by John Waters
Publisher

President Bush announced $258 million budgetary increase to the nation’s 390 national parks and monuments in early February, part of a possible $3 billion infusion of public and private funds.

The National Parks Centennial Initiative, as the plan is called, aims to raise the money over the next decade by the 100th anniversary of the NPS in 2016. Ideally, $100 million per year in new funding will come from the “President’s Centennial Commitment,” and an additional $100 million per year from the “President’s Centennial Challenge,” which urges individuals, foundations, and corporations to contribute as well. The administration has called on Congress to pass legislation allowing the Federal government to match these contributions.

Several days after the plan was announced, the Pew Charitable Trusts announced a proposed $12 million contribution in private and state money for national parks in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Locally, Big Bend National Park will see its budget increase from $5,625,000 in fiscal year 2006 to $6,121,000 in fiscal year 2008. The budget of Guadalupe Mountains National Park, north of Van Horn, will increase from $2,427,000 to $2,933,000, and Fort Davis National Historic site will see an increase of $50,000 between FY 2007 and 2008.

“First of all, we are extremely pleased with the proposed increase,” commented Guadalupe Mountains superintendent John Lujan. “I know that many programs are being cut, and to receive an increase in hard times is quite humbling.”

A small percentage of the increase (around $55 thousand), says Lujan, will go to hiring seasonal workers for three divisions in the park: Interpretation, Resource Management, and the Maintenance. Another percentage will go to restoration of the overall budget. Essentially, this will help cover yearly pay increases.

“The majority of the increase will go to preservation of our cultural resources,” emphasized Lujan. “We intend to put time and energy to the stabilization, preservation, and routine maintenance of 18 historic structures…. Additionally, we will focus on the park museum collection of over 32,000 objects, both natural and cultural, which are in significant need of cataloging and curation.”

Lujan cited “the critical need” for additional inventory, survey of archeological sites, and documentation of historic resources “to help us made better decisions regarding our cultural resources…. Knowing more about of cultural landscapes also provides us a mechanism for strengthening our relationships with the 13 native American tribes that have affiliation with the park.”

The park, says Lujan, has over 400 recorded archeological sites “Most of these sites need to be further documented and entered into the NPS Archeological Management Information System (ASMIS) and appropriate monitoring mechanisms established.  This funding increase will serve as a tremendous jump-start in completing this much needed documentation.”

David Elkowitz, Chief of Interpretation at Big Bend National Park, wrote in an email “The NPS is proposed in the 2008 Presidential budget request to receive a large increase. It will translate, if congressionally approved, to a $362,000 increase for Big Bend NP. This money is proposed to be used for restoration of seasonal staff, enhancement of the volunteer program and to restore operating costs.”

Chuck Hunt, Superintendent, Fort Davis National Historic Site said, “This is really good news.  We are very grateful that the President is seeking to boost investment in our National Parks.  This funding increase would permit us maintain and in some cases improve the service we provide the public. It could also help us take care of and repair our park’s infrastructure such as historic structures, restrooms, trails and picnic facilities.”

***********************

For an independent critique of the proposed increase in National Park Service funding, The Gazette contacted Bill Wade, Executive Director of The Coalition of National Park Service Retirees. Here’s his take.

The Good News:
• This budget (if passed) represents by far the largest operating increase in the 90-year history of the U.S. National Park System.
• This budget provides a significant re-focusing of money into the annual operational funding needs in national parks and makes a dent in the parks’ crippling $800 million annual shortfall.
• This budget appears to provide for a significant restoration of the staffing (especially seasonals) in parks that has been declining over the past 4-6 years.
• This is clearly one aspect of the Administration’s budget request that deserves, and has the potential to receive, Congress’s bipartisan support (particularly in light of the strong support parks have received from members of Congress from both parties).

We credit Secretary [of the Interior] Kempthorne and Director [of the NPS] Bomar for leadership and strong advocacy for the national parks, and for focusing on operational needs at the park level. Credit is also due to the members of Congress who have repeatedly highlighted and sought to address the funding crisis in our parks.

On the Other Hand…
• The overall increase (new money) in appropriations is only about 2% above 2006 actual levels; and only about $14 million higher than the 2002 actual appropriation.
• Of the $230 million “increase” in park operations, $211 million is at the expense of other NPS programs including historic preservation, construction and major maintenance, and land acquisition and state assistance, compared to the 2006 actual appropriation.
• Overall spending on infrastructure investment in ’08 would be over $80 million lower than in ‘06.  This might not be “all bad” given that new construction is never accompanied by enough maintenance and operations dollars in the NPS budget.
• The proposal calls for an additional $100 million in appropriations that would be allocated (if Congress authorizes the scheme) on a “dollar for dollar match” with private money. Much of this money would be used for special projects and construction (“signature projects”). We see no safeguards to limit the donations that would be matched to bona fide non-profit philanthropic “friends groups” and foundations, including the National Park Foundation, that have been established for the exclusive purposes of supporting national parks or the National Park System. The mission of these organizations is explicitly to provide prospective donors, including corporations and individuals, an avenue for donating to national parks. These organizations are important contributors to the parks, and have been successful at soliciting much-needed private financial support. Without such safeguards, we are concerned that park managers, in their zealousness to reach the annual goal of $100 million in donations could be tempted to expand their efforts to seek donations from sources beyond the appropriate philanthropic ones. This could open the door wider and wider for conflicts and inappropriate “quid pro quo” authorizations in return for donations. We worry that over time, this “chipping away at the margin” relative to funding could result in parks being less and less “public” and more and more “private.”
• Requiring NPS to find private sector funds to support basic capital improvements/maintenance will skew what projects get done. Requiring fundraising for basic infrastructure maintenance will put greater emphasis on projects appealing to private investment (new visitor centers, rehabilitation of premier historic sites), but is likely to work against basic park needs such as utility systems or roads.