17 omnibus. ... It makes their cuts look less damaging."

Looking at the steep cut in staff funding, he said that would bring the overall decrease in NPS staffing levels down nearly 4,000 FTEs, or 18 percent, since FY2010, when NPCA thought the Park Service had "the best budget year in recent years." Over the same period, park visitation has continued to climb upwards, reaching a record 331 million last year.

That staff reduction could be even more drastic when the administration comes out with its long-term plan for reducing the size of government.

The Interior budget proposal was, as expected, soundly rejected by U.S. Rep. Raúl Grijalva, the ranking member of the House Natural Resources Committee.

“This budget is the reality of the Republican vision for the country, and Republicans in Congress need to admit it,” the Arizona Democrat said. “It treats our environment as a speed bump on the way to greater oil profits and it eliminates any hope of sane climate protections.

"For whatever reason, Republicans in Congress continue to support this administration even as Americans register their anger and disapproval in record numbers. Anyone who supports this budget or the rest of this administration’s disturbing agenda has shown disdain for the American people. It’s typical of this presidency that the greatest harm is done to those Trump claimed he would help: rural Americans who depend on clean air, clean water, and clean natural spaces for their livelihoods.”

While Interior Secretary Zinke did not come right out and say it, he hinted that the Trump administration would look at increasing entrance fees to national parks to generate revenues for the Park Service.

"About half the parks don't charge. Which is interesting," he said. "We have a tier system (for entrance fees). A number of parks chose not even to follow the tier system. So, we're concentrating on where are revenues, and shore it up."

But Mr. Francis at the Coalition to Protect America's National Parks said that would generate relatively little.

"I don't think we can raise enough money on entrance fees, or user fees, to pay for the parks," he said. "We're either going to have to come up with completely new models, and I'm not sure what that is, or we're going to have to get more appropriations from Congress. We're going to have to."

Comments

This is only the tip if the Iceberg. More bad news is yet to Come. We need a director in charge who will fight to protect our parks. For now there is no one to stand up for the nps.


Almost all NPS problems derive directly from Congress.  Countless responsibilities for various pork barrel projects have been handed to the service year after year -- without funding.  Other mandates, often resulting from Legislation by Amendment have hamstrung not only the NPS, but virtually every other government agency.

Of course, Congress and its denizens are shielded from any blame because 1) A deliberate cloak of secrecy is provided by the trick of using amendments to unrelated bills  2) Congress may always turn the finger of blame toward "those unelected bureaucrats" who have found themselves trying desperately to work with what they've been handed by Congress. 3) Congress is able to successfully sidestep responsibility because too many Americans have very short memories and attention spans (assuming they were paying attention in the first place).

It's insane. 


Its interesting that the biggest cuts, as noted in this piece, were not to the Parks themselves but rather to the Land and Water Conservation Fund, the National Recreation and Preservation Fund and the Historic Preservation Fund. The former isn't even a line item in the NPS budget and the latter two, for the most part, don't go to NPS Parks.  Further, the actual budget submitted (2018 Greenbook) shows a $183 mil decline not $378 as claimed by NPCA - and as noted earlier, the majority of that is for programs outside the parks.  And, those dollars are the dollars authorized from the general fund and do not include entrance fees which have risen substantially.

I sent Kurt an analysis earlier today that showed that of the $3.3 billlion NPS appropriation budget for 2016, only $1.32 billion was allocated for direct expenditures on the parks. Its pretty obvious that the NPS has quite alot of fat that isn't related to the Parks themselves.

PS Kurt.  Can't believe I spent all that time pulling together the numbers and the new numbers come out today.

 


If you can't cut it down, mine it, or drill it, you are screwed in this budget.  I hope our representatives can get their act together and pass something more reasonable, but not counting on where the parks are concerned.  It's a shame that during Obama's time he couldn't shore things up more. 


Having worked with agencies in DC, I totally agree.  Congress drives these agencies batty with unfunded mandates and requests.


Does this administration's budget actually define the proposed staffing cut in terms of FTEs, or is it a dollar amount?  If the latter, whatever Congress eventually cuts in its appropriation should be applied to the top-heavy NPS management.  There seems little transparency in NPS finances, but the word in the ranks during my career was that half the annual appropriation was management overhead and never made it to the actual parks. There would be far less impact to the parks and the public by cutting the 3-400 highest-paid redundant positions at DC and the Regional Offices than by cutting 1200 field positions.  Plus, the pathetic NPS Best Places To Work scores might show a considerable increase. 


The FTE numbers are specified by grade.

Interesting note.  Of some 23,000 total FTEs, ony about 14,000 actually work in the Parks.  


Tahoma--

The DOI breakout for NPS: https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/uploads/fy2018_bib_bh069.pdf  specifies both dollars & FTEs, as does the Greenbook:  https://www.nps.gov/aboutus/upload/FY-2018-NPS-Greenbook.pdf

FTEs by grade are on page 496 (SpecEx-12) in the GreenBook.  Most of the SES are superintendents of showcase parks; not all regional directors are SES.  The non-GS are primarily WS laborers (including skilled labor like electricians & plumbers) in facilities.  

I don't see EC's number of only 14K FTEs in parks.  On page 164 I see 15683 as the fy16 number of FTEs in parks, or page 166 has 16108 FTEs counting national trails and other field offices.  The non-park numbers starting on page 167 are odd.  Regional & WASO offices have 1072 FTEs,  support office FTEs add up to 1435 (698 admin support,  454 natural resource support, 31 cultural resource support, etc.).  Those park & non-park numbers only add up to 18615 of the 23420 FTEs on page 496.  Transparency (or math) is not strong point of the budget justifications.  It would not surprise me if EC got his conflicting numbers of only 14K FTEs in parks from somewhere else in the same document.

 

I'm skimming the greenbook on my lunch hour.  Some things that strike me so far:

Cut of $4M in the volunteers in parks program from $6.7M to $2.7M.  This funds recruitment, coordinating & training of volunteers in parks; eliminating the youth recruitment program may reduce more than 1M volunteer hours.

Total for new NPS units since fy16 appropriation:  $1.08M.  Breakdown is $180K + 1fte for each of Birmingham Civil Rights N.M., Castle Mountains N.M., Freedom Riders N.M., Katahdin Woods & Waters N.M., and Reconstruction Era N.M., and $180K but no fte for Stonewall N.M.  

American Battlefield Protection Program Assistance cut from $1.2M to $500K, again mostly matching support for restoration & education.  I belive that President Trump's donation of Q1 income of ~$76K goes to this program.

Japanese American Confinement Sites grants cut from $2.9M to $1M, so much less funding for matching grants for restoration & interpreting WW2 detention centers.

Southwest Border Resoruce Protection Program cut from $675K to $339K.  This provides technical support for mitigating impacts to natural & cultural resources of boarder parks from both migrant & enforcement activities.

Funds are added for both construction and construction management to address the maintenence backlog.  I haven't gotten that far in the greenbook, but I need to get back to cave aquatic biota (which have an excuse for being difficult to detect & monitor!)...

 


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.