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
Back in March, Coburn proposed an amendment(that was rejected) to the Continuing Resolution that would have redirected funding from Natural Heritage Areas(a NPS program) to amongst other things, WH Tours.
"This amendment would take the $6 million in savings garnered from implementing President Obama’s recommendation and direct it towards visitor services and maintenance needs at our National Parks, for example reopening the White House tours and using snow clearing equipment to open Yellowstone National Park on time"
While redirecting money from the Heritage Areas budget to NPS Operations and Maintenance budgets would help individual park units, it still wouldn't restore WH tours. The staffing reduction isn't on the NPS side.
http://www.coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/pressreleases?ContentRecord_id=733430ec-d662-45db-ab79-180e3692384d&ContentType_id=d741b7a7-7863-4223-9904-8cb9378aa03a&Group_id=7a55cb96-4639-4dac-8c0c-99a4a227bd3a
http://www.coburn.senate.gov/public//index.cfm?a=Files.Serve&File_id=fa4e90b2-4ca4-427a-a12e-4746f53fc01c
Coburn: "...which is expected to cost taxpayers $4 million a year."
With regard to the $4 million per year, that was an outright lie.
"The Delaware sites will receive an estimated $1.5 million in federal funding for renovations to the Sheriff’s House, another $1 million to develop a general management plan for the sites and about $1.5 million a year for maintenance and operations that will include salaries for park rangers and a monument superintendent."
So, the Delaware site will receive $2.5m in one time funding then $1.5m yearly. Yes, it adds up to $4m, but not in perpetuity nor yearly.
He received this information from http://www.delmarvanow.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2013304030008&nclic... the source he sited in footnote 16. I'm guessing he figures no one would ever look at footnotes.
Proof that he has no clue as to how the NPS nor the Department of the Interior operates:
From his letter:
"I would urge you to cease the designation of all parks, monuments and other sites and stop the expansion of existing parks..."
Congress designates all national parks. The President designates all National Monuments. The term, "other sites" is so broad as to be meaningless. But, from Wikipedia, "Derived from the Historic Sites Act of 1935, a number of Historic Sites were established by United States Secretaries of the Interior, but most have been authorized by acts of Congress."
Additionally, expansion of National Parks is done by acts of Congress and/or private donations. For example: "Legislation to authorize the expansion of the Vicksburg National Military Park has been reintroduced by U.S. Senators Thad Cochran and Roger Wicker, both R-Miss. The legislation would authorize the National Park Service to acquire about 10,000 acres of property deemed significant to the long-term preservation of historic Civil War battlefield sites in Claiborne and Hinds counties. The bill specifies that any purchases must be acquired through voluntary sales, donations or exchanges." or "Congress authorized expansion of Petrified Forest National Park, but forgot to fund It." I can site dozens more, but I'm hoping you get the picture.
This entire sequester thing is an in house fight and sadly we all fall for it.They use big words so we don't understand what it really all means.
They used the pick and chose method to make it look like a big deal.It's a drop in the bucky.Rather than fighting each other here we ought to throw everyone of these guys out of office and start over.
Maybe we can find a George Washington for president.
Dahkota, so many posts and so many mistatements its is hard to address in one post. I will just hit a few high (low) lights.
He wasn't talking about military drones, he was talking about drones deployed by the Interior Department to track roaming animals.
Wrong. Not to mention it is hard to fathom that any Park, Monument are other site is established without the encouragment of the NPS.
Perhaps he erred saying yearly but this monument alone will cost $4 million in the first year and $1.5 million every year thereafter. What will the other 12 be on top of that? That puts his assessment of "costing millions" far more on target than Lees "Very little" or the "minimum" and "no out of pocket costs" you described earlier.
I'm completely aware of that. You do understand that the NPS and and the USGS are two different agencies within the Department of the Interior, yes? And that those two agencies has separate budgets, yes? and that the funding for one is not at all related to the funding of the other?
Actually, you are wrong. The Antiquities Act gives the President the power to create National Monuments. If you can show anything different, please do. And, who has input or encouragement is irrelevant. the NPS does not have the power to create National Monuments.
Perhaps he erred. If he did, he cannot read a simple sentence. Or, he was purposefully mis-directing people. The other twelve were not sited. The point in question was whether or not Coburn lied or mis-directed people. If he will lie about $4 million, or as you state, "err," then it is quite possible that he will lie or "err" about other facets of the NPS and its budget. You blindly accept anything Coburn might say and yet you dismiss what other people, including congressmen say.
Please feel free to point out other inaccuracies in my previous statements, since, as you say, "there are so many." At the same time, I will ask you for evidence (as you so often demand) of the millions of dollars the NPS will need to spend. I have supplied evidence to the contrary, and yet you dismiss my sources, even when they are Coburn's sources to begin with.
All funding if ultimately fungible. Within the Dept of Interior, the department can ask for funds for A or B.
First sentence from BLM page: "National Monuments are special areas of public land designated by public proclamation by the President or by Congress.
http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/content/ca/en/prog/monuments.html
Yet he was far closer than your proclamations of "very little" or "minimum". Did you lie when you said those?
I find it ironic that the very people who think the Parks can and should be run with much tighter budgets, those who love to see the current "belt tightening", are the first in line to claim the high costs associated with running Parks.