[Senate Hearing 108-94]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 108-94
NATIONAL PARKS BACKLOG
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS
of the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
TO CONDUCT OVERSIGHT OF THE MAINTENANCE BACKLOG, LAND
ACQUISITION BACKLOG, AND DEFICIT IN PERSONNEL WITHIN THE NATIONAL PARK
SYSTEM, INCLUDING THE IMPACT OF NEW PARK UNIT DESIGNATIONS ON RESOLVING
EACH OF THESE CONCERNS
__________
JULY 8, 2003
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
89-076 WASHINGTON : 2003
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico, Chairman
DON NICKLES, Oklahoma JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico
LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming BOB GRAHAM, Florida
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee RON WYDEN, Oregon
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
CONRAD BURNS, Montana EVAN BAYH, Indiana
GORDON SMITH, Oregon DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
JIM BUNNING, Kentucky CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York
JON KYL, Arizona MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
Alex Flint, Staff Director
James P. Beirne, Chief Counsel
Robert M. Simon, Democratic Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Democratic Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on National Parks
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming, Chairman
DON NICKLES, Oklahoma, Vice Chairman
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
LAMAR ALEXANDER. Tennessee BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
CONRAD BURNS, Montana BOB GRAHAM, Florida
GORDON SMITH, Oregon MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
JON KYL, Arizona EVAN BAYH, Indiana
CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York
Pete V. Domenici and Jeff Bingaman are Ex Officio Members of the
Subcommittee
Thomas Lillie, Professional Staff Member
David Brooks, Democratic Senior Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Akaka, Hon. Daniel K., U.S. Senator from Hawaii.................. 3
Campbell, Hon. Ben Nighthorse, U.S. Senator from Colorado........ 2
Cornelssen, Curtis E., Director, Hospitality Leisure Group,
Price-waterhouseCoopers, Boston, MA............................ 26
Dillinger, Eric, Vice President, Carter and Burgess, Inc., Fort
Worth, TX...................................................... 23
Hill, Barry T., Director, Natural Resources and Environment,
General Accounting Office...................................... 9
Kiernan, Thomas C., President, National Parks Conservation
Association.................................................... 28
Murphy, Donald W., Deputy Director, National Park Service,
Department of the Interior..................................... 4
Thomas, Hon. Craig, U.S. Senator from Wyoming.................... 1
APPENDIXES
Appendix I
Responses to additional questions................................ 43
Appendix II
Additional material submitted for the record..................... 45
NATIONAL PARKS BACKLOG
----------
TUESDAY, JULY 8, 2003
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on National Parks,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m. in
room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Craig Thomas
presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CRAIG THOMAS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WYOMING
Senator Thomas. Good morning. The time has arrived so we
will begin, and I hope we will have some more members here. I
think we will have. Thank you all for being here. I
particularly want to welcome the National Park Service, General
Accounting Office and other witnesses for appearing before
today's National Parks Subcommittee hearing. Our purpose is to
talk a little bit about the deferred maintenance and plans to
deal with that over time, and of course it's one of the issues
that is always before us with respect to these facilities.
Over the years, of course, the Park Service has for various
reasons deferred, or perhaps even had to set aside facility
maintenance until funds were available and of course you know,
if you use that approach on your car, it wouldn't be long
before it would stop running, and so there has to be a plan of
some kind over time to be able to maintain those facilities if
we are going to maintain the kind of parks that all of us want.
And the estimates are large. We have heard a lot lately
about the outstanding needs in the range of $4 to $6 billion, a
tremendous amount of money. The GAO conducted a review of the
backlog in 1998 and identified several things that I am sure we
will talk about today, and I am glad they joined us today.
I think the Park Service has historically had a difficult
time in trying to take care of all the facilities that are
there and identifying all of those, and so I was pleased when
the Secretary and the Director released a report on their
progress a week ago in terms of how best to do this, and I
think that's important that we have a system. I think, you
know, in any sort of business that we have, the maintenance of
facilities has to be one of the things in the operating budget
or you run into big problems.
Basically what we're seeking to do today, I think, is get a
feel from you all as to the scope of the deferred maintenance
backlog that is there, I think to get some idea with respect to
reducing or eliminating that backlog, what has been done and as
importantly, what yet needs to be done, and of course talk
about systems to do that. I think we ought to consider
somewhere along the line the impact of new park unit
designations and additions and what impact that has on the
Park's ability to maintain the facilities that we now have, 388
facilities or something, and every week there is more, all of
which are good, but there also needs to be at some point some
decisions made there; I think whether or not the Park Service
either reduced or had to have neglected some other activities
in order to have a maintenance backlog and of course, whether
or not that funding has delayed filling job vacancies and
imposed itself upon the operating budget in particular.
I'm also interested, I have heard and seen, I think, some
administration ideas that there would be $4 or $5 billion
available for this backlog over time, but yet, I believe that
the current budget recommendation is about the same as last
year, so I would be interested in knowing what the plans are
there.
I think it will be an excellent time for us to really deal
with this issue and see how we can help to do that.
Senator, welcome. Glad to have you here, sir. Do you have
any opening comments?
[A prepared statement from Senator Campbell follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Ben Nighthorse Campbell,
U.S. Senator From Colorado
Thank you for calling this hearing, Senator Thomas. The advent of
our national parks system was a hallmark of the 20th century. Our parks
have and continue to be regarded as the world's best, attracting
tourists from all over the globe.
Unfortunately, toward the end of the last century, the National
Park Service has become burdened by a tremendous maintenance backlog.
The reasons for that backlog are many, in no small part due to
Congress' consistent expansion of the system.
Under Secretary Norton's leadership, the Service has done an
admirable job in meeting that backlog, especially if one considers the
need to spend greater resources on security on tighter budgets.
Interior's recent document titled, National Park Service: Partnering
and Managing for Excellence, highlights the Park Service's successes in
meeting the maintenance backlog. For example, it points out that since
FY 2002, nearly $2.9 billion has been provided to address the $4.9
billion backlog. Approximately 900 repair/rehabilitation projects were
addressed in FY 2001 and 2602, and another 500 projects are being
tackled in FY 2003. The report goes on to note the innovative
partnerships between the Park Service and state and local governments,
as well as working with third-party interests in meeting funding needs.
However, the Park Service seems to focus on quantity and not
quality in prioritizing its backlog. For example, at Mesa Verde
National Park in my state of Colorado is home to some of the greatest
cultural resources in the Americas. Mesa Verde has long been an
important site to several Indian Tribes who return to the Park for all
manner of sacred and traditional rituals. In fact, three million
artifacts dating from 600 to 1300 A.D. were found and are stored at
Mesa Verde.
Unfortunately, the curatorial storage facility housing these
treasures was woefully inadequate, resulting in the tangible loss of
history. Mesa Verde's curatorial facility has long been recognized as
lacking. Recently, the Park spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to
improve the facility, yet it still only meets 60% of Secretary Norton's
own criteria defining adequate storage. To make matters worse, Mesa
Verde is constantly threatened by a very real sense of danger from
wildfire. Just last year, all of the artifacts had to be temporarily
relocated to a new facility when a catastrophic wildfire blazed through
the Park.
Even though the current facility fails the Secretary's own
scorecard, and wildfire and inadequate storage threatens the existence
of priceless artifacts, the National Park Service did not list a new
facility as a priority for next year or even the year after that.
Rather, the NPS provides funding for a new facility in 2009--seven
years from now.
I was perplexed at how can the Park Service delay and delay saving
and preserving these artifacts year after year so I did a little
checking on how the Service identifies and manages its backlog. As I
understand it, the NPS uses a system called, ``choosing by
advantages,'' which is similar to a cost-benefit analysis. In this
case, the NPS identifies a high value because it would be protecting 3
million priceless artifacts. The Service then divides that value by the
cost of the protection.
In this case, because we are talking about preserving 3 million
priceless resources, the cost of building such a structure would be
expensive because it would have to be relatively large. In the case of
the Mesa Verde Park, the result of ``choosing by advantages'' is that
the project with the greatest value, even where there is the greatest
need, can be relegated to second tier or FY09 status.
Something needs to change. I commend the National Park Service and
Secretary Norton. However, so much more needs to be done. I urge the
Park Service to take a hard look at the way in which it prioritizes
projects in administering its backlog.
Thank you.
STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL K. AKAKA, U.S. SENATOR
FROM HAWAII
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you very much for scheduling this hearing.
When I came to Senate in 1990, the National Park Service
deferred maintenance backlog was a major issue, and it remains
one today. While I understand there are different views about
the extent of the backlog and progress being made to reduce it,
I know we all agree on the importance of addressing this issue.
I hope this hearing will serve two purposes. First, it is
important that we get a better understanding of the underlying
facts and issues that are involved. For example, what is our
best estimate of the backlog and what progress have we made
toward reducing it? Even more basic, is there agreement on what
actually constitutes deferred maintenance, or are we double
counting already scheduled maintenance projects? In other
words, we need a clear understanding of what service categories
of deferred maintenance and backlog reduction are consistent
and accurate over time. Second, this hearing is important to
draw attention to this matter because whatever the reason for
the backlog accumulating in the first place, the only way it's
going to be reduced or eventually eliminated is by having more
money appropriated.
As a former member of the House Appropriations Committee, I
can appreciate the difficulties my colleagues on the
Appropriations Committee will face in trying to find additional
funds for this or any other worthwhile program. Unlike many
issues facing the committee, National Park issues are rarely
partisan. I hope we will focus not on who is responsible for
the problem, or who should get credit for an increase in
maintenance funding, but rather, on how we will solve this
problem.
Finally, as important as it is to try to reduce the
maintenance backlog, I think we need to remember that this is
not the only priority for the Park Service. Deferred
maintenance funding cannot come at the expense of management
and interpretive needs of the Park Service, and we need to
ensure that we don't offset money from existing operational
accounts to increase the score card on maintenance. The Park
Service must have the ability to accomplish its primary
mission, and that is to protect and preserve our irreplaceable
natural, cultural, and historic treasures.
Mr. Chairman, again, I want to thank you for holding this
hearing and I look forward to hearing our distinguished
witnesses.
Senator Thomas. Thank you, sir. Senator Alexander, do you
have a statement?
Senator Alexander. Glad to be here, Mr. Chairman, I look
forward to hearing from the witnesses and I will ask my
questions after that.
Senator Thomas. That was a beautiful short statement, thank
you, sir. A bit unusual around here.
Let's go on then with the panel. We would like to welcome
Donald Murphy, Deputy Director, National Park Service, who is
with us this morning, and Barry Hill, Director, Natural
Resources and Environmental Issues for the GAO. Welcome,
gentlemen. Glad to have you here.
Go right ahead, Mr. Murphy, please.
STATEMENT OF DONALD W. MURPHY, DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Murphy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity
to appear before the subcommittee and discuss the National Park
Service's backlog of deferred maintenance and some of the
related issues. We're pleased to have the opportunity to share
our successes in addressing the deferred maintenance backlog
with you this morning, which in an important component of the
President's Parks Legacy Program.
As you already mentioned, Secretary Norton and Director
Maniella did issue a report just recently, gave it to the
President, on the National Park Service: Partnering and
Managing for Excellence, where we highlighted some of the
accomplishments that we have made as far as the maintenance
backlog is concerned. As you pointed out, the backlog has been
estimated anywhere from $4 to $6 billion. There was the
original report by the General Accounting Office that
highlighted approximately a $4.9 billion maintenance backlog
and the President of the United States, or course during the
campaign and then early on in the administration, took that
number as an estimate of what the current maintenance backlog
happened to be and made a pledge to try to tackle at a minimum,
that much of the maintenance backlog.
So far, over the past 2 years, we have of course spent
approximately $2.9 billion tackling that backlog. He's
proposing more than $760 million annually over a 5-year period
that will totally roughly $3.84 billion toward addressing that
backlog, as well as during that same period approximately $1.26
billion to handle road maintenance. The funds provided to date
have addressed very specific projects, everything from
wastewater treatment plants that you have read about in the
report to money that has gone to Federal Hall Foundation, some
to respond to some of our resource management projects as well,
$2.1 million to Yellowstone to replace a wastewater treatment
plant and relocate sewer lines that were threatening Old
Faithful. Approximately 900 repair and rehab projects have been
addressed during that period, with another 500 or so in the
pipeline.
I think the most important thing that we will say here this
morning is that we really have to get an honest handle on what
the maintenance backlog is. The only way we can do that is
through a systematic approach of inventorying what you have,
and prior to just 2 years ago, the National Park Service had
absolutely no inventory of the facilities that made up its
facility maintenance program. We have undertaken over the last
2 years to begin that inventory, have completed 125 parks so
far, and the last parks will be completed by the end of this
fiscal year, except for the four largest, which will be
completed by the end of fiscal year 04. So first of all, you
have to establish the universe of what you have and that's what
the physical inventory does.
The next most important step in that is establishing a
facility condition index for that inventory that you have, and
that facility condition index is based on what it costs you to
keep a facility in good repair, divided by its current
replacement value. That gives you a ratio and as long as that
ratio is .1 or below, you know your facilities are in good
condition. If that number is above that, you know that you need
to start taking care of those facilities.
Not only that, that has to be coupled with what's called
also an asset priority index, which allows you to prioritize
the importance of the facilities that you do have, so that not
only do you have a facility condition index that you supplement
with a priority index, and that gives you the ability to then
focus on just those projects that are the most important and
the most critical, those that you can really begin to make the
most of the monies that you are spending.
This program never existed in the National Park Service
before and it's really not until this program is really fully
implemented that you're going to really have a very good
understanding and handle on what the maintenance backlog is.
Right now we're dealing with estimates and they're fairly good
estimates, but they are not objective and systematic estimates
based on real data.
That's what we're undertaking to do in the National Park
Service and until that job is complete, all of this talk about
what the scope of the maintenance backlog is just your best
guess based upon the situation at any given moment.
We have provided CD-ROMs that we will give to the members
that will really explain in great detail exactly how this
facility assessment program will work in the National Park
Service. It's used by the Department of Defense, it's used by
other agencies across the Nation, and it really is a state-of-
the-art computerized program that will help us finally get a
handle on our maintenance or facility maintenance program. It's
extremely important to us.
I think the other important thing to mention this morning
is, you know, it's really important that we focus on the
National Park Service's ability to connect with the American
people. So as part of the President's Legacy program, he's
encouraging American people to participate in the protection of
national and cultural resources through such programs such as
the Land and Water Conservation Fund, the new Preserve America
program which was just announced, Take Pride in America, which
is a program that has existed for a number of years and
encourages volunteers to come and work in land management
agencies as volunteers. And so, this is an extremely important
part of the administration's focus on the Legacy for National
Parks as well.
I think you all know of the effects of 9/11 on increased
security in this Nation. The National Park Service has 9
designated areas as critical infrastructure in this nation.
There are icon parks, places such as the Status of Liberty, the
Mall right here in Washington, all of the monuments, the
Jefferson Memorial, all of these areas are falling under our
areas with the need for increased security and we're focusing
our efforts and resources on that as well.
You mentioned the addition of new units to the National
Park Service. During the last 5 years, 14 new units have come
into the National Park system. Congress created 11 new units,
President Clinton established by proclamation three.
For fiscal year 04, it is important to know that the
proposed operating budgets for these new units is nearly $4
million dollars and includes a total of 10 full-time
equivalents, and their staff will, of course, be expected to
increase over the years and they do, of course, have an impact
on the overall funding needs of the National Park Service.
So, we appreciate the opportunity to outline some of the
visions that this administration has for managing the parks,
particularly in the area of maintenance backlog and I seriously
look forward to answering your questions as forthrightly as I
can, and I have prepared testimony that we have made available
for the committee as well. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Murphy follows:]
Prepared Statement of Donald W. Murphy, Deputy Director,
National Park Service, Department of the Interior
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before your
subcommittee to discuss the National Park Service (NPS) backlog of
deferred maintenance and related issues.
We are pleased to have the opportunity to share our successes in
addressing the deferred maintenance backlog, which is an important
component of President Bush's National Parks Legacy Project. The Legacy
Project was initiated to ensure proper care of our National Park System
and is designed to enhance ecosystems, improve outdoor opportunities,
address infrastructure needs, and establish accountability through
performance goals. As the President said in his first address to a
joint session of Congress in 2001, ``Our national parks have a special
place in our country's life. Our parks are places of great national
beauty and history. As good stewards, we must leave them better than we
found them.''
On July 2, 2003, Interior Secretary Gale Norton and NPS Director
Fran Mainella issued a report entitled ``National Park Service:
Partnering and Managing for Excellence'' (NPS Accomplishments Report)
that highlights the progress toward fulfilling the goals of President
Bush's National Parks Legacy Project. A major focus of the report is
the accomplishments NPS has made in addressing the deferred maintenance
backlog.
The President has committed significant funding to address both the
repair and management aspects of the deferred maintenance backlog. He
is proposing more than $760 million annually over a five-year period,
for a total of $3.84 billion, to pay for non-road maintenance and
construction and nearly $1.26 billion during the same period for road
maintenance. In addition, for the first time ever, NPS has established
the Asset Management Program which includes the implementation of the
Facility Management Software System (FMSS), an off-the-shelf system to
monitor and prioritize ongoing maintenance needs that will allow NPS to
manage the backlog and prevent a recurrence of maintenance backlogs in
the future. Most importantly, through the establishment of this
program, NPS will be able to measure performance in improving facility
conditions through a Facility Condition Index (FCI). This will allow us
to track progress in achieving results, rather than just counting
funds.
A May 1998 General Accounting Office report (``Efforts to Identify
and Manage the Maintenance Backlog'' GAO/RCED-98-143) stated that the
NPS ``does not have a routine, systematic process for determining its
maintenance backlog'' and cited concerns about the accuracy of the NPS
estimate of $4.9 billion (excluding new construction). Using the only
estimate available, President Bush committed to provide at least $4.9
billion in funding for NPS to address the deferred maintenance backlog.
The Administration is on a path to meet that goal. To put the funding
increases in perspective, the more than $1 billion requested for FY 04
is nearly 50 percent more than was provided in FY 00 and double what
was provided in FY 97.
Funds provided to date are achieving tangible results, and the NPS
has begun to improve the condition of hundreds of park assets using the
increased funding Congress has appropriated at President Bush's
request. For example:
$16.5 million has gone to Federal Hall National Memorial to
repair cracks in the building;
$4.1 million is being used at Everglades National Park to
repair a 135,000 gallon-per-day wastewater treatment system;
$4.1 million has gone to Lava Beds National Monument to
relocate the visitor center away from fragile underground
resources; and
$2.1 million is being used at Yellowstone National Park to
replace a wastewater treatment plan and relocate the Old
Faithful sewer line.
In the past two years, NPS has tackled approximately 900 repair and
rehabilitation projects. These projects, including 60 fire safety
projects, have enhanced visitor and employee safety. They have improved
health protection by upgrading and repairing 186 water, wastewater, and
sewer facilities. They have made buildings better and safer for
visitors through over 325 general building and safety rehabilitation
projects. Another 500 projects are underway in 2003 and approximately
400 more are programmed for 2004.
As part of the President's Legacy Project, park roads, too, will be
brought into good condition. In 2001, just 35 percent of park roads
were in good condition. Under the proposed highway transportation bill,
which would provide $1.89 billion over six years for the Park Roads and
Parkways Program, over 80 percent of paved park roads would be brought
into good or excellent condition, and virtually no paved road would be
in poor condition.
An essential component of the National Parks Legacy Project is to
prevent future backlogs by bringing state-of-the-art facility
management to the parks. An essential component of the National Parks
Legacy Project is to prevent future backlogs by bringing state-of-the-
art facility management practices to the parks through the Asset
Management Program. The Asset Management Program will give us the
capacity to generate information about our assets on a service-wide
basis. To accomplish this goal, NPS is implementing a new off-the-shelf
software system, the Facility Management Software System (FMSS). This
system is now operational in some parks and will be fully implemented
by 2006. NPS has developed a CD-ROM that explains the asset management
program. We have provided a copy to this subcommittee and hope that you
will have an opportunity to view it.
NPS is taking the necessary steps to ensuring effective and
efficient implementation of the Asset Management Program. The first
step is to better understand the condition of the NPS infrastructure at
each park by conducting an inventory, identifying deficiencies, and
estimating the cost of repair and current replacement value of park
assets. NPS is accelerating its efforts to complete these facility
condition assessments at all 388 park units to provide, for the first
time, a complete inventory of maintenance needs. Facility condition
assessments at 125 parks were completed by December 2002. By the end of
FY 03, facility condition assessments will be completed at all but four
of the largest parks. The NPS will complete the final facility
condition assessments on these parks in FY 04.
Our current estimates of NPS infrastructure show that it includes
more than 26,000 historic structures and other buildings, 8,500
monuments, over 12,000 miles of trails, some 1,200 water systems, and
about 1,400 wastewater treatment plants. Our road network is estimated
to consist of nearly 5,500 paved miles of road, more than 6,000 miles
of unpaved roads, and some 1,700 bridges. The facility condition
assessments, completed as part of the Asset Management Program will
allow NPS to refine and validate these numbers further.
The next step in implementing the Asset Management Program is to
determine the Facility Condition Index (FCI) for park assets, except
for roads which use the Pavement Condition Rating (PCR). The FCI is a
performance measure used to help quantify or determine the condition of
a particular park asset based on the cost of repair and the current
replacement value. To determine the cost of repair of an asset, NPS
uses FMSS to link information derived through the facility condition
assessments to an industry-standard cost-estimating tool. Thus, NPS can
measure progress against the industry-standard measure of a FCI for
certain types of assets such as buildings. Other assets, however, such
as monuments and cultural landscapes do not have industry-standard
measures and are more difficult to compare.
Once the FCI is determined for individual assets, NPS will be able
to establish a service-wide FCI baseline, and then use the baseline to
determine FCI target ranges for improved future conditions. NPS has
established an initial FCI baseline by using statistical modeling on
the facilities condition assessments completed thus far for eight major
categories of regular assets (i.e., buildings, campgrounds, trails,
paved roads, unpaved roads, water systems, wastewater treatment plants,
and employee housing). FCI target ranges are NPS performance goals. NPS
is still working to verify these numbers and determine the FCI levels
for fair and good condition, so we are not yet in a position to discuss
the total costs of bringing the facility average up to fair or better
condition. We expect to be able to use FCI performance measures and
targets to support the President's 2005 Budget. This process will allow
NPS to evaluate the impact of particular funding levels on asset
performance and condition and quantify the consequences of delaying or
not accomplishing repairs.
The final step in implementing the Asset Management Program is to
use FCI, the Asset Priority Index (API), and other policy
considerations to prioritize the maintenance needs of park assets. The
API is used by park managers to identify the importance of the asset in
accomplishing the park's mission. Through the Asset Management Program,
NPS will have to articulate clearly and consistently its asset
priorities, the investment needed to sustain them, and the rate of
deterioration over time. Other important reasons to invest in a
facility include such considerations as critical health, safety, and
resource protection needs, partnerships, and visitor services
requirements. Likewise, it may be appropriate to demolish structures
for which the costs to improve the condition are prohibitive.
Professional facility management also requires regular maintenance
to prevent facilities from gradually falling into disrepair. In FY 03,
funding for cyclic maintenance increased from $22 million to $42
million, and in FY 04 is slated to increase to $56 million under the
President's budget. By ensuring cyclic and preventative maintenance at
regular intervals, this investment will help prevent a maintenance
backlog recurrence. While new park facility maintenance needs will
continue to emerge, the combination of increased funding and management
reforms instituted through the Asset Management Program will allow the
NPS to find the point where sustainable funding levels will cover an
asset's life cycle maintenance and capital replacement costs.
Another component of the President's Legacy Project and the NPS
Accomplishments Report recognizes NPS' special connection to the
American people and its unique ability to engage the public, establish
partnerships and promote volunteerism. The NPS is serving as a catalyst
and encouraging many individuals and organizations to leverage
resources and information, overcome organizational and procedural
barriers, and increase cooperation and consultation. The President is
encouraging the American people to participate in the protection of
natural and cultural resources through such programs as Land and Water
Conservation Fund stateside grants, the Preserve America Initiative,
Take Pride in America, and the creation of public and private
partnerships. Through these programs, our goal is to create a seamless
national network of parks, historic places, and open spaces.
The President's Legacy Project also seeks to improve visitor
service and keep the parks safe. The September 11, 2001 terrorist
attacks on the United States and the resulting world events require
increased security for our national parks and monuments throughout the
National Park System. As the principal steward of our nation's most
treasured cultural icons, the NPS has assigned nearly 200 additional
protection rangers to meet increased security needs. Secretary Norton
has issued directives to improve the management of the law enforcement
program within the NPS and across the Department of the Interior. NPS
also has developed a comprehensive Emergency Preparedness and Response
plan to protect public health in the unique settings of the national
parks and is coordinating with other bureaus and agencies to ensure
complete communications integration. NPS will continue to strengthen
security efforts through better training of personnel and improved
equipment.
The efforts outlined in the NPS Accomplishments Report demonstrate
the President's commitment to taking better care of the parks already
under our stewardship. Because this effort focuses on addressing the
deferred maintenance backlog, the Department has been asking Congress
to defer action on bills that would establish new units of the National
Park System, despite the fact that some of these proposals might
otherwise merit our support. We have taken this position because we are
concerned about the demands each new unit could create on the NPS
budget.
When Congress authorizes new units, additional funding for
operation, maintenance, and usually, land acquisition and construction
are ultimately required. Additional personnel are also usually
required. Existing authorizations to acquire land for new units and
boundary expansions exceed available funds.
During the last twelve years (1991-2002), 34 new units of the
National Park System were established. Congress created 31 of the new
units and President Clinton established three by Presidential
Proclamation. For FY03, the operating budgets for these new units total
$25.6 million. Some of these units are so new, they are not fully
operational, so their operational costs will likely grow. For these 34
units, the current system of identifying needs in the park contain over
$30 million in recurring unfunded operational needs and over $265
million in unfunded one-time projects. While all of these items will
not be funded anytime soon, they represent new demands on the National
Park System that were not there 12 years ago. The President's FY 04
request includes $5.1 million or 36 percent of the total request for
programmatic increases for parks with new responsibilities. A portion
of this amount includes planning and start-up money for some of the
newly authorized units.
We are trying to slow the growth of the National Park System so
that we can focus our resources for the time being on reducing the
deferred maintenance backlog. In advancing President Bush's National
Parks Legacy Project, the NPS has substantially reduced the deferred
maintenance backlog and instituted measures to prevent its recurrence.
We are also taking other steps to be the most effective and efficient
agency possible with the financial resources we have at our disposal.
We appreciate this opportunity to outline the vision of caring for
and enhancing the special places in our National Park System, as set
forth in President Bush's National Parks Legacy and the ``National Park
Service: Partnering and Managing for Excellence'' Report. We will
continue to work with this subcommittee as we move forward with our
efforts to address the maintenance backlog and improve the management
of the National Park System.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. I would be pleased to
answer any questions you may have.
Senator Thomas. Thank you, sir. I'm sure we will have some
questions.
Mr. Hill.
STATEMENT OF BARRY T. HILL, DIRECTOR, NATURAL
RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT, GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE
Mr. Hill. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I'm
pleased to be here today to discuss the National Park Service
maintenance backlog and if I may, I would like to briefly
summarize my prepared statement and submit the full text of the
statement for the record.
Senator Thomas. It will be included.
Mr. Hill. For decades, GAO, the Department of the Interior
and others have reported on the Park Service's efforts to
develop an effective maintenance management process that would
enable the Agency to provide accurate and reliable estimates of
the amount of deferred maintenance on its assets. Over the
years, the Agency's estimates of its deferred maintenance
backlog have varied widely, sometimes by billions of dollars.
Today the Agency estimates that its deferred maintenance
backlog is about $5 billion. The Agency acknowledges that it
still does not have the data needed to properly manage the
broad array of historic, cultural and natural assets placed in
its care. In 1998 the Park Service initiated and designed a new
asset management process that is intended to provide the Agency
with a better overall approach to managing its asset inventory.
My testimony today summarizes our prior work regarding the
potential of the Park Service's new asset management process
and provides an update on the progress the Park Service is
making in implementing it.
Let me start by briefly summarizing our prior work. In
April 2002, we reported the Park Service had made progress in
developing a new asset management process that when fully and
properly implemented, should provide the Agency with more
accurate and reliable estimates of the amount of deferred
maintenance on its assets. As currently planned the new process
will, for the first time, enable the Agency to have a reliable
inventory of its assets, a process for reporting on the
condition of the assets in its inventory, and a system-wide
methodology for estimating deferred maintenance costs for its
assets.
Although the new process appears promising, we raised the
following concerns. First, the success of the process could not
be determined until staff at each of the park units are trained
and the process is fully and properly implemented.
Second, the Park Service had not yet estimated what the
total implementation cost for the process would be, or
developed a schedule for when full implementation would occur.
Third, two different operating divisions within the Park
Service, that being concessions management and facilities
management, were developing separate processes for tracking and
reporting deferred maintenance and it was unclear whether their
efforts were duplicative. And finally, only about one third of
the park units complete annual conditions systems by the end of
fiscal year 2002. While this approach may have been appropriate
for meeting management and financial reporting needs in the
short term, without comprehensive assessments, more complex and
costly problems might be overlooked in the long term.
Now let me update the progress we're aware of in
implementing the new process. Since our last report, I'm
pleased to say that the Park Service has made progress. The
Park Service now reports that it has completed its inventory of
assets for all park units as well as the first round of staff
training on the use of the computer software.
The Agency has also developed costs and schedule estimates
for implementing the process. According to the schedule, the
process is to be fully implemented by the end of fiscal year
2006 at a cost of about $90 million, including the costs of
performing condition assessments on park assets. Thereafter,
the annual cost of sustaining the process will be about $20
million.
Also, the Park Service is now in the early stages of
developing a plan to eliminate any duplication or
inconsistencies between the concessions and the facilities
management organizations. Furthermore, the Agency has completed
annual condition assessments on all but 9 of the larger parks
in the system, and is concurrently performing the more detailed
comprehensive condition assessments on other park units.
Mr. Chairman, may I point out that we have not had the
opportunity to verify the information I'm providing on the
status of the Park Service implementation of its new process.
However, we believe that if this new process is fully
implemented as planned, the Park Service will be in a better
position to determine the conditions of the assets in its
portfolio and to develop accurate and more reliable estimates
of its deferred maintenance needs.
This concludes my prepared statement and I will be more
than happy to answer any questions you or the members may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hill follows:]
Prepared Statement of Barry T. Hill, Director, Natural Resources and
Environment, General Accounting Office
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: I am pleased to be
here today to discuss the National Park Service's maintenance backlog.
GAO, the Department of the Interior, and others have reported on the
Park Service's efforts to develop an effective maintenance management
process that would, among other things, enable the agency to provide
accurate and reliable estimates of the amount of deferred maintenance
on its assets. Over the years, the agency's estimates of the amount of
its deferred maintenance backlog have varied widely--sometimes by
billions of dollars.
Currently, the agency estimates its deferred maintenance backlog at
over $5 billion. Although the Park Service has spent almost two decades
addressing its maintenance backlog, it acknowledges that it still does
not have the data it needs to properly manage the broad array of
historic, cultural, and natural assets placed in its care--including
accurate and reliable data on its deferred maintenance needs.\1\ In
1998, spurred by continuing congressional concerns and new federal
accounting standards,\2\ the Park Service initiated the design of a new
asset management process that is intended to provide the agency with a
better overall approach to managing its asset inventory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This maintenance includes resources and activities needed to
maintain facilities and the infrastructure in the system, such as
buildings, trails, botanical gardens, bridges, and other structures. It
does not include maintenance or restoration of natural landscapes, such
as removing non-native plant species from a meadow.
\2\ The Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards No. 6,
Accounting for Plant, Property, and Equipment, issued by the Federal
Accounting Standards Advisory Board in 1996, requires that deferred
maintenance be disclosed in federal agencies' annual financial
statements beginning in fiscal year 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A major goal of this new process is to provide the Park Service
with a reliable and systematic method for estimating and documenting
its deferred maintenance needs and tracking progress in reducing the
amount of deferred maintenance.
As you requested, my testimony today will (1) summarize our prior
work regarding the potential of the Park Service's new asset management
process to provide maintenance data that will permit agency managers
and the Congress to monitor progress in reducing deferred maintenance
and (2) update the progress the Park Service is making in implementing
its new asset management process and realizing its potential for
improved management.
For the most part, my testimony is based on a report we issued last
year.\3\ At that time, the design of the new process was complete but
implementation was just beginning. In preparing for today's hearing, we
obtained updated information from the Park Service. However, we did not
have the opportunity to independently verify the information the Park
Service provided. To do so would have required work at regional offices
and parks. We conducted our work in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ U.S. General Accounting Office, National Park Service: Status
of Efforts to Develop Better Deferred Maintenance Data, GAO-02-56SR
(Washington, D.C.: Apr. 12, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
results in brief
As we previously reported, the Park Service's new asset management
process is designed to address deferred maintenance, commonly referred
to as the maintenance backlog, as part of a much broader approach to
asset management. When fully and properly implemented, the new process
is expected, for the first time, to enable the agency to have a (1)
reliable inventory of its assets; (2) process for reporting on the
condition of each asset in its inventory; and (3) consistent, system-
wide methodology for estimating the deferred maintenance costs for each
asset.
As a result, agency managers and the Congress should receive much
more accurate and reliable information on the extent of deferred
maintenance needs throughout the national park system. Nonetheless,
while the Park Service's current efforts are promising, we reported on
a few areas that the agency needed to address to improve the
performance of the process. These included the need to (1) develop
costs and schedules for completing the implementation of the process so
that the agency's performance could be monitored and assessed, (2)
better coordinate the tracking of the process among Park Service
headquarters units to avoid duplication of effort within the agency,
and (3) better define its approach to assessing the condition of its
assets, and determining how much the assessments will cost.
Since our report last year, I am pleased to say that the agency
appears to have made progress. While complete implementation of the
process will not occur until fiscal year 2006, the agency has
completed, or nearly completed, several substantial and important
steps. According to the Park Service, it has completed its asset
inventory, trained staff on the use of the required computer software,
and completed most of the on-site inspections necessary to determine
the condition and maintenance needs of inventoried assets. In addition,
the Park Service provided information indicating that it was addressing
each of the concerns identified in our prior report.
background
The national park system contains 388 park units. These park units
have a diverse inventory of facilities and other assets, including over
18,000 permanent structures, 8,000 miles of roads, 1,800 bridges and
tunnels, 4,400 housing units, about 700 water and wastewater systems,
over 400 dams, and 200 solid waste operations. The Park Service values
these assets at over $35 billion. Needless to say, the proper care and
maintenance of the national parks and their supporting infrastructure
is essential to the continued use and enjoyment of our national
treasures by this and future generations.
However, for years Park Service officials have highlighted the
agency's inability to keep up with its maintenance needs. In this
connection, Park Service officials and others have often cited a
continuing buildup of unmet maintenance needs as evidence of
deteriorating conditions throughout the national park system. The
accumulation of these unmet needs is commonly referred to as its
``maintenance backlog.'' Although the Park Service has spent almost two
decades and about $11 million addressing this problem, it still does
not have a reliable estimate of deferred maintenance needs for its
facilities and other assets.
In the past several years, concerns about the cost of operating and
maintaining federal recreation sites within the National Park Service,
as well as other federal land management agencies, led the Congress to
provide a significant new source of funds. This additional source of
funding the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program \4\--was, in part,
aimed at helping the agencies address their backlogged repair and
maintenance problems. This new funding source is in addition to annual
appropriations the Park Service receives each year for maintenance
activities.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Since fiscal year 1996, the Park Service, as well as three
other federal land management agencies, have been authorized to have a
fee demonstration program. Under this temporary program, the agencies
are permitted to experiment with increased and/or new recreation fees.
The revenue generated from this program remains available for agency
use to address a variety of needs, including maintenance, without
further appropriation.
\5\ The House Committee on Appropriations has stressed that
recreation fees should never be used to replace appropriated funds; the
fees should be used for direct improvements on site that enhance the
recreation experience. H.R. Rep. No. 106-646 (2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite the years of attention and funding and the well-intended
efforts of the agency and the Congress to resolve the maintenance
backlog dilemma, it has not gone away. While Congress continues to
provide hundreds of millions of dollars annually to deal with the
maintenance backlog at the national parks, the Park Service still has
no reliable data on the size of the problem, raising questions about
what has been accomplished with the provided funds.
when fully and properly implemented, the park service's new asset
management process should provide accurate and reliable deferred
maintenance data
As we reported in April 2002, the Park Service has made progress in
developing a new asset management process that, when fully and properly
implemented, should provide the agency with more accurate and reliable
estimates of the amount of deferred maintenance of its assets. As
currently planned, the new process will, for the first time, enable the
agency to have a (1) reliable inventory of its assets; (2) process for
reporting on the condition of assets in its inventory; and (3) system-
wide methodology for estimating deferred maintenance costs for assets.
The new asset management process is composed of both system-wide,
integrated software to track cost and maintenance data and regular
condition assessments of Park Service assets. The cornerstone of the
new asset management process is the Facility Management Software
System. This cradle-to-grave asset and work management process will
allow park, regional office, or Park Service headquarters managers to
track when, what, and how much maintenance and related costs has been
directed at each specific asset.
In addition to using the software system, the Park Service plans to
assess the condition of its assets. These assessments will be
inspections to document the condition of an asset as measured against
applicable maintenance or condition standards. There are two types of
condition assessments annual and comprehensive. Annual assessments are
essentially ``eyeball inspections'' of facilities to identify obvious
and apparent deficiencies. Comprehensive assessments are more in-depth
inspections to identify less obvious deficiencies, such as foundation
or structural problems. While the eye-ball assessments are annual, the
comprehensive assessments, which are much more expensive and time-
consuming, occur in 5-year cycles. The Park Service is to use the
information obtained from these condition assessments to establish the
overall condition of a facility or asset, including the resources
needed to address its deferred maintenance needs and future facility
needs. The cost of identified deferred maintenance needs will be
estimated using another computer software system that will provide a
uniform method for estimating repair and maintenance costs for each
asset in the inventory. Agency managers will use the condition
assessment information in combination with an asset priority ranking
system to set priorities for deferred maintenance projects.
While the design of the new process is complete, we reported in
April 2002 that the Park Service had just begun implementing it. For
example, at that time, the agency was still inventorying its assets and
training staff on how to use the new process at about a third of the
park units in the national park system. We reported that because
managers at each park will be required to implement this new process
using a uniform system-wide methodology, the resulting deferred
maintenance estimates should permit agency managers, as well as the
Congress, to monitor progress in reducing deferred maintenance both at
the individual park and system-wide levels. However, we noted that
while the new process is promising, its success cannot be determined
until staff in each of the park units are trained and the new asset
management process is fully and properly implemented.
In our last report, we also raised three concerns about the Park
Service's implementation of the new asset management process. While
these matters were not significant enough to undermine the overall
merit of the new process, we believed that addressing them would
improve the effectiveness of the process. First, even though the Park
Service had been developing its new process for more than 3 years, it
had not yet estimated its total implementation costs or developed a
schedule for completing implementation. While the agency had made
progress in developing schedules and costs for some components of the
process, it had not yet estimated when it will complete all the
required condition assessments or what they will cost. We noted that
monitoring and assessing performance against budgets and time frames
would be difficult without complete estimates and schedules that
include all components of the process, including the completion of
condition assessments.
Second, two different operating divisions within the Park Service--
Concessions Management and Facilities Management--were developing
separate processes for tracking and reporting deferred maintenance,
even though both units are responsible for managing the condition of
government-owned facilities. Because both of these units have similar
responsibilities, it seemed reasonable that they would work together in
a coordinated way to ensure that their efforts are not duplicative.
Finally, the Park Service reported that about one-third of the park
units were to complete annual condition assessments by the end of
fiscal year 2002. We noted that this approach may be appropriate for
meeting programmatic and financial reporting needs in the short term;
however, without comprehensive assessments, this approach might result
in overlooking more complex and costly problems in the long term. As a
result, this approach could understate the extent of the deferred
maintenance problem. Park Service officials told us that the agency
eventually planned to conduct comprehensive assessments for all assets.
However, at the time they had not developed a plan detailing where,
when, and how the assessments will be done or what they will cost.
the park service has made progress implementing its asset management
process since our last report
Although full implementation of the new asset management process is
still years from completion, the Park Service appears to have made
progress since our last report. Also, importantly, Park Service
management has demonstrated its commitment to implementing this process
by withholding some fiscal year 2003 funding from parks that are not
complying with the agency's implementation goals.
The agency now reports that it has completed its inventory of
assets for all park units as well as the first round of staff training
on the use of the facilities management software. The agency also
contracted with a consulting firm to evaluate its training and
implementation efforts to help ensure that the training is effective
and that the software system is being consistently applied throughout
the park system. The Park Service is now analyzing the firm's results
and recommendations to determine what changes it should make for the
next training cycle and in the ongoing implementation of the process.
The agency is also addressing each of the issues raised in our last
report. Specifically, the Park Service has now developed cost and
schedule estimates for the complete implementation of the process.
According to the schedule, the process is to be fully implemented by
the end of fiscal year 2006, when all the comprehensive condition
assessments are complete for all park units and deferred maintenance
and other needs can be estimated on a reliable and consistent basis for
assets throughout the national park system. The Park Service estimates
now that the cost of the complete rollout and implementation, including
performing condition assessments, will be about $91 million from fiscal
years 1999 through 2006. Thereafter, it estimates that the annual costs
of sustaining the process once it is fully operational will be about
$20 million.
In response to our concern that two different operating divisions
within the agency--Concessions Management and Facilities Management--
were developing separate processes for maintaining government-owned
facilities, the Park Service told us that they agreed and are committed
to implementing a single facilities management process. According to
the agency, it is now in the early stages of developing a plan to
eliminate any duplication or inconsistencies between these two
components of the organization.
The Park Service has also made progress in performing its service-
wide facility condition assessments. According to the Park Service, it
has completed annual condition assessments--visual inspections--on all
but nine of the larger parks in the system.\6\ In addition, the Park
Service is concurrently performing the more detailed, comprehensive
condition assessments on other park units. According to the Park
Service, the work done so far are necessary steps and reflect some of
the best practices of the private sector in developing and implementing
an effective facility management process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ These parks include Appalachian Trail, Delaware Water Gap,
Gateway, Golden Gate, Grand Canyon, Great Smoky Mountains, Rocky
Mountain, Yellowstone, and Yosemite.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
conclusion
The Park Service has an awesome responsibility in taking care of
the nation's natural, cultural and historic treasures. While it has
unfortunately taken decades to achieve the current level of focus on
maintaining these treasures, the Park Service apparently now has made
substantive progress in developing and implementing a system it can use
to determine the conditions of the assets in its portfolio and develop
accurate and reliable estimates of its deferred maintenance needs.
However, the agency has not yet completed the task. Determining the
assets' conditions and their maintenance costs will require years of
sustained commitment by the agency and by the Congress to ensure that
the full benefits of the agency's new facility management process are
realized.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be
happy to respond to any questions that you or Members of the
Subcommittee may have.
Senator Thomas. Okay, thank you. Mr. Murphy, let me go back
to the administration's idea of how much money they are going
to put in there. How is that reflected in the President's
budget now that's being considered?
Mr. Murphy. Well, as I pointed out in my testimony, roughly
$760 million is included in the President's budget for facility
maintenance in the National Park Service and that, I think
people often ask what that consists of, so let me just take a
minute and explain the components there.
That consists of our line item construction program, repair
and rehabilitation, cyclic maintenance, and it also includes
roads as well, and that totals the roughly $760 million
included in the President's budget, as stated earlier in my
testimony.
Senator Thomas. My information is that the construction
budget is more like $325 million.
Mr. Murphy. That's the line item construction budget.
That's why I was taking pains to include or explain the fact
that the overall facility maintenance program includes line
item construction, which you just mentioned. It includes repair
and rehab, and it also includes the roads program as well, and
that's how you come up with that total I just mentioned.
Senator Thomas. What about the fee demo program?
Mr. Murphy. That's the other component that I left out.
That's roughly, $75 million dollars is the total that the fee
demo program--we have asked all of our park units to
concentrate a certain percentage of the fee demonstration
program on facility maintenance, and that contributes about $75
million annually to the program as well.
Senator Thomas. Most of the emphasis there, though, has
been for visitors' enjoyment, hasn't it? It's a little tough to
have the visitors think about fixing the sewer.
Mr. Murphy. Well, it certainly has, but visitor enjoyment
certainly includes repair and rehab of visitor service
facilities, and those kinds of facilities affect restrooms. A
visitor certainly wouldn't be able to enjoy themselves if
restroom facilities aren't available.
Senator Thomas. I understand. What is the process for
setting priorities in terms of the Park Service priorities for
maintenance and picking up things that need to be done?
Mr. Murphy. Well, I will just reiterate for a minute and
maybe staff can give you a little more detail about how the
facility assessment program works. In the past, you know, we
really haven't had a very objective and systematic way of
establishing priorities. So now in this new program under this
management performance, we have what is called the asset
priority index, and we actually have a sheet where every single
facility asks a series of questions which allows us to then
establish a priority for that particular facility.
There are about 10 questions and those questions add up to
about 40 points--I'm sorry, add up to a number of points, it's
more than 40, and based on the number of points that that
particular facility gets, 40 or more says that that facility is
an extremely important asset. And then that coupled with the
facility condition index, which I mentioned earlier, the ratio
of what it costs to keep the facility in good condition divided
by its current replacement values, those two things taken
together will allow the National Park Service now to establish
clear and defensible priorities for the maintenance of its
various facilities throughout the National Park Service. That's
extremely important to us because in the past we really have
not had a systematic way of doing that.
Currently, our priorities are mainly based upon health and
safety, and then down from there according to the visitor----
Senator Thomas. So if I'm a park superintendent, so I list
these things, and then I suppose it goes to the regional
office, and then it goes here and you make these decisions at
each level, is that it?
Mr. Murphy. They're reviewed at each level, after we give
out--we give out what we call budget instructions or
instructions on how things are to be done and prioritized.
Right now, as I was saying, health and safety are the main
criteria that are used to establish priorities for doing
certain of our projects. Ultimately, though, as I explained
with the new program, we have this objective measure, and it's
one that's agreed upon throughout the Service, and everyone is
trained in it, including the regional offices and including the
Washington office. Then we come to Congress and we present it
to you and we say look, we have a very objective system that
we're using that's credible, it's based in data, and we would
have agreement across the board.
The Department of Defense uses this program now, it has
agreements with Congress that this is the way we develop our
budget, it's very clear and systematic, and now we would like
to have agreement that these are our priorities and they should
be funded as such. A much more objective approach than we've
ever had.
Senator Thomas. I was surprised when you said only 14 units
had been added in the last 5 years.
Mr. Murphy. Yes, since 1990 or so.
Senator Thomas. I don't believe that can be quite accurate.
It seems like we have a couple of them every week around here.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Murphy. These units are since 1998 through 2002, and
they're Little Rock, Tuskegee Airmen, the Minuteman Missile,
Rosie the Riveter, First Ladies National Historic Site, Sam
Creek, Great Sand Dunes, Governor's Island was added, Virgin
Islands Coral Reef----
Senator Thomas. These aren't, they don't include Heritage
and some of those other kinds of facilities?
Mr. Murphy. Not the Heritage, no, because these are units
that were actually added to the National Park System.
Senator Thomas. Okay, thank you. Senator Akaka?
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr.
Murphy, please extend my greetings to Director Maniella.
Mr. Murphy. I will pass it along.
Senator Akaka. I have questions about old money and new
money, and would like to try and clarify some of the budget
numbers you referred to in your testimony. You stated that the
President proposed $3.84 billion in funding for non-road
maintenance in the National Park System and $1.26 billion for
road maintenance over the next 5 years, to address the $4.9
billion that are estimated backlog. When I look at the budget
numbers, however, it looks like most of that funding is
essentially a continuation of existing funding levels.
For example, the current fiscal year, about $730 million
was appropriated for park construction and maintenance accounts
excluding roads. That amount is slightly lower than the $736
million that was appropriated for those same accounts the
previous year, and somewhat higher than the $600 million that
was appropriated during the last year of the previous
administration. So, my question to you is, how much of this
funding is new money that will help reduce the backlog deficit,
as opposed to simply maintaining current funding levels?
Mr. Murphy. Roughly $2 to $300 million, and the difference
between those numbers that you cited for those 2 fiscal years,
there is often variation in line item construction projects
that are done. Some years, those projects are higher and some
years they're lower, but if you look at the money, for example,
that has gone into--let's take cyclic maintenance, which is one
of the areas. That's increased significantly, because if you
don't do cyclic maintenance on a regular basis, clearly, you
are going to be adding to the maintenance backlog if you're not
doing it the way they should be on a cyclic basis. And that has
roughly gone from about $23 million in fiscal year 2000 and is
now at roughly $46 million dollars and is proposed to go up to
$57 million in fiscal year 04. That's an example.
Our repair and rehab money has increased as well, and then
we mentioned for example, the fee demonstration program, monies
that we're now adding, roughly $75 million on an annual basis
is also money that's going into the facility maintenance
program. So roughly over those years, there is about a $2 to
$300 million increase in terms of new money.
Senator Akaka. Thank you. Following up on that previous
question, the booklet that the Park Service published last
week, I went through it yesterday. It claims that the
administration has already spent $2.9 billion to reduce the
backlog. Are you now claiming that the backlog has been reduced
from $4.9 billion to $2 billion over the past years?
Mr. Murphy. No. I wouldn't for a minute, you know, start
down that road, because the fact of the matter is, as I stated
earlier, the knowledge and the understanding of what the entire
backlog is in the National Park Service will not be
fundamentally addressed until these facility condition
assessments are done and this program is fully in place. That's
when we're going to know and have a very good objective
understanding of what's going on.
What was done at the beginning of the administration, there
was some very, the best estimates that could have been made at
the time possible that what we were talking about in terms of
maintenance needs, that is, maintenance projects that weren't
done on their normally scheduled time, that had gone undone for
a period of time, that's basically what deferred maintenance
is, and people made their best guess, that number was roughly
$4.9 billion.
The administration said well, we're going to really
concentrate on addressing at least that much of the program
while we do what should have been done years ago and put into
place the right kind of facility maintenance management system
that allows us to really understand what the nature of the
maintenance backlog is. And so, we are saying that we have
spent $2.9 billion addressing what we understood or understand
the current snapshot of a backlog to have been at a particular
point in time.
Senator Akaka. Thank you. Mr. Hill, I would like to follow
up on my previous question to Mr. Murphy. The administration is
claiming to have already spent almost $3 billion on the backlog
and claims to be on track to fully address the issue at the end
of the 5-year funding cycle proposed by President Bush. Based
on your reviews, are we making significant reductions in the
backlog and will it be eliminated in the next 5 years at the
funding levels that the President is proposing?
Mr. Hill. Well, that's an excellent question.
Unfortunately, there is no way to answer that question because
of just the problems we have been talking about with this
backlog. Until now, that backlog is a moving target, it's just
a guesstimate, it's really not based on any type of inventory
of the assets, the condition of those assets, the amount of
money it's going to cost to deal with that problem. And I think
Congress is asking the right question, if we put $2.9 billion
into dealing with this backlog problem, why does that number
just keep staying and floating between $4 and $6 billion.
There is really no accountability right now in terms of the
money that you're investing to deal with this problem versus
the progress that's being made to correct it. And that's
because you have an estimate that's just basically a guess on
the part of the individuals that are running the park system. I
think the new maintenance management system that they are
coming in with will hopefully give us the tool that we can now
get a handle on just what is the true extent of this backlog
problem, so that in the future, when Congress invests money to
deal with this problem, the Park Service will be able to come
back and show you how that money was used and how it impacted
that backlog.
Senator Akaka. Thank you for your response. What concerned
me is hearing no accountability, no real data, I hear best
guess, and as you pointed out it's a moving target, so it makes
it very difficult for us to try to figure this out too, but
thank you very much.
Mr. Murphy. Mr. Chairman, if I may have just a brief follow
up on the no accountability statement. I understand what folks
are saying in terms of the objectivity and the ability of not
having a system that allows you to fundamentally measure how
you're doing over time, but there is a level of accountability
in the sense that these projects are real projects.
There are fundamental changes that are taking place in the
National Park Service over time, and you can go back in and
look at the data and the number of projects that are done, and
see both quantitatively and qualitatively change.
I just wanted to make the subtle difference that what we
don't have, sir, is a clear understanding of the total scope,
because we haven't done all of these assessments and these
inventories yet, but the money we're spending is accountable to
you and we can show what it has gone to.
Senator Thomas. Thank you. I think the hopeful thing is, as
you pointed out earlier, that there is a process going on that
will put us in a better position to be able to know exactly
what the situation is.
Mr. Murphy. That's true.
Senator Thomas. Some of the things like business plans and
so on that are taking place in the parks, I think are all part
of this and that needs to be done.
Senator.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Murphy,
when will this process be finished? When will you be able to
come before the committee and say we have gone through this
process and here's our 5- or 10-year maintenance plan and
here's what it costs, here's what we can afford to do?
Mr. Murphy. We should be able to do that by fiscal year 06,
and right now where we are is we will have completed the
inventories for all of the parks except for the four major at
the end of this fiscal year, the four other parks will be
finished at the end of the next fiscal year, and then we have
to systematically go about putting together the facility
condition indexes with the asset priority indexes, and putting
together a plan.
Senator Alexander. Okay.
Mr. Murphy. So it will be 2006.
Senator Alexander. Will you separate road construction from
everything else?
Mr. Murphy. Road construction is now separated. In other
words, our roads program has a roads condition index that we
do, and we work with Federal Highways on putting that together
and it is separated. The numbers I talked about today did
include the roads, but it is part of this program too, and
actually it's up and running right now.
Senator Alexander. Well, your new proposal, which I
applaud, is to go up to a $300 million dollar figure if
Congress approves it this year, but then will there be
additional general appropriation funds for park roads to be
spent, or is that the whole amount?
Mr. Murphy. That would be the whole amount, it would raise
the numbers up to $300 million. We're roughly getting $165
million right now, and so it would be increased to $300
million. What's really important about that program is that
we're working with Federal Highways really to expedite the
expenditure of that money so that we can bring these roads up
to good condition expeditiously.
For example, the National Park Service usually does
individual roads projects with individual parks, and one of the
things that we have already explored and entered into with
Federal Highways is to bundle these road projects together so
that they can be bid on by contractors, and you can get
economies out of it and also get these projects done quicker
than they would be done individually.
Senator Alexander. I applaud that, and I for one want to
work within the Senate to try to see that we stick to the $300
million figure, because that helps make the idea of seriously
addressing the non-road maintenance issues realistic, when 10
or 15 years ago there wasn't any gas tax money, as I remember,
going for park roads, or not much, and this basically frees a
lot of money that otherwise would be spent on the roads for
other purposes.
Let me ask you, one of the President's commitments as I
remember was to fully fund the park backlog problem, and I
applaud that. Another was to fully fund the Land and Water
Conservation Fund. Can you explain to me where we are on that
and where the administration hopes to go, and particularly talk
about why some of the money that you count for Land and Water
Conservation Fund doesn't go to land acquisition but goes to
other purposes?
Mr. Murphy. Let me talk about one of the things that has
been coming up in this committee, land acquisition, and the
National Park Service has provided testimony on a number of
occasions that we are wanting to slow the growth, for example,
of the National Park Service so that we can concentrate on some
of the current needs of the National Park Service. And so
therefore, the question----
Senator Alexander. Well, land and water also includes the
State sites, so if you don't want to spend it federally, what's
your attitude toward spending it on the State side?
Mr. Murphy. Well, I think it's important to have funds
provided for the State side of the Land and Water Conservation
Fund, and the administration continues to be committed to the
State side of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Some of the
funding in the Land and Water Conservation Fund has gone to
projects such as the cooperative conservation initiative which
the administration has brought forth, which allows communities
to participate in the conservation of parks locally, which I
think is a good idea.
And State side, of course, has been roughly between $100
and $150 million, depending on how Congress has acted on the
President's budget, but the Administration remains committed to
the State side of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. I think
it's extremely important to continue to provide those kinds of
funds for outdoor recreation.
Senator Alexander. Help me with my figures, please, if I've
got them wrong. The full funding of the Land Water Conservation
Fund would be $900 million a year equally divided, Federal and
State; is that right?
Mr. Murphy. Yes.
Senator Alexander. Is it the administration's position that
there ought to be full funding of the $900 million equally
divided between Federal and the States?
Mr. Murphy. Well, I know the administration has looked upon
the Land and Water Conservation Fund as an opportunity to put
together programs that provide money, both Federal and State,
in various projects, some of them new projects, that accomplish
the goals of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. I know the
administration has made a commitment to fully funding the Land
and Water Conservation Fund, and I think that commitment, as
far as I know, remains.
Senator Alexander. Good. I want to encourage that
commitment and be supportive of it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Thomas. Thank you. It's going to be kind of
interesting when you talk about the highway fund. As you know,
there is not as much money in that fund as there was last time
because of 11 September and so there is going to be competition
for those dollars as there was now. So, there is direct funding
from the highway fund, however, for park highways; is that
correct?
Mr. Murphy. That's correct.
Senator Thomas. So that is not part of what we're talking
about here in terms of having a budget for the parks?
Mr. Murphy. Well, it is in the sense that we're getting the
$165 million from Federal Highways now, and this new proposal
that we offered provided $135 million.
Senator Thomas. Perhaps.
Mr. Murphy. Yes, that's the proposal.
Senator Thomas. But if the highway fund does not have it,
we will see. Okay.
What about new construction? In terms of the dollars that
we are talking about here that are available for maintenance,
how much of that goes to new--how do you divide that between
new construction and maintenance of existing construction?
Mr. Murphy. Well, the new construction programs, again, all
of the funding that we are committing in the National Park
Service is prioritized based on health and safety needs, the
needs for rehabilitating worn out facilities, and that's sort
of where the emphasis is. And when we get new park units in,
some of that money is budgeted for new facilities that comes
before Congress or gets proposed in the President's budget. But
the emphasis is on maintaining those facilities that we do
have. We go through a prioritization process for available
funding, which gives priorities to existing facilities and to
health and safety.
Senator Thomas. But there is a difference between routine
maintenance and new construction.
Mr. Murphy. Yes.
Senator Thomas. And so when you're talking about having
over time $4.9 billion to deal with maintenance, are you
talking about new construction as well in there?
Mr. Murphy. No, not generally, we are not talking about new
construction. When we do our line item construction programs,
what we're trying to do in those programs is look at facilities
that are in dire need of repair, and facilities that meet the
criteria process that we've established within the National
Park Service and the Department of the Interior for determining
what's going to go into those programs. And in our
prioritization, we don't give as high priority to new
construction based on our need to take care of what we have.
Senator Thomas. Mr. Hill, how do you, or what issues do you
identify as you talk about the operational portion, the
management portion, what do you contribute the maintenance
backlog to primarily, why is that there?
Mr. Hill. There is a number of reasons that it was created.
First of all, obviously it's a huge system and many of the
facilities in that system are aging. You have a high visitation
volume, visitors are using those facilities. And then clearly,
the operations and maintenance budget over the years has not
kept pace with the maintenance needs, and that's how the
backlog was created. And then it's compounded when the size of
the system continued to increase. I mean, the more parks you
add to the system, the more assets you now have in the system,
the more assets you need to maintain. So, it's a problem that
has been building over the years and it just has to be dealt
with.
Senator Thomas. Well, of course, you talk about being used
and being old, we know that's the case but nevertheless, that's
true with anybody's facilities, so in the management process,
you have to set aside a certain amount of dollars for
maintenance as opposed to operations. That's not a new concept,
but apparently it hasn't been done in this case.
Mr. Hill. It has not been done well in the past. Here
again, a problem that has already been alluded to, the Park
Service has not had a good handle on the problem. In the past
they have had an inconsistent definition of what maintenance
was, park units were trying to use a different definition, so
you don't have good data, you don't have a good inventory of
what your assets are, you don't know what the conditions of
those assets are, and it compounds and snowballs into the
problem that you have now.
Senator Thomas. Mr. Murphy, do you believe that the
maintenance difficulty has resulted in reduction of other
facilities such as security, such as employees, other
operational problems? Some people say well, you haven't done
much of what you should be doing over in another area because
of this. Has that had an impact?
Mr. Murphy. I think when you're dealing with a situation
where you have limited resources and limited capacity, there is
always some effect of one system on another, but then it
becomes a matter of management and prioritization, so we try to
manage and prioritize in such a way that, for example, we don't
compromise health and safety, and critical needs in the
National Park Service, while making some clear management
priority decisions about what we are going to focus on. And in
this case where we have all these facilities that haven't been
taken care of in the past, it's very important for us to
utilize the resources that we do have for taking care of our
maintenance needs and beginning to address this very severe
maintenance backlog.
And so, we have managed in such a way that we don't impact,
for example, security, our law enforcements needs in these
particular instances. And we try to augment where we can by
putting in additional funding so we don't get into this robbing
Peter to pay Paul situation.
But clearly, it has been our position that we need to slow
the growth of the National Park Service so that we don't have a
situation where new units coming in, adding new facilities on
while the maintenance budget is not increasing will further
exacerbate the problem that we're trying to resolve.
Senator Thomas. That's a tough issue. Senator, do you have
further questions?
Senator Akaka. No questions.
Senator Thomas. Senator Alexander.
Senator Alexander. Just one. Help me understand where
visitation fits into your, the process you're establishing. We
all--I will speak for myself. I know more about the Great Smoky
Mountains National Park than I do about others. I know it had 9
or 10 million visitors a year, three times what any other park
would have, I think that's about right. I know that when I go
hiking in it, a lot of my friends are up there doing volunteer
trail maintenance, and that's a good thing, but they tell me
that maybe half the trail maintenance is done by volunteers.
So, are you taking into account when you develop this
process--well, I'm sure you are. How are you taking into
account as you develop this process the fact that some of our
parks and other National Park facilities are extremely heavily
used and have more wear, more maintenance, and deserve a higher
legal of funding for that reason?
Mr. Murphy. It's a very good question. First of all, parks
that are highly used and have greater wear and tear on those
facilities, this program in our facilities maintenance
management system actually captures that in an objective way.
We will be able to tell if those facilities are wearing out,
including the trails that you mentioned, which are included as
a category in our facility assessment program, so that will be
captured, where we have more trails, more wear and tear, that
easily gets taken into consideration and captured in a very
objective way.
In fact, Great Smoky Mountains is one of the four parks
which we are spending more time on, that's why it won't be
completed until 2004, for the very reason that you mentioned,
more visitation, more facilities, greater wear and tear, it is
going to take a little bit longer to do those kinds of
assessments. This is a very objective system that takes that
into consideration right up front.
Senator Alexander. Thank you.
Senator Thomas. Thank you. I'm more familiar with
Yellowstone, and I think that's a good example of some of the
things that have been done, $22 million spent in the past 5
years to do part of the backlog on water and wastewater
treatment there, $6.9 million research center at Gardner. $48
million spent on paving 49 percent of the park's 300 and some
miles, which is good. So you know, we're making some progress.
What about the security that you mentioned? Does Homeland
Security, do you get any funding from Homeland Security to do
things like the border in Mexico and so on?
Mr. Murphy. We're in discussions currently about that. The
answer right now is no. And we hope to continue to work with
Homeland Security to make it clear what our responsibilities
are, what Border Patrol's responsibilities happen to be, and to
make sure that we're coordinated in our efforts. But currently
we are not receiving any funding from Homeland Security for
those issues.
Senator Thomas. Gentlemen, we thank you. I think the most
encouraging thing is that there is apparently a system in place
that's going to be able to put us in a better position to know
where we are and be able to manage more towards those needs, so
we appreciate that very much, and we appreciate you being here.
Thank you.
Okay. We will have our second panel, Mr. Eric Dillinger,
program manager, Carter and Burgess, Fort Worth, Texas; Mr.
Curtis Cornelssen, director, Hospitality and Leisure Group,
Price-waterhouseCoopers, Boston; and Tom Kiernan, president,
National Parks Conservation Association, who I understand had a
little bicycle difficulty.
Mr. Kiernan. Yes, sir, need more bike paths.
Senator Thomas. I hope you're doing well.
Okay. Let's start with Mr. Dillinger.
STATEMENT OF ERIC DILLINGER, VICE PRESIDENT,
CARTER AND BURGESS, INC., FORT WORTH, TX
Mr. Dillinger. I am pleased to be here, Mr. Chairman, and
have this opportunity to testify and to give you information on
some of the issues you identified. In particular, I would like
to focus my comments on the maintenance backlog issue, and
slightly on the personnel issue, and focus in those two areas.
I have prepared some testimony that I ask that you include in
the record as well.
Senator Thomas. It will be included.
Mr. Dillinger. A lot of my background on this issue comes
from working in 1998 and previously on a publication that the
Federal Facilities Council developed called ``Stewardship of
Federal Facilities,'' and the focus of that document was to
look at some of the questions that the subcommittee has asked
with respect to, are we caring for our facilities
appropriately, where did this current maintenance backlog issue
come from, and that is truly the test for the Congress.
In particular, and more recently, the GAO has provided two
documents that I think are key to this, in their High Risk
Series. One focused on the risk with respect to intellectual
capital, smarts, if you will, that the Government has, and the
second one focused on facilities. And I would suggest that the
intersection of those two issues, well-trained individuals
managing public facilities, is a key to your questions. So it
is very important to have quality folks involved in this
process for the process to succeed, because that process
happens every day at the location in the individual parks.
That's where the maintenance occurs. So from an accountability
standpoint, quality staff at that location becomes key, so you
focus on people and facilities, it's the intersection of those
two that you have to have your sights on, if you will.
The second issue that we have identified extensively, and I
think I have heard the committee discuss, and I want to put it
in real basic terms. The chairman used the analogy of the
vehicle, maintaining a car, and the facilities are much like
having a fleet of vehicles, and deferred maintenance represents
the case when we didn't have time to rotate and balance the
tires and we continuously replaced tires prematurely because we
didn't have the opportunity to rotate and balance the tires,
and because of this tires might be required to be replaced, and
that would relate to our maintenance backlog. Our challenge
becomes to shift out of that mode and to start to figure out
how to rotate and balance the tires so they don't wear out
prematurely.
Additionally, it's recognized that tires have a defined
life, that we buy a new set when they reach 40,000 miles, so at
the end of that 40,000 miles, we should not act overly
surprised when we need a new set. That seems reasonable.
What we found in the Stewardship of Federal Facilities work
and the work that we've done later is that while we typically
recommend that agencies receive and spend about 2 to 4 percent
of their assets value, what Mr. Murphy referred to as current
replacement value, we rarely see that occur. So the genesis of
the maintenance backlog is in the lack of annual maintenance
expenditures, which seems obvious but may be a real important
concept to get out briefly.
The maintenance backlog will continue to grow as we fail to
fund annual maintenance adequately. That is true in every
agency and in every public sector organization where there's
insufficient funding. If we focus on the maintenance backlog,
we're focusing on how many things have occurred, but not on how
we stem the inflow. So those business practices in most
organizations that are most successful on this issue in the
private and the public sector combine removing or decreasing
the maintenance backlog with stemming the inflow from future
events. If we focus solely on the backlog, we will continue to
have an inflow.
Some of the questions I think have come up are, what will
the backlog look like in 5 years? Well, it will look like what
we did, plus whatever occurred between now and then. So, the
ability to draw it down to zero is tied to the ability to fund
the maintenance appropriately so that we stem the inflow, and
then to accomplish a maintenance program, so that we stem the
inflow, or else our maintenance backlog will continue to shift
and at any point in time it's just a static estimate, if you
will, of what's broke. Tomorrow, additional things will occur
and it will shift once again.
So, I think that's an important consideration as you look
at the mix, is not just what we're spending on maintenance
backlog, but are we focusing enough dollars on annual
maintenance so that we draw down the inflow of maintenance
backlog in future events. And in that respect we can start to
preserve the assets and get ahead of the game. If the inflow of
maintenance backlog exceeds the expenditures, the backlog will
continue to grow. That's the fundamental piece that I think
needs to be addressed as you look at those pieces. With that, I
would be happy to answer any questions, and I appreciate this
opportunity.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Dillinger follows:]
Prepared Statement of Eric Dillinger, Program Manager,
Carter and Burgess, Inc., Fort Worth, TX
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee.
My name is Eric Dillinger. I am the Vice President for Facility
Management Services at Carter & Burgess, Inc. and one of the Committee
Members responsible for the development of the 1998 National Research
Council publication ``Stewardship of Federal Facilities'' as well as a
number of other research efforts and publications focused on the
subject of deferred maintenance, maintenance backlog, and total cost of
ownership.
I am happy to have the opportunity to testify before the
Subcommittee on National Parks and intend to focus my comments on two
of the areas identified; maintenance backlog, and the personnel
deficit.
Stewardship of Public Assets (Buildings and Infrastructure) is a
critical issue in today's resource constrained environment and one that
appears to have engaged every public sector entity. Recent efforts by
the General Accounting Office including their ``High Risk Series'' have
clearly indicated the important challenges facing the public sector.
The challenge to provide appropriate Stewardship is further
compounded by limited personnel and resources as the General Accounting
Office identified in another one of the ``High Risk Series''
publications.
I believe the combination of those two issues identifies one of the
most significant issues facing every public agency, the availability of
personnel and resources to provide appropriate Stewardship to Public
Assets.
The issue of maintenance backlog within Federal Government has been
widely discussed. The 1998 National Research Council committee found
that Federal government processes and practices are generally not
structured to provide effective accountability for the stewardship of
federal facilities. Congress, the Office of Management and Budget,
federal agency senior executives, facilities program managers, and
field staff all make decisions that affect maintenance and repair
programs. Because decision-making authority is so widely dispersed, no
single entity can be held responsible or accountable for the results.
Inadequate funding for the maintenance and repair of public
buildings at all levels of government and academia has been a long-
standing and well-documented problem. While reliable and consistent
expenditure data has been difficult to identify due to variations in
terminology and expenditure strategies, agencies that briefed the
Committee consistently reported that they received less than 2% of the
aggregate current replacement value of their inventory. This level of
funding is below the 2-4% guideline that is widely quoted in facilities
management literature.
Several factors contribute to the lack of adequate funding.
Maintenance and repair expenditures generally have less visible or less
measurable benefits than other operating programs. There is the tacit
assumption that maintenance and repair can always be deferred one more
year or 5 more years in favor of more visible projects.
However, in the short term, deferring maintenance diminishes the
quality of building services. In the long term, it can lead to a
shorter service life and reduced asset value.
The scope of the problem is evident in the magnitude of deferred
maintenance backlogs reported by agencies. The costs of eliminating
these backlogs are estimated to be in the tens of billions of dollars.
The total dollar amounts and the methods for arriving at these figures
can be argued. However, the existence of deferred maintenance implies
that the quality or reliability of service provided by the
infrastructure is less than it should be to adequately serve the
public.
Beyond the 1998 NRC committee's efforts, more recent investigations
have begun to focus their attention not only on the current maintenance
backlog, but also on an organization's strategy for limiting the growth
of future backlog. This shift in focus and strategy has come in part
over the realization that the root of the problem lays not in the
backlog number, but in the effective management and mitigation of
potential future backlog through appropriate maintenance and repair
efforts.
I believe this issue is at least as significant, if not more so
than the current backlog as it represents important decisions and
management issues that have the ability to slow the growth of future
backlog concurrent with addressing the existing backlog.
Land management agencies face a particularly difficult challenge
due to the mix of remote location, historical nature, and age of their
assets. The availability and cost associated with training and
maintaining the types of expertise required for good Stewardship in
such remote locations is considerably more challenging than similar
operations and maintenance requirements in an urban setting.
In summary, I believe you have identified several of the key issues
facing Federal property managers but more importantly linked a key
concern between the availability of personnel and the Stewardship
requirements inherent in managing some of the Federal Governments most
well known, and significant assets.
Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony to the
Subcommittee on such an important issue.
Senator Thomas. Thank you very much.
Mr. Cornelssen.
STATEMENT OF CURTIS E. CORNELSSEN, DIRECTOR, HOSPITALITY
LEISURE GROUP, PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS, BOSTON, MA
Mr. Cornelssen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the committee, I
want to thank you for the opportunity to present today
regarding maintenance backlog and related matters in our
National Parks. I am Curt Cornelssen, director of the
Hospitality Leisure Group at PricewaterhouseCoopers, also
responsible for our work with the National Park Service on
their concessions program. Over the next few minutes I would
like to provide you with our perspectives on the maintenance
backlogs in the context of the concession operations and
facilities. This is where I have the most knowledge and
expertise and that's where we ought to focus, so I will not
address the land acquisition factors during my testimony.
Prior to presenting the approach that we're pursuing with
the Park Service owned concessions facilities, I wanted just to
make sure we pointed out a couple important facts. First of
all, concession facilities are government-owned assets
regardless of whether the concessioner has a possessory
interest or leaseholds on the premises. I don't know, Mr.
Chairman, but I think there has been some misunderstanding on
that issue. These are government-owned assets.
Certainly, many of these assets are historic and are true
icons of the parks in which they reside, such as the Old
Faithful Inn at Yellowstone, and Ahwahnee Hotel at Yosemite.
Unlike most Park Service assets, however, these facilities are
operated and maintained by concessioners under a contractual
relationship. Another way of looking at it is that the Park
Service has outsourced operations and maintenance of these
assets to the private sector. Lastly, it's important to note
that in many of the large parks, concession improvements
represent a significant if not predominant proportion of the
total asset base.
In establishing an asset management regimen for Park
Service concession facilities based on existing policy, we
first work to ensure that the first priority for financial
return is asset reinvestment. We want the money going back into
the assets. In addition, per the law, we must ensure a fair and
reasonable return to the concessioners. And these two
priorities are not mutually exclusive, as concessioners rely on
these assets for their profitability and investment returns. I
would like to provide a quick synopsis of our approach for
concessions asset management.
We assembled a multi-disciplined team of experts to tackle
concession assets. This includes engineers from Carter Burgess,
appraisers, accountants and other financial and business
experts. We start by conducting through asset inventories and
condition assessments. This includes detailed inspections and
analysis of every building or improvement down to the component
level. From this, we are able to develop replacement cost
values as well as the amount and type of deferred maintenance
that exists. With our engineers, we then develop a life-cycle
asset management plan for all facilities. We evaluate the cost
requirements for this plan using both engineering and financial
based budgeting approaches. If this group of engineers tell us
they need the money, that doesn't mean they necessarily get it,
we have to look at it from a financial perspective as well.
Our team then establishes facility and operating standards
and inserts these requirements into the prospectus and RFPs for
all bidders.
Lastly, we establish ongoing asset monitoring and oversight
procedures to ensure that all facilities are well maintained
and properly capitalized during the term of the new contract,
and this is typically 10 to 15 years. Importantly, we must
ensure that the proposed plan is realistic and affordable.
Otherwise, we won't have any bidders for the new contract if
this is not financially sound.
The approach presented above follows industry best
practices in the public and private sectors, the same approach
that prospective hospitality owners follow when they conduct
due diligence for an acquisition or new contract.
Thus far, the team has completed this work for 18 major
contracts at 15 national parks. In general, we are finding that
the facilities are being maintained with reasonable standards.
Nonetheless, most concession assets with or without PI, have
some level of deferred maintenance. We are, however, able to
structure plans that address this maintenance backlog as well
as ensure that assets are aggressively maintained during the
new contract term. As such, the Park Service is addressing all
deferred maintenance in the new concession contracts. Some
contracts will require creative funding and management
strategies due to the significant costs of managing large asset
bases. We are working diligently with both the Park Service and
concessioners to enhance and sustain these high quality
concession assets for visitors and for the American public.
Mr. Chairman, thank you once again for the opportunity to
testify. I'm happy to answer any questions that you or the
committee members may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cornelssen follows:]
Prepared Statement of Curtis E. Cornelssen, Director,
Hospitality Leisure Group, PricewaterhouseCoopers
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Committee, I want to
thank you for the opportunity to present today regarding the
maintenance backlog and related matters at our National Parks. I am
Curt Cornelssen, Director in the Hospitality and Leisure Consulting
Group at PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. I am also responsible for our work
with the National Park Service on their concessions program.
Over the next few minutes, I would like to provide you with our
perspectives on the NPS maintenance backlog in the context of the
concession operations and facilities, as this is the are where I have
the most knowledge and expertise. I will not address the land
acquisition backlog during the course of my testimony.
Prior to presenting the approach that we are pursuing with the NPS
on their concessions facilities, I would like to point out a few
important facts. First of all, concessions facilities are government
owned assets, regardless of whether the concessioner has a compensable
interest such as Possessory Interest (PI) or Leasehold Surrender
Interest (LSI). Secondly, many of these assets are historic and are
true icons of the parks in which they reside (for example the Old
Faithful Inn at Yellowstone or the Ahwahnee Hotel at Yosemite). Unlike
most NPS assets, however, these facilities are operated and maintained
by concessioners under a contractual relationship. Another way of
looking at it is that the NPS has outsourced operations and maintenance
of these assets to a private sector partner. Lastly, it is important to
note that in many of our large parks, the concession improvements
represent a significant if not predominant proportion of the total
asset base.
In establishing an asset management regimen for NPS concession
facilities, and based on existing policy, we work to ensure that the
first priority for financial return is asset reinvestment. In addition,
per the law, we must ensure a fair and reasonable return to the
concessioners. These two priorities are not mutually exclusive as
concessioners rely on high quality assets for their profitability and
investment returns. I would now like to provide a brief synopsis of our
approach for concessions asset management.
PwC has assembled a multi-disciplined team of experts to tackle
concessions assets. This includes engineers from Carter-Burgess,
appraisers, accountants and other financial/business experts. We start
by conducting thorough asset inventories and condition assessments.
This includes detailed inspections and analyses of every building or
improvement down to the component level. From this information, we are
able to develop replacement cost values, as well as the amount and type
of deferred maintenance that exists. With our engineers, we then
develop a complete life-cycle asset management plan for all facilities.
We evaluate the cost requirements for this plan using both engineering
and financial based budgeting approaches. Our team then establishes
facility and operating standards and inserts these requirements into
the prospectus for all bidders. Lastly, we establish ongoing asset
monitoring and oversight procedures to ensure that all facilities are
well maintained and properly capitalized during the term of the new
contract (typically 10-15 years). Importantly, we must ensure that the
proposed plan is realistic and affordable. Otherwise, we will not have
any bidders for the new contract.
The approach presented above follows industry best practices in the
public and private sectors. This is the same approach that prospective
hospitality industry owners follow when they conduct ``due diligence''
for an acquisition or for a new contract.
Thus far, our team has completed this work for 18 major contracts
at 15 national parks. In general, we are finding that the facilities
are being maintained to reasonable standards. Nonetheless, most
concession assets (with or without PI) have some level of deferred
maintenance. We are, however, able to structure plans that address this
maintenance backlog as well as ensure that assets are aggressively
maintained during the new contract terms. As such, NPS is addressing
all deferred maintenance in the new concession contracts. Some
contracts will require creative funding and management strategies, due
to the significant costs of managing large asset bases. We are working
diligently with both the NPS and concessioners to enhance and sustain
high quality concession assets for visitors and the American public.
Mr. Chairman, thank you once again for the opportunity to testify.
I would be happy to answer any questions that you or the Committee
members may have.
Senator Thomas. Thank you very much.
Mr. Kiernan.
STATEMENT OF THOMAS C. KIERNAN, PRESIDENT,
NATIONAL PARKS CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION
Mr. Kiernan. Mr. Chairman and Senator Akaka, thank you for
the opportunity to testify before you today. I am Tom Kiernan,
president of the National Parks Conservation Association. We
are America's only nonprofit advocacy group dedicate to
protecting and enhancing America's National Park System. We
were founded in 1919, 3 years after the Park Service itself was
established, and now have over 350,000 members throughout the
country.
I have 3 broad points I would like to make, first on the
backlog, if I may, which as I think everyone has mentioned, has
accumulated over time and is thus neither a Republican nor a
Democratic issue. Both sides of the aisle can share in
responsibility for the creation of the backlog, and hopefully
share in the credit for its coming reduction.
Second, this maintenance backlog of road and building
projects is only really one component of the total backlog that
our national parks face. There is a very important and
significant backlog of natural resource protection projects as
well. For example, Shenandoah National Park, 20 percent of the
plant and animal species are non-native invasive species in the
park and need to be removed. That is as well a backlog project,
if you will, but falls in the natural resource category, not a
road or building category. Similarly, now in the Great Smokies,
we know 10,000 species of plant and animals; we estimate there
are probably about 100,000 species down in the park as well,
and that is a backlog, an intellectual backlog and we need to
invest similarly in that significant one-time project to
complete the inventory in that park and similarly in other
parks. So the backlog truly is more than just roads and
buildings, there's also a natural resource knowledge backlog in
the parks.
The third broad point I would like to make about the
backlog is that eliminating it will require a multi-pronged
strategy and if I can, I would like to just highlight four
components of that recommended multi-pronged strategy. First of
all is the need for a better inventory methodology, and we
would like to praise the administration's effort that Mr.
Murphy articulated. That does seem to be a good solid process
that they are putting in place and we praise them for it.
Secondly, in addition to the inventory, there needs to be
significant non-congressional funding to help address the
backlog, and we would like to recognize the chairman and this
committee for making the effort to make permanent the fee
demonstration program. We see that as a strategy long term for
helping address the backlog.
The third component is a significant amount of new
congressional funding. In our opinion, the administration has
mistakenly tried to implement the President's pledge of
eliminating the Maintenance and Resource Protection Act, while
only contributing $371 million of additional new total funding
over the last 3 years. So while the backlog is $4.9 billion, we
calculate there has only been an additional $371 million of
funding over the last 3 years to address and reduce that
backlog.
The last component that we believe needs to be part of this
four-pronged strategy is an increase in the operating budget,
and I would like to echo Mr. Dillinger's comment that one of
the best, if not the best means of long-term reducing the
backlog is by increasing the annual operating support for our
national parks. His analogy on rotating the tires, so to speak,
is in the annual operating budget of the parks where the
funding is provided for rotating the tires, so to speak.
We would also like to recognize, again, the chairman's
work, and Senator Akaka and others for recognizing and working
to reduce the annual operating funding shortfall that we
estimate at roughly 32 percent.
On land acquisition, we would like to make 3 points, if I
may. We are aware of the concern that many have expressed that
by adding new parks and new lands to the park system, we are
adding to the long-term cost requirements of the parks. I would
like to put forward somewhat of a counterpoint, that without
the historic growth and diversification of the park system, we
would not now have the degree of support from the American
public. The system has succeeded, the National Park System has
succeeded because it has grown and because it continues to
strive fully to represent the increasingly diverse values that
Americans represent.
Secondly, and quite specifically, this country is becoming
increasingly diverse. Our National Park System must grow to
reflect the history and stories of all Americans.
The last reason to look at continued support for land
acquisition is the significant problem our parks face with in-
holdings. There's a significant number of in-holdings inside
our national parks where we have willing sellers that would
like to sell, and that by selling to the Federal Government, we
can obviously improve the ecological integrity of the park but
also reduce some of the management burdens and challenges that
the superintendent faces with that in-holding.
Lastly, if I may mention on the personnel deficit that was
referenced at the beginning, this is as well a result of the
annual operating shortfall of 32 percent that we have
calculated. There are a whole series of anecdotes that are in
our written testimony that I will not repeat that lead to
shortfalls in the interpretation and resource protective work,
as a result of the personnel deficit.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify this
morning.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kiernan follows:]
Prepared Statement of Thomas C. Kiernan, President,
National Parks Conservation Association
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify before you today. I am Tom Kiernan, president of
the National Parks Conservation Association. NPCA is America's only
national private, nonprofit advocacy organization dedicated solely to
protecting, preserving, and enhancing the National Park System. NPCA
was founded in 1919 and today has approximately 300,000 members across
the country that care deeply about the well being of our national
parks.
We greatly appreciate you focusing on the backlog of unmet needs
throughout our national park system. You have asked that we discuss the
maintenance backlog, land acquisition backlog, and deficit in personnel
within the National Park System. In addition, you have asked that we
explore the interaction of these issues and discuss whether certain
parts of the system appear more affected by them than others.
I want to start by thanking you, Chairman Thomas, for helping to
champion the bipartisan effort in the Senate to increase operational
funding for the National Park Service. NPCA appreciates your leadership
on this issue, working in a bipartisan fashion with senators Graham,
Akaka, Smith, Bingaman, and others. Addressing the operational
shortfalls in our parks is critical to both avoiding backlogs of the
future and to ensuring the Park Service meets its mission to protect
park resources and provide visitors to our national parks with the best
possible memories and experiences.
maintenance backlog
Managing the National Park Service is an enormous undertaking. The
388 units that comprise the national park system include more than
30,000 structures and 80 million artifacts. The Park Service's
portfolio includes 8,000 miles of roads, 1,500 bridges, 5,385 housing
units, 1,500 water and wastewater systems, 200 radio systems, 400 dams
and more than 200 solid waste operations. These items are all
integrated into one of the most awe-inspiring repositories of our
collective American heritage that exists.
There is no question that the maintenance backlog in our national
parks is a problem. According to the National Park Service's recent
report, Partnering & Managing for Excellence: ``This backlog has had a
profound effect on the visitor experience and the public's ability to
appreciate and enjoy our national parks' natural, historic, and
cultural wonders.''
To better understand the backlog, one must understand its root
cause--lack of sufficient funding for park operations and maintenance.
It is also important to note that backlog is not a static term, but
rather the backlog ledger is constantly changing as some maintenance
needs are met and others arise. Additionally, effectively addressing
the backlog requires an understanding about the condition of our parks.
Historically, the Park Service and the rest of us have been ill
equipped to know the extent of the maintenance needs in parks.
According to the January 2003 GAO report Major Management Challenges
and Program Risks: Department of the Interior: ``Despite the importance
of its maintenance program, the Park Service has yet to accurately
assess or define the scope of its maintenance needs . . . the agency
does not have an accurate inventory of the assets that need to be
maintained, nor accurate data on the condition of these assets.''
Since GAO issued its report, the Park Service has been engaged in a
multi-year effort to develop an accurate baseline of backlog needs.
They appear to be making progress with this important first step, and
we are encouraged by reports of their new state-of-art system to
inventory, monitor and prioritize backlog maintenance. This will be
enormously helpful to the parks, Congress, and the public in better
understanding and addressing the maintenance backlog in the parks. We
also understand that the Park Service has launched an aggressive
training and implementation plan to inventory and assess the condition
of park facilities. The Park Service's recently released document
entitled Partnering and Managing for Excellence, though it paints an
overly rosy picture of the state of our national parks, reports that
assessments at 125 parks were completed by December of 2002, and that
by the end of FY 2003 assessments will be completed at all but four of
the largest parks. We encourage the Park Service to share each
assessment as it is completed.
The park maintenance backlog knows no party line. It has
accumulated through Democratic and Republican administrations and
congresses. We have been encouraged by the bipartisan support for
addressing the operational funding shortfall for the parks, the root
cause of the backlog. We also believe it to be critically important to
have a highly transparent process for identifying the current unfunded
backlog and how its dollar value compares with prior estimates, so we
can collectively determine how to address the problem once and for all.
As you know, in 1998 the General Accounting Office estimated the
maintenance backlog to be approximately $6.1 billion based on Park
Service data from 1993. However, $1.2 billion of this estimate was for
the construction of new facilities, leaving approximately $4.9 billion
for existing facility maintenance and construction. GAO indicated in
January of this year that the Department of Interior estimated the
backlog to be between $4.1 and $6.8 billion.
Clearly, addressing the backlog will require a significant increase
in the rate of investment for the programs that comprise it-facility
maintenance and construction-as well as more realistic annual
operational funding for the Park Service to prevent additional backlog
from accumulating. We had high hopes at the beginning of this
administration, but have been disappointed by the administration's
failure to come close to increasing the rate of investment to the
extent necessary to significantly reduce and ultimately eliminate the
backlog.
Nonetheless, we gave the administration credit for a number of its
funding-related initiatives in our recent evaluation of their efforts.
One area where the administration deserves praise is for its proposed
increase for the park roads and parkways program. The administration's
proposed transportation reauthorization bill would increase funding for
park roads from $165 million to $300 million in fiscal year 2004, $310
million in 2005 and $320 million annually thereafter. The proposal
would also dedicate $30 million for alternative transportation, but
makes several agencies eligible for the funds, leaving alternative
transportation funds substantially short of the $1.6 billion the
Department of Transportation has conservatively estimated will be
needed over the next 20 years an issue we encourage the subcommittee to
examine. Clearly, however, given the competing demands for funds within
the transportation reauthorization bill it will be extremely difficult
to achieve the overall funding level the administration has proposed,
and we hope they will make this a litmus test issue as part of the
reauthorization effort.
fee demonstration program
The Park Service's Recreational Fee Demonstration Program has made
important contributions to addressing a number of maintenance backlog
needs in the parks, and we very much appreciate the leadership that
Chairman Thomas and Senator Bingaman have shown on this issue. Although
NPCA has taken no position on whether to expand that program to other
agencies, we support your efforts to make the program permanent for the
National Park Service. As you know, it is enormously important that the
Park Service's fees be closely monitored and that the program
supplement, not supplant federal dollars. Since it began in fiscal year
1997 the program has already provided $584 million to the Park Service,
with another estimated $250 million in FY 2003 and 2004. Public surveys
have shown strong, but not unlimited, support for entrance and use
fees. The fee program is not the solution to the backlog, but it is
part of the solution.
operational funding
The failure of the Park Service's annual operations budget to
adequately meet the needs in the parks contributes to the backlog.
While Congress has placed a great deal of focus and attention to the
maintenance backlog, we must be equally if not more diligent in our
efforts to address the operational shortfall in our parks. Shortfalls
in annual operations funding create new backlog. In addition,
discussions of the backlog frequently gravitate toward bricks-and-
mortar, but as the subcommittee knows, there is a critical backlog of
unmet resource protection needs throughout the park system.
NPCA estimates based on the Park Service's business plans from more
than 50 parks that national parks suffer from an annual shortfall in
operational funding of roughly 32 percent. Although Congress, with the
help and involvement of this subcommittee, has moderately increased the
operating budget for the Park Service, this funding has not kept pace
with the needs of the parks. Furthermore, NPCA shares the concern
recently raised by the House Interior Appropriations Committee in its
report on the fiscal year 2004 Interior bill--the erosion of base
program budgets. According to the House appropriators, the capacity of
the Park Service to serve the American people is eroding because recent
budgets have only partially funded costs of pay increases proposed by
the administration and approved by Congress, and have not provided
sufficient inflationary adjustments. The resulting necessity for the
National Park Service operating account to absorb fixed costs during
the last two years has been equivalent to a three percent reduction
from 2001 program levels. The end result is an erosion, not an
increase, in the operational resources available to the Park Service--a
critical issue when attempting to reduce the backlog over the long
term.
The National Park Service has a tremendous responsibility as the
caretaker for these national treasures, yet it does not have the tools
it needs to do so fully. Homeland security demands have added a new
dimension to the problem. Many parks throughout the system have shipped
critical personnel elsewhere to augment homeland security demands at
other sites, further straining resources that are already stretched to
the limit. In addition, it is estimated to cost the National Park
Service $63,000 per day every time the Department of Homeland Security
issues an orange alert. Each park has to bear the impact of these
costs, making an austere budget climate even more grim. Across the
system, the impact of these costs quickly adds up. Unfortunately, while
the Park Service has faced increased costs due to homeland security
needs, its budget has not increased correspondingly, nor is the Park
Service eligible for funding under the Department of Homeland Security.
While it is important to address the current facility maintenance
and resource protection backlog needs in the parks, if we continue to
provide insufficient operating funding for the parks, we will only be
replacing existing backlogs with new ones.
personnel deficit
The 2001 National Park System Advisory Board report, Rethinking the
National Parks for the 21st Century, focused important attention on the
institutional capacity of the Park Service to accomplish its evolving
mission. According to the report, ``The Park Service must have the
expertise to administer parks as educational resources, protect park
resources in landscapes that are increasingly altered by human
activity, and fashion broad collaborative relationships with academia,
the private sector, state, local, and other federal agencies. It must
continue to provide high quality visitor experiences, and present
America's unfolding story in a manner that connects with the nation's
increasingly diverse population.''
The employees of the National Park Service, from rangers to
maintenance workers, do a remarkable job with the resources available
to them. They are committed individuals for whom the Park Service and
public service are a way of life. Unfortunately, there aren't enough of
them to meet the significant, evolving challenges that our national
parks face.
Many of us remember how many campground programs, ranger walks, and
other casual encounters we used to have with park rangers,
interpreters, and other park service personnel when we were young.
Unfortunately, our children have fewer opportunities, both because
there are so many more visitors to the national parks today than there
were 20 or 30 years ago, and because park service staffing has not kept
pace with the need.
At Death Valley National Park, for example, public education
activities were cut by more than one-third in fiscal year 2002. The
park can no longer afford a staff member dedicated to public education
and outreach, including environmental education programs for school and
community groups. Today there are 1837 full time equivalent (FTE)
interpreters in the national parks and 765 FTE among the part time
ranks. That means the park service has roughly 1 interpreter per
100,000 park visitors. Although this is an admittedly crude measure of
capacity, it illustrates the enormous challenge the Park Service faces
in providing a quality experience to park visitors.
The Park Service also faces other staffing challenges. Several
regional directors will retire in the very near future. Many parks have
shortages in critical positions. For example, the number of
commissioned law enforcement rangers has actually decreased since 1980.
According to the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, there
were1841 commissioned permanent rangers and 616 seasonal rangers in
1980. But by 2001 the number of permanent commissioned rangers had
dropped 16.4 percent, to 1539, and the number of seasonals had dropped
23.9 percent, to 147. During the same time, visitation to the parks has
increased by nearly 60 million people and the number of units has
increased by 59.
The national parks provide incredible opportunities to connect all
Americans, but especially youth with our collective history and to
train the next generation of scientists. As the Advisory Board report
points out, education that links classroom learning with field
experiences produces better results. When students, or adults, for that
matter, visit a Gettysburg, the battle and its historical importance
comes to life. When they visit the Adams Historic Site, figures from
their past become more tangible than when read about in textbooks. When
students participate in a paleontological dig at Petrified Forest or
hear a wolf howl at Yellowstone, these remarkable places and their
value and meaning come to life.
Unfortunately, many parks must turn away requests from schools for
on-site education programs. At Gettysburg, the Park Service must hold a
lottery for its on-site education programs, denying one out of four
schools. Petrified Forest is unable to accommodate many requests from
local schools. At Yellowstone, lack of staff requires the park to turn
away nearly 60 percent of all school groups wishing to participate in a
week-long, hands-on educational program. Joshua Tree had to turn down
approximately 75 requests for school programs in FY 2001. And these
parks are not alone.
The business plans the Park Service has been producing at many
national park units provide important information about how well
existing resources enable park managers and staff to accomplish their
mission. The Park Service deserves credit for continuing to use and
improve the business planning process. The Business Plan Initiative
helps strengthen financial management capabilities at parks and
facilitate meaningful dialogue about park needs. Every year the Park
Service's business plans get stronger, and the evolution of the program
promises to continue delivering important benefits in the coming years.
The plans examine funding and staffing trends, describe the history
and growth of the parks, provide functional analyses and identify
strategic priorities and ways to more efficiently use scarce financial
resources for the benefit of park resources and visitors. They
typically examine five program areas: (1) resource management; (2)
visitor experience and enjoyment; (3) facility operations; (4)
maintenance; and (5) management and administration.
Two of the most important functional areas throughout the national
parks are resource protection and visitor experience and enjoyment,
both of which are generally also the most underfunded. Resource
protection programs generally include collections, historic structures,
and natural resources. Visitor experience programs generally include
interpretation, education and visitor safety.
The fiscal year 2001 business plan for Gettysburg National Military
Park and Eisenhower National Historic Site shows a resource protection
deficit of $907,000 and 10.73 FTE on a total resource protection budget
of $2.48 million and 42.5 FTE (full time equivalent positions). The
shortfall is particularly acute in the cultural resource management
program, therefore impacting the preservation and protection of
historic structures, collections, and landscapes. Visitor experience
and enjoyment programs at the two units are $1.3 million and 13.3 FTE
short of the need, compared with total available funding of $1.5
million and 32.4 FTE. According to the plan, underfunding in this area
means the parks have too few interpretive rangers to meet the demand of
visitors and schools. Underfunding also means too few staff to orient
visitors at the visitor center and insufficient operating funds to
properly maintain, monitor and inspect the structural fire suppression
system.
According to its business plan, Bandalier National Monument in 2000
had a shortfall of $954,504 and 20 FTE for resource management compared
to available funding of $1.48 million and 22.1 FTE. The visitor
experience budget was short $461,650 and 9 FTE compared with available
funding of $646,066 and 12.8 FTE. Consequently, the park's primary
challenge in this area is insufficient staffing for interpretation. In
the case of Bandalier, the challenges the park faces in these two areas
is joined by a management and administration funding shortfall of
$632,403 and 7.7 FTE compared to a management budget of $487,270 and
7.9 FTE.
The chart below shows the business plan findings for a reasonably
illustrative group of parks, to provide the subcommittee with an idea
for how funding and personnel shortfalls are typically distributed
within the parks. In highlighting these parks, we in no way wish to
signal that they require more or less attention than others. Rather,
they all produced quality business plans that can help the committee
understand the resource and staffing challenges that face virtually all
units of the national park system.
FUNDING AND STAFFING NEEDS SELECT PARK UNITS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
Park & Program Available $ Total Unfunded Need Park FTE FTE
\1\ Required $ Deficit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gettysburg (FY 2001)
--Resource Protection......................... $2,479,466 $3,386,465 ($907,019) 42.46 (10.73)
--Visitor Experience.......................... $1,515,120 $2,813,654 ($1,298,534) 32.42 (13.28)
--Facility Operations......................... $946,644 $1,494,375 ($547,731) 18.07 (4.70)
--Maintenance................................. $230,375 $422,860 ($192,485) 3.46 (4.20)
--Management & admin.......................... $1,383,092 $1,997,816 ($614,724) 20.11 (4.08)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bandalier (FY 2000)
--Resource Protection......................... $1,484,621 $2,439,125 ($954,504) 42.11 (20.07)
--Visitor Experience.......................... $646,044 $1,107,717 ($461,650) 21.83 (8.99)
--Facility Operations......................... $469,597 $837,720 ($368,123) 13.11 (6.27)
--Maintenance................................. $1,057,241 $1,406,324 ($349,083) 8.60 (1.05)
--Management & admin.......................... $487,270 $1,119,672 ($632,403) 15.57 (7.66)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acadia (FY 2000)
--Resource Protection......................... $931,501 $2,609,995 ($1,678,494) 42.2 (25.7)
--Visitor Experience.......................... $1,690,769 $2,952,904 ($1,262,134) 65.9 (24.6)
--Facility Operations......................... $1,765,259 $2,829,305 ($1,064,046) 49.8 (18.0)
--Maintenance................................. $1,195,498 $3,254,330 ($2,058,832) 35.7 (20.2)
--Management & admin.......................... $956,374 $2,235,184 ($1,278,810) 53.0 (20.9)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Tree (FY 2001)
--Resource Protection......................... $1,242,993 $2,012,095 ($769,102) 20.3 (11.7)
--Visitor Experience.......................... $1,499,907 $2,283,081 ($783,175) 33.81 (12.7
--Facility Operations......................... $1,140,766 $1,594,449 ($453,683) 15.58 (4.6)
--Maintenance................................. $1,116,011 $1,310,011 ($194,000) 10.65 (4.6)
--Management & admin.......................... $990,167 $1,436,010 ($445,843) 13.1 (4.2)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fort Stanwix (FY 2001) \2\
--Resource Protection......................... $72,951 $337,500 ($264,549) \2\ 0.7 (3.1) \2
\
--Visitor Experience.......................... $213,992 $387,406 ($173,418) \2\ 5.16 (3.0) \2
\
--Facility Operations......................... $185,790 $294,803 ($109,013) \2\ 3.25 (1.9) \2
\
--Maintenance................................. $56,141 $56,315 ($174) \2\ 0.21 (0.0) \2
\
--Management & admin.......................... $277,272 $472,926 ($195,654) \2\ 5.1 (1.7) \2
\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes appropriated and non-appropriated funds.
\2\ Fort Stanwix received a $570,000 appropriated base budget increase in FY 2002, nearly eliminating the entire
47 percent shortfall. The Fort is nearly fully funded.
Importantly, business plans are a tool that parks put to use. For
each of the parks described above, the plans identified needs that park
managers are working to address. Their challenge, of course, is
implementing creative programs to maximize available resources and
finding the additional funds to truly meet the needs of their parks.
They have challenging jobs, which they and their staff do very well.
The chairman asked that we describe whether shortfalls in personnel
and resources tend to be concentrated in certain regions, among
different types of park unit, or tend to be specific to parks. The
short answer is that we cannot yet be certain. However, our preliminary
analysis suggests that most of the primary problems--particularly in
interpretation (visitor experience) and resource preservation--are
evenly distributed. Nor does there appear to be a significant
difference between the national parks, historic parks, national
monuments or other units. In general, the business plans developed with
the Park Service have shown an overall shortfall ranging between 20 and
40 percent, with a small number of parks like Fort Stanwix National
Monument, which received sufficient funds in FY 2002 to eliminate
virtually its entire shortfall and is instituting strategies identified
in the business plan to address the remainder. An analysis of the
business plans developed by the Park Service thus far indicates that
funding and staffing challenges are relatively similar across the
system. The budget functions that tend to have the most significant
need generally include resource protection and visitor experience.
Overall, the ubiquitous nature of these shortfalls illustrates the
enormous challenge that continues to face the park service, and calls
into serious question the administration's aggressive effort to
outsource Park Service positions.
Despite these challenges, modern technology presents incredible
opportunities to bring the national parks closer to people who may be
hundreds or even thousands of miles away--opportunities the Park
Service works to provide through its Parks as Classrooms program.
Volunteers provide enormous assistance to the parks through their
dedication and devotion. In fiscal year 2002, 125,000 volunteers
donated 4.5 million hours (equivalent to 2156 FTE) to the national
parks. Since 1990, the number of volunteers in the national parks has
increased by roughly 5 percent per year. But even though volunteers and
technology provide invaluable tools to help protect the parks and even
educate park visitors, they are not the entire solution.
Efforts to significantly increase volunteerism in the parks will
require that sufficient staff be made available to supervise them.
Volunteers must be trained and guided, and park staff need to determine
how to put them to use.
land acquisition
Since Congress created it in 1964, the Land and Water Conservation
Fund (LWCF) has been the principal federal source of funding to acquire
new park and recreation lands. Similar to the Highway Trust Fund, the
LWCF account was envisioned as the primary dedicated funding source for
land conservation. Revenues generated principally from drilling on the
outer continental shelf are supposed to be allocated to land management
agencies for land acquisition and recreation. However, as the
subcommittee is aware, Congress has not fully funded the LWCF to its
authorized $900 million annually, despite trust fund revenues that far
exceed expenditures. Through fiscal year 2001, the total amount that
could have been appropriated over the years was $24.5 billion, but only
$11.4 billion had been appropriated--less than half the authorized
amount.
To address this situation, in fiscal year 2001 Congress reached an
historic agreement to significantly increase funding for the LWCF
through a new Conservation Trust Fund. This groundbreaking bipartisan
accomplishment was intended to protect America's conservation,
recreation, wildlife, and historic resources. As members of the
subcommittee are aware, this funding mechanism was created as a
compromise during the debate surrounding the passage of the
Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA). The Conservation Trust Fund
was intended to provide a dedicated level of annual funding for LWCF
and other conservation programs for fiscal years 2001-2006, for a total
$12 billion during this period. Unfortunately, the Conservation Trust
Fund was dramatically underfunded in fiscal year 2003, and appears to
face similar shortfalls in the upcoming fiscal year.
Expansions of and additions to the national park system are
necessary. Clearly, expansions of the system have had an impact on the
fiscal and personnel needs of the Park Service, but the extent to which
they have diminished the resources available for other Park Service
needs is unknowable. It is far from clear that the Park Service would
have the same financial resources or support it has today if these
expansions had not occurred.
Until the rate of investment for the Park Service has increased to
the point that is necessary to fulfill the Park Service's mission and
purpose, the Park Service will have to struggle between competing
priorities. NPCA strongly believes the operations budget should be a
significant priority, but that we cannot turn a blind eye to once-in-a-
lifetime opportunities or newly emerging threats to the very places
we're trying to preserve for future generations. If a park is
endangered and the acquisition of an in holding or adjacent land will
help protect it, that acquisition should become a priority.
Importantly, in holdings frequently create management burdens for
national park personnel. In some cases the acquisition of an in holding
or adjacent land may actually reduce those burdens and enable personnel
to focus on other needs. As the members of the subcommittee know,
owners of ecologically, culturally or historically sensitive land
within and adjacent to parks periodically decide to sell or develop
those lands. At times, such situations pose direct threats to the
enjoyment of park visitors and the well being of the parks, themselves.
The Park Service must have the ability to acquire these lands when
necessary to protect the integrity of a given park.
For example, Petrified Forest National Park is known worldwide as
the premier window into Triassic era paleontology, but only 6 miles of
the 22-mile long famous, fossil-rich Chinle escarpment are within the
park. This is a priceless, rare resource that should be protected as
part of the park, particularly with the primary landowners anxious to
sell their land and with strong support from the local communities. The
park holds a time capsule of untapped scientific knowledge that can
help us unravel some of the thorniest environmental questions of our
time.
Among the select few land acquisition needs for which the
administration requested funds in its fiscal year 2004 budget request
are sensitive lands in Big Thicket National Preserve and at Valley
Forge National Historical Park. Land acquisition at Big Thicket is
essential to prevent timbering on non-federal lands at the preserve
that would endanger the fragile ecosystem of the Big Thicket area.
Timber companies are divesting themselves of 1.5 million acres in the
surrounding area. Proposed development at Valley Forge National
Historical Park threatens an area that once was occupied by the
Continental Army during its encampment at Valley Forge in 1777-1778.
And as the result of the Chairman's initiative, the National Park
Service recently acquired 1,406 acres of state lands and mineral
interests within the boundary of Grand Teton National Park. In holdings
like those in Grand Teton exist throughout the National Park System,
and their acquisition by the parks when owners wish to sell them is
generally in the strong interest of long-term park preservation.
serving the new face of america
History is not static, but is made every day. The national park
system must evolve to remain the ``best idea America ever had'' and to
serve the rapidly changing population of our nation. Unfortunately,
America's ``ethnic minorities'' still remain largely absent from our
parks as visitors, employees, contractors, subjects of interpretation
and political champions. In 2003, the year that confirmed Hispanics as
the largest growing minority in the country, not one of the 388 units
that currently make up the national park system honors the legacy of an
individual contemporary Latino. The same can be said for Asian
Americans and American Indians. For its failure to embrace diversity,
this great American idea is at risk of becoming largely irrelevant to
half the population at a time when our national parks need the broadest
possible constituency to ensure their preservation unimpaired for
future generations.
This worst-case scenario, however, need not come to pass. Surveys
demonstrate that Asian, Latino, African American and American Indian
people have a great regard for the natural wonders celebrated and
preserved in large national parks such as Yosemite and Yellowstone. The
Park Service, for its part, is one of the largest curators of Asian,
Latino, Indian and African American history and culture. These existing
links need to be reinforced and better publicized in order that these
natural allies fully support and appreciate one another.
Thoughtful and judicious expansion of the park system to include
new units commemorating our diverse history and culture would provide
an even greater opportunity to overcome the relevancy gap that exists
between the Park Service and many people of color. The addition of
sites commemorating the groundbreaking work of African American scholar
Carter G. Woodson and labor rights activist Cesar E. Chavez would be an
excellent first step toward better engaging people of color as national
park advocates. It's also the right thing to do if we are truly
interested in having a national park system that accurately and
adequately reflects the many faces of America.
Some argue that no new national parks should be added until the
backlog maintenance concerns currently plaguing the system have been
addressed. Furthermore, some have stated the cost of these outstanding
concerns is so great that resolving them will prevent us from funding
any new units for the national system. The truth is that, over time,
adequate funding would enable the Park Service to handle its backlog
maintenance and operational needs, serve park visitors, and make
prudent additions to the system that celebrate the cultural diversity
and honor our common heritage as Americans. In a time where everyone,
from NASCAR to Major League Baseball to the Elk's Club, is embracing
diversity as way to remain socially relevant, political effective, and
economically viable, we cannot afford to tell 47 percent of the
population there's no more room in the national park system for your
heroes and leaders. Diversity is the strength of our nation and should
also be a strength of our national park system.
conclusion
Thank you for focusing attention on this important issue today.
When national parks are created, most Americans would like to assume
they are protected. As you know, the park system faces constant
pressure and a significant struggle for resources. NPCA is pleased to
be of assistance to the subcommittee as you examine how best to address
these challenges and protect our beloved national parks for future
generations.
Senator Thomas. Thank you, and thanks to all of you for
being here.
Mr. Dillinger, you work in other areas other than parks.
How does the maintenance backlog in parks compare to other
State or Federal agencies or similar kinds of activities?
Mr. Dillinger. I have yet to encounter a public agency that
didn't have a backlog. What I think you will find is that the
right comparative metric measurement, if you will, that Mr.
Murphy offered, is that facility condition index. And what you
find in testimony from our National Wildlife Refuge, is that
tends to run between .1 and .3 in many of our public agencies,
and it's left relatively consistent, but it exists out there
across those. The Park Service itself has some unique
challenges in both remoteness and the age of their assets and
their infrastructure, and that caused some complications for
them whereas some of the other public agencies that might have
assets that were in the 30-year range instead of the 80-year
range.
Senator Thomas. So you're suggesting that a percentage of
the operating budget, whatever is available, be set aside for
the maintenance of facilities?
Mr. Dillinger. I think the key is, and Mr. Kiernan said as
well, if we don't adequately fund the annual maintenance, that
rolls over into maintenance backlog. And so if we focus our
attention just on maintenance backlog, we're focusing on an
event that will continue to pile up due to inadequate annual
funding, and those agencies that have public sector agencies,
private sector as well, have started to focus on spending the
right money up front tends to naturally draw down their
backlog. But you will find that there is always some
maintenance backlog and it is perhaps never appropriate to
believe that you can entirely eliminate it. There is a new
piece always occurring tomorrow, and the idea is to keep it
below that range that Mr. Murphy mentioned, of 10 percent of
the total value.
Senator Thomas. I'm sure that more money is always, of
course, the solution to everything, and you can come with us as
we go about our business, and you will find that everyone we
talk to has a need for more money, and I don't disagree with
that. However, there also has to be some attention given to how
you better spend the money you have, and of course that's
probably what we're doing here.
Mr. Cornelssen, concessions are a little different, aren't
they? The maintenance of a concession has to do, I suppose,
with the arrangement made on the concessioners.
Mr. Cornelssen. Yes, sir. The challenge here is we're not
doing it ourself, we have to get the private sector to do it on
our behalf, that is, on the Park Service's behalf, so we have
to specify some fairly clear standards and operating
guidelines.
Senator Thomas. But that kind of goes into the leasing
arrangement, doesn't it?
Mr. Cornelssen. Yes, sir.
Senator Thomas. And there ought to be an opportunity to
make enough money to maintain the facilities and then to ensure
that they are maintained, which, do you think that's done
generally in the parks?
Mr. Cornelssen. We are certainly doing it now. The approach
that we're taking on the large contracts, what we call the big
50, is we make sure there is adequate funding going back first
and foremost to the assets, but that there is also a fair
return to the concessioners.
Senator Thomas. You mentioned that all of the facilities
actually belong to the park. That's sort of a little hard to--
now Yellowstone, for example, the assets do belong to the park,
they don't belong to the hospitality group, but the others,
although they're under lease and control, they actually are
paid for the facilities if they don't continue the concession.
Is that true?
Mr. Cornelssen. Yes, sir. The reason I made that
distinction is that the Government does and needs to recognize
that these are government, these are assets that are titled to
the U.S. Government, so whether there is possessory interest or
not, the Government has a responsibility for these assets.
Senator Thomas. Mr. Kiernan, there are other--you know, in
part of your last statement, where of course the parks need to
continue to grow, there are also other ways of maintaining
facilities, are there not, such as State parks and other kinds
of things?
Mr. Kiernan. Absolutely. There is, to use the
administration's coined phrase, a network of park systems
throughout this country, and obviously it is the local, State
and national park systems that in aggregate provide some of the
recreation, but also resource protection needs of this country.
That being said, the National Park System represents the
superlative examples of the treasures of this country. The
Flight 93 Memorial, obviously from September 11, is one example
of a number that we feel should be recognized.
Senator Thomas. No question. We do need to think a little
bit sometimes about the standards that decide which of these
categories they fall into, because there are some pretty nice
things that are in State parks and so on.
Somebody mentioned earlier that during this last several
years there has been a $2.9 billion reduction in backlog. You
don't seem to agree with that.
Mr. Kiernan. We agree with the administration's calculation
that they have supplied, with Congress, $2.9 billion, but at
the beginning of this administration, they were funding those
accounts at roughly what would have been $2.5 billion, so the
administration has proposed an additional, we calculate, $371
million. That's good and we support that, but clearly, that
additional incremental funding of $371 million only makes a
very small dent in reducing the $4.9 billion log. That's why,
as we understand it from the Department's numbers, the backlog
as they calculated this past January, is between $4.1 and $6.8
billion, the backlog is still up in that range, it is not being
reduced because there has not been significant additional
funding the backlog or significant increase in the operating
budget for the parks.
Senator Thomas. I don't quite understand. I think you said
reduced it by 3. something, the backlog?
Mr. Kiernan. They have only reduced it $371 million.
Senator Thomas. I'm sorry, I misunderstood you. I thought
you were talking $3.7 billion, which I thought was pretty
significant.
Mr. Kiernan. Right, $371 million.
Senator Thomas. All right, thank you.
Senator.
Senator Akaka. Mr. Cornelssen, you stated in your
testimony, developing new concession contracts, that you are
able to structure plans to address any maintenance backlog with
respect to the concession facilities involved, as well as
ensure proper ongoing maintenance. While this is encouraging,
doesn't it mean a trade-off with other funding needs? The funds
spent by concessioners to address backlog maintenance means
either a lower franchise fee or other foregone use of the
revenue that we're contemplating in the concessions we farm
out.
Mr. Cornelssen. That's a good question, sir. I mean, I
guess the way we do it is I guess, don't kill the goose that
laid the golden egg concept. In other words, first and
foremost, we have to make sure the money goes back into the
assets to ensure that those assets are in good condition, the
visitors have a good experience, they are willing to continue
to pay for that experience. So that's a high priority for the
investment. I do believe when the Concessions Reform Act was
passed in '98, a lot of people viewed it as potentially a
windfall of all kinds of extra money, but what we're seeing as
we view these contract by contract, there is additional returns
coming back, but a lot of the money does need to go back into
the assets at the park level.
Senator Akaka. Mr. Kiernan, you stated that NPCA believes
only, and let me make sure of the figure, $371 million in new
money has been available in recent years. Given the current
fiscal climate and the intense competition for discretionary
funds in the appropriations process, my question to you is
where do you propose that we find the additional money that
would be needed to reduce the backlog?
Mr. Kiernan. A wonderful question, Senator, and a difficult
one. I would respond in the following way: The National Park
System tells truly the American story and the values that we
stand for need to be protected, need to be communicated, need
to be reinforced through our National Park Service. Now is the
time when we are making investments, whether it's in Homeland
Security, foreign affairs, the investment in our National Park
Service is absolutely part of that strategy. We need to be
investing in our parks because they are, they represent the
best and finest of this country, and also they represent the
times and places where this country has made mistakes. We need
to take care of these places and learn from them. These need to
be the highest, or some of the highest funding priorities of
this country at this time. So, that's not a specific answer to
your question, but we are calling for a $600 million funding
increase in the operating budget of the parks and that is a
number that seems in the realm of the doable in the Federal
budget, sir.
Senator Akaka. Thank you. In my opening statement, I
mentioned my concern that as important as this issue is, it's
not only the concern for the Park Service or even the highest
priority, there are many other parts there. Given the scarce
resources available, what areas does NPCA think are the most
important, and what should receive priority in funding?
Mr. Kiernan. I believe it's easy for Congress and the
administration to focus on those aspects of the park that are
the superficial, I don't mean that as a criticism, but the
visible, and so the maintenance backlog, the condition of roads
and the buildings is something that's quite visible and is
receiving attention. I think it is a lot of the invisible
behind the scenes, the lack of scientific understanding of the
natural resource management challenges in the parks, as I
mentioned in my testimony, needs significant increases in
funding. So I would answer it by saying natural resource
protection, cultural resource protection, protecting those
fourth elements of the parks for which they were founded should
be the highest priority.
I would also mention, if I may, that in the last 3 years
the total Park Service budget, backlog funding, operating
funding, has only increased on average 1 percent over the last
3 years. In the end of the 1990's, it was increasing an average
rate of 9 percent, so the rate of increase of our total
National Park Service funding has dramatically dropped and I
think this will lead to additional future problems both on the
operating budget and in the backlog.
Senator Akaka. Thank you for your response. I just want to
say that there is an additional concern too, in terms of
availability of personnel and resources for these public
assets. So, I thank you all very much for your comments.
Senator Thomas. Thank you. We're about to wind up here,
guys. I would like to have you say in about this length of
time, these are the three things I think are most important
that we do right now to deal with parks and this backlog.
In the meantime, Tom, I have to say that you're publishing
here as saying the administration has a D minus for its
operations in the parks, and I was a little surprised at that.
It's a tough issue, but I think there are some pretty good
activities that have carried on.
Mr. Kiernan. Thank you, sir. We did try in that assessment
to highlight those park policies and efforts of the
administration that we do think are positive, we are trying to
point out the good things, some of which were mentioned this
morning.
Senator Thomas. Mr. Dillinger, what are the three things
you think we ought to do?
Mr. Dillinger. Number one would be to, understanding the
financial constraints, but nonetheless understand the
appropriate level of maintenance dollars that could be spent.
Number two, complete the effort that Park Service currently has
underway to develop their facilities management system but
expand it to include the maintenance requirements. The third
issue is to get well trained people in the field, continue to
do that, not that people there are bad, just that there is a
continued departure of quality folks as the work force ages,
and we need to train new folks, new stewards to be in the
field.
Senator Thomas. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Cornelssen. I would echo some of what Eric said. First,
investing in people, both internally through training programs
as well as using external resources as necessary. Secondly,
putting together a good plan; I know that's tossed around a
lot, but we believe in it, we believe you have to have a plan.
Third, I guess I would call it financial discipline, which I
think gets to your point, Mr. Chairman, which is understanding
the resources that you have, and how you work with those
resources to leverage them and maintain a tight financial
discipline.
Senator Thomas. Thank you.
Mr. Kiernan.
Mr. Kiernan. We would recommend continuing to increase the
natural resources challenge program and the funding for that.
That has seen significant improvement of science and management
in the national parks. Secondly would be to continue the
administration's work to roll out business plans to all the
parks as a means of understanding the operating challenges and
coming forward with recommendations to fulfill the operating
challenges. And thirdly, and somewhat as a result of those two
things, significantly increasing the operating budget of the
Park Service, because we think that will both better protect
the resources and deal with backlog.
Senator Thomas. Thank you, gentlemen. We appreciate your
input and appreciate your support for the parks. The committee
is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:31 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIXES
----------
Appendix I
Responses to Additional Questions
----------
Responses to Questions From the Committee
Question 1. What issues did GAO identify that contribute to
the maintenance backlog?
Answer. The body of work that we have done throughout the
national park system suggests that it is a combination of
things. These include aging facilities and infrastructure,
budgets not keeping pace with the growth of the system, and the
lack of sustained attention and commitment by Park Service
management to properly address the issue.
Question 2. Did GAO identify any administrative or
management practices within the National Park Service that
impede or prolong action toward correcting the maintenance
backlog?
Answer. Yes, the lack of a sustained commitment to properly
address its need to better manage its maintenance backlog,
including getting a better understanding of the condition of
its facilities and how much it will cost to maintain them. GAO,
Interior's Office of Inspector General, and others have pointed
this out for decades. While the current facility management
initiatives within the agency appear promising, it will take
time to fully implement them. Agency management will have to
keep focused on seeing the initiatives through--it will require
the kind of sustained commitment that the agency has not
demonstrated in the past.
Question 3. How much do you think the maintenance backlog
might ultimately cost and how long might it take to correct?
Answer. Right now, the Park Service has no reliable,
system-wide data on the condition of its facilities or the size
of the backlog to properly maintain them. Until this is known,
we would only be guessing about the size of the problem and how
tong it might take to correct it.
Question 4. What advice can you offer the Park Service
regarding the maintenance backlog?
Answer. After decades of discussion and attempts to better
manage the maintenance backlog, the Park Service is now in the
process of implementing a new facility management process that
appears very promising. However, it is going to take years to
fully and properly implement this process so that all of its
benefits can be realized--including getting more accurate and
reliable data on the condition of its assets and the size of
the maintenance backlog. Our advice to agency managers would be
to stay focused on the effective implementation of its current
facility management initiative and give it the sustained effort
and commitment to see it through.
Appendix II
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
----------
Statement of the Association of National Park Rangers
Chairman Thomas and Members of the National Parks Subcommittee: We
are honored and pleased to have the opportunity to provide this
statement for the record.
The Association of National Park Rangers (ANPR) is an organization
created to communicate for, about, and with park rangers; to promote
and enhance the park ranger profession and its spirit; and to support
the management and perpetuation of the National Park Service and
System. In meeting these purposes, ANPR provides education and other
training to develop and improve the knowledge and skills of park
rangers and those interested in the profession; provides a forum for
discussion of common concerns of park rangers; and provides information
to the public. Our membership--approximately 1,000 National Park
Service employees--is comprised of individuals who are entrusted with
and committed to the care, study, explanation, and protection of those
natural, cultural, and recreational resources included in the National
Park System, as well as of individuals who support these efforts.
We would like to begin by thanking the Subcommittee for holding
this hearing and examining issues which we believe should be of
significant concern to policy makers and to the American public.
The American National Park System is a worldwide model. Much
emulated, and still unrivaled, it is at once a diverse and amazing
collection of beautiful natural resources and monuments, an enriching
source of learning about American history and culture, as well as a
source of recreation and enjoyment for more than 400 million visitors
each year. Yet, this amazing system will not endure without proper
care. And that is the role of the National Park Service. Drawn from its
enabling statute, the Organic Act of 1916, the mission of the Service
is--
. . . to promote and regulate the use of the . . . national
parks . . . which purpose is to conserve the scenery and the
natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to
provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by
such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of
future generations.
Thus, the vitality and perpetuation of the System is very dependent
upon a properly staffed and skilled Service.
personnel deficits
The National Park Service is experiencing shortages in virtually
all personnel position types--i.e., law enforcement commissioned
rangers, interpretive rangers, administrative support, resource
management, and maintenance workers. For example, according to the
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, between 1980 and 2001, the
number of permanent law enforcement commissioned rangers dropped from
1,841 to 1,539 (a reduction of 302 or 16.4%) and the number of seasonal
law enforcement commissioned rangers fell from 616 to 469 (a reduction
of 147 or 23.9%). Yet, during this same period, the number of park
units increased by more than 62, park acreage increased from 77 million
to 84.5 million, and park visitation increased from approximately 300
million to more than 400 million persons.
Similar data for other position types are not available, but
service-wide anecdotal information supports the contention that we have
insufficient numbers of--
interpreters to provide tours and programs to more than a
small percentage of visitors;
resource managers to perform inventories, and to monitor or
restore ecosystems to insure their perpetuation;
maintenance workers to keep trails, signs, historic
structures, and other resource-related facilities in safe and
useable condition; and
support personnel such as information technologists,
administrative clerks, and fee collectors to run the parks on a
consistent, sustained and professional basis.
During the preceding 12 months, the Department of the Interior and
the Service have developed a variety of law enforcement reforms. This
resulted in a number of NPS directives to the field, one of which was
to give the filling of law enforcement positions the highest priority.
In light of the aforementioned data, this is reasonable,
appropriate and in general strongly supported by ANPR. At the same
time, retirements, transfers, changing park needs, and effects of
recent internal reorganizations also have left some parks with very
critical shortages in other types of positions. ANPR therefore strongly
supports preserving the discretion of park superintendents to establish
local personnel priorities consistent with documented strategic,
business, and safety needs.
A particular personnel issue that greatly concerns ANPR is the
prospective retirement of several NPS regional directors. We feel that
it is mission critical for their replacements to be veteran NPS
employees. Their regional duties, as well as their participation on the
Director's National Leadership Council, require extensive knowledge of
Park Service history, culture, and operational issues. Given the many
challenges presently facing the national parks and the Service, it
would be most unfortunate to have any of those positions filled by
individuals with little or no Park Service experience.
We offer two final, general points on NPS personnel. The first is
that any discussion of personnel must be viewed from the context and
effect of operational budgets. The Operation of National Park Service
(ONPS) budget, adjusted for current dollars, has dropped about 20
percent in the past 25 years. Consequently, parks are operating at 98
percent and higher fixed costs (personnel, utilities, etc.) and have
been for 7-10 years. In some cases fixed costs exceed 100 percent of
ONPS (in FY 2003, some parks are at 120+ percent fixed costs). In some
cases, permanent salaries must be covered out of ``soft money.'' The
common practice for dealing with this is what we call ``managing by
lapse''--or leaving positions vacant for a year or more in order to
have the funds to cover other essential costs. It should be noted that
this practice generally has not worked in smaller parks, those with no
turnover in staff, or those that have low (or no) project funds.
The second point pertains to the unique nature of service in NPS.
We frequently serve in remote locations and, while we all have job
descriptions, our work is frequently as unpredictable as Mother Nature
and human behavior. Thus, in emergency situations, park employees work
as teams to see that whatever needs doing is done. These emergencies
may involve severe weather, injured and/or lost visitors, wildfires, or
simply ensuring that visitors are served as needed. The following story
is told by a young employee from a Western park.
As a GS-5 visitor use assistant, I am clearly at the bottom
of park staffing. Today, I treated a man for a nearly
unstoppable razor cut to his face, spoke to 3 groups of 330
plus people each, dealt with 5 different school groups visiting
the park, and will in one half hour, deliver a 45 minute talk
and walk of the park to over 120 people. This morning we were
lucky, thanks to the ``donation'' of two law enforcement
rangers from other parks, so we had law enforcement support.
The only other uniformed ranger was one really good experienced
GS-9. And that's how we intend to deal with nearly 1000
visitors and their questions and even their small emergencies.
Want more? How clear do we need to be that more uniformed
presence is needed? Our maintenance mart ended up playing
interpreter to two school groups out of lack of staff We had no
volunteers, interns or other help for the first 3 hours of the
day and this is typical.
maintenance backlog
While there is little agreement on the size of the maintenance
backlog, we are very concerned about the significant effect that it has
on the operations of parks and, under the current level of funding, the
inability of the Service to properly staff them. We see superintendents
being forced to make Hobson's Choices--e.g., to keep an area or
building open to the public because of its popularity, knowing that it
could involve a safety risk, or closing the area or building and having
to deal with irate visitors. These are difficult decisions to make. We
see historic structures that are rapidly deteriorating. And we see how
unfunded and pressing maintenance needs contribute to ``managing by
lapse.''
land acquisition
As employees entrusted with fulfillment of the NPS mission and the
care of our Nation's heritage, we support completion of the system via
timely accomplishment of goals and priorities established in park Land
Protection Plans. For many years, the completion of land acquisitions
has not been possible and this has had a significant impact on the
ability of the Service and its employees to preserve, protect and
promote enjoyment of lands that Congress has deemed nationally
significant. The Federal government made these determinations and
should follow through to properly fund adequate protection of these
nationally significant lands. An excellent way of assessing where we
stand in meeting this responsibility is to review the land protection
measures developed by each park. To what degree are the parks able to
achieve the goals associated with these measures? To the extent that
these goals are prioritized, are the parks able to adequately address
even their highest priorities?
The effect of land acquisitions on the maintenance backlog and on
the personnel deficit is obviously to increase them. We would be
pleased if careful assessments were routinely conducted and acted upon
in a timely manner--with adequate funding--to insure that this Nation's
heritage is preserved and protected. The next generation of Americans
should expect no less and certainly deserves as much.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit this statement. We would be
pleased to provide any other information that the Subcommittee needs.
______
Statement of Andrew N. Todd, Chairman,
National Park Hospitality Association
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to submit testimony for this oversight
hearing on maintenance and land acquisition backlog in the national
parks. As a chairman of the Board of Directors of the National Park
Hospitality Association (``NPHA''), I represent an industry membership
that is responsible for most of the visitor services provided by the
private sector in our National Parks.
The National Park Hospitality Association members strongly support
full federal funding for the National Park Service budget for Fiscal
Year 2004 which includes a request of $1 billion in deferred
maintenance projects that will be funded through appropriations,
recreational fees and road improvement funds contained in TEA 21. This
level represents a 50 percent increase over FY 2003 levels and is a
large but necessary request. The industry believes that it is important
that federal funding levels are maintained and that relying on private
sector sources for park operations income is insufficient for the long
term well-being of the parks.
NPHA strongly supports President Bush's commitment to continue the
progress in reducing the maintenance backlog within five years and to
providing ``good roads, safe trails, clean lakes and streams, and well-
kept campgrounds.''
Interior Secretary Gale Norton and NPS Director Fran Mainella have
just released a special report, National Park Service: Partnering and
Managing for Excellence, on July 2, 2003 that highlights many of the
National Parks Legacy Project and NPS efforts to handle the existing
maintenance backlog and plans to prevent this from recurring.
We would also like to commend the NPS accomplishments in reducing
the $4.9 billion maintenance backlog identified in the 1998 General
Accounting Office report by nearly $2.9 billion the since FY 2002
through 900 separate repair and rehabilitation projects system wide.
There are still over 800 maintenance backlog projects to be undertaken,
as well as necessary park road projects in order to return the park
roads to good condition.
NPHA favors the continuation of the fee demo program and the
concession franchise fee program which allows 80 percent of the gate
entrance fees and other franchise fees generated by the park to remain
for use in that park unit. These programs have provided much assistance
in providing needed maintenance and improved visitor services directly
to the parks.
Key to this management effort is the National Park Service facility
condition assessments program that allows the NPS to put into place a
maintenance system to flag maintenance needs, and allows both the
National Park Service and Congress to better manage these needs and
prevents recurrence of deferred maintenance backlogs.
The Facility Maintenance Software System (FMSS) is scheduled to be
completed and the system will be in use as a work planning, costing,
tracking, budgeting and prioritizing tool in the parks by the end of
calendar year 2003. Ultimately, this computerized system will be the
first time that the National Park Service will have a comprehensive
inventory and baseline condition assessment of all 7,500 park
facilities. We strongly support this initiative and believe it will be
very helpful in planning, scheduling and prioritizing the maintenance
of these park facilities.
NPHA is seeing some very good work coming out in the recent
prospectus releases due to the NPS' business partnership with
PricewaterhouseCoopers, who is bringing a private sector vision into
this process. NPHA members have worked actively with the National Park
Service on the comprehensive condition assessment initiative that
identifies deferred maintenance on concession facilities and
establishes the ongoing maintenance requirements of the concession
facilities. This information used in developing the prospectus and is
very useful in assisting the concessioner in planning and scheduling of
necessary improvements and budget forecasting.
NPHA supports this committee's efforts to ensure that the park
service has adequate, trained personnel to operate the park system and
strongly supports full funding for the NPS operating account. Almost a
billion dollars was requested for FY 2004 to fund the operations at 388
park units. NPS has taken on a number of additional duties in
patrolling the border as many border parks have seen an increase in
traffic of undocumented aliens and illegal drug smuggling as a result
of heightened security at borders outside the parks. It is important to
the safety and security of the park visitors that the agency receive
adequate funding to meet these new duties.
NPHA supports the planned new Flight 93 National Memorial, but
contends that the maintenance backlog should be retired before new
lands and parks are acquired and added to the system.
We commend this committee for its leadership of the national parks
and look forward to continuing to work with you and your committee, Mr.
Chairman.