Acting Interior Secretary David Bernhardt told the National Park Service on Friday that he wanted to personally approve any new projects funded through fees paid by park visitors/NPS file
Acting Interior Secretary David Bernhardt on Friday ordered the National Park Service not to launch any projects or programs funded through recreation fees and intended for use in improving the visitor experience.
More so, the acting secretary told the agency that he wants to review all "project descriptions and project cost information" for those paid for with funds collected under the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act, and personally approve those not already under way.
"Please stay tuned for more information - we may need to refine these instructions as we continue to discuss this with the Acting Secretary," wrote Lena McDowall, the Park Service's deputy director for management and administration in an email to regional directors, deputy regional directors, and assistant regional directors that was obtained by the Traveler. "To conduct this review, Acting Secretary Bernhardt has requested information on every project planned for this fiscal year. He will be reviewing project descriptions and project cost information for all FLREA projects. Please note that he will review this information for projects already underway as well as for those not yet started."
The directive comes two months after Bernhardt gave the Park Service permission to use FLREA funds -- up to a quarter-billion dollars, if necessary -- to send additional staff into the National Park System during the partial government shutdown to clean up after visitors. The move was criticized at the time by park advocacy groups and some members of Congress as a highly questionable and possibly illegal use of the revenues.
It also comes just three days before President Trump is to present his Fiscal 2020 budget proposal to Congress, a proposal that reportedly will propose significant budget cuts across domestic programs.
Park Service personnel Friday morning began preparing spreadsheets for the acting secretary that would outline the planned projects and their costs.
"We will know more about what additional instructions the Acting Secretary may have for us once he begins reviewing projects," wrote McDowall. "Please ensure that all of your parks and programs receive this directive."
As FLREA was envisioned and set up, the revenues from entrance fees and other approved programs are to go to enhance the visitor experience. That could be through better facilities, more interpretive programs, or restored habitat.
Some of those funds also typically are spent on seasonal positions, such as staffing campgrounds. With that money put in question during the partial government shutdown, it was feared that it could throw a wrench into summer hiring plans, as the National Park Service's human resources offices in January normally would be moving into the introductory steps of organizing this summer's hiring.
Additionally, more than 55 percent of the fees typically go towards deferred maintenance projects, so handcuffing the Park Service's ability to use those funds could add to the maintenance backlog, estimated at $11.9 billion at the end of Fiscal 2018.
Support Essential Coverage of Essential Places
Comments
EC--
taking the example of your parking lot: you can do your cyclic maintenance like minor patching and resealing and keep your parking lot in usable shape for its engineered lifespan and maybe a bit beyond. But at some point it won't be patchable: it will need replacement. Or, you can defer patches & resealing (cyclic maintenance scheduled for 5-10 years depending on the park environment) because you can't afford it this year or next year. Then, the date of reckoning when it requires expensive replacement moves up. The decision is when to keep spending $$ on sealing and stretching the usable lifespan, and when to stop the modest upkeep costs and pay the full replacement. I assume your board makes a wise decision each year, but at some point the wise decision will be to replace the parking lot, and separetely, possibly to expand it at the same time.
I've dealt with the NPS FMSS database and rules in other contexts (generating burn rate dashboards for facilities managers). From how it was explained to me, for having to be "gov spec" iron-clad rules, the rules are pretty reasonable. Park facility assets are divided into 3 bands, depending on how essential they are to operations and what condition they're in. Maintenance $$ first go to the most essential assets in pretty good shape with the longest future lifespan, things like painting every 5 years or re-roofing every 20 or 25 years, to keep them from becoming expensive problems. Next come essential assets in passible shape or later in their lifespan, then important but not essential assets in good shape, etc., down to any assets degraded beyond salvage, which don't get maintenance funding. The system keeps track of not only cyclic maintenance needs of each asset, but also the "current value" and replacement cost. There are guidelines for balancing triage of taking care of only the assets worth and capable of being saved versus spreading across assets to keep as many as possible in stable & functional condition. Yes a smart facilities chief could do a little better, but a not so smart chief could do much worse, so the rules are pretty efficient overall.
Yes, one version of maintenance backlog is the difference between the FMSS current value and replacement cost, essentially depreciation on the books. And like depreciation, no, it isn't worth the $$ to keep all assets in like-new condition, with current value equal to replacement cost. That would be your "wish list", or, alternatively, the amount that should be accrued in a capital equipment budget toward eventual replacement. It shouldn't be paid down to 0, but over a portfolio of assets, that depreciated value should remain relatively constant, not grow. But the more common version of deferred maintenance used for the last couple of years is some combination of the cyclic maintenance for the higher band assets that didn't happen, and the catch up cost, akin to the difference between the expected value or condition of the expected depreciation curve, and the actual condition. [I honestly didn't see how NPS accounts for capital spending replacement costs after the lifespan of an asset.]
Not only might other folks know more about FMSS and be able to correct or clarify the above, it might not apply to the half of the maintenance backlog due to roads & bridges, normally managed & funded via DOT not NPS.
Am I correct in thinking that at least half of the backlog is roads? And that they are funded seperately - not from the NPS appropriatons. Also, why do we burden NPS with running uber expensive not-real-park units such as the Baltimore Washington Expressway which is just a traffic jammed rush hour commuter road, nothing more?