Great Sand Dunes National Park and Preserve/NPS
Cuts in visitor interpretation and education, not enough money for employee pay raises or to replace jobs lost by past years' cuts, and less money for replacing worn out equipment are among the troubling areas of President Biden's FY25 budget request for the National Park Service, which continues to see visitation rise and additional units for the agency to manage.
Overall, the $3.576 billion request reflects a $101 million increase from FY24 funding levels, a level the administration says "prioritizes advancing racial equity and support for underserved communities, building resiliency to tackle the climate crisis in the National Park System, conserving our natural resources, and using science to inform decisions. The request balances investments in key priorities with necessary funding for day-to-day operation of the National Park System, ensuring the American public continues to have enriching experiences on park lands."
However, notes Phil Francis, a long-time Park Service superintendent who now chairs the executive council of the Coalition to Protect America's National Parks, the budget contains "some things that are being reduced and/or eliminated from the budget to pay for the new things." Overall, he said Tuesday he was "disappointed in the president's budget."
And while the Interior Department in a release Monday praised funding requests for wildland firefighting and climate change initiatives, to strengthen tribal nations and meet treaty obligations, and to fund clean energy initiatives, Francis pointed out areas of the National Park Service that were not suitably addressed by the budget request.
"The National Park Service is not mentioned in that at all," he said of Interior Secretary Deb Haaland's release. "I was disappointed, certainly in that. Interior's largest agency is the National Park Service, with over 300 million visitors and the economic benefit of $50 billion, and it's not mentioned in the secretary's press release. I was very surprised by that."
"I don't know what's going on. But I'm certainly disappointed," Francis continued. "You know, we've lost thousands of positions over the years and there's no money that I could find in my reading of the budget to restore those positions. Or if any are restored, part of [the funding] is being taken from other accounts. Robbing Peter to pay Paul."
The budget, which almost certainly will get short shrift from appropriators in the House of Representatives where funding for the current fiscal year carries a $150 million cut for the Park Service, shifts money around in part to cover start-up "costs for parks recently added to the National Park System, like Emmett Till and Mamie Till-Mobley National Historic Site, Blackwell School National Historic Site, New Philadelphia National Historic Site, the Summerton Site expansion at Brown v. Board of Education National Historical Park, and Amache National Historic Site," the Park Service noted in its own release on the president's budget.
“This request speaks to the heart of what the National Park Service does every day, ensuring Americans and visitors from around the world are able to benefit from the resources we protect while working within the budget constraints we face today,” Park Service Director Chuck Sams said in that release. “The budget addresses critical challenges like supporting a strong workforce; strengthening climate resilience in parks and communities; sharing the complete story of America; and ensuring access to parks for generations to come.”
That said, among the spending reductions called for in the request are:
- $29 million in Historic Preservation Fund projects.
- $25 million in repair and rehabilitation funding [addresses recapitalization, alteration, replacement, and divestiture activities needed to improve the condition of NPS assets. Repair and rehabilitation projects address complex repair needs that arise on an infrequent or non-recurring basis, halting or correcting deterioration where preventive maintenance is no longer sufficient to maintain the condition of the facility or infrastructure.]
- $16.5 million in Save America's Treasures projects, which "help preserve nationally significant historic properties and collections that convey our Nation’s rich heritage to future generations."
- $14.1 million from a program that "allows the National Park Service to establish a revolving fund to provide the NPS with tools to improve commercial visitor facilities and services throughout the System."
- $13 million in the fund used to replace worn out equipment.
- $11.1 million in the agency's Heritage Partnership Program, which supports the "conservation and stewardship of diverse natural and cultural resources and the provision of educational and recreational benefits for the American people through partnership programs."
- $8.9 million in the Park Service's visitor services budget.
- $2 million for the Park Service's Centennial Challenge fund, which provides dedicated Federal funding to match non-Federal donations for park projects.
Looking across the National Park System with its multitude of needs, Francis said the Park Service's budget should including adequate funds for staff, for maintenance of park facilities, for staff training, and to cover supplies and materials.
At the National Parks Conservation Association, John Garder, senior director for budget and appropriations, said the president missed a great opportunity to tell Congress the Park Service needs much more funding.
"This budget sends an important message that National Park funding needs to be increased. There are important proposals [in the budget] to meet fixed costs for housing, tribal support, climate change, wildlife and more," said Garder. "But that said, it's not a visionary budget, and nowhere near the increase that parks and Park Service programs need. Chiefly, parks have lost thousands of staff over the years. And while this budget commendably would undo last year's cuts and add over 100 more personnel, it falls short of the level of recovery that's needed to bring park staffing levels back to where they were and certainly where they need to be.
"There are also some missed opportunities, as well as some concerning reductions," he went on. "Park infrastructure is in disrepair, and while the Great American Outdoors Act is chipping away at the backlog, the Park Service needs additional resources for smaller repair projects and day-to-day cyclic maintenance. This budget misses that opportunity to tell Congress that they need to do better at annually addressing park repair needs.
The president's request does ask for $49.4 million to cover "one-quarter (October-December 2024) of the 5.2 percent pay raise for 2024 and three quarters (January-September 2025) of the estimated 2.0 percent pay raise for 2025."
It also seeks funding to address "obsolete and deteriorated housing or adding housing capacity at multiple parks, including Mammoth Cave National Park, Acadia National Park, Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks, Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve, Western Arctic National Parklands, Rocky Mountain National Park, and Yosemite National Park."
Furthermore, it calls for $9 million to pay for new construction or rehabilitation of existing facilities to provide employee housing "where local market data shows that rentals are either unavailable or unaffordable." Parks cited in this category were Rocky Mountain, Sequoia and Kings Canyon, and Mammoth Cave. "Projects would support approximately 100 rehabilitated or new bedrooms for both seasonal and permanent NPS employees," the budget document said.
Of course, with this year being an election year, Congress's approach to funding the Park Service could change considerably before the FY25 budget is adopted.
Comments
The NPS has no one to blame but itself for this mess. Years of mismanagement and scandalous behavior (Grand Canyon debacle as a case in point) have led to lost confidence, by both the public and Congress. The seasonal positions have become horrific examples of exploitative labor, with some recent college graduates forced to live in their cars for the summer, and the HR approach to hiring is highly inefficient. I applied to a region-wide announcement only to learn FOUR months later that two of the three positions I applied to were never going to be filled by the park of my choice. Why include those positions in the announcement, and why take FOUR months to notify me of this fact? At this point, the whole system needs blown up and recreated. Taxpayers shouldn't be on the hook for such gross incompetency from this agency.
The statement that there's "not enough money for employee pay raises" is not supported by the facts. By law federal employees receive pay increases based upon performance/time-in-grade regardless of their agency's budget limitations. Additionally, nearly every year federal employees recieve annual pay increases, which are separate from performance/time-in-grade status. Last year the minimum increase was 5%. In 2023 it was, at minimum, 4.37%. For 2025 it's anticipated to be at least 2%. To put this in perspective, the federal minimum wage in the U.S. is a meager $7.25/hr and has remained so since 2009.
The statement that there's "not enough money... to replace jobs lost by past years' cuts" is not supported by the facts. Per the NPS annual budget 'greenbook' ( https://www.nps.gov/aboutus/budget.htm ) the NPS had 21,639 positions in FY23; the same estimated # of positions in FY24; and anticipates an increase of 100+ positions in FY25 (21,773).
Perhaps, rather than being enablers to NPS employee 'pity card' playing, it would be more informative to provide perspective via these articles by pointing out all the benefits of working for the NPS (good salaries with promotion potential: sick leave; annual leave; holiday pay (11 days/year); health insurance; life insurance; 401k; retirement plan in addition to social security; etc). Better yet, reference the alternative of phasing out more NPS positions and replacing them with private sector concession operations in the parks. That might add clarity to how good things will actually be, if Congress appropriates the $3.6 Billion budget request for FY25.
Paul, perhaps you could point out on the Green Book pages where you found that 21,639 number for FY23 FTEs.
The FY24 budget request says the president's budget request calls for 20,759 FTEs. (Page Overview-3)
The FY23 budget request says the president's request supports 20,495 FTEs (Page Overview-3)
The FY25 request calls for "19,912 FTE." (Page Overview-3)
In FY15, the year before the NPS centennial, the agency counted 21,164 FTEs. (Page Overview -4)
As for having the money to cover salaries, last year I was told by an SES-level superintendent that they'd have to find the money internally to cover the 5.2 percent raise because Congress didn't provide it. It looks now like the president is trying to get Congress to cover at least part of it.
Meanwhile, the FY22 request was for 20,120 FTEs. (Page Overview-4)
In 2016, the year of the NPS Centennial, there were 401 units in the National Park System and 20,205 FTEs. In FY24, there were 424 units in the park system, and 19,390 FTEs. So nearly 1,000 fewer employees with 23 more parks.
As for "good salaries," the latest "Best Places to Work in Federal Government" ranked the NPS 400 out of 424 agencies in terms of salary satisfaction. Additionally, the survey placed the NPS at 400 out of 422 agencies regarding "the commitment of an agency and its supervisors to create a workplace that promotes diversity through recruitment, promotion and development opportunities." (emphasis added).
Hey Kurt- ever worked for the NPS? The idea of a "promotion" is wildly out of touch with the private sector compared to what the NPS experience is. Many seasonal workers such as myself- will work for half a decade, perhaps even a decade with no hope of promotion. No real increase in wages. No real upward growth or potential for future higher earnings. Mainly your NPS career will be dictated by who you know or are related to.
Perhaps the disconnect with the comments and your viewpoint comes from a lack of experience actually working in the NPS as opposed to how you think it should or does run.
It was my experience that the public has no clue how the NPS works and often the public thinks the shiny interp rangers they see do all the work
If the outcome of the 2024 elections is a favorable one in terms of the Executive Branch and a Congressional majority therell be smooth waters ahead. If the reins go the dark side you can expect an immediate concerted effort to gut most all agencies and Federal employment protection. That siniist intent and plan has already been stated.
Kurt, Here's brief responses to your comments:
1) The Green Book pages that reference the # of NPS employees are typically found in the last few pages in the "Exhibit" sections. For 2025 it is page 678. The data shows that overall NPS employment has remained around 21,000 since 2017. And, while the NPS does add more sites each year, they're typically small sites that only add a few employees to the big picture. Also, overall federal employment numbers have remained flat since the late 1960s (https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/data-analysis-documentation/fe...). So, the situation for the NPS is not that unique.
2) Regarding your comment about an SES level superintendent's reference to local budget absorbing of salary increases, what I can offer is that I've heard that same story directly from superintendents for decades. And, given that the current U.S. debt is $34 Trillion and growing, I anticipate that this story will continue for many years. Frankly, the local superintendents, like Cam Sholly at YELL, already know that they can't rely on the federal govt for more $, and should be leaning more heavily into private sector financing (e.g.- most sites should have someone trained in Grant Writing and other legal $ solicitation avenues).
3) Regarding your reference to the annual federal employee viewpoint survey results, which paint a gloomy picture of the NPS, I'll offer a few observations. First, this survey is just a snapshot in time that is opinion-based rather than fact-based. And, only about 50% of the permanent NPS employees and 25% of the temporary employees take the survey. So, the survey, standing alone, doesn't add much value. A few years ago I extracted the data from the NPS Greenbook from 2000 thru 2020. One noteworthy conclusion was that over that period the number of GS-11 thru GS-15 positions increased while the number of GS-1 thru GS-6 positions decreased. So, while some employees may feel like their careers are stagnant, that data demonstrates that promotion-potential is real.
After a 30-year career with the NPS, I can assure you that funding is and was always an issue. As chief ranger, I started my assignment with 25 rangers to patrol. When I left 6 years later, I had 15. It all came down to money. Actually, individual parks, especially highly visible national parks tend to do better for funding.
And I was interested to see the entry on housing for employees. The federal government began setting the rental rate for housing according to private sector housing rates about 20 years ago, more or less. When they did that at the Pennsylvania park where I worked, most people moved out into the community. The rate calculation formula reflected housing rates from the New York City area, 60 miles away. Not the only place where the calculation formula priced employees out of housing.
Over the last twelve years I have noticed something that distinguishes the NPS from my previous large-organization experience (the U.S. Army). It appears that few of those who work at the national level (the Washington Support Office and its dependencies) have ever worked in a park. They mean well, but have no visceral understanding of park operations. When I served on the Army Staff in the Pentagon, half of the staff including most of the senior staff officers had experience in deployable units--"with troops"--namely the military service members. The civil service employees, who did wonderful work, might not have such experience but they were intermixed with service members and usually not in decision-making positions.
Recent centralization of personnel functions at the national level will not improve this disconnection. Unfunded mandates will not improve the situation in the parks--the money for required pay raises comes from the park budgets, typically by leaving positions unfilled. The budgetted FTEs set forth by Mr. Repanshek do not reflect numbers on the ground in parks.
#Paul S.: (1) Many of those benefits are paid for by the employee. (2) In our park, most of the employees live in government housing--there is no private housing within an hour's drive. Rent for government housing was just raised by 10-15%, which comes out of taxable income and wipes out several years' pay raises. (3) As I mentioned above, the mandated pay raises were not accompanied by funding, so the parks had to take the raises out of their respective hides. Something had to be cut. (4) The annual pay raises are Cost Of Living increases, which lag inflation. (5) When someone with a relevant PhD or master's serves as a GS-5, it is disingenuous to call it a "good salary". Most NPS employees working in parks are there because they enjoy the work, love their park, and believe in the mission of the National Park Service. Salary needs to "satisfice".
#chris: (1) Promotion has been a headache for a long time. Most the NPS employees in our park knew when they entered the National Park Service that promotion was going to be difficult; this was not an important motivation for joining. However, once they start a family and need to prepare to send children to college, that changes. I have watched several excellent employees have to leave what they loved doing to make more money. Compare the compensation of senior non-commissioned officers in the Air Force or warrant officers in the Army. The way the civil service system is structured, positions and promotions are tied to locations. If a park only has one position in a particular specialty, promotion is impossible unless you move. Then there are specialties that are rare anywhere. Also, a talented junior employee will simply not be considered for a position two or more grades higher even if they are objectively fully qualified. (2) Relationships are important for employment in any organization, government or civilian. I have observed less of such favoritism in the NPS with three exceptions. First, people who have lived in a park (including family members) have a built-in advantage when applying for their first seasonal position. They already have some of the skills that the NPS seeks at this level. Second, people who have served as seasonal employees in a park have an advantage over others for permanent positions because their supervisors know how to frame recommendations and are trusted by those making selections. Third, I have seen senior people promoted to levels above parks "bring along" junior people they trust; but this is common everywhere. (3) I am offended by the "shiny interp rangers" comment. You are correct that visitors see interp rangers more than any other employees--that's their job. A hundred years ago, they were the "Park Naturalists" who both did science and interacted with visitors, giving presentations and answering questions. If you read the statutory mission of the National Park Service, giving the public access to national parks is important--and giving access is so much more that just letting them in the front gate. Someone has to explain why this park is a special place, and that's what interp does. Interp rangers know that they work hand-in-hand with those who focus preserving these places for future generations, and are ready to explain this to the public.
["Dootlishshilii" (Dine: Blue Horse) is the pen name of a mid-level NPS employee who works in a park.]