[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 5210, ``NATIONAL PARK RESTORATION ACT''; AND H.R. 2584,
``NATIONAL PARK SERVICE LEGACY ACT OF 2017''
=======================================================================
LEGISLATIVE HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL LANDS
of the
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
Tuesday, March 20, 2018
__________
Serial No. 115-42
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
[GRAPHIC(S) 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
29-422 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018
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
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL LANDS
TOM McCLINTOCK, CA, Chairman
COLLEEN HANABUSA, HI, Ranking Democratic Member
Don Young, AK Niki Tsongas, MA
Stevan Pearce, NM Alan S. Lowenthal, CA
Glenn Thompson, PA Norma J. Torres, CA
Raul R. Labrador, ID Ruben Gallego, AZ
Scott R. Tipton, CO A. Donald McEachin, VA
Bruce Westerman, AR Anthony G. Brown, MD
Daniel Webster, FL Jimmy Gomez, CA
Jack Bergman, MI Vacancy
Liz Cheney, WY Raul M. Grijalva, AZ, ex officio
Greg Gianforte, MT
John R. Curtis, UT
Rob Bishop, UT, ex officio
------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Tuesday, March 20, 2018.......................... 1
Statement of Members:
Hanabusa, Hon. Colleen, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Hawaii............................................ 3
Prepared statement of.................................... 4
McClintock, Hon. Tom, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 2
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Statement of Witnesses:
Argust, Marcia, Director, Restore America's Parks, The Pew
Charitable Trusts, Washington, DC.......................... 15
Prepared statement of.................................... 16
Hoyt, Callie, Manager, Federal Affairs, Motorcycle Industry
Council, Arlington, Virginia............................... 27
Prepared statement of.................................... 29
Hurd, Hon. Will, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Texas................................................... 8
Prepared statement of.................................... 8
Lee-Ashley, Matt, Senior Fellow, Center for American
Progress, Washington, DC................................... 21
Prepared statement of.................................... 23
Simpson, Hon. Michael K., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Idaho......................................... 5
Prepared statement of.................................... 7
Smith, P. Daniel, Deputy Director, National Park Service,
U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC............ 9
Prepared statement of.................................... 11
Questions submitted for the record....................... 12
Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:
List of documents submitted for the record retained in the
Committee's official files................................. 50
National Parks Conservation Association, NPCA Positions on
H.R. 5210 and H.R. 2584.................................... 45
National Trust for Historic Preservation, Testimony on H.R.
5210 and H.R. 2584......................................... 47
Public Lands Alliance, Statement on H.R. 5210 and H.R. 2584.. 49
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 5210, TO ESTABLISH THE NATIONAL PARK
RESTORATION FUND, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, ``NATIONAL PARK RESTORATION
ACT''; AND H.R. 2584, TO AMEND TITLE 54, UNITED STATES CODE, TO
ESTABLISH, FUND, AND PROVIDE FOR THE USE OF AMOUNTS IN A NATIONAL PARK
SERVICE LEGACY RESTORATION FUND TO ADDRESS THE MAINTENANCE BACKLOG OF
THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, ``NATIONAL PARK
SERVICE LEGACY ACT OF 2017''
----------
Tuesday, March 20, 2018
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Federal Lands
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:22 p.m., in
room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Tom McClintock
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives McClintock, Labrador, Tipton,
Westerman, Bergman, Cheney, Gianforte; and Hanabusa.
Also present: Representatives Simpson, Hurd, Johnson,
Graves; and Huffman.
Mr. McClintock. The Subcommittee on Federal Lands will come
to order, and I apologize for our delayed convening, but votes
summoned us on the Floor.
We are here today to hear two bills. I would begin by
asking unanimous consent that all Members on the witness list
testifying on today's panel be allowed to sit with the
Subcommittee, give their testimony, and participate on the
hearing from the dais. That would be Mr. Hurd, Mr. Simpson, Mr.
Johnson, Mr. Graves, and Mr. Huffman.
Without objection.
In addition, I would remind the Committee that under
Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at hearings
are limited to the Chairman, Ranking Minority Member, and Vice
Chairman to allow us to hear from our witnesses. I would ask
unanimous consent that all other Members' opening statements be
made part of the hearing record if they are submitted to the
Subcommittee Clerk by 5:00 p.m. today.
Without objection, so ordered.
I will now begin my opening statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. TOM McCLINTOCK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. McClintock. The Subcommittee meets today to hear
testimony on two bills that seek to reduce the National Park
Service's $11.6 billion deferred maintenance backlog.
Two weeks ago, the Natural Resources Committee held an
oversight hearing to explore the maintenance backlogs facing
our Nation's public land management agencies. Last week, the
Committee heard testimony from Secretary Zinke, and much of the
conversation focused on finding a solution to the Department's
maintenance backlog, the majority of which lies in the National
Park Service.
The Federal Lands Subcommittee has three principal goals:
to restore public access to the public lands, to restore sound
management to the public lands, and restore the Federal
Government as a good neighbor to those communities most
impacted by the Federal lands.
Several years ago, I asked John Jervis, the Director of the
National Park Service, whether, if he had a choice, would he
put new dollars into land acquisition or into deferred
maintenance. He chose maintenance. Instead, we have continued
to add new holdings to the Federal estate, while continuing to
neglect the land we already hold.
Louie Gohmert, a few years ago, compared this policy to the
town miser whose mansion has become a town eyesore while he
spends all of his money buying up his neighbors' properties.
We took these lands into trust for the American public's
use, resort, and recreation. This responsibility requires
active management, not benign neglect. Fortunately, our public
lands, properly managed, also produce revenues that can and
ought to be used for their perpetual restoration, management,
and enhancement.
Today, we will be discussing bills introduced by
Congressman Simpson and Congressman Hurd seeking new funding
sources for critical public lands infrastructure.
H.R. 2584, the National Park Service Legacy Act, by
Congressman Hurd, would provide direct financing for the high-
priority deferred maintenance needs of the National Park
Service. The fund draws from 30 years of mineral revenues from
2018 to 2047 not already allocated by law. Eighty percent of
the fund will be used to repair assets, including historic
structures, visitor facilities, trails, water and utility
systems, and enhancing access, health and safety, and
recreation. The other 20 percent will be used to restore
transportation-related infrastructure such as roads, tunnels,
and bridges. The bill also promotes public-private
collaboration by incentivizing projects that have a private
donation cost-share component.
H.R. 5210, introduced by Congressman Simpson of Idaho would
establish the National Park Restoration Fund. This bill
provides mandatory funding to address the deferred maintenance
backlog of the National Park Service. The new fund will receive
50 percent of all energy production on Federal lands, including
renewable energy, over the amounts already expected, that are
not already allocated to other purposes. The program expires
after 10 years, or sooner if it has received deposits of $18
billion. This would assure that we are not adding to a deficit
that now imperils all government responsibilities.
I would like to thank our witnesses for appearing before
the Subcommittee today and look forward to hearing their
testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McClintock follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Tom McClintock, Chairman, Subcommittee
on Federal Lands
The Subcommittee meets today to hear testimony on two bills that
seek to reduce the National Park Service's $11.6 billion deferred
maintenance backlog.
Two weeks ago, the Natural Resources Committee held an oversight
hearing to explore the maintenance backlogs facing our Nation's public
land management agencies. Last week, the Committee heard testimony from
Secretary Zinke and much of the conversation focused on finding a
solution to the Department's maintenance backlog, the majority of which
lies in the National Park Service.
The Federal Lands Subcommittee has three principal goals: to
restore public access to the public lands; to restore sound management
to the public lands; and to restore the Federal Government as a good
neighbor to those communities most impacted by the Federal lands.
Several years ago, I asked Jon Jervis, the Director of the National
Park Service, whether he would put new dollars into land acquisition or
deferred maintenance, he chose maintenance. Instead, we have continued
to add new holdings to the Federal estate while continuing to neglect
the land we already hold.
Louie Gohmert compared this policy to the town miser, whose mansion
has become the town eyesore while he spends his money buying up his
neighbors' properties.
We took these lands into trust for the American people's ``use,
resort and recreation.'' This responsibility requires active
management--not benign neglect. Fortunately, our public lands, properly
managed, also produce revenues that can and ought to be used for their
perpetual restoration, management and enhancement.
Today, we will be discussing bills introduced by Congressman
Simpson and Congressman Hurd seeking new funding sources for critical
public lands infrastructure.
H.R. 2584, the National Park Service Legacy Act, by Congressman
Will Hurd, would provide direct financing for the high-priority
deferred maintenance needs of the National Park Service. The Fund draws
from 30 years of mineral revenues (FY 2018-FY 2047) not already
allocated by law. Eighty percent of the Fund will be used to repair
assets including historic structures, visitor facilities, trails, water
and utility systems, and enhancing access, health and safety, and
recreation.
The other 20 percent will be used to restore transportation-related
infrastructure, such as roads, tunnels, and bridges. The bill also
promotes public-private collaboration by incentivizing projects that
have a private donation cost-share component.
H.R. 5210, introduced by Congressman Simpson of Idaho would
establish the National Park Restoration Fund. This bill provides
mandatory funding to address the deferred maintenance backlog of the
National Park Service. The new fund will receive 50 percent of all
energy production on Federal lands, including renewable energy, over
the amounts already expected, that are not already allocated for other
purposes. The program expires after 10 years or sooner if it has
received deposits of $18 billion. This would assure that we are not
adding to a deficit that now imperils all government responsibilities.
I'd like to thank our witnesses for appearing before the
Subcommittee today and look forward to hearing their testimony.
______
Mr. McClintock. I am now pleased to yield to the
gentlelady, the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, Ms.
Hanabusa.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. COLLEEN HANABUSA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF HAWAII
Ms. Hanabusa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, I want to say
that I am pleased we are able to have this hearing on both of
these proposals to address deferred maintenance at our national
parks and public lands. Both bills propose strategies to
finance deferred maintenance and infrastructure needs across
the National Park System.
As we heard from the Secretary last week, addressing
deferred maintenance is a huge priority that requires a
significant dedicated funding stream. National parks are more
popular than ever. Annual visitation numbers continue to break
records, with over 330 million visits last year alone, with
visitors spending an estimated $18.4 billion in local gateway
regions.
Unfortunately, current funding and revenue streams have not
been able to address the needs of aging assets and
infrastructure.
Our local superintendents are struggling to keep up with
repairs and rehabilitation, due to shrinking appropriations and
aging infrastructure. We see it in my home state of Hawaii,
where there is nearly $12 million of deferred maintenance at
Pearl Harbor alone, and $85 million at the Hawaii Volcanoes
National Park.
In 2016, the National Park Service celebrated its
Centennial, which was an incredible milestone and reminder that
many of our parks are old. In the same year, Chairman Bishop
and Ranking Member Grijalva worked together to pass the
National Park Service Centennial Act to celebrate the first 100
years of national parks. That bill included new revenue streams
to support visitor services and created programs to leverage
private philanthropy.
This was a great first step, but to paraphrase Chairman
Bishop, we can't expect revenues from cake sales to cover the
$11.6 billion backlog of deferred maintenance--$11.6 billion
backlog. This is why I am an original co-sponsor of the
National Park Service Legacy Act, with Representatives Hurd,
Kilmer, and Reichert, and why I co-sponsored the National Park
Restoration Act, introduced by Representatives Simpson and
Schrader.
If we all agree that addressing deferred maintenance at our
parks and public lands is a priority, then we should be able to
find a bipartisan solution that would allow the National Park
Service adequate resources to seriously address its maintenance
backlog.
Our national parks are a public legacy, and it is our
responsibility to ensure that they thrive for many generations
to come. Of course, addressing deferred maintenance is just one
piece of the puzzle. We must remember that sufficient resources
are also provided for day-to-day operations and partnerships to
ensure visitor satisfaction.
With that, I look forward to today's discussion about the
two proposals before us.
I yield back the remainder of my time, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Hanabusa follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Colleen Hanabusa, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Federal Lands
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, I want to say that I'm pleased we
are able to have this hearing on both of these proposals to address
deferred maintenance at our national parks and public lands. Both bills
propose strategies to finance deferred maintenance and infrastructure
needs across the National Park System.
As we heard from the Secretary last week, addressing deferred
maintenance is a huge priority that requires a significant dedicated
funding stream. National parks are more popular than ever--annual
visitation numbers continue to break records, with over 330 million
visits last year alone, with visitors spending an estimated $18.4
billion in local gateway regions.
Unfortunately, current funding and revenue streams have not been
able to address the needs of aging assets and infrastructure.
Our local superintendents are struggling to keep up with repairs
and rehabilitation due to shrinking appropriations and aging
infrastructure. We see it in my home state of Hawaii, where there is
nearly $12 million of deferred maintenance at Pearl Harbor and $85
million at Hawaii Volcanoes National Park.
In 2016, the National Park Service celebrated its Centennial, which
was an incredible milestone, and a reminder that many of our parks are
old. In the same year, Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member Grijalva
worked together to pass the National Park Service Centennial Act to
celebrate the first 100 years of national parks. That bill included new
revenue streams to support visitor services and created programs to
leverage private philanthropy.
This was a great first step, but to paraphrase Chairman Bishop, we
can't expect revenues from cake sales to cover the $11.6 billion
backlog of deferred maintenance. This is why I am an original co-
sponsor of the National Park Service Legacy Act, with Representatives
Hurd, Kilmer, and Reichert and why I co-sponsored the National Park
Restoration Act, introduced by Representatives Simpson and Schrader.
If we all agree that addressing deferred maintenance at our parks
and public lands is a priority, then we should be able to find a
bipartisan solution that would allow the National Park Service adequate
resources to seriously address its maintenance backlog.
Our national parks are a public legacy, and it is our
responsibility to ensure that they thrive for many generations to come.
Of course, addressing deferred maintenance is just one piece of the
puzzle. We must remember that sufficient resources are also provided
for day-to-day operations and partnerships to ensure visitor
satisfaction.
With that, I look forward to today's discussion about the two
proposals before us and yield back the remainder of my time.
______
Mr. McClintock. Great. Thank you very much. We will next
proceed to Congressman Michael Simpson, who represents Idaho's
2nd District for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO
Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Chairman McClintock. Let me begin
by thanking you for allowing me to testify in front of your
Subcommittee. Also, thank you to Ranking Member Hanabusa for
co-sponsoring both this legislation and Congressman Hurd's
legislation. You have an important job of overseeing our
Federal lands, and it is vital that we care for them because
they belong to all of us.
Our national parks have long been thought of as America's
best idea. In fact, they have other complimentary names, such
as our crown jewels. But more than anything, they are ours. The
parks belong to the American people, and we should care for
them as our own.
It is long past due that we discuss the backlog maintenance
in our national parks. Growing up in eastern Idaho, it was a
regular event to pack up the car each weekend and visit
Yellowstone. It was easy to spend a day in the park and not
have to wait in any lines.
However, that was a different time. Today, Yellowstone has
nearly 4 million annual visitors, and the backlog in
maintenance is upwards of $500 million. As a member of the
House Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, I can tell you that
their annual appropriated budget of $2.9 billion for the entire
agency simply won't be able to account for the $11.6 billion
backlog in maintenance.
To start the conversation toward solving this problem, I
introduced the Lands Act to help pay for both backlog
maintenance and the Land and Water Conservation Fund. I was
careful when writing the bill to not dip into the LWCF funds to
pay for the backlog maintenance. That is an important concept
that has guided this effort. I am pleased all of the bills we
are considering today honor that promise, and I look forward to
working with Chairman Bishop and this Subcommittee to address
the LWCF, as well.
Moving forward, I began working with Secretary Zinke,
Senators Alexander and King, and Congressman Schrader on a
proposal that we could all support to fix the parks, the
National Park Restoration Act. This legislation uses
unobligated revenues from all energy sources, including
renewable energies, to pay for the backlog maintenance in
national parks.
The bill uses the exact same funding mechanism as popular
programs like LWCF and the Historic Preservation Fund without
compromising their revenues. It only draws on revenues that
would be due to the Treasury.
The bill is projected to raise over $6.8 billion over 10
years, which would make a significant dent in the backlog
maintenance. I am thankful to Congressman Hurd, Ranking Member
Hanabusa, Congressman Garamendi, and Congressman Schrader for
supporting this bill in an effort to fix our parks. As a
supporter of the Bureau of Indian Education schools, I also
look forward to addressing that critical need in this process,
as Secretary Zinke has suggested.
We are also considering the Legacy Act, introduced by
Congressman Hurd. We all share the common goal of fixing this
growing problem, and the Legacy Act is another positive
addition to the conversation. I do not view these proposals as
competing; they are complementary. They both use the same
revenue source to pay for backlog maintenance, and both have
bipartisan support.
A key element to enacting policy in this environment is
advocating for fiscally responsible legislation. The National
Park Restoration Act does that by creating a baseline of
projected energy revenue that must be exceeded before revenues
could occur to the fund. This mechanism was put in place to
control the costs associated with the bill, and is a
fundamental component to winning support from the House,
Senate, and Administration, a required step to become law.
As a supporter of the national parks, LWCF, and other
important programs that are critical to taking care of our
public lands, I am asking that the members of the Committee
examine the legislation for what it is, an honest effort to fix
the parks. I don't want to pit any programs against each other,
I simply want to focus our efforts on using the long-time
practice of existing energy revenues to fix public lands. I
think that if this Committee can look at the various proposals
that have been made, they can take the best of each and get a
bill that will be bipartisan and that we can all support.
Thank you again, Chairman McClintock and Ranking Member
Hanabusa, and I look forward to working with all advocates for
our national parks to fix the backlog maintenance.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Simpson follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Michael K. Simpson, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Idaho
Chairman McClintock and Ranking Member Hanabusa, Let me begin by
thanking you for allowing me to testify in front of your Subcommittee.
Also thank you to Ranking Member Hanabusa for co-sponsoring my
legislation. You have an important job of overseeing our Federal lands
and it is vital that we care for them because they belong to all of us.
Our national parks have long been thought of as America's ``Best
Idea.'' In fact, they have other complimentary names such as our
``Crown Jewels.'' But more than anything, they are ``Ours.'' The parks
belong to the American people and we should care for them as our own.
It is long past due that we discuss the backlog maintenance in our
national parks. Growing up in eastern Idaho it was a regular event to
pack into the car each weekend to visit Yellowstone. It was easy to
spend a day in the park and not have to wait in any lines. However,
that was a different time.
Today, Yellowstone has nearly 4 million annual visitors and their
backlog in maintenance is upwards of $500 million. As a member of the
House Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, I can tell you that their
annual appropriated budget of $2.9 billion, for the entire agency,
simply won't be able to account for the $11.6 billion backlog in
maintenance.
To start the conversation toward solving this problem I introduced
the LAND Act to help pay for both backlog maintenance and the Land and
Water Conservation Fund. I was careful when writing the bill to not dip
into LWCF funds to pay for backlog maintenance. That is an important
concept that has guided this effort. I am pleased all of the bills we
are considering today honor that promise and I look forward to working
with Chairman Bishop and his Committee to address LWCF as well.
Moving forward, I began working with Secretary Zinke, Senators
Alexander and King, and Congressman Schrader on a proposal that we
could all support to fix the parks--the National Park Restoration Act.
This legislation uses unobligated revenues from all energy sources--
including renewables--to pay for the backlog maintenance in national
parks. The bill uses the exact same funding mechanism as popular
programs like LWCF and the Historic Preservation Fund, without
compromising their revenues. It only draws on revenues that would
otherwise be due to the Treasury. The bill is projected to raise $6.8
billion over 10 years, which would make a significant dent in the
backlog maintenance. I am thankful to Congressman Hurd, Ranking Member
Hanabusa, Congressman Garamendi, and Congressman Schrader for
supporting this bill in an effort to fix our parks. As a supporter of
Bureau of Indian Education schools, I also look forward to addressing
that critical need in this process as Secretary Zinke has suggested.
We are also considering The Legacy Act introduced by Congressman
Hurd. We all share the common goal of fixing this growing problem and
The Legacy Act is another positive addition to the conversation. I do
not view these proposals as competing. They are complimentary. They
both use the same revenue source to pay for backlog maintenance and
both have bipartisan support.
A key element to enacting policy in this environment is advocating
for fiscally responsible legislation. The National Park Restoration Act
does that by creating a baseline of projected energy revenues that must
be exceeded before revenues could accrue into the fund. This mechanism
was put in place to control the costs associated with the bill, and is
a fundamental component to winning support from the House, Senate, and
Administration--a required step to become a law.
As a supporter of national parks, LWCF, and other important
programs that are critical to taking care of our public lands, I am
asking that members of the Committee examine the legislation for what
it is--an honest effort to fix the parks. I don't want to pit any
programs against each other. I simply want to focus our efforts on
using the longtime practice of existing energy revenues to fix public
lands.
Thank you again Chairman McClintock and Ranking Member Hanabusa and
I look forward to working with all advocates for our national parks to
fix backlog maintenance.
______
Mr. McClintock. Great. Thank you.
Now we will hear from Congressman Hurd, representing Texas'
23rd District.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. WILL HURD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
Mr. Hurd. Thank you, Chairman and Ranking Member. As the
Representative from the 23rd Congressional District of Texas, I
have the distinct honor of advocating for eight incredible
national parks. Our national parks are an integral part of the
American experience, as we all know. And I have seen firsthand
how the eight parks in my district, including Big Bend and the
San Antonio missions, provide immeasurable cultural,
environmental, and economic benefits.
Each park's landscape has a unique story that allows us to
understand our past, appreciate our present, and ensure they
are all available in the future.
For these parks to remain beautiful and accessible, we have
a responsibility as a Nation to care for them and maintain
them. The National Park Service was created just over 100 years
ago to do just that. But unfortunately, NPS currently faces a
nationwide backlog of more than $11 billion to repair roads,
visitor facilities, trails, and other park structures--$147
million of that backlogged maintenance is in Texas alone.
I have seen how much of an impact this has on the
maintenance of our parks, which is why I introduced the
National Park Service Legacy Act of 2017 with my colleagues,
including the distinguished Ranking Member from Hawaii,
Representative Hanabusa. The bipartisan, bicameral bill would
address the present backlog by distributing currently
unassigned Federal mineral revenues back into a restoration
fund. The funds can be used for overdue repairs so that our
parks can remain beautiful and accessible for future
generations of park-goers to enjoy.
My bill demonstrates that the call for Congress to fix our
aging parks is being heard, and has been endorsed by park
champions like the National Parks Conservation Association, Pew
Charitable Trusts, whom I would like to thank for being here
today, and the National Trust for Historic Preservation.
But our bill is not the only solution to this expanding and
pervasive problem. My colleague and friend from the great state
of Idaho has worked tirelessly on his bill, which, if enacted,
would accomplish these same goals. I am tremendously supportive
of the Chairman's efforts, and I strongly encourage my
colleagues to support both my bill and Chairman Simpson's bill.
I want to thank the Committee for allowing me to speak, and
I yield back the balance of my time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hurd follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Will Hurd, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Texas
As Representative of the 23rd Congressional District of Texas, I
have the distinct honor of advocating for eight incredible national
parks.
Our national parks are an integral part of the American experience,
and I've seen firsthand how the eight parks in my district, including
Big Bend and the San Antonio missions, provide immeasurable cultural,
environmental and economic benefits.
Each park's landscape has a unique story that allows us to
understand our past, appreciate our present, and ensure they are
available in the future. For these parks to remain beautiful and
accessible, we have a responsibility as a Nation to care for and
maintain them.
The National Park Service (NPS) was created just over 100 years ago
to do just that. But unfortunately, NPS currently faces a nationwide
backlog of more than $11 billion to repair roads, visitor facilities,
trails, and other park structures; $147 million of that backlogged
maintenance is in Texas alone.
I've seen how much of an impact this has on the maintenance of our
parks which is why I introduced the National Park Service Legacy Act of
2017 with my colleagues, including the distinguished Ranking Member
from Hawaii, Rep. Hanabusa.
The bipartisan, bicameral bill would address the present backlog by
distributing currently unassigned Federal mineral revenues back into a
restoration fund. The funds can be used for overdue repairs so that our
parks can remain beautiful and accessible for future generations of
park-goers to enjoy.
My bill demonstrates that the call for Congress to fix our aging
parks is being heard, and has been endorsed by park champions like the
National Parks Conservation Association, Pew Charitable Trusts (whom
I'd like to thank for being here today), and the National Trust for
Historic Preservation.
But our bill isn't the only solution to this expanding and
pervasive problem. My colleague and friend from the great state of
Idaho has worked tirelessly on his bill, which, if enacted, would
accomplish the same goals as my own. I am tremendously supportive of
the Chairman's efforts, and strongly encourage my colleagues to support
both my bill, and Chairman Simpson's bill. I yield back the balance of
my time.
______
Mr. McClintock. Thank you.
We will now hear from our four witnesses, and begin with
Mr. P. Daniel Smith, Deputy Director of the National Park
Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, who comes to us all
the way from Washington, DC.
STATEMENT OF P. DANIEL SMITH, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, NATIONAL PARK
SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Smith. Chairman McClintock, Ranking Member Hanabusa,
and members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to
present the Department of the Interior's views on H.R. 2584,
the National Park Service Legacy Act, and H.R. 5210, the
National Park Restoration Act. I will summarize my testimony
and submit my full statement for the record.
The Department supports H.R. 5210, the National Park
Restoration Act. We recommend amending the bill to make the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Bureau of Indian Affairs
Education eligible for funding that would be available through
the bill's proposed National Park Restoration Fund. This would
make the bill consistent with the President's Fiscal Year 2019
budget proposal.
We appreciate that H.R. 2584 seeks to accomplish the same
goal of providing dedicated funding for the deferred
maintenance backlog, but we believe that H.R. 5210 would be a
better approach to addressing the problem.
H.R. 5210 would establish a permanent treasury account
called the National Park Restoration Fund. Energy development
revenues from both renewable and conventional sources would be
deposited into the fund. The fund would sunset after 10 years,
or once it reaches its $18 billion cap, whichever happens
first.
H.R. 5210 protects established revenue-sharing payments to
the states under the Mineral Leasing Act, the Gulf of Mexico
Energy Security Act, and other statutes, as well as allocations
made to other established funds such as the Reclamation Fund,
the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and all other dedicated
uses of onshore and offshore revenues. These existing uses
would receive their funding before the Restoration Fund
receives anything.
The bill identifies total energy revenue collection
thresholds for each of the next 10 years. If collections exceed
those amounts, and after all existing obligations are met, half
of the revenue above that baseline would go to the National
Park Service maintenance backlog. The other half would go to
the Treasury.
The Restoration Fund would receive revenue from all energy
development occurring on public lands and waters, unlike the
LWCF and the Legacy Fund, which rely solely on mineral
revenues. The Administration's all-of-the-above energy
development strategy aligns with the funding mechanism for the
Restoration Fund.
H.R. 2584 would establish the National Park Legacy Fund
from Federal mineral revenues. The bill requires 80 percent of
funds to be used for building, utilities, and visitor
facilities, and 20 percent to be used for transportation
assets. Deposits would be made to the Legacy Fund from 2018 to
2047, ranging from $50 million to $500 million per year.
We believe H.R. 5210 holds greater potential for providing
significant near-term funding than H.R. 2584 does. According to
the Office of Management and Budget, the Public Lands
Infrastructure Fund, which is the blueprint for H.R. 5210,
would produce an estimated $6.8 billion in expenditures for
deferred maintenance over the next 10 years, versus less than
$2 billion in the next 10 years under H.R. 2584.
Appropriated funds are the current primary source of
funding for deferred maintenance. But as the Secretary noted
last week in his budget hearings, we cannot rely solely on
appropriated dollars to address this problem. The backlog of
projects at our national parks limits access, lessens visitor
experiences, impacts recreational opportunities, and
compromises public health and safety. The networks of roads,
trails, restrooms, water treatment systems, and visitor centers
are aging and are exceeding the capacity of visitors they were
designed to hold and support.
In conclusion, I would like to reiterate a few key points
regarding H.R. 5210.
One, this bill does not interfere with GOMESA, LWCF, or any
other dedicated funds.
Two, nothing in this bill authorizes new areas for energy
development, nor is there any proposal to increase energy
production in our national parks.
Three, this bill is not an incentive to develop more
energy. The Administration remains very clear that it supports
American energy dominance. The question before us today is how
we come together to reinvest revenues back into our public
lands.
We greatly appreciate the efforts of Chairman Bishop and
this Subcommittee for today's hearing. We also thank Chairman
Simpson and Ranking Member Hanabusa and all of your House and
Senate colleagues for your support of H.R. 5210. The
Administration looks forward to continuing the same bipartisan,
bicameral approach as we move forward.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. I look forward
to answering any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:]
Prepared Statement of P. Daniel Smith, Deputy Director, National Park
Service, U.S. Department of the Interior on H.R. 5210 and H.R. 2584
Chairman McClintock, Ranking Member Hanabusa, and members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to present the Department
of the Interior's views on H.R. 2584, the National Park Service Legacy
Act of 2017, and H.R. 5210, the National Park Restoration Act. My name
is P. Daniel Smith and I serve as the Deputy Director of the National
Park Service.
The Department supports H.R. 5210, but recommends amending the bill
to include the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Bureau of Indian
Education for funding that would be available through the bill's
proposed National Park Restoration Fund. Adding those two bureaus would
make the bill consistent the President's FY 2019 budget proposal. In
addition, we would like to work with the Committee on technical
amendments to H.R. 5210. While we appreciate that H.R. 2584 seeks to
accomplish the same goal of providing dedicated funding for the
deferred maintenance backlog, we believe that H.R. 5210 would be a
better approach to addressing the problem.
H.R. 5210 would establish a separate account within the United
States Treasury called the National Park Restoration Fund (Restoration
Fund). The additional funding deposited in the Restoration Fund would
help reduce the National Park Service's (NPS) $11.6 billion deferred
maintenance backlog. Energy development revenues from renewable
sources, as well as from conventional sources (oil, gas, and coal),
would be deposited into the Restoration Fund. Once the Fund accumulates
$18 billion or 10 years have passed, which ever happens first, deposits
to the fund would cease.
The National Park Restoration Act would not change or modify
established revenue sharing payments to the states under the Mineral
Leasing Act (MLA), the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act (GOMESA) or
other statutes, nor would it affect deposits to other established
funds, such as the Reclamation Fund, the Land and Water Conservation
Fund (LWCF), or other dedicated uses of onshore and offshore revenues.
These existing uses would receive all of their dedicated funding before
the Restoration Fund receives anything. The bill identifies total
energy revenue collection thresholds for each of the next 10 years; if
collections exceed those amounts and after all existing obligations are
met, half of the revenue above that baseline that would otherwise be
deposited as miscellaneous receipts would be deposited in the
Restoration Fund to address the NPS maintenance backlog, and the other
half would go to the Treasury for deficit reduction.
The Restoration Fund would be available for use, without further
appropriation or fiscal year limitations, for the high-priority
deferred maintenance needs that support critical infrastructure and
visitor services, as determined by the Secretary of the Interior and
the Director of the National Park Service. Funding could not be used
for the acquisition of land. The bill also requires annual updates and
reporting to Congress on the projects funded each year.
H.R. 2584 would establish the National Park Legacy Fund (Legacy
Fund), a dedicated fund from Federal mineral revenues that would
otherwise not be credited to other accounts, and would be available to
the NPS to use for high priority deferred maintenance needs. The bill
requires 80 percent of funds to be used for building, utilities, and
visitor facilities and 20 percent to be used for transportation assets.
The bill would provide deposits to the Legacy Fund from 2018 to 2047,
ranging from $50 million in each of Fiscal Years 2018, 2019, and 2020,
to $500 million in each of Fiscal Years 2027 through 2047.
The Department appreciates the effort of all members who co-
sponsored H.R. 2584, and the Secretary believes it is important to work
with anyone who is willing to tackle this important cause. However, the
Department supports H.R. 5210, the National Park Restoration Act,
because it is more closely aligned with the legislative proposal in the
President's FY 2019 Budget.
If H.R. 5210 is enacted, the Restoration Fund would receive revenue
from all energy development occurring on public lands and waters,
including alternative and renewable sources such as solar, wind, and
geothermal, unlike the LWCF and the Legacy Fund, which rely solely on
mineral revenues. The Administration's ``all-of-the-above'' energy
development strategy aligns with H.R. 5210's funding mechanism for the
Restoration Fund.
We believe H.R. 5210 also holds greater potential for providing
significant near-term funding than H.R. 2584 does. H.R. 5210 would
generate up to $18 billion over the next 10 years, versus less than $2
billion in the next 10 years generated under H.R. 2584. The
Department's maintenance needs are immediate and we support the
proposal that we believe would result in more funding and in a more
immediate fashion. Of note, the President's Fiscal Year 2019 Budget
assumed that its legislative fund proposal, which the sponsors used as
a reference in drafting H.R. 5210, would also allow up to $18 billion
over the next 10 years and would result in an estimated $6.8 billion in
expenditures for repairs and improvements over the 10-year period.
Appropriated funds are currently the primary source of funding for
deferred maintenance. However, as Secretary Zinke indicated before the
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, we cannot rely on solely
on appropriated dollars to address this problem. Without a dedicated
funding source, the deferred maintenance backlog will continue to grow.
The backlog of projects at our national parks limit access, impair
visitor experiences and impact recreational opportunities. The network
of roads, trails, restrooms, water treatment systems, drinking water,
and visitor centers are aging and are exceeding a capacity they were
often never designed to hold and support.
The Administration appreciates Congress' effort to author
legislation that follows the blueprint laid out in the FY 2019 Budget.
Although not identical, of the two funds, the National Park Restoration
Fund is the Administration's preferred proposal to addressing the $11.6
billion maintenance backlog that the National Park Service faces.
As Secretary Zinke said when announcing the FY 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 . . . 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.''
We greatly appreciate the effort of this Committee, Chairmen Bishop
and Simpson, Congresswoman Hanabusa, Senator Alexander, Senator Portman
and all your colleagues in Congress who have sought to craft real
solutions to our maintenance backlog. The bills we are discussing today
reflect a bipartisan, bicameral approach that the Administration
believes is necessary to achieve our end goals. We look forward to
continuing to work with each of you on this issue in a collaborative
manner that preserves and maintains our national treasures for
generations to come.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased to
answer any questions you or other members of the Committee may have.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record to Mr. P. Daniel Smith, Deputy
Director, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior
Question Submitted by Rep. Bishop
Question 1. Conservation Corps accomplish millions of dollars of
important work on maintenance, infrastructure, recreation, and wildfire
remediation that address the priorities of the Department of the
Interior each year. This work requires a good faith understanding that
the project development and financial agreement approval process will
move forward in a timely fashion, in order to recruit and train
Corpsmembers, field staff and buy supplies like trucks and chainsaws,
tents and boots. This work is also often seasonal, meaning there's a
short window when the work can be accomplished without further adding
to the maintenance backlog.
We understand there is a financial agreement review process in
place for any project over $50,000 which has temporarily frozen nearly
all of these projects around the country. Please share with the
Committee what steps the Department is taking to ensure these projects
will continue to meet Interior's needs, Corps won't have to turn away
thousands of young adults and veterans this year, and the projects they
have been developing with Interior will move forward in time to
accomplish this work during the 2018 field season.
Answer. The Department is committed to appropriately administering
a grant and cooperative agreement program that distributed over $5.5
billion of taxpayer money each year. Upon arriving at the Department,
Secretary Zinke began a review of the Department's financial assistance
programs, which included a review of the audits and investigation on
these programs that have been conducted by the Department's Office of
the Inspector General. To ensure the proper management and
implementation of the Department's grants and cooperative agreements,
the Department provided guidance to Bureaus to improve the process for
managing discretionary financial assistance programs. With an eye on
establishing a reasonable path forward--although minimum thresholds for
review were initially set--the process for review is an evolving one.
For Fiscal Year 2018 financial assistance obligations, final
approval is required from the National Park Service (NPS) Deputy
Director if the amount of proposed funding is under $50,000. If the
amount is more than $50,000, the financial assistance agreement must be
reviewed by the Senior Advisor to the Assistant Secretary Policy,
Management, and Budget prior to award.
In order to manage and expedite this process, the NPS established
an internal online review system. Projects are submitted for review to
a central database that tracks budget information, project objectives,
and public benefits. NPS staff review each project to ensure that they
meet Departmental and NPS priorities. Then, either the NPS Deputy
Director or the Senior Advisor to the Assistant Secretary for Policy,
Management, and Budget takes action on the project.
The NPS has worked diligently to ensure that projects are
internally reviewed and approved to allow sufficient time for funds to
be obligated and for work to be accomplished during the 2018 field
season.
Question Submitted by Rep. Grijalva
Question 1. In H.R. 5210, the baseline for Fiscal Year 2019 is $8
billion. In this year's budget, the Interior Department projects that
in Fiscal Year 2019, we will collect just under $7.8 billion. So, if we
collect $7.8 billion in Fiscal Year 2019 as expected, and the number in
the bill for 2019 is $8 billion, no money would go to the National Park
Restoration Fund in Fiscal Year 2019.
However, in the budget, the Department projects $760 million going
to the Fund in Fiscal Year 2019. Using the Depatiment's projections, no
money would be going to fix National Park infrastructure, but then you
also say you expect $760 million.
How does the Department come up with that $760 million dollar
estimate?
Answer. The Department's budget proposal caps the funds that could
be deposited into the Public Lands Infrastructure Fund at $18 billion.
The budget estimated that there would be $8 billion in deposits and
$6.8 billion in expenditures from the Fund over the course of that 10
years. Importantly, because the deposited funds would be available
without further appropriation, this fund would be consequential for
facilities that currently must rely on annual appropriations to address
the maintenance backlog at national parks, wildlife refuges and Bureau
of Indian Education schools.
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 here.
Representative McClintock asked if the NPS was able to provide an
answer to his question asked during the House Natural Resources
Committee oversight hearing held on March 6, 2018, about regulations
adding to the cost of deferred maintenance.
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 project list 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 project list 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.
Representative Labrador asked for an example of compounding costs the
longer a project is deferred.
Answer. The longer that an asset's deferred maintenance goes
unaddressed, the faster that asset will deteriorate. The industry
standard facility backlog deterioration rate varies between 2 percent
and 10 percent annually (http://bokcms.appa.org/pdfs/131-05281612.pdf).
This deterioration causes the cost of repair to grow at an increasing
rate each year. The following is a detailed example:
Cantilever Structure--The ``Cantilever Structure'' on the Clara
Barton Parkway (part of the George Washington Memorial Parkway)
provides a good example of repair work that originally was less
expensive and less complicated when the defect originally occurred. In
2009, a large pothole (6' by 4') was found in the Cantilever
structure's deck. At that time, the repair would have required closing
that lane of the bridge and possibly the lanes of traffic below (part
of the Westbound roadway overhangs the Eastbound roadway for 0.27
miles; this is the ``cantilever''). NPS staff completed a temporary fix
by filling the pothole, which maintained the safety of the public using
the bridge. The more extensive and expensive fix was delayed for a
number of reasons including the complexity of the long-term repair that
was beyond the capability of the park's maintenance staff and a desire
save costs by lumping the repair with a more extensive project planned
for the Clara Barton Parkway which would reduce mobilization and
demobilization costs.
Currently, the pothole has grown both in area and in depth and now
measures about 20' by 10'. The deterioration requires different
materials to repair, including repairs to the steel reinforcing
material, which is more expensive than concrete. In addition, the
larger and deeper repair requires that the structure be supported from
underneath (from the lower roadway) during work. The more extensive
repair combined with the need to close more of the road for a longer
time leads to an increase in workzone costs. The total project cost of
this repair is now approximately $200,000, far more than it would have
been if the pothole had been fully repaired at the time it was first
discovered.
Representative Gianforte asked for prioritized deferred maintenance
projects in Montana and inquired how fast work could begin on these
projects.
Answer. The table below shows the maintenance projects that are
underway or planned for Fiscal Year 2018 and Fiscal Year 2019 that have
a deferred maintenance component. These projects will begin either in
2018 or 2019.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Planned Year Park Project
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2018 Glacier National Park Rehabilitate Albright Circle
Sewer System
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2018 Glacier National Park Rehabilitate Four Comfort
Stations for Accessibility
at Saint Mary Campground
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2018 Little Bighorn Battlefield Rehabilitate Domestic Water
National Monument Source and Transmission
System
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2019 Big Hole National Replace Defective Fire
Battlefield Protection System for Park
Housing
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2019 Little Bighorn Battlefield Rehabilitate Wastewater
National Monument Collection System
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2019 Glacier National Park Rehabilitate Many Glacier
Sewage Force Main
Connection
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2019 Glacier National Park Reconstruct Rock Walls and
Elevate Boardwalks on
Multiple Trails
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2019 Glacier National Park Rehabilitate Nine Sections
of Trail System Associated
with the Going to the Sun
Road
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2019 Glacier National Park Rehabilitate Many Glacier
Road, Route 14
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Representative Gianforte also asked about the percentages of energy
development revenues that come from conventional energy sources (oil,
gas, and coal), and from renewable energy sources.
Answer. In Fiscal Year 2017, 98.7 percent of revenues were from
conventional sources and 1.3 percent were from renewable sources.
______
Mr. McClintock. Great. Thank you very much for your
testimony.
We next welcome Ms. Marcia Argust, Director of Restore
America's Parks for the Pew Charitable Trusts, also in
Washington, DC.
STATEMENT OF MARCIA ARGUST, DIRECTOR, RESTORE AMERICA'S PARKS,
THE PEW CHARITABLE TRUSTS, WASHINGTON, DC
Ms. Argust. Thank you. Chairman McClintock, Ranking Member
Hanabusa, and members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the
invitation to discuss two important legislative measures that
seek to address the deferred maintenance issue within the
National Park System. These measures are the National Park
Service Legacy Act and the National Park Restoration Act. And I
want to thank Representatives Hurd, Simpson, and Hanabusa for
their support of these measures.
Addressing the Park Service backlog and keeping it from
escalating will require a bipartisan approach and
collaboration. Bills introduced this Congress, the
Administration's recognition of the need to resolve the
maintenance backlog, and this hearing are signs that we are
headed in the right direction, as well as the opening
statements that we have heard here today.
The National Park Service estimates that repairs at sites
nationwide total $11.6 billion, based on 2017 data. As the
Agency manages these sites, it is responsible for the care and
operation of over 75,000 assets such as trails, roads,
thousands of buildings and historic structures, battlefields,
recreation amenities, and electrical and water systems.
Aside from the Department of Defense, the Park Service is
responsible for maintaining more assets than any other Federal
agency. Over half of these assets have deferred maintenance.
The reasons for this are aging infrastructure, visitation
pressures, and inconsistent maintenance funding. Of the $11.6
billion backlog, $8.8 billion is attributed to highest and
high-priority assets, which are considered critical or very
important to the operations and mission of a park site.
Restoring our national parks is about much more than the
physical integrity of a trail or a building. Restoring our
parks is about preservation, access, and economics. In addition
to documenting our Nation's history for future generations and
providing visitors with access to recreation opportunities,
parks are proven economic engines for rural and urban
communities.
I have submitted with my written testimony a list of almost
3,000 organizations that support directing more resources to
park maintenance. These groups include counties and cities, the
state of California, the state of Louisiana, businesses,
veterans, the tourism industry, conservation groups, unions,
and infrastructure groups, among others.
There are a number of important similarities between the
Legacy Act and the Restoration Act that I would like to
highlight. They both establish funds in the general Treasury to
direct annual Federal funding to park repairs. They both
prohibit funds from being used for land acquisition. They
discourage funds from supplanting discretionary funding of Park
Service maintenance needs. They use mineral revenues from
energy development on Federal lands and waters as their revenue
stream. Each contain provisions ensuring that monies going into
their respective maintenance funds would not come from revenues
obligated for other purposes under law, such as the Land and
Water Conservation Fund, the Historic Preservation Fund, or
state funds. And the bills share a number of the same sponsors
and co-sponsors.
Pew endorses the National Park Service Legacy Act without
reservation.
We offer our support of the National Park Restoration Act
with improvements. We would like to work with the bill's
sponsors to implement the following modifications.
A funding mechanism that reflects a specific annual dollar
amount is needed, ensuring a consistent source of park
maintenance funding. As currently written, the Restoration Act
relies on a percentage figure that means annual intake will
vary from year to year.
We would also like to see the addition of language to
ensure funding parity between transportation and non-
transportation assets.
While not on the hearing docket today, Pew also endorses
the Land Act authored by Representative Simpson. The
legislation seeks to provide dedicated annual funding for
maintenance needs within public land agencies and to provide
dedicated funding for LWCF.
We are committed to working with the sponsors of all of
these bills to incorporate the best provisions of each into a
final proposal that will provide significant reduction of the
park's backlog. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Argust follows:]
Prepared Statement of Marcia Argust, The Pew Charitable Trusts on H.R.
5210 and H.R. 2584
Chairman McClintock, Ranking Member Hanabusa, and members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the invitation to discuss dedicated Federal
funding as a means to help address the multi-billion dollar maintenance
needs within our National Park System. I also want to thank Chairman
Bishop and Rep. Grijalva for their attention to the deferred
maintenance backlog. I request that my full written statement and
accompanying documents be submitted for the record.
The Restore America's Parks campaign at The Pew Charitable Trusts
seeks to conserve the natural and cultural assets of the National Park
System by providing common-sense, long-term solutions to the deferred
maintenance challenge facing the National Park Service (NPS).
the deferred maintenance challenge within the national park system
At present, NPS estimates that repairs at its more than 400 sites
total $11.6 billion based on FY 2017 data [see Figure 1]. At these
diverse sites--national parks, historic sites, national monuments,
battlefields, seashores and lakeshores, national recreation areas--the
agency is responsible for the care and operation of over 75,000 assets.
Figure 1
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
.epsThese assets include over 12,000 miles of roads (over 5,000 of
which are paved), nearly 1,500 bridges and 60 tunnels, 18,000 miles of
trails, more than 28,000 buildings and historic structures,
approximately 1,800 waste water systems, former military installations,
parking lots, waterfronts, campgrounds, electrical and water systems,
interpretive facilities, and iconic monuments and memorials.
Aside from the Department of Defense, NPS maintains more assets
than any other Federal agency. Over half of its 75,000 assets have
deferred maintenance. ``Highest'' and ``high'' priority assets account
for $8.8 billion (or 75 percent) of the $11.6 billion backlog [see
Figure 2]. Highest priority assets are considered critical to the
operations and mission of a park site while high priority assets are
considered very important.
Figure 2
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
.epsPew has completed a number of case studies that document the
breadth of maintenance challenges plaguing our parks, along with a
compilation of testimonials from local officials, community leaders,
and businesses that depend on well-maintained, safe, and accessible
parks to help sustain healthy local economies. The case studies and
testimonials can be viewed on our webpage: http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/
research-and-analysis/fact-sheets/2017/05/national-park-case-studies.
Of specific note, Utah is known worldwide for its national parks
units. They attracted over 14 million visits in 2016, which translated
to $1 billion in direct spending in local communities, $1.5 billion in
state economic output and over 17,000 jobs. Yet our national parks in
Utah have maintenance needs totaling $266 million. Zion National Park,
one of the most visited sites, needs $65 million worth of repairs,
primarily for roads that provide access to park resources. The floor of
the Valley Road that runs through Zion Canyon, the park's most popular
destination, is now accessed only by shuttle or tour buses 9 months of
the year. It was originally built to withstand the weight of cars, but
its heavy use by larger vehicles caused almost $3 million in damage.
Millions more are needed to fix roads to Zion's campgrounds and visitor
centers, and their accompanying parking lots, bridges, and tunnels.
In California, national park units drew nearly 42 million
recreation visits in 2016, leading to $2 billion in direct spending in
gateway communities, $2.9 billion in state economic output, and more
than 28,000 jobs. Despite the proven economic benefits that parks
provide to the state of California, they have a maintenance backlog
estimated at $1.8 billion. Yosemite National Park alone has $582
million in repairs, over $200 million of which is attributed to roads.
But once visitors get out of their cars, they find walking, hiking, and
biking trails are often in disrepair as well, including the historic
Yosemite Bike Path. Yosemite's famed Mariposa Grove has been impacted
by a 1930s water line system that was leaking chlorinated water into
the grove at a rate of 39,500 gallons per day, affecting the growth and
longevity of the mature sequoias. The area will reopen this summer,
after being closed for several years to replace the waterline system
and other restoration efforts done in partnership with the Yosemite
Conservancy. Aging historic properties within the park have problems
too, including the Ansel Adams Gallery, and account for over $100
million repair needs.
the causes of deferred maintenance
Due to aging facilities, strain on resources caused by increased
visitation in certain park sites, and unreliable funding, NPS has been
unable to keep pace with necessary infrastructure repairs.
Aging infrastructure: Our National Park System is over 100
years old and many park units are showing their age.
According to a December 2016 Government Accounting Office
(GAO) report, most of the NPS maintenance backlog is
attributed to older park sites, stating specifically that
``about $10.5 billion in deferred maintenance was for park
units established more than 40 years ago.'' Most
infrastructures have a finite life span, due to factors
such as material longevity, weather, use, and design.
Mirroring the infrastructure problems of both urban and rural
areas across the country, transportation needs comprise
more than half of the NPS maintenance backlog and represent
some of the most costly infrastructure projects, including
roads, tunnels, and bridges.
Rising visitation pressures: In addition to aging
infrastructure, the high level of visitors that many park
sites have been experiencing in recent years is placing
increasing pressures on resources that are often already
showing signs of deterioration.
Unreliable funding: Years of underfunding compound the
challenges of preserving the physical integrity of NPS
assets. From FY 2006-FY 2015, Federal funding for the
repair and rehabilitation, cyclic maintenance, and line-
item construction portions of the NPS budget declined by 33
percent.
The agency is typically $250-$320 million short of the $800
million it estimates it needs each year to maintain
transportation and non-transportation assets at existing
conditions. We greatly appreciate the increased allocations
Congress has provided for NPS maintenance accounts over the
past several years, but more consistent, reliable funding
is needed to close this recurring maintenance gap and start
reducing the large cumulative deficit.
why we need to address deferred maintenance
Accompanying this statement is a list of almost 3,000 organizations
across the Nation that support directing more resources to fixing our
parks. These groups--counties and cities, local officials, businesses,
veterans, the hotel and restaurant industry, conservation groups,
unions, the recreation industry, infrastructure groups, state tourism
societies--recognize the importance of investing in park maintenance
for the following reasons:
Restoring our parks preserves and documents our Nation's
history for future generations.
Parks are economic engines for rural and urban
communities. Based on FY 2016 records, 330 million park
visits translated to $18 billion in direct spending to
local communities and regions, generating nearly $35
billion in national economic output and 318,000 jobs. A Pew
study commissioned last year found that fully addressing
the national park backlog has the potential to create and
support more than 110,000 additional infrastructure-related
jobs nationwide: http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-
analysis/blogs/compass-points/2017/12/01/job-creation-
potential-if-we-restore-our-parks.
Safe and accessible roads, trails and facilities are
needed so visitors can access and enjoy park resources.
Investing in park maintenance provides a cost-savings, as
postponement of projects can lead to more costly and
extensive repairs.
dedicated funding legislation
Drawing down and preventing the escalation of a multi-billion
maintenance backlog that has accrued over decades requires multiple
approaches. Pew's Restore America's Parks campaign is pursuing a range
of solutions including dedicated annual Federal funding, continued
robust annual appropriations funding, legislative and administrative
policy reforms, increased opportunities for public-private
partnerships, and leveraging technology to achieve efficiencies as well
as help generate revenue.
Of all of these avenues, dedicated annual funding is core to
ensuring that the NPS can keep pace with priority repairs and keep
deferred maintenance from escalating. When Congress established the
Park Service over 100 years ago, it mandated the agency ``. . . to
conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the
wildlife therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such
manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the
enjoyment of future generations.'' Congress has a responsibility to
ensure that NPS has adequate resources to fulfill the mission it gave
the agency.
Several bipartisan bills have been introduced this Congress to
tackle the deferred maintenance challenge within our parks,
specifically the National Park Service Legacy Act (H.R. 2584/S. 751)
and the National Park Restoration Act (H.R. 5210/S. 2509). We applaud
the sponsors and co-sponsors of all of these measures for their
commitment to our national parks and for responding to the diverse
voices across the Nation calling on Congress to fix our parks.
There are a number of similarities between the Legacy Act and the
Restoration Act. Each would establish a fund in the U.S. General
Treasury to direct dedicated Federal funding each year to park
maintenance needs. Both measures prohibit funds from being used for
land acquisition and would discourage funds from replacing
discretionary funding for NPS facility maintenance needs. The revenue
stream for the Legacy Act and the Restoration Act would be royalties
from energy development on Federal lands and waters that are paid into
the General Treasury (it should be noted that the Restoration Act would
also use revenues from renewables). Using revenues from energy
development for mitigation purposes is not a new concept. The onshore
and offshore mineral revenue system is an existing system set up
decades ago under the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 and the Outer
Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953. Both proposals contain language to
ensure that monies going into the maintenance funds would not come from
royalties payments that are obligated for other purposes under law
(such as the Land and Water Conservation Fund, the Historic
Preservation Fund, and state funds). Additionally, the bills share a
number of the same co-sponsors.
Pew endorses the National Park Service Legacy Act, introduced by
Senators Warner (D-VA) and Portman (R-OH) and Representatives Hurd (R-
TX), Reichert (R-WA), Kilmer (D-WA), and Hanabusa (D-HI), without
reservation. In addition to the provisions outlined above, the
legislation would provide that 80 percent of the fund be used for
repairs to non-transportation assets (such as historic structures,
visitor facilities, trails, water utility systems, and assets that
impact disability access, health and safety, and recreation) and 20
percent be used to restore transportation-related infrastructure such
as roads, bridges, and tunnels. This breakdown is intended to ensure
parity for non-transportation assets, as NPS receives some dedicated
funding from the Highway Trust Fund to address transportation needs
(though the annual amount is far from adequate). The Legacy Act would
direct monies from the fund to ramp up over 30 years: $50,000,000 for
the first 3 years, $150,000,000 for the next 3 years, and $250,000,000
for the following 3 years, and $500,000,000 for each successive year.
This consistent, reliable annual funding is critical and would allow
for more planning and integration of projects, cost-effectiveness, and
the ability to tackle complicated, larger-scale maintenance issues. The
measure also contains a provision to encourage public-private
collaboration by incentivizing projects that have a cost-share
component.
Pew offers support of the National Park Restoration Act, introduced
by Representatives Simpson (R-ID) and Schrader (D-OR) and Senators
Alexander (R-TN), King (I-ME), Heinrich (D-NM), Daines (R-MT), Gardner
(R-CO), Tillis (R-NC), Moore Capitol (R-WV), Manchin (D-WV), with
improvements. We would like to work with the bill sponsors to implement
the following improvements:
Modification of the funding mechanism to reflect a
specific annual dollar amount, ensuring a consistent,
reliable source of park maintenance funding. A successful
dedicated funding measure must provide certain and robust
annual funding to effectively address long overdue park
repairs. As currently written, the Restoration Fund would
take in 50 percent of energy development revenues over a
baseline figure projected for each of 10 years. Reliance on
a percentage figure means that the annual intake will vary
from year to year.
Addition of language to ensure funding parity between
transportation and non-transportation assets.
While not on the hearing docket today, Pew also endorses the Land
and National Park Deferred Maintenance Act (H.R. 2863) authored by Rep.
Simpson. The legislation seeks to provide dedicated annual funding for
maintenance needs within public land agencies and to provide dedicated
funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund over a 7-year period.
conclusion
Deferred maintenance within our National Park System is a critical
issue that needs to be addressed. It will require a bipartisan approach
and collaboration. The bipartisan bills that have been introduced this
Congress, the Administration's recognition of the need to resolve the
maintenance backlog, and this hearing are signs that we're headed in
the right direction. Pew is committed to working with the sponsors of
all of the deferred maintenance measures to incorporate the best
provisions of each into a final proposal that can be enacted and will
provide a significant reduction to the national parks backlog.
Thank you for your consideration of these views and for the
Subcommittee's interest in addressing the maintenance backlog plaguing
our national parks.
*****
The following document was submitted as a supplement to Ms. Argust's
testimony. This document is part of the hearing record and is being
retained in the Committee's official files:
--List of supporters for addressing the National Park System
backlog
______
Mr. McClintock. Thank you for your testimony.
Next, we welcome Mr. Matt Lee-Ashley, Senior Fellow at the
Center for American Progress in Washington, DC.
STATEMENT OF MATT LEE-ASHLEY, SENIOR FELLOW, CENTER FOR
AMERICAN PROGRESS, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Lee-Ashley. Thank you Chairman McClintock and Ranking
Member Hanabusa for the opportunity to testify today. My name
is Matt Lee-Ashley, I am a Senior Fellow at the Center for
American Progress, where I focus on natural resources,
conservation, and public lands policy.
Today's hearing, which focuses on strengthening our
investments in our national parks and public lands, could not
be more timely. The immense challenges facing our public lands
today include the rapid loss of natural areas and wildlife
driven by development; climate change and other stressors; and
the need to ensure that all our parks and public lands better
reflect the history, cultures, and needs of all Americans.
The two bills that the Committee is discussing today aim to
address just one element of the many challenges facing our
public lands: how to invest in and care for the physical,
human-built infrastructure in our national parks, and only in
our national parks.
To be sure, this is a vital public policy priority, but it
is a manageable problem if we keep three things in mind.
First, the actual size of the deferred maintenance backlog.
The Center for American Progress' review of the National Park
Service's maintenance database found that if you strip out the
projects that should be paid for by private hotels and
restaurants that operate in the parks, and the road projects
that should be addressed through the highway bill, the backlog
is reduced by 50 percent.
Further, only $1.3 billion is actually listed as ``critical
systems deferred maintenance,'' and considered by the Agency as
their highest priority for necessary maintenance. $1.3 billion
is still a large number, but with smart budgeting, it is
manageable.
Second, we need balanced and comprehensive investment in
all our public lands. In 2016, the U.S. Forest Service, the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Bureau of Land
Management had a combined maintenance backlog approaching $8
billion. The Trump administration's budget, meanwhile, proposes
massive reductions in operation funding for all these agencies,
including the elimination of 2,000 park rangers and
professionals. Piecemeal investments to fix parking lots and
potholes will not overcome the damage that would be done by the
Trump administration's proposed budget cuts.
And third, our investments in our great outdoors should
come from predictable and sustainable funding sources, and not
undermine the conservation values the National Park Service is
obligated to protect. We are not a country that should have to
allow mining in national monuments to pay for the bathrooms in
our parks.
The National Park Restoration Act, H.R. 5210, mirrors the
Trump administration's Public Land Infrastructure Fund, which
Secretary Zinke discussed last week when he appeared before
this Committee. H.R. 5210 is burdened by many of the same
policy shortcomings as the Administration's proposal. It would
invest solely in the built infrastructure in the parks, roads,
bathrooms, concessionaire facilities, but does not help the
Park Service fulfill its mission of, for example, protecting a
Civil War battlefield from being turned into a big box store,
or creating a new access point for kids to go fishing.
The bill also does not acknowledge the pressing needs of
the other land management agencies.
But the biggest shortcoming of H.R. 5210 is that there is
no guarantee that even a single penny will flow to the fund.
For the national parks to receive any benefit from this
proposal, the Federal Government would have to collect more
than $7.8 billion in energy revenues in 2018, a threshold that
rises steadily to $9.4 billion by 2027. This is a dubious,
speculative, and uncertain approach to infrastructure
investment.
The condition of our national parks under no circumstances
should be dependent on the price of oil and the decisions of
OPEC, on whether or not we drill in the Arctic refuge or near
the coasts of Florida or North Carolina, or whether we permit a
new coal mine near a national monument.
The National Park Service Legacy Act of 2017, H.R. 2584,
presents a more balanced and realistic approach. It would
dedicate a portion of existing Federal energy revenues to
national park maintenance projects, thus providing clear,
certain, and stable investments through 2047. Under the bill,
between 2018 and 2026, $1.35 billion would go to national park
maintenance needs, which along with sensible annual
appropriations, would fund the Agency's highest priority
projects.
Paired with sustained and balanced appropriations for the
land management agencies and significant, permanent, and
dedicated investments in conservation through the Land and
Water Conservation Fund and other funding streams, H.R. 2584
can contribute to sound public lands stewardship over the next
several decades. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lee-Ashley follows:]
Prepared Statement of Matt Lee-Ashley, Senior Fellow, Center for
American Progress on H.R. 5210 and H.R. 2584
Thank you, Chairman McClintock and Ranking Member Hanabusa, for the
opportunity to testify on H.R. 5210, the National Park Restoration Act
and H.R. 2584, The National Park Service Legacy Act of 2017.
My name is Matt Lee-Ashley. I am a senior fellow at the Center for
American Progress, where I focus on natural resources, conservation,
and public lands policy. Previously, I served as deputy chief of staff
and communications director for the U.S. Department of the Interior. I
have also had the honor for working in the U.S. Senate for then-Senator
Ken Salazar, on behalf of my home state of Colorado.
When Congress passed the Organic Act that established the National
Park Service in 1916, it directed the agency ``to conserve the scenery
and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to
provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means
as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future
generations.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 64th Congress, 1st Session, ``An Act to Establish a National
Park Service, and for other Purposes,'' enacted August 25, 1916,
available at https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/anps/
anps_1i.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By its founding legislation, the National Park Service has a dual
mission of protecting--unimpaired--the natural, cultural, and historic
resources with which it is entrusted and helping Americans see and
experience them. Conservation and enjoyment.
Today's hearing, which focuses on strengthening our investments in
our national parks and public lands, could not be more timely in light
of the challenges we are experiencing in the stewardship of our natural
and cultural resources and in protecting and expanding access to the
great outdoors.
This Committee well knows the conservation challenges facing our
national parks, wildlife, and cultural and historic resources. To list
a few:
We are losing our remaining wild places in the United
States at an alarming rate. Between 2001 and 2011 in the
West, we lost an average of one football field worth of
natural area every 2\1/2\ minutes.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Center for American Progress, ``The Disappearing West,''
accessed March 17, 2018, available at https://disappearingwest.org/.
Our Nation's conservation policies have slowed, but not
stopped, the decline of American wildlife populations. One
in five American plant and animal species--nearly 1,300
total species--is at risk of extinction.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Matt Lee-Ashley and Nicole Gentile, ``Confronting America's
Wildlife Extinction Crisis,'' October, 2015, Center for American
Progress, available at https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/
reports/2015/10/19/123085/confronting-americas-wildlife-extinction-
crisis/.
Tens of thousands of archaeological sites in the Southwest
are largely unprotected and vulnerable to looting and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
vandalism.
America's Civil War battlefields--from Fredericksburg to
Gettysburg--face ongoing risks from encroaching
development.
Private development threatens parks and protected areas.
Chaco Canyon, Zion National Park, Bears Ears National
Monument, and Great Sand Dunes National Park in Colorado
are all at risk of having drilling at their doorsteps. Just
last week, the Bureau of Land Management sold an oil and
gas lease near the Upper Missouri River Breaks National
Monument in Montana for just $866.
Climate change is forcing dramatic changes to the
landscape. Glaciers are disappearing in Glacier National
Park. Joshua trees are dying in Joshua Tree National
Park.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Diana Madson, ``Climate change threatens California's iconic
`Dr. Seuss' trees,' Yale Climate Connections, August 31, 2017,
available at https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2017/08/drought-
threatens-joshua-trees/; U.S. Geological Survey, ``Retreat of Glaciers
in Glacier National Park,'' accessed March 17, 2018, available at
https://www.usgs.gov/centers/norock/science/retreat-glaciers-glacier-
national-park?qt-science_center_objects=0#qt-science_center_objects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alongside the real and pressing conservation problems with which we
are confronted, we are grappling with how to ensure that current and
future generations of Americans have the opportunity to get outdoors
and experience the natural, historic, and cultural wonders that belong
to them. For example:
A growing population needs more ways and more places to
get outdoors. Case in point: our national parks welcomed
nearly 331 million visitors in 2016 and 2017--a record
level of visitation.\5\ This is wonderful news, but unless
we expand close-to-home recreation opportunities and
protect other deserving places, we are going to see more
and more crowding and pressure on our park system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ U.S. Department of the Interior, ``Secretary Zinke Announces
Record Visitation in America's National Parks,'' March 10, 2017,
available at https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/secretary-zinke-
announces-record-visitation-americas-national-parks; National Park
Service, ``National Park Service Visitor Use Statistics,'' accessed
March 17, 2018, available at: https://irma.nps.gov/Stats/SSRSReports/
National%20Reports/Annual%20Summary%20Report%20(1904%20-
%20Last%20Calendar%20Year.
We need to be doing more to engage all Americans--from all
backgrounds and all walks of life--in our public lands. For
the National Park Service, that means protecting places
that help tell the story of all Americans. A recent Center
for Progress analysis found that only a small portion of
national park sites has a focus on communities of color and
traditionally under-represented communities. Only 9 of more
than 400 national park units, for example, have a primary
focus on the contributions of women to our history. Only
three have a primary focus on Asian-American history.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Jenny Rowland, ``Parks for All,'' Center for American Progress,
August, 2016, available at: https://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-
content/uploads/2016/08/22093415/CentennialAgenda-report1.pdf.
As a result of checkerboard land ownership patterns in
some areas of the country, too many public lands are not
actually publicly accessible. According to one study, more
than 4 million acres of public lands in the West--an area
nearly twice the size of Yellowstone National Park--are off
limits to the public because visitors would have to cross
private land or because there are no legal entry points.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Center for Western Priorities, ``Landlocked: Measuring Public
Land Access in the West,'' November, 2013, available at http://
westernpriorities.org/2013/11/25/new-report-landlocked-measuring-
public-land-access-in-the-west/.
Finally, to welcome visitors to our public lands, we need
to invest in the physical infrastructure that visitors need
and want, including roads, bathrooms, and campgrounds. But
we also need to support the rangers, law enforcement
personnel, scientists, and other professionals who help
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
take care of the resources and who protect public safety.
maintenance projects in the national parks
The two bills that the Committee is discussing today aim to address
just one element of the many challenges I mentioned: how to invest in
and care for the physical, human-built infrastructure in our national
parks.
To be sure, this is a vital public policy priority, but, with the
right approach and investments, it is a manageable problem.
First, it is important to clarify the scale and scope of the
problem we are trying to solve. The National Park Service reports that
it has more than $11 billion in ``deferred maintenance'' needs.\8\ That
staggering number has rightly caused widespread concern. Congress,
however, should scrutinize this number carefully to understand the
highest and most pressing needs and tailor solutions accordingly.
Maintenance of roads, tunnels, and parking lots accounts for roughly
half of that figure; the U.S. Department of Transportation and their
Federal highway programs therefore play a critical role in addressing
the backlog.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ National Park Service, ``NPS Deferred Maintenance Reports,''
accessed March 17, 2018, available at: https://www.nps.gov/subjects/
plandesignconstruct/defermain.htm.
\9\ Laura B. Comay, ``The National Park Service's Maintenance
Backlog: Frequently Asked Questions,'' Congressional Research Service,
August 23, 2017, available at: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44924.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Center for American Progress review of the Park Service's
``deferred maintenance'' database also found $389 million in projects
on concessionaire-operated facilities in the parks. These are privately
run, for-profit enterprises; these companies, not U.S. taxpayers,
should be paying for the upkeep of the facilities they are using.
Further, our review of the Park Service's database found that only
$3.5 billion--less than 30 percent--of the National Park Service's
$11.9 billion maintenance backlog is labeled as ``critical systems
deferred maintenance.'' Of that, only $1.3 billion--or about 10 percent
of the total backlog--is serious enough for the agency to consider it a
priority for necessary maintenance.\10\ To be sure, $1.3 billion is a
large number, but this understanding of the truly high priority
maintenance needs should inform Congress' budgetary decisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Nicole Gentile and Matt Lee-Ashley, ``Yosemite for Sale,''
Center for American Progress, February 10, 2017, available at: https://
www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/reports/2017/02/10/414907/
yosemite-for-sale/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, the maintenance needs in our national parks should be
assessed in the context of the maintenance needs on other public lands
as well--in our national forests, wildlife refuges, and national
conservation lands. Yes, national parks are remarkable places. But so
many of our children's first experiences in the outdoors are at a
campground in a national forest, visiting a national wildlife refuge on
a school trip, or going fishing in one of the BLM's national
conservation areas.
The maintenance challenges at these other agencies are just as
pressing as in the national parks. In 2016, the U.S. Forest Service
estimated that it had $5.49 billion in maintenance needs, while the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service estimated $1.4 billion and the BLM $810
million.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Carol Hardy Vincent, ``Deferred Maintenance of Federal Land
Management Agencies: FY 2007-FY 2016 Estimates and Issues,''
Congressional Research Service, April 25, 2017, available at: https://
fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43997.pdf.
These maintenance needs are significant, but they not
insurmountable. We need a long-term investment in our parks and public
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
lands that:
Focuses on the highest priority maintenance needs in our
national parks and at other land management agencies.
Requires for-profit entities operating on national parks
and public lands to pay for the maintenance costs
associated with the facilities they are using. Taxpayers
should not be subsidizing corporate hotel chains in the
national parks, for example.
Provides stable and sustainable funding that can be
counted on year after year.
Improves the condition and stewardship of the resources
that the agencies are responsible for conserving.
Expands opportunities for all Americans to get outdoors,
including through the protection of new parks and open
spaces, and by working toward a more inclusive system of
parks and public lands.
the administration's ``public lands infrastructure fund'' proposal
In his Fiscal Year 2019 budget request of Congress, the President
has asked Congress to establish what it has labeled a ``Public Lands
Infrastructure Fund.'' The proposal would use Federal energy and
mineral revenues that are above current budget projections to help fund
maintenance projects in the national parks.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ U.S. Department of the Interior, ``FY 2019 Interior Budget in
Brief,'' February, 2018, available at: https://edit.doi.gov/sites/
doi.gov/files/uploads/fy2019_bib_dh025.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In testimony to Congress last week, Secretary of the Interior Ryan
Zinke said the proposal would generate up to $18 billion in funding for
national parks and public lands. He stated that this would be the
``largest investment in public lands infrastructure in our Nation's
history.'' \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Natasha Geiling, ``Here's What Ryan Zinke's public lands
infrastructure investment actually means,'' Climate Progress, March 14,
2018, available at: https://thinkprogress.org/zinke-public-lands-
infrastructure-explainer-16d7502102fe/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This claim is not factually accurate. President Franklin D.
Roosevelt's Civilian Conservation Corps employed more than 3 million
Americans in restoring, protecting, and creating infrastructure for our
parks, forests, and public lands. Adjusted for inflation to 2018
dollars, Congress invested $58 billion in America's public lands
through the CCC, far more than is promised through the Administration's
proposal.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Nicole Gentile and Jenny Rowland, ``Zinke's Cynical Plan to
Make America's Parks Dependent on Mining and Drilling,'' Center for
American Progress, March 16, 2018, available at: https://
www.americanprogress.org / issues / green / news / 2018 / 03 / 16 /
448029 / zinkes-cynical-plan-make-americas-national-parks-dependent-
mining-drilling/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The problems with the Public Lands Infrastructure Fund, however,
are not merely rhetorical. The Administration put forward its proposal
for maintenance projects in the parks while simultaneously proposing to
slash the National Park Service's overall budget by 7 percent and the
Interior Department as a whole by 16 percent. This would result in the
elimination of up to 2,000 park rangers.\15\ America's most effective
conservation program, the Land and Water Conservation Fund, would be
effectively eliminated. And the Administration is proposing to increase
visitor fees at national parks, which would price many families out.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ U.S. Department of the Interior, ``Budget Justifications and
Performance Information, Fiscal Year 2019: National Park Service,''
Exhibit E, February, 2018, available at: https://www.doi.gov/sites/
doi.gov/files/uploads/fy2019_nps_budget_justification.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, the financing mechanism for the Administration's
``Public Lands Infrastructure Fund'' is highly speculative and,
unfortunately, in conflict with the conservation mission of the
National Park Service. The problem, simply put is this: in order for
park bathrooms to get fixed, the Federal Government would have to start
collecting a lot more money from oil, gas, and mining companies.
The three scenarios under which the Federal Government could
theoretically generate $18 billion in additional revenues over the next
10 years from energy and mineral extraction on taxpayer-owned lands and
waters are:
A. If oil, coal, or natural gas prices rise dramatically;
B. If Federal agencies increase royalty rates, rents, and bonus bids
it collects from energy extraction--or requires hardrock
mining companies to pay more than zero dollars for mining
taxpayer-owned resources; or
C. If the Administration sells off mining and drilling rights in
areas of America's public lands and oceans that are
currently considered too special to sacrifice, such as the
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the Atlantic, Pacific, and
Arctic coasts, on the doorstep of national monuments and
national parks, and in national forest watersheds that
supply drinking water to nearby communities.
Each of these scenarios is either unlikely or undesirable. Funding
for America's national parks should not be dependent on the price of
oil and the decisions that the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting
Countries (OPEC) makes. This Administration is also signaling its
desire to reduce--not increase--royalty rates for energy extraction on
Federal lands and waters. And we are not a country that should have to
drill a national wildlife refuge or mine a national monument to be able
to fix some potholes in national park roads.
For these reasons, the Administration's promise that ``up to $18
billion'' would flow to the Public Lands Infrastructure Fund is
unrealistic and in conflict with America's conservation values.
h.r. 5210 and h.r. 2584
The National Park Restoration Act (H.R. 5210), in its current form,
mirrors the Trump administration's ``Public Lands Infrastructure Fund''
and is therefore burdened by many of the same policy shortcomings.
The bill narrowly focuses on maintenance projects in the national
parks and does not make needed investments in our national wildlife
refuges, national forests, national monuments and other public lands.
It would invest solely in the built infrastructure in the parks--roads,
bathrooms, concessionaire facilities--but does not help the Park
Service address the problems of inholdings, encroaching development, or
threats to the natural resources it is protecting. In fact, it
explicitly prohibits the National Park Service from using the funds to
purchase land that might serve as a new trailhead or to save a former
Civil War battlefield from being turned into a parking lot for a retail
store.
Perhaps the biggest shortcoming of the current version of H.R. 5210
is that there is no guarantee that any money will flow to the fund. For
the national parks to receive any benefit from this proposal, the
Federal Government would have to collect more than $7.8 billion in
energy revenues in 2018--a threshold that rises steadily to $9.4
billion by 2027. This is a speculative and uncertain approach to
infrastructure investment. The condition of our national parks should
under no circumstance be dependent on the price of oil, on whether or
not we drill near the coasts of Florida or South Carolina, or whether
we permit a new coal mine near a national monument.
The National Park Service Legacy Act of 2017, H.R. 2584, presents a
more balanced and realistic approach. It would dedicate a portion of
existing Federal energy revenues to national park maintenance projects,
thus providing clear, certain, and stable investments through 2047.
Importantly, it also clarifies that the bill would not affect other
existing commitments of energy revenues, including the share of energy
revenues that goes to states, the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and
the Historic Preservation Fund. Under the bill, between 2018 and 2026,
$1.35 billion would go to national park maintenance needs, which--along
with sensible annual appropriations--would fund the agency's highest
priority projects.
Paired with significant investments in conservation through the
Land and Water Conservation Fund, contributions from the Department of
Transportation's Federal highway programs, appropriate franchise fees
from private concessioners, and sustained and balanced investments in
operations and maintenance of the U.S. Forest Service, BLM, and
National Park Service, H.R. 2584 could help us lay a strong foundation
for conservation and public lands stewardship for the next 50 years.
conclusion
Congress was truly wise when it endowed the National Park Service
with the twin missions of preserving America's treasures and providing
for their enjoyment. Over the past 102 years, the National Park Service
has proven that these two missions are co-dependent. To successfully
preserve Yellowstone National Park, the Cesar Chavez National Monument,
or the Underground Railroad Network to Freedom sites, the American
public must be able to see, know, and learn about these places. And for
American families to have a rewarding experience when they visit, our
public lands must be healthy, our wildlife must be abundant, and our
parks should reflect the rich diversity of our history, geography,
cultures, and peoples.
To be sure, we have periodically heard arguments for prioritizing
public use over conservation in the national parks. These arguments,
however, present a false choice. The maintenance needs in the national
parks are no reason to eliminate or divert money from the Land and
Water Conservation Fund, to stop conserving at-risk places, to slow the
restoration of wildlife habitat, to price American families out of
parks, or to undercut the rangers and professionals who care for these
places. For more than a century--through two world wars, the Great
Depression, and plenty of moments of national trial--our country has
steadily made America's best idea even better. We have done so by
remaining faithful to Congress' original vision that our national parks
are to be enjoyed and conserved.
Thank you.
______
Mr. McClintock. Our final witness is Ms. Callie Hoyt. She
is Manager for Federal Affairs for the Motorcycle Industry
Council. She has traveled here the farthest to be with us
today. She has come all the way from Arlington, Virginia.
[Laughter.]
Mr. McClintock. Welcome.
STATEMENT OF CALLIE HOYT, MANAGER, FEDERAL AFFAIRS, MOTORCYCLE
INDUSTRY COUNCIL, ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA
Ms. Hoyt. Thank you. Chairman McClintock, Ranking Member
Hanabusa, and members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the
opportunity to appear before you today to share the views of
the Motorcycle Industry Council and views of other outdoor
recreation interests, on potential solutions to reduce the
deferred maintenance and repair backlog of the Department of
the Interior, as well as that of the U.S. Forest Service.
The Motorcycle Industry Council is a not-for-profit,
national trade association representing over 600 manufacturers,
distributors, dealers, and retailers of motorcycles, scooters,
motorcycle and ATV parts, accessories and related goods and
services, and members of allied trades. Our member companies
and their customers, over 50 million off-highway motorcycle,
side-by-side, and all-terrain vehicle riders, many of whom
recreate on Federal lands, are very concerned over the
Department of the Interior's and the U.S. Forest Service's
growing deferred maintenance backlogs.
Roads, trails, campgrounds, water systems and more
recreational infrastructure suffer from this accumulated
problem that is negatively impacting visitor access, enjoyment,
and safety on public lands for the rapidly growing community of
outdoor recreation enthusiasts.
In 2017, 330 million people visited the 417 National Park
Service sites across the country. The National Park Service
completed over 650 million in maintenance and repair work in
Fiscal Year 2017, but aging facilities, high visitation, and
resource constraints have kept the maintenance backlog between
$11 billion and $12 billion since 2010.
The National Park Legacy Restoration Fund and the National
Park Restoration Act are significant efforts to overcome the
National Park Service's $11.6 billion maintenance backlog, an
amount that is nearly four times the Agency's annual
appropriations. Directing Federal receipts associated with the
sale of publicly-owned energy resources toward addressing the
maintenance backlog creates an opportunity to make a strategic
contribution to our national parks early in the second century
of the National Park Service.
Establishing a sustainable source of funding for rebuilding
recreational infrastructure is an investment, not an expense. A
recent report from the Department of Commerce's Bureau of
Economic Analysis calculated the outdoor recreation industry's
annual gross output to be $673 billion, surpassing other
sectors such as agriculture, petroleum and coal, and computer
and electronic products. The BEA report also determined that
outdoor recreation makes up 2 percent of the U.S. GDP, and the
outdoor recreation industry's GDP has increased an average of
4.4 percent since 2012, significantly greater than the 3.6
percent average increase in the overall U.S. GDP.
The outdoor recreation economy is among our Nation's
largest economic sectors, and public lands are the backbone of
our industry. These measures you are considering today would be
the largest investment the Nation has ever made in its national
park system.
National parks and other public lands and waters account
for $45 billion in economic output and 396,000 jobs,
nationwide. These public areas provide significant economic
benefits, particularly for nearby rural communities. Ensuring
maintenance of roads and trails is critical in many rural areas
of the county that depend on those routes to provide access to
important energy structures or infrastructure, connectivity for
residents, and tourism.
While the Park Service holds the largest share of the
Interior Department's overall $16 billion maintenance backlog,
it is important to shine a light on other land management
agencies that are struggling to address mounting deferred
maintenance backlogs from a lack of adequate resources. The
Bureau of Land Management's total backlog is estimated at $810
million, which has increased 65 percent over the past decade.
It is important to note that the BLM is one of the few
Federal agencies that brings in more revenue than it spends
through timber harvesting, livestock grazing, recreation, and
energy development. The U.S. Forest Service's $5.49 billion
backlog interferes with the Agency's ability to provide access
and safe passage on its more than 158,000 miles of trails. Due
to growing visitor use and limited funding compounded by the
rising costs of wildfire suppression and the associated
decrease of nearly 40 percent in non-fire personnel, the Forest
Service lacks capacity and resources for achieving a
sustainable trail system.
The Forest Service currently manages 192.9 million acres,
and the BLM manages 248.3 million acres of public land and
administers 700 million acres of Federal subsurface mineral
estate throughout the Nation. Maintenance of Forest Service and
BLM roads and trails is imperative because these two agencies
maintain multiple-use missions that support a variety of
activities and programs. Through this multiple use management
model, the outdoor recreation industry thrives on Forest
Service and BLM lands.
To emphasize that point, more than 99 percent of BLM-
administered lands are available for recreation use with no
fees. When one Forest Service or BLM road or trail goes out of
service, it is indefinitely placed on the backlog and can
negatively impact a number of outdoor recreational pursuits,
energy development, livestock grazing, and timber harvesting.
The MIC and our outdoor recreational business community
partners urge the Committee and Administration to broaden this
funding measure to include maintenance of roads and trails
managed by the Forest Service and BLM in order to establish a
comprehensive solution to our public lands management agencies'
deferred maintenance backlogs.
Thank you. That concludes my statement.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Hoyt follows:]
Prepared Statement of Callie Hoyt, Manager, Federal Affairs, Motorcycle
Industry Council on H.R. 5210 and H.R. 2584
Chairman McClintock, Ranking Member Hanabusa, and members of the
Subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today
to share the views of the Motorcycle Industry Council, and views of
other outdoor recreation interests, on potential solutions to reduce
the deferred maintenance and repair backlog of the Department of the
Interior, as well as that of the U.S. Forest Service.
The Motorcycle Industry Council is a not-for-profit, national trade
association representing over 600 manufacturers, distributors, dealers,
and retailers of motorcycles, scooters, motorcycle/ATV parts,
accessories, and related goods and services, and members of allied
trades.
Our member companies and their customers--over 50 million off-
highway motorcycle, side-by-side, and all-terrain vehicle riders, many
of whom recreate on Federal lands--are very concerned over the
Department of the Interior's and the U.S. Forest Service's growing
deferred maintenance and repair backlogs. Roads, trails, campgrounds,
water systems and more recreational infrastructure suffer from this
accumulated problem that is negatively impacting visitor access,
enjoyment, and safety on public lands for the rapidly growing community
of outdoor recreation enthusiasts. In 2017, 330 million people visited
the 417 NPS sites across the country. The NPS completed over $650
million in maintenance and repair work in FY 2017, but aging
facilities, high visitation, and resource constraints have kept the
maintenance backlog between $11 billion and $12 billion since 2010.
The National Park Legacy Restoration Fund (H.R. 2584) and the
National Park Restoration Act (H.R. 5210) are significant efforts to
overcome the National Park Service's $11.6 billion maintenance backlog,
an amount that is nearly four times the agency's annual appropriations.
Directing Federal receipts associated with the sale of publicly-owned
energy resources toward addressing the maintenance backlog creates an
opportunity to make a strategic contribution to our national parks
early in the second century of the National Park Service.
Establishing a sustainable source of funding for rebuilding
recreational infrastructure is an investment, not an expense. A recent
report from the Department of Commerce's Bureau of Economic Analysis
(BEA) calculated the outdoor recreation industry's annual gross output
to be $673 billion, surpassing other sectors such as agriculture,
petroleum and coal, and computer and electronic products. The BEA
report also determined that outdoor recreation makes up 2.0 percent of
the U.S. GDP, and the outdoor recreation industry's GDP has increased
an average of 4.4 percent since 2012, significantly greater than the
3.6 percent average increase in the overall U.S. GDP.
The outdoor recreation economy is among our Nation's largest
economic sectors, and public lands are the backbone of our industry.
These measures you are considering today would be the largest
investment the Nation has ever made in its National Park System.
National parks and other public lands and waters account for $45
billion in economic output and about 396,000 jobs nationwide. These
public areas provide significant economic benefits, particularly for
nearby rural communities. Ensuring maintenance of roads and trails is
critical in many rural areas of the county that depend on those routes
to provide access to important energy structures or infrastructure,
connectivity for residents, and tourism.
While the Park Service holds the largest share of the Interior
Department's overall $16 billion maintenance backlog, it's important to
shine a light on other land management agencies that are struggling to
address mounting deferred maintenance backlogs from a lack of adequate
resources. The Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) total backlog is
estimated at $810 million, which has increased 65 percent over the past
decade. It's important to note that the BLM is one of the few Federal
agencies that brings in more revenue than it spends through timber
harvesting, livestock grazing, recreation, and energy development. The
U.S. Forest Service's $5.49 billion backlog interferes with the
agency's ability to provide access and safe passage on its more than
158,000 miles of trails. Due to growing visitor use and limited funding
compounded by the rising costs of wildfire suppression and the
associated decrease of nearly 40 percent in non-fire personnel, the
Forest Service lacks capacity and resources for achieving a sustainable
trail system.
The Forest Service currently manages 192.9 million acres, and the
BLM manages 248.3 million acres of public land and administers about
700 million acres of Federal subsurface mineral estate throughout the
Nation. Maintenance of Forest Service and BLM roads and trails is
imperative because these two agencies maintain multiple-use missions
that support a variety of activities and programs. Through this
multiple use management model, the outdoor recreation industry thrives
on Forest Service and BLM lands. To emphasize that point, more than 99
percent of BLM-administered lands are available for recreational use
with no fees. When one Forest Service or BLM road or trail goes out of
service, it is indefinitely placed on the backlog and can negatively
impact a number of outdoor recreational pursuits, energy development,
livestock grazing, and timber harvesting.
The longer this systemic problem continues, the more challenging it
will become for the Departments of the Interior and Agriculture to
manage public lands in a way that maximizes opportunities for
commercial, recreational, and conservation activities. Without
including the Forest Service and BLM in the solution, the agencies will
continue to be limited in their ability to carry out their multiple-use
approach that enables prioritization of energy independence, shared
conservation stewardship, putting Americans back to work, and serving
the American public.
The MIC and our outdoor recreational business community partners
urge the Committee and Administration to broaden this funding measure
to include maintenance of roads and trails managed by the Forest
Service and BLM in order to establish a comprehensive solution to our
public lands management agencies' deferred maintenance backlogs.
I thank the Subcommittee for allowing me to testify on this all too
important issue. We look forward to working with Congress and the
Administration to support maintenance of roads and trails on NPS,
Forest Service, and BLM lands. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my
statement. I would be pleased to answer any questions you or other
members of the Subcommittee may have.
______
Mr. McClintock. Great, thank you very much for your
testimony. We will now proceed to Committee questions, and I
will begin.
Mr. Smith, I asked a few weeks ago if you could give us an
estimate of how much of the deferred maintenance backlog is
actual maintenance, like bricks and mortar stuff, and how much
of it is meeting various environmental studies and
requirements. We have not heard back yet. How are you coming on
that?
Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman, I do have numbers for you that
basically total, for this fiscal year, $786 million. I think I
have that number right. I know we were working on those
numbers, and I think----
Mr. McClintock. No, no. The question I have is, out of the
total $11.6 billion in deferred maintenance, how much is
actually maintenance and how much of it is meeting various
environmental requirements conducting environmental studies,
and the like?
Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman, I don't have that number for you
yet. I know it has been worked on. But the preponderance of it
is in the actual construction and the maintenance. The numbers
for either design or NEPA or those type of things are
minuscule, compared to the actual bricks-and-mortar projects we
are talking about.
Mr. McClintock. OK.
Mr. Smith. And I apologize I don't have that number for you
today.
Mr. McClintock. That is good to know, but I would like to
get the exact----
Mr. Smith. I will get you that number very, very shortly.
Mr. McClintock. I appreciate that, thank you.
Second, with the fund capped at $18 billion, what
assurances do we have that that is actually going to be used
for deferred maintenance? All funds are fungible. What is to
prevent these funds from simply relieving other expenditures,
such as salaries, bonuses, that sort of thing?
Mr. Smith. The intent of the bill is to deal with deferred
maintenance. There will certainly be a report to Congress every
year on what we have spent these funds for.
Mr. McClintock. Is there any requirement that they be used
solely for deferred maintenance, and that other funds that had
previously been budgeted for deferred maintenance aren't simply
used for other purposes?
Mr. Smith. No, sir. All of the accounts that come either
from appropriated funds or from this funding source will be for
deferred maintenance. None of those will be used for personnel
costs or that type of----
Mr. McClintock. No, I think you are missing the point. My
concern is funds that are currently budgeted for deferred
maintenance could be used elsewhere, then, if there is not a
maintenance of effort requirement in the law.
Mr. Smith. Well, yes, I hear what you are saying,
Congressman. Again, the way that Congress appropriates money,
we do know what is dedicated to deferred maintenance, and that
is blocked off and used for that. The intent of this bill----
Mr. McClintock. But there is no maintenance of effort
required for the bureaucracies, with respect to their existing
deferred maintenance budget?
Mr. Smith. There is nothing in the bill that guarantees
that. You are correct, Congressman.
Mr. McClintock. When John Jervis was here, goodness, 4 or 5
years ago now, I asked him, ``If you had your choice, where
would you prioritize funding, land acquisition or deferred
maintenance?'' He said deferred maintenance. Is that the view
of the current Administration?
Mr. Smith. It certainly is, Mr. Chairman. And when I
testified before Congress in the 1980s it was the position then
that we needed to deal with maintenance and not land
acquisition.
Mr. McClintock. OK.
Mr. Smith. We needed to take care of what we have, rather
than acquiring more land.
Mr. McClintock. Ms. Argust, we just heard from the Center
for American Progress that the deferred maintenance backlog is
grossly overstated. Do you believe that the deferred
maintenance numbers have been inflated?
Mr. Smith. I do not, sir.
Mr. McClintock. For Ms. Argust.
Ms. Argust. Let's be clear. The deferred maintenance
number, $11.6 billion, the Park Service assesses its assets
each year as a requirement under law. That number that they
come up with is from people going in the field and assessing
what the conditions of their assets are. I do not feel it is
overstated.
I think the numbers that we heard from CAP are misleading
when they are talking about $1.9 billion in critical systems.
As I mentioned in my testimony, of the $11.6 billion, $8.8
billion is attributed to high and highest-priority assets.
Mr. McClintock. OK. Finally, it said the concessionaires
ought to be paying for the venues the concessionaires use.
Aren't those venues owned by the National Park Service and
remain the property of the National Park Service?
Ms. Argust. They do. The Park Service----
Mr. McClintock. Concessionaires are, in effect, renting
that space.
Ms. Argust. There may be leases in some cases, but the Park
Service still has to account for that deferred maintenance----
Mr. McClintock. Right, right.
Ms. Argust [continuing]. In their assessment.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you.
Ms. Hanabusa.
Ms. Hanabusa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lee-Ashley, since your report was just discussed, let's
follow up with that. Do you disagree with the $11.6 billion
figure? You said in your testimony and gave in your written
testimony, as well, an analysis of where you think the
liability should be. However, do you disagree with the $11.6
billion as the deferred maintenance amount?
Mr. Lee-Ashley. The Park Service is responding to the
request of Congress to document all of its deferred maintenance
needs. So, the key is to get into that and understand what are
the highest priorities. We obtained that full list through the
Freedom of Information Act and scrutinized it and tried to
understand how they defined their own priorities, and that is
how we came to understand that their $386 million of projects
that should be paid for by hotels and restaurants and private
operators in the parks, and also $1.3 billion that the agency
itself views as the highest priority.
So, in a time when you are making budget decisions and
trade-offs, it is helpful to focus in on the most pressing
priorities here.
Ms. Hanabusa. When you did the analysis--I think what you
say is that $1.3 billion, or 10 percent of the total backlog,
is serious enough for the Agency to consider it a priority for
necessary maintenance. So, are you saying, of the $11.6
billion, only $1.3 billion is really what you would consider
necessary maintenance?
Mr. Lee-Ashley. This is in the words of the Agency. That is
the highest standard for them, the most critical needs. That is
not to say the Park Service doesn't want more money. It is a
wish list, in some ways, of priorities, $11.6 billion. But when
Congress is scrutinizing that list, it is important to identify
which areas deserve the most attention and which projects, in
the Agency's own view, are most critical.
Ms. Hanabusa. No, I understand, and I agree with you that
we have to understand where the $11.6 billion comes from. I
just want to know whether you agree that about $1.3 billion is
really what you would consider to be critical.
Mr. Lee-Ashley. It is the highest priority. I also want to
emphasize again that it is important to address the other
agencies' deferred maintenance needs, and continue to invest in
conservation, so that when we are thinking about this, having a
comprehensive view of how to invest in parks and public lands
is absolutely essential.
Ms. Hanabusa. Let me also understand when you said that
about $3.5 billion, less than 30 percent of the $11.9 million
backlog, is labeled this critical deferred, but you feel that
it is only about $1.3 billion. So, what about the rest of that
money?
Mr. Lee-Ashley. The $3.5 billion, in the Agency's view, are
high-priority projects, but are not necessarily in the places
that are most visited. So, that is a slightly lower tier of
priority for them. Still important projects to fund, important
investments in parks and public lands, but again, as we
understand that tier system that the Agency uses, it is
important to distinguish among them.
Ms. Hanabusa. What do you think is the total deferred
maintenance that we, as Congress, should be concerned about?
What is that figure? Is it the $1.3 billion?
Mr. Lee-Ashley. I think that is a good place to start.
Obviously, we would support more investments in Parks, the Fish
and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the
Forest Service to address the deferred maintenance needs across
the board.
What the sweet spot is is hard to say, exactly. I do think
you absolutely need to cover that $1.3 billion. You also need
to understand the fact that the agencies themselves still have
important conservation missions to fulfill. So, when there is a
big box store that is being proposed next to a national
battlefield, or a Civil War battlefield, the agencies need to
be able to address that threat.
It is about pursuing both the management needs of these
agencies, while continuing to fulfill their conservation
missions.
Ms. Hanabusa. Am I hearing you correctly, that what you are
really saying is that we may have these needs to address, but
if it is in any way going to jeopardize--for example, if an
additional coal mine, I think was one of the examples you gave,
was going to be a result of this, that you would, of course,
say that it shouldn't result with any additional mineral
rights. And that is what, I think, you are saying right now. Am
I correct?
Mr. Lee-Ashley. I was referring to H.R. 5210, where the
funding mechanism for that bill is to procure more oil and gas
and coal revenues. To generate more revenues from energy
extraction, either oil prices need to go up, you need to raise
royalties, or you need to allow more energy development
somewhere. And under this Administration's proposal of drilling
off of every coast and pursuing----
Ms. Hanabusa. Except Florida.
Mr. Lee-Ashley. Except Florida, perhaps. There are risks to
that, in each of those scenarios, and highly controversial,
obviously, drilling the Arctic Refuge, or drilling near a
national monument, et cetera.
Ms. Hanabusa. Thank you.
Mr. Chair, I will yield back.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you.
Mr. Tipton.
Mr. Tipton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank the panel
for taking the time to be here.
I would respectfully disagree. I think that final
assessment, as I read through that bill, it is actually also
calling for renewable resources, not just oil and gas. And I
think that is an important point.
Last week, we had Secretary Zinke before our Full Committee
to examine the Fiscal Year 2019 budget for the Department of
the Interior. Much of the discussion was around addressing
crumbling infrastructure on Federal lands, and dealing with the
massive deferred maintenance backlog.
Secretary Zinke did raise a point that I think is worthy of
consideration. In 2008, the Department of the Interior was the
second-largest responsible energy producer in the United
States. However, the Department generated $18 billion in
offshore revenues in 2008. That number is now down to $2
billion. Resources could obviously be being used to help
address that crumbling infrastructure that we are discussing.
So, when we do start to talk about setting up funds to pay
down that maintenance backlog in the Parks, or the BLM, or the
Forest Service, I do believe it is important that we have an
understanding of where the money does come from.
I have called for responsible, all-of-the-above energy
policy on our Federal lands that includes, and we enumerate it
in the bill, wind, solar, geothermal, hydroelectric, natural
gas, oil, oil shale, coal, and have a bill, the Planning for
American Energy Future Act, that would require the Department
of Energy to actually work with the Department of Agriculture
and the Department of the Interior to evaluate America's future
energy needs, and develop that all-of-the-above strategy to be
able to meet those needs.
Mr. Smith and Ms. Argust, I would like to visit maybe with
both of you about how best renewable energy generated on
Federal lands can support efforts to be able to address the
National Park Service maintenance, as well as the backlogs
within other agencies. Could each of you possibly discuss the
impact renewable energy development on Federal lands can have
in those efforts?
Mr. Smith?
Mr. Smith. Yes, if the Department every year, or when it
presents its budget to Congress, there in that document there
is always the 3-year estimate of what energy revenue was going
to be, the actual for that year, and those can be looked at for
as many back-years as you want to go to. In an assessment of
that within the last week or 10 days the staff did, the average
amount ends up to be about $9 billion. It is at a high, as you
said, of $18 billion. The last administration took it to a low
of $2 billion.
But, basically, all those numbers, as far as estimates of
revenue that we are talking about in this bill, and then actual
amounts that come in from offshore or from all energy sources,
those numbers are readily available for everyone to see. Again,
that averages about $9 billion over the last 20 years.
Mr. Tipton. Just for clarity, for my purposes here, we do
have renewable development of energy on Federal lands. Do they
pay a royalty, or is it simply the lease fee?
Mr. Smith. Most of it is lease at this time.
Mr. Tipton. Lease fee. So, in terms of traditional fuel
sources, they do pay a royalty fee, but nothing in regards to
renewables?
Mr. Smith. I am sorry----
Mr. Tipton. In terms of a royalty fee coming in off of
energy development?
Mr. Smith. Royalties are certainly collected on oil and
gas. That is how the revenue is derived. But on the wind and
solar, that currently is under leases.
Mr. Tipton. That is just under, actually. Ms. Argust, do
you have any comments on that?
Ms. Argust. As far as with renewables, yes. I believe in
some cases there are not royalties, so it would be production
fees.
I am not clear entirely on your question. I mean we are
comfortable with the fact that renewables would be included in
the Restoration Act. Certainly we would want to make sure that
siting and sensitive lands are taken care of when we are
talking about renewables.
Mr. Tipton. OK, great. Do you believe that our current
regulatory system is set up to be able to support renewable
energy development on Federal lands? Either one of you?
Mr. Smith. I certainly do, Congressman, yes.
Mr. Tipton. Would you agree with that?
Ms. Argust. I don't have enough information on that. I am
not well versed on that. That is something we need to be
exploring. But I don't have enough information on that topic.
Mr. Tipton. Thank you. And I do appreciate the efforts of
our two colleagues to be able to look at resources to actually
help the crumbling infrastructure that we are seeing on a lot
of our public lands, and trying to get a sustainable revenue
system for that.
So, thank you, and I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. McClintock. Mr. Huffman.
Mr. Huffman. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Deputy Director Smith, could you tell us how much of the
backlog do road issues across the system, such as Tioga Road in
Yosemite National Park, represent, approximately?
Mr. Smith. About 5,500 miles of road out of our 17,000 are
in deferred maintenance. And the transportation, the road
system, is about $5.9 of the $11.8 billion in backlog.
Mr. Huffman. Significant.
Mr. Smith. Significant. And that is bridges, culverts,
everything associated with roads, not just the concrete or the
asphalt.
Mr. Huffman. It seems to me that we should fix
transportation funding first, instead of incentivizing expanded
drilling on public lands as a way to fund maintenance needs. I
am wondering if you can explain why the Federal Lands Highway
Fund is not supporting the reconstruction of these roads.
Mr. Smith. Congressman, it certainly is. We do get money
from the Federal Highway Trust Fund. It is certainly not
keeping up with the demands for roads, but we do get a share in
our appropriations from that transportation----
Mr. Huffman. But we are falling further behind.
Mr. Smith. Yes, we are, sir.
Mr. Huffman. All right. Let's go to Ms. Argust. H.R. 2584
leverages taxpayer investments with donations for NPS projects,
which is a good idea, in my opinion. Groups like the Golden
Gate Park Conservancy near my district are well suited to step
into this role. And, to date, the Conservancy has provided over
$500 million in support to Golden Gate National Park.
Could you talk a little more about the support provided by
these donations, and the importance of leveraging that taxpayer
contribution?
Ms. Argust. Sure. We are very supportive of that component
in the Legacy Act, would love to see that provided in the
Restoration Act, as well.
Public-private partnerships are very important in
addressing deferred maintenance. Unfortunately, when we are
talking about $11 billion, public-private partnerships can only
do so much. But we would certainly like to incentivize that,
and the provision in the Legacy Act does that.
The Golden Gate Conservancy is a great example. The
Yosemite Conservancy, as well. The Yosemite Conservancy has put
up matching dollars for a restoration project there in the
Mariposa Grove, the friends group put up $20 million to restore
a deferred maintenance issue there. So, we are very supportive
of public-private partnerships.
Mr. Huffman. All right, thank you.
Mr. Lee-Ashley, the solution to the backlog that H.R. 5210
offers is essentially to repair national parks inside their
boundaries by expanding drilling just outside on public land. I
happen to think we should not be tying the future of our parks
to this Trump administration notion of energy dominance,
whatever that is, and I think it really means fossil fuel
energy dominance.
Could you speak a little more about the downside of that
linkage?
Mr. Lee-Ashley. Sure. As we speak, there is an auction
happening on BLM lands in Utah, a good example. One lease
parcel is being offered right next door to Canyons of the
Ancients National Monument. The leases that are being sold
right now, about 3 out of 10 are being sold for the minimum
bid, $2 an acre, so we are not getting a whole lot right now
out of our oil and gas program at the Bureau of Land
Management.
Moreover, what this Administration is proposing offshore,
to expand drilling off the Pacific Coast, off the Atlantic
Coast, and the Arctic, is also highly speculative and very
controversial. It is not guaranteed we will receive the kinds
of revenues back from those initiatives that would be required
to actually address some of these maintenance needs.
Mr. Huffman. OK. Back to Deputy Director Smith, the
estimates in the President's budget project $760 million would
be credited in the National Park Restoration Fund in Fiscal
Year 2019. Could you explain how this number was developed?
Mr. Smith. Give me the number again, Congressman.
Mr. Huffman. I have $760 million.
Mr. Smith. Yes, that is the number for this year. And it is
developed from our deferred maintenance statistics that we
have.
Mr. Huffman. What are the assumptions on the activities
that would generate the revenue to credit that?
Mr. Smith. That currently would be out of our congressional
appropriations.
Mr. Huffman. I may need to follow up with you on that. But
I am out of time.
So, Mr. Chair, I will yield back.
Mr. McClintock. Great, thanks. Votes have been called, and
there are about 12 minutes remaining on the clock, but there is
only one vote, so Members can come and go as they wish.
Chairman Bishop.
Mr. Bishop. All right, I will stay. This is more important
than the vote you have going on there.
Mr. Smith, let me talk to you for just a second about it,
because, let's face it, about a decade ago there was a Stimulus
Act that put about $900 million back into the budget, and it
basically did diddly squat, as far as the maintenance and
backlog. So, there have to be some other issues. I mean, we
have to do something differently if we are going to make some
kind of a difference.
And there are also costs that you guys are facing that are
non-fiscal hurdles in the Park Service, like processes for
procurement, contracting, hiring, compliance, planning. What
are you already doing now, as a service, to try to address
those costs that take away money that could be going into
maintenance and backlog?
Mr. Smith. In this Administration, the Secretary has issued
a direct Secretarial Order for us to streamline the NEPA
process, basically to keep that within a year. And that is for
an EIS. He actually expects that an EA could be done much
earlier than that, even allowing for the public comment phases.
He also is asking for us to look very carefully to see if we
can find categorical exclusions for some of our projects, so we
don't have to go through the NEPA process.
I know that some of the Section 106 work takes a little bit
of time. But, Mr. Chairman, I really believe it is not process.
It really is the fact that we don't have the money we have to
do deferred maintenance. I think we can work through the
process issues and get the money on the ground if we have it.
Mr. Bishop. I appreciate that, I just don't want government
to be able to nickel and dime you on money that you actually
need to go through those other funds at the same time.
Even if we were to dump a whole boatload of money on you
right now, does the Park Service have to ramp up in order to
actually spend it efficiently and effectively?
Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. For instance, these bills supposedly
would double the amount of our appropriations, so yes, in
certain areas, in contracting and in design and planning, we
would have to ramp up a little bit. But it would be a very
reasonable process to do that. And, of course, we would not
ever move toward doing that until we knew we had this funding
coming in to the National Park Service.
Mr. Bishop. That makes total sense to me.
What we are talking about here is not a unique phenomenon.
Yellowstone was the first national park that was established.
It took 6 years before Congress ever funded it, so this is not
something that is new or unique. And, as I said, we put a whole
bunch of money in the Stimulus. That didn't help it. And
expecting to find money within the budget year after year after
year is also a pipe dream that just does not exist.
We have to generate some kind of specific new revenue
source, and I think that is what you are trying to do. I am
happy to know that alternative energy is part of that process.
Anything else you can get above that baseline would be part of
the process of trying to help it.
So far, we are talking about Park Service. Ms. Hoyt, if I
can ask you just one simple question. If we were to do the same
thing for parks, for fish and wildlife refuges, for forests,
would that be helpful to the people you represent?
Ms. Hoyt. Yes, absolutely. Thank you for the question. The
Forest Service manages the largest trail system in the country,
and well-cared-for trail systems are vital for connecting
visitors and communities to their public lands.
And, particularly for the Forest Service and the Bureau of
Land Management, which are operated under a multi-use mission,
when one forest trail goes out of commission, it can affect a
number of different recreational uses that impact a number of
people within the outdoor recreation community.
Mr. Bishop. All right. Thank you. I am also pained in some
way to hear people actually talking about, well, let's hope
that the farm bill can raise some money, or let's hope that the
roads bill can raise some money, T&I. If we don't do something
like this and identify a specific revenue source, I get you are
just going to have to do a whole lot of bake sales to try to
come up with the revenue you need for maintenance and backlog.
There has to be an identifiable source that comes there.
And it is also frustrating to me to consider that sometimes
LWCF money coming from royalties is good, this money coming
from royalties would be bad. That just does not make sense at
all. In fact, I wish LWCF could be used more for maintenance
and backlog. Even though it could be, it is not, it has not,
and unless we change things it won't be.
Mr. Smith, how big of a buffer zone do the parks actually
need around them to control things? I have heard of how bad it
would be to do any kind of drilling or mining just outside the
boundaries of a park, or heard of leases that were let in Utah
where nobody actually applied for those leases anyway. Do you
all need a huge buffer zone? And if it is, how many states do
you need to buffer every park?
Mr. Smith. Well, it certainly varies, case by case.
Mr. Bishop. You have 4 seconds to do it.
Mr. Smith. Many of our national parks in the West are
buffered by Forest Service wilderness, Mr. Chairman. A lot of
those boundaries are very protected.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. My time is up. I appreciate that. I
appreciate all of you being here at the same time. Now I am
going to go vote, too.
Mr. McClintock. OK, thank you.
Ms. Cheney.
Ms. Cheney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to all of
our witnesses for being here.
I have a question, Mr. Smith. I am trying to sort through,
and I understand that in Mr. Simpson's bill, there is language
that protects allocations that are already made to the states.
But I wonder if you could explain to me exactly how that
will work. Once you get above the projected amount, if you are
looking at 48 percent, hopefully, eventually, we will get back
to the 50 percent, that is going back to the states, are we
then talking about a smaller pie above the projected amounts? I
am trying to understand how the percentage process will work,
so that states are actually protected.
Mr. Smith. We are talking about all of the funds that
currently go--whether it be to Land and Water Conservation
Fund, to GOMESA, to the Reclamation Fund--I understand there
might be 23 or such that are already there. All of those
allocations will be paid before you look at any money going
into the National Park Service Restoration Fund. All of those
commitments will be met before.
And then, when you look at that baseline, whatever is above
that, then the consideration would be for 50 percent of that to
go into the Park Service Restoration Fund and the rest to the
Treasury.
Ms. Cheney. So, once you get above the baseline
projection--and I have a question about how we got the baseline
projection--but once you get above the baseline projection,
then you have a whole pie above the baseline projection, and
you are going to allocate the percentages to those other places
and then take 50 percent of what is left?
Mr. Smith. Yes. All of those other allocations come out
before that baseline triggers anything coming to the National
Park Service Restoration Fund. That is a commitment made in the
bill very, very, very strongly, and in my testimony today very
strongly.
Ms. Cheney. Well, I appreciate that. We will look further
into that. I think that is some concern.
The other concern is how we got to these projected amounts.
I understand that OMB has projected what the revenue will be,
but I know there is certainly a lot of concern that we are
going to get to a point where that projected amount is somewhat
arbitrary into the future.
We have done a tremendous amount of work, I think very good
work, in this Administration in terms of stopping the war on
fossil fuels, in terms of encouraging increased development, in
terms of showing how responsible that development can be. And I
would hate to see a situation where we were coming back now and
imposing additional fees, for example. And I know the bills
guarantee that won't happen, but I think that that is certainly
a concern, that we are going to have additional fees imposed
that will actually end up slowing the development that we have
seen and that we know that we need.
Mr. Smith. Congresswoman, I appreciate your remarks.
Sitting where I sit and wearing the hat that I wear, I leave
scoring to OMB and for you all, for CBO, to do that. I don't do
it from where I sit.
Ms. Cheney. Well, I appreciate that. I would just say I
very much applaud the effort to come up with some innovative
ways to deal with this crucial issue. I am concerned that these
fall short in a couple of important ways that we have to study
additionally before we proceed here.
But it is a tough issue. I appreciate very much the work
that you are all doing on it, and I yield back. Thank you.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you. I am afraid we are going to have
to take a brief recess until some of the Members come back. I
assume there are Members that still want to ask questions. They
should be on their way back, and we will reconvene in a few
minutes, as soon as Mr. Tipton arrives.
With that, I extend the Subcommittee's apologies, but it is
just an occupational hazard of life around here. So, we will
stand in brief recess.
[Recess.]
Mr. Tipton [presiding]. I would like to recognize Mr.
Labrador for his questions.
Mr. Labrador. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
holding the hearing today.
Over the past several years, we have repeatedly heard
testimony about the need to address the maintenance backlog of
the National Park Service. While I am not opposed to using
revenue from energy production on Federal lands to help address
the deferred maintenance backlog, we need to ensure that
Congress is playing a role in this process.
Mr. Smith, thank you for being here again, and thank you
for being here to testify on this issue. Both of the bills we
are discussing today are attempts to address the nearly $12
billion deferred maintenance backlog of the NPS. As I am sure
you are aware, most conservatives oppose creating new mandatory
spending programs. We believe that Congress needs to be in
control of the spending.
This is especially true because, while we totally
appreciate the work that Secretary Zinke is doing at Interior,
we remember that not too long ago, just a year-and-a-half ago,
we had a Secretary that was not as easy to work with. So, that
is why it is so important to having Congress approve the
funding each year to some of us.
Can you tell me what safeguards the bill puts in place to
ensure that the funding would actually go to addressing the
backlog, and not to other priorities of future administrations?
Mr. Smith. Congressman, as in the normal appropriations
process, when money is put into those accounts, we certainly
have to deal with the Antideficiency Act and put money where
Congress has told us.
In this bill, it is my full understanding that the way we
would keep Congress informed is with an annual report that
details very, very succinctly everything that we are spending
these funds on if they come from this new park restoration
account.
Mr. Labrador. OK.
Mr. Smith. And I am not aware in other legislation where
there is some kind of a guarantee. But again, any department of
government knows that Congress has an oversight and a fiduciary
responsibility, and we are always very aware of that.
Mr. Labrador. OK. Addressing the deferred maintenance
backlog is going to cost a lot of money, money that should or
could be going to pay off our national debt, for example. What
steps is NPS taking to ensure that the money will actually get
spent on the ground, and not get tied up in overhead,
bureaucracy, or litigation?
Mr. Smith. Well, I can speak for this current
Administration and this current Secretary. He has been very
explicit about where these funds will go, and that he does not
want any bureaucracy to get in the way of where these funds
would go.
Mr. Labrador. In your experience, how much do costs
compound on projects the longer they are deferred?
Mr. Smith. There is an escalation of cost, just in the way
inflation works on that, or in doing things in phases. Most of
the time in contracting, if you can do an entire project you
save money, rather than phasing it over a number of years.
Mr. Labrador. Do you have an example of something costing
more because you did not have the funding to fix it sooner?
Mr. Smith. I won't try to think right now of one, but I
certainly can provide many of those examples, if you would
like, for the record, Congressman.
Mr. Labrador. All right. That would be great.
Ms. Argust, your organization has conducted in-depth
research and analysis on the NPS maintenance log, and the
Center for American Progress report claims that only 10 percent
of the total backlog is serious enough to be a priority for
necessary maintenance. Do you believe that the National Park
Service has inflated their deferred maintenance estimates?
Ms. Argust. I do not, $8.8 billion is highest and high-
priority assets. In other words, $5.6 billion is considered
highest-priority assets that are critical to the mission of
those park sites.
Mr. Labrador. All right, thank you.
I have no further questions, and I will yield to somebody
who may have additional questions.
Mr. Tipton. Thank you, Mr. Labrador.
Mr. Gianforte, you are now recognized for your 5 minutes.
Mr. Gianforte. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to
the panel for being here today.
Deputy Director Smith, thank you for taking some time to be
with us. As you know, Montana is home to some of the most
recognizable national parks in our system. People come from all
over the world to visit us. Yellowstone and Glacier National
Park each have had over 3 million visitors this past year,
which has a tremendous effect on our local communities, but
also strains the infrastructure in and around the parks.
The rising visitation has created a backlog, as you are
well aware, of over $500 million in Yellowstone National Park
alone. The problem extends to Little Big Horn Battlefield,
which has a backlog of over $5 million, and is in desperate
need of a visitor center there.
I understand that Congress will receive reports on the
projects that are funded. You have told that to us multiple
times here, but how will you prioritize which projects will
move forward first?
Mr. Smith. That is the whole reason for having the process
we are talking about today of where the numbers have come from,
the total $11.6 billion.
The priority system, which has been talked about several
different times today, when we look at the highest priority,
they are the ones that we are going to put into play first. The
high priorities are also necessary and need to be funded, but
we have to say what are we going to do first out of all the
choices that we have. And in that whole scale, only the lowest
projects are the ones that maybe there is some flexibility of
do we not repair, do we actually remove, and that type of
thing.
But all of those priorities, high, highest high, and
medium, are all projects that need to be done. It is just a
matter of how I prioritize with the money that we have. If
there is more money allocated from either the new fund, from
this legislation, or if it is money appropriated by Congress,
we have to prioritize what we are going to do. And a lot of
those now, Congressman, are health and safety needs. They are
water systems and dams and that type of thing that we have to
repair because of health and safety needs.
Mr. Gianforte. OK. With almost a billion dollars in delayed
maintenance in Montana alone between our two parks and other
battlefields, have you identified specific projects in our
region, if this legislation passes? And how quickly can you
start work?
Mr. Smith. Well, they certainly have been identified. They
are in the deferred maintenance system. And again, there will
be projects that will be started this year. I can't speak
directly to those in Montana, but I certainly can get you a
list on that, and let you know from that region which ones are
in the queue for this next year.
Mr. Gianforte. OK. Well, we have been facing increasing
visitor levels, and that is a real priority. So, as you
identify projects, I would encourage you to use funds on
infrastructure that would increase access, in particular, and
safety in these parks. And by strengthening our roads, bridges,
and visitors centers, we can continue to welcome more and more
people to these parks without wearing them out in the process.
I want to shift gears, but I also have a question for you,
Mr. Smith, related to the funding mechanism. I am curious if
you have numbers on the estimated percentage of revenue if this
legislation were to pass. What percentage of revenue would come
from onshore and offshore energy development versus the
percentage derived from alternative renewable sources? Have you
looked at that? I am curious about the split.
Mr. Smith. I don't have an exact figure on that. But,
obviously, the onshore and offshore would be much more than the
renewables. But the renewables are now growing. Wind and solar
energy are growing, but the preponderance of that would still
be on onshore and offshore revenue.
Mr. Gianforte. OK. And as we discussed earlier, it sounds
like the revenues from renewables are from leases, as opposed
to royalties. Is that correct?
Mr. Smith. That is correct at this time. Yes, Congressman.
Mr. Gianforte. And the $2 billion number that you gave us
earlier for total revenues last year, did that include the
renewable leases?
Mr. Smith. I don't remember the $2 billion number that I
gave.
Mr. Gianforte. It was a number that started at $18 billion
from energy development and then dropped to $2 billion last
year.
Mr. Smith. I am not familiar with that exactly, I know the
number was from the last administration. I don't have the
details on that. I imagine that that one would have included
some of that, but I am not positive, Congressman. I will have
to get back to the Committee on that.
Mr. Gianforte. Just curious of the make-up of the number
and how we are going to pay for this.
So, both bills take a significant step in addressing our
maintenance backlog. I commend you and the sponsors of this
bill for taking a look at this, and look forward to working
with you on these bills.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Tipton. Thank you. I now recognize Mr. Graves for his 5
minutes.
Mr. Graves. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you
all for being here today. I want to make sure I understand the
background or impetus for this hearing and the legislative
proposal.
So, what we are talking about is a scenario whereby we have
a maintenance or a conservation issue, and dollars need to be
invested to address those issues so it doesn't become more
expensive and become a bigger problem. Is that basically a
summary of what we are dealing with today?
Mr. Smith. Yes.
Mr. Graves. Is that fair? Anybody else object to that? Sort
of? Close enough? All right.
And again, under both proposals, where does this money come
from?
Mr. Smith. It comes from natural resource revenues.
Mr. Graves. So, from conventional energy production and
alternative energy production.
Mr. Smith. Also, yes.
Mr. Graves. And following up on Mr. Gianforte's line of
questioning, the reality is that the majority of these revenues
would ultimately come from offshore energy production. I
represent the state of Louisiana, where we produce 80 to 90
percent of all the offshore energy in Federal waters in the
United States.
I am going to say this, I think, because every single time
we have a hearing there is an opening to do so, and I am not
going to let folks forget about this. We have lost 2,000 square
miles of our coast--2,000 square miles. If that were the state
of Rhode Island, it would no longer exist. If that were the
state of Delaware, it would only exist of water bodies.
It is really confusing to me why we would be taking not
tens of millions, not hundreds of millions, but billions of
dollars in revenue from an area where this is being generated,
from an area that, clearly, is not sustainable, and sending it
to other places.
And Mr. Chairman, we have heard a few times, and we finally
pulled these numbers. To give you an idea of where, the Land
and Water Conservation Fund is what actually purchases the
property. So, from our revenues in Louisiana that we generate,
just in 2011 to 2016, $3.7 million has gone to Alabama; $87
million has gone to, I believe that is Florida; $135 million
has gone to California. Louisiana, just for comparison
purposes, has received about $5 million in LWCF revenues.
The point is, again, if this is an unsustainable area, why
are we proposing that dollars be extracted from this area and
sent to other places, rather than carrying out the same type of
maintenance or conservation type issues or programs in that
very area that is causing all of this revenue to be generated?
Could someone help me understand that?
Mr. Smith. The Land and Water Conservation Fund formula is
based on state population and state land area. I guess because
of that is why Louisiana gets less of a share of that than some
other states, like California.
Mr. Graves. Right. So, my point in that was just that
Louisiana is losing there, under LWCF, but more so based on
these backlog maintenance bills. Why should we take money from
an area that is not sustainable itself and has major
conservation needs, some of the greatest environmental needs in
the Nation, why should we take them and send them to other
places before first sustaining that very area?
Mr. Smith. Well, Congress, in passing all the legislation
that you are talking about that takes these revenues from not
just offshore and onshore, but we are talking about coal, we
are talking about gas, we are talking about mineral
development----
Mr. Graves. OK. Well, if this proposal is to be altered to
address those others and take it from those other places, that
is fine.
Mr. Lee-Ashley, do you have a response?
Mr. Lee-Ashley. Congressman, I think your point is right
on, and especially highlighting the impacts that your coastline
is experiencing, and the real conservation challenges that you
are grappling with, and the need to find a conservation funding
stream to address those needs.
I will note elsewhere in the country, too, there are
similar, perhaps not the same scale, challenges. We found that
a football field worth of natural area in the West is
disappearing every 2\1/2\ minutes to development. So, how do we
build a conservation funding stream to address----
Mr. Graves. Well, it is not disappearing.
Mr. Lee-Ashley. Perhaps----
Mr. Graves. It not disappearing, it is still there. We
actually lose about a football field every hour.
Mr. Lee-Ashley. Literally, yes.
Mr. Graves. And ours does actually disappear.
Ms. Hoyt, I just noted in the first page of your testimony
how you say that the outdoor recreation industry's gross output
is $673 billion. I am assuming recreational fishing is part of
that.
Ms. Hoyt. Absolutely, yes.
Mr. Graves. Yes, which in Louisiana, we are losing the
ecological productivity to be able to participate in those
activities.
So, I want to say for myself, and I think I can actually
say for Mr. Johnson--I am not allowed to speak for my wife, but
I think Mr. Johnson will let me--we would oppose these bills,
as written, Mr. Chairman, and would very much look forward to
working with the Department of the Interior to address this
real problem, but do so in a manner that does not take from an
unsustainable area.
Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Tipton. Thank you, Mr. Graves. And I would like to
thank all of our witnesses for their valuable testimony, and
the Members for their questions today.
Members of the Committee may have some additional questions
for the witnesses, and we will ask you to respond to these in
writing. Under Committee Rule 3(o), members of the Committee
must submit witness questions within 3 business days following
the hearing by 5:00 p.m., and the hearing record will be held
open for 10 business days for these responses.
If there is no further business, without objection, the
Subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:55 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]
Rep. Grijalva Submissions
Prepared Statement of the National Parks Conservation Association on
H.R. 2584 and H.R. 5210
Submitted by
Kristen Brengel, Vice President, Government Affairs
Since 1919, National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) has been
the leading voice of the American people in protecting and enhancing
our National Park System. On behalf of our more than 1.3 million
members and supporters nationwide, please consider our positions on the
following bills when they come up at the House Natural Resources
Federal Lands Subcommittee hearing on March 20, 2018.
The National Park Service recently celebrated its 100-year
anniversary, yet the Service is suffering from $11.6 billion in
deferred maintenance needs including crumbling roads and bridges, run-
down trails, deteriorating historic buildings, memorials and monuments,
and outdated and unsafe water, sewer and electrical systems. Roughly
one-third of the overall list is critical projects. This challenge is
largely due to aging infrastructure that in some cases has outlived its
life-cycle and insufficient Federal funding over decades.
NPCA is pleased to see bipartisan, bicameral interest in addressing
our national parks maintenance needs and it is our hope that Congress
can deliver a solution that provides robust, realistic and dependable
multi-year funding.
H.R. 2584:
National Park Service Legacy Act of 2017--NPCA supports this
legislation which will dedicate nearly $12 billion over the next 30
years to address the National Park Service's $11.6 billion deferred
maintenance backlog. The funding would come from onshore and offshore
mineral royalties that are not otherwise dedicated to other purposes
such as the Land and Water Conservation Fund and the Historic
Preservation Fund, two programs that NPCA also supports.
This legislation would provide park managers the consistent and
reliable funding by setting specific amounts of funding every year to
plan for and effectively address backlog projects. Many of the largest,
high-priority projects will require certainty for multi-year funding.
The bill also dedicates 80 percent to non-transportation projects
(trails, visitor facilities, water systems, etc.) and 20 percent to
transportation projects, which receive additional funding from the
Highway Trust Fund. In addition, this law includes a philanthropic
component to prioritize projects that can leverage a partnership match.
H.R. 5210:
National Park Restoration Act--NPCA is concerned that this bill
doesn't provide the funding reliability and certainty like the National
Park Service Legacy Act. The bill would establish a fund that would
receive 50 percent of royalties from all types of energy development on
Federal lands and waters over expected revenues that are not already
obligated to other purposes like the Land and Water Conservation Fund
and the Historic Preservation Fund. NPCA is concerned that very little
funding could result over the 10-year bill to address the maintenance
backlog if the projections are correct.
NPCA is also concerned with the lack of certainty of the funding
stream. Construction projects rely on multi-year funding that is known
and dependable at the outset, which in part helps the National Park
Service stage projects and work with contractors who need multi-year
funding certainty. We fear that without a specific, known amount each
year, the uncertainty of the funding available would challenge the
National Park Service to engage in the procurement and contracting that
is needed for successful repair and reconstruction projects.
Finally, NPCA needs assurances that the funding source in this bill
does not have to rely on the Secretary of the Interior's proposal to
expand drilling into sensitive areas, as stated in the Administration's
infrastructure proposal.
In conclusion, investing in park infrastructure makes good sense:
it preserves our Nation's heritage for future generations, creates
infrastructure-related jobs, and protects local communities that depend
on park tourism. The national parks need Congress to provide a solution
that provides robust, realistic and dependable multi-year funding.
A Few Examples of Park Maintenance Needs That Must Be Addressed:
Trail and Road Repair at Grand Canyon National Park
Drawing in millions of visitors each year, the Grand Canyon suffers
from $329 million in deferred maintenance. To repair just three of the
most popular trails in the park--South Kaibab, North Kaibab, and Bright
Angel--would cost $33 million. One of the most frequented roads, Desert
View Drive, winds around the Canyon's South Rim and requires over $18
million for repairs.
Road Repairs in Zion National Park
Zion's millions of visitors each year put quite a strain on its
concentrated roads, causing them to need major repairs. A particularly
scenic and popular road, the Kolob Canyon Road, requires a staggering
$15 million for its repairs. Overall, Zion National Park suffers from
$65 million in needed repairs.
Electrical System Upgrades at Kalaupapa National Historical Park
Kalaupapa National Historical Park tells the story of Hawaiians
banished by King Kamehameha V to the north shore of Molokai for
contracting leprosy. $7 million is needed to replace the unsafe and
failing electrical system in the park.
Trail Repairs in Yosemite National Park
Yosemite National Park is home to some of our country's most
breathtaking cliffs, domes and waterfalls. However, the park suffers
from $582 million in needed repairs. For example, more than $17 million
is needed to rehabilitate the Yosemite Bike Path, the Stubblefield
Canyon Trail, and the Clark Point Spur, a path that leads to the famous
Vernal Fall.
Thank you for considering our views.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Trust For Historic Preservation on
H.R. 2584 and H.R. 5210
Chairman McClintock, Ranking Member Hanabusa and members of the
Subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to share the National Trust
for Historic Preservation's perspectives on two pieces of legislation
(H.R. 5210 and H.R. 2584) that address the National Park Service's
maintenance backlog. My name is Tom Cassidy and I am the Vice President
of Government Relations and Policy.
The National Trust for Historic Preservation is a privately-funded
charitable, educational and non-profit organization chartered by
Congress in 1949 in order to ``facilitate public participation in
historic preservation'' and to further the purposes of Federal historic
preservation laws.\1\ The intent of Congress was for the National Trust
``to mobilize and coordinate public interest, participation and
resources in the preservation and interpretation of sites and
buildings.'' \2\ With headquarters in Washington, DC, 9 field offices,
27 historic sites, more than 1 million members and supporters and a
national network of partners in states, territories, and the District
of Columbia, the National Trust works to save America's historic places
and advocates for historic preservation as a fundamental value in
programs and policies at all levels of government.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 54 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 312102(a), 320101.
\2\ S. Rep. No. 1110, 81st Cong., 1st Sess. 4 (1949).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We appreciate the Committee scheduling this hearing to discuss two
legislative proposals to address the National Park Service's
maintenance backlog and thereby preserve the ability for Americans and
visitors to enjoy and experience iconic historic resources and natural
wonders on Federal lands. This testimony supplements our previously
submitted testimony to the Natural Resources Committee on March 6,
2018.
the need
The National Park System is one of our Nation's best ideas--a
network of 417 parks and sites that protect spectacular historic,
cultural, and natural resources and tell the stories of remarkable
people and events in our country's history. The National Park Service
(NPS) is responsible for maintaining a system comprised of more than 84
million acres across all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and many
U.S. territories.
The National Park System tells an incredible story at sites as
diverse as Gettysburg National Military Park, the Statue of Liberty,
Shenandoah National Park, the Martin Luther King Jr. National
Historical Park, and Native American cultural sites like those at Chaco
Culture National Historical Park and Mesa Verde National Park. National
parks, and the historic and cultural sites they protect, are some of
our Nation's most popular attractions and were visited by over 330
million people last year. In 2015 alone, these millions of visits
generated visitor spending of an estimated $16.9 billion in nearby
communities--spending that supported 295,300 jobs and provided a $32
billion boost to the national economy.
The size and complexity of the NPS infrastructure and the
importance of preserving our parks' invaluable resources represent a
significant challenge. Unfortunately, after 100 years of operation and
inconsistent public funding, the National Park System faces a deferred
maintenance backlog estimated at $11.6 billion, and according to FY
2016 data, 47 percent of the backlog is attributed to historic
assets.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ National Park Service data, FY 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deferred maintenance in our national parks puts historic and
cultural sites at risk of permanent damage or loss, and in the absence
of funding, the condition of these assets will continue to deteriorate
and become more expensive to repair and preserve in the future. Some of
the National Park Service's most significant historic sites are at risk
of falling into disrepair. For example, the Statue of Liberty National
Monument in New York Harbor, which includes Ellis Island--an iconic
symbol of American freedom and immigration--has repair needs of over
$160 million.
legislative solution
The NPS maintenance backlog of $11.6 billion demonstrates that
additional investments and new strategies are necessary if NPS is to
meet their stewardship responsibilities. We are encouraged by the many
statements of support by Secretary Zinke, members of this Committee,
and others for reducing the maintenance backlog and prioritizing this
issue as part of policy proposals to make investments in our Nation's
infrastructure.
The National Trust has worked closely with many stakeholders--
including The Pew Charitable Trusts and National Parks Conservation
Association--on a legislative solution that would provide dedicated
funding to address the maintenance backlog. We strongly support the
bipartisan efforts to introduce the National Park Service Legacy Act
(H.R. 2584, S. 751) by Representatives Hurd, Kilmer, Reichert, and
Hanabusa and Senators Warner and Portman and thank them and the 80 co-
sponsors of these bills for their leadership and support.
We appreciate the many other legislative and policy proposals to
address the maintenance backlog--including the National Park
Restoration Act (H.R. 5210, S. 2509)--which demonstrate a recognition
this is a pressing issue that must be addressed. We believe the
National Park Service Legacy Act proposal and its strong, bicameral
support can serve as a starting point for what we hope will be
immediate action and a bipartisan, legislative compromise to tackle the
maintenance backlog.
As this Subcommittee considers legislation to address these needs,
we offer the following recommendations for elements that would
successfully address these challenges:
Reliable and Dedicated Funding
A reliable, dedicated Federal funding source distinct from annual
appropriations is necessary to address the maintenance backlog, along
with providing sufficient staffing capacity to ensure that we preserve
historic sites, maintain buildings and infrastructure in safe
condition, and keep our parks open and accessible. The Legacy Act (H.R.
2584) provides such dedicated funding through receipts from onshore and
offshore energy development that are not otherwise allocated to other
purposes. This legislation would guarantee contributions toward
reducing the maintenance backlog over the next 30 years, starting at
$50 million in 2018 with incremental increases over time through 2047.
While the National Park Restoration Act would also direct funding
to the maintenance backlog through receipts from onshore and offshore
energy development, annual allocations would be limited to 50 percent
of the revenue above estimated annual projections, which makes a
solution to the backlog and protection of irreplaceable NPS assets
dependent on oil prices and production. It is also unclear whether the
projected increases in energy prices will result in real revenue. We
believe any legislative solution should include reliable and dedicated
funding and provide certainty for park units about the availability of
funds for high priority projects.
Priorities for Maintenance Projects
The National Trust strongly supports a provision in the Legacy Act
that provides funding parity between non-transportation and
transportation-related maintenance needs, which ensures that funds are
available for the preservation of historic structures and cultural
artifacts. Many of the large projects included in the NPS backlog are
transportation-related and will require significant investments.
For example, several of the road systems at Yellowstone National
Park have an estimated maintenance cost of at least $850 million.\4\
With limited annual allocations to a dedicated fund for the maintenance
backlog and additional funding for transportation projects available
through the Highway Trust Fund, a provision to ensure funding parity
will ensure that the maintenance needs of historic and cultural assets
are also addressed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ National Park Service, ``Yellowstone National Park Road
Reconstruction'' https://www.nps.gov/transportation/pdfs/
Yellowstone_Roads_Reconstruction-022016.pdf; February 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional Provisions
The National Trust strongly supports provisions in the Legacy Act
that promote public-private partnerships that leverage private funding
for maintenance projects and discretion for congressional appropriators
to evaluate priority projects.
We also believe that congressional appropriations providing
sustained and robust funding levels for Repair and Rehabilitation,
Cyclic Maintenance, and Line-Item Construction are needed to alleviate
the maintenance backlog and ensure adequate preservation and protection
of resources in our parks. After years of level funding or modest
increases for both Repair and Rehabilitation and Cyclic Maintenance, we
were pleased to see increases for FY 2016 enacted of $35 million for
both accounts, followed by an additional increase of $39 million for FY
2017. Unfortunately, the President's budget request proposes
substantial decreases for these two key accounts that address the
deferred maintenance backlog, with Repair and Rehabilitation seeing a
$25 million decrease and Cyclic Maintenance a $13.6 million decrease.
As Congress considers FY 2019 funding levels, we believe that
additional investments in these key accounts will contribute to the
successful preservation of historic sites and other resources in the
National Park System.
The Nation faces a challenging fiscal environment, and the National
Trust recognizes there is a need for fiscal restraint and cost-
effective Federal investments. However, we do not believe that
preservation and conservation programs should suffer from
disproportionate funding reductions, or that a successful solution to
address the maintenance backlog can omit significant and reliable
financial investments.
conclusion
Thank you again for the opportunity to present the National Trust's
perspectives on these issues, and we look forward to working with the
Committee, Administration, and other key stakeholders as you consider
policy proposals to address the deferred maintenance backlog. We hope
that these critical investments continue to sustain our Nation's rich
heritage of cultural and historic resources that generate lasting
economic vitality for communities throughout the Nation.
______
Prepared Statement of the Public Lands Alliance on
H.R. 2584 and H.R. 5210
Submitted by
Dan Puskar, Executive Director
The Public Lands Alliance (PLA) commends the Subcommittee for
considering two valuable, bipartisan bills: H.R. 2584, the National
Park Service Legacy Act, and H.R. 5210, the National Park Restoration
Act. Deferred maintenance on America's public lands is a serious issue.
By permitting roads, bridges, historic sites, trails, and sewer
systems, the maintenance backlog creates an overall drag on the visitor
experience as facilities become worn or less reliable.
The vast majority of PLA members rely on public lands
infrastructure to operate their organizations and programs. 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. They 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.
In its testimony before the House Committee on Natural Resources at
its March 6, 2018 oversight hearing, ``Exploring Innovative Solutions
to Reduce the Department of the Interior's Maintenance Backlog,'' PLA
encouraged 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.
As the Subcommittee discusses these bills that address the National
Park Service backlog, PLA reaffirms these points.
Deferred Maintenance Negatively Impacts All Public Lands
Both bills under consideration provide dedicated, reliable, and
sizable funding sources to tackle NPS deferred maintenance outside of
the normal appropriations process. PLA applauds the bipartisan
commitment to this ideal and encourages the Subcommittee to apply this
commitment to the other Federal lands within its jurisdiction.
As Chairman Bishop explained at the ``Exploring Innovative
Solutions to Reduce the Department of the Interior's Maintenance
Backlog,'' all Federal lands have a maintenance backlog including the
Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Forest
Service. In its FY 2019 budget proposal, the Administration suggested a
mechanism similar to what is proposed in H.R. 5210, the National Park
Restoration Act, but included the Fish and Wildlife Service and its
decaying facilities. PLA believes an opportunity for a more holistic
approach to the Federal deferred maintenance problem was missed by
removing national refuges in the process of converting the
Administration's proposal to legislative language.
PLA believes that as the Subcommittee works toward finding
consensus on a final bill that it include all Federal land management
agencies under its jurisdiction to participate in the deferred
maintenance fund. A final bill should address failing facilities like
the boardwalks in BLM lands and the historic lighthouse on a FWS refuge
that were highlighted in PLA's earlier testimony.
Incentivize Philanthropy and Non-profit Support
Many deferred maintenance projects in the National Park Service
have been addressed successfully in recent years through appropriations
to the Centennial Challenge fund and through mineral sales identified
in the Helium Stewardship Act of 2013. In each program, park
philanthropy and non-profit support were required to match Federal
dollars before an expenditure from the Treasury could be made.
Tackling the entire public lands deferred maintenance backlog
cannot rely on this model. Too many projects like roads, bridges, and
sewer systems are unworthy of philanthropy and the Federal Government
must fully fund them. However, when the deteriorating resources are
historical assets like the Statute of Liberty, or a source of
recreation and enjoyment such as a hiking trail, private support can be
marshalled successfully.
H.R. 2584, the National Park Service Legacy Act, provides an
innovative solution to leverage private support. The bill encourages
public-private partnerships that will reduce the overall deferred
maintenance costs to the NPS by including in its annual list of funded
projects those that have a 25-33 percent private sector match depending
on the total amount of the project. Not only are the highest priority
projects funded, but so too are those projects that non-profit partners
have been able to mobilize private sector donors to support. H.R. 5210,
the National Park Restoration Act, unfortunately provides no incentive
for private sector support.
As consensus is reached on a final bill, PLA urges the Subcommittee
to include incentives for non-profit park partners to rally donors and
work with land management agencies to address failing facilities that
affect the visitor experience.
PLA sincerely appreciates the Subcommittee's steadfast commitment
to enhancing America's public lands and the experience of their
hundreds of millions of visitors. Thank you for your consideration of
its views.
______
[LIST OF DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD RETAINED IN THE COMMITTEE'S
OFFICIAL FILES]
Rep. Denham Submission
--U.S. Travel Association, Testimony dated March 20, 2018.
Rep. Grijalva Submissions
--Letter to Chairman McClintock and Ranking Member Hanabusa
from the CorpsNetwork dated March 20, 2018.
--American Society of Civil Engineers, Statement for the
Record dated March 20, 2018.