Parks expenses fall short, critics say

By MICHAEL JAMISON of the Missoulian

WEST GLACIER - A presidential plan fails to fund America's parks

adequately, critics say, and shortchanging already lean budgets will
only dig deeper a maintenance backlog now estimated at

$8 billion.

“We really need Congress to step up and boost the president's

proposed budget,” said Andrea Keller Helsel, spokesperson for the
National Parks Conservation Association. “There's nowhere near
enough money in this proposal to address the needs of our national
parks.”

President Bush recently released his budget proposal for 2009, which
includes a $161 million increase for national park operating budgets.
That, Helsel said, “is great,” but still does not close the gap on an
annual operating shortfall estimated at more than $800 million.

And to make matters worse, she said, the increase comes at a price.

The $161 million in new operations money is offset by cuts to other

national park programs, Helsel said, including land purchases and
construction budgets.

“The $161 million operating increase is an important step toward

restoring our national parks,” said NPCA president Tom Keirnan, “but
cutting other critical Park Service funding will impede these efforts to
fully restore the park system by its 2016 centennial.”

Overall, the 2009 budget proposed for the Department of Interior is

down $388 million from current spending levels.

For the parks, one particularly troubling cut is in the construction

budget, Helsel said, which at $172 million is down $46 million from this
year - that is half of what national parks received just five years ago.

And a fund to buy lands in and around parks - acres often threatened
by development - has been cut by more than half in the president's
proposal, from $44 million in 2008 to just $21 million in 2009. That
would be the smallest appropriation for that fund in recent history, and
NPCA has argued for upward of $100 million for the land-purchase
fund.
In total, the White House request for 2009 National Park Service
budgets is about $2.4 billion, an increase of less than 1 percent over
2008. It cuts funding for historic preservation as well as education and
recreation programs in national parks, Keirnan said.

In the past, NPCA has been highly critical of National Park Service
funding, using the agency's own accounting to show an annual
operating budget shortfall of $800 million. Currently, operational
budgets are about two-thirds of what's needed to maintain daily
operations.

And the gap, Helsel said, is growing.

Between 1980 and 2004, NPCA review of Park Service records showed
a 16 percent decrease in the number of permanent rangers, and a 74
percent decline in seasonal rangers. At the same time, 54 new NPS
sites were added to the roster, and visitation to parks increased 60
percent.

While Keirnan said he appreciates any increases, particularly the strong

investment in operations - which will put some rangers back in the
parks - “this much-needed operating budget increase must not come
at the expense of other important park programs,” he said. “Our
nation's heritage should not be compromised.”

Only a month ago Keirnan was praising lawmakers for making a

substantial investment in America's parks through the country's 2008
budget bill. But park managers still are waiting to find out how much
money individual parks can expect, and the 2009 proposal does not
keep pace.

Increasing fuel costs and inflation, Helsel said, will eat up a substantial
portion of the $161 million operating budget increase, and the cuts to
other park programs will be felt by visitors.

Congress, however, could change the president's proposal

considerably, and Keirnan said his organization will be looking to
lawmakers to fill the gaps left by the White house budget.

Rep. Denny Rehberg, R-Mont., responded to the president's overall

2009 budget proposal Monday, calling it “a mixed bag.”

He promised to scrutinize the White House recommendations “to make

sure the budget gives taxpayers the biggest bang for their buck.”
Rehberg praised some elements of the 2009 budget - tax breaks,
earmark reform, a move toward a balanced budget - but was critical of
others.

“President Bush and I often disagree when it comes to funding

Montana's priorities,” Rehberg said, “and his budget proposal this year
is no exception.”

The congressman questioned proposed cuts to Amtrak, local law

enforcement and low-income home energy assistance programs as
“just a few examples that stick out as areas where we don't see eye to
eye.”

Copyright © 2008 Missoulian