Editor's note: This updates with background on the status of national parks in case of a government shutdown.
With differences over President Trump's desired wall along the U.S.-Mexico border driving the government to a shutdown at midnight, legislation of interest to the National Park Service was in limbo Friday.
Key business being held up included the Senate's confirmation of David Vela as director of the National Park Service. Vela, currently superintendent of Grand Teton National Park in Wyoming, pretty much sailed through his confirmation hearing with the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee last month. However, Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon was hesitant to endorse Vela, saying he wanted more specifics on how the nominee would change what the senator viewed as lackluster regard for ethical behavior in the Park Service.
If confirmed, Vela would become the first Latino to rise to the directorship of the Park Service. He was nominated for the director's job on August 31. Before becoming superintendent at Grand Teton in 2014, Vela worked in Washington, D.C., as the Park Service's associate director for Workforce, Relevancy and Inclusion. He oversaw NPS programs including Human Resources, Learning and Development, Equal Opportunity, Youth, and the Office of Relevancy, Diversity & Inclusion. Prior to that, he was director of the agency's Southeast Region based in Atlanta.
Vela, should the Senate confirm him, will take the reins of an agency that has been struggling with a staggering deferred maintenance backlog and low morale among a workforce that has grappled with sexual harassment issues, low pay, work-life balance inequity, concerns over leadership, and concerns around strategic management, according to the 2017 Best Places To Work survey.
Another key issue before Congress is legislation to make significant inroads to the roughly $12 billion backlog in maintenance across the National Park System. Visitor and employee safety, transportation, access, and even historic structures all are being jeopardized by the backlog that reaches into nearly every corner, forest, and beach of the park system. Failure to pass the Restore Our Parks Act, which would provide up to $6.5 billion over five years to pay for maintenance, would force its sponsors to start over in the new Congress.
Another apparent lost cause this session was reauthorization of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which is designed to funnel hundreds of millions of dollars into parks and public lands across the country. The LWCF long has been batted about like a badminton shuttlecock by proponents who cite its role in preserving lands and providing for recreation, and opponents who say state and local land managers can do a better job than federal authorities.
Created by Congress in 1964, the LWCF was designed to receive $900 million a year from mineral royalties generated by oil and gas exploration on the country's Outer Continental Shelf. The fund expired on September 30 when Congress failed to reauthorize it. While there was strong support in both chambers to reauthorize the program, it never came up for action.
Most parks would remain open if the government shuts down, though with visitor centers closed and interpretive programs canceled. Away from the landscape parks, the Yellowstones, Grand Canyons, Glaciers and Shenandoahs, parks such as Ford's Theater, Sagamore Hill National Historic Site, Independence Hall, and others that revolve largely around facilities will be closed.
“Visitors from around the world who have planned their trips to our national parks months in advance now face the possibility of disruption and disappointment when they arrive at parks only to find closed visitor centers, locked restrooms and unplowed roads," said Theresa Pierno, president and CEO of the National Parks Conservation Association. "Local businesses and park concessioners also face the possibility of having to re-route passengers to other tours or cancel excursions altogether, threatening $18 million in economic activity that our national parks support on average each day during the month of December.
“Rather than insisting on funding a wall that would threaten families, wildlife and public lands on our border, President Trump should be working with Congress to ensure that border security efforts leave our parks and communities intact.”
Story Categories:
A copy of National Parks Traveler's financial statements may be obtained by sending a stamped, self-addressed envelope to: National Parks Traveler, P.O. Box 980452, Park City, Utah 84098. National Parks Traveler was formed in the state of Utah for the purpose of informing and educating about national parks and protected areas.
Residents of the following states may obtain a copy of our financial and additional information as stated below:
- Florida: A COPY OF THE OFFICIAL REGISTRATION AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION FOR NATIONAL PARKS TRAVELER, (REGISTRATION NO. CH 51659), MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE DIVISION OF CONSUMER SERVICES BY CALLING 800-435-7352 OR VISITING THEIR WEBSITE. REGISTRATION DOES NOT IMPLY ENDORSEMENT, APPROVAL, OR RECOMMENDATION BY THE STATE.
- Georgia: A full and fair description of the programs and financial statement summary of National Parks Traveler is available upon request at the office and phone number indicated above.
- Maryland: Documents and information submitted under the Maryland Solicitations Act are also available, for the cost of postage and copies, from the Secretary of State, State House, Annapolis, MD 21401 (410-974-5534).
- North Carolina: Financial information about this organization and a copy of its license are available from the State Solicitation Licensing Branch at 888-830-4989 or 919-807-2214. The license is not an endorsement by the State.
- Pennsylvania: The official registration and financial information of National Parks Traveler may be obtained from the Pennsylvania Department of State by calling 800-732-0999. Registration does not imply endorsement.
- Virginia: Financial statements are available from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 102 Governor Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.
- Washington: National Parks Traveler is registered with Washington State’s Charities Program as required by law and additional information is available by calling 800-332-4483 or visiting www.sos.wa.gov/charities, or on file at Charities Division, Office of the Secretary of State, State of Washington, Olympia, WA 98504.
National parks and their natural resources belong to you. The National Parks Traveler works to ensure you know how these essential places are being cared for.
Sign Up For Our Weekly Newsletter
Unsubscribe at any time.
INN Member
The easiest way to explore RV-friendly National Park campgrounds.
Here’s the definitive guide to National Park System campgrounds where RVers can park their rigs.
Our app is packed with RVing- specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 national parks.
You’ll also find stories about RVing in the parks, tips helpful if you’ve just recently become an RVer, and useful planning suggestions.
Comments
Wow Looks like they really got a lot accomplished this session.
The oligarchs gave themselves a tax cut and raised entrance fees for the people.
If the Dems would act like adults and do their jobs, hold the hearings on these job candidates instead of throwing tantrums and blocking everything, the positions would have been filled by now.
Um.The Republican's have a clear majority in the Senate.
They have the votes to approve or disapprove any Presidential appointments they wish.
Vegas guy...
Did you have any idea how prophetic your words would be: "throwing tantrums and blocking everything". Exactly what your 'commander in chief" spent the past few days doing.
Our Commander in Chief ran on a platform that promised to build a wall. He won the election based to a large part on that promise. The only one that is throwing tantrums and blocking everything - including the vote of the American public - is Chuck Schumer. There isn't a single legitimate reason not to build a wall - physical or virtual.
OH, But There is a Single Reason Not to Build an expensive
Ancient Chinese Wall, Criminal Trump
has yet to Con the Mexican Government to
PAY plus Liar Trump, King of Bankruptcy, has already
added at least another Trillion $ to Our Cumulative $ 23 Trillion DEBT; when the Trumpian Credit Card is Maxed Out, Who will Pay ? Not the Billionaires, recipients of mega Trumpian Tax Cuts, but the recipients of so called Entitlements, and all the Federal
Agencies dependent on Taxes the Underfunded IRS is suppose to collect. Tis Ironic that the "SLAVE ERA Electorial College" is responsible for Trump claiming the Oval Office, where like
Criminal Richard M. Nixon 45 years ago Taped/recorded illegal
orders including, "The Press is the Enemy of the People !"
Hopefully, by August 9th, 45 Years to the day, the 45th
President will be forced to resign, or be Locked Up ! Lock Him Up !
"There isn't a single legitimate reason not to build a wall - physical or virtual. "
We can always start with your favorite - where are the allocated funds to pay for it?
I haven't paid much attention to you as of late, but judging by this post someone should.
"There isn't a single legitimate reason not to build a wall - physical or virtual. "
We can always start with your favorite - where are the allocated funds to pay for it?
I haven't paid much attention to you as of late, but judging by this post someone should.
Some people here need to take one or two chill pills.
People throwing rhetorical bombs back and forth from their own tribal corners doesn't do the American people and their parks any good.
Our Fibber in Chief ran on a platform that promised to build a wall. He repeated hundreds of times another promise -- "And Mexico will pay for it." He won the election based to a large part on that promise.
Now he needs to be held to that promise.
ALL of it . . .
That is what this shutdown is all about.
As to Mexico paying for it. Building the wall will save far more in reducing the cost of supporting illegals. That is how Mexico pays for it.
And I had no idea how religious you conservatives are. Invisible hand of Adam Smith was only the beginning.
So m13cli the reason to not build the wall is you don't like Trump, don't understaand our Constitition and Nixon was a "crook"? Like I said "There isn't a single legitimate reason not to build a wall - physical or virtual. " Certainly not one that has been printed on these pages. "Slave era electorial college"?????
Even you said it - don't build an addition if you can't afford to maintain what you already have. Plenty of analysis of building any additional walls is that it would be ineffective in areas that are already difficult to traverse. $5 billion would only pay for a few hundred miles. Even back when the current border fences were installed, there were eminent domain proceedings that took forever. And then what about the perpetual cost of maintaining the wall?
They're certainly seeing it as a possible disaster in Big Bend National Park, as a barrier only to the wildlife that's starting to traverse the border again.
Here is a good read for you Rick. Perhaps you will get some religion if you spend the time to get educated.
https://fee.org/resources/i-pencil/
I agree with Lee in that we need to hold our leaders accountable for the promises they make. That said, Trump is far from the first or only one to make a promise and not keep it. In fact I'd challenge anyone to name any president that kept his word on everything. People need to keep things in perspective when those running for office make promises they can't guarantee. Especially these days when the other side does everything they can to prevent those promises from being kept, be it health care or a border wall.
If it were only that simple. In the past we've had Presidents who saw it as a practical matter that there was a more important principle than a campaign promise - that real lives were being impacted was more important than a sound bite.
In this case he was even ready to sign off on a budget. At least until conservative commentators started ridiculing him for backing off on the wall pledge. I mean - he's afraid of being teased. And for that we are all forced to suffer.
y_p_w - building the wall will cost far less that what it currently costs us to support illegal aliens.
The problem with your claim is that it's difficult to support with any facts. For better or worse, most pay taxes, and some don't even claim refunds for fear of the government using the information for deportation. There will simply be different ways of entering the US which are already employed, whether it's smuggled in a cargo container, a tunnel, by boat, etc.
Besides that, the majority of illegal aliens these days enter the US with a visa and overstay them.
Only if you are intentially oblivious. There are many studies that indicate that 60% + of illegal immigrants are on some type of welfare and those on welfare pay little if any income tax and certainly no property tax. At best they pay a minimum of sales taxes. Meanwhile they are taxing our school systems, law enforcement, welfare system and much more.
Yes I would prefer a "virtual" wall as it would be less expense and more effective but I suspect you would be against that even more viomently. Bottom line, a wall is far better than the status quo.
I get it. Pick and choose the studies that come to the conclusion you agree with. That's the way it usually works and why few can come to any agreement. I've researched this issue before, and each "study" comes up with different conclusions. Some claim the cost of the public education of the children of illegal aliens without considering the future taxpaying benefits of the same children.
I certainly don't buy that illegal aliens use a lot of welfare. I've dealt with certain government aid (including as a landlord for a Section 8 renter), and there is an absolute requirement for proof of legal status.
But in terms of simply building a wall, it's not really all that clear that it's going to be that effective. Illegal migration to the US is actually pretty low right now. Who does the wall really serve? I found this particular opinion piece:
The solution is to punish the employers who know, or should know that their employees have questionable documentation. There was one particular story in the news recently about a maid at a golf resort in New Jersey who said that her supervisor knew she was undocumented and had "questionable" paperwork, but accepted it anyways. Then she claims she was told that it she needed better papers, where her supervisor told her who to contact to get better quality forgeries. Still - apparently there was no tax fraud since she used an ITIN.
I agree. 100% everify. Absolutely no welfare, healthcare (except emergencies), education or driver licenses. That's what I call the virtual wall. Anyone that disagrees with that is just using "cost" and "efficiencies" of the wall as an excuse.
E-verify would do far more to discourage immigrants and the employers who would hire them than a single wall. You have to take away the employers incentive to hire them, get the word out that those jobs will not be available to illicit labor, and enforce the law and penalize employers who flout it.
The problem with a wall is that it is a simplistic solution when many illegals overstay visas and can fly in by plane. Is our president going to build the wall up to 50,000 feet? Might as well go full on electro-dome like Wakanda in Black Panther if that's the case.
And the wall disrupts wildlife corridors unnecessarily when aerial surveillance and electronic trigger barriers would work just as well or better. It would also allow wildlife migration. There are also miles of border where there are cliffs and gorges and a wall simply is unable to be built.
The wall was a slogan the campaigning Trump ran on that gained traction and became a simple sales pitch when better solutions were already out there.
He also mentions the wall would stop terrorists. Well, the most destructive terrorist attack in U.S. history, 9/11, was undertaken by Saudi nationals who flew into our country and overstayed their visas. They didnt cross the border. No border wall would have stopped them.
I agree we need to secure our borders but we can do it more effectively than a $25 billion border wall.
Tazzman - I have no argument with your analysis. The problem is you would never get the Democrats (nor many Republicans) to agree to a strictly enforced of e-verify and cut off of benefits. The wall has the most chance of getting through and as expensive and inefficient as it may be, it is still far better than the status quo. Oh and BTW - much of the money for the "wall" that is being requested has noting to do with brick and mortar.
So I admit to not having given this much thought before, even though i have seen the idea mentioned before. When was the last time you recall a state park or state services shut down ? Maybe it is time to hand over the national parks to the states if the federal government is so inept. What is the down side? I imagine that depends somewhat on the state you live in and if they have a national park or many. Would states like lee’s Utah or California with many parks stand to gain gain despite the maintenance backlog or would they lose? What is the downside?
It wasn't necessarily the same situation, but I remember back around 2011, California was dealing with the possibility that a quarter of its state parks might be shuttered due to the budget. There was a ballot initiative in 2010 to add something like $15 to each vehicle registration fee, and make entrance/parking free for such registered vehicles, but it was voted down.
https://lao.ca.gov/ballot/2010/21_11_2010.aspx
This was specifically about directly funding state parks, and that the budget was inadequate.
https://www.sacbee.com/news/investigations/state-parks-funding/article25...
A lot of states have served up their park systems as sacrifices to budget fights. California, New Jersey, Connecticut, Oklahoma Louisiana are states that come to mind that within recent years temporarily (or permanantly) closed parks until a budget fight unwound.
At least in California, it was strictly about a shortfall in the state parks budget. I don't remember any proposed shutdown would have been as a result of an omnibus budget bill being held up. There was the ballot initiative that would have charge $18 for every licensed motor vehicle, and which would have allowed registered California vehicles into our state parks without entrance/parking fees.
Illinois has also seen budget struggles to fund their existing parks. I'm not sure handing over NPS units to the states, at least the National Park-branded ones and National Monuments, is an assurance they wont run into budgetary problems.
Now there are some private associations and trusts that could perhaps pick up the slack during a shutdown(in fact some have in the Great Smoky Mtns, etc), but they cant do it at the scale to keep things fully operational.
At least at the Presidio of San Francisco, they've got an independent funding source from the Presidio Trust. I'm not sure if they're directly paying park rangers or if they're bringing in different people. I thought for the 2013 shutdown, Utah sent its own parks personnel to run Zion NP since it was so critical to the local economy.
At least at parks with concessionaires, there will be services and perhaps some of them can help out. I remember on a trip to Everglades NP I missed the last Shark Valley tram tour that had a ranger. I took the next tram, which was narrated by the driver, who was actually pretty good at it. I've gotten good information from concession bus drivers, like my hiker's bus along Tioga Road in Yosemite. Many of the official NPS sanctioned activities I've been on were led by nonprofit-provided naturalists.
During the '13 shutdown, Utah did keep Zion open. I'm not sure if they could do it with all of the parks/monuments if it came to that. We have had a surplus in recent years but it is set aside specifically for education. You mention private associations. If I'm not mistaken, there is at least one associated with each NP unit along with the National Park Foundation for the overall system. Zion's non-profit, Zion Forever, came about last year after the merger of three organizations.
Zion Forever is also keeping the park open starting Jan. 1 at a cost of about $2500 daily. This is for a small staff and crews. The state is currently paying about $7500 a day to keep the parks open, albeit with less services. They are pulling funding starting Jan. 1 and Zion Forever stepped up to keep that park open starting Jan 1 at a cost of $2,000-2500 daily for restroom and grabage removal and other limited services. The other parks will be without staff next week.
When I visited, I remember going on "ranger walks" led by nonprofit volunteers/employees. I'm looking at my old photos I took, and at Grand Teton I think the uniform says that it's the Grand Teton Association. I distinctly remember our guide said she was a current student at Colorado State. For Bryce Canyon all I can see is a logo on the uniform that says "SCA" as well as a Ford sponsorship logo. I researched it and that's the Student Conservation Association.
Not sure what this would be like in winter though. When I did my grand visit in 2006, there seemed to be a lot of seasonal workers and even rangers. One ranger I met at Timpanagos Caves said he was a retired school administrator and that he had worked there every summer since the 1940s. Another said she was a full time teacher.
Like I said, there is no legitimate reason not to build the wall - physical or virtual and Obama's head of the Border Patrol agrees:
https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1082503830992896000