You are here

Update: President's FY14 Budget Proposal Would Get Interior "Out Of Ditch," Provide $2.3 Billion For National Park Service

Share

Editor's note: This updates with additional details on the president's proposal for national parks, clarifies budget numbers, adds reaction from the National Parks Conservation Association.

Recent years of relatively sparse federal funding have left the Interior Department and its agencies "in the ditch," according to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, who says President Obama's FY14 budget proposal for the department will reverse that trend if approved by Congress.

Under that proposal, Interior overall would receive $11.9 billion for the next fiscal year that begins in October, while the National Park Service would receive $2.3 billion to manage the 401 units of the National Park System. Additionally, the budget calls for full funding -- $900 million -- of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which helps pay for land acquisitions for the park system and improvements to the national trails system, by 2015.

"The president's budget is one that starts getting the Department of Interior out of the ditch. It's a thoughtful budget, and one that we are very proud of," Secretary Salazar said during a conference call with reporters Wednesday afternoon. "The budget makes smart investments in things that we need to grow our economy, create jobs, and strengthen the middle class while reducing the deficit."

However, a review of Interior's briefing document (attached below) on the Park Service budget proposal shows that it calls for a reduction of more than 100 full-time employees to an agency that currently has 900 full-time vacancies, and would cut $3 million from the agency's operational budget under park management, and another $2.2 million under visitor services. How those cuts would be absorbed was not immediately clear.

"I wouldn't call it the robust budget that the secretary called it this morning," John Garder, the budget cruncher for the National Parks Conservation Association said Wednesday evening after reviewing the budget documents. "It's good, but it's not going to do the job of getting the parks out of this worrisome trend that we're seeing, a slow march towards reduced park operations."

In total, the president's proposal would provide $2.6 billion for the Park Service. All but $300 million would be for "park operations," the main checking account, if you will, for managing the 401 units of the park system; the outstanding $300 million is earmarked for programs under the NPS, such as the National Recreation and Preservation program ($52 million) that supports local and community efforts to preserve natural and cultural resources; the Urban Parks and Recreation Fund ($10 million); the Historic Preservation Fund ($58.9 million); construction ($160 million) outside that provided in the park operations budget, and; Land Acquisition and State Assistance ($100.4 million).

The budget also calls for a reduction of 92 employees under park operations, and 30 from the construction programs.

At the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees, Deny Galvin called the proposal for the parks "essentially a stand pat budget."

"It's not far from what the Obama administration requested in 2009, the first Obama request ($2.529 million vs. $2.6 million)," he said in an email. "So from there out it's just moving things around. The modest increase in operations is mostly offset by fixed cost increases of $30.5 million.

"Perhaps the most newsworthy thing about these numbers is that they ignore the sequester. That should provoke some interesting reactions on the hill," said Mr. Galvin, a former deputy director of the Park Service.

Interior Secretary Salazar told reporters that if approved the proposal would "put the nation on a path to live within our means by finding efficiencies and making some very tough choices. It is a strong blueprint for Interior's mission."

According to a synopsis of the budget provided by the department, the proposal calls for more than $600 million in programmatic reductions to offset spending. It also would sustain current administrative cost reductions in travel, contract services, and supplies and equipment that would save $217 million.

National Park Service Director John Jarvis did not participate in the call and was not taking questions from reporters, according to his staff. However, the agency said the agency's $2.3 billion operations budget proposal represents a $48.4 million increase over 2012 funding levels. But at the same time, the agency would need to cut nearly $21 million from elsewhere in its budget.

"Key increases include $5.2 million to control exotic and invasive species such as quagga and zebra mussels, $2 million to enhance sustainable and accessible infrastructure across the National Park System, and $1 million to foster the engagement of youth in the great outdoors. These increases are partially offset by programmatic decreases to park operations and related programs totaling $20.6 million," a Park Service release said.

Under the president's proposal, the Park Service would receive $110.4 million in LWCF dollars, of which $60.4 million would be set aside for use in park land acquisition. The budget also contains $5.5 million specifically to purchase Civil War battlefield lands within national parks, with another $9 million requested to help state and local governments and non-governmental organizations "purchase and protect threatened Civil War and other battlefields" outside the park system.

Regarding the Park Service's construction and maintenance account, the proposal requests $160 million, an increase of $4.6 million over 2012 levels. "This includes $83.1 million for line-item construction projects, a $5.3 million increase from 2012," the Park Service staff noted. "It provides funding for the highest priority construction projects critical to visitor and employee health and safety and environmental restoration."

In recent years, the president's budget proposal as a whole has gained little traction with Congress.

Back at NPCA, Executive Vice President Theresa Pierno said the proposal was lacking.

“The National Park Service is experiencing deep impacts from the sequester and other continued reductions. This year will be the most challenging in some time for national park superintendents who will have fewer rangers and smaller budgets to manage each park from Yellowstone to Acadia," she said in a prepared statement. "Funding the operations of the National Park Service needs to be more of a priority than it has been to date. We're pleased that the president recognizes the need to reverse the mindless sequester, but it will take more than that recognition to address the reality facing national parks.

“The sequester has already cut more than $130 million from the National Park Service budget, forcing places like Yellowstone, Acadia, Independence Hall, and Cape Cod National Seashore to delay seasonal openings, close visitor centers, picnic areas, and campgrounds, and eliminate ranger positions that are critical to protecting endangered species and historic buildings, as well as greeting park visitors and school groups. Further cuts will only impair the national park experience."

Comments

No, trail, you're not wrong. Ever since the parks first started they have been pawns for nearly every administration, every Congress, and every special interest with even the most remote connection.

As for Coburn and his misinformation and fibs -- read it again and do some research. Here's a hint, landmarks. Another hint, research Coburn's legislative history related to parks. But selective blindness is an ailment that's hard to cure, so anyone trying to point things out to one who chooses to turn a blind eye is wasting the time of everyone.


Lee, rather than "hinting" why dont you explicitly identify the misinformation and fibs and provide the proof of such? Why must you always dance?


I am a new member , but a long time reader of the Traveler. So you can take this or leave it.

After reading a great deal of comments on here I can say , Yes EC can be fairly stubborn and hard on his points. Personally I like that he is that way because if no one questions your beliefs or ideas then how can you really be sure that your ideas or beliefs can stand up against a fight. I can also say that Lee your statement of

" But selective blindness is an ailment that's hard to cure, so anyone trying to point things out to one who chooses to turn a blind eye is wasting the time of everyone. "

Can be aimed at you as well ! You are correct in one respect " Ever since the parks first started they have been pawns for nearly every administration, every Congress, and every special interest with even the most remote connection." it truly is a sad thing that it happens but it does. Politics are like that. I too would like to see the misinformation that you speak of. If your calling something bad info then list what is bad so that it can be researched to confirmed or denied.

For my thoughts I would love nothing better then for the parks to be fully funded.


Pachaniko: I agree, in a perfect world where people are all virtuous. If all the upper echelons were humbled down to the virtuous class it would indeed be a good thing to be fully funded. In my own experience, I see a lot to be encouraged about but facing and correcting the excesses of the past would greatly enhance the future:).


Good points, Pachaniko. I do make a real effort to remain among the sighted and have been known to change my mind when necessary. But, on the other hand, I'm an Irishman.

But Coburn's comments were typical political blame and bluster. For example, national landmarks require very little funding or oversight by the NPS. That is the biggest bit of misinformation in the Faux piece. Then there is the fact that Congress has been supportive of ALL the recent additions to our list of national monuments. In fact, in some cases, Congress was pushing the President to act. Coburn is trying to blame Obama for sequestration, yet Coburn was one of the Senators who voted for the most recent fiscal cliff deal last December. (He did, however, see the light when his colleagues voted in favor of the original sequester a year or two ago. He voted against it, although that may have been another political ploy. There have been some allegations that he supported it in the background, but cast his vote to deflect any possible future blame. Of course, whether one accepts that idea or not depends upon which sources one has read.) He has a long history of opposing any form of tax increases to boost revenue, and a long history of supporting ideas that will cause serious hurt to members of the middle class.

There's also the fact that many of the things the NPS must "waste" money on are things that were imposed upon the agency by Congress. Among those are deadlines for opening park roads or managing a multitude of policies that came about as a result of pressures from special interest groups of one kind or another. Remember that these are the same folks who are forcing the Air Force to accept and try to use a multi-billion dollar fighter plane that barely flies and the Army to buy still more Abrams tanks that the Army says they don't need. (Although, to his credit, Coburn has opposed those moves. A good record of Coburn's voting practices can be found here: http://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/22085/thomas-coburn#.UYJzbUoWAmE )

His extremism is one of the reasons we have such a dysfunctional mess in Washington. Coburn, like many of his Congressional colleagues, is almost totally dependent upon the short memory spans of too many American voters. That showed up again in the Faux piece.

There is so much confusion and conflicting "information" floating in the sludge around the Capitol that it's almost impossible for anyone to make any sense of it. I wonder sometimes if that's not yet one more tactic deliberately employed by our politicos. They are very, very adept at hiding their handiwork behind such a convoluted pile of paper and verbal bombast that even they probably couldn't provide the truth if they ever had to.

If anything, I'm guilty as charged when it comes to trying to defend our parks. They are priceless, and I'll fight for them as any good Irishman should.


As I expected - just empty accusations. Coburn says these will cost "millions" you say that's a fib but all you can come back with is your own declaration that it will take"very little funding". How much is "very little"? $1? $1,000? a million, 10 million, 100 million. The fact is you don't know, yet you call Coburn a liar. And that's the "biggest piece of faux information"

You then go on to claim he blamed Obama for the sequester. Could you identify the sentence in the article where that claim is made? (not that it would have been invalid as the idea for the sequester did emanate from the White House)

Then you claim Congress has been supportive of all the acquisitions - something Coburn didn't opine on in the article - yet if Congress had been supportive - they would have made the designations and the President would not have had to do so.

This is yet another example of your baseless accusations. You certainly are free to express frustration or even disgust with Congress - I am all with you there. But please don't make up facts and quotes to go after your favorite boogy men.


ec-- most costs for landmarks and heritage areas are borne by local sources. As to the Congressional support issue for national monuments, most of the most recent designations by Presidential proclamation, including those by President Bush, were created with the full support of the state Congressional delegations; they just couldn't make it through the bitterly divided Congress.

Another thing we have to keep in mind. The President cannot declare a national monument on private land; designations can only occur on lands that already belong to the people of the United States.

Rick


most costs for landmarks and heritage areas are borne by local sources.

Maybe so, but what exactly are those costs and what are the costs borne by the NPS? Without the numbers, calling someone a liar is just a baseless accusation.

they just couldn't make it through the bitterly divided Congress.

So contrary to Lee's declaration, Congress didn't support all declarations.

designations can only occur on lands that already belong to the people of the United States.

I would hope so, but I wonder how long before some of these folks will want to appropriate private land as well.


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.