Here are five interesting facts that stood out for me as I read through the report:

1. Civil War tourists love learning and tend to have cash to spare: They earn a higher household income, on average, than the general population, and more than half are college graduates, compared to the nationwide average of 24 percent.
2. The average family of four visiting a Civil War battlefield spends $1,000 on their trip—and their spending looks something like this:
3. In Virginia alone, tourists at Civil War battlefields stay twice as long and spend twice as much as the average tourist.
4. On average, visits by 956 tourists support one job in a battlefield community.
5. In Philadelphia, property values increase an average of 1.6 percent for each mile closer the property is to a national historic district.

For more great information on battlefield visitation in general and the specific effects places like Antietam, Chickamauga, and Harper’s Ferry have on their communities, read the report on the Civil War Trust website.

-Jennifer Errick, Editor, Online Communications

If you liked this story, you might also like

• Living History and Solemn Reflection at Antietam Commemoration (September 28, 2012)
• Did You Know? Only 28% of Civil War Battlefields Have National Park Protections (September 12, 2012)
• From Civil War to Civil Rights: All Peeps Created Equal (March 29, 2013)

1. Photographer Chris Mabey is setting out to capture the effects that severe budget cuts have on our national parks and the national park experience. Mabey’s Kickstarter project describes why this is important, what the project will look like, and about when it will be completed. Check it out: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/422234408/the-best-idea-we-ever-had?ref=live

2. Our national parks provide opportunities to capture epic video and photographs. Project Yosemite produces stunning time-lapse videos showcasing Yosemite National Park. Here is their teaser for their second video, Yosemite HDII: http://vimeo.com/62184445

3. On March 25, the president designated Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad National Monument as one of three new national monuments added to the National Park System. Park officials at this new monument were quick to jump on social media. Find them now on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/HarrietTubmanNPS.

4. Spring is here, supposedly, so let’s get outside to enjoy our open spaces. This week Appalachian Outdoors posted this picture on Facebook to help remind all of us to just unplug.

-Megan Cantrell, Senior Coordinator of Member Engagement

NPCA has been warning the public for well over a year that the deep federal budget cuts known as the sequester would harm national parks. We’ve seen a groundswell of support to restore critically needed funding to the Park Service, but we’ve also heard a great deal of misunderstanding about these funding cuts. Here are five of the biggest myths we’ve encountered.

1. Myth: The 5 percent sequester cut really only represents 2 percent of federal funding.

Some are calling the sequester a 2 percent cut, but this figure is misleading. The sequester cuts represent 2 percent of the entire federal budget, but most budget categories will see no cuts at all. All of the sequester cuts are coming from only about a third of the total federal budget. Therefore, the actual percentage being cut from affected programs—including the Park Service—is much higher than 2 percent.

2. Myth: Five percent of the Park Service budget is still not that big of a deal.

Before taking these cuts into account, the Park Service budget was already 15 percent lower than it was ten years ago in today’s dollars, and national parks were already suffering from an annual operations shortfall of $500 to $600 million, with a staggering maintenance backlog of $12 billion dollars. Parks were already cutting travel budgets, not filling vacant staff positions, and taking other cost-cutting measures, so these cuts come on top of already bare-bones budgets.

Now, the Park Service will need to absorb more than $130 million in additional cuts through September 30, the end of this fiscal year. Because that $130 million is 5 percent of an entire year’s budget and there are only seven months left in the fiscal year, the impact will actually be a 9 percent cut.

Making the situation more challenging, the superintendents who manage our national parks have very high overhead in their budgets because of all the personnel like rangers that upkeep parks and serve visitors, as well as all of the infrastructure to maintain, like park roads and visitor centers. This means they only have flexibility over as little as 10 or 15 percent of their budget. So a cut of this size forces hard decisions, and none of the choices are good. There are few choices but to close areas of parks, avoid hiring rangers, reduce visitor center hours, and enact other measures that affect accessibility and visitor services.

3. Myth: Parks already have enough money coming from entrance fees and don’t need government help.

Entrance fees provide for just a fraction of the Park Service’s maintenance needs, about 5.5 percent. Entrance fees are kept affordable to fulfill the Park Service mission to maintain accessible parks that are open to visitors from all walks of life. Fees help fund maintenance projects, visitor programs and services, resource protection, and facilities improvements, but the majority of the Park Service budget comes from congressional appropriations.

4. Myth: It’ll never really happen—these are just scare tactics.

The general public may not feel the impact immediately, but the sequester is already underway. National park officials are already discussing the painful decisions they are having to make, and the impacts are starting to become visible to visitors.

Many parks already had vacant staff positions before the sequester. Because of the high number of vacancies, the Park Service is not furloughing most permanent employees, but it has imposed a hiring freeze on permanent staff, and we expect many seasonal employees will not be rehired. According to a recent memo, Park Service Director Jon Jarvis estimates that 900 permanent positions will remain unfilled and at least 1,000 fewer seasonal employees will be hired this year.

Jarvis stated clearly that short-staffing parks is not a viable long-term solution: “I want to emphasize to you that keeping positions vacant is not a sustainable strategy; it cripples our ability to meet mission responsibilities—from providing education programs to kids to coordinating wildlife research, to managing museum collections—and it increases the burden on remaining staff that take on additional critical work that cannot go undone.”

In addition to the examples of some of the effects on parks we outlined in our recent blog story, we also expect road closures, shorter visitor seasons, closed visitor centers and campgrounds, reduced hours at visitor centers, and fewer educational and interpretive programs.

A recent newspaper quote from Petrified Forest National Park Superintendent Brad Traver exemplified the kinds of difficult situation park officials are grappling with around the country: “We’ll be able to weather the next few months, but there will be fewer interpretive programs. We’ll be relying more on volunteer and seasonal staff for our visitor services, but we will not be able to manage long-term that way.”

5. Myth: Visitors should avoid going to national parks since the cuts will affect schedules, facilities, and services.

It’s true that visitors may experience longer lines at visitor centers, shorter hours, more garbage in the trash cans, areas that are off-limits, and other inconveniences on their park trips this year. However, these are the same extraordinary places we love visiting, and they still need our support. We just need to plan ahead a little more. We might need to go to a different visitor center or stay at a different campground because some facilities could be closed. But we can still enjoy the parks!

When people visit our national parks, they bring needed support with them. National parks are economic engines that support more than $30 billion in spending and more than a quarter-million jobs. Visitors spend their money on entrance fees, tours, outdoor gear, meals, and various purchases in local communities whose economies depend on it. They raise visitation statistics, showing that national parks remain among the most popular tourist destinations in the country, worthy of attention and preservation. They share photographs and memories with friends and family, inspiring more people to experience these irreplaceable natural wonders and historic sites.

So do visit, and don’t keep the experience to yourself. When you get back home, let your members of Congress know you had a great time, spent money at local businesses, and want the federal government to restore its funding before these indiscriminate cuts cause even more serious impacts to the places we treasure.

By now, I’m sure you know just how serious the situation is for our national parks due to the sequester cuts which will go into effect later today.

It’s alarming that this very avoidable threat is about to become a reality. From Yellowstone to Cape Cod, the Grand Canyon and Great Smoky Mountains, our national heritage and local economies are at risk.

Information in a recently leaked Park Service planning document about potential impacts to park budgets suggests that the sequester will cause drastic cuts to jobs, educational programs, visitor centers, and visitor access points, including:

• Jobs: Blue Ridge Parkway would cut 21 seasonal interpretive ranger programs, which would result in the closure of 50 percent of its visitor center contact stations at our country’s most-visited national park site. Eliminating these seven stations will put an 80-mile distance between each open facility.
• Education: Gettysburg National Military Park would eliminate 20 percent of its student education programs during the spring, which will impact 2,400 students.
• Impact to Gateway Communities: Glacier National Park’s Going-to-the-Sun Road would delay its reopening by two weeks. Previous closures of this road have resulted in $1 million in lost revenue daily to surrounding communities and concessions.
• Permanent Visitor Center Closure: Mount Rainier National Park would permanently close its Ohanapecosh Visitor Center, affecting 60,000 to 85,000 visitors.
• Tourism:  Independence National Historical Park would close eight of 16 interpretive sites in the spring and fall, such as the Declaration House, the New Hall Military Museum, and the Todd House, impacting more than 84,000 visitors.

Every dollar invested in the National Park Service generates about ten dollars in economic activity—yet in today’s dollars, the Park Service budget has already declined by 15 percent over the last decade. The Park Service’s own peer-reviewed economic report released this past Monday revealed that the nearly 279 million national park visitors in 2011 generated a whopping $30.1 billion in economic activity and supported 252,000 jobs nationwide. Many in the business community are deeply concerned about the wide-ranging effects these sequester cuts could have to the economy: Nearly 300 businesses have signed on to a letter calling on President Obama and Congress to keep parks open.

NPCA will continue to work with members of Congress—as it has for months—to avert the worst consequences these damaging cuts could have on our national parks and the people that love and depend on them. Your voice continues to be critical in sharing the importance of these iconic places with our elected officials. Learn more on NPCA’s website, join the conversation on Twitter at #KeepParksOpen, and please take a moment to tell President Obama and Congress to keep parks open.

For the past year, NPCA has been sounding the alarm about the threats to our national parks in the face of looming across-the-board federal budget cuts that could occur March 1 if lawmakers fail to reach agreement. Now, we have the clearest indications yet that those threats are very real—and are putting both our national heritage and our local economies at risk.

In a January 25th memorandum (PDF)—released to the media yesterday by the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees—National Park Service Director Jon Jarvis instructed regional Park Service directors to prepare to slash already depleted budgets by an additional 5 percent service-wide if Congress cannot agree to a sequester deal. Coming on the heels of 6 percent in cuts over the last two years, this reduction would be a blow to an already beleaguered Park Service.

The guidance, which includes instructions (PDF) and templates for sequestration reduction planning (PDF), reveals the severity of the hit on the Park Service—including the potential elimination of seasonal personnel and the scheduling and extension of furloughs of permanent employees. The memorandum states:

“We expect that a cut of this magnitude, intensified by the lateness of the implementation, will result in reductions to visitor services, hours of operation, shortening of seasons, and possibly the closing of areas during periods when there is insufficient staff to ensure the protection of visitors, employees, resources, and government assets.”

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. Our national parks—and the American people who count on the preservation of their rich natural, cultural and historical heritage—deserve better.

At a time when more than 95% of Americans support the federal government’s protection of the parks—and 9 out 10 voters want to see no further cuts to national park funding—the failure to reach a deficit-reduction agreement that cancels this mindless across-the-board cut is jeopardizing our heritage and throwing into question the planning of millions of families who expect their parks to be open for business as usual. Our national parks represent just 1/14th of 1 percent of the federal budget, yet they sustain a quarter-million private sector jobs and generate $31 billion from tourism and recreation alone. Every dollar invested in the National Park Service generates about ten dollars in economic activity—yet in today’s dollars, the Park Service budget has already declined by 15 percent over the last decade.

Decision makers must act now to come up with a common-sense plan that addresses the debt in a thoughtful, holistic way. At this critical time, we cannot lose sight of the forest for the trees. We need our national parks not only for their majesty and symbolism, but also for the billions of dollars they generate for local economies.

What you can do

• Learn more. NPCA’s website has a trove of related information, including public sentiment around keeping parks funded, a fact sheet with more detail on how the sequester could impact parks, and an interactive slideshow on popular parks around the country threatened by funding cuts.
• Let your elected officials know the parks matter to you. If you haven’t already, send President Obama and your members of Congress the message that we can’t shortchange our national parks.
• Your donation helps protect the parks. Your tax-deductible gift now supports NPCA’s critical work to protect and restore funding for our parks, and all of our park protection efforts.

If Congress does not act to avoid the “fiscal cliff,” the Park Service could lose 8 to 10 percent of its funding next month. What could this mean in real terms for national parks? Here is one example of how the cuts could affect a park already facing staff shortages. For more information, see our new GeoStory with threats to national parks around the country.

 —

“Each year, nearly three million people visit Acadia National Park. These visitors require services like lodging, dining, shopping, and a multitude of other services, and they come back year after year because of the great experience they’ve had. Maintaining the quality experience visitors have at Acadia National Park is integral to the continued success of the business community in Bar Harbor.”

— Chris Fogg, Executive Director, Bar Harbor Chamber of Commerce

 —

Last summer, the staff at Acadia National Park saw lines out the door of its visitor center as tourists queued up to pay their entrance fees, ask questions, and sign up for ranger-led programs. Visitation is on the rise at Acadia—by 17 percent over the last three years. But a tight budget is already forcing the park to put fewer rangers at the visitor center desk.

In recent years, Acadia received a net operations budget increase that allowed the park to hire five of 20 vacant permanent positions, including an administrative officer, a supervisory law enforcement official, and someone to drive the garbage truck and empty trash cans. Still unfilled are positions in biology, equipment operations, law enforcement, and other disciplines.

For now, Acadia is able to hold on to its seasonal staff so that the park has rangers to provide interpretive services and routine tasks during the summer season, such as responding to emergencies and keeping restrooms and roadsides clean. However, any cut to Acadia’s budget is most likely to come out of seasonal hires, and a 10 percent cut could decimate the program. Because permanent staff are already overloaded (those 15 missing positions play a role), they likely could not be shifted to cover the duties now handled by seasonals, resulting in a substantial further decline of visitor services when they’re needed most.

For more information, see our new GeoStory with funding threats to national parks around the country.

-John Garder, NPCA’s Budget & Appropriations Legislative Representative

Note: Here’s where you can take action to keep parks open.

Today in northern Arkansas, an unusual thing happened: Park Service employees at Buffalo National River closed their campgrounds for the next four months.* This 94,000-acre park three hours north of Little Rock protects one of the last undammed rivers in the United States, dedicated as the country’s first national river back in 1972. Now, park staff will be locking its public restrooms, removing the trash cans, and shutting down campsites until March of next year as a way to save a few precious dollars in the face of worsening budget cuts.

Now, I’m not going to lie. I am the last person to plan a camping trip in the middle of winter—the idea of pitching a tent in the snow makes me shudder. The staff at Buffalo River is clearly cutting back as much as it can in the off-season so that it can stretch the most out of its limited resources during the summer when most visitors enjoy the park. This news is unsettling not because it inconveniences so many of us personally, but because it is the latest evidence of a negative trend throughout our National Park System—one of cutting services to pinch fewer and fewer pennies.

National parks across the country are now bracing for the real possibility of even more reductions in their funding. Some are putting together worst-case scenarios for how to absorb an 8 to 10 percent decrease from existing funds. Some parks would be forced to eliminate their seasonal ranger programs, reduce visitor center hours, and cut back on special visitor programs during the peak season. Some would close roads and campgrounds, and even the parks themselves.

Just a tiny sliver of the federal budget goes to the Park Service—1/14th of one percent—yet this relatively small pot of funding has been slashed by 6 percent over the last two years. These cuts have already taken a toll on parks around the country—from hiring fewer seasonal rangers at Wrangell-St. Elias to delaying restoration work in the Everglades to keeping thousands of artifacts from Little Bighorn Battlefield National Monument out of public view in inadequate storage facilities.

There is so little in the Park Service coffers to begin with, taking more money from visitor centers and seasonal ranger programs and historic building rehabilitation would do very little to help our deficit problems. To cash-strapped parks like Buffalo River, however, losing more funding would simply be devastating at a time when many superintendents are doing their best just to keep the gates open.

Now that the election is finally over and Congress is back in session, I am almost as sick of hearing lawmakers bicker over the “fiscal cliff” as I was of hearing candidates attack each other on the stump. It’s not just me. People across the political spectrum are tired of partisan fighting holding up progress on real issues—and the sequester is an issue that even most lawmakers agree they must stop.

That’s not all people can agree on, either. Some 92 percent of American voters think funding for national parks should be increased or at least kept the same. Our parks are truly bipartisan gems that do our whole country proud—not just the so-called red states or blue states.

Yet the sequester would slash park operations so deeply, it would be the equivalent of closing nearly 200 of the national park sites with the smallest budgets and could put as many as 9,000 rangers and other park employees out of a job. Cuts would also impact the countless businesses that depend on national parks—because when visitor services are cut and park attendance goes down, that means fewer guided tours and cabin rentals and meals in gateway towns, too. The ripple effect through the economy would be enormous.

If nearly everyone agrees we must stop the sequester and nearly everyone agrees we should fund our national parks, shouldn’t this be a no-brainer for President Obama and our lame-duck Congress? Is protecting our history and our most inspirational natural landscapes really too much to ask of them?

In its official statement on the service reductions, staff at Buffalo River put it this way:

“[T]he park cannot continue with business as usual as it faces mandatory reductions in operational costs. … Buffalo National River’s visitation is averaging 1.5 million per year which is a statement of how important and popular the park is as a resource and refuge for our visitors. A survey in 2010 found that these visitors spent $47,169,000 at Buffalo National River and in communities near the park. That spending supported 671 jobs in the local area. If we want to continue supporting the local economy then we will need your help in preserving the high quality of the river and its surroundings.”

I couldn’t agree more. If you think our parks are too important to suffer a new fiscal cliff, please send a message to President Obama and Congress to keep our parks open, and follow #keepparksopen on Twitter for the latest news on the issue.

*UPDATE, November 16, 2012: Thanks to an outpouring of community support, Park Service staff at Buffalo National River announced that it will relax its winter closures and only shut down four of its campgrounds, one of its river access points, and one of its public restrooms, servicing their remaining campgrounds on a less frequent schedule. In the two weeks since announcing the proposed closures, the park was inundated with calls, emails, and social media messages from concerned patrons who enjoy their winter hiking and horseback riding in the off-season, many of whom offered volunteer assistance. By simply packing their own trash out of the park, visitors will help the park staff to keep their beloved river open over the winter. We are heartened that even in tight times, people will do what they can and find creative ways to keep parks open–though we also believe that private citizens should not have to pick up the tab on the government’s responsibility to maintain our public lands.

Note: This is NPCA’s third and final story in our series on the upcoming presidential election. You can sign NPCA’s petition urging the candidates to pledge their support for national parks.

By day, I work as an editor for NPCA on issues that affect our national parks. Then, when I have a few vacation days lined up, I often find myself heading… you guessed it, to a national park.

Earlier this month, I had a long weekend with nothing planned, so I convinced my husband to take a road trip with me to Antietam National Battlefield in western Maryland, the site of one of the bloodiest single days on American soil. By chance, we showed up at the visitor center just as a Park Ranger was about to give a presentation, and we sat down for an insightful overview of the history of the Civil War engagements commemorated around us, how the terrain played a critical role in the warfare, strategies Union and Confederate soldiers used, and how the battle led President Lincoln to issue a draft of the Emancipation Proclamation the following day. The ranger stood in front of several large windows overlooking battlegrounds to the north, east, and south of us, bringing those fields to life with stories. After the presentation, my husband and I spent four whole hours driving and hiking around the quiet farmland, mesmerized by the cornfields and country roads steeped in so much history.

My husband was so moved by the visit that he suggested we spend the next day at Gettysburg. Why? A day at a national park is more than just a hike or a history lesson for us. It’s a transformative experience.

The truth is, I’m far from alone: Americans love national parks. NPCA commissioned a poll this past June and found overwhelming support across the political spectrum for preserving these inspirational public lands. Some of the major findings:

• A whopping 95 percent of voters see “protecting and supporting the national parks” as an appropriate role for the federal government.
• 92 percent of voters think that federal spending on national parks should be maintained or increased.
• Nearly 90 percent of voters think that political candidates who prioritize national parks are seen as forward-looking and patriotic.
• 81 percent of voters report having visited a national park at some point in their lives, and nearly nine in 10 say they are interested in visiting in the future.
• Few voters (6 percent) think national parks are in good shape today, while many more (80 percent) express concern that funding shortages are damaging national parks and marring visitors’ experiences.
• 77 percent of voters say it is important for the next president to ensure that parks are fully restored.

Given this broad public sentiment—and the fact that national parks cost just one-fourteenth of one percent of the federal budget—you might think that funding the National Park Service would be a no-brainer in Washington. Yet both major presidential candidates have endorsed large cuts to federal spending. To make things worse, Congress is currently on a destructive course toward a “sequester”—massive, across-the-board spending cuts slated for January that would severely affect the ability to keep national parks staffed and open. Those amazing Park Rangers that bring history to life? Many of their jobs could be in danger, and many of the natural and historical wonders they protect could face widespread closures. We might not expect our elected officials to be national park nerds, but shouldn’t their priorities reflect the values of the people they serve?

If you’re one of the 95 percent of Americans who feels our government should preserve these irreplaceable public lands, please tell the candidates to support our national parks. Sign NPCA’s petition to Barack Obama and Mitt Romney  letting them know we need a leader who will prioritize our national heritage. It’s not just popular—it’s patriotic.

This story is cross-posted with the Preservation Leadership Forum blog by the National Trust for Historic Preservation.

Other stories in this series

• Putting National Parks into the Debates: Questions for Obama and Romney (October 9, 2012)
• Why This Election Matters for National Parks (October 3, 2012)

Note: This is the second of several stories on the upcoming presidential election. You can sign NPCA’s petition urging the candidates to pledge their support for national parks.

UPDATE, October 15, 2012: You can now submit a question for the October 16 town hall debate at http://feedback.aol.com/voiceofdebate/?aol.

On Tuesday, October 16, Barack Obama and Mitt Romney will face off in their second debate before the presidential election. The “town hall” format of this debate will offer something new: the opportunity to send questions by Twitter and email to the candidates on issues you care about.

Staff members at NPCA are watching these debates closely to see where both candidates stand on issues affecting national parks. And yes, we have plenty of questions.

We have reason to be concerned, too. Both candidates have endorsed large cuts to federal spending. The National Park Service is only 1/14th of 1 percent of the federal budget and even a small cut could have a huge impact—and not just on the parks themselves. Communities around the country like Estes Park, Colorado; Port Angeles, Washington; Cleveland, Ohio; and many others rely on national parks for tourism.

Americans also love our national parks—on both sides of the aisle. Roughly 278 million people visit them each year—more than those who attend NFL football games (17 million), visit Disneyland (16 million), attend major league baseball games (73 million), and visit Apple retail stores (71 million) combined. These are not only important places for their beauty and their history; many people need national parks to remain open because their jobs and businesses depend on them.

Here are a few things we want to know.

NPCA’s suggestions for what to ask the candidates

1. As you propose federal budget cuts in your campaign platforms, do you consider the enormous impact even a small cut can have on the National Park Service?
2. Do you know that a small cut to the National Park Service could result in closing national parks all over the country? Have you considered what this could do to jobs and small businesses?
3. The Park Service will celebrate its centennial in 2016. As president, what would you do to enhance our national parks for their second century?
4. Multiple studies show that national parks create jobs, attract international tourists, and provide significant economic value to nearby communities. Do you agree public investment in our national parks is important to our national and local economies?
5. National parks depend on adequate operational funds to stay open and staffed. Do you think the national parks should receive more appropriated operational funds, about the same as they receive now, or fewer appropriated operational funds?
6. Do you support creating new national park units that tell American stories currently absent from our National Park System, such as  modern scientific advancement, women’s history, and Latino history?
7. Do you support opening all national park units to hunting, including historical sites and other federally protected places not originally intended for this practice?
8. A few politicians have suggested that selling public lands could solve our national debt problems. Would you sell national parks? If so, which ones?

Finally, tell the candidates national parks matter. Before you tune in to the debate, be sure to sign our petition!

More stories in this series

• Why This Election Matters for National Parks (October 3, 2012)
• Preserving National Parks: It’s Not Just Popular, It’s Patriotic (October 22, 2012)

But threats to the health of the Great Lakes and to the 13 national parks in the watershed abound. The National Park Service battles invasive species, falling water levels, eroding shorelines, and contaminated tributary lakes and rivers, while using ever-shrinking budgets to combat these threats. A few years ago, however, an important federal funding source was established to restore the Great Lakes and improve water quality to the more than 30 million Americans that depend on the lakes for their drinking water–the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, or GLRI.

The GLRI provides about $300 million each year to many projects in cities, rivers, and harbors around the lakes. It provides the National Park Service with critical annual funding to respond to ecosystem needs in eight of our Great Lakes parks, with more than $18 million of GLRI funding currently allocated to restoration projects. And we are seeing great results.

NPCA has put together a compelling list of successful GLRI-funded projects at our Great Lakes national parks. A Sound Investment: Restoring the Great Lakes in our National Parks provides a look at six projects currently underway. Check out the Park Service’s award-winning film series, Little Things, Big Problems, funded by GLRI dollars. The films discuss the dangers of invasive species like zebra mussels and the Round Goby, how they’re impacting our Great Lakes, and how the public can help stem the spread of these invaders.

A great example of GLRI funding in action is the “Reconnecting Waterways” project at Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, which has created jobs for land surveyors, hydrologists, and soil scientists and has engaged hundreds of volunteers, including a group of college students helping out with assistance from NPCA. So far, nearly 55 acres of wetlands have been restored and native water birds such as coots, kingfishers, and green herons have returned to the national lakeshore after being gone from the park for more than 100 years.

At a time when the Park Service budget faces additional cuts, which can lead to smaller workforces and less ability to protect the water and wildlife in our Great Lakes national parks, the GLRI has provided much-needed jobs for the Park Service and local communities. If we cut funding for the GLRI now, it will only be more costly in the long run. Tell your elected officials to support the GLRI because it protects our national parks. Let’s tell the presidential candidates how important our Great Lakes national parks are.

-Lynn McClure, Director of NPCA’s Midwest Regional Office

Learn More

Watch this seven-minute video by the National Park Service on the importance of removing invasives at Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore–one of the projects funded by GLRI.