The Trump administration's 2018 budget proposal was portrayed as devastating to the National Park Service/NPS

President Trump's Fiscal 2018 proposal for the National Park Service would be the "biggest cut to the Park Service since World War II" if enacted in its current form by Congress, park advocates claimed Tuesday.

While Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke told reporters several times during a conference call that the budget would allow the agency "to take care of what we have" across the Interior landscape, which includes national parks and Bureau of Land Management lands, it would cut roughly $380 million and nearly 1,250 full-time positions from the Park Service's current budget.

"If enacted, this would be the biggest cut to the Park Service since WWII. It is difficult to outline the many ways in which this budget drastically undermines America’s treasured places and the people and communities that support and rely on them," John Garder, the National Parks Conservation Association's director for budget and appropriations, said in an email exchange.

As sent to Congress, the NPS budget request seeks $2.6 billion, which NPCA staff calculated as a $378.5 million decrease from the agency's Fiscal 2016 budget, the last enacted budget, not omnibus funding bill, adopted specifically for the Park Service by Congress.

In the accompanying narrative Interior provided with the budget document, the administration said the budget "prioritizes maintaining and preserving NPS lands and assets for the enjoyment, education, and recreation of current and future generations."

However, many national parks have been strained by record visitation the last two years, and this budget would exacerbate that if adopted as written. Mr. Zinke, while allowing that "(S)ome parks are at capacity to maintain the park experience," did not address how the budget would ease that.

Interior staff also did not answer that question directly when pressed. Instead they cited the secretary's commitment to "improving the way government works by being more innovative and more efficient and by collaborating with local communities and outside partners. Plus, we will look at ways to increase revenue," said spokeswoman Heather Swift in an email. "As the secretary said: 'I'm confident we will find innovative solutions for cost reduction, like public private partnerships, and revenue generation that will improve both sides of the books.'"

But park advocates feared how the budget would impact the National Park Service, and the national parks, in the near-term.

"If indeed we lose 1,200 FTEs, that means the remaining staff will have to do less with less," said Phil Francis at the Coalition to Protect America's National Parks. "But I know these people. They will want to continue to do as much as possible. It's just not fair to balance the budget on the back of our employees."

Secretary Zinke, though, maintained that the budget proposal "supports our core responsibilities."

"The budget overall speaks to the core mission of Department of Interior, but it's my job to make sure that we have a budget that answers the bell on our core missions, and represents the best interests of the taxpayers and America going forward," the secretary told reporters Tuesday. "It funds our highest priorities to make sure that we look at safety, security, and infrastructure. As we go forward, my priority is shoring up our infrastructure and shoring up our front lines."

Yet Mr. Francis agreed with NPCA that, if enacted, the budget cuts would be the worst in nearly 75 years for the Park Service.

"We just never had a budget cut of this size," he said during a phone call, adding that the Trump administration was applying some sleight of hand by comparing its proposal to the 2017 omnibus bill as opposed to the 2016 Park Service budget enacted by Congress. "It almost seems as though they're trying to minimize the degree of the cut by comparing it to '17. If you look at the number of FTEs lost, in that permanent full-time category, it looks like almost a 10 percent reduction in permanent staff." 

According to DOI, the proposal would provide $129 million, an increase of $13 million over current levels, for construction needs, and $685.9 million for facility operations and maintenance across the National Park System. The proposal includes funding to rehabilitate the Arlington Memorial Bridge in Washington, D.C., which has suffered from neglect, and Scotty's Castle in Death Valley National Park, which sustained heavy damage from flooding in October 2013.

NPCA analysis of the numbers point to a 10 percent overall reduction in Park Service funding since FY16. The biggest hit would be to the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which would be cut 85 percent to just $26.4 million, down from $173.7 million in FY16, the park advocacy group said.

The Park Service's National Recreation and Preservation Program, which funds "local community efforts to preserve natural and cultural resources," would take a 41 percent cut, down to $37 million, and the Historic Preservation Fund, which "supports Historic Preservation Offices in States, Territories, and tribal lands to preserve historically and culturally significant sites," would be reduced 22 percent, to $51.1 million.

"This is not just a damaging budget, but it's also a dishonest budget," said NPCA's Mr. Garder. "I say that because they compare it to the '17 omnibus. ... It makes their cuts look less damaging."

Looking at the steep cut in staff funding, he said that would bring the overall decrease in NPS staffing levels down nearly 4,000 FTEs, or 18 percent, since FY2010, when NPCA thought the Park Service had "the best budget year in recent years." Over the same period, park visitation has continued to climb upwards, reaching a record 331 million last year.

That staff reduction could be even more drastic when the administration comes out with its long-term plan for reducing the size of government.

The Interior budget proposal was, as expected, soundly rejected by U.S. Rep. Raúl Grijalva, the ranking member of the House Natural Resources Committee.

“This budget is the reality of the Republican vision for the country, and Republicans in Congress need to admit it,” the Arizona Democrat said. “It treats our environment as a speed bump on the way to greater oil profits and it eliminates any hope of sane climate protections.

"For whatever reason, Republicans in Congress continue to support this administration even as Americans register their anger and disapproval in record numbers. Anyone who supports this budget or the rest of this administration’s disturbing agenda has shown disdain for the American people. It’s typical of this presidency that the greatest harm is done to those Trump claimed he would help: rural Americans who depend on clean air, clean water, and clean natural spaces for their livelihoods.”

While Interior Secretary Zinke did not come right out and say it, he hinted that the Trump administration would look at increasing entrance fees to national parks to generate revenues for the Park Service.

"About half the parks don't charge. Which is interesting," he said. "We have a tier system (for entrance fees). A number of parks chose not even to follow the tier system. So, we're concentrating on where are revenues, and shore it up."

But Mr. Francis at the Coalition to Protect America's National Parks said that would generate relatively little.

"I don't think we can raise enough money on entrance fees, or user fees, to pay for the parks," he said. "We're either going to have to come up with completely new models, and I'm not sure what that is, or we're going to have to get more appropriations from Congress. We're going to have to."