    [House Hearing, 115 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

        EXPLORING INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS TO REDUCE THE DEPARTMENT OF THE
                        INTERIOR'S MAINTENANCE BACKLOG

    =======================================================================

                               OVERSIGHT HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                         COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
                         U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                             Tuesday, March 6, 2018

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 115-39

                                   __________

           Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

            Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
                                       or
              Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov

                                  __________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    28-851 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2018

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
    http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
    U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
    E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

                         COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

                            ROB BISHOP, UT, Chairman
                RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Democratic Member

    Don Young, AK                        Grace F. Napolitano, CA
      Chairman Emeritus                  Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
    Louie Gohmert, TX                    Jim Costa, CA
      Vice Chairman                      Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
    Doug Lamborn, CO                         CNMI
    Robert J. Wittman, VA                Niki Tsongas, MA
    Tom McClintock, CA                   Jared Huffman, CA
    Stevan Pearce, NM                      Vice Ranking Member
    Glenn Thompson, PA                   Alan S. Lowenthal, CA
    Paul A. Gosar, AZ                    Donald S. Beyer, Jr., VA
    Raul R. Labrador, ID                 Norma J. Torres, CA
    Scott R. Tipton, CO                  Ruben Gallego, AZ
    Doug LaMalfa, CA                     Colleen Hanabusa, HI
    Jeff Denham, CA                      Nanette Diaz Barragan, CA
    Paul Cook, CA                        Darren Soto, FL
    Bruce Westerman, AR                  A. Donald McEachin, VA
    Garret Graves, LA                    Anthony G. Brown, MD
    Jody B. Hice, GA                     Wm. Lacy Clay, MO
    Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen, AS    Jimmy Gomez, CA
    Daniel Webster, FL
    Jack Bergman, MI
    Liz Cheney, WY
    Mike Johnson, LA
    Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR
    Greg Gianforte, MT
    John R. Curtis, UT

                          Cody Stewart, Chief of Staff
                          Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
                    David Watkins, Democratic Staff Director

                                    ------

                                    CONTENTS

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

    Hearing held on Tuesday, March 6, 2018...........................     1

    Statement of Members:
        Bishop, Hon. Rob, a Representative in Congress from the State
          of Utah....................................................     1
            Prepared statement of....................................     2
        Grijalva, Hon. Raul M., a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Arizona...........................................     3
            Prepared statement of....................................     3

    Statement of Witnesses:
        Guertin, Steve, Deputy Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
          Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC...    30
            Prepared statement of Mr. Guertin and Mr. Smith, U.S.
              Department of the Interior.............................    71
        Iobst, Steve, National Park Conservation Association,
          National Park Service, Retired, Former Chief of Facility
          Management for Yellowstone National Park, Driggs, Idaho....    31
            Prepared statement of....................................    33
        Puskar, Dan, Executive Director, Public Lands Alliance,
          Silver Spring, Maryland....................................    38
            Prepared statement of....................................    39
        Rano, Jason, Vice President, Government Relations, National
          Park Foundation, Washington, DC............................    43
            Prepared statement of....................................    44
        Smith, P. Daniel, Deputy Director, National Park Service,
          U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC............     5
            Prepared statement of Mr. Smith and Mr. Guertin, U.S.
              Department of the Interior.............................    71
            Questions submitted for the record.......................     6

    Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:
        List of documents submitted for the record retained in the
          Committee's official files.................................    73
        U.S. Department of the Interior, prepared statement of Mr.
          Guertin and Mr. Smith......................................    71

       OVERSIGHT HEARING ON EXPLORING INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS TO REDUCE THE
                DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR'S MAINTENANCE BACKLOG

                                  ----------

                             Tuesday, March 6, 2018

                         U.S. House of Representatives

                         Committee on Natural Resources

                                 Washington, DC

                                  ----------

        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., in
    room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Rob Bishop
    [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
        Present: Representatives Bishop, Lamborn, McClintock,
    Thompson, LaMalfa, Westerman, Hice, Bergman, Curtis; Grijalva,
    Bordallo, Costa, Sablan, Beyer, Torres, Hanabusa, Barragan,
    Soto, and McEachin.
        The Chairman. All right. We welcome all of you here today
    for this particular Full Committee hearing. It is a significant
    issue, and that is why we are doing it at the Committee level.
        We are here today to hear testimony on exploring innovative
    solutions to reduce the Department of the Interior's
    maintenance backlog--that is the official title.
        Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at
    the hearing are limited to the Chairman, the Ranking Minority
    Member, and the Vice Chair. This will allow us time to actually
    get to our witnesses sooner, I hope.
        Therefore, I am going to ask unanimous consent that all
    other Members' opening statements be made part of the hearing
    record, if they are submitted to the Subcommittee on Federal
    Lands Clerk by 5:00 p.m. today.
        Without objection, that is so ordered.
        Let me recognize myself for a very brief statement. I will
    put a longer opening in later on. It is a very brief statement.

    STATEMENT OF THE HON. ROB BISHOP, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
                         FROM THE STATE OF UTAH

        The Chairman. We have problems. This Committee is hearing
    testimony because the Department of the Interior manages over
    500 million acres of surface land. That is a huge amount. That
    is one-fifth of the land mass of the United States. We have
    Parks, we have Forest Service, we have Fish and Wildlife, we
    have BOR, all of whom have some kind of backlog in the
    maintenance that we have.
        About a decade ago, we tried to just throw money at the
    situation, a big pile of money that went to the Interior
    Department, most of which was mismanaged, but it did not solve
    the problem. There has to be some kind of innovative and
    creative solution to actually solve the problem.
        We are not going to be talking necessarily about the
    solutions today; that is going to be for next week. Today, we
    are going to explore the depth of the problem and find out
    where we are going, so we can then look at solutions. These are
    important and these are specific.
        Because of that, let me reserve any other comments for
    writing or for later.

        [The prepared statement of Mr. Bishop follows:]
       Prepared Statement of the Hon. Rob Bishop, Chairman, Committee on
                               Natural Resources
        The Committee meets this morning to hear testimony on the
    Department of the Interior's maintenance backlog and innovative ways to
    finance and implement needed improvements with greater efficiency and
    effectiveness.
        In total, the Department of the Interior manages more than 500
    million acres of surface land, or about one-fifth of the land in the
    United States. The Department's three major land management agencies,
    the National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, and Bureau of
    Land Management, maintain tens of thousands of diverse assets,
    including roads, bridges, buildings, and water management structures.
        As the Federal estate expands, existing infrastructure ages, and
    visitation increases, these agencies are increasingly unable to fulfill
    basic updates and repairs to keep these assets accessible and in safe,
    functioning order for the public. As a result, the Department's
    deferred maintenance backlog currently exceeds $16 billion.
        The National Park Service, which manages 417 diverse units covering
    more than 84 million acres, has an estimated backlog of $11.6 billion.
    Since 1999, 8,000 buildings and 2,000 miles of roads have been added to
    National Park Service infrastructure portfolio. The number of units
    that the National Park Service manages has grown from 390 in 2006 to
    417 today.
        The Fish and Wildlife Service, which manages more than 560 National
    Wildlife Refuges and thousands of small wetlands and other special
    management areas, has an estimated deferred maintenance backlog of $1.4
    billion.
        The Bureau of Land Management, which manages more than 245 million
    surface acres, has an estimated deferred maintenance backlog of $810
    million, which represents a 65 percent increase over the past decade.
        These figures represent serious deficiencies in the Department's
    ability to prioritize and manage our sprawling Federal estate. There is
    no question that decades of misplaced priorities in Congress and the
    executive have placed our Federal land management agencies in this
    position. Today, our objective is to better understand how we got here
    from both funding and management standpoints, and to chart a pragmatic
    path forward for the Department to carry out its management
    responsibilities with greater efficiency and effectiveness.
        The President's Department of the Interior budget proposal for
    Fiscal Year 2019 put forward innovative ideas toward achieving this
    end, including the establishment of a Public Lands Infrastructure Fund.
    The proposal envisions using targeted revenue increases from Federal
    energy leases to provide a more stable funding source dedicated to the
    maintenance backlog. The Fund will be capped at $18 billion in total
    possible expenditures, and is designed to promote significant
    improvements to the country's most noticeable and frequently visited
    facilities.
        I want to thank Secretary Zinke and the Department's leadership for
    their commitment to expanding public access to public lands and
    improving management of existing assets for the benefit of all
    Americans. Prioritizing our ballooning maintenance backlog is central
    to this effort. It is my hope that we can develop solutions on a
    bipartisan basis and move them expeditiously through Congress.
        I look forward to today's discussion and I now yield to the Ranking
    Member for his opening statement.

                                     ______

        The Chairman. I will yield to the Ranking Minority Member
    if he has some kind of statement to make.

      STATEMENT OF THE HON. RAUL M. GRIJALVA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                   CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA

        Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, too, have a
    lengthy statement that I will submit for the record so that we
    can get testimony from the witnesses.
        We have been grappling with this issue since I have been on
    this Committee, the issue of deferred maintenance on our parks
    and public lands. Over the last decade and a half, we have
    talked and put forward spending proposals and programs to
    leverage partnerships, private donations, and volunteers.
        But the amount of deferred maintenance continues to grow or
    flatline, at best. Two years ago, the National Park Service
    celebrated its Centennial Anniversary, and all eyes were
    focused on our parks and public lands. We had a unique
    opportunity to make a stronger investment in their future.
    Unfortunately, I don't believe we seized that moment to right
    the ship and begin a pragmatic process.
        I would like to acknowledge Chairman Bishop's hard work to
    get his vision of the National Park Service Centennial enacted
    into law. That bill creates new revenue streams and establishes
    new programs to leverage private investments to support our
    national parks. These are important tools that we should
    continue to support, although they are not enough to buy down
    deferred maintenance across the entire system. The Trump
    administration's proposed Public Lands Infrastructure Fund is
    not the answer, either.
        While I am glad to see an interest in finding money to
    support our public lands, the proposal in the budget is
    backwards. Our most treasured places now depend on the fortune
    of the energy industry for their success and their failure:
    that is putting things backwards. We should not have to expand
    drilling in the Arctic, off the coast of Florida, or anywhere
    else to serve our parks. It is a false choice that the American
    public does not support.
        And the list goes on. We have to address, and my colleagues
    in the Majority have to address, the backlog maintenance
    amounts. We don't have to risk destroying our parks in order to
    save them.
        With that, Mr. Chairman, I will submit the rest for the
    record. Thank you and I yield back.

        [The prepared statement of Mr. Grijalva follows:]
       Prepared Statement of the Hon. Raul M. Grijalva, Ranking Member,
                         Committee on Natural Resources
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Congress has been grappling with strategies to address the issue of
    deferred maintenance on our parks and public lands the entire time I've
    served on this Committee. Over the last decade and a half, we have
    talked and talked, put forward spending proposals, and even enacted new
    programs to leverage partnerships, private donations and volunteers,
    but the amount of deferred maintenance continues to grow, or flatline
    at best.
        Just 2 years ago, the National Park Service celebrated its
    Centennial Anniversary. All eyes were focused on our parks and public
    lands, and we had a unique opportunity to make a strong investment in
    their future. Unfortunately, we were not able to seize that moment and
    right the ship.
        I would like to acknowledge Chairman Bishop's hard work to get his
    version of the National Park Service Centennial enacted into law. That
    bill created some new revenue streams and established new programs
    designed to leverage private investments to support our national parks.
    These are important tools that we should continue support, but they are
    not enough to buy down deferred maintenance across the entire system.
        The Trump administration's proposed Public Lands Infrastructure
    Fund is not the answer either.
        While I am glad to see an interest in finding money to support our
    public lands, the proposal in the budget is backwards. Our most
    treasured places should not have to depend on the fortune of the energy
    industry for their success and failure. We don't have to expand
    drilling in the Arctic, off the coast of Florida, or anywhere else to
    save our parks. That is a false choice that the American public does
    not support.
        There are 40 coastal units of the National Park System already at
    risk of flooding thanks to the fossil fuels we have already burned; my
    Republican colleagues now tell us that the only way to address the
    maintenance backlog is to burn more fossil fuels, faster, and to
    dramatically increase the risk of damage from an oil spill to these NPS
    units. In other words, the Republican plan to address backlogged
    maintenance amounts to: we have to risk destroying our parks to save
    them.
        A need for consistent funding has been a dominant theme of all our
    conversations on this subject over the years; deferred maintenance will
    continue to grow if we do not head it off with consistent and dedicated
    funding. Any serious attempt to reduce deferred maintenance must be
    combined with a solid investment strategy from Congress. Our parks and
    public lands belong to all Americans, and it is our responsibility as
    their representatives to come up with a plan to ensure another 100
    years of success.
        Over half of the more than $11 billion of deferred maintenance at
    national parks is for roads, bridges, and transportation. This is
    American infrastructure that deserves a real investment strategy.
    Unfortunately, Republicans are more interested in undermining bedrock
    environmental laws than putting forward a legitimate infrastructure
    proposal.
        A real infrastructure plan would identify investment opportunities,
    not slash agency budgets and push the burden of deferred maintenance
    onto the public by dramatically increasing entrance fees at iconic
    national parks. We can't expect shrinking or flatlined budgets to
    sustain America's Best Idea.

        With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

                                     ______

        The Chairman. Thank you. And I appreciate your comments. I
    guess that is why you are going to withdraw your LWCF bill,
    aren't you?
        OK. Let me introduce the guests that we have, the witnesses
    for today.
        First of all, Mr. P. Daniel Smith, who is the Deputy
    Director of the National Park Service with the Department of
    the Interior.
        Thank you for joining us here today.
        Mr. Steve Guertin, who is the Deputy Director of the U.S.
    Fish and Wildlife Service, once again, from DOI.
        Thank you for coming up to the Hill.
        Mr. Steve Iobst----
        Mr. Iobst. Iobst.
        The Chairman. Iobst, thanks, who is with the National Park
    Conservation Association, retired from the Park Service.
        Thank you for being here, as well.
        Mr. Dan Puskar.
        Mr. Puskar. Puskar.
        The Chairman. Puskar. You guys are going to have to put
    some emphasis lines on here.
        [Laughter.]
        The Chairman. OK. Mr. Smith--you are all Smith from here on
    out.
        [Laughter.]
        The Chairman. He is the Executive Director for the Public
    Lands Alliance. Thank you.
        And Mr. Jason Rano. I got one right? One out of four isn't
    bad. The Vice President, Government Relations, for the National
    Park Foundation here in Washington, DC.
        We thank you all. I am going to remind the witnesses that
    your written testimony is part of the record. The oral
    testimony is limited to 5 minutes. Those microphones have to be
    turned on themselves. You have a timer in front of you--green
    is OK, yellow means you better talk real fast because I will
    cut you off at 5 minutes. Not to be rude, but that is the only
    perk of this office I have.
        [Laughter.]
        The Chairman. So, I will gavel you down when 5 minutes is
    done.
        With that, the Chair is recognizing Mr. Smith first for
    your 5 minutes. And thank you very much for being here again.

     STATEMENT OF P. DANIEL SMITH, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, NATIONAL PARK
        SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, WASHINGTON, DC

        Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
    Grijalva, and members of the Committee. Thank you for the
    opportunity to present the Department of the Interior's views
    on potential solutions to reducing the deferred maintenance
    backlog. I would like to submit our full statement for the
    record, and summarize the National Park Service's views.
        I am P. Daniel Smith, Deputy Director of the National Park
    Service. I have served with the National Park Service in a
    variety of capacities, most recently as superintendent of
    Colonial National Historical Park from 2004 to 2015. Before
    that, I served as Special Assistant to the National Park
    Service Director, and Assistant Director for Legislative and
    Congressional Affairs.
        My colleague, Steve Guertin, Deputy Director of the Fish
    and Wildlife Service, will speak on behalf of his bureau.
        Since Secretary Zinke's confirmation, tackling the deferred
    maintenance backlog has been a top priority. The Department
    manages roughly 500 million acres of land and possesses an
    infrastructure asset portfolio valued at over $300 billion.
    Roads, bridges, trails, water systems, visitor centers,
    bathrooms, campgrounds, and drinking fountains all are part of
    this critical framework. After years of increased visitation
    and use, aging facilities and other vital structures are in
    urgent need of repair.
        The Department has a total of about $16 billion worth of
    deferred maintenance. Of that amount, the National Park Service
    has the largest share: $11.6 billion in 2017. Here are some
    examples:

        Glacier National Park in Montana has more than $154 million
    in maintenance needs, including projects to repair bridges and
    culverts, roads, and employee housing.
        Point Reyes National Seashore in California has roughly $99
    million in deferred maintenance, including projects such as the
    historic platform bridge, built in 1927, $1.6 million is needed
    for this project, alone.
        Colonial Parkway, part of Colonial National Historical
    Park, which I know very well, in Tidewater, Virginia, was
    designed in the 1930s to provide a scenic route between
    historic Jamestown, Yorktown, and Williamsburg. Today, the
    parkway is an important commuter route, carrying between 1.9
    and 2.2 million vehicles and large tour buses each year. The
    total cost to repair the parkway is $270 million.
        Appropriated funds are currently the primary source of
    funding for deferred maintenance. However, we know that we
    cannot rely on appropriated dollars alone to address this
    problem, so we are looking at multiple avenues for making
    additional funds available through other means.
        For example, the Department's Fiscal Year 2019 budget
    proposes to permanently authorize the Federal Lands Recreation
    Enhancement Act, which expires in September of 2019. New
    proposals, including the proposed Public Lands Infrastructure
    Fund outlined in the President's 2019 Budget, would address
    repairs and improvements in national parks, national wildlife
    refuges, and Bureau of Indian Education schools.
        The Administration's proposal would set aside a portion of
    the unallocated Federal energy revenues for infrastructure
    needs. This bold investment would significantly improve the
    Nation's most visible and visited public facilities that
    support a multi-billion-dollar outdoor recreation economy.
        We greatly appreciate the efforts of this Committee and
    your colleagues, who have sought to craft real solutions to our
    maintenance backlog. We look forward to continuing
    collaborative efforts that preserve and maintain our national
    treasures.
        Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statements. I will be
    pleased to answer any questions.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Smith and Mr. Guertin, U.S.
    Department of the Interior appears on page 71.]

                                    ------

       Questions Submitted for the Record to Mr. P. Daniel Smith, Deputy
       Director, National Parks Service, U.S. Department of the Interior
                       Questions Submitted by Rep. Bishop
        Question 1. How much has the National Park Service spent on
    deferred maintenance each year for the past 3 fiscal years (combining
    all Federal fund sources)?

        Answer. The NPS spent about $1 billion per year on all NPS
    maintenance including deferred maintenance (DM), cyclic maintenance,
    and day-to-day maintenance activities, in each fiscal year between 2006
    and 2015. The NPS measures progress on reducing the deferred
    maintenance backlog not by dollars spent on projects, but by closed
    work orders. The table below shows the dollar value of DM work
    accomplished through DM work orders that are closed, as recorded in our
    Facility Management Software System and reported in the Department of
    the Interior Annual Performance Plan and Report (APP&R). This report
    can be viewed online at https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/
    uploads/doi_appr_-_final.pdf. Below are the totals for the last 3
    fiscal years of retired DM work orders:

        Value of NPS deferred maintenance work orders closed.1,2

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
              2015                     2016                    2017
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
            $508,000,000             $854,000,000            $664,000,000
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    1 Amounts reflect DM that was retired and removed from the NPS DM
      backlog, but do not reflect the net change in backlog, due to new
      amounts of DM work orders being added.

    2 DM work orders can exist as a component of any project regardless of
      fund source, so this reflects projects from all sources of Federal
      funds.

                      Questions Submitted by Rep. Gallego
         fully implementing the nps four-tier fee structure instead of
                             unmanageable fee hikes

        Question 1. The Administration proposed nearly tripling entrance
    fees in a handful of parks during peak season instead of fully
    implementing the existing fee structure the park service has.

        Currently, 80 percent of fees collected at parks stay in the park
    where it is collected and 20 percent goes to a fund for other parks; 55
    percent of this 80 percent of in-park fees collected goes to fund
    deferred maintenance projects. Fees increases should be a part of the
    conversation, but as part of a methodical and thoughtful structure that
    both benefits the parks and retains the accessibility of parks to all
    visitors. It is striking that this structure already exists within the
    park service but has not yet been fully implemented. Before we do
    something drastic, shouldn't we implement the well-thought-out,
    demographically-informed plan we have in place?

        Answer. After carefully considering the public comments provided on
    the 2017 fee proposal, the NPS revised its proposal and developed a
    balanced plan that implements modest increases at the 117 fee-charging
    parks as opposed to larger increases proposed for 17 highly visited
    national parks. As part of this plan, the NPS will also fully implement
    the four-tier existing fee structure by 2020.

        Question 2. Please detail how the four-tier structure is designed
    to work, and what factors it considers.

        Answer. The four-tier structure groups units of the National Park
    System based on legislative designation and park attributes and sets
    fee rates to provide pricing consistency within each particular tier.
    There are four price points within each tier: per person, per vehicle,
    per motorcycle, and per park specific annual pass. The per vehicle rate
    is twice the per person rate and the park specific annual pass is twice
    the per vehicle rate. The motorcycle rate falls between the per person
    and per vehicle rate.

        Question 3. How much revenue would be generated for deferred
    maintenance if all parks participating in the four-tier structure
    charged what is permissible under the existing regime?

        Answer. We estimate that bringing all non-conforming parks into
    alignment with the four-tier structure would generate approximately
    $7.7 million in additional revenue. A little over half (55 percent) of
    that amount would be required to be spent on deferred maintenance.

                     Questions Submitted by Rep. Westerman
        Question 1. Mr. Smith, the NPS FY 2017 report \1\ on deferred
    maintenance lists the Arkansas total deferred maintenance at $37.6
    million. Could you please provide a comprehensive breakdown of this
    total, including a delineation between structural and transportation
    deferred maintenance across all park units?
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ https: / /www.nps.gov/subjects/plandesignconstruct/upload/FY17-
    NPS-Deferred-Maintenance-by-State-and-Park_508.pdf.

        Answer. Attachment #1 contains two tables showing the asset count
    and deferred maintenance (DM), respectively, by asset category for each
    of the seven national park units in Arkansas as of the end of Fiscal
    Year 2017. The bottom row in each table provides a percentage breakout
    of Arkansas asset counts and DM by asset category. There are notes
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    below the tables providing further detail on several asset categories.

        Question 2. Additionally, for each individual park unit listed in
    the report, could you please provide the following statistics:

        2a. Visitation numbers for each of the past 5 years

        2b. Overnight stays for each of the past 5 years

        2c. Current entrance fee

        2d. Site net revenue over the past 5 years
        2e.  Total number of concession contracts, historic leasing
    contracts, and any other third-party use contracts at each site

        2f. Total acreage of each site

        2g. Number of structures at each site

        Answer. Visitation numbers, overnight stays, total acreage, and a
    variety of other statistics are available for all NPS units separately
    or grouped by state can be viewed online at: https://irma.nps.gov/
    Stats/Reports/National. The information to your specific items are
    found in either the charts below or attachments to this question for
    the record.

        The following charts include the statistics regarding sub-questions
    a-g:

        a. Visitation numbers for each of the past 5 years

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         2013         2014         2015         2016         2017
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Arkansas Post National Memorial................       36,420       30,860       38,702       34,405       36,079
    Buffalo National River.........................    1,125,227    1,357,057    1,463,304    1,785,359    1,471,330
    Fort Smith National Historic Site..............       69,584       88,790      111,469      163,636      141,914
    Hot Springs National Park......................    1,325,719    1,424,484    1,418,162    1,544,300    1,561,616
    Little Rock Central High School National             114,144      115,908      125,956      129,540      170,413
     Historic Site.................................
    Pea Ridge National Military Park...............       95,251      104,686      114,578      119,490      121,163
    President William Jefferson Clinton Birthplace         9,838       11,113       10,463       10,468       10,177
     Home National Historic Site...................
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        b. Overnight stays for each of the past 5 years

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         2013         2014         2015         2016         2017
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Arkansas Post National Memorial................            0            0            0            0            0
    Buffalo National River.........................       66,578       92,414      101,545       98,413      105,334
    Fort Smith National Historic Site..............            0            0            0            0            0
    Hot Springs National Park......................       15,100       19,606       24,148       24,021       24,010
    Little Rock Central High School National                   0            0            0            0            0
     Historic Site.................................
    Pea Ridge National Military Park...............            0            0            0            0            0
    President William Jefferson Clinton Birthplace             0            0            0            0            0
     Home National Historic Site...................
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        c. Current entrance fees

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Fee
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Arkansas Post National Memorial...........  $0
    Buffalo National River....................  $0
    Fort Smith National Historic Site.........  $7 per person (age 16 and
                                                 above) to view exhibits
    Hot Springs National Park.................  $0
    Little Rock Central High School National    $0
     Historic Site.
    Pea Ridge National Military Park..........  $15 per vehicle, $10 per
                                                 motorcycle
    President William Jefferson Clinton         $0
     Birthplace Home National Historic Site.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        d. Site net revenue for the past 5 years for the two Arkansas sites
    which collect fees

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            FY17         FY16         FY15         FY14         FY13       Average
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Fort Smith National Historic Site.      $64,717      $62,457      $56,909      $50,489      $53,305      $57,575
    Pea Ridge National Military Park..      $72,509      $81,778      $73,957      $74,361      $71,280      $74,777
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        e. Information on concession contracts, historic leasing contracts,
    and any other third-party use contracts at each site is included in
    Attachment #2.

        f. Total acreage of each site

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Acres
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Arkansas Post National Memorial......................             663.91
    Buffalo National River...............................          91,807.04
    Fort Smith National Historic Site....................              37.96
    Hot Springs National Park............................           4,998.10
    Little Rock Central High School National Historic                   2.22
     Site................................................
    Pea Ridge National Military Park.....................           4,278.75
    President William Jefferson Clinton Birthplace Home                 0.68
     National Historic Site..............................
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        g. Number of structures at each site

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Structures
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Arkansas Post National Memorial......................                 11
    Buffalo National River...............................                225
    Fort Smith National Historic Site....................                  4
    Hot Springs National Park............................                 65
    Little Rock Central High School National Historic                      2
     Site................................................
    Pea Ridge National Military Park.....................                 12
    President William Jefferson Clinton Birthplace Home                    3
     National Historic Site..............................
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Question 3. Mr. Smith, as you know, the National Park Service
    comprises only a portion of the deferred maintenance at the Department
    of the Interior. Could you please provide me a breakdown, much like the
    aforementioned report, of each of the deferred maintenance totals at
    each of the different Federal lands units within Arkansas? I'm eager to
    see the total number for my state, and the breakdown between the
    different land management agencies.

        Answer. For Fiscal Year 2017, the following information is reported
    for the bureaus within the Department of the Interior:

         there is no Bureau of Land Management deferred maintenance
                in Arkansas;

         the total deferred maintenance for NPS sites in Arkansas
                is $37,617,654;

         the total deferred maintenance for U.S. Fish and Wildlife
                Service National Wildlife Refuges and National Fish
                Hatcheries is $28,402,983; and

         for information about deferred maintenance on lands
                managed by the U.S. Forest Service, we defer to the U.S.
                Department of Agriculture.

        Question 4. Finally, can you provide detailed statistics on the
    success of the Historic Leasing Contracts at Hot Springs National Park,
    and other parks utilizing those contracts around the country? Have they
    reduced the overall maintenance backlog at their respective parks, and
    how much do each of those contracts contribute to the revenue of each
    individual park unit?

        Answer. Currently, five buildings are leased at Hot Springs
    National Park. The park does not have statistics that would gauge the
    success of those leases in reducing the maintenance backlog, but the
    program has been successful in stabilizing, restoring, and utilizing
    the majority of structures in the park.

        Servicewide, the NPS has approximately 350 facilities under lease
    agreements, and last year, over $9.3 million in revenue was generated
    through leasing. More information on the Servicewide leasing program
    may be found in Attachment #3, which is a letter sent to the Senate
    Appropriations Committee on March 29, 2018, containing a list of the
    currently leased buildings broken down by State, park, and facility
    name.

                     Questions Submitted by Rep. Don Young
        Question 1. Historic leasing is a tool that can be used to lease
    structures to qualified non-Federal parties for a variety of uses,
    including for commercial, educational, and residential purposes. Under
    those leases, the lessee has the duty to restore, rehabilitate and
    maintain the buildings. Do you agree that NPS should be using this tool
    aggressively to reduce the maintenance backlog and to prevent
    structures from coming onto the backlog in the future?
        Answer. The NPS authority to lease historic structures is a
    valuable tool to generate funding that can help reduce the maintenance
    backlog and to provide the preventive and corrective maintenance needed
    to avoid adding to the backlog. We are actively using this authority as
    allowed by our laws, regulations, and policies.

        Question 2. There is an old NPS attitude that the Service should
    not use leases or similar tools for any structure in a national park
    because it results in less than total control by the local park staff.
    Do you ascribe to that attitude?

        Answer. The NPS supports the use of the leasing authority. There
    are cases where the NPS is unable to use this authority due to legal or
    financial viability reasons, however the NPS does not avoid its use
    because of any perceived loss of control.

        Question 3. What is NPS doing to explore the use of historic
    leasing throughout the Park System? How many historic leases have been
    issued by NPS and for what parks and what uses?

        Answer. We currently have approximately 350 facilities under lease
    agreements throughout the National Park System and we continue to
    identify new potential facilities on an ongoing basis. By law, a park
    has to determine, among other things, that a structure is not needed
    for park purposes before it can be offered for lease. Attachment #3 is
    a letter sent to the Senate Appropriations Committee on March 29, 2018,
    which contains a list of the currently leased buildings broken down by
    State, park, and the facility name.

        Question 4. Are there any units of the National Park System where
    historic leasing is specifically prohibited or ruled out as an option
    by any rules, policies, or planning documents? If so, what is the basis
    for that action by NPS?

        Answer. There are no units of the NPS that specifically prohibit or
    rule out the option of leasing. However, by law (54 U.S.C. 102102) and
    regulation (36 CFR 18) the NPS is prohibited from entering into a lease
    where the proposed activities are subject to authorization through a
    concession contract, commercial use authorization, or similar
    instrument.

                       Questions Submitted by Rep. Sablan
        Question 1. In the Northern Marianas, American Memorial Park was
    badly damaged by Typhoon Soudelor in August 2015. It has been over 2
    years and recovery work is still underway. Ongoing issues include
    debris removal, repair of the riprap at the marina, and replanting of
    trees that were uprooted by the storm. Can you provide a list of items
    still requiring repair/replacement and an action timeline?

        Answer. Work to restore facilities and grounds of American Memorial
    Park is ongoing. Over $500,000 was expended in the first 18 months
    after the storm to accomplish the most urgent repairs including
    replacing lighting and walkways. Additional projects have been
    identified and are being reviewed for funding in future fiscal years.
    The American Memorial Park staff are continuing to clean up and dispose
    of the remaining vegetative debris. The Saipan Mayor's office has been
    providing support to the park to rehabilitate the area north of the
    pathway to Micro Beach. The NPS is very appreciative of the Mayor's
    continued support and assistance as the park continues to recover from
    the typhoon.

        Typhoon-related repair/replacement items in progress and identified
    for American Memorial Park include:

         Replace Landscape Lighting Damaged by Typhoon Soudelor:
                New lights will be installed by park staff in early fall
                2018.

         Replace Rusted Culvert & Concrete Walkway at Reconstructed
                Wetland with Bridge: Design underway, construction contract
                to be awarded in early 2019.

         Rehabilitate Walkway & Seating Area at Amphitheater to
                Improve Visitor Experience & Safety: Design underway.

         Resurface Tennis Court Play Surface.

         Install Roll-out pavers on unpaved Access Roads.

         Replace Four Flagpoles at the Court of Honor.

         Install Asphaltic Concrete Pavement on Micro Beach Loop
                Road.

         Repair Shoreline Barriers at Smiling Cove & Outer Cove.

         Rehabilitate/Seal Leaks in Concrete Structure at
                Administrative Offices.

         Revegetate Area North of Micro Beach Damaged by Typhoon
                Soudelor.

        Question 2. At my request, and under P.L. 113-291, the Park Service
    is undergoing a study of the unique natural and cultural resources of
    the island on Rota in the Northern Marianas to determine the national
    significance of the area and the suitability and feasibility of
    designating the area as a unit of the National Park System. Public
    Meetings on Rota were held in February of last year. Can you provide an
    update on the progress of the study and a timeline for its conclusion?

        Answer. The study team is preparing preliminary findings (resource
    significance, suitability, feasibility, and need for NPS management)
    for review by NPS. After this review, we will share the preliminary
    findings and any alternatives by NPS leadership, with local leadership
    and the people of Rota. After that, the study will be finalized, and
    then transmitted to Congress. We expect this process to take at least
    another year and a half.

                       Questions Submitted by Rep. Costa
        Question 1. In 2017, Secretary Zinke indicated that the Department
    of the Interior (Department) would study allowing private enterprise to
    expand their current management of certain campgrounds throughout the
    National Parks System (NPS). Has the Department considered or modeled
    the impacts of the additional contract fees and/or additional revenues
    that could be gained through this modification of policy and how this
    might help address the issue of maintenance backlog?

        Answer. Currently, analysis of campground management and decisions
    about contracting with concessioners for additional campground
    operations are made at the park level. NPS commercial services experts
    help individual parks determine whether converting an NPS-operated
    campground to a concessioner-operated campground would improve the
    facilities, financial sustainability, visitor experiences, etc.
    National Park System units that have recently converted NPS-operated
    campgrounds to concessioner-operated facilities include Denali National
    Park, Everglades National Park, and Olympic National Park.

        Question 2. Secretary Zinke proposed increasing fees considerably
    at 17 highly visited national parks, including Yosemite National Park,
    during peak visitor seasons. There was an overwhelming outcry from the
    public opposing the proposed fee increases. Can you tell us the status
    of the analysis of those public comments and the Administration's next
    steps?

        Answer. After carefully considering the public comments provided on
    the 2017 fee proposal, the NPS revised its proposal and developed a
    balanced plan that implements modest increases at the 117 fee-charging
    parks as opposed to larger increases proposed for 17 highly visited
    national parks. As part of this plan, the NPS will also fully implement
    the four-tier existing fee structure by 2020.

                     Questions Submitted by Rep. McClintock
        Question 1. At its current capacity, how much annual funding could
    the National Park Service expend toward the completion of deferred
    maintenance projects?

        Answer. The NPS Denver Service Center (DSC) provides project
    management, quality assurance, compliance, permitting, and technical
    support services for projects, which include deferred maintenance on
    existing facilities, historic structures, and infrastructure systems.
    In Fiscal Year 2017, the Design and Construction division managed 281
    projects worth more than $1.7 billion, which is an indicator of NPS
    capacity to address maintenance needs under our current funding levels.

        For transportation projects that involve roads, bridges, tunnels,
    etc., the NPS utilizes a 1983 Interagency Agreement with the Federal
    Highway Administration (FHWA) to provide technical engineering services
    and project construction awards, and construction management through
    the Federal Lands Highway Program. Consequently, the NPS capacity to
    manage these projects also relies on that of the FHWA.

        Question 2. With substantially more funding available through the
    Infrastructure Fund, how long would it take the park service to ramp up
    its project planning and operations capacity to take on more deferred
    maintenance projects?

        Answer. To implement the Fund, the NPS would move quickly to
    leverage resources and expertise Department-wide to speed up
    construction capabilities. The number and type of FTE or contracted
    staff that would be needed to accomplish deferred maintenance projects
    would depend on the amount of additional funding made available, but
    the NPS would mobilize to strengthen short-term capacity in
    procurement, project planning and project management. Several projects
    within the NPS 5-year plans could be accelerated if additional funds
    are available and the NPS is working to develop a longer list of shovel
    ready projects should the Fund be enacted. Typical recurring
    maintenance projects accomplished with 1-year funds can take up to a
    year to complete while larger projects through multi or no year fund
    sources can take up to 4 or more years to complete. Should legislation
    become law, the Park Service is confident that it can expend the
    increased resources in an efficient and capable manner to help resolve
    our maintenance backlog.

        Question 3. Klondike Gold Rush National Historical Park in Skagway,
    Alaska is a successful example of the Historic Leasing Program.
    Historic buildings are leased to local businesses that provide visitor
    services. What steps can be taken to expand this revenue generating
    program to provide additional funding for the National Park Service
    that could be put to address the deferred maintenance backlog?

        Answer. Attachment #3 is a letter to the Senate Appropriations
    Committee dated March 29, 2018, which discusses regulatory impediments
    to expanded use of leasing authority.

        Question 4. One-half ofthe NPS maintenance backlog is paved roads,
    bridges, and tunnels (50.8 percent according to latest FY 2017 NPS
    report). Considering that some National Park Service owned parkways,
    such as George Washington Memorial Parkway, are essentially busy
    commuter highways, do you believe that tolling could play a role in
    generating funds to repair these roads and bridges?

        Answer. The NPS does not currently have authority to levy tolls.
    Such authority would have to come from congressional action. A
    comprehensive analysis including mission, policy, cultural resource
    impacts, technology alternatives, staffing, and financial
    sustainability would be required to determine whether tolling would be
    a cost effective way to generate repair funds.

        Question 5. Mr. Smith, NPS' contracting authority was expanded
    under recent law, which authorizes management contracts rather than the
    traditional concession contracting process in certain situations. We
    have heard concerns that such a move would be outside NPS' expertise,
    could expose the Federal Government to additional financial risk, and
    could exacerbate the current NPS capital funding problems.

        Answer. The Visitor Experience Improvements Authority (VEIA),
    enacted in 2016 as part of the National Park Service Centennial Act
    (P.L. 114-289), provides the Secretary with additional flexibility to
    expand, modernize and improve commercial services contracts for the
    operation and expansion of commercial visitor facilities and visitor
    services programs in units of the national park system. To the extent
    that there are risks in using the VEIA authority, the risks are
    minimized by the fact that this authority is time-limited through 2023;
    it can only be used for contracts lasting 10 years or less; it cannot
    be used for contracts that have a preferential right of renewal or
    contracts for outfitter and guide services; and it will not provide any
    leasehold surrender interest or other compensation to the contractor at
    the termination of a VEIA contract. In addition, NPS has hired a
    consultant with expertise in this field to assist in the development
    and implementation of sound VEIA business models that would not create
    undue financial risks. The NPS intends to use the VEIA authority, as
    appropriate, in addition to continuing to use the concession authority
    provided by the Concessions Management Improvement Act of 1998 to
    provide the greatest benefits to the parks and visitors.

        Question 6. Are you aware of ongoing work within NPS to move away
    from concession contracts?

        Answer. The NPS is committed to using the range of authorities it
    has to provide the best visitor services possible. Using VEIA, along
    with traditional concession contracts, commercial use authorizations,
    and leasing, will allow the NPS to find the right tool to provide the
    best visitor experience.

        Question 7. What is your position on a transition from concession
    contracts to the use of management contracts?

        Answer. At this time, the NPS is developing operating procedures
    and regulations for VEIA and has not yet began to utilizing these types
    of contracts. However, we believe that management contracts have the
    potential to greatly benefit the NPS by increasing revenues, increasing
    competition for contracts, improving the quality of commercial services
    and improving customer service and satisfaction.

                 Additional Information Provided for the Record
        Several questions were asked of Deputy Director Smith during the
    hearing that required follow-up information. That information is
    provided below.
    Representative LaMalfa asked how many parks have had fires in the last
            15-20 years.

        Answer. Over the 20-year period of 1998-2017, 216 National Park
    Service (NPS) units have had at least one fire on lands within their
    park boundaries. This number includes both wildland fires and
    prescribed burns.

    Representative McClintock asked how much of the backlog maintenance
            cost is due to regulations.

        Answer. The current estimated $11.6 billion NPS maintenance backlog
    reflects the labor and material costs associated with maintenance work
    that has been deferred for at least 1 year. The costs for completing
    National Environmental Policy Act and National Historic Preservation
    Act (NEPA/NHPA) compliance, planning, design, construction management
    services, and construction contingency are not included in the $11.6
    billion figure. These costs are developed at the project formulation
    stage and applied on a project-by-project basis.

        The deferred maintenance backlog estimate also does not include
    non-deferred maintenance costs. Most projects, however, include both
    deferred and non-deferred maintenance components. Correcting code
    deficiencies is an example of a non-deferred maintenance activity. The
    activity does not relate to the failure to perform scheduled
    maintenance (resulting in a deferral), but relates to upgrades needed
    to meet evolving code compliance.

        As an example, at Yosemite National Park, the Fiscal Year 2018 Line
    Item Construction (LIC) project to rehabilitate the Wawona Wastewater
    Treatment Plant includes both deferred maintenance and code compliance
    components. Much of the work involves constructing new systems needed
    to prevent effluent discharge in the Merced River as the State will no
    longer permit such discharge. The project's total net construction
    amount is $18.286 million, of which 20 percent is deferred maintenance.
    After construction contingency and construction management services are
    included, the Fiscal Year 2018 LIC budget request is $21.578 million.

        As another example, at Mammoth Cave National Park, the Fiscal Year
    2018 LIC project to Reconstruct Unsafe Cave Trails has a net
    construction value of $11.775 million, of which 90 percent is deferred
    maintenance. The only non-deferred maintenance component relates to the
    addition of handrails, stairs, and ramps in some areas to enhance
    safety. After construction contingency and construction management
    services are included, the Fiscal Year 2018 LIC budget request is
    $13.894 million.

        The LIC program typically budgets 22 percent of the estimated net
    construction costs for compliance, and planning and design, which are
    ideally funded 1 to 2 years prior to the construction budget request.
    Because these costs are calculated for projects that combine deferred
    and non-deferred maintenance elements, we are not able to determine the
    portion of these costs that are associated only with the deferred
    maintenance components of NPS projects.

    Delegate Bordallo asked about a requirement regarding local hiring in
            the enabling legislation for the War in the Pacific National
            Historical Park.

        Answer. The requirement regarding local hiring is referenced in the
    Park's legislation and it directs the NPS to employ and train residents
    of Guam or of the Northern Mariana Islands to develop, maintain and
    administer the park. Delegate Bordallo was interested in what efforts
    the NPS has undertaken to meet this requirement in recruiting qualified
    Guam residents for vacancies at the War in the Pacific National
    Historical Park.

        Employing residents is integral to accomplishing the mission for
    War in the Pacific National Historical Park. Residents know the local
    cultures and languages, which is critical to developing appropriate
    education and outreach programs. They also know local experts with whom
    the park can partner to accomplish projects. Of the 24 War in the
    Pacific National Historical Park employees on Guam, 18, or 75 percent
    of the park's workforce, are Guam residents.

        The park has been very successful in using student-hiring
    authorities to recruit Guam's youth into the NPS and uses the Pathways
    program frequently, converting many student hires into permanent
    positions. Six employees (29 percent of the park's workforce) began
    their careers as student interns and are now permanent employees. The
    park also uses the Veterans' Recruitment Appointment hiring authority,
    and presently has five veterans on staff, all of whom are Guam
    residents.

        Although seasonal hiring authority is not used often, the park has
    hired local residents to help during the summer when education programs
    and other events are scheduled. The park has used temporary or term
    appointments to provide some flexibility in their staffing strategy for
    larger projects, such as facility repair or rehabilitation.

                                     *****

                                  Attachment 1
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                 Attachment 2
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                 Attachment 3
    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                                     March 29, 2018

    The Honorable Lisa Murkowski
    Chairman, Subcommittee on Interior,
      Environment, and Related Agencies
    Committee on Appropriations
    United States Senate
    Washington, DC 20510

        Dear Chairman Murkowski:

        This letter is in response to the Subcommittee's request to provide
    a report on the National Park Service's use of leasing authority for
    historic structures. Language contained in House Report 114-632
    accompanying the Department of the Interior, Environment and Related
    Agencies Appropriation Bill, 2017 (H.R. 5538) is included in the Joint
    Explanatory Statement that accompanied the Consolidated Appropriations
    Act, 2017. The language from House Report 114-632 is as follows:

            Leasing of Historic Buildings.--Leasing of historic park
            buildings has proven to be an effective public-private
            partnership that has brought private investment to the repair
            and maintenance of historic park resources. In previous
            Committee reports, the Committee has encouraged the Service to
            make expanded use of leasing authority. The Committee commends
            the Service for recent steps it has taken to increase the
            utilization of this tool, including establishing a leasing
            manager to oversee and expand the historic leasing program. The
            Committee renews its previous request that directs the Service
            to provide a report, within six months of enactment of this
            Act, detailing its progress toward expanding use of this
            authority. Included in this report should be (1) a list of
            structures the Service considers high-priority candidates for
            leasing, (2) a list of structures currently under a lease
            arrangement, (3) an estimate of the number of leases that have
            enabled private sector investments using the Service-
            administered historic tax credit, and (4) any statutory or
            regulatory impediments that now inhibit the enhanced use of
            leasing of historic structures.

        The National Park Service (NPS) has authority to lease historic and
    other buildings and associated property under the National Historic
    Preservation Act and the National Park Omnibus Management Act of 1998.
    The NPS continues to make progress toward increasing the number of
    public-private partnerships through leasing. In the last 18 months the
    NPS has executed a master residential lease at First State National
    Monument; a lease with Navajo Nation Hospitality Enterprises, a wholly
    owned subsidiary of the Navajo Nation, at Canyon De Chelly National
    Monument; and executed an Inter-Agency Agreement with the United States
    Forest Service to lease two buildings at Fort Vancouver National
    Historic Site.

        In addition, the NPS is currently preparing to enter into
    negotiations with a potential lessee for the Riis Beach Bathhouse at
    Gateway National Recreation Area; is working on an agreement with the
    Bureau of Indian Affairs to occupy one of the buildings at Fort
    Vancouver National Historic Site; and recently issued a request for
    proposal for the Maurice bathhouse at Hot Springs National Park. The
    leasing program staff is also continuing to develop formal training for
    NPS staff to expand capacity across the NPS to initiate and manage
    park-level leasing programs. As part of that effort, the NPS has
    integrated a leasing section into the annual Commercial Services
    Training for Superintendents curriculum.

        House Report 114-632 requested that the following information be
    included as part of this report:

         A list of structures that the Service considers high-
                priority candidates for leasing

        See enclosed list. The NPS prioritizes eligible properties for
    leasing based on knowledge that park staff have regarding local market
    demand for facilities, along with direction from the servicewide
    leasing program office. The enclosed list reflects those properties for
    which parks and regions are actively working on leasing. The list
    contains properties under a range of situations, including those for
    which the NPS expects to issue a Request for Proposal within the next 2
    years, those for which a Request for Proposal received no responses,
    and those that were under life tenancy and have recently transferred to
    NPS control.

         A list of structures currently under a lease arrangement

        See enclosed list, which includes properties reported by parks
    through regional leasing and concession staff. This information has
    been checked against the NPS facility management database.

         An estimate of the number of leases that have enabled
                private sector investments using the Service-administered
                historic tax

        While the NPS does not include language in its leases that would
    prevent a lessee from taking advantage of the historic preservation tax
    credit, there are requirements for obtaining historic preservation
    certification from the National Park Service and the State Historic
    Preservation Office, as well as Internal Revenue Service regulations
    governing the tax credits for rehabilitation that must be met before
    the tax credit can be utilized by the lessee.

        The NPS is currently aware of three lessees that have taken
    advantage of the benefits offered by this program: Cavallo Point Lodge
    at Fort Baker, the Argonaut Hotel in Golden Gate National Recreation
    Area, and the Quapaw Bathhouse at Hot Springs National Park. It is
    possible that other lessees have used the historic tax program
    previously, but NPS records do not cover a number of the early years of
    the tax-credit program.

         Are there any statutory or regulatory impediments that now
                inhibit the enhanced use of leasing of historic structures?

        The NPS has authority to enter into a lease with any ``. . . person
    or government entity . . .'' (54 U.S.C. Sec. 102102(a)). Other
    agencies, with some exceptions, generally do not have such authority,
    which is instead vested with the General Services Administration (GSA)
    (40 U.S.C. Sec. 585). Therefore, other federal agencies are often
    reluctant to execute agreements with the NPS to occupy facilities that
    are administered by the NPS without going through the General Services
    Administration. So, while the NPS is authorized to lease structures to
    any governmental entity, other agencies do not have clear, specific
    authority to enter into a lease with the NPS without going through GSA.
    However, under the Service First authority (43 U.S.C. Sec. 1703), the
    NPS can enter into leases with other agencies within the Department of
    the Interior and the Department of Agriculture, without consultation of
    GSA.

        In general, market conditions and demand pose the greatest
    challenge to expanding the current leasing program. Investors are often
    more interested in purchasing outright `fee title' property, rather
    than investing in the rehabilitation of a property that is owned by,
    and possession of which will eventually be returned to, the federal
    government. Also, the lease opportunities available within parks may
    not provide a viable business opportunity given the higher costs
    associated with the restoration or rehabilitation of the structures
    compared to the relatively low rents available in local areas, many of
    which are rural and sparsely populated. In more urban areas, there
    appears to be a greater demand from the public to lease facilities in
    parks for residential use, office space, or other commercial activity.

        Additionally, NPS has limited resources available to conduct the
    up-front planning necessary to determine fair market value rent, and to
    develop the required Request for Proposal to lease historic facilities.
    Without such work, the NPS cannot accurately gauge the level of private
    sector interest in its properties.

        The NPS greatly appreciates the Committee's support throughout the
    appropriations process and looks forward to collaborating to find
    creative ways to utilize public-private partnerships to help preserve
    and maintain historic assets for future generations to use and enjoy.

        A similar letter has been sent to the Honorable Tom Udall, Ranking
    Minority Member, Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related
    Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate; the Honorable Ken
    Calvert, Chairman, Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related
    Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives; and
    the Honorable Betty McCollum, Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on
    Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, Committee on
    Appropriations, House of Representatives.

                Sincerely,

                                            Olivia B. Ferriter,
                                             Deputy Assistant Secretary
                          Budget, Finance, Performance, and Acquisition

    Enclosures
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Thank you. I appreciate that.
        We will now turn to Mr. Guertin, who is recognized for 5
    minutes for your opening testimony.

      STATEMENT OF STEVE GUERTIN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, U.S. FISH AND
    WILDLIFE SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, WASHINGTON,
                                   DC

        Mr. Guertin. Good morning, Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member
    Grijalva, and members of the Committee. I am Steve Guertin,
    Deputy Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. I
    previously served as Regional Director for Mountain Prairie
    Region based out in Colorado and, before that, as the budget
    officer for the Service here in headquarters. I appreciate the
    opportunity to testify about the Service's maintenance backlog.
        The Service manages 566 national wildlife refuges and 72
    national fish hatcheries. We are responsible for over $46
    billion in constructed real property assets that include over
    40,000 structures, roads, bridges, dams, and water control
    structures. Our estimated deferred maintenance backlog is $1.4
    billion.
        National wildlife refuges are vitally important to
    conserving the wildlife heritage of America, and are also
    valued destinations for local residents, as well as
    vacationers. Every state and territory has wildlife refuges,
    and over 50 million Americans visit these sites each year. They
    generate over $2 billion for local economies, and support tens
    of thousands of private-sector jobs.
        A refuge that could benefit from infrastructure funding is
    Big Oaks Refuge in Indiana. This is an especially important
    place for migratory birds, and it is home to more than 200 bird
    species. Access is impaired because a bridge on the refuge has
    been closed since 2001.
        Wallkill River Refuge in New Jersey is home to many
    grassland birds, migratory water fowl, wintering raptors, and
    endangered species. Public access to this refuge is
    significantly reduced because one of its trails is closed due
    to extensive dangerous degradation.
        Besides infrastructure funding, another way to reduce the
    maintenance backlog is to grant the Service the authority to
    use compensation obtained from responsible parties to directly
    repair damages to refuges. Under current law, when our
    resources are injured, the costs of repair are added to our
    maintenance backlog and must come from our appropriated budget.
    Congress can help by enacting the Administration's legislative
    proposal to give the Service this needed authority.
        Thank you for your interest in addressing the Service's
    maintenance backlog, and the opportunity to testify today. I
    will be glad to answer any questions the Committee has. Thank
    you for your time.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Smith and Mr. Guertin, U.S.
    Department of the Interior appears on page 71.]

                                    ------

        The Chairman. Thank you. And I appreciate the
    Administration's testimony being extremely brief, too.

        Mr. Iobst, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.

         STATEMENT OF STEVE IOBST, NATIONAL PARK CONSERVATION
     ASSOCIATION, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, RETIRED, FORMER CHIEF OF
      FACILITY MANAGEMENT FOR YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK, DRIGGS,
                                 IDAHO

        Mr. Iobst. Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva, and
    members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me to testify
    at this important hearing. I am Steve Iobst, and I worked for
    the National Park Service for 43 years. I retired as Deputy
    Superintendent of Yellowstone National Park in 2016, after
    several assignments in parks in the Denver Service Center.
        Relevant to this hearing, I was responsible for planning,
    design, rehabilitation, construction, and historic preservation
    projects, as well as facility maintenance and park operations
    that totaled nearly $1 billion. I testify today in my capacity
    as the member of the Northern Rockies Regional Council, the
    National Parks Conservation Association, an organization that
    represents more than 1.2 million members and supporters across
    the country. I am also affiliated with the Coalition to Protect
    America's National Parks, a membership of over 1,200 former
    National Park Service employees.
        The NPCA, the Coalition, the Pew Charitable Trust, and the
    National Trust for Historic Preservation are among the many
    public interest groups throughout the country dedicated to
    addressing this issue, and we are grateful for your attention
    to the need.
        Increasing current funding sources is critical, including
    philanthropic giving and appropriated fee revenue to address
    the full scope of the maintenance backlog. In this regard, we
    commend Senators Warner and Portman, as well as Representatives
    Herb Kilmer, Reichert, and Hanabusa for introducing the
    National Park Service Legacy Act.
        My first career assignment in the Park Service was as a
    design engineer completing projects in over 40 parks, and with
    Yellowstone in 1979 as the park engineer. At the Rocky Mountain
    National Park, I was Chief of Facility Management, then
    appointed Deputy Superintendent of Grand Teton. I returned to
    Yellowstone in 2003 as Chief of Facility Management, and was
    promoted to Deputy Superintendent.
        During my time with the National Park Service we struggled
    to address park maintenance needs that were constantly falling
    behind in making repairs. Currently, the backlog is estimated
    at a half-a-billion dollars. This may be a staggering total,
    but it is not only the restrooms, there are trails that need
    repair. It is also many large projects that are tens and even
    hundreds of millions of dollars. At Yellowstone, the largest
    need is for road reconstruction.
        During my time, appropriating funding was not sufficient
    for reaching maintenance. Caring for the inventory of assets
    only second to the Department of Defense requires consistent
    and sufficient funding. At Yellowstone we consistently ran at a
    maintenance funding of about 40 percent of what was needed,
    just to keep the deferred maintenance backlog from growing.
    Revenue certainly helps, and a lot of that is dedicated to
    deferred maintenance. However, the recently proposed fee hike
    would address less than 1 percent of the backlog.
        Deferred maintenance also addresses many significant
    historic structures across our great Nation. We do have a
    number of questions and look forward to greater clarity of the
    Administration's proposed Public Lands Infrastructure Fund. We
    note that any fund to address maintenance should not be or not
    rely on any energy initiatives that threaten the health of our
    public lands, waters, our parks and ecosystems that we rely on.
        The revenue sources cannot just be dedicated funds. It must
    also be reliable and dependable. Construction projects rely on
    multi-year funding that is known and dependable. Consider the
    Yellowstone Road program, a program of projects identified well
    into the future. Project development often starts 5 years
    before construction. Document preparation, as well as
    contracting, starts 2 to 3 years out. Yellowstone's road
    program has been successful for 30 years, due to multiple-year
    programs and projects with reliable and predictable funding
    stream.
        Addressing park maintenance is critical. Americans and
    international visitors are coming in more numbers every year--
    2017 saw 330 million visits to our park system, equal to the
    Centennial year of 2016.
        In conclusion, the National Parks Conservation Association
    and our many partners concerned with the park funding crisis
    are grateful for the Administration and Members of Congress on
    both sides of the aisle for now prioritizing public lands
    infrastructure. We also commend the Administration for now
    supporting the concept of dedicated funding. We urge the
    Administration and members of the Committee to work with the
    bipartisan champions of the National Park Service Legacy Act.
        I ask that you consider that national parks are precious to
    America as pristine watersheds and carbon sinks. The parks
    represent America's natural and cultural heritage. Our parks
    reflect who we are, as Americans. If we don't care for them and
    restore them, it reflects poorly on us, as a people.
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify and for the
    Committee's consideration of our views.

        [The prepared statement of Mr. Iobst follows:]
       Prepared Statement of Steven F. Iobst, Northern Rockies Regional
            Council Member, National Parks Conservation Association
        Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva, and members of the
    Committee, thank you for inviting me to testify at this important
    hearing. I am Steven F. Iobst. I worked for the National Park Service
    for 43 years in many different assignments. I retired as Deputy
    Superintendent of Yellowstone National Park in 2016 after several
    assignments in parks and the Denver Service Center. Relevant to this
    hearing, I was responsible for planning, design, and construction as
    well as facility maintenance and park operations over those 43 years. I
    am a civil engineer.
        I testify today in my capacity as a member of the Northern Rockies
    Regional Council of the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA),
    an organization that represents more than 1.2 million members and
    supporters across the country who care deeply about our national parks.
    I am also affiliated with the Coalition to Protect America's National
    Parks, a group of over 1,200 former National Park Service (NPS)
    employees who continue to support the parks. That group has testified
    before this Committee as to the urgency of addressing park maintenance
    needs and I appreciate the opportunity to build on those observations
    and recommendations. NPCA, the Coalition to Protect America's National
    Parks, the Pew Charitable Trusts, and the National Trust for Historic
    Preservation are among the many public-interest groups throughout the
    country dedicated to addressing this issue, and we are grateful for
    your attention to the need.
        Through my testimony I hope to convey the scope of the national
    park deferred maintenance needs and the urgency of addressing the need
    through a robust, consistent and dependable funding source. Increasing
    current funding sources is critical, as are supplemental funding
    sources including philanthropic giving and appropriate fee revenue.
    However, what is ultimately needed to address the full scope of the
    maintenance backlog is dedicated funding. We commend the bipartisan
    interest in Congress, in particular the sponsors of the National Park
    Service Legacy Act, for recognizing this need, and now the
    Administration for supporting a dedicated funding approach to public
    lands infrastructure.
        During my time at NPS, we struggled to address park maintenance
    needs and were constantly falling behind in making repairs. My first
    career assignment was as a civil engineer in design at the Denver
    Service Center. Design and construction assignments included projects
    in over 40 parks, including Shenandoah, Yosemite, Acadia, St. Gaudens,
    Gateway, Fire Island, Virgin Islands, and National Capital Sites. In
    1979, I moved to Yellowstone where I began my career in park operations
    as an engineer in Maintenance and Concessions Management as well as
    working directly for the Superintendent to guide Planning, Compliance,
    and Development. Rocky Mountain National Park pulled me away from
    Yellowstone in late-1988 where I served as Chief of Facility Management
    which included a special assignment as Acting Chief of Park Facility
    Management in Washington, DC, where I worked with a team to develop
    today's Asset Management Program. In 1997, I returned to the greater
    Yellowstone area serving as Deputy Superintendent at Grand Teton
    National Park and Acting Superintendent from November 2000 to February
    2002. I returned to Yellowstone in April 2003 to serve as Chief of
    Facility Management for Yellowstone National Park until August 2011
    when I was promoted to Deputy Superintendent. I am proud to say that I
    have extensive experience in facilities maintenance, rehabilitation,
    design, engineering, construction, and contracting. In 43 years I
    directed or provided indirect oversight of nearly $1 billion in
    rehabilitation, new construction, replacement, or historic
    preservation.
        My experience at the park service was one of countless NPS staff
    who have long struggled with the reality that park assets are aging and
    have not received the capital investment they require. This is posing
    serious threats to the ability of parks to meet their mission, preserve
    our natural and cultural heritage, and bolster the visitor experience
    on which countless local economies rely.
        Currently, Yellowstone National Park, where the bulk of my NPS
    career was, is estimated to have at least $497 million in repair needs,
    as of September 30, 2017, according to the NPS online database. This
    may be a staggering total but one thing that is important for Congress
    to understand is that overdue repair projects are not only the leaky
    roofs, degraded trails and pathways, and bathrooms that need repair.
    These projects certainly add up, but there are also many large projects
    at Yellowstone and throughout the country that are each dozens and even
    hundreds of millions of dollars each. At Yellowstone, the largest need
    is for major road repairs and reconstruction after many years during
    which there have not been available funds to address the need. NPS
    highlighted the large scope of the Yellowstone roads need at https://
    www.nps.gov/transportation/pdfs/Yellowstone_Roads_Reconstruction-
    022016.pdf among numerous other park transportation ``megaprojects''
    outlined at https : / / www.nps.gov / transportation /
    transportation_needs_beyond_core_program. html.
        While philanthropy and fee revenue have been critical to
    Yellowstone and other parks, it is not realistic to expect that such
    funding sources could cover projects of this magnitude. And of course
    for needs such as the many large water and wastewater infrastructure
    projects, there is simply no appeal for philanthropists who expect the
    government to do its share to care for its assets.
        In my career I do not recall a time when funding matched need, with
    ``need'' being defined as the amount of funding required to perform
    routine repairs and preventive maintenance as well as cyclic
    maintenance to keep all assets in good condition. What I experienced
    firsthand each year was that the chief cause of the growth of the
    maintenance backlog was insufficient funding to maintain, repair, and
    in some cases, reconstruct park assets. Caring for an inventory of
    assets second only to the Department of Defense requires consistent and
    sufficient funding. Unfortunately, the Park Service has not been
    receiving this funding. My analysis at Yellowstone, utilizing the Park
    Asset Management Planning Tool, was that we consistently ran a routine
    maintenance program as I just described with 40 percent of the funding
    required to just keep deferred maintenance from growing.

        Parks throughout the system face a diversity of maintenance needs,
    from roads and buildings to trails, water systems, docks, parking lots
    and more. Examples include:

         Roads: Kolob Canyon Road, a popular 5-mile scenic drive at
                Zion National Park, needs $15 million in repairs--an amount
                that is nearly equal to the entire value of the road
                itself;

         Trails: Also at Zion, among millions of dollars in trail
                needs are the Overlook Point Trail, the famed Angel's
                Landing Trail and the West Rim Trail. Walking, hiking, and
                biking trails at Yosemite are in disrepair or closed. More
                than $17 million in deferred maintenance affects these
                systems, including the Yosemite Bike Path, the Stubblefield
                Canyon Trail, and the Clark Point Spur Trail;

         Historic buildings: At San Antonio Missions National
                Historical Park, nearly $400,000 is needed to repair the
                office and sacristy of the Franciscan father-president, who
                oversaw development of these historically important
                missions. A compound where Native Americans lived, and the
                walls that encircle it, also requires restoration at a cost
                of $600,000;
         Campsites: At Voyageurs National Park, campsites have more
                than $1 million worth of deferred maintenance. This
                includes restoring and improving tent sites, maintaining
                fire rings, and repairing and installing new bear-proof
                food storage lockers;

         Water Systems: At Rocky Mountain National Park, the
                primary water system at the park's headquarters, where the
                Beaver Meadows Visitor Center is located, has 50- to 70-
                year-old pipes that need to be replaced. The cost estimate
                for this work is nearly $5 million;

         Historic landscapes: At Gettysburg National Military Park
                they comprise by far the largest investment need to restore
                the park to its original appearance, including addressing
                invasive plants.

        These and other needs are highlighted by the Pew Charitable Trusts
    on its website at http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/
    fact-sheets/2017/05/national-park-case-studies. Included with my
    testimony are several of these case studies we ask to be submitted for
    the record.
        Park infrastructure needs are not only facilities that promote and
    enhance the visiting experience. The maintenance problem includes
    projects that help protect natural resources, such as channel markers
    in the Everglades that prevent boaters from harming sensitive
    seagrasses. It also includes many historic structures of national
    significance. From the inspiring civil rights movement history shared
    at Martin Luther King, Jr. National Historical Park's historic
    buildings to the several hundred Native American cultural sites and
    cliff dwellings at Mesa Verde National Park, these world-renowned
    places tell the diverse stories of our Nation. Unfortunately, according
    to FY 2016 data, historic assets represent 45 percent of the
    maintenance backlog and without dedicated funding to address these
    needs, conditions will continue to deteriorate and risk permanent loss
    of these resources.
        There are several ways these diverse repair needs can be addressed.
    I've briefly noted the importance and limitations of philanthropy, and
    my colleagues on the panel offer great insight into this issue.
    Notably, matching philanthropic funds with Federal dollars is critical.
    A successful program in this regard has been the Centennial Challenge,
    which now thanks to the support of this Committee, enjoys a dedicated
    funding source through senior pass revenue. Importantly, this program
    should continue to receive appropriated funding, as there is tremendous
    philanthropic interest in this program, beyond what can be matched
    through the senior pass alone. We urge the Administration to propose
    appropriations for this important program in future budgets.
        Fee revenue, too, is critical, but can only be increased so much
    without becoming prohibitive. Even the recently proposed fee hike for
    the peak visiting season at 17 parks throughout the system would only
    address less than 1 percent of the NPS backlog, and that proposed fee
    hike is one we and others oppose because we fear it is too much and
    threatens to price Americans out of their parks. Fees play an important
    role, particularly in parks such as Yellowstone, but are not a
    realistic or appropriate source to provide the level of funding needed
    to address the bulk of park maintenance needs.
        We know that in recent years, NPS has explored avenues for greater
    efficiencies and cost savings such as improvements in energy
    efficiency. We know that technology improvements are among the avenues
    NPS can continue to explore to identify savings that can help with
    maintenance costs. However, these and other supplemental funding
    sources cannot cover the scope of the backlog problem. They cannot
    alone be relied on to address park needs; a serious Federal investment
    is needed.
        Appropriations for day-to-day, cyclic maintenance and larger repair
    projects for non-transportation assets have long been insufficient.
    Appropriations should be increased to better meet these needs. We
    commend the appropriations committees for increasing funding for the
    NPS, including for its maintenance needs, over the last 3 fiscal years,
    with a particularly helpful boost in FY 2016. We urge Congress to build
    on these investments.
        On this subject, I must note that the Administration's FY 2018 and
    FY 2019 budget proposals for appropriated funding are unhelpful and in
    many ways, damaging. We urge the Administration to do better in future
    budgets, and for upcoming FY 2019 budget hearings in this Committee to
    address national park funding needs including but not limited to the
    deferred maintenance challenge.
        At this moment, members of this Committee are positioned to
    advocate for improved funding for NPS in both FY 2018, given the recent
    budget deal, and FY 2019. NPS transportation assets that comprise half
    of the backlog should also receive increased funding through
    appropriations for the Nationally Significant Federal Lands and Tribal
    Projects Program in the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development
    Appropriations Subcommittee, as well as in the next transportation
    bill. We're grateful the last transportation bill, the FAST Act,
    increased funding for park transportation infrastructure, but funds
    remain vastly insufficient.
        We are dismayed that in the current budget climate, and for the
    foreseeable future, the constraints on these funding sources, including
    through the Budget Control Act, will make difficult securing the robust
    level of funding that is needed to address the national park repair
    backlog, despite the commendable bipartisan support Congress has
    shown--and must continue showing--for park funding through current
    transportation and non-transportation revenue sources.
        Thus a dedicated, robust funding source to address the large scope
    of the backlog is needed. In this regard, we commend Senators Warner
    and Portman and Representatives Hurd, Kilmer, Reichert, and Hanabusa
    for introducing the National Park Service Legacy Act (S. 751/H.R.
    2584), as well as the many bipartisan Members of Congress who have thus
    far agreed to co-sponsor this important bill. The bill would dedicate
    more than $11 billion to the parks backlog over 30 years through
    receipts from onshore and offshore energy development not otherwise
    dedicated to other purposes.
        We also commend Congressman Simpson for his commitment to the
    public lands backlog, as well as to the Land and Water Conservation
    Fund (LWCF), through the LAND Act. The concept of addressing both the
    parks backlog and LWCF needs is one NPCA wholeheartedly supports. In
    this regard, we also commend Senators Murkowski and Cantwell for their
    commitment to both of these important needs in the energy bill
    currently before Congress.
        In this context, we feel it is important for the Administration to
    not only express support for and provide its own recommendations for
    addressing park infrastructure, but to work with both parties in
    Congress to arrive at legislation that dedicates reliable revenue to
    the backlog problem through a dedicated funding source. In this regard,
    the Administration's recent proposal is very helpful.
        We do have a number of questions about, and look forward to greater
    clarity of, the Administration's proposed Public Lands Infrastructure
    Fund, which deposits ``half of additional receipts generated by
    expanded Federal energy development'' to address the backlog on
    Department of the Interior (DOI) lands, as well as for Bureau of Indian
    Education schools.
        We must note that any fund to address maintenance should be sure to
    not rely on any energy initiatives that threaten the health of our
    public lands and waters, our parks and the ecosystems on which they
    rely. NPCA urges Congress to recognize that explicitly linking
    infrastructure funding to environmentally threatening and damaging
    energy production proposals would not only threaten the integrity of
    our land, air, water and wildlife but also compromise the bipartisan
    support that's needed to pass a bill to address public lands
    maintenance.
        Critically, the revenue source cannot just be a dedicated fund; it
    must also be a reliable and dependable one. Legislation that dedicates
    funding to the deferred maintenance problem should include several
    components:

        Reliable Funding: Any funding source for national park repairs must
    have certainty. If a funding source relies on projected revenue as the
    Administration's proposal appears to, then those projections must be
    sound such that there is a high level of confidence that there will be
    sufficient funds to address parks' billions of dollars in repair needs.
    As this Committee knows well, passing legislation is very difficult, so
    it is important that legislation will actually address the problem with
    realistic and reliable funds.

        Certainty of Funding Stream: Any funding source must be dependable.
    As I experienced during my time at the Park Service, construction
    projects rely on multi-year funding that is known and dependable at the
    outset, which in part helps NPS to stage projects and work with
    contractors who need funding certainty.

        Consider the Yellowstone Road Program, something I have extensive
    experience with and without question the best inter-agency partnership
    (with the Federal Highway Administration) I have ever experienced. It
    is a program of projects identified well into the future. Scoping,
    permitting, compliance and surveying often start 5 years before
    construction; design, leading to contract documents usually takes 2 to
    3 years. Once construction begins, the project has been in the queue
    for 3 to 5 years. Yellowstone's Road Program has been successful for 30
    years due to multiple 6-year programs of projects with a reliable, and
    predictable, funding stream.
        We fear that without a specific, known amount each year, the
    uncertainty of the funding available would challenge NPS' capacity to
    engage in the procurement and contracting that is needed for successful
    repair and reconstruction projects. The backlog includes many projects
    such as water systems that require at least tens of millions of dollars
    for each project; these projects need multi-year funding. Legislation
    to address the repair backlog must be designed in such a way as to
    provide a dependable revenue stream in this regard.

        In addition to consistent and robust dedicated annual funding,
    legislation to address deferred maintenance should consider:

         Funding parity between transportation and non-
                transportation deferred maintenance needs;

         A public-private partnership component to leverage non-
                Federal funds for projects that can attract philanthropic
                interest, while still dedicating robust funding to the many
                projects that cannot receive philanthropic support;

         Giving appropriators discretion with the list of priority
                projects while still ensuring a dedicated funding stream.

        Addressing park maintenance is critical in part because our
    national parks resonate so deeply with the American public, frequenting
    our parks like never before. The National Park Service celebrated its
    Centennial in 2016. Americans and international visitors participated
    by visiting in record numbers, with more than 330 million visits last
    year, an all-time record. While the data released last week indicate
    on-average essentially flat 2017 visitation compared to 2016,
    visitation clearly remains high. Notably, in some parks to the extent
    that it is further challenging the ability of park superintendents to
    meet needs with insufficient staffing and other resources.
        While last year's crowds stressed the capacity of the Service to
    meet the demand, public reaction remained high, topping 90 percent
    satisfaction. Similarly, the private businesses that support and
    accommodate park visitors saw record years. During peak visitor season,
    these businesses employ more people than the National Park Service. As
    a result of visitor spending in surrounding communities, many of them
    rural, national parks support $32 billion in economic activity
    nationally and nearly 300,000 jobs. The existence value of our heritage
    has significant value to Americans: a recent economic study done by
    Harvard University and the University of Colorado concluded that the
    American public values the services of the National Park Service at $92
    billion.
        Addressing the maintenance backlog also creates jobs. A recent
    study, Restoring Parks, Creating Jobs: How Infrastructure Restoration
    in the National Park System Can Create or Support Jobs, commissioned by
    The Pew Charitable Trusts and conducted by the independent firm Cadmus
    Group, found that more than 110,000 jobs could be created or supported
    if funds were invested to resolve the NPS maintenance backlog.
        On the subject of infrastructure, we must also note before
    concluding this testimony our deep concern with many provisions in the
    Administration's Legislative Outline for Rebuilding Infrastructure in
    America. The proposal seeks to undermine fundamental environmental
    laws, dispose of the NPS-managed George Washington Memorial Parkway,
    allow for expedited construction of pipelines through national parks,
    and otherwise threaten the cultural and natural resources central to
    the preservation of our national parks and their ecosystems. As the
    Administration and Congress work together to address infrastructure, we
    urge these concepts be left out of any legislative package. Such
    provisions would not only threaten public lands and the broader
    environment, but would also compromise needed bipartisanship to move
    such a package to the President's desk.
        In conclusion, NPCA and our many partners concerned with the park
    funding crisis are grateful that the Administration and Members of
    Congress on both sides of the aisle are now prioritizing public lands
    infrastructure. We also commend the Administration for now supporting
    the concept of a dedicated funding stream for public lands maintenance
    needs. Legislation addressing the maintenance backlog must have a
    realistic and dependable funding stream. And such legislation should
    not rely on undermining the integrity of our land, air, water and
    wildlife protections.
        We urge the Administration and members of this Committee to work
    with the bipartisan champions of the National Park Service Legacy Act,
    appropriators, party leadership and other Members of Congress to
    support a dedicated, robust funding stream for national park repair
    needs.
        I am encouraged by the paradigm shift that could lead to a
    transformational change in funding deferred maintenance projects on
    National Park Service lands. I ask that you consider that national
    parks are national, regional, and local economic engines; that national
    parks are precious to America as pristine watersheds and carbon sinks;
    that park sites represent America's natural and cultural heritage; and
    that they are our national identity and irreplaceable.
        Our national parks reflect who we are as Americans. From
    Yellowstone to the Everglades and the Statue of Liberty to the Martin
    Luther King, Jr. Memorial Site, these places are our heritage. If we
    don't care for them and restore them, it reflects poorly on us as a
    people. We have an opportunity before us to do right for our parks and
    the Americans who own and have a deep connection with them.

        Thank you for the opportunity to testify and for the Committee's
    consideration of our views.

                                     ______

        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Now, Mr. Puskar. Did I get the emphasis right this time?
        Mr. Puskar. Perfect.
        The Chairman. All right. It will be the last time I do it
    correctly.
        [Laughter.]
        The Chairman. You are recognized for 5 minutes.

       STATEMENT OF DAN PUSKAR, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PUBLIC LANDS
                   ALLIANCE, SILVER SPRING, MARYLAND

        Mr. Puskar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member,
    and to all members of the Committee for being here.
        The Public Lands Alliance was created 40 years ago by and
    for the non-profit partners of America's public lands. Our 135
    member organizations are truly operational partners, not just
    of national parks and wildlife refuges, but also national
    conservation areas, forests, and more that this Committee
    oversees.
        Ours are the folks helping to staff visitor centers. They
    are hiring and managing conservation corps. They are providing
    educational programs, they are managing volunteers, they are
    supplying interpretive and educational materials. And they are
    not doing these things on the ground in these public lands,
    they are funding it.
        Over $250 million annually is given to these public lands
    through gifts, through in-kind services to help save and
    leverage the other dollars that Congress and others are
    providing to the parks, refuges, and more. And it is because of
    these investments in the visitor experience that we are helping
    to create jobs in local communities to enhance tourism.
        Our members, therefore, rely on and support the
    infrastructure in all of these important places. And deferred
    maintenance drags down or makes impossible the visitor
    experience they want to have, and can create unsafe conditions
    for those working there, whether our esteemed colleagues at the
    agencies or folks like ours on the ground working there day to
    day.
        When we look at places just down the road like Prince
    William Forest, where Nature Bridge is doing an incredible job
    bringing hundreds and thousands of youth from around the DC
    area to have a residential learning experience, they should not
    be worried about the 1930s-era pipes that are keeping the
    cabins that those kids are staying in working. They should be
    worrying about tick season, not worrying about sewage spilling
    over. We need to get more kids there, and these kinds of
    deficiencies are preventing that from happening.
        At places like Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area,
    the Southern Nevada Conservancy would love to be doing more
    educational programs on their boardwalks, one of the few ADA-
    compliant areas to go into the most built core of the national
    conservation area, but they have had to curtail those tours,
    they have had to curtail the ability to go there, because of
    the maintenance problems.
        Partners are working to solve these issues. We are not just
    there hoping that the government will take care of us.
        At Rocky Mountain National Park, the Rocky Mountain
    Conservancy partnered through a Centennial Challenge Grant to
    help repair the Alluvial Fan Trail, bringing on their
    conservation corps, matching one-to-one with the government and
    their own private funds to get work done.
        At St. Mark's National Wildlife Refuge in Florida, the
    Friends of St. Mark's are helping to restore a historic
    lighthouse that can barely get a visitor in it. They open it
    once a year, just so people can see it is still there. There is
    predicted 40,000 visitors a year would go into this historic
    structure, and they can't because there is no money available.
    Partners are raising funds to make that happen.
        As my colleague, Jason Rano, will be talking about as well,
    private philanthropy, non-profit support is a key piece of
    making this solution happen. We can raise money for historic
    structures. We can invest in the visitor experience, in
    recreational opportunities.
        But it is not possible and unlikely that you would get
    donors interested in paving your roads, rebuilding your sewage
    systems. They are not going to be able to do bridges. And, if
    you can imagine a group like Jason's, the National Park
    Foundation, sending out a letter to their donors saying, ``Hey,
    can you help us build a road,'' he is not going to get as many
    supporters as you want him to have.
        We need, as everyone has said on this panel already,
    dedicated, reliable, sizable funding. We need to think big. We
    need to take ideas like the National Park Service Legacy Act
    that the Public Lands Alliance fully supports. We need to think
    big, like the Public Lands Infrastructure Fund proposal, both
    of which, at their core, look to the possibility of taking
    revenue from energy that is happening on our public lands, and
    reinvesting it in infrastructure. That is a great idea. We
    shouldn't just do it in national parks, we shouldn't just do it
    in parks and wildlife refuges. We should do it across
    Department of the Interior lands.
        We should invest in things like the Centennial Challenge,
    not just in the Park Service, but give other lands the
    opportunity to have those matching funds, as well. Together,
    with things like fees and others, we can solve this.
        Thank you so much for your time.

        [The prepared statement of Mr. Puskar follows:]
      Prepared Statement of Dan Puskar, Executive Director, Public Lands
                                    Alliance
        Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva, and members of the
    Committee, thank you for inviting me to testify today on this critical
    issue.
        I serve as executive director of the Public Lands Alliance (PLA),
    an organization created 40 years ago by and for the non-profit partners
    of America's public lands. Our 135 member organizations are operational
    partners of more than 600 parks, refuges, conservation areas, lakes,
    and forests with an on-the-ground presence in every U.S. state and
    territory. They staff visitor centers, hire and manage youth and
    veterans corps, conduct educational programs, and provide interpretive
    materials. Not only do PLA members save and leverage government funds
    when providing these services, they also annually contribute more than
    $250 million to our public lands through their philanthropic grants,
    programs and services. By enhancing the public lands visitor
    experience, PLA members create jobs and support national and
    international tourism.
        The vast majority of PLA members rely on public lands
    infrastructure to operate their organizations and programs. PLA
    commends this Committee, the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural
    Resources, and the Administration for its focus on enhancing public
    lands infrastructure, especially those assets that have fallen into
    disrepair after years of neglect. Deferred maintenance is an overall
    drag on the visitor experience as facilities become worn or less
    reliable.

        Through the examples and discussion below, PLA will encourage the
    Committee to:

         Create a dedicated, reliable, and sizable funding source
                for all DOI public lands that eliminates the existing
                maintenance backlog while providing necessary routine and
                cyclic maintenance funding to prevent future backlogs.

         Incentivize philanthropy and non-profit support for
                appropriate maintenance projects and other visitor
                experience enhancements by expanding matching fund
                programs, like the NPS Centennial Challenge, to other DOI
                agencies.

                  impact of the backlog on non-profit support
        The deferred maintenance backlog has direct and indirect impacts on
    non-profit public lands partners. Consider the following examples:

         Prince William Forest Park, VA (NPS): Congress designated
                the park during the Great Depression as a retreat where
                urban youth could immerse themselves in nature. The park
                welcomed thousands of children, who slept in cabins built
                by the Civilian Conservation Corps and the Works Progress
                Administration. Non-profit partners like NatureBridge
                continue this legacy by bringing children and teens from
                the DC metro area for daytime and overnight environmental
                education programs. Unfortunately, the park's plumbing
                rests on the original pipes from the 1930s, which are not
                properly insulated and have a high risk of bursting in the
                winter. Consequently, buildings used for youth programs are
                closed from December through March. Additionally, the old
                pipe system has issues with backing up, which limits the
                number of youth who can participate during the already
                truncated season.

         Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area, NV (BLM): Red
                Spring Boardwalk is in dire need to replacement. Not only
                is Red Spring Boardwalk one of the most family friendly
                destinations in Red Rock Canyon, it should be used
                regularly for school field trips and is perhaps the most
                significant ADA compliant trail. The old wooden decking is
                dry-rotted through in many places and creates a serious
                safety hazard. Patchwork repairs have been attempted, but
                the condition has deteriorated to the point of partial
                closure and one of its non-profit partners, Southern Nevada
                Conservancy, is no longer able to take groups there for
                educational programming. Without a complete replacement,
                the boardwalk may be closed in its entirety.

         Shenandoah National Park, VA (NPS): As the philanthropic
                partner to the park, the Shenandoah National Park Trust is
                charged to provide a margin of excellence to park programs,
                not to support fundamental park functions. However, due to
                a more than $79 million backlog and uncertainties in
                appropriated funds, NPS in recent years has asked the Trust
                to redirect its philanthropy. Over the past 3 years, the
                Trust has therefore provided over a quarter-million dollars
                of our philanthropy to trail maintenance. As a ``hiker's
                park'' with over 500 miles of trails, routine trail
                maintenance should be supported by base funding. This has
                distracted the Trust from achieving other core mission
                goals, shared with the NPS, including field trips to our
                park for Title I schools and critical natural resource
                research and management programs.

        Directly and indirectly, the backlog is detrimentally effecting
    these non-profit organizations capacity to provide educational and
    experiential learning to young visitors due to a higher-order need for
    visitor access and safety. PLA believes that barriers to access and
    safety on public lands are a core responsibility of the Federal
    Government and should not be pushed on to non-profit or other partners.
               a dedicated, reliable, and sizeable funding source
        Whether it is a deteriorating road or bridge or a crumbling
    historic structure, neglected built assets on America's public lands
    can have a detrimental impact on the experience of visitors as well as
    the employees of land management agencies, non-profit partners,
    concessioners and others whose jobs rely on them. Non-profit partners
    are unable to assist with fixing roads--the primary source of deferred
    maintenance across Federal public lands--or baseline assets like
    wastewater and sewer systems. Philanthropy is unavailable and
    inappropriate for these core Federal Government responsibilities.
        Yet there are examples of infrastructure--such as a resource for
    which a public land was preserved (e.g. the Statute of Liberty or a
    historic lodge) or a source of recreation and enjoyment (e.g. a hiking
    trail)--for which private support can be marshalled. Take, for example,
    the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, managed by the NPS in
    California. The maintenance backlog had resulted in unsafe and
    deteriorating buildings on Alcatraz Island. The conditions threaten the
    island's ability to host visitors including the declining fixed wharf
    on Alcatraz. Maintenance backlog on trails, historic buildings,
    waterfront wharfs and restrooms erode the visitor experience. Because
    of the historic nature and private interest in Alcatraz, the Golden
    Gate National Parks Conservancy has provided a tremendous investment of
    more than $10 million toward its historic buildings and grounds, and
    yet much more funding is required. NPS currently estimates the deferred
    maintenance needs of Golden Gate National Recreation Area at more than
    $325 million. The private sector, even if led by an organization as
    sophisticated as the Conservancy, cannot be expected to tackle this
    massive charge.
        PLA calls on the Committee to identify a dedicated, reliable, and
    sizable funding source that can meaningfully tackle the more than $20
    billion of deferred maintenance on all Federal public lands, including
    those managed by DOI.
        PLA supports the bipartisan National Park Service Legacy Act (H.R.
    2584/S. 751) as one innovative solution. The bill provides more than
    $11 billion to the NPS backlog over 30 years through receipts from
    onshore and offshore energy development that are not dedicated to other
    purposes. It scales this funding up gradually so that the NPS and its
    partners have time to prepare for larger, more complicated projects.
    Importantly, it also leverages philanthropy and non-profit support by
    enabling projects with private funding matches to rise higher in
    priority.
        PLA also welcomes the Administration's outline of the Public Lands
    Infrastructure Fund, which is funded by 50 percent of increased Federal
    energy leasing and development activities over Fiscal Year 2018 budget
    projections. PLA looks forward to seeing a complete bill or proposal to
    understand more clearly how the Infrastructure Fund would achieve its
    revenue target.
        Though using different mechanisms, both the Legacy Act and the
    Infrastructure Fund rely on monies generated annually through the
    production or sale of energy on Federal public lands should be invested
    in deferred maintenance projects on public lands. This basic premise is
    the underpinning of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, as well as
    $50 million provided by the Helium Stewardship Act of 2013 for NPS
    deferred maintenance projects. PLA supports this general approach, with
    the caveat that the revenue stream must be predictable and meet its
    multi-year targets.

        In a final bill, PLA further urges the Committee to:

         Broaden the approach to all DOI public lands, including
                the National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, and
                Bureau of Land Management. Although beyond the scope of
                this hearing, the needs of the U.S. Forest Service are also
                significant.

         Maintain an incentive for public private partnership, like
                the Legacy Act's use of matching funds to effect
                prioritization.

         Institute a gradual increase of available annual funds so
                that land management agencies can scale up their
                maintenance, contracting, or other staff to efficiently put
                these funds to use. Similarly, once the deferred
                maintenance backlog has been reduced to a manageable level,
                taper but do not eliminate these annual funds to avoid a
                new backlog increase in the future.

         Pair this focus on the deferred maintenance backlog with
                continued, coordinated investments in regular and cyclic
                maintenance and line item construction funding. Without
                these investments, the backlog will continue to grow,
                increasing in the long term both public and private costs.

                incentivize philanthropy and non-profit support
        As their budgets tighten, land management agencies increasingly
    have called upon non-profit partners to fund deferred maintenance
    projects directly. Congress too has looked to non-profit partners to
    tackle the backlog in recent legislation, especially the Helium
    Stewardship Act of 2013 and the National Park Service Centennial Act of
    2016, by making new funding available for deferred maintenance in the
    National Park Service if matched at a minimum of 1:1 by private funds.
    Non-profit partners have stepped up, delivering more than $77 million
    in matching funds to Centennial Challenge funds alone since 2015.

        Yet opportunities for leverage are uneven across DOI public lands.
    Consider the following:

         Rocky Mountain National Park, CO (NPS): Secretary Zinke
                recently visited the park to announce combined $400,000 by
                way of a public-private partnership with the Rocky Mountain
                Conservancy to rebuild the Alluvial Fan Trail, which
                sustained serious damage during the 2013 Colorado Floods
                and remains among the disaster's most visible marks within
                the park. The money--a Centennial Challenge project that
                matches $200,000 from the NPS with an identical amount from
                the Conservancy--will fund Conservation Corps hired and
                managed by the Conservancy, building skills in youth while
                simultaneously restoring a popular trail.

         St. Mark's National Wildlife Refuge, FL (FWS): The refuge
                is the home of an iconic Gulf Coast lighthouse, which the
                Coast Guard transferred to FWS with a leaky roof, rotten
                floors, and more. Due to unsafe conditions, the site can
                only be visited once annually by the public. However, the
                Friends of St. Mark's National Wildlife Refuge has worked
                with partners to fund a structural assessment that
                estimated $1.6 million would be needed to fully restore and
                open it to a projected 40,000 annual visitors. To date, the
                Friends have raised more than $725,000 and, with
                contributions from partners and the state of Florida, the
                tower and keeper house are being restored now. The Friends
                have also restored the lantern room and the light's lens; a
                late spring opening is anticipated. FWS has not been able
                to contribute any funds to this project.

        In addition to highlighting the incredible impact of conservation
    corps on deferred maintenance, the Rocky Mountain National Park example
    underscores the value of the Centennial Challenge to national park
    partners. However, as this program is limited to the NPS, national
    wildlife refuges cannot partake in it and organization's like the
    Friends of St. Mark's must seek leverage outside the Federal
    Government.
        Given the success of the Centennial Challenge, PLA strongly
    recommends that the Centennial Challenge program should scaled up and
    embrace other land management agencies. Although the tradition of
    private philanthropy is not as long in FWS or BLM as it is in the NPS,
    the example of the Friends of St. Mark's highlights its new emphasis,
    as does this Committee's long-standing support for a congressionally
    chartered Bureau of Land Management Foundation.
        PLA believes there is a compelling need to supplement to the
    dedicated, reliable, and sizable funding source with matching funds
    that can be used not only to tackle the deferred maintenance backlog,
    but also projects worthy of philanthropy that will grow the backlog if
    not addressed in a timely manner. Programs like the Centennial
    Challenge that can be used on deferred maintenance yet also tackle a
    broader array of educational and conservation needs give land managers
    in the field and their partners greater flexibility to deliver a
    meaningful visitor experience.
                  enhancing access and the visitor experience
        The vast majority of deferred maintenance backlog issues can be
    attributed to a need to increase access to public lands and then to
    improve the experience of those who do visit these special places. Non-
    profit organizations that partner with DOI bureaus like the National
    Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, and Bureau of Land Management
    share that mission and are eager to work with this Committee and their
    agency colleagues where appropriate and useful. As a representative of
    these partners, PLA stands ready to assist the Committee in any way it
    can to develop a long-lasting solution for the deferred maintenance
    backlog in all DOI managed lands.

        Thank you again for the invitation to testify.

                                     ______

        The Chairman. Thank you.
        And finally, Mr. Rano.

    STATEMENT OF JASON RANO, VICE PRESIDENT, GOVERNMENT RELATIONS,
                NATIONAL PARK FOUNDATION, WASHINGTON, DC

        Mr. Rano. Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva, and
    members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me to testify
    at today's important hearing. My name is Jason Rano. I am the
    Vice President of Government Relations at the National Park
    Foundation, the congressionally chartered philanthropic partner
    of the National Park Service.
        As you know, 2016 was the 100th anniversary of the National
    Park Service. NPS and the Foundation worked together to take
    advantage of this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to bring
    Americans together to celebrate, and look forward to the second
    century of our national parks through our Find Your Park public
    awareness campaign.
        Thanks in part to these efforts, 2016 saw a record 331
    million visits to our parks. And just last week, NPS released
    2017 visitation numbers, which showed a similar number of
    visits to our 417 national parks. That visitation has risen and
    maintained these levels is a testament to the love and
    importance of our national parks.
        However, increased and sustained visitation to our national
    parks increases the already high strain on them. Secretary
    Zinke and many members of this Committee have made tackling the
    $11.6 billion deferred maintenance backlog a priority.
        The focus of my testimony today is the role of philanthropy
    in reducing the backlog, what can philanthropy do, and what is
    best done with Federal dollars.
        NPF's centennial campaign for America's national parks
    began in 2016 with a $350 million goal. As of today, the
    Foundation has raised $494 million toward our new $500 million
    goal. Working together with NPS, this money has been spent with
    an eye toward improving the visitor experience through the
    rehabilitation and repair of trails and facilities, protecting
    and restoring wildlife habitat, and supporting the work of
    youth and veterans corps to enhance our parks.
        The deferred maintenance backlog is a top priority for
    anyone who loves our national parks. As we see increased
    visitation, we see increased strain on the facilities, the
    trails, the roads, the bridges, and the staff, all of which can
    have a negative impact on the visitor experience.
        Imagine being a first-time or infrequent visitor and
    encountering closed bathrooms, washed out trails, and
    impassible roads. Needless to say, that may impact whether you
    return to the park. And it doesn't just impact the park, it
    also plays a role in the financial health of the hundreds of
    gateway communities that rely on park visitors for survival. In
    fact, in 2016 the 331 million visits to our national parks
    resulted in $18.4 billion in spending, and supported 318,000
    jobs.
        As the conversation has increased around how to tackle the
    deferred maintenance backlog, there has been more discussion
    about what role philanthropy can play in helping to do so.
    Philanthropy can play a role, but it is limited to specific
    areas. Philanthropy is not a panacea for deferred maintenance.
        Through our fundraising campaign, the Foundation has found
    that donors are enthusiastic about projects in national parks
    that rehab, repair, and build trails, as well as restoring
    historic buildings and memorials. What we haven't found is
    donors who are willing to support roads, bridges, sewer
    systems, water pipes, or other hard infrastructure. This type
    of maintenance is viewed by donors as an inherently
    governmental responsibility that should be funded by Congress.
    Donors prefer to provide the margin of excellence that NPF
    can't, because of lack of funds or because of the length and
    uncertainty of the appropriations process.
        The National Park Foundation is committed to continuing our
    work with Congress and our partners at NPS to do what we do
    best: raise philanthropic funds for our parks that match donor
    interest with Park Service need, including the backlog.
        It is important to note, though, that while NPF and local
    friends groups around the country have raised hundreds of
    millions of dollars for projects and programs, and while
    philanthropic enthusiasm for our parks has never been higher,
    philanthropy is not a panacea for deferred maintenance.
        Thank you. I look forward to answering your questions.

        [The prepared statement of Mr. Rano follows:]
    Prepared Statement of Jason Rano, Vice President, Government Relations,
                            National Park Foundation
        Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva, and members of the
    Committee, thank you for holding this hearing on ``Exploring Innovative
    Solutions to Reduce the Department of the Interior's Maintenance
    Backlog'' and inviting me to testify. My name is Jason Rano and I am
    the Vice President, Government Relations at the National Park
    Foundation, the congressionally chartered philanthropic partner of the
    National Park Service.
        Chartered by Congress in 1967, the National Park Foundation was
    founded on a legacy that began more than a century ago, when private
    citizens from all walks of life acted to establish and protect our
    national parks. As we celebrate our 50th anniversary throughout this
    year, the National Park Foundation carries on that tradition as the
    only national charitable non-profit whose sole mission is to directly
    support the National Park Service.
        As you know, 2016 was the 100th anniversary of the National Park
    Service. The National Park Service and National Park Foundation worked
    together hand-in-hand to take advantage of this `once in a lifetime'
    opportunity to bring Americans of all ages, races, genders,
    ethnicities, sexual orientations, and political affiliations together
    to celebrate the Centennial and look forward to the second century of
    our national parks.
        Thanks in part to these efforts, 2016 saw a record level of
    visitation to our parks with 331 million visits. Just last week NPS
    released visitation numbers for 2017, which showed a similar number of
    visits to our 417 national parks. In fact, according to NPS, there were
    only 88,000 fewer visits to our parks in 2017 from the record setting
    number we saw in 2016.
        That visitation has risen and maintained these levels is a
    testament to the love and importance of our national parks for
    Americans and people from around the world. Our national parks tell the
    story of America--including important and difficult stories in our
    history.
        However, increased and sustained visitation to our national parks
    increases the already high strain on the facilities, roads, bridges,
    trails as well as hurting the visitor experience by creating traffic
    jams and not having enough staff to effectively interact with visitors.
        Secretary Zinke and many members of this Committee have made
    tackling the nearly $11.6 billion deferred maintenance backlog (as of
    September 30, 2017) a priority.
        The focus of my testimony today is the role of philanthropy in
    tackling the maintenance backlog--basically what can philanthropy do
    and what is best done with Federal dollars.
                centennial campaign for america's national parks
        As many of you are aware, one of the National Park Foundation's
    priorities over the several years has been to capitalize on the
    philanthropic enthusiasm for our parks as part of our Centennial
    Campaign for America's National Parks. Launched in February 2016 with
    an initial goal of $350 million, the campaign has raised $494 million
    to date toward a goal of $500 million. We look forward to reaching this
    historic goal in the next several months.
        This money has been spent with an eye toward improving the visitor
    experience through the rehabilitation and repair of trails and
    facilities, protecting and restoring wildlife habitat, connecting 4th
    graders and their families to parks, and supporting the work of youth
    and veterans corps to enhance our parks.
    Deferred Maintenance
        The deferred maintenance backlog is a top priority for anyone who
    loves our national parks. As we see increased visitation we see
    increased strain on our parks--the facilities, the trails, the roads,
    the bridges, and the staff--all of which can have a negative impact on
    the visitor experience.
        The National Park Foundation's Find Your Park/Encuentra Tu Parque
    campaign targeted the millennial generation as the next generation of
    park visitors, many of whom may be first time or infrequent visitors.
    Imagine being a first time visitor to a park and encountering closed
    bathrooms, washed out trails, and impassable roads. Needless to say
    that may impact whether you return to the park. And that doesn't just
    impact the park. It also plays a role in the financial health of the
    hundreds of gateway communities that rely on park visitors for their
    survival.
        In 2016 the 331 million visits to our national parks resulted in
    $18.4 billion in spending and supported 318,000 jobs.
                   philanthropic role in deferred maintenance
        As the conversation has increased around how to tackle the deferred
    maintenance backlog there has been more discussion about what role
    philanthropy can play in helping to tackle the deferred maintenance
    backlog. Philanthropy can play a role but it is limited to specific
    areas and often provides the margin of excellence. Philanthropy is not
    a panacea for deferred maintenance.
        Through our fundraising campaign, the Foundation has found that
    donors are enthusiastic about projects in national parks that
    rehabilitate, repair, and build trails as well as restoring historic
    buildings and Memorials--like the Lincoln Memorial and Washington
    Monument.

        A few projects include:

         $189,885 to date to support restoration and preservation
                of Grand Canyon National Park's historic Train Depot. This
                ongoing project will address accessibility to the Depot for
                people with disabilities and support structural repairs to
                the Depot's foundation.

         $2 million in matching funds for a 2016 Centennial
                Challenge project to restore the Drakes Estero marine
                wilderness at Point Reyes National Seashore. NPF's
                partnership with Point Reyes National Seashore allowed NPS
                to clean up 5 miles of oyster racks and remove more than
                500 tons of aquaculture debris.

         $303,034 to Sequoia & Kings Canyon National Parks and
                Sequoia Parks Conservancy to fund the parks' 21st Century
                Conservation Service Corps since 2015. The Corps recruits
                disadvantaged young adults from Fresno and Los Angeles to
                work in the front and back country of Sequoia & Kings
                Canyon National Parks. Corps members gain a deep connection
                to the park and valuable training while completing projects
                such as wilderness trail maintenance, watering and care of
                restoration area plantings, interpretive services for
                visitors, boundary fencing assessment and repair, exotic
                vegetation removal, and more.

         $26,000 for a 2015 Centennial Challenge project at
                Florissant Fossil Beds National Monument. NPF's support was
                matched with $26,000 in Federal funds to help the park
                establish an interdisciplinary Youth Conservation Corps
                crew. The crew consisted of nine underserved youth from
                Colorado Springs who developed skills in trail maintenance,
                trail design and safety features, and protecting and
                monitoring paleontological sites.
         $150,000 to restore the helical staircase and replicate
                and install the original light fixtures at Glacier National
                Park's historic Many Glacier Hotel. In partnership with
                Glacier National Park Conservancy, NPF's funds helped
                restore the lobby to its historical significance.

         Over $110,000 to support work on highly trafficked trails
                at Glacier National Park, including funding for a 21st
                Century Conservation Corps to reconstruct the park's iconic
                Hidden Lake Trail at Logan Pass in 2016.

         $121,250 to support a 5-year grant for Yellowstone
                National Park's Youth Conservation Corps in partnership
                with Groundwork USA. In August 2017, participants created
                60 feet of buck and rail fence, built and installed 20
                bumper guards, revitalized four campsites, maintained 6
                miles of trail, revegetated 50 yards of steep mountain, and
                installed and maintained 47 bear proof boxes.

         $18.5 million for the rehabilitation and restoration of
                and expanded public space at The Lincoln Memorial.

         $12.35 million for the full restoration of Arlington
                House, The Robert E. Lee Memorial.

         $5.3 million to renovate and rehabilitate the Marine Corps
                War Memorial (Iwo Jima).

         $3 million to renovate the elevator at the Washington
                Monument.

        What we haven't found in our fundraising is donors who are willing
    to support roads, bridges, sewer systems, water pipes or other hard
    infrastructure. This type of maintenance is viewed by donors as
    inherently governmental responsibilities that should be funded by
    Congress.
        Donors understand that our parks need their support but also
    understand that our parks belong to all of us and that the government
    has a responsibility to fund them. Donors prefer to provide that margin
    of excellence that NPS can't provide because of lack of funds or
    because it will take too long.
        Another important note on the role of philanthropy's limitations is
    the overall dollars raised. NPF is very proud of our Centennial
    Campaign for America's National Parks, which upon its completion will
    have raised $500 million over 5 years (including the quiet phase of the
    campaign). In contrast, the Fiscal Year 2018 Interior Appropriations
    bill passed by the House last year provides $2.9 billion for the
    National Park Service. Even if donors were willing to fund hard
    infrastructure, the dollars aren't there to cover the needs.
                                   conclusion
        The National Park Foundation is committed to continuing to work
    with Congress and our partners at the National Park Service to raise
    philanthropic funds to support key projects and programs throughout the
    park system including those that help with the deferred maintenance
    backlog.
        It's important to note though that while NPF and local friends
    groups around the country have raised hundreds of millions of dollars
    for projects and programs and while philanthropic enthusiasm for our
    parks has never been higher, philanthropy is not a panacea for deferred
    maintenance.
        There are a lot of tools that must be utilized to begin the process
    of improving the visitor experience for everyone.

        Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

                                     ______

        The Chairman. I thank our witnesses for your oral
    testimony. Thank you all for staying within the time limit. We
    will now turn to questions from Committee members.
        I remind the Committee members also that we are on the 5-
    minute system here, so you have 5 minutes to ask the questions
    and have them answered. I am asking the Committee to be kind
    enough not to ask a question if there is not enough time to
    actually get an answer back, because I will still cut you off
    at 5 minutes.
        Mr. Lamborn, we come to you first.
        Mr. Lamborn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
    having this important hearing. Thank you to all of the
    witnesses for being here.
        I would like to follow up on what you were just talking
    about, Mr. Smith. And Mr. Rano, thank you. Thank you. I
    couldn't see the tag from here.
        But for both of you, we talk about philanthropy as having a
    role--not a panacea, but having an important role to play--and,
    I hope, an increasing role. What are the policies, and do we
    need to look again at the policies concerning giving
    recognition to that person? Without maybe billboards and over-
    commercialization, but a tasteful and reasonable recognition
    that I think is a legitimate and proper thing, especially if it
    keeps those contributions coming further. Could you both
    comment on that, please?
        Mr. Rano. I think that is absolutely right. And Director's
    Order 21, which was finalized a few years ago, made incredible
    progress in doing that. It has played a huge role in the
    Foundation being able to partner with corporate partners, and
    the recognition has been something that they have really
    appreciated.
        So, throughout the Find Your Park campaign, which actually
    continues in another form today, there was recognition of our
    premiere level corporate partners. And that is something that
    has helped bring in about $90 million in corporate donations to
    the Foundation, which has helped.
        Mr. Lamborn. What about signs on the project itself? A sign
    saying this building was contributed through the funds of XYZ
    Corporation.
        Mr. Rano. I would have to defer to my Park Service
    colleague on that.
        Mr. Lamborn. Mr. Smith?
        Mr. Smith. The Park Service has come a long way with
    Director's Order 21, and many of the philanthropic partners
    understand the limitations that have been put on donor
    recognition. Many of them are now fully aware that recognition
    on a donor board inside a visitor center or whatever else is a
    very substantial way to recognize this. To start to put
    nomenclature on every single thing that gets done, a walkway or
    bridge or whatever else, is problematic.
        In my short time back, I am hearing that the donor
    community understands the limits that we have on this, but
    understands that the recognition that we do now provide under
    Director's Order 21 does meet their needs. If it is more of a
    problem, certainly we can have that discussion. But I believe
    we have come a long way to addressing that issue, Congressman.
        Mr. Lamborn. Well, I think we have come a long way, also. I
    would like to keep looking at that. Recognition is important,
    as long as we are striking the proper balance.
        And Mr. Smith, I have you talking here. I would like to
    follow up with a different question. The Committee recently
    passed the 21st Century Conservation Service Corps Act, by
    unanimous consent. Secretary Zinke was a supporter of this bill
    when he was on this Committee. This bill would engage more
    corps and thousands of young people and veterans who serve in
    the corps, like in Colorado, to help address more high-priority
    projects, including backlog maintenance.
        Can you talk about the impact that getting thousands of
    more young people and veterans working on these projects would
    have?
        Mr. Smith. Congressman, it is one of the most thrilling
    things that I can deal with, coming back, to get youth to
    participate on the land, to realize stewardship, to get an
    understanding that these public lands are important to the
    American public. Fully, the Department and I, as Deputy
    Director of the Park Service, fully support getting as many of
    our youth on our Park Service sites nationwide through all the
    corps responsibilities, through the Student Conservation
    Association, through YMCAs, whatever.
        To connect young people and veterans back to these public
    lands is one of the best things we can do to support the
    National Park Service. And the Department is moving in that
    direction, certainly, to support that legislation and to get
    people on the ground. I have been signing grants to accomplish
    just that in the national parks for this coming year, involving
    all of those types of youth groups and veterans groups who will
    provide that on-the-ground stewardship this year.
        Mr. Lamborn. So, these plans are coming along?
        Mr. Smith. Yes. Yes, they are.
        Mr. Lamborn. OK, I appreciate that.
        My time is drawing to a close, so I will yield back the
    balance of my time.
        The Chairman. Thank you. You are doing really well. I am
    proud of you.
        [Laughter.]
        The Chairman. Mr. Grijalva, match that.
        Mr. Grijalva. I hate the unattainable goals that you set
    for me, Mr. Chairman.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Grijalva. Mr. Iobst--and I am sorry if I didn't say
    that correctly--one of the deep concerns about the Fiscal Year
    2019 budget for the Department of the Interior is it basically
    eliminates all funding for Federal land acquisition. The budget
    document justifies this massive elimination and cut as an
    opportunity to then focus on deferred maintenance and other
    land management priorities. It undermines 50-plus years of
    success of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. And land
    acquisition, I think, is an important tool that makes
    management more efficient and does increase access to our
    public land.
        In your experience, sir, does land acquisition contribute
    to the deferred maintenance across the National Park System?
        Mr. Iobst. If I understand your question, does land
    acquisition contribute to the deferred maintenance backlog?
        Mr. Grijalva. Yes.
        Mr. Iobst. My experience is very little in holdings that
    are purchased, which actually reduce maintenance costs and
    operations costs in certain parks that I have worked with, like
    Rocky Mountain and Grand Teton.
        Mr. Grijalva. And yes, you just mentioned what the
    importance is in promoting access to public lands and
    acquisition. Do you have to eliminate, as is proposed in the
    budget, land acquisition to focus on deferred maintenance?
        Mr. Iobst. I don't believe that it is something that is
    mutually exclusive. I think the Park Service and other agencies
    in the Department of the Interior, based on my experience, need
    both emphases in order to carry out their mission.
        Mr. Grijalva. Yes. Again, sir, if I may, the other concern
    is the lack of dependability and certainty of the funding
    stream in the President's proposed Public Lands Infrastructure
    Fund.
        Construction projects, as mentioned, rely on multi-year
    funding that is known and dependable at the outset. It helps
    the National Park Service and other agencies to stage their
    project work with contractors. The uncertainty of available
    funding would create difficulty for National Park Service to
    engage in procurement and contracting that is needed to
    successfully repair these reconstruction projects that are run
    multi-year.
        In your perspective, and in your experience, with many
    different positions in the National Park Service that you have
    had, can you speak about the importance of that dependability
    of funding, particularly for multi-year projects?
        Mr. Iobst. Yes, sir, thank you. My experience, and not just
    large construction projects, but also programs like the repair
    rehab program and cyclic maintenance program that are part of
    the National Park Service appropriate--when I, as a park
    manager and as a chief of facility management, knew what a
    multi-year program looked like, there is a certain amount of
    preparation to take place at the park and through centralized
    contracting offices with project managers to anticipate and
    even do pre-planning for certain projects.
        Therefore, the more successful programs in the National
    Park Service, based on my experience, are those where there is
    a known and reliable funding source well into the future.
        Mr. Grijalva. Yes. Do you have concerns, I mentioned two
    about the Administration's proposal to fund deferred
    maintenance. Do you have other concerns that you would like to
    address at this point?
        Mr. Iobst. If I may, I am very encouraged by the idea of a
    dependable, reliable funding source that is significant in
    dollars to address what is approaching a $12 billion backlog in
    the Park Service. I do have concerns regarding operating funds
    and the fact that diminishment of operating funds in the Fiscal
    Year 2018 and Fiscal Year 2019 budgets, as examples, do nothing
    more than contribute to that deferred maintenance backlog,
    because that is why we are in the condition we are, if you
    will, with annual funding and operational funding never meeting
    the need, just to keep that deferred maintenance backlog from
    growing.
        Mr. Grijalva. And a self-fulfilling prophecy, which I
    think, in the course of the budget reductions across this area
    in the last decade and a half, has contributed to that backlog.
    And no investment that we can see, other than a wish and a hope
    that energy production is so robust, so huge, that it begins to
    deal with deferred maintenance.
        I appreciate your answer, and I yield back.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Mr. McClintock.
        Mr. McClintock. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Smith, what regulatory hurdles have you encountered in
    addressing these deferred maintenance needs?
        Mr. Smith. One more time, Congressman.
        Mr. McClintock. What regulatory hurdles have you
    encountered?
        Mr. Smith. Certainly in some of the ones that we do for our
    major projects, the Park Service, because of our historic
    buildings and because of the nature of our land holdings, we
    always have the National Environmental Policy Act to have to
    consider. And that is a process. The Secretary of the Interior
    has instructed us to streamline that process and not have it
    take years when we do environmental impacts.
        Mr. McClintock. Yes. I was going to say it is a big
    process. It goes on for many, many years, and runs up enormous
    costs. Does it not?
        Mr. Smith. Yes.
        Mr. McClintock. And how much does that add to our
    maintenance costs? This simply filling bureaucratic regulatory
    needs?
        Mr. Smith. It is certainly part of the cost.
        Mr. McClintock. How big a part? Would you hazard a guess?
        Mr. Smith. I would not want to hazard a guess, but it is
    certainly--just in time, to get these projects on line--and
    then certainly there is a dollar amount, but I would not----
        Mr. McClintock. Would you have your folks look into that
    and get back to this Committee? I would like to know. Of these
    $12 billion or so of deferred maintenance needs of the National
    Park Service, how much of it is the actual reconstruction of a
    bridge or repaving of a road, and how much of it is simply
    meeting all of these regulatory demands that we placed in your
    way.
        Mr. Smith. We will provide that for the record,
    Congressman.
        Mr. McClintock. I think that would be very enlightening for
    all of us.
        Mr. Rano, have we taken on too much public land? I am from
    California. We own 48 percent of California, 93 percent of my
    county of Alpine in the Sierra Nevada, 85 percent of the entire
    state of Nevada, 65 percent of Utah, 62 percent of Idaho and
    Alaska.
        A few years ago, Mr. Gohmert on this Committee compared the
    Federal Government to the old miser whose mansion is the city
    eyesore, the windows broken, paint peeling, weeds growing in
    the yard, because he spends all of his time and money plotting
    how to buy his neighbor's properties.
        What is your viewpoint on this?
        Mr. Rano. Thank you, Congressman. The Foundation does not
    have a stance or a view on new units or purchasing too much
    land. We are asked from time to time by the Department and the
    Service to support new units with philanthropic money, which we
    are happy to do.
        Mr. McClintock. But we can't take care of the land we have.
    And as I look at these numbers, it looks like we have an awful
    lot.
        Mr. Puskar, what are your views on the subject?
        Mr. Puskar. The Public Lands Alliance very much supports
    the fact that so many visitors want to experience these public
    lands. And there is a distinction, we think, between the amount
    of public land and what kind of built assets we need to create
    to make sure that the American public can really experience
    them.
        So, I absolutely believe that investing in roads so there
    is easier access to get into these places is----
        Mr. McClintock. We had the National Park Service Director
    here a few years ago. I asked him, ``What would be your
    preference, as far as prioritizing money, maintenance or
    acquiring new land?'' He said maintenance.
        Mr. Puskar. I think, given the substantial hurdles that
    exist for it, I would agree with him.
        Mr. McClintock. Mr. Puskar, I want to go on to another
    question, and that is that concessionaires seem to take care of
    their facilities much more efficiently than the land management
    agencies. Should we be looking at more concession contracts as
    a better way to manage campsites, trails, restrooms, and other
    facilities?
        Mr. Puskar. There are certainly many ways in which the
    private sector can be supportive of those kinds of efforts.
        Mr. McClintock. I am not talking about being supportive. I
    mean hiring to take care of the stuff that we can't take care
    of.
        Mr. Puskar. Absolutely. And there are many non-profits
    across the system, as well, through historic leasing
    agreements, that are able to provide similar kinds of changes
    to the maintenance, to rehabilitate and ensure that those
    places can be used by the public. Historic leasing is one of
    those areas we think the Park Service can expand its work.
        Mr. McClintock. Thank you.
        Mr. Rano, you mentioned record visitation of the national
    parks. But doesn't that include visits to Washington, DC
    memorials, and the like? If I walked down the Capitol Mall and
    I just drop in to see the Lincoln Memorial, the Washington
    Monument, the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, the Korean War
    Memorial, does that count as five visitations?
        Mr. Rano. It does.
        Mr. McClintock. Because I am killing an hour on the Mall.
        Mr. Rano. Yes, but also----
        Mr. McClintock. OK, what concerns me, though, is that
    number, I think, is very misleading. What is going to happen to
    overnight stays? It is the overnight stays that I think better
    represent the use of our national parks as planned destinations
    for visitors.
        The Chairman. You will get a chance to----
        Mr. McClintock. Up or down? Is it going up or going down?
        Mr. Rano. I don't have that number.
        The Chairman. OK. Ms. Bordallo.
        Ms. Bordallo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Smith, the 1978 Federal law that establishes the War in
    the Pacific National Historic Park directs the National Park
    Service to employ and train residents of Guam and the Northern
    Marianas Islands to develop, maintain, and administer the park.
    The directive reflects the fact that locally hired staff have
    less turnover, especially in remote but very important national
    park units like Guam's War in the Pacific National Park.
        Can you please speak to the National Park Service's efforts
    to meet this congressional directive? I have heard numerous
    complaints from my constituents that the National Park Service
    does not attempt to recruit Guam residents for staffing
    vacancies at the War in the Pacific National Historic Park. I
    have seen this, myself, so Mr. Smith, could you answer that?
        Mr. Smith. Yes, Delegate. I am not personally aware of the
    situation, but I certainly will look into it. With that kind of
    direction, and especially with the location of Guam, I don't
    know why we wouldn't consider residents of Guam for those
    positions. But sitting here today, I do not have a definitive
    answer on that.
        I will look into it. Again, with that congressional
    direction, we certainly will look to see what that situation is
    on Guam.
        Ms. Bordallo. Mr. Smith, can you then get that report back
    to my office?
        Mr. Smith. Yes, I will get something back to you very
    shortly.
        Ms. Bordallo. Thank you. I appreciate that. My next
    question is for Mr. Guertin.
        As this Committee examines how best to eliminate the
    maintenance backlog, we should also look at how agencies within
    the DOI budget for and prioritize projects.
        I understand that the Fish and Wildlife Service gives
    significant deference to its regions in how resources are
    allocated among the national wildlife refuge units during the
    annual budgeting process. My question to you is, some regions
    appear to link the amount budgeted for operations and
    maintenance to the number of full-time employees assigned to
    each refuge. This effectively short-changes refuges that are
    under-staffed, but have substantial needs.
        Mr. Guertin, can you please confirm whether Region 1, which
    includes the Pacific territories and Guam National Wildlife
    Refuge, engages in this budgeting practice?
        Mr. Guertin. Thank you for your question. We have about a
    $40 million allocation we ship out to the eight regions of the
    Fish and Wildlife Service for deferred maintenance. We tier
    those allocations off the Secretary's priorities of sportsmen's
    access, taking care of habitat, health and safety, and eroding
    the high-priority maintenance backlog as the national level
    drivers.
        There is some discretion given to the eight operating units
    at the regional level to sub-allocate, based on regional
    priorities. I am not completely aware of the specifics of your
    question on the specifics of Region 1. We would be glad to
    provide an update for you after the hearing and give you a more
    detailed answer on what happens between Portland, Oregon and
    the field station out there.
        Ms. Bordallo. Thank you. A quick question here. My concern
    is that linking budgeting to the number of full-time employees
    does not reflect accurately the unique maintenance public
    safety needs at our refuges.
        So, Mr. Guertin, will the Fish and Wildlife Service commit
    to make the Service's standard guidance for regional budgeting
    available to the members of this Committee?
        Mr. Guertin. Yes, we certainly will.
        Ms. Bordallo. All right, thank you.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        The Chairman. Will you yield for 1 second?
        Ms. Bordallo. Yes.
        The Chairman. Put 1 minute back out there. That is how much
    time you didn't use. I like the question you asked.
        Mr. Guertin, would you give her a direct answer? Is the
    number of employees a precondition or a condition that is used
    in allocation of the budget, which is what she was asking?
        Mr. Guertin. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I can fully brief you on
    what we do at the national level. I am not 100 percent
    personally confident of what happens at the regional level to
    drive their allocations. That is why I am asking if we can
    brief you back after I do the due diligence and research for
    the benefit of the leadership here.
        The Chairman. Thank you. That was a unique question. I
    appreciate you getting back with us on that answer.
        Ms. Bordallo. Please get back to us. It is important.
        Mr. Guertin. Yes, ma'am. You bet.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        All right. We are done? Ms. Bordallo, you have more?
        Ms. Bordallo. I yield.
        The Chairman. We are done?
        OK. Mr. LaMalfa.
        Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And our witnesses,
    for your time and testimony today and expertise. Again, I will
    come back to Mr. Smith. I also wanted to follow up Mr.
    McClintock on NEPA.
        It is interesting. Some hearing meetings we hear the
    statements that NEPA never costs or delays any project that we
    are trying to do in this country. What kind of things do you
    see, Mr. Smith, when you are trying to renovate a building
    sometimes already existing in a park 50 or 60 or more years,
    what do you learn from having done the NEPA study about that
    renovation that causes a different effect than what you would
    have just done if you had just redone that piece of
    infrastructure, building a road, a trail, what have you?
        Does NEPA cause you to have to do different things to that
    infrastructure that you would not have done, had you just gone
    out and done it?
        Mr. Smith. NEPA can, depending on where the structure is
    and what you are doing.
        But in the case of historic buildings, we have to deal with
    Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. And that
    is a shorter process, but it does require coordination with the
    state historic preservation officer, which then requires
    certain public hearings and that type of thing.
        Mr. LaMalfa. Is that a conflict?
        Mr. Smith. It is not a conflict. We have tremendous
    coordination with the state historic preservation officers.
        Mr. LaMalfa. I mean does it conflict with NEPA goals by
    having that goal? Does that mean you cannot restore
    historically, because NEPA is causing you to do something else?
        Mr. Smith. It doesn't prevent us, but you do go through the
    process to get to a final decision that you can take actions on
    buildings or roads. You do have those processes to consider.
        Mr. LaMalfa. And does that change the nature of building
    the road from its intention or from how it historically really
    was?
        Mr. Smith. No. Usually, it gets you to where you need to be
    to be accurate, as far as your historic preservation, or----
        Mr. LaMalfa. The NEPA process means you don't have to tear
    out a road, tear out a fence, tear out a building, or make it
    smaller, or something on that order?
        Mr. Smith. No, NEPA would not----
        Mr. LaMalfa. So, what do you actually learn from going
    through the NEPA process about restoring something that has
    already been there?
        Mr. Smith. Well, that is, again, more of the historic
    preservation process, rather than NEPA.
        Mr. LaMalfa. But you are still required to do a NEPA, which
    takes how long and how much cost? On average, who knows? It
    doesn't really matter right now for this Committee, other than
    it takes a lot of time and extra cost.
        What do you learn from going through a NEPA that really
    helps you in the process? See, to me, it seems like it just
    slows you down and helps the $12 billion, or whatever the
    number is, get larger, and the list get longer and older.
        Mr. Smith. In my experience as a superintendent, when I
    dealt with my historic buildings, it was with the National
    Historic Preservation Act, not so much NEPA. NEPA comes into
    effect on these big projects such as sewer systems and that
    type of thing that do affect the environment around the
    project.
        I may be slightly missing your context, Congressman. But
    those two Acts, the regulations from those, are used in
    determining what we do on projects within the parks. It is a
    process that does require time, but in the final analysis, we
    do get to answers.
        I will say again that Secretary Zinke has streamlined the
    process and we are now shortening our NEPA process. He is
    stating that we need to do those within a year, and we are
    moving to do those time frames.
        Mr. LaMalfa. And I appreciate he is doing that. He has been
    in place a little over a year. Has this process actually played
    out? Have you had a chance to do it in practice, and then not
    been sued over having a shortened process yet?
        Mr. Smith. There is always a chance to be sued,
    Congressman.
        Mr. LaMalfa. Have you been sued yet over the shortened
    process?
        Mr. Smith. To the best of my knowledge, we have not. And I
    have sent the guidance to the National Park Service, within the
    past 4 weeks that I have been in the Department, of our
    streamlining procedures.
        Some of that decision will be that we will go to
    environmental assessments, rather than full-blown EISs. In that
    case, you do sometimes leave yourself vulnerable for lawsuits.
    But if an EA is done properly, it cuts that time limit down
    dramatically, and you can get to the goals that we hope to get
    to and be sensitive to the environment.
        Mr. LaMalfa. I am short of time here. Let me ask. What is
    your inventory of dead or dying trees in your western states'
    parks, especially?
        Mr. Smith. I don't have a definitive answer on that, but it
    certainly is a problem in our national parks.
        Mr. LaMalfa. Would you believe that having a process where
    you could be thinning out and removing some of this material
    might make our parks safer? How many of your parks have been
    burned out in the last 15 or 20 years because of this?
        Mr. Smith. I can certainly provide that number for the
    Committee. And, yes, the Secretary again has sent instructions
    that we need to be looking at various ways to manage these
    lands and to remove that stored up fuel source in these parks
    to hopefully----
        Mr. LaMalfa. How bold are you willing to be to actually do
    something about it, instead of continuing to look at it?
        Mr. Smith. I believe we are moving to remove materials, not
    just look at it, under the Secretary's plan to take action on
    these parks.
        Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Mr. Beyer.
        Mr. Beyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks all of you for
    being here.
        I really want to thank Deputy Director Smith for working
    with me and my office on the GW Parkway South, the speeding
    problems, the accident problems. All of our constituents are
    very grateful.
        Mr. Iobst, you write that a fee revenue is critical. But it
    can only be increased so much without becoming prohibitive, and
    even the recently proposed fee hike for the peak visiting
    seasons would address less than 1 percent of the National Park
    Service backlog.
        I am really concerned about the tripling of fees at a
    number of parks like Shenandoah National Park during peak
    season for two reasons. Number one, is the price elasticity of
    demand, are you actually going to raise more or less? And
    Number two, not only is it chasing away potential visitors, but
    the fact that places like Shenandoah are weekend retreats for
    local residents, rather than destinations like Yosemite or
    Yellowstone.
        I understand there is also a four-tier fee structure that
    the Park Service has in place. How much revenue will be
    generated for deferred maintenance if all the parks that are
    authorized to use the four-tier structure actually use it? And
    is this a better alternative than tripling the fees at places
    like Shenandoah?
        Mr. Iobst. Thank you very much for your question. Early in
    my career, I spent 2 years in Shenandoah National Park, so I am
    very familiar with that place.
        Mr. Beyer. Lots of bears.
        Mr. Iobst. And beautiful valley. So, I guess I would agree
    with your comments. My concern, both professionally and
    personally, is I don't know what the price point is. I am not
    sure if the National Park Service has ever studied what the
    price point is today versus 5 years ago versus, you know, 5, 10
    years into the future, with regard to appropriate fees for
    entry to the national parks.
        Again, my quick analysis that was performed for my
    testimony with regard to the current proposed doubling of fees
    in, I think, 17 parks in the Service during the 5-month or 7-
    month--I can't remember whether it was 5 or 7--main visitor
    season, again, the amount of revenue that that would
    contribute, as I said in my testimony, was about 1 percent of
    what that backlog is.
        So, what is the cause and effect here? And what we don't
    know is who does that prohibit from coming to parks? I believe,
    personally and professionally, that it would prohibit some
    people from coming to parks. If you compare a trip to
    Disneyland or a movie and a pizza or whatever it is, I don't
    think those are very good comparisons.
        The fact of the matter is that the difference is that these
    were created mostly by the Congress. There is a responsibility
    through the appropriation process to properly fund these parks.
    What is before us is a significant effort in that direction.
    And my concern is that the intent may be good, but the effect
    of that may prevent those, especially from diverse parts of our
    Nation, from coming to our parks.
        Mr. Beyer. My concern is it is now $70 to take your family
    for a hike in Shenandoah Park.
        Mr. Iobst, again, you wrote and I am going to edit, ``we
    commend Senator Warner et al. for introducing the National Park
    Service Legacy Act. . . . The bill would dedicate more than $11
    billion to the parks backlog through receipts from onshore and
    offshore energy development not otherwise dedicated to other
    purposes.''
        Then a page later you talk about worrying about explicitly
    linking infrastructure funding to environmentally threatening
    and damaging energy production, et cetera. How do you link
    those two? And is there a danger of ramping up fossil fuel,
    ramping up the climate change, danger to the parks in putting
    those two together?
        Mr. Iobst. That is specifically the concern of the National
    Parks Conservation Association, who I represent, that the
    interest in energy development, how close is that going to be
    to public lands. And then how much of it takes place on public
    lands? Certainly there are public lands where oil and gas
    development and coal mining and other mineral extraction take
    place.
        The concern is how much of that is directly related to
    damaging air quality, water quality, scenic vistas in as well
    as out of national parks, specifically, to other public lands.
    In other words, at what cost to the environment, to the quality
    of life, would that increased extraction cause in order to fund
    the deferred maintenance backlog? And that is a concern.
        Mr. Beyer. Thank you.
        Mr. Guertin, a very short answer. I will not ask my whole
    question. Elephant importation. You changed your mind from
    where the President was. What is the current state in Zimbabwe,
    Zambia?
        Mr. Guertin. Congressman, we are continuing to work with
    the White House and DOI political leadership on a new vision to
    govern the importation of all sport-hunted trophies. We have
    announced--should I keep going, sir?
        The Chairman. No. You are right to stop. Give them time to
    get the answers in.
        Mr. Westerman.
        Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the
    witnesses for being here today. I am from Hot Springs,
    Arkansas, where Hot Springs National Park is located. Some
    people may not realize, but the thermal waters there were
    discovered in the 1500s by DeSoto and had been used, estimated,
    thousands of years before by indigenous peoples. The park was
    first set aside in 1832 by an Act of Congress, before Arkansas
    was even a state, and long before the National Park System was
    ever in existence. So, there is a long history of recreation
    and protection there in the thermal waters of Hot Springs.
        In the 1800s, spring baseball was invented in Hot Springs
    National Park because the baseball teams came there to take the
    waters, as they would say, and they started doing spring
    practice. It was a very popular tourist destination for a long
    time. But as time went on, less people used the park, and there
    were these magnificent bathhouses there that began to sit idle.
        So, in Hot Springs the Park Service started doing these
    long-term leases. It was a pretty innovative process that they
    developed there, where they would do the lease and, instead of
    the Park Service having to keep these historic buildings
    maintained and keep the heating and cooling on the building,
    they would get tenants that would come in and remove that
    maintenance cost, but also generate a little bit of income
    through the lease, and also create a lot of economic develop
    there, with tourists coming in.
        They even have now, it is the only one in the Park Service
    that has a brewery that uses the thermal waters to make beer in
    one of the bathhouses. Pretty creative and innovative.
        Mr. Smith, are historic property leasing contracts like the
    ones going on in Hot Springs an innovative method for
    addressing Interior maintenance backlog?
        Mr. Smith. Congressman, I believe so. And I dealt with
    those bathhouses back as far as the 1980s, when I was at the
    Department. So, I am familiar with that unbelievable history at
    Hot Springs.
        Historic leasing is certainly something in the Park Service
    that we have in policy. Each one is a case-by-case. For me to
    hear that you have one that is very successful and very
    innovative is certainly the way that the Agency is moving. I
    don't know what the rest of your question is, except that that
    is a very positive sign.
        Historic leases are difficult in some ways because of the
    investment that we require for those properties. And if you
    have gotten over that hump, then obviously it is something that
    we should look at in other areas.
        Mr. Westerman. Yes. Out of all the bathhouses there, there
    is only one that is not currently in use or under lease. They
    just created a new lease to make a boutique hotel and a
    destination getaway in one of the bathhouses.
        But my question is are there other places in the Department
    of the Interior where leases are being utilized like that, or
    where they could be used to remove some of the maintenance
    backlog?
        Mr. Smith. There certainly are. Right now none come to my
    mind, but I could certainly provide those for the record. And
    we do look for those. They are not as easy in some areas as
    others, because of the amount that is required to go in and
    take over those properties. But in dealing with some of our
    non-profits and some of our other people who have testified
    today, those are the innovative ways to now address these
    problems through historic leasing.
        Mr. Westerman. Yes, I know that in Hot Springs the
    maintenance backlog is about $12 to $13 million, and most of
    that is in roadways. From looking at the data, I believe across
    the national parks, well over half of the maintenance backlog
    is in roadways.
        We have already talked about private-public partnerships,
    the issues that you face trying to get private donors to fund
    roadways or sewer systems or other parts of the infrastructure
    that are critical, but might not look quite as good in an
    advertisement to say you supported that.
        I am running out of time, but as far as the roadways, are
    we seeing more and more transportation systems degrading, or is
    there any kind of improvement? Have you been able to stabilize
    that over the years?
        Mr. Smith. We certainly have degrading systems. I believe
    that about 5,000 of our 70,000 roads are in deferred
    maintenance at this time.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Mr. Costa.
        Mr. Costa. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I think the
    oversight hearing exploring innovative solutions to reduce the
    Department of the Interior's maintenance backlog on our parks
    and our recreational facilities throughout the country is
    appropriate. And I think we all know what the challenge is.
        This backlog has not happened yesterday or the day before.
    It has accumulated over decades. And when we look at just the
    National Park Service, we are talking about 417 units covering
    more than 84 million acres. The deferral backlog there is $11
    billion of the $16 billion in totality that there is estimated
    to be when we include all of the other refuges, wetlands, and
    special management areas that are a part of Interior's overall
    responsibility.
        I have been one of those that has been critical of the
    Secretary's proposal to simply try to deal, at least with a
    part of this backlog, through increase in fees for parks across
    the country, or some of the major parks, because I think that
    is an uneven way to handle it, and does not really get to the
    heart of the problem. And it certainly, I think, creates
    tremendous disadvantages for Americans who want to enjoy their
    parks, whether people are going for a destination vacation, or
    whether people are nearby.
        Let me use, as an example, one of the glamour parks, for
    lack of a better term, but certainly one of America's great
    national parks, Yosemite, that is in my backyard. Yosemite's
    maintenance backlog is estimated to be over $550 million. A lot
    of us who are in the area like to think it is our park. But
    King's Canyon is also a part of that, as well.
        They have a maintenance backlog of buildings, $107 million;
    campgrounds, $4 million; housing, $16 million; paid roads,
    which is access to the park, $269 million is the single largest
    deferred; $17 million in trails; $3 million in unpaved roads;
    $73 million in water systems. So, you add it all up, it is $555
    million.
        Because it is a legacy park, and because it has an
    international reputation as well as a national reputation,
    there is a lot of support. The Yosemite Conservation
    Foundation, that I support, and many other people have raised
    over $100 million in recent years. That $100 million
    distributed about $6 to $10 million annually. And they get
    about $20 million in donations because it is such a high legacy
    park and there is a lot of attraction to it. But private sector
    donations literally by itself is not enough to deal with $555
    million in backlog.
        So, I think we have to look at some other areas that
    provide support for not only the high profile parks in this
    country that get the most amount of usage, but also all of the
    other park units, and wetlands, and other areas. I think the
    National Park Service Legacy Act that Congressman Will Hurd has
    that is a bipartisan bill, one that I am a co-sponsor, that is
    a companion measure to the Warner bill on the Senate side, is
    the way to do it. It would provide $11 billion over 30 years to
    address maintenance backlog through receipts of offshore and
    onshore energy development already dedicated to other important
    purposes, like the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
        I think this is an area that we can and should have
    bipartisan support, unlike other issues in this Committee,
    where we tend to have a more partisan perspective. The fact of
    the matter is that so many of our national parks throughout the
    country need the support.
        This money, that would be generated over a period of time,
    would provide backlog for transportation projects that Congress
    needs. We also need to look at challenges to the Highway Trust
    Fund. For many of these parks, the challenge is access. So, I
    think that we can and should do something about this, not just
    for our legacy parks, but the other units.
        So, I would hope, Mr. Chairman, that we could kind of focus
    our time on a bipartisan bill that could provide real money to
    do this. Certainly I think raising the fees is not the answer
    to addressing this issue. I yield back the balance of my time.
        The Chairman. Thank you. We will have a bipartisan bill.
    Just keep doing what I tell you to do, and everything is OK.
        [Laughter.]
        The Chairman. Mr. Thompson.
        Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Chairman. Thanks, members of the
    panel, for being here. A very important topic, dealing with our
    maintenance backlog.
        Mr. Smith, there is a 2016 Government Accountability Office
    (GAO) report on the National Park Service asset maintenance
    prioritization. And it noted that ``the Park Service does not
    have a plan or time frame for evaluating whether the capital
    investment strategy has been successful.''
        Has the National Park Service leadership made efforts to
    examine the strategy since the study's release, to ensure that
    taxpayer dollars were being directed in the most effective and
    efficient manner regarding deferred maintenance?
        Mr. Smith. Congressman, yes. I have been briefed in my
    short time back that we are looking at the actual management
    system, managing the assets to really make that process make
    more sense to the field, to get numbers that we actually can
    rely on.
        Then, through the capital investment strategy, we are
    looking at ways to make that more transparent to where we are
    actually putting our assets. And that is a ground-up type of
    review. It is not top-down.
        Mr. Thompson. Very good. Well, I wanted to follow up on the
    capital investment strategy. It doesn't seem like it has been
    successful, or maybe just minimally so, because the deferred
    maintenance backlog has grown by almost $2 billion over the
    past decade.
        Do you think the capital investment strategy is successful?
    And if so, what are your measures of success?
        Mr. Smith. The last 4 years especially, Congressman, the
    deferred maintenance is, basically we are keeping it level. I
    hope Congress realizes we will never get to zero on deferred
    maintenance. But it would be very important to get it down to a
    much lower number in the billions of dollars.
        Again, being back just this short time, I probably need to
    get more information on the strategy, and I certainly will
    provide that to the Committee.
        Mr. Thompson. As we have seen, the National Park Service
    has certainly been particularly popular in the past few years,
    which is great. Has the Park Service taken any steps to
    leverage this newfound interest, and create new streams of
    revenue to help with addressing some of the backlog issues?
        Mr. Smith. You have heard from our partners that have
    appeared today as witnesses that those efforts--obviously, the
    Secretary is looking at fees, we do have a fee structure, and
    he is coming at it in a different angle. We are working with
    him on options to look at the best way.
        But the fee structure, whether you deal with it on a local
    level or a state level, fees are part of what you do to keep
    these areas that are so important to people available. And the
    fee structure that we have in the Park Service has been an
    important element in that.
        I believe last year it was $318 million that was derived
    from that system. I remember in the mid-1980s, we actually
    endeavored to come to Congress to establish a fee program, so
    it has been tremendously successful in generating those funds.
        What is before the Committee today in concept with this new
    infrastructure fund is a way to look at this. And we hope that,
    in coordination and cooperation with the Committee, we will get
    to a bill that will provide this type of funding for deferred
    maintenance. We don't have all the answers, but we are trying
    to find solutions.
        Mr. Thompson. Thank you.
        Mr. Guertin, thanks for testifying before the Committee. I
    appreciate your kind of focus, your emphasis on collaborative
    efforts. I have always believed one-size-fits-all solutions
    rarely work. And in this case, Federal funding is certainly
    necessary to help eliminate the Department's backlog, but it is
    not the final and only solution.
        You had mentioned a number of collaborative efforts between
    the Department and outside organizations that have created
    opportunities to improve Federal lands. How can we create more
    of these opportunities, moving forward, and leverage the
    Federal dollars with local, with non-profits, with all the
    different places that we see when we do collaboration?
        Mr. Guertin. Thank you for your question, Congressman.
    Secretary Zinke is really stressing the idea of conservation
    without conflict and collaborating across landscapes in
    developing a shared vision amongst the partners. Certainly that
    drives the Fish and Wildlife Service, our refuge system
    hatcheries and our other Federal agencies to partner with
    groups like these, the private sector, the all-important
    relationship with the state fish and game agencies and the
    state parks departments and the other Federal agencies to
    develop this shared vision, go after these bundled or larger
    program implementation schemes, and leverage all of our dollars
    against these shared objectives.
        Mr. Thompson. Thank you.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Ms. Hanabusa.
        Ms. Hanabusa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My question is to
    Steven, is it Iobst?
        Mr. Iobst, thank you, first of all, for your 43 years of
    service to the Park Service. I would like to ask you. Can you
    distinguish between yearly maintenance and deferred
    maintenance? At what point does it become deferred maintenance?
    And what is the problem? Is the problem the way the National
    Park Service looks at maintenance, is it that we have this huge
    deferred maintenance backlog, and we are meeting our yearly
    maintenance requirements?
        Mr. Iobst. Thank you for the question. I should also say,
    and I said earlier, thank you very much for your support of the
    National Park Service Legacy Act.
        Ms. Hanabusa. Thank you.
        Mr. Iobst. The deferred maintenance begins on a facility,
    whether it is a road or a trail, the day it is constructed. It
    is man-made or human-made, and if the funding is not there year
    after year to do the routine maintenance, replace critical
    components, re-roof buildings, re-paint, do renovations and
    restoration, as necessary, on buildings that are maintained
    into perpetuity, which is our mission, then there becomes this
    gap between annualized funding, if you will, through
    appropriations, donations, and other fund sources, and the real
    need, so that every year that--40 percent in Yellowstone--my
    experience in Yellowstone was annual funding or routine
    maintenance funding met about 40 percent of the need that was
    determined by the park asset management planning process, which
    is a very reliable process of understanding what the need is.
    That gap will grow every year, because your 40 percent, 40
    percent of the 100 percent that is necessary.
        Ms. Hanabusa. So, in other words, 60 percent every year is
    falling into this category called deferred maintenance.
        Mr. Iobst. Yes, that is a simplistic way to look at it,
    ma'am, but yes, that is essentially what is happening.
        Ms. Hanabusa. And when we introduced the legacy fund, our
    intent was to figure out some independent funding source that
    would sort of assist in making up the difference, because
    clearly the annual appropriations are not going to do it. And
    even if we try to get some sort of partnership, that is not
    going to do it, because that amount is a huge amount.
        What would you say is the deferred maintenance now at
    Yellowstone? You said about $400-something million?
        Mr. Iobst. It is close to half-a-billion dollars.
        Ms. Hanabusa. Half a billion? And the total amount for the
    whole Park Service is amounting to what? How much would you
    say?
        Mr. Iobst. The report that came out in I think it was late
    January or February of this year for 2017 puts it at about
    $11.6 billion, service-wide.
        Ms. Hanabusa. Do you know how the National Park Service
    prioritizes who will get the funds?
        Mr. Iobst. Well, there was never enough for Yellowstone.
        [Laughter.]
        Ms. Hanabusa. Of course, I expected you to say that.
        Mr. Iobst. Or other parks I worked at.
        Yes, I do understand. And there are different fund sources.
    There is the operation of the National Park System, which
    includes, with regard to routine maintenance dollars, repair,
    rehab, other programs that are an annual appropriation, those
    are somewhat based on history, if you will.
        However, our science, as I call it, for facilities, the
    asset management plans, the system that we have used for a
    number of years, it generates priorities based on how important
    that asset, whether it is a road or historic structure,
    concession operated facility, is to the significance of that
    park, and how it serves visitors.
        So, the assets are prioritized and then, depending on the
    size of the project that is necessary, there is a competition
    that takes place. However, it is based on need, and it is park
    need, and then against the needs of other parks in that region
    and then, ultimately, against all the parks in the system.
        Ms. Hanabusa. So, would it be a correct statement to say
    that a popular park, which is used more than another esoteric
    park, for example, would probably get the maintenance funds
    before that park that is not in such a demand?
        Mr. Iobst. No, that is not true. It depends on the
    significance of the asset.
        Ms. Hanabusa. Thank you very much. And I hope you call upon
    your, I think it is about 1.2 million, members of the National
    Park Conservation Association to assist us with getting the
    legacy fund bill through. Thank you very much and I yield back.
        The Chairman. Mr. Bergman.
        Mr. Bergman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thanks to all of
    you for being here. You learn never say always and never say
    never, because Murphy will make a liar out of you real quickly.
    I saw a flag quilt downstairs in the Capitol a month ago that
    said, ``Freedom is always worth fighting for.'' So, I have
    changed my mind on there is one always.
        In addition to the Natural Resources Committee, why I bring
    that up at this point is I also serve on Veterans Affairs. As a
    veteran, honoring our military service members' sacrifices to
    our country is very important, not only to me, but to all of
    us, and I know you, as well.
        More than one-third of our national parks commemorate and
    interpret military history. These parks have roughly $6.2
    billion--with a B--in deferred maintenance, roughly half of the
    total backlog, I understand. In addition to these military
    heritage parks, parks in general offer places of restoration
    and of healing to our returning vets of all ages.
        Mr. Smith, what is the Department's plan to ensure that
    these park sites are in good repair and honor the memory and
    the service of our veterans, and still provide a place of
    positive refuge for them when they seek it?
        Mr. Smith. Congressman, as a veteran and the son of a
    veteran, I would certainly associate myself with your remarks.
    And, as you know, part of those units that you are talking
    about came to us in the 1930s, all the national cemeteries came
    to us, the battlefields came from other departments. Those are
    certainly in line with our operations of the National Park
    System, all of those parks certainly are in that mix for annual
    funding.
        We also, for the Civil War parks, we have wonderful
    partners, Civil War Trust, who is out there, working with us on
    land issues at those parks, and bringing money outside the
    government to take care of preserving those types of areas that
    you have mentioned.
        I must admit that I have never heard that breakout that you
    just gave, of there being that many of the units of the
    National Park System that have that theme. But I believe we are
    very responsive in those historic areas to make sure that we
    tell that history, from the Mall here, with all of the
    monuments that have been built, to the battlefields around the
    country, such as Gettysburg or Manassas.
        Mr. Bergman. Thank you. This is a question for any or all
    of you to respond to. When you have deferred maintenance you
    are probably going to have a combination of materials, whether
    it be things like asphalt or gravel or fertilizer or building
    materials, whatever, but something that is a physical material
    that you have to purchase or grow or whatever, and you are
    going to have labor. And you may have a third cost in your
    equation.
        In your numbers, is there a breakdown of half of it is
    labor, half of it is materials, 70 percent, whatever? Anybody?
    Could you give me an idea of what the breakdown of that money
    is?
        Mr. Iobst. I would be happy to answer that question. It is
    a field-driven system of need and project that is based on the
    very simple work order. It can be a whole building or a
    component of a building. Within that work order are estimated
    costs for labor, for materials. There are equipment costs.
    Different specialized equipment may be necessary on that
    project. There is a breakdown on the individual work order or
    activity or specific project that then works its way up through
    the system, so that that information is provided on any
    specific project.
        Mr. Bergman. Let me ask you a question. Are these contracts
    let to a vendor to perform the work that includes the labor and
    the materials in it? Or do you purchase separately? In other
    words, let's say if there was not enough money to go around,
    and we know there is not enough money to go around. OK?
    Materials you have to have. Wherever you buy them, hopefully,
    best practices are going to get you the best quantity, price.
    But labor could come from different sources.
        Are we able to do that, if we got money and said, OK, we
    are going to put it all in materials, but oh, by the way, here
    is what we are going to do with labor. Have you done that
    before? Or have you considered that?
        Mr. Iobst. We have done projects like that, based on my
    experience, where it may all be contract, where all the costs
    are covered by a contract, whether certain overhead costs and
    things like that.
        However, there have been projects where government has
    supplied----
        Mr. Bergman. I see my time has expired, Mr. Chairman. I
    yield back. Thank you.
        The Chairman. Mr. Soto.
        Mr. Soto. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Director Guertin, we have a relocation permit in Winter
    Haven, Florida for the sand skink. The initial approval has
    been approved, but there has been quite a delay in getting the
    publication. This is in an area, a socio-economically depressed
    status that, we have a community center. So, I hope that your
    office can look into that for us.
        Mr. Guertin. Thank you for your question, Congressman. I am
    aware of this project. We have been working very closely with
    the municipal government. We have allowed them to move forward
    with about 98 percent of the footprint of the entire project
    period to work on construction. We have asked them to buffer
    about 2 percent for the skink population down there.
        We are required to go through some additional steps,
    including a 30-day public comment period, but this is an
    enormous priority for our office down there, the region. And
    from the Director's Office we will keep it pedal to the metal,
    and check back with your office with further progress updates.
        Mr. Soto. Thank you. This is an important project in our
    district.
        I wanted to also reach out about the status of the Florida
    manatees. What is the current endangered status? Is it
    threatened now? And is there any additional movement that we
    may see on the Florida manatee?
        Mr. Guertin. We have downgraded them, Congressman, to a
    threatened status. This is a success story, working in
    partnership with the Florida Game and Fish Commission, with the
    recreational boating community, and with a lot of the youth
    groups and other industry and community groups down there who
    are all very interested in the ongoing status of manatee
    populations. They are a beloved animal in Florida and the rest
    of the country, and we are all very hopeful that we can
    ultimately move toward recovery of that species.
        But I come back to, this is an enormous partnership effort
    and a shared vision with the great people of Florida and
    recreational boaters out there.
        Mr. Soto. I just want to express my concern of shifting it
    further than that, because we have a large shift in population
    based upon if we have a cold winter. We could have hundreds of
    Florida manatee die, so I just want you to be aware of the
    erratic nature of the population there.
        Mr. Guertin. Yes, sir. And a lot of that is contingent on
    how they over-winter each year. Disease comes in, red tide,
    other external impacts. But the proactive nature of
    conservation, of everybody pulling together toward this shared
    objective is really helping all of us keep an eye on the fate
    of this beloved species.
        Mr. Soto. I also wanted to reach out about the Florida
    panther. I know there have been ample studies in Florida
    universities about how this is a subspecies and warrants
    protection. And right now it is protected. Is there any push to
    try to change that now or in the near future?
        Mr. Guertin. We are currently just evaluating the status of
    the species throughout Florida. My wife is from Okeechobee,
    Florida, so I am pretty familiar with a lot of those animals
    and habitat down there. But we are a science-driven agency,
    sir. We are working very closely with State Fish and Game to
    keep an eye on an ultimate path toward recovery. A lot of this
    is going to be corridors for them to move from safe zones to
    others. We also have a lot of potential conflict issues we have
    to work with: agriculture, landowners, and even homeowners and
    pets. But we are working very closely with our state
    counterparts on that front, sir.
        Mr. Soto. And we are certainly sensitive to the balance. We
    just want to make sure it is no longer deemed a subspecies when
    there is ample scientific basis from some of our local
    universities.
        I next want to turn to what Congressman Beyer started
    talking about, the trophies of African elephants from Zimbabwe
    and Zambia. As you know, there has been a 30 percent decline in
    the African elephant population from 2007 to 2014. And I see,
    in the case-by-case, this is going to be ESA findings and
    scientific-based assessment.
        My question is, when do you make an assessment for the
    whole species, rather than an individual elephant basis, since
    all of them would be in a similar risk? How would it work with
    a case-by-case assessment?
        Mr. Guertin. Sure, Congressman. We had a response to a
    recent D.C. Circuit Court opinion, and we are trying to balance
    the mandates of that opinion with our responsibilities. We are
    revising our procedures and assessing applications for these
    findings on an application-by-application basis, rather than on
    a country-wide basis. We are always willing to be driven by the
    science, the larger status of these species.
        This comes back to the larger argument--what role does
    hunting play in species conservation? What role does the
    dollars sportsmen invest in guides, permits, outfitters, the
    rates that they are paying----
        Mr. Soto. Would elephants in each of these countries be
    equally at risk?
        Mr. Guertin. We have to take a look at the larger trends
    and the dynamics of management and the specific threats in each
    of those. It is not a common set of threats across the entire
    range of their distribution. Some countries have stronger
    frameworks, higher hunting culture. Others have more poaching.
        Sorry, sir.
        The Chairman. That is OK.
        Mr. Hice.
        Dr. Hice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Director Smith, let me just begin with you. In 2001, when
    President Bush came to office, the National Park Service had a
    backlog of roughly $4.9 billion. And from our research, that
    backlog appears to have increased by about $2 billion
    throughout his presidency, and about the same throughout
    Obama's administration.
        So, the question is why. Why the backlog? Would you
    attribute it for maintenance primarily to the Park Service
    increasing its assets, and the public lands, monuments, that
    you have a bigger footprint now? Or is it due to aging, the
    aging process, or some other reason, or all of the above?
        Mr. Smith. Congressman, it is basically both of those. When
    you have a system that is aging like ours, and the fact that
    Congress keeps adding to our system, those are all factors that
    either affect operational budgets, which affect cyclic
    maintenance, or they affect deferred maintenance in these units
    when you have as many assets as we have to deal with.
        Dr. Hice. OK. As I understand, you have--well, a general
    rule of thumb, I think, for most homeowners and so forth, is
    about 1\1/2\ percent of the value of the home to be set aside
    for annual maintenance and that type of thing. Of course, the
    older it gets, then it goes up anywhere from 3 to 5 percent.
        As I understand, you are close to that range. Do you have
    enough now to take care of the backlog issues?
        Mr. Smith. No, we certainly do not at this time. That is
    why we are here looking at other possibilities of funding, to
    reach back and take care of that deferred maintenance.
        Dr. Hice. What percentage of the overall infrastructure
    portfolio is needed, based on the value of the assets? Do you
    have any idea?
        Mr. Smith. We are somewhere between 40 and 45 percent of
    our assets that are in deferred maintenance right now, with
    others catching up to that.
        And we touched on, in one of the questions today, the
    difference between cyclic maintenance and deferred maintenance.
    A perfect example would be, we have done cyclic maintenance on
    a huge HVAC system. It eventually will have a life cycle, and
    then it will have to be replaced. So, it moves from where you
    can deal with it in cyclic maintenance. You have to deal with
    it by replacing it, and that becomes a deferred maintenance
    issue.
        Dr. Hice. Tell me again what that 40, 45 percent is.
        Mr. Smith. Half of it is roads, bridges, things to do with
    our transportation systems. I think our latest number on that
    is $5.9 billion of the $11.6 billion is dealing with roads and
    bridges. The other would be dealing with our assets, which
    would include buildings, campgrounds, trails, all of the above
    that we----
        Dr. Hice. That 45 percent, though, would be 45 percent of
    the total assets?
        Mr. Smith. Yes.
        Dr. Hice. That are in backlog?
        Mr. Smith. Yes, and especially those that are aging. For
    those of you who cross Memorial Bridge every day, if you come
    from Virginia, that is a 75-year-old bridge, and it needs to be
    replaced.
        Dr. Hice. All right. Assuming that we arrive at some sort
    of solution, how do you assure this Committee and the American
    people that we don't get in this mess again?
        Mr. Smith. There will always be some deferred maintenance,
    because of all the assets that we have. But certainly, once we
    are on top of it, it will help us prioritize much more of those
    things that are aging, or those things that we need to take
    care of. But it will never be a zero, as far as deferred
    maintenance, just because we have so many assets that annually
    go into meeting some type of maintenance.
        Dr. Hice. Well, I understand that. But how can you assure
    us that we are not going to get in another situation where we
    have 45 percent in a backlog of maintenance issues?
        Mr. Smith. Well, I can assure you that if we can find
    steady funding sources, we will tackle this issue, which has
    been around since the 1980s, and which we have not caught up
    to.
        One reason why we have so many more exact numbers on what
    the backlog is is that during the Bush administration we
    developed the process that we now use to ascertain all of these
    numbers. So, the issue probably was bigger than we knew back
    then. We now have a system of looking at these assets that
    really gives us these numbers that we brought before Congress
    that need to be addressed.
        Dr. Hice. OK. Thank you very much. I yield back.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Mr. Curtis.
        Mr. Curtis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to
    represent a district that has two national parks: Arches and
    Canyonlands. And if you haven't been to Arches, this is my
    formal invitation to have you come personally visit.
        We are here to talk about creative solutions to some of
    these funding problems. Mr. Smith, at Arches, you may be
    familiar, we have a unique problem where we are loving our
    parks to death. And on site they are looking at one possible
    solution, which is a reservation system. That is meeting with
    quite a bit of angst in the community, from an economic
    development, there are many layers.
        If we have long lines of people waiting to pay fees to
    enter these parks, which we need, can we spend a little bit
    more time in this creative mode seeing how we can accommodate
    the visitors into the park, without it being an overload? And
    that is what the locals are asking. Have we looked at enough
    solutions?
        I don't know how personally familiar you are with that
    particular issue. If you are not, I would love to invite you to
    get involved. And I am not sure, I was just down there this
    last weekend, the locals clearly don't feel like we have
    explored all the options. Do you have any comments on that, or
    are you close enough to that to know?
        Mr. Smith. Two things, Congressman. Thank you for your
    question. When I worked on staff here for Congressman Hanson, I
    certainly visited Red Rock country. So, I am very familiar with
    all of your wonderful parks, not only in your district, but in
    the state of Utah.
        Mr. Curtis. Right.
        Mr. Smith. We are looking at reservation systems as one
    answer to where we have so much visitation. I don't know the
    particulars of what we looked at at Arches, but I definitely
    will look at that when I get back. But we have the situation in
    Yosemite, we have the situation in other parks, and we are
    trying to make it so that our visitors are accommodated without
    the long waits and that type of thing which ruin their
    experience.
        But I will look into that situation, Congressman, and get
    back to you on that.
        Mr. Curtis. Thank you. There are good models. Zion is not
    perfect, but they, of course, accommodate a lot more because of
    their transportation system there. The locals on the ground
    would have us look at another mode of entrance into the park.
    There is a high percentage of that park that is not visited
    because of access, so thank you for your willingness to do
    that.
        I also might mention I had the delight to serve as the
    mayor of my city before Congress, and dealt with a lot of these
    maintenance issues and not enough funds and that constant
    battle which you all are experiencing. And I learned and found
    that there are different types of different maintenance. A
    parking lot that doesn't get a crack and seal becomes a far
    more expensive repair if we don't spend that money now, versus
    other projects. Does your system take that into account? And is
    there a factor that you are applying to things that actually
    cost us more money if we don't address them right now?
        Mr. Smith. Yes, it does. And those are driven from the park
    up, not from anywhere above down, but they are taken in
    priority in each park.
        Then, as far as the funding, it does have to go through a
    process with the region to look back at what we are doing. The
    need is so great, and the money is such that we have to make
    priority decisions in the parks, and that occurs every year as
    we look at our budgets.
        Mr. Curtis. Let me go back to that bottom up, because I
    also would applaud that, and found once again, as mayor, that
    generally, those that were right there knew the most. How much
    input do they have on the park level that is coming up and
    being filtered and listened to?
        Mr. Smith. Well, they have a lot. And I have let it be
    known that I have come back to Washington after retiring for 3
    years, that I am coming back with a superintendent's hat, and
    not a Washington bureaucratic hat. I have said I don't know how
    long that will last, but it is my intent right now.
        The parks are listened to. And I will certainly, serving as
    Deputy Director, will make sure that they are listened to,
    because they do know what is happening on the ground more than
    we do here in Washington.
        Mr. Curtis. Thank you. If you attempted to remove that hat,
    I am sure we will help remind you how important that philosophy
    is. I appreciate that.
        Mr. Smith. And Congressman, the Secretary of the Interior
    will remind me of that, too. He wants us to deal with all these
    issues from the front, in the parks, and he has made that very
    clear to me.
        Mr. Curtis. Yes, I applaud that. Thank you.
        I yield my time, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Thank you. Let me ask a couple of questions,
    if I could. Let me start with Mr. Guertin.
        The Administration's proposed public lands infrastructure
    funding includes your agency, the Park Service, as well as the
    Bureau of Indian Education. Can you speak to why the five other
    departments within Interior were not included in that,
    specifically BLM, which has 245 million acres?
        Mr. Guertin. Yes, Mr. Chairman. My understanding is that
    the three agencies selected for the initial deployment of the
    Act, if it is enacted by the Congress, are largely those
    aligned around the Secretary's initial guidance to us to
    promote the outdoor recreation, the access areas, the parks and
    refuges, get a preponderance of the visitation, get a
    preponderance of the visiting public.
        The other Interior agencies were not ranked as high in that
    initial cut of which agencies to propose, going forward. But it
    comes back to the role the Service and Park Service play in
    outdoor recreation and access. And for the Bureau of Indian
    Affairs, the needs are very dire there for societal reasons, as
    well as health and safety in the schools, and programs like
    that.
        The Chairman. Not a whole lot of visitation in those
    schools. We will look at that again one time.
        Mr. Rano, if I could talk to you, I appreciated working
    with you on the Centennial Act. I am assuming that you accept
    that those proposals so far have been successful?
        Mr. Rano. Absolutely, sir.
        The Chairman. Are there any additional revenue sources that
    we didn't make into that bill that you believe we should be
    considering as a Committee?
        Mr. Rano. Absolutely. There is a proposal in the bill--and
    thank you again for your leadership in ensuring its passage--
    that would have dedicated money, another dedicated revenue
    stream of overnight fees in lodging in National Park Service
    lodges. And we believe there is an opportunity to revisit that
    at this point.
        I think we ran out of time and lacked consensus, and I
    think there is an opportunity to revisit that and make it fair
    and bring on all parties.
        The Chairman. There may be some other areas we can look at
    for all these purposes, even for BLM purposes, so we can reach
    some of the maintenance.
        Both Mr. Costa and Mr. Beyer were talking about fees. I
    think there is some point where we need to talk about fees to
    make sure those fees are going back to the areas in which they
    are generated and we are not having a lot of that fee money
    being used elsewhere, or coming back here to Washington.
        I think we need to look at--there are a lot of groups out
    there that actually make a whole lot of money on the using of
    our public lands, but put very little back into the maintenance
    of those public lands. Maybe we should be looking at some
    innovative ways of doing that, at the same time.
        Also, some of the Members have brought up some other
    issues. Mr. Smith, let me ask you. Are there other areas that
    we should be talking about to you that are an impediment to
    prioritizing your efforts or tackling this backlog that
    prohibit you from having greater efficiency and effectiveness?
        Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman, thank you for that question. One
    that comes to mind immediately in my short time back is
    concessions policy. I actually dealt with it on this Committee
    back in 1998, when we passed the Concessions Policy Act.
        There seems to be, because of the need for infrastructure
    at such high dollar amounts, that if the 20-year limit could be
    raised to 30, we would have a lot more success in the
    concessions type of contracts. That one would require an Act of
    Congress, and that one comes to mind immediately in my short
    time back because it has come up in situations all over the
    country already. So, that is one that I am certainly familiar
    with.
        The Chairman. I know Congress sometimes, in our effort to
    be helpful and effective--for example, the McKinney-Vento Act
    requires that any time you have any kind of change into a
    housing or building structure, that you have to ensure that you
    do a study to see if they are suitable for homeless facilities.
    That is a cost that probably has very little value to it.
    Sounded good at the time. But we need to look at some of those
    practices that are impeding efforts to go into it.
        I know people have said that we don't need innovation and
    that these are gimmicks. But what the Administration is
    proposing here is definitely more than that. We are trying to
    look at some kind of permanent fund that goes through there.
        Mr. Guertin, maybe I could ask you the same thing. Are
    there things other than just the revenue that we are talking
    about that streamline that cumbersome process of Federal
    acquisition or contracting, hiring, or planning?
        Mr. Guertin. Thank you for the question, Mr. Chairman. We
    have requested similar authority to the National Park System,
    where we can collect and keep any damages that come from some
    of the vandalizing, destroying, or otherwise harming the
    National Wildlife Refuge System. While not big money, this
    could be hundreds of thousands to $5 or $6 million a year.
    These damages, under current authorizations, go right onto our
    maintenance backlog, so that is part of the President's request
    for appropriations.
        The Chairman. Thank you. Let me cut myself off. I
    appreciate the Committee being here, and being here perhaps a
    little bit longer than we anticipated. I appreciate the
    witnesses coming here and testifying at the same time.
        I think, as we go through this process, we will identify in
    the coming weeks other ways in which we can come up with a
    permanent fund that can assist in the backlog. We will be
    creative in those type of efforts. Maybe there is some other
    revenue sources that need to be added or considered as we go
    through that.
        I realize the one thing I don't want to do, as has happened
    some times in the past, is the idea of helping to solve the
    problem of funding of our public lands. It is just keeping
    people off of the public lands, and therefore you don't have to
    fund them. There are some people that actually look at that as
    a proper policy. If people are not engaged in public lands, our
    park systems and the fish and wildlife refuges, if they are not
    visiting there, there is no reason to have them in the first
    place. So, that is the one thing we will never go back to, at
    least that approach to it.
        I would remind the witnesses, as well as the Committee,
    that there may be some further questions people have, as well
    as some statements. You have already said you would provide us
    with information later on. If there are other questions coming
    from this Committee, they will be sent to you in writing within
    3 business days. We would ask for your response at that
    particular time.
        With that, once again, our great appreciation for you being
    here. As we look forward, we said this is like a twofold
    process. Today, we are dealing with the problem. Next week, we
    start dealing with the solutions to those problems. We will be
    coming back to you again. Thank you for your participation,
    thank you for the testimony you have given. Anything else you
    wish to add to the record will be added to the record, as well.

        With that, the hearing is adjourned.

        [Whereupon, at 11:49 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

                [ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]

           Prepared Statement of the U.S. Department of the Interior
                                  on behalf of
      Mr. P. Daniel Smith, Deputy Director, National Park Service and Mr.
         Steve Guertin, Deputy Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
        Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva, and members of the
    Committee, thank you for the opportunity to present the Department of
    the Interior's (Department) views on potential solutions to reducing
    the deferred maintenance backlog of the Department of the Interior.
    Representing the Department at today's hearing are P. Daniel Smith,
    Deputy Director of the National Park Service, and Steve Guertin, Deputy
    Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
        Since Secretary Zinke's confirmation, tackling the Department's
    deferred maintenance backlog has been one of his top priorities. The
    Department manages roughly 500 million acres of land and possesses an
    infrastructure asset portfolio valued at over $300 billion. Roads,
    bridges, trails, water systems, visitor centers, and student dorms--
    even bathrooms, campgrounds, and drinking fountains--are all part of
    this critical, but often unnoticed, framework. After years of increased
    visitation and use, aging facilities and other vital structures are in
    urgent need of restoration.
        The Department has a total of about $16 billion worth of deferred
    maintenance. Of that amount, the National Park Service (NPS) has the
    largest share--$11.6 billion in 2017.
        Here are just a few examples of needed repairs in our Nation's
    national parks. Glacier National Park, one of the NPS' crown jewels, is
    home to the headwaters for streams that flow to the Pacific Ocean, the
    Gulf of Mexico and Hudson's Bay. This popular Montana park has more
    than $154 million in maintenance needs alone, including projects to
    repair bridges and culverts, roads, and employee housing.
        In California, Point Reyes National Seashore is home to majestic
    marine mammals and multi-generational beef and dairy ranches. The park
    has roughly $99 million in deferred maintenance, including single
    projects that include the historic Platform Bridge. This bridge, built
    in 1927, carried both people and automotive traffic, but due to the
    lack of ongoing necessary rehabilitation work, $1.6 million is needed
    for this project alone.
        Roads and other transportation assets account for $5.9 billion--
    about half--of the NPS deferred maintenance backlog. The NPS maintains
    over 5,500 miles of paved roads, including historic routes such as the
    Blue Ridge Parkway, Natchez Trace Parkway, and Skyline Drive in
    Shenandoah National Park. Congress provides for a significant portion
    of transportation maintenance and repair through the Department of
    Transportation, primarily through the Federal Lands Transportation
    Program, which includes $292 million for NPS projects in FY 2019 alone.
    Additional funding for maintaining transportation assets is provided
    through NPS operations and construction appropriations.
        Just like some of its other more famous parkway sites, Colonial
    Parkway in Tidewater, Virginia was designed in the 1930s to provide a
    scenic, pleasurable driving experience between historic Jamestown,
    Yorktown, and Williamsburg. Today, the parkway is an important commuter
    route with the busiest sections carrying between 1.9 million and 2.2
    million vehicles per year. In addition, large tour buses use the route,
    adding weight and capacity that was not envisioned when it was
    designed. The total cost to repair the parkway is $270 million.
        Known for its scenic views and vibrant autumns, Great Smoky
    Mountains National Park welcomes millions of visitors each year. The
    park has $215 million in deferred maintenance needs. A key destination
    for park visitors, Sugarlands Visitor Center houses exhibits on
    wildlife, geology, and history, and is in need of total reconstruction
    that will cost roughly $25 million. The park is also well known for its
    historic buildings--from churches, barns, and smokehouses to a working
    grist mill--but many of them need rehabilitation to ensure they remain
    safe and welcoming destinations.
        Appropriated funds are currently the primary source of funding for
    deferred maintenance. However, we know that we cannot rely on
    appropriated dollars alone to address this problem, so we are looking
    at multiple avenues for making additional funds available through other
    means.
        For example, the Department's Fiscal Year 2019 budget proposes to
    permanently reauthorize the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act
    (FLREA), which expires in September 2019. As a precaution, the budget
    also proposes appropriations language to provide a 2-year extension of
    FLREA through September 2021. The revenues collected from these
    recreation fees across several DOI bureaus--$318.8 million in 2017--are
    an important source of funding for land management operations,
    maintenance, and improvements to recreation facilities on public lands.
        Most importantly, we are looking at a new proposal to raise funds
    for this purpose by dedicating a portion of Federal energy revenues to
    address this problem. The proposed Public Lands Infrastructure Fund
    (Fund) outlined in the President's 2019 budget would address repairs
    and improvement in national parks, national wildlife refuges, and
    Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) schools. The Administration's proposal
    would set aside for infrastructure needs a portion of unallocated
    Federal energy revenues exceeding FY 2018 Budget baseline projections.
    These receipts would be derived from Federal energy revenues, including
    mineral leasing, e.g., oil, gas and coal, under the Mineral Leasing Act
    and Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, as well as solar, wind, and
    geothermal development. While the budget estimate assumes this
    initiative would result in $6.8 billion in expenditures from the Fund
    over 10 years, the proposal allows for as much as $18 billion to be
    available through this legislation. The Department would distribute
    funds using established criteria, such as consideration of asset
    condition and mission criticality, and would measure and report on
    agency-wide progress. This bold investment would significantly improve
    the Nation's most visible and visited public facilities that support a
    multi-billion dollar outdoor recreation economy.
        While the NPS is the focus of this proposal, the Fund would also be
    used for deferred maintenance at Bureau of Indian Education (BIE)
    schools and national wildlife refuges. The Assistant Secretary for
    Indian Affairs and its bureaus have maintenance responsibilities for
    over 169 elementary and secondary schools and 14 dormitories which
    service nearly 47,000 students. The estimated deferred maintenance
    backlog for BIE schools is $634 million, which does not include the
    cost for school replacement projects. Major projects to address
    deferred maintenance are reviewed by the Indian Affairs Construction
    Investment Review Board and are prioritized as part of the Five-Year
    Deferred Maintenance and Construction plan.
        Schools that could potentially benefit from these investments would
    include the BIE operated Cheyenne Eagle Butte School, which is one of
    the largest schools serving Indian tribes in South Dakota. The school
    promotes academic achievement along with traditional Lakota cultural,
    language, and extracurricular activities in two of the poorest counties
    in the state and Nation. Cheyenne Eagle Butte is in urgent need of a
    variety of repairs, especially structural. For example, classrooms have
    been closed due to the presence of dangerous mold, numerous roof leaks
    allow water to seep through three floors of classrooms, and repetitive
    heating system failures have caused 2 weeks of lost instruction during
    the current academic year. Kindergarten students alone have been
    displaced from their regular classrooms for 3 years.
        Deferred maintenance issues are not unique to Cheyenne Eagle Butte
    School. As reported in a 2016 Government Accountability Office (GAO)
    report, the Department's ability to adequately address maintenance
    issues have been inhibited, even for those schools which pose great
    risk to the health and safety of students. Highlighted in the same GAO
    report is a frightening example where 7 of a school's 11 boilers failed
    inspection due to natural gas leaks and elevated carbon monoxide
    levels. The boilers were in such bad condition that the school was
    evacuated for approximately 2 weeks to conduct emergency repairs.
    Overall, the Department, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the BIE are
    working closely to address outstanding GAO recommendations and improve
    operations and service delivery in BIE-funded schools.
        The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) manages 566 national wildlife
    refuges and 38 wetland management areas and operates national fish
    hatcheries, fish technology centers and fish health centers. FWS is
    responsible for over $46 billion in constructed real property assets
    that include over 25,000 structures (e.g., buildings and water
    management structures) as well as nearly 14,000 roads, bridges, and
    dams. The estimated deferred maintenance backlog for FWS facilities is
    $1.4 billion.
        National wildlife refuges are a hub for outdoor recreation and
    conservation and are valued destinations for local residents as well as
    vacationers. Every state and territory has wildlife refuges, and over
    50 million people visit FWS refuges and hatcheries each year. They are
    places where families go on a weekend day to spend quality time
    outdoors, through activities such as hunting, fishing and birding. FWS
    lands generate over $2 billion for local economies and support tens of
    thousands of private-sector jobs. Examples of refuges that could
    benefit from the Fund include Big Oaks refuge in Indiana and Wallkill
    River refuge in New York and New Jersey. Big Oaks is home to more than
    200 species of birds and 46 species of mammals, and the refuge has been
    designated as a ``Globally Important Bird Area'' because of its value
    to migratory birds. However, public access to Big Oaks is impaired
    because a deteriorated, unsafe bridge with trees growing through it on
    the refuge has been closed since 2001. Wallkill River refuge has many
    grassland birds, migrating waterfowl, wintering raptors, and endangered
    species. Public access to this refuge is also significantly reduced
    because its Papakating Valley Rail Trail has been closed since 2010 due
    to extensive, dangerous degradation. Rehabilitating it will expand 9.5
    miles of former railroad beds into multi-purpose public trails.
        Another way Congress can help reduce the FWS' maintenance backlog--
    in addition to enacting the proposed Fund--is to enact the
    Administration's 2019 Budget legislative proposal to provide FWS with
    authority to seek compensation from responsible parties who injure or
    destroy national wildlife refuges or other FWS resources. This new
    authority would be similar to that of the NPS and the National Oceanic
    and Atmospheric Administration. Under current law, when FWS resources
    are injured or destroyed, the costs of repair and restoration must be
    addressed through appropriations and are added to the FWS' maintenance
    backlog. These damages are not uncommon. Each year vandalism,
    trespassing, and other violations damage FWS assets. One example is a
    case of illegally created roads through Sequoyah refuge, Oklahoma,
    causing over $175,000 in estimated damages; another is a trespass and
    illegal excavation of a pipeline at San Bernard refuge, Texas, with
    estimated response and repair costs of $7.5 million.
        As Secretary Zinke said when announcing the 2019 budget,
    ``President Trump is absolutely right to call for a robust
    infrastructure plan that rebuilds our national parks, refuges, and
    Indian schools, and I look forward to helping him deliver on that
    historic mission. Our parks and refuges are being loved to death, but
    the real heartbreak is the condition of the schools in Indian Country.
    We can and must do better for these young scholars. This is not a
    Republican or Democrat issue, this is an American issue, and the
    President and I are ready to work with absolutely anyone in Congress
    who is willing to get the work done.'' Whether it is our national
    parks, national wildlife refuges, or BIE schools, we have a
    responsibility to be good stewards of the land and resources we manage.
    The Department's needs span all the way from Massachusetts to Alaska to
    Guam. We greatly appreciate the effort of this Committee and your
    colleagues in Congress who have sought to craft real solutions to our
    maintenance backlog. We look forward to continuing those efforts by
    working with each of you in a collaborative manner that preserves and
    maintains our national treasures.
        Mr. Chairman, this concludes the Department's statement. We would
    be pleased to answer any questions you or other members of the
    Committee may have.

                                     ______

    [LIST OF DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD RETAINED IN THE COMMITTEE'S
                                OFFICIAL FILES]

        --The Pew Charitable Trusts, Statement for the Record.

        --List of national and local organizations, cities/
                counties, and elected officials who support
                addressing the multi-billion dollar backlog
                plaguing our National Park System.

                                     [all]