Bill Overview
Title: PACTS Act
Description: This bill revises provisions permitting cooperative management agreements between the National Park Service and other governmental entities regarding management of park areas. Specifically, the bill (1) allows tribal governments, public universities, public utilities, or quasi-governmental entities to enter agreements; and (2) eliminates the requirement that the nonfederal park areas be adjacent or near to National Park System units.
Sponsors: Rep. Fulcher, Russ [R-ID-1]
Target Audience
Population: People who visit or are involved in the management and governance of national parks
Estimated Size: 100000000
- The bill affects the management of park areas under the National Park Service, which involves a vast amount of land and numerous parks.
- Cooperative management agreements can impact park operations, which include maintenance, conservation, education, and recreation.
- Tribal governments, universities, and public utilities being allowed to enter agreements means that these entities can now be partners in park management, thereby impacting how parks are managed and utilized.
- Since parks are public resources used by millions each year, changes in management may impact access, quality, and services provided within parks.
Reasoning
- This policy allows more diverse entities to manage park resources through agreements, which could lead to innovative management strategies and enhanced visitor experiences.
- Certain communities, such as tribes and universities, gain new opportunities for managing and benefiting from natural resources, potentially impacting their economic wellbeing and cultural preservation.
- While some members of target populations like park managers and university researchers might see direct impacts from the policy, casual visitors might experience more indirect benefits like improved maintenance and programs.
- The population impacted by these changes is large (millions of park visitors annually), but the impact per individual might be subtle and vary widely based on individual engagement with the parks.
- The budget constraints imply that not all potential improvements can be addressed immediately, requiring prioritization and long-term planning.
Simulated Interviews
Park Ranger (Colorado)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As a ranger, I see potential in partnering with universities and tribes, which could provide us access to more diverse resources and knowledge.
- The policy might help address some resource concerns we have, but I'm worried about possible bureaucracy.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Tribal Leader (Montana)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This bill allows tribes like ours to manage lands our ancestors once stewarded, which is an incredible opportunity for cultural reconnection.
- I anticipate better land management and job creation for our tribal community.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
University Researcher (California)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This should allow for more field research opportunities given the new partnerships.
- Collaborating with the National Parks can provide invaluable data for our studies on ecosystems.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Tourist (New York)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It could mean better maintained trails and more educational tours when I visit.
- I hope they invest in preserving the natural beauty and access to these parks.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Public Utility Manager (Washington)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The ability for utilities like ours to be involved could improve sustainable energy initiatives in parks.
- I'm optimistic about integrating green energy solutions with park operations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Environmental Educator (Florida)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could mean more support and new educational content with local universities becoming involved.
- I'm excited about potential new programs and collaborations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
College Student (Utah)
Age: 25 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think this would be a great learning opportunity for students and provide internships with real-world impact.
- My concern is ensuring these partnerships remain non-disruptive to the parks’ ecosystems.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Hiking Group Organizer (Texas)
Age: 47 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- We hope this will maintain or even improve trail quality and accommodations.
- We might see more collaboration that enhances visitor information and guides.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Retired (Arizona)
Age: 70 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policy could mean changes in park activities or noise during maintenance, which I have mixed feelings about.
- I hope the focus is on conservation rather than commercialization.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
Forestry Consultant (Oregon)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Allowing more partners could mean better practices being adopted from different sectors.
- I think this policy can positively impact forest conservation efforts.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $20000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $25000000)
Year 2: $18000000 (Low: $13000000, High: $23000000)
Year 3: $16000000 (Low: $12000000, High: $20000000)
Year 5: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $20000000)
Year 10: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $20000000)
Year 100: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $20000000)
Key Considerations
- Implementation of the Act requires NPS to build capacity for managing new agreements, which could incur setup costs.
- Potential for enhancing park management through diverse partnerships, leading to better resource utilization.
- Possible challenges in coordination among new and existing partners across different governance structures.