    [Senate Hearing 116-307]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                             S. Hrg. 116-307

      DEFERRED MAINTENANCE NEEDS AND POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS ON FEDERAL LANDS
      ADMINISTERED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND THE USDA FOREST
                                    SERVICE

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

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                          ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                         ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   ----------

                                 JUNE 18, 2019

                                   ----------

                           Printed for the use of the
                   Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

      DEFERRED MAINTENANCE NEEDS AND POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS ON FEDERAL LANDS
      ADMINISTERED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND THE USDA FOREST
                                    SERVICE

                                                            S. Hrg. 116-307

      DEFERRED MAINTENANCE NEEDS AND POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS ON FEDERAL LANDS
      ADMINISTERED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND THE USDA FOREST
                                    SERVICE

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

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                          ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                         ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                 JUNE 18, 2019

                                   __________

     [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                           Printed for the use of the
                   Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

            Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov

                                 ______

                 U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
     37-803                WASHINGTON : 2020

                   COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES

                        LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska, Chairman
    JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming               JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia
    JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho                RON WYDEN, Oregon
    MIKE LEE, Utah                       MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
    STEVE DAINES, Montana                BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
    BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana              DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan
    CORY GARDNER, Colorado               MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico
    CINDY HYDE-SMITH, Mississippi        MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii
    MARTHA McSALLY, Arizona              ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine
    LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee           CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada
    JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota

                          Brian Hughes, Staff Director
                         Kellie Donnelly, Chief Counsel
                    Michelle Lane, Professional Staff Member
                    Nick Matiella, Professional Staff Member
                    Sarah Venuto, Democratic Staff Director
                    Sam E. Fowler, Democratic Chief Counsel
                    David Brooks, Democratic General Counsel
            Bryan Petit, Democratic Senior Professional Staff Member

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                               OPENING STATEMENTS

                                                                       Page
    Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, Chairman and a U.S. Senator from Alaska....     1
    Manchin III, Hon. Joe, Ranking Member and a U.S. Senator from
      West Virginia..................................................     2

                                   WITNESSES

    Cameron, Scott, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy,
      Management and Budget, Department of the Interior..............     5
    Lago, Lenise, Associate Chief, USDA Forest Service...............    12
    Archuleta, Hon. Elizabeth, Supervisor, Coconino County, Arizona,
      on behalf of the National Association of Counties..............    20
    Puskar, Dan, President and CEO, Public Lands Alliance............    27
    Wahl, Jessica, Executive Director, Outdoor Recreation Roundtable.    35

              ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

    American Hiking Society:
        Letter for the Record........................................   319
    Archuleta, Hon. Elizabeth:
        Opening Statement............................................    20
        Written Testimony............................................    22
        Responses to Questions for the Record........................   317
    Backcountry Hunters & Anglers:
        Letter for the Record........................................   322
    Cameron, Scott:
        Opening Statement............................................     5
        Written Testimony............................................     7
        Responses to Questions for the Record........................    80
    Congressional letter to Chairman Lisa Murkowski and Ranking
      Member Maria Cantwell dated October 2, 2018....................    64
    (The) CorpsNetwork:
        Letter for the Record........................................   324
    Governors letter to President Trump dated December 7, 2018.......    66
    Jacobs:
        Statement for the Record.....................................   332
    Lago, Lenise:
        Opening Statement............................................    12
        Written Testimony............................................    14
        Responses to Questions for the Record........................   312
    Louisiana Legislature:
        Letter to the Louisiana Congressional Delegation dated
          November 9, 2018...........................................    68
    Manchin III, Hon. Joe:
        Opening Statement............................................     2
    Murkowski, Hon. Lisa:
        Opening Statement............................................     1
    National Park Foundation:
        Statement for the Record.....................................   333
    National Trust for Historic Preservation:
        Statement for the Record.....................................   338
    Outdoor Alliance:
        Letter for the Record........................................   342
    Parish Presidents of Louisiana:
        Letter to the Louisiana Congressional Delegation dated
          November 20, 2018..........................................    74
    Puskar, Dan:
        Opening Statement............................................    27
        Written Testimony............................................    29
    Wahl, Jessica:
        Opening Statement............................................    35
        Written Testimony............................................    37
    Western Governors' Association:
        Letter for the Record........................................   346

      DEFERRED MAINTENANCE NEEDS AND POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS ON FEDERAL LANDS
      ADMINISTERED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND THE USDA FOREST
                                    SERVICE

                                  ----------

                             TUESDAY, JUNE 18, 2019

                                           U.S. Senate,
                     Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:35 a.m. in Room
    SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Lisa Murkowski,
    Chairman of the Committee, presiding.

               OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI,
                        U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA

        The Chairman. Good morning, everyone. The Committee will
    come to order.
        We are here today to examine the deferred maintenance needs
    of the major public land management agencies. This is a topic
    that I certainly care about. I know that each of you, certainly
    the folks on this Committee, have expressed concern, not just
    coming into this hearing today, but really over the years.
        When we consider deferred maintenance, we most commonly
    think of the $12 billion maintenance backlog accrued by the
    National Park Service (NPS). We have considered that here in
    the Committee at great length, and it rightfully continues to
    attract a great deal of national attention. But somehow and
    sometimes overlooked in this conversation are the deferred
    maintenance needs of the other federal land management
    agencies, including the Forest Service, the Bureau of Land
    Management (BLM) and Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). Combined
    with the Park Service, these four agencies face a deferred
    maintenance backlog totaling $19.4 billion. That is worthy of
    repeating. Within these four agencies that govern our public
    lands, almost $20 billion in deferred maintenance backlog. This
    is an overwhelming amount that covers everything from direct
    visitor experiences to projects that will perhaps never be
    noticed by the average family. Regardless of the agency we are
    talking about, deferred maintenance needs are very real.
        For example, families visiting the Grand Canyon National
    Park should not be greeted by locked bathrooms, and campers
    should not be left without access to shower and laundry
    facilities as was the case for ten days when the sole waterline
    serving the Canyon burst last month. This is a waterline that
    has had over 80 separate breaks since 2010, so it is not like
    we did not see this one coming.
        For us in Alaska, one that hits pretty close to home is in
    Denali National Park where earlier this summer we had a service
    truck that slid off of the gravel-backfilled park road at
    Polychrome Pass. We have heard a lot about Polychrome Pass here
    in this Committee. Fortunately, the driver was not injured
    there, but we are looking at a practical reality with the
    landslides and the slumping or the slippage that is going to
    require, if not a significant overhaul, a complete rerouting of
    that road at incredible expense.
        And while recreation is a major driver of this discussion,
    deferred maintenance impacts wildlife, conservation and
    development opportunities as well.
        BLM has identified 57 miles of roads in eastern Oregon in
    need of repair. These roads support timber operations. They
    provide a way of life for wildlife managers to access the heart
    of Chinook salmon spawning areas.
        In Colorado, a project to remove and replant trees that had
    been killed by the spruce beetle on 1,100 acres of fire-prone
    land has stalled indefinitely because of the poor road
    conditions in the Rio Grande National Forest.
        In many cases, roads, bridges, wastewater systems and other
    federal assets are intertwined with the needs of local
    communities. Counties and boroughs have an obligation to ensure
    the safety of their citizens and the vitality of their local
    economy, and that means that the infrastructure they share with
    their federal neighbor, including the roads used by first
    responders, have to be well maintained, or at least maintained.
        As part of our conversation today, we will discuss the need
    to develop meaningful, creative and fiscally sound solutions to
    ensure the long-term maintenance of our extensive public lands
    infrastructure. We will consider the need for federal agencies
    to prioritize routine maintenance to prevent projects from
    becoming backlogged in the first place. We will also discuss
    the role of philanthropic donations, public-private
    partnerships and intergovernmental agreements that are in place
    today.
        I am pleased to be able to welcome our witnesses to the
    Committee to help us advance this important discussion. We have
    representatives from the Department of the Interior and the
    USDA Forest Service as well as the recreation industry, a
    county government and an advocate for public land stewardship.
    So it really represents the breadth of stakeholders who are
    involved in this issue. I know all of you are looking to
    Congress to say okay, what are we going to do, how are we going
    to deal with this? So I appreciate you being here this morning.
        I will turn to my Ranking Member, Senator Manchin, and then
    we will move to the witnesses.

                  STATEMENT OF HON. JOE MANCHIN III,
                    U.S. SENATOR FROM WEST VIRGINIA

        Senator Manchin. Chair Murkowski, thank you for scheduling
    this important hearing and thank you all for being here.
        With the maintenance needs facing our federal land
    management agencies, it is just overwhelming. This Committee
    has spent a lot of time over the last few years reviewing
    proposals to address the National Park Service's almost $12
    billion backlog in deferred maintenance projects. And that is
    just the Park Service.
        Our national parks are one of the country's greatest ideas,
    and it falls on us to make sure that we are laying the
    groundwork for the next 100 years.
        During today's hearing we will also discuss the deferred
    maintenance backlog of Forest Service and other land management
    agencies that are in need of close examination. Taken together,
    as Chairman Murkowski has mentioned, the combined backlog of
    the deferred maintenance needs at all land management agencies
    has totaled more than $19 billion--and that is billion with a
    B. This is a serious funding problem. It is clear it cannot be
    addressed solely in the regular appropriations process.
        Even though West Virginia may not have the same amount of
    federal land as some of the Western states, deferred
    maintenance is a challenge in my little State of West Virginia.
    In my state alone, the Park Service has deferred maintenance
    needs of almost $60 million, the Forest Service has deferred
    maintenance needs of over $36 million, and the U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service has a funding backlog of almost $7 million.
    That is over $100 million of federal deferred maintenance needs
    in a state of about 1.8 million people.
        Addressing the maintenance backlog will allow the agencies
    to fulfill their mission of protecting nationally significant
    treasures and provide access to people that use the lands for
    hunting, fishing, shooting, hiking and all types of recreation.
    The National Park System areas draw over 318 million visitors
    each year and generate over $40 billion in annual economic
    output. The national forests draw an additional 149 million
    visitors each year and generate over $11 billion in economic
    output. A lot of this money goes into rural communities that
    have few other resources of income because of the remoteness of
    their areas.
        Improving the visitor's experience by reducing deferred
    maintenance means more local jobs and a stronger economy in
    rural America. I hope that we can use today's hearing to
    identify options and lay the groundwork to address the deferred
    maintenance needs before us.
        I want to make sure that the agencies have plans in place
    that will not only identify the highest priority projects, but
    also I want to make sure the agencies have long-term
    maintenance funding in place so we don't end up right back
    where we started.
        Let me just explain. When I was governor, I used to have
    everybody come to me and they always told me they needed money
    for this, this, this and this. But yet, any money they got they
    would use for new projects or new buildings and never took care
    of what they had. So I stopped all the money from going out. I
    said, you don't get another penny until you take care of what
    you have. And they never built it into their budget.
    Maintenance funding was never built into the budget. Everything
    but maintenance funding was built into the budget. We are going
    to find out today what is going on and how we can best address
    this.
        In my view, basically, the key is establishing a reliable
    revenue source. I understand that the Federal Government has a
    different way of approaching how we do bonding. In states, we
    would bond out. If we needed a dedicated revenue, we would bond
    it out and fix the problem and make sure it did not happen
    again.
        The Federal Government has it different because we can't,
    in appropriations especially, obligate future Senators to
    commitments of how the monies will be spent.
        Several years ago the National Park Service estimated that
    it would take $700 million each year just to keep the
    maintenance problem from getting worse. I don't know what the
    estimate is for the other agencies, but it will take a lot more
    than that to make any significant reductions in the billions of
    dollars accumulated for maintenance. In addition, the longer we
    drag our feet the worse it gets.
        I believe our best chance of getting something enacted is
    to try to pass the Restore Our Parks Act. That is from Senators
    Portman, Warner, Alexander, King and others. I am one of the
    co-sponsors. I think most of us have supported it, and this
    bill would provide mandatory funding of $6.5 billion over five
    years to address the National Park Service funding needs.
        I understand the House companion bill includes funding for
    other agencies in addition to the National Park Service, and we
    can sure explore those options in more detail today.
        Last Congress, for the first time ever, the Committee
    reported mandatory funding bills for the National Park
    Service's deferred maintenance, and at the same time we
    reported legislation to provide mandatory funding for the Land
    and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF).
        I know we have a hearing scheduled for next week, and I
    thank the Chairman very much for that, particularly on the LWCF
    program, but I think the best path forward is to find a way to
    address both the maintenance and LWCF funding issues while
    preserving the role of appropriations and authorizing
    committees in distribution and oversight of these funds.
        Now I recognize that passing bills that provide meaningful,
    dedicated funding will be a challenge, but there is broad
    bipartisan support for both the deferred maintenance and LWCF
    funding bills. I believe enactment of both these bills would
    have a lasting benefit to many of our nation's most treasured
    lands, will help improve public access to these areas and will
    enhance the economic importance of our federal lands.
        I look forward to working with the Administration and my
    colleagues to address these challenges to find a way to get
    these bills signed into law, and I look forward to hearing from
    each one of you.
        Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Manchin.
        We are joined this morning by Mr. Scott Cameron, who is the
    Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and
    Budget at the Department of the Interior (DOI). We welcome you.
        Ms. Lenise Lago is the Associate Chief at the USDA Forest
    Service. Welcome to the Committee.
        Liz Archuleta is the Supervisor for Coconino County in
    Arizona on the Board of Supervisors. We welcome you. We thank
    you for making the trip back.
        Mr. Dan Puskar is the President and the CEO of the Public
    Lands Alliance. Thank you for what you do.
        And Ms. Jessica Wahl is the Executive Director for the
    Outdoor Recreation Roundtable (ORR).
        We welcome each of you. We would ask that you try to keep
    your comments this morning to about five minutes. Your full
    statements will be incorporated as part of the record. Once you
    have each given your statements, we will have an opportunity to
    pose our questions and engage in some back and forth.
        Mr. Cameron, if you would like to lead off?

        STATEMENT OF SCOTT CAMERON, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT
    SECRETARY FOR POLICY, MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, DEPARTMENT OF THE
                                INTERIOR

        Mr. Cameron. Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Manchin,
    members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to
    discuss the Department of the Interior's infrastructure,
    including deferred maintenance.
        The Department of the Interior manages an infrastructure
    portfolio with a replacement value of about $300 billion, with
    a B, ranging from large dams and canals in the West to national
    landmarks like the Statue of Liberty and the Washington
    Monument on the East Coast. Roads, bridges, trails, water
    systems, laboratories, employee housing, visitor centers and
    schools, even comfort stations, backgrounds and campgrounds and
    drinking fountains all are part of this critical but often
    unnoticed portfolio of assets. In total, Interior is
    responsible for 43,000 buildings, nearly 100,000 miles of road
    and 77,000 structures. Interior manages approximately 20
    percent of all land in the United States and operates in 2,400
    locations across the country. Interior lands and facilities
    serve nearly 500 million visitors annually, provides schooling
    for approximately 47,000 Indian children and provides critical
    access for the public to hike, boat, hunt, fish and enjoy
    numerous other outdoor activities. Interior's facilities
    directly contribute to our bureau's ability to fulfill our very
    missions. After many years of increased visitation and use, our
    aging facilities and other vital structures are in urgent need
    of repair.
        Investment in Interior's infrastructure also benefits local
    economies. In FY 2017, activities on DOI lands in total were
    associated with about $165 billion in value added to the U.S.
    economy, almost $300 billion in economic output and supported
    almost two million jobs.
        Aging infrastructure impacts our ability to serve the
    public at Interior. Many of these assets are deteriorating with
    older assets becoming increasingly more expensive to repair and
    maintain in good condition. At the end of FY 2018, the
    Department's total deferred maintenance backlog was $16.4
    billion. The maintenance of these assets and the preservation
    of the public's access to our national parks, wildlife refuges,
    Indian schools and federal lands, more generally, is a federal
    responsibility.
        Reducing Interior's infrastructure deferred maintenance
    backlog along with modernization of our facilities are a top
    priority under this Administration. Just last week Secretary
    Bernhardt and the Vice President were at Yellowstone National
    Park working with our employees there to repair some of our
    infrastructure at the park to draw attention to the importance
    of this issue.
        All facilities and equipment naturally degrade over time as
    Senator Manchin observed just a few minutes ago. While some
    identified deficiencies are being corrected, other deficiencies
    show themselves and existing deficiencies get worse unless they
    are addressed in a timely manner. Construction, maintenance and
    repairs completed on a real property asset cannot reflect a one
    and done mindset nor is it wise or cost-effective to build or
    repair an asset and then let it run to failure.
        According to a National Academy of Science's study, private
    industry standards suggest that an amount equal to two percent
    to four percent of the replacement value of construction assets
    be invested in maintenance each year. In contrast, currently
    Interior is able to invest less than one-half of one percent
    each year.
        Accompanying the President's 2020 budget for Interior is
    the re-proposal of the Public Lands Infrastructure Fund that
    was alluded to earlier. It would generate up to $6.5 billion
    over five years for deferred maintenance needs for the
    Departments of the Interior and Agriculture. This investment
    would significantly improve the public's experience at many of
    our America's most visible, visited and treasured places.
        We are delighted that the Senate has before it, before this
    Committee, legislation to deal with the parks. We understand
    that there is related legislation on the House side that may be
    going to markup as early as tomorrow, and we eagerly look
    forward to working with the Congress to enact this legislation.
        I'd also point out that a significant portion of our assets
    are actually funded through the Department of Transportation,
    Federal Highways Administration, and we've got a great working
    relationship with the Department of Transportation on that.
        I look forward to answering questions from the Committee,
    and thank you very much for your attention to this vital issue.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Cameron follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Cameron.
        Ms. Lago, welcome.

              STATEMENT OF LENISE LAGO, ASSOCIATE CHIEF,
                          USDA FOREST SERVICE

        Ms. Lago. Thank you, Madam Chairman and members of the
    Committee. Thank you for inviting me to share the
    Administration's position on infrastructure within the U.S.
    Department of Agriculture's Forest Service.
        I'd like to start by acknowledging just how important
    Forest Service infrastructure is to rural and urban communities
    alike. Infrastructure, whether it's roads, trails, bridges,
    visitor centers used by the public or offices, air tanker
    bases, employee housing, water, wastewater systems used by
    employees, they're all part of the infrastructure that's the
    physical link between Americans and their public lands. People
    depend on a safe Forest Service road network to get to schools,
    stores, hospitals and homes. The road system is critical to
    carrying out active management to improve forest conditions.
    Perhaps most critically, forest infrastructure provides fire
    protection for communities. Firefighters and emergency
    responders use forest infrastructure to access forest lands for
    firefighting operations, to protect communities, evacuate
    families from areas at risk and to rescue individuals from
    danger.
        I'd like to also highlight the economic benefits
    communities derive from Forest Service infrastructure. The
    Forest Service provides the most diverse recreation
    opportunities in the nation, across world-class landscapes that
    attract over 149 million visitors annually. Both directly and
    indirectly, National Forest visitor spending contributes over
    $10 billion to the U.S. economy every year while supporting
    about 143,000 jobs, mostly in gateway and rural communities.
    Outdoor recreation and tourism are the single greatest source
    of jobs on the National Forest System and the single greatest
    stimulus for local economies.
        A specific interest here today is deferred maintenance, and
    my written testimony includes tables listing various assets the
    Forest Service owns and maintains and the deferred maintenance
    associated with them. I'm not going to cite all that here but
    just to roughly identify the portfolio we're talking about. The
    Forest Service maintains 370,000 miles of road, including 6,000
    bridges. We have 158,000 miles of trails, including over 7,000
    trail bridges. We have almost 40,000 buildings, including
    administrative buildings, research buildings, fire operations,
    employee housing and, importantly, 17,000 toilet structures.
        I think you know deferred maintenance is scheduled
    maintenance that doesn't get done. This has a dollar value and
    accumulates over time. As a result of deferred maintenance, the
    state of the Forest Service's infrastructure has fallen far
    behind what's necessary to meet the needs of our forests and
    our forest users.
        Today, the Forest Service has a deferred maintenance
    backlog of more than $5.2 billion. Our capital improvement
    budget has not kept up with needed maintenance. The President's
    budget for Fiscal Year 2020 includes a public lands
    infrastructure fund that allocates monies for deferred
    maintenance on the National Forest System. Another funding
    source for Forest Service infrastructure comes from the Federal
    Highway Administration's Federal Lands Transportation Program,
    or FLTP. Interestingly, while our Forest Service has more miles
    of publicly accessible road and four times as many bridges as
    any other federal land management agency, the agency only
    receives about five percent of funding for this program.
        So in addition to funding, the agency is doing its part to
    reduce deferred maintenance by other means. We're taking bold
    steps to streamline our environmental review processes and
    speed up important work that could protect communities,
    livelihoods and resources. The revised NEPA rules will also
    make it easier to maintain and repair the infrastructure people
    need to use and enjoy their public lands, those roads, trails,
    campgrounds and other facilities. We've continued to use the
    conveyance authority provided by Congress to sell facilities
    that are no longer needed and use the proceeds to address other
    infrastructure needs. The Leasing Authority we just received
    from the 2018 Farm bill will also be helpful. Travel management
    which requires us to look at our transportation system and
    identify roads and trails most needed for access and develop a
    plan for those that are not as needed is another strategy to
    reduce deferred maintenance. And FLREA, the Federal Lands
    Recreation Enhancement Act, has enabled us to keep up with
    needed maintenance at heavily used, developed recreation sites
    across the country.
        So funding, innovations, efficiencies and partners are all
    key to taking care of these important assets. Managing healthy
    infrastructure is an important part of our job. It supports our
    ability to carry out our mission.
        I'm very grateful to you for having the Forest Service in
    this conversation today. I look forward to telling our story.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Lago follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Thank you so much, Ms. Lago.
        Ms. Archuleta, welcome.

      STATEMENT OF HON. ELIZABETH ARCHULETA, SUPERVISOR, COCONINO
       COUNTY, ARIZONA, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
                                COUNTIES

        Ms. Archuleta. Thank you, Chairman Murkowski, Ranking
    Member Manchin and distinguished members of the Committee.
    Thank you for holding today's hearing to examine deferred
    maintenance needs on our nation's public lands and potential
    solutions.
        My name is Elizabeth Archuleta, a Coconino County, Arizona,
    Supervisor, appearing today in that role and on behalf of the
    National Association of Counties, NACo, and the nation's 3,069
    counties.
        Coconino County serves as a proud gateway community to some
    of the most important places in our nation's public lands
    system, including Grand Canyon National Park, Glen Canyon
    National Recreation Area and the Coconino National Forest. Our
    county is the second largest by area in the Lower 48 states,
    spanning an area of over 18,000 square miles, and has a
    population of roughly 140,000 residents.
        We understand the need to ensure the public has access to
    federal public lands. Our livelihood as a community depends on
    it. I hope Coconino County's story will help to drive
    legislative solutions to bring deferred maintenance back down
    to sustainable levels within federal agencies.
        Sixty-two percent of counties nationwide contain federal
    land, and federal policies pertaining to these lands have a
    direct impact on the quality of life and economic wellbeing of
    our local communities, especially in gateway communities that
    host millions of visitors each year. However, the deteriorating
    state of the infrastructure on federal lands has caused
    significant alarm. When these access points fall into disrepair
    it can impact the health and welfare of residents and visitors.
    It is imperative Congress act to reduce this burden on our
    natural resources and people.
        In our county, the Grand Canyon, last year alone, hosted
    6.3 million visitors who spent $947 million. That spending
    supported 13,000 jobs in the county, providing a $1.2 billion
    economic impact to our region.
        Within Coconino County, the National Park Service estimates
    approximately $330 million of deferred maintenance at the Grand
    Canyon alone and $32 million at Glen Canyon.
        In the Grand Canyon the most pressing need is the
    replacement of the Transcanyon Water Pipeline, the water
    delivery line from the North Rim to the South Rim. This
    pipeline was constructed in 1965 and was expected to last 40
    years. The pipeline serves as the lone source of potable water
    and breaks down often.
        While the park has a plan to replace the pipeline, it is
    long past its prime and has taken far too long to secure the
    resources. This project alone will cost somewhere near $100
    million and will take 3.5 years to complete.
        Also at the Grand Canyon, there is a significant issue with
    housing and congestion due to the inadequate investment in
    facilities. Lodges and facilities are not up to date for
    today's tourism demands, nor is there adequate employee
    housing. There is vehicle congestion due to roadways not being
    adequate for the influx of visitors.
        Federal public lands in Arizona face a significant backlog
    of road and trail repairs. Nearly half of the deferred
    maintenance backlog within the state is due to poorly
    maintained roads and trails. This limits the ability of
    campers, hikers and other recreationists to enjoy our public
    lands.
        Snowbowl Road is a paved, seven-mile-long road leading to
    the Arizona Snowbowl Mountain Resort and is used for tens of
    thousands of skiers and other tourists year-round. The road is
    the main connection to one of our busiest tourist areas and was
    last paved in 1990. The annual maintenance funds do not cover
    any major repairs or future paving. Nine million dollars is
    needed for this reconstruction.
        We have a long history of partnering with our federal
    agencies. For almost a century, we have maintained Lake Mary
    Road, a 48-mile, U.S. Forest Service road that serves 2,100
    vehicles today, 70 percent of which are for recreational
    purposes. We worked with the U.S. Department of Transportation
    to secure $9 million from the Central Federal Lands Highway
    Division to pulverize, grade and repave 17 miles of Lake Mary
    Road.
        Through our Resource Advisory Committees, or RACs, we have
    jointly participated with our federal partners on projects to
    improve trails and roads on Mount Elden offering views of our
    natural landscapes.
        Counties supported the adjustments Congress made to RACs
    and the requirements under last year's Farm bill which made it
    easier for small population counties to form a RAC and conduct
    restoration work in the national forests.
        Counties are excited that Congress expanded the Good
    Neighbor Authority to county and tribal governments so we can
    have greater opportunities to work with our federal partners on
    forest health and access issues, including road construction.
        Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Manchin and members of
    the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to share Coconino
    County's story. Our federal public lands serve as a living
    testament to our commitment to conservation.
        Counties urge Congress to enact legislation to tackle the
    deferred maintenance backlog so that we can continue to lead
    the world in providing an outdoor recreation experience that is
    second to none and to ensure a robust economy for counties.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Archuleta follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Ms. Archuleta, thank you very much.
        Mr. Puskar.

              STATEMENT OF DAN PUSKAR, PRESIDENT AND CEO,
                         PUBLIC LANDS ALLIANCE

        Mr. Puskar. Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Manchin and
    members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me to be with
    you today.
        The mission of the Public Lands Alliance is to connect,
    strengthen and represent the non-profit partners of America's
    public lands. They are operational partners of parks, forests,
    refuges, conservation lands, enhancing the visitor experience
    and contributing more than $250 million annually to their
    stewardship.
        On America's public lands, it is impossible to separate
    infrastructure from the work of nonprofit partners. Whether
    operating a residential learning center, or retail store,
    partners rely on that infrastructure.
        The Chairman mentioned Polychrome Pass. Wonderful
    organizations like Denali Education Center rely on access to
    the heart of the park if they can be able to conduct their
    amazing discovery camps and backcountry adventures for youth.
        Groups like the--at the same time, non-profit organizations
    have long helped reduce deferred maintenance on public lands.
        The Appalachian Trail Conservancy enlists almost 6,000
    volunteers to steward that 2,200 miles of NPS, Forest Service
    and private land corridor.
        The Friends of Ottawa and National Wildlife Refuge in Ohio
    recently helped fund three parking lots for hunting access and
    aided in opening three fishing and kayak access points that the
    refuge needs to have the waters of Lake Erie maintained in
    responsible ways. And it's going to take the Federal Government
    to help them do it.
        I'm honored today to share with you the stories and
    recommendations of these incredible partners and ask you to
    consider three recommendations.
        First, establish a dedicated, reliable, sizable funding
    source for the National Park Service, yes, but also the USDA
    Forest Service, Fish and Wildlife Service and Bureau of Land
    Management that reduces the existing federal public lands
    maintenance backlog by at least 50 percent. A major investment
    is needed. Philanthropy wants to help. Recreation fees will
    absolutely help and there are ways to improve both, but a major
    investment is needed. We commend the Committee, especially
    Senators Alexander, King, Portman and Warner, for your
    leadership on S. 500, ROPA. We strongly support it. Yet all
    management agencies face the challenges to resource management
    and the imperative to be accessible to all visitors. Visitors
    are rarely concerned which agency is managing the lands that
    they access but they do want the lands and infrastructure
    maintained properly. We hope you can address that.
        Our second recommendation. Incentivize philanthropy and
    non-profit support for critical deferred maintenance.
    Philanthropy may not be able to solve every problem, but
    meaningful gifts can be inspired by leveraging federal funds.
    The Centennial Challenge in the National Park Service points
    the way. We have seen tremendous work at Acadia, at Great Smoky
    Mountains. We've seen it at Harper's Ferry Park Association,
    able to raise major grants as part of the Centennial Challenge
    to restore a Civil War era home. Trails, recreation areas,
    historic structures, philanthropy will help with these, even if
    they won't help you with your sewage system. Unfortunately, the
    current version of ROPA does not offer similar leverage or
    incentives that things like the Centennial Challenge do and
    that seems to be an opportunity. As the Committee considers
    ROPA again this year, we urge you to authorize a one-to-one
    matching opportunity for federal monies similar to the
    challenge but with two caveats. First, matching donations
    should only be used for those projects truly deemed the most
    critical by our land management agencies. We need to make sure
    that that is where the big pot of money you might provide goes.
    And second, projects funded with matching donations, again at
    least 50 percent, need to be taken care of quickly. We need to
    respect what donors are bringing to the process. It will be the
    only way to inspire future gifts. We hope that by opening the
    kind of opportunity that this challenge has provided to the
    National Park Service, we might also stimulate that interest in
    philanthropy to a greater degree in some of our other public
    lands.
        And finally, our third recommendation. Expand the authority
    and capacity of land management agencies to partner with non-
    profit partners. Do more with conservation corps, they're
    fabulous. Think about your hiring authority so we get the right
    people in place to do all the work we're talking about. But
    currently I must note, federal law prohibits if you bring some
    private dollars and federal dollars to the same construction
    project. The only way you can do it on federal land is if the
    Federal Government goes through all of its contracting, all of
    the FAR, everything related to it and we know that can be a
    problem, especially when hiring is tough. We urge you to
    address that loophole and see if a non-profit is willing to put
    up more than 50 percent of the funds for a construction project
    and has the sophistication to handle it, as many do, maybe they
    can take the lead.
        In conclusion, I thank you for your commitment to
    dramatically reduce deferred maintenance on public lands, for
    making that substantial federal effort and for working with us
    to find better ways to include non-profits in the process.
        Thank you so much.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Puskar follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Puskar, I really appreciate
    that perspective.
        Ms. Wahl, welcome.

        STATEMENT OF JESSICA WAHL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, OUTDOOR
                         RECREATION ROUNDTABLE

        Ms. Wahl. Dear Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Manchin
    and members of the Committee, this hearing represents an
    extraordinary bipartisan opportunity to explore how we can
    improve recreation infrastructure essential to outdoor pursuits
    on our public lands and waters. We sincerely thank you for your
    leadership on this issue.
        ORR is the nation's leading coalition of outdoor recreation
    trade associations representing over 50,000 businesses and
    covering the full breadth of outdoor recreation activities.
    Together, our industry accounts for 2.2 percent of the U.S. GDP
    contributing $734 billion in economic output. Increasing
    visitation and a growing deferred maintenance backlog
    negatively impact, not only the recreation industry, but the
    millions of visitors, jobs and communities who rely on it.
        More than $1 billion of the backlog in our national parks
    is attributed to recreation assets such as campgrounds, marinas
    and trails. While the national parks hold the largest share of
    the overall backlog, all land management agencies face mounting
    maintenance needs that jeopardize outdoor recreation access and
    enjoyment.
        This situation calls for a national commitment to the grey,
    green and blue infrastructure on our public lands and waters
    and we commend the sponsors of the bipartisan, Restore Our
    Parks Act, some who are here today, for offering a solution to
    this growing problem.
        We also urge adequate appropriations for agency maintenance
    budgets and programs like the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
    We recognize recent increased appropriations to these accounts
    which we very much appreciate, and it is critical that
    appropriations continue to trend in this direction.
        However, this alone is not enough to address the multi-
    billion-dollar backlog that has accrued over decades. When
    visitors participate in outdoor recreation, they spend money on
    vehicles, gear, food, lodging and more, contributing $65
    billion in annual tax revenue to federal coffers. Additionally,
    much of America's recreation infrastructure is associated with
    revenue streams such as licenses, entrance, activity and permit
    fees and excise and fuel taxes. We should work to harness the
    full potential of these private contributions paired with
    public dollars.
        We also support policies that effectively prioritize
    resources and facilitate public-private partnerships to help
    ease the maintenance backlog and enhance the visitor
    experience.
        I will briefly outline five such ideas that do not require
    new federal funding.
        One, recognize high use and revenue generating assets in
    the maintenance allocations so when sites such as marinas and
    campgrounds are in disrepair, the government is losing
    important revenue streams that could alleviate the backlog at
    these sites and in adjacent areas. Land management agencies
    should harness the fee potential of these popular sites by
    identifying assets that attract visitation and fee revenue.
    Additionally, the agencies should prioritize potential
    recreation related closures providing opportunities for
    partners to step up and continue access to these sites.
        Two, we should ensure appropriate funding for the
    Recreation Trails Program (RTP). Funded by a federal tax on
    off-highway vehicles, RTP develops and maintains motorized and
    non-motorized trails. RTP is currently funded at $85 million
    annually which is only a quarter of the $270 million that users
    pay into the program every year. If the majority of fuel taxes
    paid by users went directly into this program, millions more
    would be available to further leverage the non-federal match
    dollars and support hundreds of miles of new and existing
    trails.
        Three, promote conservation service corps to rebuild our
    nation's infrastructure. We encourage you to take into account
    the significant leveraging opportunity of conservation corps.
    These cost-effective P3s are part of the deferred maintenance
    solution. By partnering with corps, agencies can do more with
    their limited budgets while developing the next generation of
    conservation stewards and an infrastructure workforce.
        Four, elevate successful models of innovation and public-
    private partnerships. P3s can help tackle the $78 million in
    campground deferred maintenance in our national parks alone and
    the maintenance backlog in our parks, marinas and other sites.
    Additional fee categories can be used at improved campsites for
    wi-fi access, RV hookups and rentals of cabins, yurts,
    recreational vehicles, equipment and more.
        Five, fully implement current authorities like the
    conservation finance models that have supported mountain biking
    trails in the Wayne National Forest and the new Farm bill
    authorities that connect outdoor recreation to rural economies
    and forest restoration projects.
        As Congress tackles our nation's infrastructure challenges,
    ORR stands ready to partner with you on incorporating a
    recreation title in any infrastructure measure that's moving
    forward and on furthering today's discussion, strategies that
    will preserve sustainable recreation for future generations.
        We look forward to working with you to support the places
    Americans cherish while improving the health and vibrancy of
    our communities and economy.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Wahl follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Wahl, and I appreciate all of
    you for the constructive proposals you have outlined, kind of
    putting it in context here.
        You think about the road piece of the maintenance matters.
    You mentioned, Mr. Cameron, 100,000 miles of road within
    Interior's jurisdiction. I think you mentioned, Ms. Lago, that
    within Forest Service, 370,000 miles of road. Just think about
    what it takes to maintain those roads on a daily basis. It just
    sucks up so much of this maintenance budget. That is something
    that, I think, we need to look very keenly at.
        I want to start my questions with you, Ms. Lago. Unlike
    what we have in the Department of the Interior, Forest Service
    does not appear to have a comprehensive, longer-term strategy
    for prioritizing and addressing the deferred maintenance.
        Back in 2017 the USDA Office of Inspector General
    recommended the Forest Service develop an integrated strategy.
    In the report language in the FY18 Approps bill, we directed
    you to develop that strategy and the agency said it was going
    to submit a comprehensive capital improvement plan in Spring of
    '19. We have not seen the plan yet. Can you tell me what the
    status of that plan is and what the criteria will be for
    prioritizing projects that are contained within that deferred
    maintenance plan?
        Ms. Lago. Sure, thank you, Madam Chairman.
        So, as you described, we have completed a draft
    comprehensive capital improvement plan. And I'll talk about,
    maybe, three stages of it.
        The first component for the capital improvement plan is our
    assessments of our various assets. So noting that the road
    system is vast, we don't sample or we don't inventory all the
    roads on an annual basis. Rather, we characterize the condition
    of roads using statistical sample basis so to get some idea of
    baseline conditions for roads and to prioritize the road
    system. For our facilities, we have a five-year rolling
    assessment of facility conditions. For dams it's two years, or
    excuse me, for bridges it's two years. And for dams, we're
    working at getting our inventory in a five-year cycle of
    assessment. So based on that assessment, the second phase is
    using a model, the criteria for prioritizing is first of all,
    access to improving forest condition projects. The second is
    recreation and public access. The third is a facility or a site
    being an economic driver. Fire operations is a fourth. So
    those, the conditions plus the priorities, drive a model that
    help us prioritize projects and then I said there were three
    components.
        The third component is some local reflection about
    projects, you know, from the local, regional managers'
    perspective.
        The Chairman. So, let me ask, Ms. Lago, because I want to
    get to Mr. Cameron on this too. But it does not sound like you
    are ready with your plan.
        Ms. Lago. We're circulating it among the leadership to get
    their feedback on it and expect to deliver it up here shortly.
        The Chairman. Well, I would appreciate any level of urgency
    that you can assign to it. We are really trying to highlight
    where we are with this backlog.
        One of the things that we know is we are really in bad
    shape when it comes to the deferred maintenance.
        I would like to think that we are not spending so much time
    trying to figure out whether or not we have a problem. We have
    a problem. But what is our plan? What is our prioritization? We
    know that we don't have all the money that we want, but we do
    need to get moving.
        Let me turn to you, Mr. Cameron, real quickly, and this
    relates to Fish and Wildlife Service because as we look at the
    budget justifications that are provided to Congress, the Fish
    and Wildlife Service has actually been able to reduce its
    deferred maintenance from approximately $3 billion in FY09 to
    $1.3 billion in Fiscal Year '18.
        Of the four land management agencies, they were the only
    one to be able to reduce their deferred maintenance. They
    actually cut it by more than 50 percent. I guess I am trying to
    figure out what are they doing right that the other agencies
    are not able to adopt. Can you give us some ideas as to what
    they have been able to implement that we might be able to
    replicate elsewhere?
        Mr. Cameron. One thing I can say, Chairman Murkowski, is
    that in the President's budget request for the Fish and
    Wildlife Service, the National Wildlife Refuge System and the
    National Fish Hatchery System, we prioritized, trying to
    protect those assets. But still the challenge is enormous
    compared to the resources that are available.
        I'd be delighted for the record to provide you how the Fish
    and Wildlife Service has prioritized this and approached it
    though.
        The Chairman. Well, I would appreciate that, and I think it
    could be instructive to everyone whether it is what Forest
    Service is doing with their plans or elsewise. We are always
    looking for best practices. If somebody is actually doing
    something right, we want to recognize that.
        Let me turn to Senator Manchin.
        Senator Manchin. My turn?
        The Chairman. You are up.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Manchin. First of all, thank you so much. I really
    enjoyed everyone's presentations.
        Ms. Wahl, you are coming at it from the private sector, but
    basically you had recommendations of how we could start curing
    some of this, and I really appreciate that.
        I will come back to Mr. Cameron and Ms. Lago, basically
    coming from the government's point of view.
        On some of the things that Ms. Wahl talked about, is that
    not doable? Why would you all not be taking advantage of some
    of that opportunity for public-private partnerships? Because I
    just don't think we can print enough money to take care of the
    problems. And the public is not going to stand for us just
    throwing money at something when we never cure the problem.
        I think, Mr. Puskar, it comes back to you from the
    standpoint of public lands availability, people that will pay
    or will they pay something or should we not have a kind of a
    combination of some that is open-ended to where they can just
    enjoy the beauty of what we have. But if they want to enjoy
    some of the privileges and entrees, if you will, then they are
    willing to pay a reasonable fee. This has to be worked out some
    way. And if it takes legislation, I was just talking, I think
    that Chairman Murkowski and myself, in a bipartisan way, would
    find a way to work with all of you.
        Ms. Archuleta, you are right in the thick of it there, you
    know? I know, and I have been there. It is so beautiful.
        But then does that beauty put pressure on the resources and
    impact the community from a political standpoint locally? Does
    that put pressure on Congress, and can we withstand that until
    we have something to show for it?
        So I would go to you two first, Mr. Cameron and Ms. Lago.
    The things that were recommended. She had five specific points.
    I don't know if you all heard them, if you want me to repeat
    them or she can repeat some of them, but they are pretty
    straightforward. It is basically public-private partnerships,
    okay? And I think that would sell well with all of our
    colleagues.
        Mr. Cameron, if you want to comment on that?
        Mr. Cameron. Yes, thank you, Senator Manchin.
        I think public-private partnerships are certainly a
    valuable way to move ahead. I would point out that there are
    some models the Committee might want to look at as Senator
    Heinrich and Senator McSally and Senator Gardner know. The
    Bureau of Reclamation, for instance, has situations where local
    irrigation districts manage the infrastructure on Reclamation
    projects. That might be a model that we might be able to think
    about in this context.
        Senator Manchin. I think one of the simplest things, and I
    don't mean to interrupt you but our time will be running short.
        Recognizing high-use and revenue-generating areas is pretty
    simple, you know. What has the highest activity? What is a
    reasonable fee to try to keep that repairable, if you will?
    Have you all done an inventory on that?
        Ms. Lago, do you want to respond?
        Ms. Lago. Yes, sir, Senator Manchin.
        As I mentioned, part of our prioritization scheme includes
    a consideration of revenue generation or the economic
    importance of the asset in question. But also, the opportunity
    for partnerships for that asset.
        Ms. Wahl mentioned the Wayne National Forest and their
    conservation finance project for a mountain biking trail. Your
    question was how do we get more of these? That particular tool
    is new and, you know, folks aren't as skilled or not as
    familiar with how to go about attracting that capital. But it's
    definitely----
        Senator Manchin. Again, I hate to interrupt you on this,
    but I can tell you this, you have some states here doing some
    very, very innovative, creative things. Have you been
    partnering up or looking at the states that have been most
    successful? Have you used some of those as your models, Ms.
    Wahl? Have you used some of the states as your models?
        Ms. Wahl. Yes, states and counties.
        Senator Manchin. I will give you an example. We do skeet
    shooting in West Virginia in all of our state parks because
    people wanted some type of activity and it has been wonderful,
    it produces a lot of revenue for the parks. We put magic carpet
    rides in for snow tubing because people wanted to use the
    areas. But they paid for it and they are not griping. I mean,
    they love a good facility.
        Ms. Lago. Right.
        Senator Manchin. I am just thinking we are behind the curve
    because the mentality is don't worry, we have a printing press
    here and we will just make more money.
        Somehow we have to get you all partnering up with the ones
    that have been successful.
        Ms. Archuleta, if you can speak from a standpoint of a
    local, boots-on-the-ground, putting your face and your ability
    forefront in the public trust, if you will.
        Ms. Archuleta. Absolutely.
        Senator Manchin. What do you think you can do?
        Ms. Archuleta. Well, yes, sir.
        I do want to address it one way. I do want to talk about
    the local economy and recreation economy and what and how that
    affects counties.
        We have an example in Coconino County where we recently
    completed a comprehensive study that looked at the impacts of
    the infrastructure on the North Rim of the Grand Canyon and its
    affect on our tourism economy. And the North Rim is only open
    May 15th to October 15th. And we found that that is due to the
    fact that pipes may freeze during colder climates.
        Well, we did a study. What if it was open two weeks before
    that and two weeks after that? Those four weeks, what would it
    do to the economy in Coconino County?
        We found that if we were open for four more weeks it would
    generate $14 million during just that four-week operating
    season. So imagine what could be obtained if we appropriately
    added infrastructure to keep the North Rim operating year-
    round.
        Senator Manchin. When I go to the North Rim, do I pay for
    that?
        Ms. Archuleta. Yes, you do.
        Senator Manchin. I paid coming in.
        Ms. Archuleta. You do.
        Senator Manchin. I know I did before.
        Ms. Archuleta. Yes.
        Senator Manchin. I didn't know if that----
        Ms. Archuleta. Both the North and the South.
        Senator Manchin. That is a specific fee for each one?
        Ms. Archuleta. Correct.
        Senator Manchin. Not just one fee that covers all?
        Ms. Archuleta. Oh, it depends which entrance you go in. It
    covers all but the North Rim is only open, you know, for a
    shorter period of time. And so what we're saying is that people
    want to go to the North Rim because, of course, the vista is
    different, the experience is different. And it's only open a
    shorter period of time.
        Senator Manchin. Have the fees been adjusted?
        Ms. Archuleta. Oh, fees have been adjusted throughout the
    route.
        Senator Manchin. And people are not complaining about fees?
    You do not get feedback on the fees?
        Ms. Archuleta. No, they're not, but they want to have a
    quality experience when they go.
        Senator Manchin. Gotcha.
        Ms. Archuleta. So they do complain about that when we have
    to bring in porta-potties, when we have to go to Stage 2
    conservation of water when you're using paper plates and
    plastic forks because we don't have water, because the pipeline
    is broken, to wash dishes.
        Senator Manchin. Gotcha.
        Ms. Archuleta. When, you know, the lodges are subpar,
    people complain about that.
        The other thing is we find ourselves where people are
    unprepared to have a tourism experience that is in a very rough
    terrain. We have people going, you know, in flip flops to hike
    down into the Grand Canyon.
        [Laughter.]
        And so search and rescue is called in and counties are the
    ones that bear that burden. We're, you know, we're in charge of
    search and rescue. So we go and have law enforcement.
        Senator Manchin. I don't think we can legislate for
    ignorance.
        [Laughter.]
        Ms. Archuleta. Right.
        Senator Manchin. Thank you.
        Ms. Archuleta. I agree, thank you.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        It is Senator Daines who is next.
        Senator Daines. Thank you, Chair Murkowski, Ranking Member
    Manchin.
        I think of our national parks as the Department of First
    Impressions. They are truly a part of what set America apart
    from the rest of the world. And I get to Chair the National
    Parks Subcommittee, a great honor. I have made finding a
    solution to our growing maintenance backlog a top priority of
    mine, and thankfully we have an Administration that has also
    prioritized this issue. In fact, just last week, of all the
    places that Vice President Pence could be, last week, last
    Thursday, he was in Yellowstone National Park, along with
    Interior Secretary Bernhardt to bring attention to this growing
    backlog. I would like to thank them both for coming to
    Yellowstone.
        The Park Service estimated that Montana alone has a $326
    million maintenance backlog with Glacier National Park totaling
    $131 million and Yellowstone National Park which we share with
    Wyoming. I think the Senator from Wyoming would say it is more
    than a share. They have most of it, actually, in Wyoming. That
    backlog is growing close to $600 million. And in conversations
    that I've had with Cam Sholly, I wouldn't be surprised if that
    number, perhaps, goes up even higher.
        If left unchecked, there would be impacts on our outdoor
    economy. There will be impacts to our gateway communities like
    Gardner, like Cook City, like Kalispell and others.
        Thankfully Congress is working together and taking action
    again with this bipartisan Restore Our Parks Act. I am grateful
    the Ranking Member on the Subcommittee, Angus King, and I and
    the rest of the Committee are working in a truly bipartisan
    fashion to put legislation forward that would bring a solution
    to this problem. I hope we can pass this out of Committee soon
    and ultimately send this to President Trump's desk.
        But it is going to take more than just money to fix this
    issue. Mr. Cameron, Yellowstone Park just finished the
    rehabilitation of the canyon overlooks and trails which helped
    facilitate more access to this incredibly beautiful area. There
    are many more projects in Montana that increase public access
    and the one in Yellowstone to improve the safety of employee
    housing.
        The question is, how does the National Park Service
    prioritize these projects? Is it random? Do you have a system
    in place that prioritizes safety and access projects like the
    ones in Montana over others?
        Mr. Cameron. Senator Daines, thank you for that question. I
    know Secretary Bernhardt was delighted to bring the Vice
    President out to Yellowstone last week.
        And you're right that the scale of the problem is enormous,
    not just in Montana-Wyoming, but nationwide, as Senators on the
    Committee have observed.
        The Park Service has a long, established priority system
    with multiple, complex variables to set priorities. They've
    been following this process for quite a long time. Public
    health and safety, employee health and safety and visitor
    access are all of the priorities.
        I'd be happy to, you know, submit for the record a detailed
    description of the Park Service's rather complex and well
    thought out ranking process.
        Senator Daines. That'd be helpful. Thank you.
        How do we facilitate more partnerships with federal
    agencies, for example, like the DOT or private groups like the
    Montana Conservation Corps, to address the maintenance backlog
    in the parks?
        Mr. Cameron. So volunteer organizations, non-profit
    organizations, state and local government partners are really
    important contributors to the challenge. I suspect that, you
    know, there are some tax-related bonding issues that might get
    in the way of public-private partnerships in terms of private
    sector financing. There are potentially challenges with who
    manages the construction contract, as was mentioned earlier,
    whether the federal acquisition regulation applies. So those
    are things that could be explored to make public-private
    partnerships more effective and more common.
        As I mentioned a couple minutes ago, before you were able
    to join the hearing, the Bureau of Reclamation has an
    interesting model where local water districts manage most of
    the infrastructure on Reclamation projects and perhaps that's a
    model that we might want to explore.
        The Commissioner of Reclamation would not want me to miss
    the opportunity to point out that she has an infrastructure
    issue in the Bureau of Reclamation as well, but that's another
    topic.
        Senator Daines. Thank you.
        Speaking of maintenance backlog, I want to talk about the
    Forest Service.
        The Forest Service also has a growing backlog. In fact,
    Montana has the second largest share with $459 million in
    deferred maintenance. This can have a major impact on Montana's
    outdoor economy, estimated to be around $7 billion annually.
        Our recreation community is already facing trail closures
    in forest lands across the state for bureaucratic and
    litigation reasons and is adding insult to injury when the
    Forest Service also closes trails and access because they are
    not able to maintain them.
        Ms. Lago, I have heard concerns from private as well as
    public groups that are willing and able to provide trail
    maintenance and other services that the red tape and
    bureaucratic process can be burdensome and they disincentivize
    these partnerships. What is the Administration doing to
    streamline the process to ensure that these groups and these
    coalitions can volunteer to help address this backlog?
        Ms. Lago. Thank you, Senator Daines.
        And you're right, volunteers and conservation organizations
    are very important to help us keep up with needed maintenance.
    Last year we had over 1,900 FTEs, that's full-time equivalents,
    volunteering in the trail program alone. We just couldn't do it
    without them.
        In the past year we've worked at streamlining and improving
    our agreements process. So for us to work together with
    somebody that wants to do project work, we need some kind of
    instrument, agreement. And we've had inadequate and
    inconsistent training across the agency for people who knew
    what type of instrument to use. That's some of the red tape
    folks are telling you about. But we have added capacity in our
    agreements' staff, streamlined training and made it available
    online. So we're working hard to meet people where they are,
    who want to help us do those maintenance projects.
        Senator Daines. Thank you.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Heinrich.
        Senator Heinrich. First, I want to thank the Chair and the
    Ranking Member for holding this hearing and in particular for
    including the Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service, the U.S. Forest Service, as well as our
    National Parks. I think a lot of people are aware of the Park's
    backlog, but the vast majority about the recreation and
    economic activity, in many of the Western states, actually
    happens on non-Park Service public lands.
        I want to touch on what Senator Daines raised for just a
    moment, because one of the biggest problems in terms of
    limiting volunteers and activities that can really help
    leverage what the agencies can do is the lack of staff that are
    actually assigned to help volunteer groups and private
    organizations do that work.
        You know, today, outdoor recreation is the single largest
    driver of activity on our public lands, but our assignment of
    staff is stuck decades in the past. We have seen this in many
    places in New Mexico where there is real willingness to get on
    the ground and do something, but there is no one assigned at
    the staff level to facilitate that.
        Mr. Cameron and Ms. Lago, what are the Forest Service and
    the Department of the Interior doing to change that?
        Mr. Cameron. Senator, I appreciate that question. If we can
    identify specific instances, we'd be delighted to look at those
    individually. Across the board, the Secretary has made it clear
    that he's interested in promoting partnerships with non-profits
    and state and local governments. And we're eager to perhaps
    more effectively communicate that message and that need to
    actively engage with volunteer groups. Volunteers provide
    roughly 10,000 FTE worth of activity at Interior.
        Senator Heinrich. No, I realize that.
        What I am suggesting is that we look at the number of
    people who are assigned to traditional activities whether that
    be grazing permits, forest management, oil and gas permits and
    compare that with how many were actually assigned to facilitate
    permits and also public-private partnerships to help facilitate
    some of this.
        Ms. Lago?
        Ms. Lago. Sure, I just want to completely agree that as
    people who want to partner with us have gone up and up and up,
    the staff available for those programs has gone down. Part of
    the reason for that is over the last ten years, you know, we
    get our budget in program funding. Fire is a program.
    Recreation is a program. Grazing is a program. And as we have
    had to devote more of our budget to firefighting, the budgets
    in those other programs have decreased. I think with the fire
    funding fix we're going to be----
        Senator Heinrich. Yes, that is exactly where you should be
    going because we have actually, you know, this Committee worked
    very hard to fix the fire borrowing situation. And as an agency
    you need to take advantage of that----
        Ms. Lago. Agreed.
        Senator Heinrich. ----to be able to fund those positions.
        Ms. Lago, can the Forest Service afford to maintain the
    road system that you have today?
        Ms. Lago. I think, well, no. I think the answer is no, not
    370,000 miles of road. We don't open all of the road system to
    passenger travel. Only about 18 percent is open.
        Senator Heinrich. Right.
        Ms. Lago. About 30 percent is what we call ``put to bed.''
    It's blocked off and not accessible but we keep it because we
    can potentially need to open it for firefighting or some kind
    of emergency access. But no, we don't.
        Senator Heinrich. Which is why travel management is so
    important as you try to address these infrastructure needs.
        Ms. Wahl, I want to ask you, has your organization ever
    done analysis to figure out how much additional annual economic
    output or economic activity would be leveraged if our public
    lands were fully capitalized? If the campgrounds were all open,
    if the trails that are on the maps today were open, if the
    basic infrastructure, the bathrooms in Yellowstone and the
    things that we hear about, if all of that was fully
    capitalized, do we have any idea what that would mean for
    additional economic activity?
        Ms. Wahl. Thank you.
        We certainly don't have an idea of what the total of that
    would be, but we have great anecdotes and stories of just a
    campground that the Tennessee Valley Authority partnered with a
    P3. It was closed. No revenue. No economic activity in the
    local community. This P3 partnership opened the campground.
    It's at full capacity every day it's open in the year. So, not
    only is, you know, the economy and this rural community
    benefiting, but certainly the Forest Service and the Tennessee
    Valley Authority because they're actually getting money from
    this contract. So we have examples of that all across the
    board. It would be great to see, you know, the full breadth of
    that.
        Senator Heinrich. I suspect that story could be replicated
    time and time again in state after state after state.
        I am out of time, but I want to point out the fact that the
    North American Model of Wildlife Conservation is the envy of
    the world, because for the better part of a century hunters and
    anglers have put their money where their mouth is. They stepped
    up and they taxed themselves to say if we don't do this, we are
    not going to have a sustainable resource.
        I think we might owe it to ourselves to start having that
    conversation around outdoor recreation as well.
        The Chairman. I will join you in that conversation,
    Senator.
        Senator Lee.
        Senator Lee. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        There are a lot of things the Federal Government does, a
    lot of them are unpopular. Of the most unpopular parts of the
    Federal Government, you probably have the IRS. Even more
    unpopular, Congress, whose approval rating seems to hover these
    days between 9 and 11 percent, making it less popular than
    Fidel Castro in America.
        Senator King. It depends on whether they poll immediate
    family.
        Senator Lee. Yes, yes, exactly, exactly.
        [Laughter.]
        It might even be worse in some of those polls.
        But one of the few things the Federal Government does that
    is popular exists in the National Park Service. People love
    their national parks. They want to be able to use them. They do
    not want to see them threatened. So many are concerned,
    particularly in states like mine where we have a lot of
    national parks that are national treasures. People are
    concerned when they hear about the maintenance backlog and the
    fact that 62 percent of the public lands backlog can be found
    within the National Park Service. That is of concern to them.
        We will start with you, Mr. Cameron.
        Would you agree that under certain conditions the public
    interest might be better served by finding ways to fund the
    backlog and to make sure that we maintain, adequately, our
    national parks? Would you agree with that as a general
    statement?
        Mr. Cameron. I certainly would, Senator Lee. I think we
    need to look at any and all options and seriously consider
    them.
        Senator Lee. Would you agree with me that there are some
    lands that have been identified as suitable for disposal by the
    Federal Government?
        Mr. Cameron. Yes, Senator, the General Services
    Administration (GSA) runs an annual process to try to identify
    those.
        Senator Lee. Do you have any sense as to what kind of
    revenue could be generated if that land were disposed of?
        Mr. Cameron. Not off the top of my head. I think the
    estimates are probably in the single billions of dollars, but I
    don't know the latest estimate from GSA.
        Senator Lee. Okay. It is a large sum of money, certainly.
        Do you know how often the BLM evaluates its lands for their
    suitability for disposal?
        Mr. Cameron. So BLM has a regular planning process on a
    district-by-district basis. It's on a cycle. If memory serves
    me correctly, I believe it's a five-year cycle.
        Senator Lee. Okay.
        Do you have any idea approximately how many acres of land
    have been deemed suitable for disposal?
        Mr. Cameron. No, I do not but I'm happy to provide that for
    the record.
        Senator Lee. Okay.
        Would you agree that under certain circumstances it might
    make sense to sell some of that land in order to be able to
    keep up with the maintenance backlog in order to overcome it?
        Mr. Cameron. So the General Services Administration has a
    process in place for divesting of federal land and federal
    assets and at the tail end of the process it can be sold, yes.
        Senator Lee. Ms. Lago, how about you? Do you know how many
    acres of land, approximately, the Forest Service has identified
    as suitable for disposal?
        Ms. Lago. I don't believe we have authority for disposing
    of land. We have authority to convey facilities and the land
    associated with it, but we don't typically dispose of land, we
    use it for advantageous land exchanges where we're trying to
    block up ownership or obtain some critical wildlife habitat or
    connectivity or something like that.
        Senator Lee. Okay. So you are saying there is no regular
    evaluation of Forest Service land to consider whether all of it
    needs to be under federal ownership?
        Ms. Lago. That's right.
        Senator Lee. Okay.
        Mr. Cameron, let's get back to you for a minute.
        Across all the federal land management agencies, compliance
    with federal regulation contributes to the massive maintenance
    backlog, the very same backlog that we are here to discuss
    today. When your agency estimates the cost of a project, do you
    separate the cost of regulatory compliance from the rest of the
    cost of construction?
        Mr. Cameron. Senator, I don't believe we do that. We take
    for granted that we have to comply with the federal acquisition
    regulation. We take for granted that we have to comply with
    Davis-Bacon Act where it applies, for instance, and various
    other constraints.
        I'd point out that the National Historic Preservation Act
    can sometimes produce some challenges. If we need to try to
    reproduce concrete the way it was made in the 1720s, that can
    be a lot more expensive than the way it's made now.
        Senator Lee. Yes, I have heard. You can't just get that at
    the Home Depot.
        It seems to me that it would be very helpful if you could
    calculate that cost either on an individual project level or in
    addition to that also having it on the maintenance backlog
    level as well so that we can figure out what percentage of the
    maintenance backlog generally is attributable to regulatory
    compliance and what percentage of the cost on any particular
    project is attributable to the same?
        Mr. Cameron. Senator, I know we've done some thinking along
    those lines. What I'd like to do is respond for the record to
    try to give you a more accurate and complete answer about how
    we might approach that.
        Senator Lee. Okay.
        I see my time has expired. Thank you.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Lee.
        Senator King.
        Senator King. Madam Chair, I also want to thank you and the
    Ranking Member for this hearing on this really important
    project.
        I am sitting here thinking about politics and partisanship.
    This is probably the most conservative bill before the Congress
    in every sense of the word. Conservative because we are
    literally conserving. We are protecting something that has been
    handed to us by our forefathers and mothers and predecessors.
    But it is also conservative because it is all about paying down
    debt.
        It has not been mentioned so far today, but deferred
    maintenance is debt, just like it is debt on the balance sheet.
    I think once it is looked at that way, it eases, it seems to
    me, some concerns that have been expressed about this bill. We
    are not adding to debt. We are actually diminishing our
    national debt because these problems will have to be taken care
    of someday and, when they are, it will be more expensive. So
    there is interest on the debt.
        So I think that is why this is so important, and I am so
    glad to see that there is bipartisan support for these various
    bills.
        Number two, one of the reasons this is urgent for me is I
    did a little calculation. I've looked at the top ten most
    visited national parks and their acreage. It is a very
    interesting calculation of visitors per acre and that is a
    proxy for pressure on the park. It is really interesting. The
    Great Smoky Mountains, the most visited national park in the
    country, which was a little surprising to me by a factor of
    two, 21 people per acre, 21 visitors per acre. Zion, 29. More
    typically, Yosemite, 5.3. Yellowstone, 1.8. Acadia National
    Park in Maine, 74 people per acre. In some cases, 10 or 20
    times the visitation.
        That is why this is an urgent problem for me, because our
    park is being loved to death. It is an absolutely wonderful
    place, and that is why all those people go there, 3.5 million
    people a year to one park in one state that has a population of
    1.3 million. So almost three times the population of Maine goes
    to Acadia National Park every year.
        This is an urgent priority both in terms of our
    responsibility to our predecessors, but also our responsibility
    to the people of America that enjoy these wonderful places.
        This has been a great hearing because it has been exactly
    what a hearing is supposed to do, produce some good ideas. I
    love the matching idea. I am an original co-sponsor, as you
    know, of the Restore Our Parks Act.
        We have a program in Maine called the Land for Maine's
    Future Program. It goes back to the '80s. And the first bond
    issue was $35 million. We spent $28 million buying the fee
    simple value of land--just putting in dollars and buying it.
    The next $7 million preserved more land than the first $28
    million because we finally figured out about matching and
    conservation easements and things other than just simply buying
    the title outright.
        I think matching is a terrific idea. There is, as you have
    testified, a philanthropic community that is very interested in
    this and we can basically make our money go further. And I
    think that is a very important concept.
        Public-private partnerships, again, make our money go
    further.
        Volunteers, people that want to spend a summer in the
    national park. Give them free accommodations in exchange for
    working five hours a day on trails. I mean, there is no end of
    opportunities here.
        And Ms. Wahl, I like your idea about fix the fee generating
    places first. If you have places that are generating fees and
    they are not operating, fix those first because then you get
    some additional revenue.
        If you can find a question, you are welcome to it.
        I haven't gotten to a question yet.
        [Laughter.]
        But your testimony has been so helpful and succinct. I do
    believe that we have to talk broadly about the Forest Service
    and Bureau of Public Lands, but I do not want to lose the focus
    on the national parks. I do not want the best to be the enemy
    of the good.
        We have a very solid bill with a lot of support in both the
    House and the Senate from the Administration. And I understand,
    Madam Chair, we are looking forward to a possible markup on the
    Restore Our Parks Act in the foreseeable future? That is a
    pretty indefinite term.
        [Laughter.]
        That was indefinite enough to get a nod from you. I
    appreciate that.
        [Laughter.]
        But I think what we are talking about here today is so
    important to the American people.
        Mr. Puskar, perhaps you can touch on the idea of matching
    and other ways to make our money go further.
        Mr. Puskar. Well, I think especially when we talk about
    Acadia, a park founded on private citizens coming together to
    give of their land, to even create this in the first place.
        Senator King. It helps when one of the private citizens is
    named Rockefeller, but we won't go into that.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Puskar. But you're absolutely right, but a lot of them
    aren't named that. The number of people supporting the Friends
    of Acadia these days is astronomical. And it's not just the
    Rockefellers, God love them. Thank God they were here for us
    when they were. But it's the folks that want to say, hey, I
    want to be here. I want to give my entrance fee money, but then
    I want to do a little bit more. I'm going to become a member of
    the Friends of Acadia.
        The opportunity for matching, I do think it is absolutely
    essential. We know that there is a philanthropic component to
    being interested in our public lands writ large. We know this.
        But incentivizing it, especially when the challenge is so
    big and when we know we have a model that already works, seems
    to be a no brainer for ensuring we move forward productively,
    not just for the Park Service, but it's certainly been a dream
    of mine. Wouldn't it be amazing if we took advantage of the
    amazing challenge cost share authorities that U.S. Forest
    Service, BLM, Fish and Wildlife Service already have and
    provide more dedicated opportunities with that kind of framing,
    like we've done with the Centennial Challenge?
        Senator King. Well, I intend to look into adding language
    to the Restore Our Parks Act, additional authority. If you have
    thoughts, any of you, on how to do that----
        Mr. Puskar. We'd love to work with you.
        Senator King. ----please be in touch with my office.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
        On Friday I took the opportunity to take my young interns
    on a field trip. There were 12 of us, and we went over to
    Theodore Roosevelt Island. It was a day of service with the
    Park Service. We spent about, I don't know, four hours cleaning
    up the island there.
        They would not trust us with any chainsaws, but we did have
    rakes and wheelbarrows. And it was a good reminder to me of the
    volunteer effort. But at the same time, I looked at the
    volunteers who had come for that one day--and that is a pretty
    small little island--and recognizing the level of visitorship
    that it receives. You almost feel like you just can't make a
    difference because the need is so great and there are so few of
    you. But if you take that approach, we are never going to get
    anywhere.
        But it is a reminder of the great partnerships that are out
    there that exist. We just need to replicate them about another
    363 days out of the year. So how we work to do that is going to
    be important.
        Let's go to Senator McSally.
        Senator McSally. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thanks to all our
    panelists.
        Welcome Supervisor Archuleta. It is great to see you here.
    I am proud that you are representing Arizona in this
    conversation.
        We are so proud that we have the Grand Canyon in our state
    which is this amazing treasure that brings people from all over
    the world. I was actually up there for the Easter Sunrise
    Service this year with my mom, and it ended up being a bucket
    list type of event.
        We know the importance that these treasures have and not
    just so people can come experience places like the Grand
    Canyon, but it is for ecotourism and for our communities. And
    you know right well, as a gateway community, how important that
    is.
        Can you elaborate more on the importance of the pipeline
    project getting completed as soon as possible and the
    implications should it not be completed because of what is,
    again, what draws people from all over the world to the Grand
    Canyon and the impact that that would have, not just on the
    park, but also on local communities in our state?
        Ms. Archuleta. Well, thank you very much, Senator McSally,
    and thank you for the question.
        So what we find is the pipeline continuously breaks because
    of rockfalls, and when it breaks it creates a tremendous burden
    on the visitor and also on the park.
        And so when people are coming to the Grand Canyon and, you
    know, people see it as the crown jewel of parks and they want
    to have this experience. Then they go and they need to use
    portable restroom facilities. They're eating from paper plates
    because the restaurants cannot use the water to wash dishes.
    The Park Service is constantly scrambling to figure out how
    they can haul water to the park when the pipeline breaks. And
    so now, they just anticipate it. Right now, they're going to
    level two water restrictions. They're making arrangements for
    water to be hauled, to be stored in tanks because they
    anticipate the pipeline is going to break. And so when you have
    this and people begin to hear about it, visitors, not only is
    the experience diminished, but then people question do we
    really want to go to the Grand Canyon National Park?
        This is a tremendous burden for the economy because we
    depend on tourists for our economy. And as a gateway community,
    Flagstaff, Williams, all of the surrounding communities that
    struggle, it then creates a burden for the counties and for our
    economy.
        I'd mentioned just about the North Rim, and if that was
    open for four weeks longer it would mean a $14 million impact
    to our economy, additional money coming in. So when you look at
    our communities, the Grand Canyon National Park is the
    lifeblood for our community, and we need to make sure that that
    water pipeline is taken care of. It was supposed to last 40
    years and it was built in the 1960s. And here it is 2019. It's
    one of those situations where it needed to happen yesterday.
        Senator McSally. Exactly.
        And you mentioned in your testimony the importance of the
    partnership between local communities and the Federal
    Government.
        I have climbed or hiked Mount Elden many times and am very
    familiar with Lake Mary Road. Can you share a little bit more
    about how important it is to have local stakeholders like the
    counties and the cities involved and working with the Federal
    Government related to these maintenance issues because we are
    all in this together?
        Ms. Archuleta. Absolutely.
        So, in regards to the roads, I spoke about Lake Mary Road.
    We are looking to do that with Stoneman Lake Road and
    Perkinsville Road which will provide access to the Coconino
    National Forest. And so we're hoping to replicate some kind of
    connector.
        We maintain, of course, school routes on Forest Service
    property. We have an agreement with the Forest Service to
    maintain some of the forest roads.
        And also, in talking about the Forest Service, I mean, one
    of the main infrastructures on federal forests is our trees.
    And so, when we're looking to make sure that we have forest
    restoration and forest health and counties, as you know,
    Coconino County is assisting with that with the 4 Forest
    Restoration. And you know, you recently introduced legislation.
    But we need help from all of the Federal Government to get, you
    know, this project underway. And so we think about our
    resources in terms of the trees as something that is
    infrastructure and we need to make sure that we have forest
    health and forest thinning.
        Senator McSally. Great, thank you.
        I am running close on time, but Ms. Lago, a different topic
    on Fossil Creek and the importance of the $6 million that is
    needed to repair Forest Service Road 708 to get access to
    Fossil Creek. I am not sure if you are familiar, but there was
    a meeting scheduled for 60 days that was supposed to happen
    last week on this topic and it was canceled abruptly. A lot of
    folks are pretty unhappy about that. Can we get your commitment
    that we are going to get that meeting rescheduled immediately?
        Ms. Lago. Yes, Senator. I'm so sorry for that. And I will
    make sure it gets rescheduled immediately.
        Senator McSally. Okay, wonderful. Thank you.
        I yield back.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
        Ms. Archuleta, I think you were the one that said that
    deferred maintenance is basically scheduled maintenance that we
    have not gotten to yet. It has not gotten done yet.
        I want to have a discussion about investments in cyclic
    maintenance. This is effectively what we are trying to do to
    avoid the deferred maintenance, and it is like a doctor telling
    you look, you need to eat right and you need to get exercise.
    Of course, this is what we need to do. And then when we don't
    do it, then we play catch up on the health end.
        But I would ask you, and I will start with you, Mr.
    Cameron. How do we find this balance between the deferred
    maintenance which is substantial and what we have to do to
    maintain just good health here within our public lands, this
    cyclic maintenance? And as you discuss that, walk me through
    how these decisions are made in terms of whether or not a
    matter, an issue, a project, is part of the cyclic or the
    deferred.
        I will give you my example here. I mentioned Polychrome
    Pass out in Denali. We know that the fix here is going to be
    extraordinarily costly. It is not going to be easy. In the
    interim, we have been patching the road together using cyclic
    funds. So you have certain areas of the Denali Park Road that
    are included in the deferred maintenance budget but Polychrome
    Pass area is not. Who makes those decisions? How do we make
    this determination what is deferred and what is in that ongoing
    scheduled cyclical maintenance?
        Mr. Cameron. Senator, we--it varies a little bit from
    bureau to bureau, but at a high level all of our land
    management bureaus have a process for prioritizing their
    maintenance budgets. One could say on one level----
        The Chairman. Who has the authority for that? Is it the
    land manager's job? Who has that oversight, if you will?
        Mr. Cameron. So each Park Superintendent or Refuge Manager
    has got the best information about what is happening on their
    particular properties.
        The Chairman. Right.
        Mr. Cameron. And our bureaus have a tool called Maximo that
    mathematically creates a facility condition index that gives
    you information about how much it would cost to replace a
    particular asset versus the cost of investing in maintenance.
    So, we have, each bureau has got at the national level a
    prioritization process. This information at the field level is
    fed up to the national process and we, at least in the Park
    Service, we try to budget major investments at the national
    level. One exception to that would be under FLREA.
        The Chairman. Would Polychrome Pass then be viewed as a
    major investment because of the cost?
        Mr. Cameron. I would have to look into that. I don't want
    to mislead you, Chairman. I just don't know off the top of my
    head where Polychrome Pass----
        The Chairman. I am just wondering. It sounds like with this
    matrix if it is really expensive, we don't want to use
    scheduled or cyclical funds for that. We are going to put it in
    the deferred maintenance category and then it just gets worse
    and it gets more expensive. So how do we ever achieve this
    balance? Obviously, we are not in balance yet and how do we get
    there?
        I mean, there have been some good ideas, most certainly
    with our public-private partnerships, more than can be done
    outside of appropriated funds. But it seems to me that this
    prioritization issue is something that we have really not been
    able to wrap our hands around.
        Mr. Cameron. Chairman Murkowski, we try to emphasize public
    health and safety-related maintenance and investments first. We
    also worry about the public, the health and safety of our own
    employees who may be working on a facility in terms of employee
    housing, for instance.
        In some sense our cyclical maintenance problems are
    deferred maintenance problems in waiting, and I don't think we
    really have a bright line between this is a deferred
    maintenance problem over here and this is a cyclical
    maintenance problem in another area.
        We try to look at the visitor experience, health and safety
    and access issues and invest our President's '20 budget, $1.1
    billion, in maintenance across the board of all of our bureaus
    where we're going to get the biggest risk reduction, if you
    will, for the dollars that are available.
        The Chairman. So let me ask on that, because Senator King
    has noted the impact on Acadia National Park. They are loving
    it to death in terms of the public visitors.
        In Alaska, we are very proud of our three million visitors
    that come to the state every year. It is extraordinary, given
    the fact that we have a population of 720,000 people. But we
    have certain parks that receive very, very little visitorship.
    I would be very curious to know on the per acre how that all
    factors out. But it doesn't mean that you don't have, for
    instance, life safety issues that need to be addressed.
        I would like to understand a little bit more about how this
    index actually works, because I get those questions from my
    constituents about where are we on the list? And the list is
    something that I feel, oftentimes, is a deep, dark state
    secret. I would love to talk to you more about that.
        Mr. Cameron. We'll be happy to provide something for the
    record for you, Chairman Murkowski, on how our bureaus come up
    with their prioritization schemes and what those lists look
    like.
        The Chairman. I appreciate that.
        I am going to turn----
        Senator Manchin. Just real quick.
        The Chairman. Yes, go ahead, Senator.
        Senator Manchin. Very quickly, I just have a question I
    wanted to ask.
        Mr. Cameron, when you put your budget request in to the
    Executive Branch, to the President, you put that request in and
    then basically it is evaluated and I guess you make adjustments
    from there. The only reason I am saying that is that the
    President's budget proposal cuts to the Park Service
    construction and operations account that funds maintenance
    along with a reduction of 128 full-time workers in those
    accounts. This is on top of the nearly 1,100 full-time staff
    reductions since 2009.
        I don't know how you would make that request and be able to
    take care of deferred maintenance if you are cutting your own
    or requesting to cut them, unless the White House paid no
    attention to you and just went ahead and made those cuts
    unannounced?
        Mr. Cameron. They, actually, in the President's 2020 budget
    we're pleased that the White House gave the Department $900
    million more than was, at least in the President's '19 budget.
    We realize that the Congress, you know, appropriates money as
    they feel is appropriate.
        Senator Manchin. Why are the recommended cuts coming,
    really, from the maintenance account?
        Mr. Cameron. We were, relatively speaking, we tried to
    protect maintenance but we do have a responsibility to provide
    for day-to-day visitor services in the parks and the wildlife
    refuges as well. So it's a difficult balance, Mr. Manchin, you
    know, there's no doubt about it.
        I think, clearly, the Administration----
        Senator Manchin. But I am saying that we are talking about
    deferred maintenance and the majority of the proposed staffing
    cuts for the National Park Service came from maintenance.
        I don't know how you can accomplish the work, no matter how
    much money we give you, if you are not going to have personnel
    to take care of it.
        Mr. Cameron. The--if the Congress is able to enact
    something like the Public Lands Infrastructure Fund or S. 500,
    I guarantee you that we will find the human resources to spend
    that money and spend it well and spend it as quickly as we can
    to address problems at Acadia and in West Virginia and Alaska
    and elsewhere around the country.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        I am now going to turn to Senator Alexander. We are trading
    places here this morning. While you and Senator Cassidy and
    Senator King continue, I am going to go over to the HELP
    Committee----
        Senator Alexander. Good.
        The Chairman. ----and provide some questions there, but if
    I do not make it back, Senator Cassidy will go ahead and close
    the Committee out. But I want to thank you each for not only
    your appearance here before the Committee but your very
    constructive suggestions, your observations as to how we can do
    more.
        Ms. Lago, I am hopeful that I will be able to come back and
    bring up the issue of Forest Service cabins and how we can do
    more from the volunteer perspective. I hear a lot about it from
    folks in Alaska. So I would like to continue that conversation.
        With that, I am going to excuse myself for a few minutes
    and turn to Senator Alexander, and Senator Cassidy will have
    the gavel.
        Thank you.
        Senator Alexander. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        Mr. Cameron and to all the witnesses, welcome. My questions
    are for Mr. Cameron.
        Mr. Cameron, the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, which
    is our most visited national park, has a backlog of $235
    million in deferred maintenance. It has an annual appropriation
    of $20 million and no entrance fee because of the way the park
    was created.
        Do you see any way that we can deal with that $235 million
    deferred maintenance backlog without something like the
    proposal that the President has made in his budget and that is
    included in the Restore Our Parks Act to use funding from
    energy development on federal lands to provide mandatory
    funding to cut the maintenance backlog in half?
        Mr. Cameron. Senator Alexander, there's no way in the world
    we could deal with those sorts of problems that you just
    described, whether it's at Great Smoky or at parks like Acadia
    or elsewhere around the country, and we very definitely need
    the legislation that you referred to and are grateful for this
    Committee's interest in the topic and hope you get to markup
    soon.
        Senator Alexander. Yes, I hope so too.
        I mean, we are talking about very basic things here that
    the American people care about. Look Rock Campground on the
    edge of the Smokies is a very popular campground. Now the
    Department is taking steps to reopen it, but it has been closed
    for five years because of leaky roofs, bathrooms that do not
    work, unsanitary conditions and hundreds of families are
    deprived of that.
        We have 38 bipartisan co-sponsors of this legislation. That
    would suggest to me that there is no reason that it should not
    pass the United States Senate if we have a chance to mark it up
    and vote on it. It has the Administration's strong support,
    according to Secretary Bernhardt, the Restore Our Parks Act. In
    fact, it was recommended in the first place by the
    Administration. The outdoors groups and the Administration got
    together and we merged--Senator King, Senator Warner, Senator
    Portman--we merged all of our efforts into one. So we have an
    unusual happening here with the Administration and competing
    Senators all behind the same goal on this agreement.
        You are the budget man. I want to emphasize this is the
    first time, isn't it, that an Administration has supported
    using funding from energy development on federal land to
    provide mandatory funding for the maintenance backlog?
        Mr. Cameron. Yes, sir, to the best of my knowledge that's
    absolutely correct.
        Senator Alexander. Yes.
        Wouldn't it be wise if we have an Administration who is
    willing to do that and 38 United States Senators who are for
    it, to take advantage of the moment because the next
    Administration or even the next Office of Management and Budget
    might have a different attitude?
        Mr. Cameron. That's always a risk, Senator. I agree with
    you completely that the sooner we can pass legislation with
    strong bipartisan support on both sides of Capitol Hill and get
    it in front of the President, the better.
        Senator Alexander. And the Department of the Interior has
    already established a system of priorities for the spending of
    these dollars, am I not right?
        Mr. Cameron. Yes, Senator, that is correct. Each of our
    bureaus has a well-articulated process, and I'll be describing
    that for the record.
        Senator Alexander. Okay.
        I appreciate I had to come from chairing another hearing to
    be here, but I wanted to come to emphasize the importance of
    this piece of legislation, not just to the Great Smokies or to
    Acadia National Park, but to our country.
        It was Ken Burns who has said, ``This is America's best
    idea.'' We do not want millions of Americans to show up at our
    national parks and not be able to use the bathroom, sleep in
    the campgrounds, walk on the trails, enjoy the great outdoors
    that we have.
        Every one, so far as I can tell, of our environmental and
    outdoor organizations are busily supporting this effort. The
    Administration is supporting it. It has bipartisan leadership
    in the Senate. I thank the Chairman for her focus on it, and I
    hope that we can mark it up, put it on the Floor, pass it, turn
    it into law and get the parks, get the deferred maintenance, at
    least cut in half, as the bill would do.
        I thank the Chairman and that concludes my questions.
        Senator Cassidy [presiding]. Senator Cantwell.
        Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
    for the witnesses and for the hearing today.
        The outdoor recreation economy is booming in my state.
    Twenty-six billion dollars in spending supports over 200,000
    direct jobs and provides the state with about $2.3 billion in
    annual revenue. So yes, I am for anything that is going to
    continue to enhance the opportunities for people to enjoy the
    great Northwest.
        One thing I do not think has been asked yet this morning
    though is the impact of climate on our backlog. We already have
    a backlog but, in my state. Because we are seeing different
    conditions, certainly it might be a little more hidden because
    you are talking about at our higher elevations, but clearly
    this creates more challenges to our area with everything from
    the impact of less snowpack to slides to a whole number of
    things. So has anybody calculated that information of impact?
        Ms. Lago. I'll give that a try.
        Senator Cantwell. Thank you.
        Ms. Lago. I don't believe that we have, but what I would
    offer is, you know, what first came to mind is increasing
    severe weather, floods, hurricanes, wind events. They cause
    tremendous damage to roads, bridges, dams. That all increases
    our backlog of deferred maintenance and makes our
    infrastructure less safe. But as far as a calculation, no,
    Senator, not that I know of.
        Senator Cantwell. Well, I think it is something we should
    consider. My colleague, Susan Collins, and I asked two years
    ago now, and they came out with a report last year. The GAO
    basically said that climate impacts were costing the Federal
    Government about $620 billion during this ten-year window. And
    the next ten-year window, over $1 trillion.
        We know that basically from things like drought and fire
    and what have you, but I do think that we should, in looking at
    our park and recreation needs, think about how--we have worked
    hard in this Committee on both fire and water to try to change
    our management strategies. I think what we are asking here is,
    what is the management strategy as it relates to the backlog,
    given this impact? I see other witnesses nodding. I don't know
    if anybody wants to add anything.
        Ms. Wahl. I would just say that in years of severe wildfire
    and drought and flooding, trails are closed because of the
    safety concerns and oftentimes not open because then they can
    go on the backlog.
        And so, a couple of examples of how this impacts local
    economies is with guides and outfitters who rely on that trail
    or that particular unit for their livelihood, you know,
    potentially that year, they have the permit for that one area
    and severe weather due to climate and closures due to the
    maintenance backlog could impair their ability to do business.
        And then just a recent example. My aunt, who found out I
    was testifying today, goes to the San Gabriel Mountains which
    has millions and millions of folks from LA every year, and lots
    of flooding. Her trail access to a campground that she uses and
    many others use has been closed because of severe flooding in
    California and hasn't been opened because of the backlog.
        So you can see how those things go hand in hand and
    certainly impact access, enjoyment and then local economies.
        Senator Cantwell. Anybody else on that point?
        Ms. Archuleta. Thank you, Senator, I'd like to answer that.
        In Coconino County we have the Schultz Fire and flooding.
    It destroyed 15,000 acres and subsequent flooding cost the
    county in excess of $30 million, closed down forests, impacted
    our recreation economy. And when you look at all of the damage
    that was caused and the loss of the economy, it amounted to
    $120 million.
        So I see the forest restoration and forest health as a
    priority for our county and for other counties in the nation.
        Mr. Cameron. Senator, I'm going to piggyback on that last
    point.
        I believe the Administration has introduced legislation on
    forest health that would attempt to address some of these
    issues. And as has been indicated, there are multiple reasons
    that we have deferred maintenance problems, some of them tied
    to weather or others just tied to natural aging of materials
    over time.
        But we're really pleased that this Committee has taken on
    the opportunity through the legislation that Senator Alexander
    and others have introduced to do something about this issue.
        So thank you.
        Senator Cantwell. Well, I don't really support efforts here
    to take care of the backlog and maintenance for the very point
    that Ms. Wahl just mentioned. I am not for a broad categorical
    exemption that does not allow for public input or environmental
    law because we do not want the same things to happen that she
    just mentioned.
        When you have devastation of our forests it causes problems
    to our streams and runoff to fish, and good stewardship is what
    we need. And so, I hope that we will just take into
    consideration how big the backlog is and the fact that the
    challenge of climate is making it harder. We really do need to
    get this done this year.
        So thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Senator Cassidy. The Chair calls upon himself.
        Part of this is to discuss solutions. I cannot help but
    notice that the solution is to take offshore revenue that is
    principally generated from the Western and Central Gulf and to
    spread it around the rest of the country. I feel a little bit
    like the turkey on Thanksgiving Day.
        I say that because that cannibalizes the ability of Gulf
    Coast states to repair their coastlines. We have seen
    consequences of those coastlines being in disrepair. Hurricanes
    Katrina and Rita were great examples. And to the degree that we
    lose in Louisiana marshland, we are losing an incredible
    amount. We have lost something more than the State of Iowa. It
    should be the State of Delaware is to the degree to which my
    cities become more vulnerable.
        Put simply, one mile of marshland takes a Cat 5 hurricane
    to a Cat 4 and the second mile to a Cat 3 and the third mile to
    a Cat 2. And to the degree that we have a Google map which
    shows green, and yet I know when I am out there on a boat that
    that land is no longer there but rather it subsided, is a
    marker of the risk to my state.
        Now I have expressed my objections to Senators Portman and
    Alexander that this resource--which although for five years, it
    does not take a rocket scientist to understand would be upped
    for another five and another five and another five--ultimately
    impacts the ability of the Central Gulf to ask for additional
    resources to repair our coastline. So with that preamble and
    wanting to help, I certainly want to help this deferred
    maintenance. I totally accept that.
        I would like to first enter several letters into the
    record. I ask myself, and I thereby approve.
        The first is from October signed by Senate colleagues from
    revenue generating states along the Gulf Coast asking for
    parity in terms of how we disperse energy revenues. This is to
    point out that on land revenue sharing is far more generous to
    the states than it is for offshore revenue sharing.
        The second is a bipartisan letter to the President from
    governors of Alabama, Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi which call
    for the same.
        And the final two letters are from 59 members of the
    Louisiana legislature and 15 Parish Presidents which concerns
    echo those which I've just expressed.
        [The letters referred to follow:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Cassidy. I also wanted to point out that Senator
    Hyde-Smith and I are working with our Gulf Coast colleagues on
    a proposal we hope to introduce soon to ensure Gulf interests
    are satisfied in this endeavor. But I say this because
    everybody is going to say, oh my gosh, Cassidy is being
    parochial. He is concerned about New Orleans getting wacked by
    a hurricane. He should be concerned about a campground on the
    Smoky Mountains. I am concerned about that campground in the
    Smoky Mountains, but I would also like to suggest, Mr. Cameron,
    I will go to you. The Committee notes that just 112 parks
    charge entrance fees and 80 percent of those fees stay within
    the park where the fee is assessed, active duty and disabled
    veterans do not pay entrance fees, and former Secretary Zinke
    shared with this Committee that whole car loads of visitors can
    enter a park at no cost if they go in with active duty military
    or a disabled veteran. Theoretically, a school bus and the
    driver is active duty and then you would have 40 kids enter
    without paying a fee. Now if we really care about these parks,
    if we really want to have these fixed, would it be reasonable
    that the active duty would enter but those in the bus would
    otherwise pay a fee?
        Mr. Cameron. Senator, I think you raise some interesting
    points. The Administration has entertained making changes to
    our rec fee program over time in terms of how we charge and who
    we charge and where we charge. And frankly, we've gotten less
    than wild enthusiasm.
        Senator Cassidy. So my colleagues or my colleagues who are
    so eager to spend revenue from off the shore of the Gulf Coast
    because by golly, it is such a priority to fix these parks, are
    less eager to actually have a user fee that is actually pretty
    modest, that would apply to those using those parks?
        Mr. Cameron. We're pleased to have the authority that the
    Congress has given us up until now to charge user fees, and I'd
    hazard to guess that we would welcome a broader authority
    where----
        Senator Cassidy. Do you currently have the ability, if you
    have a busload of people who are not disabled or active duty,
    but the driver is, do you currently have the authority to
    charge the fees to everybody else except for that driver who
    would qualify?
        Mr. Cameron. I don't have the answer to that specific
    scenario.
        Senator Cassidy. Does anyone else know the answer to that,
    because I think that is, kind of, a key question. If we really
    care about this issue, we should consider user fees to apply to
    all those to whom it would ordinarily apply.
        Mr. Puskar, do you know the answer to that?
        Mr. Puskar. In general, there are both the traditional
    recreation fees that I think you're speaking to where the norm
    for say, having an America the Beautiful Pass would not, should
    not go to a full busload of people coming in. But yes, you're
    absolutely right, it would be used by say, a regular car with
    four people in it.
        Separate from that though, I would note, there are
    commercial fees that can, when you're talking about say, a
    busload of people coming in for a special event, others,
    guides, outfitters and others will work separately and on a
    different schedule with the land management agencies to pay
    appropriate fees.
        Senator Cassidy. But I gather that according to Zinke there
    is a whole raft of people who are not paying appropriate fees
    because they are entering in under the umbrella, if you will,
    of somebody who Congress has given a pass to.
        Mr. Puskar. I think the Public Lands Alliance would
    certainly agree with you that recreation fees have not been
    maximized in their current state.
        Senator Cassidy. I am out of time, and although I am the
    Chair and I could indulge myself, I won't.
        I will point out that I am a little bit, what is the word,
    less convinced about crocodile tears for our parks when people
    will not assess appropriate user fees on those using those
    parks to defray this expense. It is money left on the table
    which I suspect those users would more than willingly pay. It
    reminds me of an old Russell Long quote. ``Don't tax me, don't
    tax thee, tax the person behind the tree.'' In this case, it is
    the Gulf Coast states, but the consequences, there is less
    money to rebuild my coastline which means that I will continue
    to have the highest rate of erosion and land loss in the
    continental, no, in the entire United States and one of the
    highest in the world.
        Senator King, would you like a second round?
        Senator King. Well, I would like to discuss what you raise,
    because the bill does not allocate, does not take funds away
    from coastal restoration. Specifically the language is,
    ``Revenues due and payable to the United States from oil, gas,
    coal and alternative renewable energy development on federal
    land and water that would otherwise be credited, covered or
    deposited as miscellaneous receipts under federal law.'' Then
    it goes on to talk about effects on other revenues. ``Nothing
    in this section affects the disposition of revenues due to the
    United States' special funds, trust funds or states for mineral
    and energy development on federal land and water have been
    otherwise appropriated under federal law, including Gulf of
    Mexico Energy Security Act, Mineral Leasing Act.'' In other
    words, we tried to avoid doing just what you suggest and that
    is these are excess funds, not funds--we are not taking money
    away from any of the allocations to the states. These are funds
    that would otherwise simply go into the Treasury as unallocated
    funds. So we should pursue this discussion because this isn't
    an either/or proposition.
        Additionally, I agree with you that fees have to be part of
    the equation and there are places where there are no fees
    charged and the people who use the parks, just as they do at
    many of the parks, should pay a fee. And I think the Park
    Service should be a little more active in thinking about that.
        Prior to your joining us today, we talked about other ways
    to augment these funds, and I should say that this bill only
    covers half the backlog. We are going to be looking to other
    resources, whether it is matching funds or additional
    resources.
        So we are trying to work this out in such a way that it
    does not diminish, and as you know, I have been a strong
    supporter of your efforts to protect the Louisiana coast. I
    think it is tragic, and I have seen the charts that you have
    shown us of the loss of land. Hopefully we can continue to work
    on this in such a way that will satisfy the interests of
    Louisiana and the coastal, the Gulf Coast states and also the
    people of the United States that are so interested in working
    on this backlog at the parks.
        Senator Cassidy. No, I appreciate that concern, but I will
    point out that if you are on federal lands in a land then you
    get 51 percent of the royalties that derive from that well. But
    if you are on a coastal state, which currently is the Gulf
    Coast but with your case may soon be wind, then royalty is
    capped at 37.5 percent with an overall cap. I am looking at my
    staff to make sure I have this right. Of $500 million? $500
    million. And so, whereas it is 51 percent here, it is 37.5
    percent here with an upward cap.
        And so, my concern is I like to have increased revenue for
    your state if there is wind being generated off your state or
    from my state for the consequences of that offshore
    exploration. And right now, I fear that this will cannibalize
    the ability to achieve that in the future because we have more
    and more money going out to this maintenance.
        Senator King. I think that is a discussion that we need to
    have. But I just wanted you to know that we were not trying to
    take money from the offshore revenues that are so important to
    Louisiana.
        Senator Cassidy. Thank you.
        Senator King. Yes, sir.
        Senator Cassidy. I should also note that statements for the
    record will be received for two weeks after the end of this
    hearing.
        I want to thank the witnesses for coming and for adding to
    our public discourse.
        The hearing is now adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:26 a.m. the hearing was adjourned.]

                          APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

                                  ----------

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]