Scarlett acknowledges it is difficult to explain how, when the administration claims a 20 percent increase in park funding in four years, most parks find it tough to identify improved services — and groups such as the National Parks Conservation Association and a group of former superintendents often insist parks are drastically underfunded.

"We're sitting here in Washington saying how could this be: $1.8 billion (in the 2005 proposed park budget) . . . by golly, it's 20 percent more than we had four years ago. How could it be that all of that good news is not translating 100 percent on the ground into a recognized sense of well-being?" she acknowledged.

She sees some reasons. First, even when operation budget increases come, they often go largely to cover congressionally ordered pay increases. "So once a superintendent covers the pay increases, they may find they have less money for discretional programs than they had the year before" — so the increase feels like a decrease, she said.

Bill Wade, former superintendent of Shenandoah National Park, who now heads the Coalition of Concerned National Park Retirees, said the Park Service years ago figured that about "75 percent to 80 percent of the budget ought to go to personnel services and the rest for supplies, vehicles and support kinds of things."

Story continues below

Deseret Morning News graphic Parks budget winners and losers Requires Adobe Acrobat.

Data provided by Interior show many Utah parks drastically exceed such guidelines, leaving little room in budgets for anything but salaries. For example, Interior says a whopping 98 percent of Capitol Reef's budget goes to personnel and only 2 percent to supplies and support.

The only Utah parks where personnel costs are under 80 percent of the operating budgets are at Bryce Canyon and Glen Canyon (each at 77 percent) and Natural Bridges (74.2 percent). Scarlett acknowledges that leaves Utah parks with little wiggle room, and any across-the-board cuts from Congress or bigger-than-budgeted pay increases may force program or personnel cuts.

Drain of funds