Opposition to President Trump's call for a 10 percent budget cut across most of the federal government was surfacing in some camps Tuesday, and heightened pushback would be welcomed by national park supporters, some of whom say a cut of that magnitude would "be devastating" to the agency.

“You cut 10 percent, you’re going to have to cut positions, leave positions vacant, probably eliminate your seasonal workforce," said Phil Francis, a four-decade National Park Service veteran who retired in 2013 as superintendent of the Blue Ridge Parkway. "If they take 10 percent of $3 billion, that’s $300 million. … I’m not sure where those cuts will be taken, but if they’re taking it from every account, it’s going to be very difficult on the parks because they’ve taken way too many cuts over the years to begin with.”

Whether such a cut will come to be was sheer speculation Tuesday. Indeed, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, said the president's budget would be "dead on arrival" when it reached Congress.

But if not a 10 percent cut, how much? With some senators saying such a large cut wouldn't come from agencies such as Homeland Security or Veterans Affairs, would some agencies be expected to pare a larger percentage from their budgets? 

“As we saw today, there is deep bipartisan concern among appropriators and other members of Congress that this magnitude of a cut is unsustainable and unrealistic," John Garder, director of budget and appropriations for the National Parks Conservation Association, said Tuesday evening.

Any cut of significance could be tough for the Park Service to handle. Coming out of its centennial year, when a record 330.9 million people visited the parks, the agency could see a continuation of that record pace this year as people who avoided the park system last year make plans to visit this year.

The hiring freeze President Trump issued back in January also is complicating things, putting parks weeks behind in hiring seasonal workers, and a hiring plan being fashioned by the Office of Management and Budget could hit the Park Service's permanent workforce hard. Already the agency has more than 1,700 vacant positions.

Then, too, there's the budgetary highway Congress and the president need to navigate in the coming months. The federal government is being funded under a Continuing Resolution, which is set to expire April 28. Along with coming to terms on funding the government for the rest of the fiscal year, which runs out at the end of September, the government's budget ceiling will need to be raised in the coming weeks if the government is not to default. And then, of course, there's the need to hammer out a budget for Fiscal 2018.

“They’re going to have to deal with that, and they’re not going to like it," one park superintendent said of the Republicans' need to address the budget ceiling. "I don’t think it’s very likely that there will be a government shutdown, but it wouldn’t surprise me if there’s posturing like there would be.”

The superintendent, who asked not to be identified discussing the budgetary implications for the agency, speculated that some members of Congress might only agree to raise the debt ceiling if the budget is cut.

More clarity from the administration on how the cuts are to be implemented would, of course, provide substance and a measure of certainty for park administrators wondering how much money they'll have to work with for the rest of the current fiscal year as well as in the next. Too, having the Senate confirm U.S. Rep. Ryan Zinke, R-Montana, as Interior secretary would provide a more solid rudder for the department and its agencies.

Tom Crosson, the Park Service's chief spokesman, did not respond to a request for information on how a cut of 10 percent might impact the agency. But Mr. Francis pointed out that 85-90 percent of a park's budget is consumed by personnel, leaving managers with little room to navigate a significant cut without paring positions.

Back at NPCA, Mr. Garder pointed out that Congress, to implement President Trump's budget, would have to amend the Budget Control Act of 2011, and he didn't think that likely. That act established caps for government budgets, and banned a large increase in one area that would be offset by a corresponding decrease in another. If the caps are exceeded, the act requires an automatic across-the-board budget sequestration.

"There is little appetite among many members of Congress for amending the Budget Control Act," he said. "It can’t be amended through budget reconciliation, which means of course that there have to be 60 votes, and they’ll never get 60 votes in the Senate. So the president put out a proposal that is so indiscriminate with broad across-the-board cuts which no one has seen in detail. It has people worried and it has members of Congress immediately pushing back.”

Back in 2013, Congress approved a sequestration that forced the Park Service to cut roughly 5 percent of its budget. That led to positions going unfilled, cuts in interpretive programming, less regular cleaning of restrooms, campground closures, and fewer rangers to help with search-and-rescue operations.

Mr. Francis envisioned a similar situation if the president's budget somehow gains approval.

“The impacts will be reduced seasonals, reductions in the season. (Parks will) open later and close sooner. Fewer patrol rangers, picnic grounds, all that will be impacted," he said. "It will be devastating."