President Obama wants Congress to significantly boost investments in the National Park Service by nearly $1 billion over the coming three years, and to create several additional funding mechanisms to help pay for maintenance of the system going forward.
To help provide some of that funding, the Obama administration is seeking higher camping and lodging fees, as well as a signficant increase in the cost of a lifetime senior pass, to raise revenues that could only be spent in the National Park System if matched on a "1-to-1 basis by nonfederal donations..."
Under the National Park Service Centennial Act sent to Capitol Hill this week -- which the Republican-led Congress is unlikely to adopt in its entirety -- additional funding programs would be created to help both the Park Service and other federal land-management agencies.
“This proposal acknowledges the important place our national parks have in the hearts and minds of all Americans,” Interior Secretary Sally Jewell said in announcing the legislation Tuesday. “This administration and this Congress have the unique opportunity to shape the second century of the National Park Service as they preserve the legacy of some of our nation’s greatest treasures for generations to come.”
The legislation also would revamp the Park Service's concessions program by creating a "Visitor Services Management Authority" to oversee contracts for visitor services in the parks, such as lodging and dining. Funds generated by these contracts going forward would be deposited into a revolving fund "that shall be available without fiscal year limitation for expenses necessary for the management, improvement, enhancement, operation, construction, maintenance of commercial visitor services and facilities and payment of possessory interest and leasehold surrender interest."
A seven-member board, including the director of the Park Service and its chief financial officer, would sit on the authority.
As drafted, the legislation calls for an increase of up to 5 percent per night on lodging and camping fees to help finance a Second Century Fund for use by the Park Service. It also would replace the current one-time $10 fee for senior passes for those 62 and older with a fee "equal to the price of the National Parks and Federal Recreational Lands Pass," which currently is $80. Any amount above the first $10 of that new fee for senior passes would be deposited into the Second Century Fund.
While the fund would be established "for projects or programs approved by the Secretary to further the mission of the Service and to enhance the visitor experience in System units," the legislation specifies that funds "may only be used if matched, on a 1-to-1 basis, by nonfederal donations (including funds, goods or services) to the Service for specified projects or programs."
The legislation also calls for increased congressional appropriations of $300 million to be deposited into the Park Service's Construction Account each fiscal year beginning this Oct. 1 and ending on September 30, 2018, "to remain available until expended, to correct defiiciencies in National Park Service infrastructure and facilities."
And the legislation would allow creation of an endowment fund built on philanthropic gifts and administered by the National Park Foundation.
A "Public Lands Centennial Fund" would be created under the legislation -- funded by $100 million each fiscal year through September 2018, or $300 million total -- for use by the Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Forest Service, and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation to fund visitor recreation services, natural resource restoration projects, improvements to facilities and trails, and to increase energy and water efficiencies.
Away from the funding provisions, the legislation seeks to bolster the Park Service's interpretive programs and ranks by adjusting programs to how people "learn and engage with the natural world" and by seeing that they "reflect different cultural backgrounds, ages, education, gender, abilities, ethnicity, and needs." The programs also should "reflect current scientific and academic research, content, methods, and audience analysis.
The legislation was praised by Theresa Pierno, the National Parks Conservation Association’s chief operating officer.
“Today’s announcement is an extremely important contribution to the debate of how to fund our parks and we hope it will help encourage bipartisan efforts underway in Congress. The Centennial Challenge Fund is based on a proven, viable, and bipartisan approach for using federal funding to leverage private dollars in order to make critical investments in our national parks," she said. "Dedicated federal dollars provides certainty for the private sector and allow for a multi-year fundraising effort. As a result, this initiative could leverage millions of additional dollars for the Parks and their surrounding communities for the Centennial and beyond.
The centennial celebration marks the National Park Service’s 100-year milestone with the goal of connecting with and creating the next generation of park visitors, supporters and advocates, a release from the Interior Department said, adding that in this second century of stewardship to America’s national parks, the National Park Service will continue its mission to help communities across the Nation preserve local history, celebrate local heritage, revitalize communities and create close-to-home opportunities for kids and families to get outside, be active and have fun.
“The National Park Service is celebrating the accomplishments of our first 100 years, but more importantly, we’re looking ahead to our next 100 years,” said Park Service Director Jonathan B. Jarvis. “This legislation gives us an opportunity to modernize our tools and meet the century-old mandate to protect, preserve and share with the American people the diverse and special places in our care."
Comments
Unfortunately there is nothing that prevents it.
Yet you unequivocally make the acqusation. If you can't cite one example how can you be so sure it is a common occurance?
And, for the new folks around here who don't know you , Eric, they might wonder why you equally dispute the accusation in such a willynilly manner.
Because they are totally unsubtantiated. Nothing willynilly about it.
Instead of arguing back and forth about riders and the like, it seems to me that readers of NPT should get behind this proposed legislation and urge the Congress to adopt it. No matter whether, like backpacker, you think Jarvis is a poor leader or whether you are like ec, a conservative, I think we can all agree that a properly-funded park system in everyone's interest. My Congressional delegation already knows that I support the proposed legislation. I hope all of you will let yours know also.
Rick, I generally support the legislation, especially the part that gives more flexibility as to the timing of expenditures. However, given the number of comments here regarding the mis, mal and nonfeasance within the NPS administration (many from insiders) perhaps the legislation needs to include some internal reforms as well to insure the monies are spent wisely. Let me add, I am somewhat concerned about the language calling for "adjusting" the interpretive programs. Sounds like an attempt to be more PC and to indoctrinate.
Here's a news article telling of an amendment to a bill that is exactly the kind of "policy rider" I'm talking about.
http://www.islandfreepress.org/2014Archives/12.04.2014-UPDATEHousePasses...
Please note that this was attached to a Defense bill.
The provision that some of these funds are "to remain available until expended," rather than forcing them to be obligated within a single fiscal year, could help promote better use of the money. Some of the problems with poor managment of construction (and other project) funds in the past has stemmed from the tight deadlines required to spend the money within the constraints of a budget year.
Without knowing the details, the proposed changes dealing with concessions also seem to have some potential for resolving recent issues in that area.
I agree with Rick Smith; the bill may not be perfect, but it's the best we're likely to see, and we ought to get behind it. The Centennial is a one-time opportunity to focus some attention on the parks.
So Lee who are the "few wealthy" people that are aided by this rider which wasn't snuck through in the dark of night without review but rather was the end result of years of effort and compromise. Again, while I would prefer single subject legislation, I see nothing nefarious in this particular rider and nothing that supports your unsubstantiated accusations.