Latest news with #NPCA
Hamilton Spectator
6 days ago
- Climate
- Hamilton Spectator
‘Lake Ontario will be ice-free by next century': NPCA launches study of western shoreline
As climate change transforms the environment, resulting in frequent storm surges and extreme weather events that impact municipal infrastructure and homes, a pilot project will study how to deal with coastal flooding and erosion on Lake Ontario's western shoreline. Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority (NPCA) chief administrative officer Leilani Lee-Yates, on Wednesday at The Shore Hotel in Jordan, announced the launch of the Lake Ontario Coastal Resilience Pilot Project. This four-year study will review, map and recommend improvements to the coastal shoreline of Lake Ontario from the mouth of the Niagara River in Niagara-on-the-Lake to Joshua's Creek in Oakville/Mississauga. The study will cover 95 kilometres of shoreline involving NPCA, Hamilton Conservation Authority and Conservation Halton shorelines, plus 10 coastal municipalities. Lee-Yates said about 25 per cent of Canada's population lives in the Lake Ontario watershed, and 80 per cent of the water comes from other Great Lakes. 'The project will provide a plan with actions for our partners to support,' said Lee-Yates in an interview with Niagara This Week. 'It will have a clear road map for actions. It's important as we collaborate collectively through the plan to develop the road map that we also collaborate through the implementation of the actions.' The $2-million project includes assistance from municipalities, the federal and provincial governments, non-profits and Brock University. It will assess and model shoreline conditions to understand risks such as erosion, flooding and climate impacts; map shoreline hazards and vulnerable areas; conduct risk and socio-economic assessments for infrastructure and natural assets; identify mitigation options, including nature-based solutions for high-risk areas; and develop a coastal resilience plan with policy recommendations. Lee-Yates said studies from Environment Ontario have revealed Lake Ontario's water level has risen to the highest since records have been kept in 100 years. It has resulted in more flooding and continuing storm surge damage, and with climate change the water levels will continue to fluctuate, providing uncertainty, she said. It is projected as temperatures continue to rise Lake Ontario will be ice-free by next century, she said. 'It is quite an integrated plan,' said Lee-Yates. 'We can't just do this in isolation. The impact (of climate change) is from the land to the lake.' She said the project began in 2024 with initial planning. The project will continue throughout 2027 until about the first part of 2028, she said. 'This is a very, very important project,' said Lincoln Mayor Sandra Easton. 'Never have I've seen conservation and politics moving in the same direction.' She said Walter Neubauer, manager of capital projects for Lincoln, will manage the pilot project. NPCA chair John Metcalfe said the project will 'strengthen the resilience of the Lake Ontario shoreline.' Lee-Yates said the public will have opportunities to provide feedback on the plan through a planned website, as well as a 'comprehensive engagement process' within the three jurisdictions. The federal government is providing $1.5 million to the Lake Ontario Coastal pilot project, with contributions being made by municipalities and conservation authorities through in-kind funding. The project is one of three coastal resilient projects in Ontario to be funded by the federal government. In 2024, the federal government launched the Natural Resources Canada's Climate Resilient Coastal Communities program, allocating $4.1 million in funding to the Great Lakes region. Conservation Ontario received $3.1 million for the development of three Great Lakes projects. The other two projects are the Southern Lake Huron Coastal Adaptation and the Lakehead Coastal Resilience Management Plan for Lake Superior. The federal government is providing $41 million in funding, through its Climate Resilient Coastal Communities program, to 21 projects across the country. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
Hamilton Spectator
6 days ago
- Climate
- Hamilton Spectator
NPCA launches study of Lake Ontario's western shoreline
As climate change transforms the environment, resulting in frequent storm surges and extreme weather events that impact municipal infrastructure and homes, a pilot project will study how to deal with coastal flooding and erosion on Lake Ontario's western shoreline. At a July 23 announcement at The Shore Hotel in Jordan, Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority (NPCA) chief administrative officer Leilani Lee-Yates announced the kickoff of the Lake Ontario Coastal Resilience Pilot Project. This four-year study will review, map and recommend improvements to the coastal shoreline of Lake Ontario, from the mouth of the Niagara River in Niagara-on-the-Lake, to Joshua's Creek in Oakville/Mississauga. The study will cover 95 kilometres of shoreline involving the NPCA, the Hamilton Conservation Authority and Conservation Halton shorelines, plus 10 coastal municipalities. Lee-Yates said about 25 per cent of Canada's population lives in the Lake Ontario watershed, and 80 per cent of the water comes from other Great Lakes. 'The project will provide a plan with actions for our partners to support,' said Lee-Yates in an interview with Niagara This Week. 'It will have a clear road map for actions. It's important as we collaborate collectively through the plan to develop the road map that we also collaborate through the implementation of the actions.' The $2-million project includes assistance from municipalities, the federal and provincial governments, non-profits and Brock University. It will assess and model shoreline conditions to understand risks such as erosion, flooding and climate impacts; mapping shoreline hazards and vulnerable areas; conducting risk and socio-economic assessments for infrastructure and natural assets; identifying mitigation options, including nature-based solutions for high-risk areas; and developing a coastal resilience plan with policy recommendations. Lee-Yates said studies from Environment Ontario have revealed Lake Ontario's water level has risen to the highest since records have been kept in 100 years. It has resulted in more flooding, continuing storm surge damage, and with climate change, the water levels will continue to fluctuate, providing future uncertainty, she said. It is projected that as the temperatures continue to rise, Lake Ontario will be ice free by next century, she said. 'It is quite an integrated plan,' said Lee-Yates. 'We can't just do this in isolation. The impact (of climate change) is from the land to the lake.' She said the project began in 2024 with initial planning, then in 2025 the data collection is set to begin. The project will continue throughout 2027 until about the first part of 2028, she said. 'This is a very, very important project,' said Lincoln Mayor Sandra Easton. 'Never have I've seen conservation and politics moving in the same direction.' She said Walter Neubauer, manager of capital projects for the Town of Lincoln, will manage the pilot project. NPCA chair John Metcalfe said the project will 'strengthen the resilience of the Lake Ontario shoreline.' Lee-Yates said the public will have opportunities to provide feedback on the plan through a planned website, as well as a 'comprehensive engagement process' within the three jurisdictions. The federal government is providing $1.5 million to the Lake Ontario Coastal pilot project, with contributions being made by municipalities and conservation authorities through in-kind funding. The project is one of three coastal resilient projects in Ontario to be funded by the federal government. In 2024, the federal government launched the Natural Resources Canada's Climate Resilient Coastal Communities program, allocating $4.1 million in funding to the Great Lakes region. Conservation Ontario received $3.1 million for the development of three Great Lakes projects. The other two projects are the Southern Lake Huron Coastal Adaptation and the Lakehead Coastal Resilience Management Plan for Lake Superior. The federal government is providing $41 million in funding, through its Climate Resilient Coastal Communities program, to 21 projects across the country. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
E&E News
23-07-2025
- Business
- E&E News
Parks advocacy group boss to step down
The head of the National Parks Conservation Association plans to step down at the end of this year, the organization announced Tuesday. Theresa Pierno, who joined the parks advocacy group in 2004 and led the organization since 2015, plans to stay on the job while the board conducts a formal search for its next leader, NPCA announced. 'After 21 years with National Parks Conservation Association — 10 of them as CEO — I have made the deeply difficult decision to step down this winter,' Pierno posted on LinkedIn. Advertisement 'I am endlessly proud of the work NPCA has done to protect and strengthen our national parks,' she said in a statement the group posted on its website. She added, 'I know the time is right for me to hand the reigns over to the next person who will continue this proud legacy of leading what NPCA's founder called the 'fearless and outspoken defender of the people's parks.''
Forbes
15-07-2025
- Politics
- Forbes
National Parks May Be Spared Deeper Cuts In 2026 Amid Grassroot Protests
Congress appears to have backed off of deeper slashes to next year's National Park Service budget, as advocacy groups mobilize public support through grassroots campaigns. A billboard in Colorado protests DOGE staffing cuts to the National Park Service. More Perfect Union On Tuesday, a House appropriations subcommittee marked up a budget bill for the Department of the Interior, providing $3.1 billion to the National Park Service (NPS) in 2026—essentially keeping the funding level even with this year's budget, with committee chair Tom Cole, R-Okla., saying 'We are aggressively saving taxpayer dollars while funding our nation's most important needs.' In a letter to the Senate appropriations committee in May, President Trump had recommended cutting $900 million from the NPS budget next year. Since the beginning of President Trump's second term, the NPS has lost 24% of its permanent staff and had filled only 56% of its seasonal summer positions as of early this month, according to the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA), a nonprofit advocacy group. On Monday, Rethink the Deal, a nonprofit organization focused on inequities in how federal taxes are distributed, launched a grassroots national storytelling campaign calling on national park visitors to submit personal reflections of how cuts negatively impacted their experience. Last month, advocacy groups called for the public to hijack the government's 'snitch signs' that encourage visitors in federal parks to report information 'negative about either past or living Americans.' In March, a group calling itself the Resistance Rangers—made up of roughly 700 off-duty rangers—mobilized thousands at national parks from California to Maine to protest the Trump administration's firing of at least 1,000 NPS employees. President Trump's agenda has largely followed the playbook laid out in Project 2025, a 920-page policy wish list from the conservative think tank Heritage Foundation, which recommends granting extractive industries—oil, gas, mining, and logging—broad access to federal lands, citing Alaska's 'untapped mineral potential.' The document calls for reducing the size of national monuments, rescinding recent monument designations and making hundreds of millions of acres of public lands eligible for sale. It also recommends killing President Biden's 'America the Beautiful' initiative, which aimed to protect 30% of U.S. lands and waters by 2030 and address the interconnected crises of climate change, biodiversity loss, and inequitable access to nature. In addition, Project 2025 proposes weakened protections for endangered species, including delisting the gray wolf and grizzly bear. Republicans in Congress have been supportive of this agenda. 'Our nation is stronger because of the work done by [the Department of the Interior] to unleash American energy, strengthen domestic mineral supply chains and promote access to our natural resources. Committee Republicans stand ready to support President Trump and Secretary Burgum in their work,' Bruce Westerman (R-Ark.) , the House Committee on Natural Resources chairman said in a statement last month. $55.6 billion. That's how much U.S. national parks visitors injected into local economies in 2023, including $26.4 billion in direct spending, according to an NPS report noting that national park visitation supported 415,000 jobs at local hotels, restaurants, attractions and shops. Comparatively, the parks received $3.6 billion from U.S. taxpayers that year. Congress has cut the NPS budget every year since. In fiscal year 2024 and 2025, Congress appropriated $3.3 billion and $3.1 billion, respectively. Advocacy groups argue the NPS is not a drag on the federal taxpayer but is instead a benefactor. 'The National Park Service is only a tiny slice of our federal budget—less than one-fifteenth of one percent—yet delivers significant economic benefits, with more than $15 in economic activity generated for every dollar invested,' according to a NPCA statement. The bill advances to the full House Appropriations Committee and, if approved, will proceed to the House floor for debate and a vote. If it passes the House, it moves to the Senate for a similar process, all of which may take weeks or months. National park advocacy groups say it's too early for protests to ease. 'Today's subcommittee markup is a positive step, but there's still a long road ahead,' a spokesperson for Rethink the Deal told Forbes. 'Between the Administration's proposed cuts and the staffing crisis created by DOGE, it's clear our national parks are being treated as a burden rather than economic engines that contribute $55.6 billion to local economies.' Crucial Quote The proposed budget cuts were 'nothing less than an all-out assault on America's national parks,' Theresa Pierno, president and CEO of the NPCA, said in a statement in May. 'This is the most extreme, unrealistic and destructive National Park Service budget a President has ever proposed in the agency's 109-year history.' Tangent Last year, a Pew Research survey found 76% of Americans have a favorable opinion about the National Park Service—the most popular of 16 agencies, beating the U.S. Post Office (72%), NASA (67%) and the CDC (55%). At the bottom of the favorability barrel were the IRS (38%) and the Justice Department (43%). Further Reading National Park Service To Be Hit With 1,500 Additional Layoffs And Deep Budget Cuts, Reports Say (Forbes) FULL HEARING: Interior Secretary Doug Burgum Testifies Before The House Natural Resources Committee (Forbes Video)
Forbes
14-07-2025
- Business
- Forbes
Why Trump's Fee Hike May Not Solve The Deeper Problems In U.S. National Parks
A woman is taking a photo on the edge of the South Rim, in Grand Canyon National Park. Without waiting for Congress to pass President Donald Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill,' the White House issued two executive orders on July 3. The first, titled 'Making America Beautiful Again by Improving Our National Parks," raises U.S. national park entrance fees and recreation pass prices for foreign visitors to boost funding. It follows the 2026 budget proposal of the National Park Service (NPS) to introduce a surcharge on foreign visitors, a move NPS expected to raise over $90 million annually. However, the U.S. Supreme Court's decision on July 8 made NPS once again vulnerable to widespread staff reductions. It came just months after nearly 1,000 employees were laid off and over 2,400 veteran NPS staffers were offered early retirement or buyout. Since the Trump administration took office, the NPS has lost 24% of its permanent workforce, as reported by the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA). 'The National Park Service is reeling from historic staffing losses. Nearly a quarter of its permanent staff are gone, and the rest are being stretched to the brink just trying to keep parks open, safe and protected,' said Theresa Pierno, president and CEO of NPCA, in a press release. So, how far can new revenue go if parks are losing the people who keep them running? Adding Only Millions, While Billions May Be Slashed From The Budget In the 2026 Budget, NPS requested $2.1 billion, including $99.5 million for construction projects, $12.0 million for activities and $11.0 million for historical preservation. It is a sharp drop from the $3.3 billion provided under the 2025 continuing resolution. Under 'National Recreation and Preservation,' the proposed funding drops from nearly $90 million to just $12 million. It zeroes out entire line items, such as the 'Natural Programs' and the 'Heritage Partnership Programs'. Similarly, the 'Historic Preservation Fund' also sees a sharp decrease from $169 million to $11 million, with the complete elimination of grants for 'African American Civil Rights,' 'History of Equal Rights,' 'Underrepresented Communities' and 'Save America's Treasures.' Can a $90 million boost from tourist fees realistically make up for the $1.2 billion drastic reduction in federal support? When I asked whether the proposed increase in ticket prices would meaningfully improve conditions in the parks in an email interview, Bill Wade, executive director of the Association of National Park Rangers, was skeptical. 'I don't see it increasing fee revenue enough to make a significant difference,' he said. What Parks Would Gain Or Lose From Each Dollar Charged The executive order does not specify an exact surcharge, but Tate Watkins, managing editor at the Property and Environment Research Center (PELC), estimated that a $25 surcharge per overseas visitor could generate approximately $330 million annually, based on the 14 million foreign visitors who enter U.S. national parks each year. If NPS would like to generate $90 million in additional revenue, it only needs to apply a surcharge of $6.82 per international visitor. Let's take Yellowstone National Park as an example. Grand Prismatic Spring, Midway Geyser, in Yellowstone National Park In 2024, Yellowstone welcomed nearly 4.75 million visitors. On average, the park generates $12.1 million yearly in entrance fees. That is an average of only $2.55 per visitor. However, with a vehicle price of $35 and 'unlimited' passengers, most visitors contribute far less than the full price. International tourists account for roughly 15% of visitors, which is approximately 660,000 people in Yellowstone. Applying a $6.82 surcharge, the amount needed systemwide to raise $90 million, would yield an estimated $4.5 million in new revenue for Yellowstone, a 37% increase in park income. A $25 surcharge, as proposed by PERC, would generate over $16 million, more than doubling current revenues. Will Surcharges Scare Foreign Tourists Away? Kevin Jackson, CEO and founder of EXP Journeys, a travel company offering bespoke road trips, guided hikes, private camping, corporate retreats, and family adventures through U.S. national parks, at first welcomed the idea of using higher entrance fees to fund much-needed staffing and infrastructure. "My initial reaction was that the increase in fees would help support additional staff needs for the parks and infrastructure improvements. On the flipside, I am concerned about the reduction in international visitation, as it is already down in 2025," he said in an email interview. It seems research suggests that the potential impact on visitation could be minimal. According to another PERC analysis, a 10% fee increase would reduce overall visitation by just 0.2%. Taking Yellowstone National Park as an example again, the higher $25 surcharge for international visitors might reduce Yellowstone's foreign visitor count by roughly 1,300 people. It seems like a negligible drop in exchange for a multi-million-dollar return. Surcharging Foreigners Sounds Simple Until It Is Not Implementing a surcharge for foreign visitors may seem straightforward, but in practice, it can create significant operational challenges. 'It will be a big headache for fee collectors at national parks to have to determine who might be a nonresident—profiling?—and then have to check passports, etc., often slowing down the entry process to many national parks,' said Wade. A long line of cars creeps slowly to the north Highway 120 entrance of Yosemite National Park. Since July 8, NPS staff now faces a renewed risk of layoffs. With the legal block lifted by the Supreme Court, additional rounds of layoffs may now proceed, raising fresh concerns about operational capacity, staff morale and conservation efforts. Wade highlighted in the email interview deeper structural concerns that the public may not be aware of. 'The loss of professional and specialist positions—archeologists, engineers, curatorial specialists, historians—will significantly affect research, resource protection, facilities, and visitor services, especially in smaller park units that have historically relied on expertise from central offices,' he continued. In response to the Supreme Court ruling, Wade also released the following comment: 'This is an appalling way to treat employees who have dedicated their lives and careers to taking care of the visiting public and protecting the places that the American people have determined to be special. We have never seen Park Services employee morale so low. How can they do their jobs effectively when they are experiencing such terrible treatment and living in constant fear of layoffs?' he said. Fee hikes could help modernize infrastructure and expand access, but critics question whether increased revenue can truly offset the deeper, systemic challenges. Can millions from foreign tourists replace billions in federal cuts? Will visitors notice higher fees as well as fewer rangers, fewer programs and declining conditions? Can U.S. national parks be preserved if those tasked with protecting them are being pushed out?
