Top Interior Department and National Park Service officials used Earth Day to promote the National Park System as an economic engine with an annual output of $30 billion and which serves as a carbon sink with an additional value of nearly $600 million.
The report, released at 6 a.m. Eastern on Wednesday, comes at the mid-point of National Park Week and as the National Park Service builds on its campaign to mark its centennial in August 2016.
Along with touting the economic value of the park system, a clutch of accompanying reports pointed to $26 million in improvements to parks from coast to coast, the president's "Every Kid in a Park" initiative that will see 4th graders this fall receive an annual parks pass, and the "Find Your Park" campaign to connect all Americans to the country's system of public parks and recreation lands.
In 2014, the National Park System received over 292 million recreation visits. NPS visitors spent $15.7 billion in local gateway regions (defined as communities within 60 miles of a park). The contribution of this spending to the national economy was 277 thousand jobs, $10.3 billion in labor income, $17.1 billion in value added, and $29.7 billion in output. The lodging sector saw the highest direct contributions with 48 thousand jobs and $4.8 billion in output directly contributed to local gateway economies nationally. The sector with the next greatest direct contributions was restaurants and bars, with 60 thousand jobs and $3.2 billion in output directly contributed to local gateway economies nationally.
In a prepared statement, Interior Secretary Sally Jewell said the economic data underscore that, 'Our national parks often serve as economic engines for local communities, drawing tourists from around the world who pump money into area stores, restaurants, hotels and more. At the same time, these treasured landscapes have shown they support strong public health by absorbing carbon pollution that contributes to climate change. When we invest in our parks, we're not only preserving our natural and historic sites, we're supporting strong economic growth and healthier communities.'
Gateway communities to the parks were a large benefactor of this spending, as motels and hotels in those communities received $9.5 billion in business from park visitors, while commercial campgrounds in those communities saw $922 million in business, according to the economic report.
The economic news was welcomed by the National Park Hospitality Association, which represents national park concessionaires.
'We applaud NPS efforts to describe the importance of park visits to regional and national economies ' it is significant, indeed," said Derrick Crandall, the association's counselor, in an email. "Even beyond the important figures contained in the report, national parks play an important role in prompting purchases of recreational equipment well beyond the 60-mile region around parks ' including major goods like RVs and boats and clothing. We also note that this report does not assess the value of our parks on inbound tourism to the United States ' a major and growing positive influence on our national economy.
'Best of all, the economic value of national parks to the nation can be enhanced without threats to the natural, cultural and historic resources of park units with management changes like longer operating hours and seasons and investment in appropriate visitor facilities designed to be low impact and efficient to operate.'
The news was also welcomed at the National Parks Conservation Association, where Craig Obey, the group's senior vice president for government, noted that, "It's clear that when our national parks are a priority, our economy benefits. The $3 billion increase in economic impact over 2013 is because more people visited parks, parks and communities didn't suffer the negative impact of a federal government shutdown, and the sequester cuts to parks were temporarily addressed.
'We had a record-breaking number of visits to national parks in 2014, and even more visits are likely with the approaching park centennial. This is the time to permanently end the sequester, reverse annual funding shortfalls, and fix park infrastructure with a pro-park transportation bill," he added in a prepared statement.
The report noted that its figures were best estimates based on various models, and that were likely over-estimated in some areas, and under-estimated in others.
As for parks serving as carbon dioxide sinks, the press release said, "Scientists found that 78 percent of the parks studied functioned as net carbon sinks, meaning that more CO2 is stored, or sequestered, than is released. Great Smoky Mountains National Park stored the largest amount of CO2, 1.6 million metric tons, valued at $64.4 million, each year."
"...in aggregate, NPS lands in the conterminous United States are a net carbon sink, sequestering more than 14.8 million metric tons of carbon dioxide annually. The associated societal value of this service is estimated at approximately $582.5 million per year," the report added.
Support Essential Coverage of Essential Places
Comments
You wrote that the water is primarily from winter snows. The report clearly states that the water contributrion is equivalent through the four seasons. That is important as the non-winter precipitation isn't held for any considerable period, it just flows. Without resevoirs it flows on by.
You want to base our water policy based on 14 years?
EC,
Perhaps you didn't read the USGS web page that you cited closely enough. Here is what it says (emphasis added):
Or, if there is still any doubt,
Your other question is totally spurious.
Seriously? I suggest that you read the studies that I cited, which draw on historic data as well as tree-ring data going back more than 1,000 years. The last 15 years is just the real-life confirmation of what hydrologists have been projecting for years. I do not know of any other reputable studies that disagree with the basic trends projected in these studies.
If you have anything factual information that contradicts these projections, which reflect overwhelming scientific consensus on this issue, by all means share it with us.
The last 15 years is just the real-life confirmation of what hydrologists have been projecting for years.
Can you show me the study where the body of hydrologists 20 or more years ago predicted the current western drought?
Okay, good people. Let's get back to basics. Whether or not the current drought is being exaccerbated by climate change, a prolonged drought in the Colorado Basin is not unusual. Now 41 years ago, the PBS film "Where Did the Colorado Go?" (NOVA) was predicting the crisis we have today. It's even on You Tube, I believe. I used the film every year in my American Environmental History class as my introduction to the big-dam era. So, what's new about today's debate? Nothing. If you build in a desert, you had better get used to drought. Or is there something about the term "desert" you don't happen to understand?
But no, we were smarter than Mother Nature and started building dams. And now those dams are drying up. Oops! Should we blame our own stupidity? Of course not. Because now we can scream climate change! The subliminal in play is what? That now we must remake the earth again. If the dams didn't work, perhaps 100 desalination plants will work. We get to "tinker" with the West all over again.
Of course, our "base line" data needs a comfortable floor, and so we make it 1,000 years. I have not watched the film since the 1980s, but I believe the data goes back much farther than that. I recall the film talking about 30-, 50-, and 100-year drought cycles, based on the tree rings of the Bristlecone pine. The point is: That "desert" did not form overnight, and in earth time, 1,000 years is the blink of an eye.
Again, I fear that the introduction of climate change is to "make the sale," now to industrialize the West to death. Without climate change, what would the Wizard have to sell us? Dorothy, you should not be here, but now that you are, click your heels together and repeat after me: "There is no place like my home in the desert! There is no place like my home in the desert!" Good, Dorothy, now go to Washington, D.C., and ask for $100 billion to save the desert from climate change. And don't forget to share with the Wizard!
I am all for tearing down Glen Canyon Dam, but then what? How will that solve the problem, either? Certainly, if I must trade Glen Canyon Dam for what the Interior and Energy Departments now plan for the desert in its place, I'll stick with the dam and take my chances. Perhaps it will snow, and perhaps it won't, but at least I won't be denying it is a desert. It's the denial, good people, not climate change, and yes, we started denying it the moment we read the Bible and determined to make our desert bloom like the rose.
EC,
You ask,
I previously asked you for any reputable studies that disagree with the basic trends projected in the peer-reviewed paper published in 2008 by scientists at Scripps Institute of Oceanography, which predicted that Lake Mead could go dry by 2021, if existing trends continue; the 2013 Colorado River Supply and Demand Study, which found that there is already a significant water deficit, and that it is likely to rise to 3.2 million acre-feet by 2060; or numerous other studies that have come to consistent conclusions. You still have not answered my question.
I do not and have not looked for any. One study hardly reflects the conclusion of the entire industry. In 2021 we will know if they were right. As Beach noted earlier, there have been many other chicken little studies about our climate and most have been wrong.
Even if that study's conclusion is true, how would blowing up the dam fix the problem?
Alfred,
You are certainly right that drought is nothing new to the Colorado Basin. However, I disagree that climate change is just being introduced to "make the sale." There is a rapidly growing body of scientific evidence that the Colorado River deficit caused by rising water demand and what is probably the worst drought in the last 1,000 years is being greatly exacerbated by the impacts of climate change — and that these impacts are going to get a lot worse in coming years. Because of climate change, we potentially face droughts that are far worse than any experienced in the human history of the Colorado Basin.
My main point has been that this situation renders Glen Canyon Dam unnecessary and we should take advantage of this second chance to restore Glen Canyon — one of the most biodiverse and culturally significant portions of the Colorado River. Of course, developing mega-solar energy facilities in inappropriate places is not acceptable and I join you in strongly opposing them. But those projects can happen with or without the dam. We should oppose them for what they are, whether or not the dam is producing hydropower.
Because of declining river flows, both Glen Canyon and Hoover Dams are already producing at least one-third less electricity than their capacity. Glen Canyon Dam represents a tiny portion of the western power grid and that number continues to decline. In contrast, Hoover Dam has a significantly greater generating capacity, so just from a hydropwer standpoint, it makes more sense to keep Lake Mead full instead of Lake Powell. That is aside from the huge water savings that would result from storing water in Mead instead of Powell.
Morover, the operation of Glen Canyon Dam continues to degrade the Grand Canyon ecosystem downstream. No viable option has been proposed that would solve this problem as long as the dam continues to operate as it does. If for no other reason, everyone who cares about Grand Canyon should support the goal of partly or completely bypassing Glen Canyon Dam — or tearing it down if need be —to protect and restore the Grand Canyon ecosystem.
So I totally agree with your condemnation of the foolishness of trying to continue water business as usual in a desert. But the growing water supply-demand imbalance is an opportunity to save and recover some of the extraordindary natural places that have been damaged by the unbridled quest for Colorado River water. I contend that we need to take advantage of that opportunity.
Best,
Michael
EC,
I just discussed that question in my response to Alfred Runte's comments on our dialog. However, just to be clear, I am not calling for blowing up Glen Canyon Dam. Perhaps the dam should be torn down some day, but that would have major environmental, cost, and logistical ramifications that would need to be analyzed carefully. I do support a dramatic change in its operations, including a partial or complete bypassing of the dam.