Glacier National Park loses 60,273 visitors / $3,076,712 in first 10 days of shutdown

As the 10th day of the government shutdown begins this morning, more than seven million Americans have been kept out of national parks and $750 million in visitor spending has already been lost, with huge repercussions for the economies of gateway communities and entire states that depend on national park tourism, according to a report published by the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees (CNPSR).

CNPSR-gathered figures show that the shutdown is resulting in:

• 715,000 visitors lost daily (based on October 2012 national park attendance numbers).

• $76 million in lost visitor spending per day.

• $450,000 in lost revenue each day that would go directly to the National Park Service ($300,000 in entrance fees and $150,000 in other in-park expenditures, such as campground fees, boat rentals, etc.)

CNPSR Chair Maureen Finnerty, former superintendent of Everglades and Olympic National Parks, said: "These figures are mind boggling and they only begin to capture the full economic shock of locking up the crown jewels of America – our national parks. Towns, cities, and even whole states that depend on park tourism are feeling an increasingly strong pinch. And if Congress continues to hold our national parks hostage, these communities will soon be reeling from what is in many cases the main driver of their economies." The following is CNPSR-gathered data for the lost visitors, visitor spending, and jobs at risk for 12 leading national parks across the U.S.:

• Acadia National Park (Maine) – 68,493 lost visitors in first 10 days, $5,263,013 lost visitor dollars in first 10 days, and 3331 total jobs at stake, including 3147 local/non-NPS jobs.

• Badlands National Park (South Dakota) – 26,767 lost visitors in first 10 days, $656,986 lost visitor dollars in first 10 days, and 475 total jobs at stake, including 375 local/non-NPS jobs.

 • Boston National Historic Park (Massachusetts) – 54,794 lost visitors in first 10 days, $2,032,876 lost visitor dollars in first 10 days, and 1019 total jobs at stake, including 904 non-NPS jobs.

 • Cuyahoga Valley National Park (Ohio) – 68,219 lost visitors in first 10 days, $1,545,205 lost visitor dollars in first 10 days, and 819 total jobs at stake, including 599 local/non-NPS jobs.

 • Everglades National Park (Florida) – 25,083 lost visitors in first 10 days, $3,857,534 lost visitor dollars in first 10 days, and 2364 total jobs at stake, including 1951 local/non-NPS jobs.

• Gettysburg National Military Park (Pennsylvania) – 27,397 lost visitors in first 10 days, $1,796,712 lost visitor dollars in first 10 days, and 1141 total jobs at stake, including 1051 local/non-NPS jobs.

• Glacier National Park (Montana) – 60,273 lost visitors in first 10 days, $3,076,712 lost visitor dollars in first 10 days, and 1994 total jobs at stake, including 1632 local/non-NPS jobs.

• Grand Canyon National Park (Arizona) – 120,000 lost visitors in first 10 days, $11,750,684 lost visitor dollars in first 10 days, and 6825 total jobs at stake, including 6167 local/non-NPS jobs.

 • Great Smoky Mountains National Park (North Carolina and Tennessee) – 257,534 lost visitors in first 10 days, $23,123,287 lost visitor dollars in first 10 days, and 11,766 total jobs at stake, including 11,367 local/non-NPS jobs.

 • Olympic National Park (Washington) – 77,808 lost visitors in first 10 days, $2,912,328 lost visitor dollars in first 10 days, and 1673 total jobs at stake, including 1395 local/non-NPS jobs.

 • Rocky Mountain National Park (Colorado) – 80,821 lost visitors in first 10 days, $4,821,917 lost visitor dollars in first 10 days, and 3033 total jobs at stake, including 2641 local/non-NPS jobs.

• Yellowstone National Park (Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho) – 98,630 lost visitors in first 10 days, $9,452,054 lost visitor dollars in first 10 days, and 5572 total jobs at stake, including 4481 local/non-NPS jobs.

• Yosemite National Park (California) – 106,849 lost visitors in first 10 days, $10,021,917 lost visitor dollars in first 10 days, and 5607 total jobs at stake, including 4602 local/non-NPS jobs.

 • Zion National Park (Utah) – 72,876 lost visitors in first 10 days, $3,495,890 lost visitor dollars in first 10 days, and 2401 total jobs at stake, including 2136 local/non-NPS jobs.

Visitation, economic impacts, and job numbers for the 12 parks are drawn from Headwaters Economics, "Land and Communities, National Parks Service Units, Economic Impacts of Visitation and Expenditures". Topline numbers for NPS daily visitation provided by Coalition of National Park Service Retirees using National Park Service data.


Jeff
Hiking in Glacier.com

Will sequestration really delay the opening of the Going-to-the-Sun Road?

Well, it looks like the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees (CNPSR) is at once it again. Yesterday they published a press release that details information (purportedly leaked to them by the National Park Service) on how sequestration-related cuts will be implemented in our national parks. In the release, the CNPSR provides this short blurb that's clearly intended to leave the American public quivering in our hiking boots:

"Now the specific impact of the sequestration meat-cleaver on America’s national parks is becoming clearer and even more alarming."

In addition to the details on nine other parks, the CNPSR provides some information concerning Glacier:

Glacier National Park in MT will delay opening the Going-to-the-Sun Road by two weeks, the only road which provides access to the entire park. In previous instances, closures of Going-to-the-Sun Road have resulted in financial distress for surrounding communities and concessions well into millions in lost revenues.

This really makes absolutely no sense on several levels:

1) From a purely financial perspective, how would Glacier save any meaningful dollars by delaying the opening of the Going-to-the-Sun Road by two weeks? The same amount of work still has to be done to clear the road - right?

2) Why would Glacier cut off its nose to spite its face? If you were running a business, wouldn't you do the things that would generate the greatest amounts of revenue? Purposely delaying the opening of the main road through the park only decreases the amount of revenues the park collects during its short season - by two weeks - thus exacerbating the situation the NPS and Federal Government find themselves in. Not only would park revenues be reduced, but all the taxes generated by travelers would also be potentially reduced.

3) What kind of an evil person, whether it be in the Obama Administration, the National Park Service, or at Glacier National Park, would make the decision to purposely inflict pain on the surrounding communities and concessions - knowing full well that there are many, many other low-priority projects that could take a back seat?

4) Most importantly, this will never happen - even if sequestration is allowed to pass. These are simply scare tactics being used by special interest groups around the country to scare Americans into believing that they must pay more in taxes. As I fully explained in my blog posting on Tuesday, sequestration will only cut $44 billion out of the overall federal budget in 2013. This amounts to a 1.16% cut in spending - not the 5% that continues to be thrown around by NPS Director Jon Jarvis and the CNPSR. Effectively, sequestration would reduce the National Park Service budget from $2.99 billion to $2.96 billion.

Even if we were to assume that Jarvis is correct, a cut of 5% would only draw the NPS budget down to $2.84 billion - which is still higher than the amount that the NPS spent in 2008, or any year before that. If I'm not mistaken, the Going-to-the-Sun Road was cleared of snow in 2008, and in every year before that.

In my view the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees is providing false and/or misleading information concerning sequestration in order to scare Americans into believing that the only solution to all of our problems is more government spending.


Jeff
Glacier National Park Hiking

National Parks, Sequestration and Scare Tactics

The latest dire warnings from politicians, news media outlets, pundits and special interest groups are currently focused on an inside-the-beltway term known as sequestration.

Sequestration refers to the across-the-board budget cuts that will take effect on March 1st - unless an agreement on deficit reduction can be reached beforehand. This "gimmick" was agreed upon by both the president and congress several months ago in order to force both sides to come to some agreement on spending reductions.

This blog posting will focus on the impact sequestration will have on national parks. Most importantly, it will focus on a leaked memo from National Park Service Director Jon Jarvis, which makes very little sense from my perch.

First off, let me show three graphs to help explain where we are, and where we've come from in terms of spending. The first graph shows total federal spending since 1999. The analysis begins with this year because 1999 was the first year I could find NPS budget figures. For all three graphs 2013 figures are current estimates. The following federal spending data comes from the Whitehouse website, and the figures quoted are in trillions:

As you can see, spending at the federal level has risen sharply over the last several years. However, increases in spending on national parks have been relatively modest. In fact, the National Park Service budget has seen small declines every year since 2010. The following graph shows the total NPS budget authority, which was compiled using data from the NPS Budget History, and the NPS Green Book. The numbers quoted here are in billions:

To look at this data a little differently, here's a chart showing total NPS budget authority as a percentage of total federal spending. As you can see, the NPS share of the overall pie has been getting smaller over the last decade (which simply means the rest of the federal government is growing much faster than the NPS budget):

Late last month the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees published a leaked memo from National Park Service Director Jon Jarvis, which stated that the NPS should assume a 5% decrease in the 2013 budget as a result of the impending sequestration. I find this figure to be a little curious. The sequestration calls for a cut of $85 billion to the 2013 federal budget, which amounts to only a 2.24% decrease in the overall federal budget.

Moreover, according to an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office, only $44 billion would actually be cut out of the 2013 budget. This is due to the sequestration taking effect on March 1st, which is already 5 months into the federal fiscal year which began on October 1st. This means only 1.16% of the 2013 budget is scheduled to be cut if sequestration goes into effect.

So why is Jarvis stating that 5% needs to be cut from the NPS budget? Or, why would the president decide to cut NPS funding at a higher rate than the rest of the budget? 

A budget cut of 1.16% would reduce the National Park Service budget from $2.99 billion, down to $2.96 billion. A cut of 2.24% would reduce the NPS budget down to $2.90 billion. Even if we were to assume that the NPS Director is correct (which I don't), a cut of 5% would draw the NPS budget down to $2.84 billion - which is still higher than the amount that the NPS spent in 2008, or any year before that.

So when I see headlines from the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees that reads "Sequestration Budget Cuts Would Turn National Parks Into Ghost Towns", or from the National Parks Conservation Association; "Proof Positive: Our National Parks Are in Peril", I can't help but be a little skeptical.

Then, when I read things like "all national parks should be prepared for reduced hours and fewer services", or "NPS said cuts could include closing of campgrounds and hiking trails. Interpretive programs could also be curtailed" or "If these cuts go into effect, it appears they will harm every one of the 398 parks and monuments in the system as well as park rangers, tourism-dependent businesses and communities, and the millions of Americans who rely on national parks for affordable vacations", I can't help but conclude that these organizations and news media outlets are simply using scare tactics to get cash-strapped Americans to pony up more tax dollars.

I'm calling BS on all this. Certainly there are many smart people in NPS management that can figure how to operate off the same amount of money they were receiving just a couple of years ago. And, for that matter, the same goes for all the other agencies and programs in Washington DC, whose special interest groups are likely using the same scare tactics.


Jeff
Hiking in Glacier National Park