National Park Service: Efforts to Identify and Manage the Maintenance
Backlog (Letter Report, 05/14/98, GAO/RCED-98-143).

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the National Park
Service's (NPS) efforts to identify and manage the maintenance backlog,
focusing on: (1) NPS' estimate of the maintenance backlog and its
composition; (2) how NPS determined the maintenance backlog estimate and
whether it is reliable; (3) how NPS manages the backlog; and (4) what,
if any, recent requirements or initiatives are being implemented by the
NPS to help address its maintenance backlog problem.

GAO noted that: (1) NPS' most recent estimate of its maintenance backlog
does not accurately reflect the scope of the maintenance needs of the
park system; (2) NPS estimated, as of January 1997, that its maintenance
backlog was about $6.1 billion; (3) most of this amount--about $5.6
billion, or about 92 percent--was for construction projects, which, for
the most part, are aimed at correcting maintenance problems at existing
facilities; (4) however, over 21 percent of the $5.6 billion in
construction projects, or $1.2 billion, was for the construction of new
facilities, such as $24 million for a bike path at the Colonial National
Historical Park in Virginia and $16.6 million to replace a visitor
center and construct a park entrance at Acadia National Park in Maine;
(5) while GAO does not question the need for these facilities, including
these kinds of new construction projects or projects that expand or
upgrade park facilities in an estimate of the maintenance backlog is not
appropriate because such projects go beyond what could reasonably be
viewed as maintenance; (6) including them in the maintenance backlog
contributes to confusion about the park system's actual maintenance
needs; (7) NPS estimates of its maintenance backlog are compiled on an
ad hoc basis in response to requests from Congress or others; the agency
does not have a routine, systematic process for determining its
maintenance backlog; (8) the most recent estimate, as of January 1997,
was based largely on information that was compiled by NPS in 1993 and
has not been updated to reflect changing conditions in individual park
units; (9) this fact, as well as the absence of a common definition of
what should be included in the maintenance backlog, contributed to an
inaccurate and out-of-date estimate; (10) NPS does not use the estimated
backlog in managing park maintenance operations; (11) as such, it has
not specifically identified its total maintenance backlog; (12) because
the identified backlog far exceeds the funding resources being made
available to address it, NPS has focused its efforts on identifying its
highest-priority maintenance needs; (13) however, given that substantial
additional funding resources are being made available--over $100 million
starting in fiscal year 1998--NPS needs to more accurately determine its
total maintenance needs so that it can better track progress in meeting
them; and (14) NPS is taking actions to help address the maintenance
backlog problem in response to several requirements.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  RCED-98-143
     TITLE:  National Park Service: Efforts to Identify and Manage the 
             Maintenance Backlog
      DATE:  05/14/98
   SUBJECT:  National historic sites
             National parks
             Maintenance (upkeep)
             Federal property management
             Cost analysis
             Maintenance costs
             Historic preservation
             Facility construction
IDENTIFIER:  Colonial National Historical Park (VA)
             Acadia National Park (ME)
             
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved.  Major          **
** divisions and subdivisions of the text, such as Chapters,    **
** Sections, and Appendixes, are identified by double and       **
** single lines.  The numbers on the right end of these lines   **
** indicate the position of each of the subsections in the      **
** document outline.  These numbers do NOT correspond with the  **
** page numbers of the printed product.                         **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO   **
** Document Distribution Center.  For further details, please   **
** send an e-mail message to:                                   **
**                                                              **
**                                            **
**                                                              **
** with the message 'info' in the body.                         **
******************************************************************


Cover
================================================================ COVER


Report to the Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on National Parks
and Public Lands, Committee on Resources, House of Representatives

May 1998

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE - EFFORTS TO
IDENTIFY AND MANAGE THE
MAINTENANCE BACKLOG

GAO/RCED-98-143

Efforts to Manage Maintenance Backlog

(141064)


Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV

  GAO - General Accounting Office
  NAPA - National Academy of Public Administration
  SFFAS - Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards

Letter
=============================================================== LETTER


B-279579

May 14, 1998

The Honorable Eni F.  H.  Faleomavaega
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on National Parks
 and Public Lands
Committee on Resources
House of Representatives

Dear Mr.  Faleomavaega: 

At the same time as new parks are being added to the national park
system and existing parks are being further developed and improved,
conditions in many parks are deteriorating.  An indication of this
deterioration has been the increasingly large maintenance backlog
cited by the National Park Service and others.  The Park Service has
reported that the maintenance backlog has more than tripled over the
past 10 years. 

For years, the Congress has been concerned about the growth of the
maintenance backlog at the same time that hundreds of millions of
dollars are being provided each year to deal with it.  On the basis
of your request and agreements reached with your office, we are
providing information on the following:  (1) the Park Service's
estimate of the maintenance backlog and its composition; (2) how the
agency determined the maintenance backlog estimate and whether it is
reliable; (3) how the agency manages the backlog; and (4) what, if
any, recent requirements or initiatives are being implemented by the
Park Service to help address its maintenance backlog problem. 


   RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1

The National Park Service's most recent estimate of its maintenance
backlog does not accurately reflect the scope of the maintenance
needs of the park system.  The Park Service estimated, as of January
1997, that its maintenance backlog was about $6.1 billion.  Most of
this amount--about $5.6 billion, or about 92 percent--was for
construction projects, which, for the most part, are aimed at
correcting maintenance problems at existing facilities.  However,
over 21 percent of the $5.6 billion in construction projects, or $1.2
billion, was for the construction of new facilities, such as $24
million for a bike path at the Colonial National Historical Park in
Virginia and $16.6 million to replace a visitor center and construct
a park entrance at Acadia National Park in Maine.  While we do not
question the need for these facilities, including these kinds of new
construction projects or projects that expand or upgrade park
facilities in an estimate of the maintenance backlog is not
appropriate because such projects go beyond what could reasonably be
viewed as maintenance.  Including them in the maintenance backlog
contributes to confusion about the park system's actual maintenance
needs. 

The agency's estimates of its maintenance backlog are compiled on an
ad hoc basis in response to requests from the Congress or others; the
agency does not have a routine, systematic process for determining
its maintenance backlog.  The most recent estimate, as of January
1997, was based largely on information that was compiled by the Park
Service in 1993 and has not been updated to reflect changing
conditions in individual park units.  This fact, as well as the
absence of a common definition of what should be included in the
maintenance backlog, contributed to an inaccurate and out-of-date
estimate. 

The Park Service does not use the estimated backlog in managing park
maintenance operations.  As such, it has not specifically identified
its total maintenance backlog.  Because the identified backlog far
exceeds the funding resources being made available to address it, the
Park Service has focused its efforts on identifying its
highest-priority maintenance needs.  However, given that substantial
additional funding resources are being made available--over $100
million starting in fiscal year 1998--the Park Service needs to more
accurately determine its total maintenance needs so that it can
better track progress in meeting them. 

The Park Service is taking actions to help address the maintenance
backlog problem in response to several requirements.  These
requirements include new accounting standards, management changes
prompted by the Government Performance and Results Act, a study on
employee housing needs, and a review of maintenance and construction
practices.  In addition, the Department of the Interior and the Park
Service are currently taking initiatives to better manage the
maintenance and construction program, such as developing a 5-year
plan for funding priority projects and evaluating alternative methods
to maintain historic structures.  These changes could, if properly
implemented, help the Park Service develop more accurate data on its
maintenance backlog and track progress in addressing it. 


   BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2

The national park system has 376 units.  These units have, among
other things, over 16,000 permanent structures, 8,000 miles of roads,
1,500 bridges and tunnels, 5,000 housing units, about 1,500 water and
waste systems, 200 radio systems, and over 400 dams.  According to
the Park Service, these facilities are valued at over $35 billion. 
The proper care and maintenance of the national parks and their
supporting infrastructure are essential to the continued use and
enjoyment of our great national treasures by this and future
generations.  However, for years Park Service officials have
highlighted the agency's inability to keep up with its maintenance
needs.  In this connection, Park Service officials and others have
often cited a continuing buildup of unmet maintenance needs as
evidence of deteriorating conditions throughout the national park
system.  The accumulation of these unmet needs has become commonly
referred to by the Park Service as its "maintenance backlog."

The reported maintenance backlog has increased significantly over the
past 10 years--from $1.9 billion in 1987 to about $6.1 billion in
1997.  Recently, concerns about the maintenance backlog within the
National Park Service, as well as other federal land management
agencies, have led the Congress to provide significant new sources of
funding.  These additional sources of funding are, in part, aimed at
helping the agencies address their maintenance problems.  For
example, it is anticipated that new revenues from the 3-year
recreational fee demonstration program will provide the Park Service
over $100 million annually.\1 In some cases, the new revenues will as
much as double the amount of money available for operating individual
park units.  In addition, $10 million from a special one-time
appropriation from the Land and Water Conservation Fund has been made
available for use by the Park Service in fiscal year 1998 to address
the maintenance backlog.\2 These new revenue sources are in addition
to the $300 million in annual operating appropriations that are used
for maintenance activities within the agency. 


--------------------
\1 Beginning in fiscal year 1996, four federal land management
agencies, including the Park Service, have been authorized to have a
recreational fee demonstration program.  Under this program, these
agencies are permitted to experiment with increasing existing
recreational fees and/or initiating new fees where none were in place
at up to 100 areas.  Each of the agencies can keep the revenues
generated from this program. 

\2 Funds from the Land and Water Conservation Fund are primarily used
for acquiring new recreational lands administered by the Park Service
and other federal land management agencies. 


   THE PARK SERVICE'S ESTIMATE AND
   THE COMPOSITION OF THE
   MAINTENANCE BACKLOG
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3

In 1997, the Park Service estimated that its maintenance backlog was
about $6.1 billion.\3 Maintenance is generally considered to be work
done to keep assets--property, plant, and equipment--in acceptable
condition.  Maintenance includes normal repairs and the replacement
of parts and structural components needed to preserve assets. 
However, the composition of the maintenance backlog estimate provided
by the Park Service includes activities that go beyond what could be
considered maintenance.  Specifically, the Park Service's estimate of
its maintenance backlog includes not only repair and rehabilitation
projects for existing facilities but also projects for the
construction of new facilities or upgrades of present facilities. 

Of the estimated $6.1 billion maintenance backlog, most of it--about
$5.6 billion, or about 92 percent--is for construction projects. 
These projects, such as building roads and utility systems, are
relatively large, normally exceed $500,000 each, and involve
multiyear planning and construction activities.  According to the
Park Service, the projects are intended to meet the following
objectives:  (1) repair and rehabilitation; (2) resource protection,
involving such things as constructing or rehabilitating historic
structures and trails and erosion protection activities; (3) health
and safety, involving such things as upgrading water and sewer
systems; (4) new facilities in older existing parks; and (5) new
facilities in new and developing parks.  Table 1 shows the dollar
amounts and percentage of funds pertaining to each of the objectives. 



                                Table 1
                
                   Park Service's Estimates of Major
                Categories of the Maintenance Backlog as
                            of January 1997

                         (Dollars in billions)

Objective                      Dollar amount          Percent
------------------------  ------------------  ------------------------
Repair and                            $2.143             38
 rehabilitation
Resource protection                    1.237             22
Health and safety                      0.973             18
New facilities--                       0.803             14
 existing parks
New facilities--new                    0.432             8
 parks
======================================================================
Total                               $5.588\a            100
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a This $5.6 billion estimate represents the construction portion of
the $6.1 billion estimated maintenance backlog.  The remaining $500
million is for smaller projects that include repair and
rehabilitation and cyclic maintenance projects. 

Source:  National Park Service. 

The Park Service's list of projects in the construction portion of
the maintenance backlog reveals that over 21 percent, or $1.2
billion, of the $5.6 billion is for new facilities.  We visited four
parks to review the projects listed in the Park Service's maintenance
backlog and found that the estimates included new construction
projects as part of the backlog estimate.  For example: 

  -- Acadia National Park's estimate included $16.6 million to
     replace a visitor center and construct a park entrance. 

  -- Colonial National Historical Park's estimate included $24
     million to build a bicycle and walking trail along the Colonial
     Parkway. 

  -- Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area's estimate included
     $19.2 million to build a visitor center and rehabilitate
     facilities. 

  -- Rocky Mountain National Park's estimate included $2.4 million to
     upgrade entrance facilities. 

While we do not question the need for any of these facilities, the
projects are directed at adding new facilities or modifying and
improving existing facilities to meet the objectives that park
managers wish to achieve for their parks.  These projects are not
aimed at addressing the maintenance of existing facilities within the
parks.  For example, Colonial National Historical Park proposed to
construct a new bicycle and walking trail on the 23-mile route along
the Colonial Parkway between Jamestown and Yorktown, Virginia.  The
reason for the trail is to enhance bikers', joggers', and walkers'
experience in the park and to increase safety for motorists and
nonmotorists.  The proposed project to upgrade facilities at Rocky
Mountain National Park consists of constructing four new employee
housing units and a 5,000-square-foot visitor center to provide
information on park facilities and resources.  According to the
park's records, half of the 2.8 million visitors to the park enter
via Fall River, an entrance road with no established information
station or visitor center until visitors reach Fall River Pass, a
distance of 21 miles.  Including these types of enhancement projects
in the maintenance backlog contributes to confusion about the actual
maintenance needs of the national park system. 

While a portion of the projects listed as part of the Park Service's
maintenance backlog are not maintenance items, it is clear from
documentation and physical evidence that we noted at the parks that
we visited that the Park Service does have a host of maintenance
needs.  For example, Acadia National Park proposed to spend over $2
million to rehabilitate historic bridges along the carriage road
system that have been saturated by water and exhibit cracks, open
joints, and waterborne deposits.  Also, Rocky Mountain National Park
proposed to spend $14.5 million to rehabilitate and replace park
roads.  On one road, we observed that the road bank was eroding and
in need of rocks to rebuild the eroded area.  (See fig.  1.)

   Figure 1:  Deteriorating
   Conditions of Park Facilities
   at Selected National Parks

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  Photograph by GAO. 

In addition to projects clearly listed as new construction, other
projects on the $5.6 billion list that are not identified as new
construction, such as the repair and rehabilitation of existing
facilities, include amounts for new construction.  Our review of the
project proposals for the four parks that we visited showed that each
of the proposals included large repair and rehabilitation projects
containing tasks that would not be considered maintenance.  These
projects include new construction for adding, expanding, and
upgrading facilities.  For example, at Colonial National Historical
Park, an $18 million project to protect Jamestown Island and other
locations from erosion included about $4.7 million primarily for the
construction of new items such as buildings, boardwalks, wayside
exhibits, and an audio exhibit. 

Beyond construction items, the remaining part of the $6.1 billion
backlog estimate--about 8 percent, or about $500 million--is for
smaller maintenance projects, such as rehabilitating campgrounds and
trails and repairing bridges, and other items that recur on a cyclic
basis, for example reroofing or repainting buildings.  The Park
Service excluded daily, routine park-based operational maintenance,
such as janitorial and custodial services, groundskeeping, and minor
repairs, from the maintenance backlog figures.  The Park Service has
a maintenance management system that park managers can use to plan
and manage these routine activities.  However, recent Department of
the Interior Inspector General report notes that this system is not
uniformly used by park managers.\4


--------------------
\3 The Park Service's estimate ranged from $6.04 billion to $6.18
billion.  Throughout this report, we used $6.1 billion, since it
approximately represents the midpoint of these numbers. 

\4 Followup of Maintenance Activities, National Park Service, U.S. 
Department of the Interior, Office of Inspector General (Report No. 
98-I-344, Mar.  1998). 


   HOW IS THE MAINTENANCE BACKLOG
   DETERMINED?  IS IT RELIABLE? 
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4

The Park Service compiles its maintenance backlog estimates on an ad
hoc basis in response to requests from the Congress or others; it
does not have a routine, systematic process for determining its
maintenance backlog.  The January 1997 estimate of the maintenance
backlog--the most recent estimate--was based largely on information
that was compiled over 4 years ago.  This fact, as well as the
absence of a common definition of what should be included in the
maintenance backlog, contributed to an inaccurate and out-of-date
estimate. 

The $6.1 billion estimate, dated January 1997, was for the most part,
compiled on the basis of information received from the individual
parks in December 1993.  A Park Service official said that the 1993
data were updated by headquarters to reflect projects that had been
subsequently funded during the intervening years.  However, we found
that the Service's most recent maintenance backlog estimate for each
of the parks we visited was neither accurate nor current. 

The four parks' estimates of their maintenance needs ranged from
about $40 million at Rocky Mountain National Park to $120 million at
Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area.  Our analysis of these
estimates showed that they varied from the headquarters estimates by
about $3 million and $21 million, respectively.  The differences
occurred because the estimates from headquarters were based primarily
on 4-year-old data.  Officials from the four parks told us that they
had not been asked to provide specific updated data to develop the
1997 estimate.  The parks' estimates, which were based on current
information, included such things as recent projects, modified
scopes, and more up-to-date cost estimates.  For example, Acadia's
estimate to replace the visitor center and construct a park entrance
has been reduced from $16.6 million to $11.6 million; the Delaware
Water Gap's estimate of $19.2 million to build a visitor center and
rehabilitate facilities has been reduced to $8 million; and Rocky
Mountain's $2.4 million project to upgrade an entrance facility is no
longer a funding need because it is being paid for through private
means.  In addition, one of the projects on the headquarters list has
been completed. 

The Park Service has no common definition as to what items should be
included in an estimate of the maintenance backlog.  As a result, the
Park Service oficials that we spoke with in headquarters, two
regional offices, and four parks had different interpretations of
what should be included in the backlog.  In determining the
maintenance backlog estimate, some of these officials would exclude
new construction; some would include routine, park-based maintenance;
and some would include natural and cultural resource management and
land acquisition activities.  In addition, when headquarters
developed the maintenance backlog estimate, it included both new
construction and maintenance items.  For example, nonmaintenance
items, such as adding a bike path to a park where none now exists or
building a new visitor center, are included.  The net result is that
the estimate is not a reliable measure of the maintenance needs of
the national park system. 


   MANAGING THE BACKLOG
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5

In order to begin addressing its maintenance backlog, the Park
Service needs (1) an accurate estimate of its total maintenance
backlog and (2) a means for tracking progress so that it can
determine the extent to which its needs are being met.  Currently,
the agency has neither of these things.  Yet the need for an accurate
estimate and a tracking system is more important now than ever before
because in fiscal year 1998, over $100 million in additional funding
is being made available for the Park Service, which it could use to
address its maintenance needs.  This additional funding comes from
the recreational fee demonstration program and the Land and Water
Conservation Fund.  Furthermore, the Park Service requested an
increase in funding for maintenance activities in fiscal year 1999. 

Park Service officials told us that they have not developed a precise
estimate of the total maintenance backlog because the needs far
exceed the funding resources available to address them.  In their
view, the limited funds available to address the agency's maintenance
backlog dictate that managers focus their attention on identifying
only the highest-priority projects on a year-to-year basis.  Because
the agency does not focus on the total needs but only on priorities
for a particular year, it cannot determine whether the maintenance
conditions of park facilities are improving or worsening. 
Furthermore, without information on the total maintenance backlog, it
is difficult to measure what progress is being made with available
resources. 

The recent actions by the Congress to provide the Park Service with
substantial additional funding, which could be used to address its
maintenance backlog, underscore the need to ensure that available
funds are being used to address priority needs and to show progress
in improving the conditions of the national park system.  The Park
Service estimates that the recreational fee demonstration program
could provide over $100 million a year to address the parks'
maintenance and other operational needs.  For some parks, revenues
from new and increased fees will as much as double the amount of
money that has been previously available for operating individual
park units.  In addition to the fee demonstration program, the Park
Service was allocated $10 million from the Land and Water
Conservation Fund appropriations in fiscal year 1998 to help address
the maintenance needs of the national park system.  Furthermore,
additional funds may be available for maintenance if the Congress
appropriates the additional $62 million that the Park Service
requested for maintenance activities in its fiscal year 1999 budget
request. 


   NEW REQUIREMENTS AND CURRENT
   INITIATIVES SHOULD HELP ADDRESS
   PROBLEMS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6

Several new requirements that have been imposed on the Park Service,
and other federal agencies, can help the agency to address its
maintenance backlog.  These new requirements involve (1) changes in
federal accounting standards, (2) the Government Performance and
Results Act (the Results Act), (3) determining the need for some Park
Service employee housing, and (4) a review of the Park Service's
construction practices.  In addition, the Department of the Interior
and the Park Service are currently taking a number of steps to better
manage the maintenance and construction program, including developing
a 5-year plan for prioritizing maintenance and construction projects
to be funded and evaluating alternative methods for maintaining
historic structures.  These requirements and actions should, if
implemented properly, help the agency to better manage its
maintenance backlog. 


      NEW REQUIREMENTS IMPOSED ON
      THE PARK SERVICE
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :6.1

Recent changes in federal accounting standards require federal
agencies, including the Park Service, to develop better data on their
maintenance needs.  The standards define deferred maintenance and
require that it be disclosed in agencies' financial statements
beginning with fiscal year
1998.\5

To implement these standards, the Park Service is part of a
facilities maintenance study team established within Interior to
provide the agency with information on deferred maintenance as well
as guidance on standard definitions and methodologies for improving
the ongoing accumulation of this information.  In addition, as part
of this initiative, the Park Service is doing an assessment of its
assets to show whether they are in poor, fair, or good condition. 
This information is essential and will provide the Park Service with
better data on its overall maintenance needs and help the Park
Service prioritize its maintenance expenditures.  Furthermore, it is
important to point out that as part of the agency's financial
statements, the Park Service's estimates of deferred maintenance will
be subject to annual audits.  As a result, Interior is reporting
information on deferred maintenance in its fiscal year 1997 financial
statements.\6 This audit scrutiny is particularly important given the
long-standing concerns reported by us and others about the validity
of the Park Service's maintenance backlog estimates. 

The Results Act should also help the Park Service to better address
its maintenance backlog.  In carrying out the Results Act, the Park
Service requires its park managers to measure progress in meeting a
number of key goals, including whether and to what degree the
condition of park facilities is being improved.  In accordance with
the Results Act, in February 1998, the Park Service has developed an
annual performance plan for fiscal year 1999 that includes a number
of goals to address the maintenance and construction backlog.  For
example, by September 30, 1999, 10 percent of employee housing units,
classified as being in poor or fair condition in 1997, will be
removed, replaced, or upgraded to good condition. 

If properly implemented, the Results Act should make the Park Service
as a whole, as well as individual park managers, more accountable for
how it spends maintenance funds to improve the condition of park
facilities.  Once in place, this process should permit the Park
Service to better demonstrate what is being accomplished with its
funding resources.  This is an important step in the right direction,
since our past work has shown that the Park Service could not hold
park managers accountable for their spending decisions because they
did not have a good system for tracking progress and measuring
results in terms of how money was being spent at the park level.\7

The other two requirements stem from congressional concerns regarding
the number of employee housing units that the Park Service maintains
as well as the extremely high costs to construct some new facilities. 
In September 1993 and August 1994, we recommended that the Park
Service assess the need to retain all of its existing housing.\8 In
line with this and other recommendations, the Congress passed the
Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996, which contains
a provision requiring the Park Service to conduct such a study.  The
Park Service awarded a contract in November 1997 to identify the need
for park housing and the condition of the housing and assess the
availability and affordability of housing in nearby communities.  The
study, which is expected to be completed in October 1998, may result
in the elimination of some housing units and related maintenance
costs. 

Concerns were expressed in an October 1997 hearing before the
Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies, House Committee on
Appropriations, regarding the high cost of constructing new
facilities in light of the Park Service's $6.1 billion backlog of
maintenance needs.  Recent projects, such as new housing at Yosemite
and Grand Canyon national parks and a high-cost outhouse at the
Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area, raised questions about
the reasonableness of costs for construction projects.  During the
hearing, Interior's Inspector General testified that private sector
construction of housing near Yosemite would be at least $334,000 less
than the Park Service's $584,000 cost per house and at least $158,000
less than the Service's $390,000 cost per house at the Grand Canyon. 
Also during the hearing, Subcommittee members raised a number of
questions regarding the $330,000 outhouse at the Delaware Water Gap
National Recreation Area that cost more than 3 times the average cost
of a new 2,000-square-foot home with three bedrooms and two baths in
the same area.  (See fig.  2.)

   Figure 2:  Outhouse Containing
   Two Composting Toilets at
   Delaware Water Gap National
   Recreation Area

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  Photograph by GAO. 

In light of the above construction costs, the Conference Committee
for Interior's fiscal year 1998 appropriations directed that an
independent study of the Park Service's construction program be
conducted.  This study is being performed by the National Academy of
Public Administration (NAPA).  The NAPA study is examining the Park
Service's construction program and practices, with the goal of
identifying and recommending a comprehensive remedy for the causes of
cost control problems.  The study's tasks include determining the (1)
effectiveness of the Park Service's decision-making process for
constructing facilities; (2) adequacy of constraints on the scope and
cost of housing and other projects; (3) appropriate role of the
Denver Service Center in the design and oversight of construction
projects, including repairing and rehabilitating facilities; and (4)
potential for cost-saving incentives at the park and Denver Service
Center levels.\9 The study is expected to be completed by mid-June
1998. 


--------------------
\5 These standards are contained in the Statement of Federal
Financial Accounting Standards (SFFAS) No.  6, Accounting for
Property, Plant, and Equipment, recently developed by the Federal
Accounting Standards Advisory Board.  According to these standards,
deferred maintenance is defined as "maintenance that was not
performed when it should have been or was scheduled to be and which,
therefore, is put off or delayed for a future period."
Maintenance--described as the act of keeping a fixed asset in
acceptable condition--includes preventive maintenance and normal
repairs, including the replacement of parts and structural components
and other activities needed to preserve the asset so that it
continues to provide acceptable service and achieve its expected
life.  Modifications or upgrades that are intended to expand the
capacity of an asset are specifically excluded from the definition. 

\6 The 1997 information will not be audited.  However, Interior's
Inspector General has stated his intention to audit the deferred
maintenance information included in the fiscal year 1998 financial
statements.  See Deferred Maintenance Reporting:  Challenges to
Implementation (GAO/AIMD-98-42, Jan.  30, 1998). 

\7 Park Service:  Managing for Results Could Strengthen
Accountability (GAO/RCED-97-125, Apr.  10, 1997). 

\8 National Park Service:  Condition of and Need for Employee Housing
(GAO/RCED-93-192, Sept.  30, 1993); and National Park Service: 
Reexamination of Employee Housing Program Is Needed (GAO/RCED-94-284,
Aug.  30, 1994). 

\9 The Service Center supports park units by planning, designing, and
constructing projects, which range from rehabilitating historic
structures to building new visitor centers to repairing and replacing
utility systems. 


      INITIATIVES BY THE INTERIOR
      DEPARTMENT AND THE PARK
      SERVICE
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :6.2

In addition to new requirements being imposed on the Park Service,
Interior, including the Park Service, is currently taking a number of
initiatives to better manage its maintenance and construction
program.  These initiatives include (1) developing a 5-year plan to
prioritize maintenance and construction projects and (2) evaluating
alternative methods for maintaining its historic structures. 

During recent congressional hearings focusing on maintenance issues
within Interior, the Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management, and
Budget acknowledged that the Department needs to improve the
management and accountability of the maintenance and construction
program and outlined a 5-year priority maintenance and construction
program for the Park Service and other Interior agencies.  The 5-year
plan addresses the deferred maintenance, construction, and natural
and cultural resource backlogs and will list priority maintenance and
construction projects for the fiscal year 2000 budget.  The criteria
for selecting these projects involve (1) remedying maintenance
deficiencies critical to health and safety and (2) pursuing natural
and cultural resource protection.  According to the Park Service's
fiscal year 1999 annual performance plan, it expects to identify, by
September 30, 1999, priority maintenance and construction projects
amounting to $500 million and plans to allocate funds to address at
least 20 percent of the high-priority needs. 

The Park Service is currently evaluating alternative methods for
maintaining its historic structures.  The cost to maintain its
historic structures is a significant component of the maintenance
backlog estimate.  As of December 1997, the Park Service estimated
that the cost for maintaining about 20,000 structures was about $1
billion.\10 However, on the basis of identified maintenance,
rehabilitation, and development needs, the Park Service recognizes
that it does not have and likely never will have enough funds and
staff to take care of all of its historic structures.  Accordingly,
the Park Service identified alternative methods for preserving many
of its historic structures, such as public-private partnerships. 
Specifically, the alternatives include cooperative agreements,
leasing, conveyance of historic structures, as well as philanthropic
support.  These proposed alternatives should help the Park Service
reduce its maintenance backlog.  The Park Service also classified its
inventory of historic structures by level of significance and by
whether the structures must, should, or may be preserved or may be
disposed of or altered.  Such classification can help park officials
assess priority maintenance needs and whether some structures should
be maintained.  At the time of our review, the Park Service had not
taken any actions with respect to the alternative methods for
maintaining its historic structures.  Appendix I provides additional
information on the Park Service's inventory of historic structures. 


--------------------
\10 The Park Service estimates that it may have as many as 25,000
historic structures.  As of December 1997, the Service inventoried
about 20,000 historic structures and developed a cost estimate of
about $1 billion to preserve, stabilize, rehabilitate, restore,
reconstruct, or remove these structures. 


   CONCLUSIONS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7

Given the substantial increase in funding that the Park Service will
receive to address its maintenance backlog, now more than ever, the
agency must be prepared to demonstrate what is being accomplished
with these resources.  To do so will require the Park Service to
develop more accurate data on its maintenance backlog and to track
the progress in addressing it.  The new requirements being imposed on
the Park Service and current initiatives being undertaken by Interior
and the Park Service should, if implemented properly, help the agency
to better manage this backlog.  These efforts should also go a long
way in addressing the concerns about the maintenance backlog that
have been expressed by the Congress and others over the years. 


   AGENCY COMMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :8

We provided a draft of this report to the Department of the Interior
for review and comment.  Interior said that it is in general
agreement with the report's conclusion that new requirements and
initiatives undertaken by Interior and the National Park Service
should help the Service to better define and manage its maintenance
backlog.  (See app.  III.)


   SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :9

To respond to your request, we met with officials from the Park
Service's headquarters office and the Philadelphia and Denver Park
Service regional offices and from Acadia National Park, Colonial
National Historical Park, Delaware Water Gap National Recreation
Area, and Rocky Mountain National Park.  We also obtained and
reviewed pertinent documentation from these officials.  Although the
particular park units that were selected may not be representative of
the entire national park system, the selection covers the various
types, sizes, and geographical locations of park units to show
problems relating to the maintenance backlog issues.  We conducted
our review from July 1997 through March 1998 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards.  Appendix II
provides a more detailed discussion of our objectives, scope, and
methodology. 


---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :9.1

As arranged with you office, unless you publicly announce its
contents earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report
until 30 days from the issue date.  At that time, we will send copies
of this report to the appropriate Senate and House committees.  We
will also make copies available to others on request. 

Please call me at (202) 512-3841 if you have any questions about this
report.  Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix IV. 

Sincerely yours,

Victor S.  Rezendes
Director, Energy, Resources,
 and Science Issues


THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
INVENTORY OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES
=========================================================== Appendix I

The National Park Service maintains an inventory of historic
structures that is classified by management category and level of
significance.  These classifications were developed based on a
compilation of legislative mandates and policy considerations
indicating significance, use, condition, and location of the historic
structures.  According to the Park Service, this information was
developed to reexamine management practices and to provide guidance
to headquarters, regional, and park managers on how to set priorities
in allocating resources to preserve historic structures. 



                               Table I.1
                
                  Park Service Historic Structures by
                          Management Category

Management category                               Number of structures
----------------------------------------  ----------------------------
Must be preserved                                               12,372
Should be preserved                                              5,631
May be preserved                                                 1,897
May be disposed of or altered                                       98
======================================================================
Total                                                           19,998
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:  Data are as of December 1997. 

The Park Service defines management category as follows: 

(1) Structures that must be preserved and maintained include
structures that meet any one of the following criteria:  preservation
is specifically legislated, structure is related to the park's
legislated significance, structure is significant as defined by the
National Historic Landmark criteria, structure contributes to the
park's national significance, or is a prehistoric structure. 

(2) Structures that should be preserved and maintained must meet all
of the following criteria:  may meet National Register criteria, is
not incompatible with the park's legislated significance, and has a
continuing or potential use based upon design and location. 

(3) Structures that may be preserved or maintained meet either of the
following conditions:  structure may meet the National Register
criteria but because of condition, location, or other factors does
not qualify for (2) above; structure does not meet National Register
criteria but through the planning process, it is decided to manage
the structure as a cultural resource. 

(4) Structures that may be disposed of or altered meet any one of
several criteria:  structure is an irreparable hazard to public
health and safety; is a physical or visual intrusion on the park's
legislated significance; or has lost its historical integrity. 

Source:  National Park Service. 



                               Table I.2
                
                  Park Service Historic Structures by
                         Level of Significance

Significance                                      Number of structures
----------------------------------------  ----------------------------
National                                                         2,359
Contributing                                                    11,005
State                                                            2,821
Local                                                            2,248
Not evaluated                                                    1,081
Not significant                                                    445
Unknown                                                             39
======================================================================
Total                                                           19,998
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:  Data are as of December 1997. 

The Park Service defines significance as follows: 

National:  structure is listed in the National Register as nationally
significant or possess national significance by act of Congress or
executive order. 

Contributing:  structure does not possess national significance on an
individual basis but contributes to the national significance of a
park or historic district. 

State:  structure qualifies for the National Register and possess
significance at the state level. 

Local:  structure qualifies for the National Register and possess
significance at the local level. 

Not evaluated:  structure known through direct observation, survey,
testing, or inventory but does not have National Register
documentation indicating significance. 

Not significant:  structure known not to be significant but is
managed as a cultural resource. 

Unknown:  Data element not completed. 

Source:  National Park Service. 


OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY
========================================================== Appendix II

The objectives of our review were to determine (1) the National Park
Service's estimate of the maintenance backlog and its composition,
(2) how the agency determined the maintenance backlog estimate and
whether it is reliable, (3) how the agency manages the backlog, and
(4) recent requirements that have been placed on the Park Service and
other federal agencies that may have a positive impact on what is
being done in this area and current initiatives being taken by the
Park Service to deal with the backlog issues. 

To identify the estimate and composition of the maintenance backlog
at national parks, we obtained agency reports, press releases, budget
documents, and other relevant Park Service data citing unmet
maintenance and repair needs.  We also interviewed agency
headquarters officials responsible for compiling and reporting the
backlog estimate.  We did not develop an independent overall
maintenance backlog estimate but used the estimate and the
composition reported by the Park Service. 

For information on how the Park Service determined its maintenance
backlog estimate and on whether it is reliable, we obtained and
analyzed the documentation used by the agency to compile the backlog
estimate.  We also interviewed officials at headquarters and at two
Park Service regional offices and met with maintenance and other
personnel at four park units--the Acadia National Park, Maine;
Colonial National Historical Park, Virginia; Delaware Water Gap
National Recreation Area, Pennsylvania; and Rocky Mountain National
Park, Colorado.  The parks were judgmentally selected to covers the
various types, sizes, and geographical locations of park units.  The
Intermountain Region in Denver and the Northeast Region in
Philadelphia were selected because they have jurisdiction over the
parks we visited.  To determine the reliability of the backlog
estimate, we reviewed whether the agency has a common definition of
"maintenance backlog" and whether the estimate was current.  We did
not question the validity of the maintenance needs reported by
individual parks or by headquarters. 

To obtain information on how the Park Service manages its maintenance
backlog, we interviewed headquarter officials to determine whether
the agency has identified its total maintenance backlog needs and has
tracked the progress in meeting those needs.  We also reviewed Park
Service documents to determine how the agency plans to handle
increased funding resources that may be used to reduce the
maintenance backlog. 

Finally, to identify new requirements that affect the reporting of
agency maintenance needs, we reviewed (1) changes in federal
accounting standards, (2) the Government Performance and Results Act,
(3) the Park Service's study on employee housing needs, and (4) a
study of the Park Service's construction practices.  We also
interviewed headquarters officials to identify actions currently
underway by the Department of the Interior and the Park Service to
better manage the maintenance and construction program. 

We performed our work from May 1997 through March 1998 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards. 




(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix III
COMMENTS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF
THE INTERIOR
========================================================== Appendix II


MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THE REPORT
========================================================== Appendix IV

RESOURCES, COMMUNITY, AND ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT DIVISION, WASHINGTON,
D.C. 

Robert Cronin
Cliff Fowler
Barry Hill
Frank Kovalak

DENVER REGIONAL OFFICE

William Temmler


*** End of document. ***