NATIONAL PARK 

SERVICE

Process Exists for 

Prioritizing Asset 

Maintenance 

Decisions, but 

Evaluation Could 

Improve Efforts 

Report to Congressional Requesters

December 2016

GAO-17-136

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-17-136, a report to 

congressional requesters

December 2016 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

Process Exists for Prioritizing Asset 

Maintenance Decisions, but Evaluation Could 

Improve Efforts 

What GAO Found

In fiscal years 2006 through 2015, the Department of the Interior’s National Park 

Service (Park Service) allocated, on average, $1.16 billion annually to maintain 

assets. In fiscal year 2015, allocations to maintenance accounted for about onethird (or $1.08 billion) of the agency’s total funding of $3.3 billion. The largest 

portion of maintenance funds in fiscal year 2015 was allocated to facility 

operations, which includes maintenance that is routine in nature, such as 

maintenance of trails. 

The Park Service’s deferred maintenance—maintenance of its assets that was 

not performed when it should have been and is delayed for a future period—

averaged $11.3 billion from fiscal years 2009 through 2015. Bridges, tunnels, 

and paved roadways consistently made up the largest share of the agency’s 

deferred maintenance, accounting for half of all deferred maintenance in fiscal 

year 2015. Older park units have the most deferred maintenance, with $10.5 

billion in fiscal year 2015 in park units established more than 40 years ago. 

National Park Service’s Deferred Maintenance by Age of Park Unit in Fiscal Year 2015 

The Park Service uses several tools to determine an asset’s importance and 

condition and assign maintenance priority. Park unit staff assess the condition of 

the asset and identify maintenance projects. Once identified, park unit staff use 

the agency’s Capital Investment Strategy to evaluate and rank projects. Projects

score higher if they target critical assets with deferred maintenance. Fiscal year 

2015 was the first budget year in which projects ranked using the strategy were 

funded, and regional and park unit officials said that it is too soon to determine if 

the strategy is meeting its objectives, such as maintaining the condition of its 

most important assets. However, the Park Service does not have a plan or 

timeframe for evaluating whether the strategy has been successful. A senior 

official said that the agency has not determined what is needed to begin such an 

evaluation and that it would be beneficial to verify that the Capital Investment 

Strategy is achieving intended outcomes. According to the National Academies

Federal Facilities Council, it is important that agencies track the outcome of 

investments to improve decision making and asset management. Evaluating the 

strategy may help the Park Service determine if the strategy is achieving 

intended outcomes or if changes need to be made. 

View GAO-17-136. For more information, 

contact Anne-Marie Fennell at (202) 512-3841 

or fennella@gao.gov. 

Why GAO Did This Study

The Park Service manages more than 

75,000 assets, including buildings, 

roads, and water systems, at 413 park 

units across all 50 states. In 2015, the 

agency estimated that its deferred 

maintenance on these assets was

$11.9 billion. 

GAO was asked to review how the 

Park Service manages its maintenance 

needs. This report examines, among 

other things, (1) agency allocations to 

maintain assets in fiscal years 2006 

through 2015, (2) the amount and 

composition of the agency’s deferred 

maintenance in fiscal years 2009 

through 2015, and (3) how the agency 

makes maintenance decisions. To 

conduct this work, GAO analyzed Park 

Service allocation data for fiscal years 

2006 through 2015 and deferred 

maintenance data in fiscal years 2009 

(first year data for all assets was 

available) through 2015 (most current 

data available); reviewed planning and 

guidance documents and compared 

the process for making asset 

management decisions to guidance 

developed by the National Academies, 

among others; and interviewed Park 

Service officials at headquarters, all 

seven regions, and 21 park units

selected to include those with large 

and small amounts of deferred 

maintenance, among other things. This 

sample is not generalizable to all park 

units.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that the Park 

Service evaluate the Capital 

Investment Strategy and results to 

assess whether it has achieved its 

intended outcomes. The Department of 

the Interior agreed with GAO’s

recommendation.
Page i GAO-17-136 National Park Service

Letter 1

Background 4

Park Service Allocated $1.16 Billion on Average in Fiscal Years 

2006 through 2015 to Maintain Assets 8

Deferred Maintenance Averaged $11.3 Billion from Fiscal Years 

2009 through 2015, and Paved Road Maintenance Accounted 

for Nearly Half 16

Park Service Uses Information on the Importance and Condition of 

Assets to Prioritize Maintenance Decisions, but the Agency Has 

Not Evaluated This Process 25

The Park Service Is Working with Partners and Volunteers and 

Taking Other Actions to Help Address Maintenance Needs 34

Conclusions 37

Recommendation for Executive Action 38

Agency Comments 38

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 39

Appendix II Top 100 National Park Service Park Units with Fiscal Year 2015 

Deferred Maintenance 45

Appendix III GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 49

Tables

Table 1: Description of Fund Sources the National Park Service 

Uses to Track Allocations to Maintenance 11

Table 2: National Park Service Allocations for Maintenance by 

Budget Category and Fund Sources in Fiscal Years 2006 

through 2015 14

Table 3: Park Units Selected to Represent Each National Park 

Service Region, Different Amounts of Deferred 

Maintenance, Actions to Help Address Deferred 

Maintenance Needs, and Different Park Unit Types 42

Table 4: Top 100 National Park Service Units with Fiscal Year 

2015 Deferred Maintenance 45

Contents
Page ii GAO-17-136 National Park Service

Figures

Figure 1: The National Park Service’s Seven Regions 5

Figure 2: National Park Service Allocations to Maintenance in 

Fiscal Years 2006 through 2015 9

Figure 3: National Park Service Maintenance Allocation by 

Category in Fiscal Years 2006 through 2015 10

Figure 4: National Park Service’s $1.08 Billion Maintenance 

Allocation by Fund Source in Fiscal Year 2015 12

Figure 5: National Park Service’s Deferred Maintenance in Fiscal 

Years 2009 through 2015 17

Figure 6: National Park Service’s Deferred Maintenance by Asset 

Category in Nominal Dollars in Fiscal Years 2009 through 

2015 19

Figure 7: Dollar Amount of National Park Service’s $11.9 Billion in 

Deferred Maintenance by Asset Category in Fiscal Year 

2015 21

Figure 8: Number of National Park Service’s Assets by Category 

in Fiscal Year 2015 22

Figure 9: National Park Service’s Deferred Maintenance by Age of 

Park Unit in Fiscal Year 2015 23

Figure 10: National Park Service’s Deferred Maintenance by 

Region in Fiscal Year 2015 24

Abbreviations 

API Asset priority index 

FCI Facility condition index 

FMMS Facility Management Software System 

Park Service National Park Service

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-17-136 National Park Service

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

December 13, 2016

The Honorable Lisa Murkowski

Chairman

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

United States Senate

The Honorable Michael Enzi

United States Senate

The National Park Service (Park Service), within the Department of the 

Interior, manages more than 75,000 assets—including buildings, roads, 

and water systems—at 413 park units that cover 84 million acres across 

all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and some territories.1 Park units, 

which include national parks, recreation areas, and battlefields, received 

307 million visits in 2015. In recent years, reports prepared by the Park 

Service and stakeholder groups have highlighted challenges that the Park 

Service faces—particularly fiscal challenges—and the Park Service has 

reported that its funding does not cover the cost of its mission to preserve 

the parks for current and future generations to enjoy.2 In a 2013 testimony 

before Congress, the Director of the Park Service said that the 

organization faced a maintenance backlog of about $11.5 billion at the 

end of fiscal year 2012 and would need to spend nearly $700 million per 

year on deferred maintenance to keep the backlog from continuing to 

grow. The Park Service defines deferred maintenance as maintenance 

that was not performed when it should have been or was scheduled to be 

and is delayed for a future period. As of September 30, 2015, the Park 

Service estimated that its deferred maintenance had grown to about 

$11.9 billion.

 1

The Park Service defines an asset as real property that the agency tracks and manages 

as a distinct identifiable entity. These entities may be physical structures or groupings of 

structures, landscapes, or other tangible properties that have a specific service or function 

(such as cemeteries, campgrounds, marinas, or sewage treatment plants). 

2

Specifically, the Park Service’s mission is to preserve unimpaired the natural and cultural 

resources and values of the National Park System for the enjoyment, education, and 

inspiration of this and future generations. The Park Service cooperates with partners to 

extend the benefits of natural and cultural resource conservation and outdoor recreation 

throughout this country and the world. 

Letter
Page 2 GAO-17-136 National Park Service

With the Park Service celebrating its centennial in 2016 and park visits at 

an all-time high, policymakers and others have expressed concern about 

the condition of park units and the amount of Park Service deferred 

maintenance. You asked us to review how the agency manages its 

maintenance needs. This report examines (1) how much the Park Service 

has allocated to maintain assets in fiscal years 2006 through 2015, (2) the 

amount and composition of the Park Service’s deferred maintenance in 

fiscal years 2009 through 2015, (3) how the Park Service makes asset 

maintenance decisions, and (4) actions the Park Service is taking to help 

address its maintenance needs.

To examine how much the Park Service has allocated to maintain assets 

in fiscal years 2006 through 2015, we obtained and analyzed 

maintenance allocation data from the Park Service for that period. 

Maintenance allocation data from fiscal year 2015 are the most current 

data available. We analyzed these data to identify the amount of funds 

allocated to specific types of maintenance. We assessed the reliability of 

these data through interviews with Park Service officials who were 

familiar with these data and reviews of relevant documentation. We found 

these data to be sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our reporting 

objectives. We also examined Park Service budget documents, including 

several agency budget justifications, and spoke with relevant Park 

Service officials at the headquarters, regional, and park unit levels to 

better understand these data.

To examine the amount and composition of the Park Service’s deferred 

maintenance in fiscal years 2009 through 2015, we obtained and 

analyzed data from the Park Service’s Facility Management Software 

System (FMSS), an agency-wide database the Park Service uses to 

collect, track, and analyze asset management data. We began our data 

analysis with fiscal year 2009 because it is the first year the Park Service 

reported deferred maintenance for all of the assets under its 

management. According to the Park Service, deferred maintenance data 

from the end of fiscal year 2015 are the most current data available and 

include deferred maintenance for its 409 park units as well as other 

properties under Park Service jurisdiction, such as regional offices. We 

analyzed the data to identify how the amount and composition of deferred 

maintenance had changed during that time, and further analyzed deferred 

maintenance data from fiscal year 2015 to identify how deferred 

maintenance varied according to characteristics such as asset priority 

and park unit age. We assessed the reliability of these data by 

interviewing Park Service officials familiar with these data, observing 

them use FMSS, and reviewing relevant documentation. We found these 
Page 3 GAO-17-136 National Park Service

data to be sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our reporting objectives. 

We also interviewed Park Service staff at the headquarters, regional, and 

park unit levels to better understand deferred maintenance.

To determine how the Park Service makes asset maintenance decisions 

and to identify actions the Park Service is taking to help address 

maintenance needs, we examined Park Service documents and 

interviewed agency officials at the headquarters, regional, and park unit 

levels. We also interviewed Department of Transportation officials who 

are responsible for obtaining the information about roads and bridges in 

park units that park unit staff use to make maintenance decisions about 

those assets. We obtained information about how park unit staff make 

asset maintenance decisions and about actions they use to help address 

deferred maintenance needs by using a semistructured interview at visits 

to 3 park units and through telephone interviews with officials at 18 other 

park units. In selecting these 21 park units, we included a park unit in 

each of the seven Park Service regions that (1) had the greatest amount 

of deferred maintenance, (2) was identified by regional officials as taking 

actions to address maintenance needs, and (3) reflected a smaller 

amount of deferred maintenance. We also ensured that we had different 

park unit types (such as historic, military, and scenic) represented in our 

sample. This sample is not generalizable to all park units. In addition, we 

analyzed relevant documents, such as the National Park Service’s Asset 

Management Plan, asset maintenance guidance documents, the Capital 

Investment Strategy Guidebook, and fact sheets to obtain additional 

information about the process and tools. We compared information we 

learned about the Park Service’s process for making asset management 

decisions to the Office of Management and Budget’s Capital 

Programming Guide,

3 the Federal Real Property Council’s Guidance for 

Real Property Inventory Reporting,4 and the National Academies Federal 

Facilities Council’s Key Performance Indicators of Federal Facilities 

Portfolios.5 We supplemented our analysis with information obtained from 

 3

Office of Management and Budget, Capital Programming Guide, V 3.0, Supplement to 

Office of Management Budget Circular A-11: Planning, Budgeting, and Acquisition of 

Capital Assets (Washington, D.C.: 2015).

4

General Services Administration, Federal Real Property Council 2012 Guidance for Real 

Property Inventory Reporting (Washington, D.C.: 2012). 

5

J. H. Cable and J. S. Davis, in association with Federal Facilities Council Ad Hoc, 

Committee on Performance Indicators for Federal Real Property Asset Management, 

National Research Council, Key Performance Indicators for Federal Facilities Portfolios: 

Federal Facilities Council Technical Report Number 147 (Washington, D.C.: The National 

Academies Press, 2005).
Page 4 GAO-17-136 National Park Service

prior GAO reviews.6 Appendix I contains a more detailed description of 

our objectives, scope, and methodology.

We conducted this performance audit from July 2015 to December 2016 

in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.

The National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 established the Park 

Service within the Department of the Interior to promote and regulate the 

use of the National Park System with the purpose of conserving the 

scenery, natural and historic objects, and wildlife therein and to leave 

them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.7 Yellowstone 

National Park in Wyoming was the first national park, established in 1872, 

and the most recent as of this report—Katahdin Woods and Waters 

National Monument in Maine—was established August 24, 2016.

The Park Service manages its responsibilities through its headquarters 

office located in Washington, D.C., seven regional offices, and 413 

individual park units that are part of the system. Figure 1 shows the 

geographic areas that make up the Park Service’s seven regions.

 6

GAO, National Park Service: Efforts to Identify and Manage the Maintenance Backlog, 

GAO/RCED-98-143 (Washington, D.C.: May 14, 1998); National Park Service: Status of 

Agency Efforts to Address Its Maintenance Backlog, GAO-03-992T (Washington, D.C.: 

July 8, 2003); and GAO, National Park Service: Revenues from Fees and Donations 

Increased, but Some Enhancements Are Needed to Continue This Trend, GAO-16-166

(Washington, D.C.: Dec. 15, 2015). 

7

Act of August 25, 1916, ch. 408, § 1, 39 Stat. 535, 535 (codified as amended at 54 

U.S.C. §§ 100101, 100301). The 1916 legislation is commonly referred to as the National 

Park Service Organic Act. 

Background

Park Service Structure, 

Visitation, and Funding
Page 5 GAO-17-136 National Park Service

Figure 1: The National Park Service’s Seven Regions

Park unit types include national scenic parks, such as Yellowstone and 

Great Smoky Mountains; national historical parks, such as Valley Forge, 

in Pennsylvania, and Lewis and Clark, in Oregon; national battlefields, 

such as Wilson’s Creek, in Missouri, and Fort Donelson, in Tennessee; 

national historic sites, such as Fort Bowie, in Arizona, and Theodore 
Page 6 GAO-17-136 National Park Service

Roosevelt’s birthplace, in New York; national monuments, such as Muir 

Woods, in California, and Tule Springs Fossil Beds, in Nevada; national 

preserves, such as the Yukon-Charley Rivers, in Alaska, and Big 

Cypress, in Florida; national recreation areas, such as Lake Meredith, in 

Texas, and Whiskeytown, in California; and national lakeshores, such as 

Sleeping Bear Dunes, in Michigan, and the Apostle Islands, in Wisconsin. 

Visitation levels reached an all-time high in 2015, when more than 307 

million people visited park units. This is an increase of more than 14 

million visitors from 2014. Park Service officials said that they expect 

visitation to rise again in 2016, with the celebration of the Park Service 

centennial.

The Park Service generally receives funding through annual 

appropriations acts. These appropriated funds include base funding for 

the operation of park units and for Park Service-wide programs, such as 

funding for visitor services, park protection, and maintenance projects. It 

also includes funding for technical and financial assistance programs that 

support resource preservation and recreation outside of the national park 

system. The Park Service also collects and uses funds from fees, 

donations, and other funding sources.8 Total funding for the Park Service 

increased about $0.6 billion, or 22 percent, from $2.65 billion in fiscal year 

2006 to nearly $3.25 billion in fiscal year 2015.9 However, when adjusted 

for inflation, total funding for the Park Service increased by only $160 

million in fiscal year 2015 dollars, or 5 percent, during this 10-year period. 

During this time, the number of park units in the system has grown from 

390 in 2006 to 413 as of October 2016. Some Park Service officials said 

that this increase in park units meant that the agency’s appropriations had 

to be divided among an increasing number of units.

 8

For additional information about Park Service funding, see GAO-16-166. 

9

We used the Office of Management and Budget MAX Information System as the source 

of these budget figures. This system is a database used to support the federal 

management and budget process. The system collects, validates, analyzes, models, and 

publishes information relating to government-wide management and budgeting activities.
Page 7 GAO-17-136 National Park Service

The Park Service defines deferred maintenance as maintenance that was 

not performed when it should have been or was scheduled to be and is 

delayed for a future period. Deferred maintenance includes maintenance 

within national park units as well as maintenance related to other 

properties under Park Service jurisdiction, such as Park Service regional 

offices. According to the Park Service, maintenance funding has not kept 

pace with agency needs for several years. In general, maintenance needs 

are almost double the annual funding, which leads to an annual increase 

in deferred maintenance. As maintenance work is identified and is not 

completed because of limited resources, deferred maintenance 

increases.

The Park Service defines an asset as real property that the agency tracks 

and manages as a distinct identifiable entity. These entities may be 

physical structures or groupings of structures, landscapes, or other 

tangible properties that have a specific service or function, such as

cemeteries, campgrounds, marinas, or sewage treatment plants. 

Maintenance can range from work needed for visible assets, such as 

buildings, roads, and trails, to less visible needs, such a water and 

sewage systems. Many of these assets were constructed decades or 

hundreds of years ago. For example, the walls lining Skyline Drive in 

Shenandoah National Park, in Virginia, and some of the park’s buildings 

were constructed by the Civilian Conservation Corps, a program created 

in 1933 by President Franklin Roosevelt to help generate jobs and 

improve the condition of the country’s natural resources. A number of 

Park Service facilities date back half a century to the Mission 66 program. 

From 1956 through 1966, Congress appropriated more than $1 billion for 

Mission 66 improvements, which included updated facilities for hundreds 

of visitor centers and employee residences, as well as employee training 

centers at Harpers Ferry, West Virginia, and the Grand Canyon, in 

Arizona. Many of the structures built through these programs as well as 

other efforts are coming to the end of their anticipated life spans and are 

in need of rehabilitation, repair, replacement, or disposal, according to 

various documents we reviewed.

In 1998, we examined the Park Service’s deferred maintenance and 

found, among other things, that the agency did not have an accurate 

estimate of its total deferred maintenance and a means for tracking 

progress so that it can determine the extent to which its needs are being 

met.10 We also found that the Park Service was beginning a number of 

 10GAO/RCED-98-143.

Park Service Maintenance 

Needs, Past GAO 

Findings, and 

Government-Wide Asset 

Guidance
Page 8 GAO-17-136 National Park Service

initiatives to better manage its maintenance and construction program, 

including developing a plan to prioritize projects. Specifically, in 1998, the 

Park Service began designing a new asset management process that 

among other things was to provide the agency with a systematic method 

for documenting deferred maintenance needs and tracking progress in 

reducing the amount of deferred maintenance. In 2003, we testified that 

the Park Service had made progress in developing its new asset 

management process.11

In February 2004, Executive Order 13327 recognized the need to 

promote the efficient and economical use of federal real property 

assets.12 The order directed federal agencies to develop and implement 

asset management planning processes and develop asset management 

plans. The order also created the Federal Real Property Council and 

directed the council to develop guidance for each agency’s asset 

management plan, among other things. In developing asset management 

plans, the agencies were directed to take several actions, including 

identifying and categorizing all of their assets and prioritizing actions to 

improve the operational and financial management of these assets.

In fiscal years 2006 through 2015, the Park Service allocated $1.16 billion 

on average to operate and maintain the agency’s assets.13 Most recently, 

in fiscal year 2015, the Park Service allocated $1.08 billion to 

maintenance, which was about one-third of the total funding the agency 

received that year. As shown in figure 2, the Park Service’s annual 

maintenance allocations varied little during this period except in fiscal 

year 2009, when the agency also used American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act funds to carry out maintenance work.14

 11GAO-03-992T.

12Exec. Order No. 13,327, 69 Fed. Reg. 5,897 (Feb. 6, 2004). 

13According to Park Service officials, “operate,” in this context, refers solely to 

maintenance-related work; we will refer to these funds as allocations to maintenance in 

this report. For funds control purposes, an allocation is a further subdivision of an 

apportionment, which distributes the amount available for obligation. See GAO, A 

Glossary of Terms Used in the Federal Budget Process, GAO-05-734SP (Washington, 

D.C.: September, 2005).

14Pub. L. No. 111-5, 123 Stat. 115 (2009). 

Park Service 

Allocated $1.16 

Billion on Average in 

Fiscal Years 2006 

through 2015 to 

Maintain Assets
Page 9 GAO-17-136 National Park Service

Figure 2: National Park Service Allocations to Maintenance in Fiscal Years 2006 

through 2015

Note: In fiscal year 2009, $905 million from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act was used 

for maintenance of National Park Service assets.

The Park Service allocates funds for maintenance in four broad budget 

categories—operations, construction, recreation fees,15 and 

transportation—according to what the agency refers to as fund sources, 

which generally describe the type of maintenance work being done with 

those funds. Figure 3 shows that maintenance allocations to operations, 

recreation fees, and transportation have remained fairly stable in fiscal 

years 2006 through 2015, with the exception of 2009, when the agency 

also used American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds to carry out 

maintenance work.

 15Recreation fees include entrance and amenity fees for certain equipment and services 

that the Park Service is authorized to collect by the Federal Lands Recreation 

Enhancement Act. Pub. L. No. 108-447, div. J. tit. VIII, 118 Stat. 3377 (2004) (codified as 

amended at 16 U.S.C. §§ 6801-6814 (2015)). The recreation fee fund sources identified in

this report are used for asset maintenance.
Page 10 GAO-17-136 National Park Service

Figure 3: National Park Service Maintenance Allocation by Category in Fiscal Years 

2006 through 2015

Note: Allocations in fiscal year 2009 reflect $905 million from the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act—$146 million in operations, $589 million in construction, and $170 million in 

transportation.

a

Recreation fees include entrance and amenity fees for certain equipment and services that the 

National Park Service is authorized to collect by the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act. 

Pub. L. No. 108-447, div. J. tit. VIII, 118 Stat. 3377 (2004) (codified as amended at 16 U.S.C. §§ 

6801-6814 (2015)).

As shown in table 1, the Park Service uses eight fund sources within 

these broad budget categories to track allocations for different types of 

maintenance.
Page 11 GAO-17-136 National Park Service

Table 1: Description of Fund Sources the National Park Service Uses to Track Allocations to Maintenance

Maintenance budget category Name of fund source Description 

Operations Cyclic maintenance Used for significant, regularly-occurring maintenance 

projects designed to prevent assets from degrading to 

the point that they need to be repaired; for example, 

periodically replacing a roof or maintaining a heating 

and cooling system. 

Repair and rehabilitation Used for maintenance projects designed to improve 

assets and that cost less than $1 million.

Facility operations Used for work that is routine in nature, such as daily 

cleaning of restrooms or maintenance of landscapes 

or trails, as well as normal repairs or adjustment of 

equipment. 

Construction Line item construction Used for maintenance projects designed to enhance 

parks by improving resource protection, visitor 

experience, or park operations and that are expected 

to cost $1 million or more. 

Recreation fees Recreation fees - routine maintenance Used to do routine maintenance on visitor-related 

assets, such as campgrounds.

Recreation fees - capital improvement Used for repair, maintenance, and facility 

enhancement projects directly related to visitor 

enjoyment, visitor access, and visitor health and 

safety.

Recreation fees - deferred maintenance

Transportation Federal Lands Transportation Program Used to construct or maintain roads and other 

transportation facilities, implement transit projects, 

and perform environmental mitigation, among other 

things. These funds are provided through the 

Department of Transportation’s Federal Lands 

Transportation Program.a

Source: GAO analysis of National Park Service information. | GAO-17-136

a

The Department of Transportation’s Federal Lands Transportation Program provides funds to the 

National Park Service and other federal agencies for, among other things, transportation projects on 

public roads within or adjacent to, or that provide access to, federal lands open to the public. The 

Department of Transportation allocates these funds to the National Park Service and other federal 

agencies through an application process.

The types of projects eligible for different fund sources vary. For example, 

cyclic maintenance projects are preventive in nature, that is, projects 

intended to prevent growth of deferred maintenance. Officials at 

Manassas National Battlefield Park said that they received cyclic 

maintenance funds to do maintenance work on the roofs of several 

historic buildings, which helps prevent further damage to the interior 

walls, ceilings, and other parts of the buildings. Line item construction 

projects are generally larger in scope and expense. For example, an 

official at Yellowstone National Park said that in January 2016 park staff 

had proposed relocating a dormitory near the Old Faithful geyser to a 
Page 12 GAO-17-136 National Park Service

safer location away from the release of harmful gases, at an estimated 

cost of $9.9 million.

As shown in figure 4, the Park Service allocated the largest amounts of 

funds to facility operations ($328.9 million, or 30.3 percent) and 

transportation ($240 million, or 22.1 percent) in fiscal year 2015, and less 

than $100 million to the other types of maintenance work described by the 

remaining six fund sources.

Figure 4: National Park Service’s $1.08 Billion Maintenance Allocation by Fund 

Source in Fiscal Year 2015

a

Other maintenance is not a separate National Park Service fund source (Park Service). However, it 

represents operational funds used for recurring facility maintenance and specialized skilled labor 

used for cyclic maintenance or repair and rehabilitation projects.

b

The Department of Transportation’s Federal Lands Transportation Program provides funds for, 

among other things, transportation projects on public roads within or adjacent to, or that provide 

access to, federal lands open to the public. The Department of Transportation allocates these funds 

to the Park Service and other federal agencies through an application process.

Table 2 shows that allocations have generally increased from fiscal year 

2006 through 2015 for such fund sources as facility operations and 
Page 13 GAO-17-136 National Park Service

recreation fees for routine maintenance.16 In contrast, allocations have 

generally decreased for other fund sources, such as line item 

construction, for the same time period.

 16Allocations to fund sources also vary from year to year, given changing priorities and 

funding levels. 
Page 14 GAO-17-136 National Park Service

Table 2: National Park Service Allocations for Maintenance by Budget Category and Fund Sources in Fiscal Years 2006 through 2015

Dollars in thousands

Maintenance 

budget 

category Fund source

Fiscal year 

2006

Fiscal year 

2007

Fiscal year 

2008

Fiscal year 

2009

Fiscal year 

2010

Fiscal year 

2011

Fiscal year 

2012

Fiscal year 

2013

Fiscal year 

2014

Fiscal year 

2015

Operations Cyclic 

maintenance 63,408 72,908 81,606 101,168 100,739 98,011 96,351 69,356 95,386 95,386

Repair and 

rehabilitation 77,617 67,132 79,828 79,828 79,828 76,576 71,040 67,288 71,040 81,961

Facility 

operations 203,461 209,676 291,503 317,370 341,608 335,997 346,221 328,828 324,952 328,863

Other 

maintenancea 248,091 253,977 174,080 177,958 179,204 177,912 169,011 160,189 189,307 183,228

American 

Recovery and 

Reinvestment 

Act 0 0 0 146,000 0 0 0 0 0 0

Construction Line item 

construction 216,890 127,152 130,650 161,723 142,988 121,159 77,722 49,581 60,563 61,678

American 

Recovery and 

Reinvestment 

Act 0 0 0 589,000 0 0 0 0 0 0

Other 

transactionsb 0 0 -8,112 -10,640 0 -25,000 -4,000 -390 0 0

Recreation 

fees 

Recreation 

fees – routine 

maintenance 65 1,538 2,056 4,197 4,200 4,800 5,144 4,500 5,500 5,500

Recreation 

fees – capital 

improvement 4,500 13,654 13,365 15,500 16,000 12,000 9,211 3,000 4,000 2,500
Page 15 GAO-17-136 National Park Service

Maintenance 

budget 

category Fund source

Fiscal year 

2006

Fiscal year 

2007

Fiscal year 

2008

Fiscal year 

2009

Fiscal year 

2010

Fiscal year 

2011

Fiscal year 

2012

Fiscal year 

2013

Fiscal year 

2014

Fiscal year 

2015

Recreation 

fees – deferred 

maintenance 72,500 101,828 87,409 100,000 93,334 88,000 75,103 46,748 50,000 85,500

Transportatio

n 

Federal Lands 

Transportation 

Programc 195,000 210,000 225,000 240,000 240,000 240,000 240,000 240,000 240,000 240,000

American 

Recovery and 

Reinvestment 

Act 0 0 0 170,000d 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 1,081,532 1,057,865 1,077,385 2,092,104 1,197,901 1,129,455 1,085,803 969,100 1,040,748 1,084,616

Source: GAO analysis of maintenance allocation data from the National Park Service. | GAO-17-136

a

Other maintenance is not a separate National Park Service (Park Service) fund source. However, it represents operational 

funds used for recurring facility maintenance and specialized skilled labor used for cyclic maintenance or repair and 

rehabilitation projects.

b

Other transactions are amounts removed from the construction fund source, and they represent rescissions, transfer authority,

or congressional direction to use unobligated balances. Transfer authority is statutory authority provided by Congress to transfer 

budget authority from one appropriation or fund account to another.

c

The Department of Transportation’s Federal Lands Transportation Program provides funds to the Park Service and other 

federal agencies for, among other things, transportation projects on public roads within or adjacent to, or that provide access to, 

federal lands open to the public. The Department of Transportation allocates these funds to the Park Service and other federal 

agencies through an application process.

d

According to a senior Park Service budget official, the $170 million from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 

identified in the transportation budget category was not transferred to the Park Service. Instead, it was used by the Department 

of Transportation in executing transportation maintenance projects on the Park Service’s behalf.
Page 16 GAO-17-136 National Park Service

The Park Service’s deferred maintenance averaged about $11.3 billion 

from fiscal year 2009 through fiscal year 2015. In each of those years, 

deferred maintenance for paved roads made up the largest share of the 

agency’s deferred maintenance. The sum of deferred maintenance for 

assets in the other categories used by the Park Service generally 

declined from fiscal year 2009 through fiscal year 2015. Also, in fiscal 

year 2015, deferred maintenance varied broadly among other 

characteristics, such as asset priority, category of asset, when the park 

unit was established, and region.

The Park Service’s deferred maintenance averaged about $11.3 billion in 

nominal dollars from fiscal year 2009 through fiscal year 2015.17 During 

that time, deferred maintenance in nominal dollars generally increased 

from about $10.2 billion in fiscal year 2009 to about $11.9 billion in fiscal 

year 2015, as shown in figure 5.18 Overall, the Park Service’s deferred 

maintenance in nominal dollars grew, on average, about 3 percent per 

year from fiscal year 2009 through fiscal year 2015.

 17Prior to fiscal year 2009, the Park Service did not report deferred maintenance for all 

assets. From fiscal years 2006 through 2008, the Park Service reported deferred 

maintenance for eight major asset categories as agreed to with the Office and 

Management and Budget. In fiscal year 2009, the Park Service began reporting deferred 

maintenance for an additional category called all others to convey the deferred 

maintenance for assets that did not, by definition, fall into one of the other eight 

categories, for example, marinas, railroads, and interpretive media.

18The Park Service’s deferred maintenance for fiscal year 2009 through fiscal year 2015 

was for the known deferred maintenance needs of the assets under the agency’s 

management at the time.

Deferred 

Maintenance 

Averaged $11.3 

Billion from Fiscal 

Years 2009 through 

2015, and Paved 

Road Maintenance 

Accounted for Nearly 

Half

Deferred Maintenance 

Averaged $11.3 Billion 

from Fiscal Year 2009 

through Fiscal Year 2015
Page 17 GAO-17-136 National Park Service

Figure 5: National Park Service’s Deferred Maintenance in Fiscal Years 2009 

through 2015

Note: The nominal data are from National Park Service reports on the amount of deferred 

maintenance for each fiscal year. The inflation-adjusted amounts represent fiscal year 2015 dollars.

The Park Service reported that it had a portfolio of 75,526 assets at the 

end of fiscal year 2015,19 which the agency has organized into the 

following nine categories:

• Buildings, which includes structures such as visitor centers, offices, 

and comfort stations.

• Campgrounds.

• Housing, which includes Park Service and Department of the Interior 

employee housing and associated buildings, such as detached 

garages, shower and laundry facilities, and storage.

 19National Park Service, NPS Asset Inventory Summary, accessed November 16, 2016, 

https://www.nps.gov/subjects/plandesignconstruct/upload/FY-2015-NPS-Asset-InventorySummary-2016-01-11.pdf. 
Page 18 GAO-17-136 National Park Service

• Paved roads, which includes bridges, tunnels, paved parking areas, 

and paved roadways.

• Trails, which includes hiking trails.

• Unpaved roads, which includes unpaved parking areas and unpaved 

roadways.

• Water systems, which includes potable and nonpotable water 

systems.

• Waste water systems, which includes structures such as sanitary 

sewers and stormwater systems.

• All others, which includes other utility systems, dams, constructed 

waterways, marinas, aviation systems, railroads, ships, monuments, 

fortifications, towers, interpretive media, and amphitheaters, and other 

structures that did not fall into the other eight asset categories.

Deferred maintenance for paved roads was consistently the largest 

category of the Park Service’s deferred maintenance from fiscal year 

2009 through fiscal year 2015. On average, deferred maintenance for 

paved roads made up about 44 percent of the Park Service’s total 

deferred maintenance from fiscal year 2009 to fiscal year 2015 in both 

nominal and inflation-adjusted dollars, and it generally grew—from about 

$3.4 billion in fiscal year 2009 to about $6.0 billion in fiscal year 2015 (or, 

from $3.8 billion to $6.0 billion in fiscal year 2015 dollars). Overall, the 

sum of deferred maintenance for assets in the other eight categories 

generally declined—from about $6.8 billion to about $6.0 billion from fiscal 

year 2009 through fiscal year 2015 (or, from about $7.4 billion to about 

$6.0 billion in fiscal year 2015 dollars). However, within this group, 

deferred maintenance for some asset categories increased over the 

period. For example, deferred maintenance for water systems generally 

increased—from about $330 million in fiscal year 2009 to about $422 

million in fiscal year 2015 (or, from about $361 million to $422 million in 

fiscal year 2015 dollars). Figure 6 shows the amount of deferred 

maintenance for each asset category over this period.
Page 19 GAO-17-136 National Park Service

Figure 6: National Park Service’s Deferred Maintenance by Asset Category in 

Nominal Dollars in Fiscal Years 2009 through 2015

Notes: These data are from National Park Service reports on the amount of deferred maintenance by 

major asset category for each fiscal year. National Park Service officials said that the data for each 

fiscal year were snapshots in time, reflecting the asset categorization methods in place at the time 

each report was generated, and that some of these methods had changed over time. The all others 

category includes assets that that did not fall into the other eight asset categories, such as other utility 

systems, dams, and constructed waterways.
Page 20 GAO-17-136 National Park Service

The Park Service’s $11.9 billion in deferred maintenance in fiscal year 

2015 varied by priority, asset category, park age, and region.

About 20 percent ($2.4 billion) of the agency’s deferred maintenance in 

fiscal year 2015 was for what the Park Service identified as its highest 

priority, non-transportation assets. According to Park Service documents, 

the agency’s highest-priority assets are those that are critical to the 

operations and missions of their respective park units or have high visitor 

use. For example, the Park Service has identified a potable water 

distribution system at Grand Canyon National Park and a seawall at West 

Potomac Park located in the National Mall in Washington, D.C., as among 

the agency’s highest priority, non-transportation assets with some of the 

largest amounts of deferred maintenance—both with more than $50 

million for fiscal year 2015.

Nearly $6 billion (about 50 percent) of the Park Service’s deferred 

maintenance in fiscal year 2015 was associated with paved roads. As 

shown in figure 7, the all others category was the next largest in terms of 

the dollar amount of deferred maintenance, at about $2.4 billion (about 20 

percent).

Deferred Maintenance in 

Fiscal Year 2015 Varied by 

Priority, Asset Category, 

Age, and Region

Priority

Asset Category
Page 21 GAO-17-136 National Park Service

Figure 7: Dollar Amount of National Park Service’s $11.9 Billion in Deferred 

Maintenance by Asset Category in Fiscal Year 2015

Note: The all others category includes assets that that did not fall into the other eight asset 

categories, such as other utility systems, dams, and constructed waterways.

In terms of the number of assets, buildings was the largest category in 

fiscal year 2015, accounting for about 25,000 of the Park Service’s more 

than 75,000 assets (about 33 percent), followed by all others with about 

18,000 assets (about 24 percent) and paved roads with about 12,000 

assets (about 16 percent), as shown in figure 8.
Page 22 GAO-17-136 National Park Service

Figure 8: Number of National Park Service’s Assets by Category in Fiscal Year 2015

Note: The all others category includes assets that that did not fall into the other eight asset 

categories, such as other utility systems, dams, and constructed waterways.

The majority of the Park Service’s deferred maintenance in fiscal year 

2015 was for assets in park units that were established more than 40 

years ago.20 Specifically, about $10.5 billion in deferred maintenance was 

for park units established more than 40 years ago. Of these, park units 

established more than 100 years ago had the greatest amount of fiscal 

year 2015 deferred maintenance—more than $3.8 billion—as shown in 

figure 9. This includes parks such as the National Mall in Washington, 

D.C., with about $840 million; Yellowstone National Park, in Idaho, 

Montana, and Wyoming, with about $632 million; and Yosemite National 

Park, in California, with about $555 million. For assets in parks 

established in the last 40 years, deferred maintenance in fiscal year 2015 

was about $1.0 billion. See appendix II for a listing of the top 100 park 

units in terms of deferred maintenance amounts.

 20Ages of park units are based on park unit establishment dates provided by the Park 

Service. 

Park Unit Age
Page 23 GAO-17-136 National Park Service

Figure 9: National Park Service’s Deferred Maintenance by Age of Park Unit in

Fiscal Year 2015

Note: This figure includes deferred maintenance for park units and does not include about $350 

million in deferred maintenance related to other properties under National Park Service jurisdiction, 

such as regional offices.

About $2.7 billion of the agency’s deferred maintenance is associated 

with parks located in the Pacific West Region. As shown in figure 10, four 

Park Service regions each had more than $1.8 billion in deferred 

maintenance, while the Midwest Region ($434 million) and the Alaska 

Region ($115 million) each had deferred maintenance well below $1 

billion.

Region
Page 24 GAO-17-136 National Park Service

Figure 10: National Park Service’s Deferred Maintenance by Region in Fiscal Year 2015

Note: This figure does not include about $3 million in deferred maintenance for the National Park 

Service’s headquarters in Washington, D.C.
Page 25 GAO-17-136 National Park Service

The Park Service uses several tools to rate an asset’s importance and 

condition and assign maintenance priority to its assets. Park unit staff 

update asset condition information through periodic assessments and use 

that information to create work orders to address identified deficiencies, 

but they face some challenges in completing these tasks. Park unit staff 

combine these work orders each year to generate projects to address the 

deficiencies and identify fund sources for the various maintenance 

projects. Once projects are identified, park unit staff use the Park 

Service’s Capital Investment Strategy to rank maintenance projects for 

funding decisions. However, the Park Service has not evaluated its 

process for making asset maintenance decisions to determine if it is 

achieving intended outcomes.

To assign maintenance priority to an asset, the Park Service uses two 

tools to rate an asset’s importance and condition—the asset priority index 

(API) and facility condition index (FCI)—both of which are consistent with 

asset management guidance from the Office of Management and Budget 

and the National Academies Federal Facilities Council. Park staff use the 

ratio of API to FCI to assign assets to a level of maintenance priority, 

called an optimizer band, and document how these calculations were 

made in Park Asset Management Plans.

API identifies the relative importance of the various assets at a park. To 

do this, park unit staff use four weighted criteria to determine an asset’s 

API value on a scale from 1 to 100, in which assets that scored 100 are 

most important. The criteria follow:

• Resource preservation. This criterion identifies whether the asset 

directly contributes to a park’s ability to preserve natural resource 

processes, is a cultural asset, or enhances a park’s ability to preserve 

and protect its cultural resources. This criterion determines 35 percent 

of an asset’s API.

• Visitor use. This criterion identifies the extent to which the asset 

contributes to visitor accessibility, understanding, and enjoyment. 

Assets are rated as high, medium, low, or none, and the score 

contributes to 25 percent of an asset’s API.

• Park support. This criterion considers the extent to which an asset 

directly supports day-to-day operations of a park unit or employees’

ability to perform park operations. Assets are also rated as high, 

Park Service Uses 

Information on the 

Importance and 

Condition of Assets to 

Prioritize 

Maintenance 

Decisions, but the 

Agency Has Not 

Evaluated This 

Process

Park Service Uses an 

Asset’s Importance and 

Condition to Assign 

Maintenance Priority

Asset Priority Index
Page 26 GAO-17-136 National Park Service

medium, low, or none under this criterion, and it contributes to 20 

percent of an asset’s API.

• Asset substitutability. This criterion refers to the degree to which a 

comparable substitute asset exists to fulfill the functional requirements 

or purpose of that asset. To rate this criterion, park unit staff consider 

the question “if this asset is lost, what would be the impact,” and park 

unit staff are to answer high impact, low or no impact, or there is no 

substitute for the asset. This criterion determines 20 percent of an 

asset’s API.

Park unit staff establish values for these criteria by answering a series of 

questions about each asset that are included in guidance provided by the 

Park Service. For example, one question used to establish an asset’s 

visitor use value is if the asset provides access to, houses, or delivers 

visitor understanding through education. The total API for each asset is 

recorded in the agency’s FMSS.21 Park Service officials said that an 

asset’s API should not change unless something substantial occurs, such 

as an asset being destroyed in a weather event or being taken out of 

service because it is no longer needed. If park unit staff determine that an 

asset’s API value should be changed, regional approval is needed to 

make the change.

The Park Service’s use of API as part of its process for making asset 

maintenance decisions is consistent with the Office of Management and 

Budget’s Capital Programming Guide, which states that the use of tools 

such as API helps managers identify the most important assets and 

provides logical guidance for directing limited funding.22 In addition, the 

guide notes that API is important for planning for recurring maintenance 

and preventive maintenance.

FCI is a method of measuring the current condition of an asset to assess 

how much work, if any, is recommended to maintain or change its 

 21FMSS is an agency-wide, asset-based work identification, work management, and work 

analysis system that allows park units, regional offices, and Park Service headquarters to 

track asset conditions, asset operations and maintenance, asset repair and rehabilitation, 

and removal of assets. According to Park Service guidance, FMSS was created in 

response to a statutory agreement to implement, beginning in 1985, a maintenance 

management system in the agency’s maintenance and operations programs. Pub. L. No. 

98-540, 98 Stat. 2718 (1984). Currently, the Park Service uses FMSS to address the 

direction in Executive Order 13327 that the agency identify and categorize all of its assets, 

among other things. 

22Office of Management and Budget, Capital Programming Guide.

Facility Condition Index
Page 27 GAO-17-136 National Park Service

condition to acceptable levels to support organizational missions. The 

Park Service uses FCI to rate the condition of an asset on a scale from 0 

to 1. It is calculated by dividing the deferred maintenance associated with 

an asset by its current replacement value, and the lower the asset FCI 

value, the better the condition of the asset. For example, a new asset 

would likely have little or no deferred maintenance associated with it and 

therefore have a low FCI.

Park unit staff record the projected cost of repairs and current 

replacement value for each asset in FMSS and update those values when 

appropriate. To calculate the projected cost of an asset’s repair, park unit 

staff use the Park Service’s cost estimating software system. The system 

bases calculations on industry standard tools, materials, and methods 

according to data from a North American supplier of construction cost 

information. In addition, the Park Service instructs staff to consider 

adjustments as needed, such as when requirements for historically 

accurate materials or construction methods are required.23 For example, 

according to a maintenance official at Independence National Historic 

Park in Philadelphia, repairs to a deteriorated rain gutter on 

Independence Hall were more complex and expensive than similar work 

on modern or nonhistoric buildings. A failed section of the gutter’s 

downspout had to be replaced with historically accurate materials in order 

to meet cultural resource preservation standards. To avoid damaging 

historic building fabric nearby, the new section of pipe was soldered into 

place with unique equipment that did not use a flame. Park unit staff 

calculate the current replacement value of an asset using the Park 

Service’s current replacement value calculator. According to Department 

of the Interior policy,24 current replacement value is defined as the 

standard industry cost and engineering estimate of materials, supplies, 

and labor required to replace an asset at its existing size and functional 

capability, and to meet applicable regulatory codes.

The Park Service’s use of FCI as part of its process for making asset 

maintenance decisions is consistent with the Federal Real Property 

 23The Department of the Interior, acting through the Park Service, has established 

standards for the preservation of historic resources, as directed in the National Historic 

Preservation Act of 1966.

24Department of the Interior, Policy on Deferred Maintenance, Current Replacement Value 

and Facility Condition Index in Life-Cycle Cost Management (Washington, D.C.: May 3, 

2008).
Page 28 GAO-17-136 National Park Service

Council’s Guidance for Real Property Inventory Reporting,

25 which 

identified this type of condition index as a performance measure. In 

addition, in 2005, the National Academies Federal Facilities Council found 

that many agencies use FCI to measure the current condition of assets to 

assess how much work, if any, is recommended to maintain or change 

their condition to acceptable levels to support organizational missions.26

The Park Service uses the ratio of an asset’s API and FCI to assign the 

asset to an optimizer band, which is used to determine the priority level 

for maintenance. The agency began using optimizer bands in 2012 to 

help determine which projects would obtain project funds and ensure that 

limited funds are allocated to the most important assets.

According to Park Service guidance, optimizer bands act as a triage 

framework for allocating limited funds. For example, optimizer band 1 

assets are the highest-priority assets. The agency defines them as critical 

to the operations and mission of a park unit or as having high visitor use. 

They are to be considered first for funding to keep them in good condition. 

In contrast, optimizer band 5 assets are the lowest-priority assets. The 

agency does not need them for the operations and mission of the park, 

and many of these assets may be candidates for disposal. To ensure that 

the highest-priority assets are maintained to the greatest extent possible, 

the Park Service established minimum levels of funding park units are to 

allocate for preventive maintenance. Specifically, park units are to use 

funds from the operations budget category to address a minimum of 55 

percent of the preventive maintenance work needed to maintain optimizer 

band 1 assets in good condition. The minimum levels of funding for 

optimizer bands 2 and 3 are 50 and 25 percent, respectively, and there 

are no minimum levels of funding for bands 4 and 5.

Park unit staff have some flexibility in assigning assets to optimizer 

bands. Park Service officials said that park units may reassign an asset to 

a different optimizer band, but that these changes are to be approved by 

regional officials. Officials we interviewed at some of the park units said 

that they had changed optimizer bands for some assets. For example, 

one park unit changed the optimizer band of the building where park unit 

staff work from optimizer band 3 to optimizer band 2. Officials at this park 

 25General Services Administration, Federal Real Property Council 2012 Guidance for Real 

Property Inventory Reporting.

26Cable et al., Key Performance Indicators for Federal Facilities Portfolios.

Optimizer Bands
Page 29 GAO-17-136 National Park Service

unit said that the building is vital to the park because it is the only building 

space in or near the park that staff can use to perform the administrative 

duties required for managing a park unit, including maintaining FMSS. 

However, the building had been assigned to optimizer band 3 because it 

has no visitor use, which meant that the asset was not a priority for 

maintenance funding and therefore difficult to keep in acceptable 

condition. Officials at other park units identified reasons to change the 

optimizer band levels. For example, officials at two park units noted that 

the quality of housing can be poor because of low maintenance priority, 

which can affect both the ability of staff to do their jobs well and the visitor 

experience. According to Park Service officials, housing can also 

deteriorate past the point of acceptable living conditions, at which point 

park units would no longer be able to use those assets to house 

employees.

Park unit staff report asset optimizer bands, as well as API and FCI, in 

their Park Asset Management Plans. Many of the park unit officials we 

interviewed said that they had most recently established these values for 

their assets within the last 7 years, often as part of updating the park 

unit’s Park Asset Management Plan. According to Park Service asset 

management guidance, a Park Asset Management Plan is a strategic and 

operational plan that park units are to develop to articulate how the park 

unit intends to manage its asset portfolio over a 10-year period based on 

the analysis of asset data. Park Service officials said that park units use 

them to assess all of their assets and determine the amount of funds 

needed to maintain assets in good condition.

The Office of Management and Budget’s 2015 Capital Planning Guide 

does not use the term optimizer band but notes that graphical 

representations of a distribution of assets graphed by their importance to 

mission and their condition can be a useful tool in segmenting and 

presenting asset portfolios. Specifically, by plotting an asset according to 

API and FCI, an agency can determine when an asset no longer supports 

the mission of the site or bureau or is a candidate for disposal because it 

has a low API and high FCI.

The Park Service’s asset management plan instructs park units to 

determine the condition of park assets through annual condition 

assessments—high-level inspections that identify obvious and apparent 

deficiencies—and comprehensive condition assessments—more detailed 

Park Unit Staff Conduct 

Periodic Assessments to 

Identify Deficiencies
Page 30 GAO-17-136 National Park Service

assessments of assets performed every 5 years.27 The plan also instructs 

park unit staff to record condition assessment information in FMSS and 

update the projected cost of repairs of the asset.

Officials we interviewed at several of the park units said that for annual 

assessments staff regularly visually inspect assets during the normal 

course of business, such as opening buildings for seasonal use or 

performing maintenance on nearby assets. Some officials also said that 

comprehensive assessments are either performed by park unit staff with 

expertise or contractors. For example, a regional official said that park 

units in the region hired contractors to inspect sewer lines as part of a 

comprehensive assessment, since they do not have in-house expertise to 

do so. The Park Service provides guidance to park unit staff on how to 

perform comprehensive assessments for each of the asset categories. 

Officials we interviewed at several park units said that they organize 

comprehensive condition assessments to account for 20 percent of park 

assets annually, so that they can complete a comprehensive condition 

assessment for all park assets within a 5-year period.

Officials we interviewed at more than half of the park units said that they 

were unable to complete annual or comprehensive assessments of all 

assets on schedule because of other duties or scheduling challenges. 

Specifically, staff who are to conduct the assessments perform other 

duties, such as overseeing asset maintenance and entering and 

maintaining asset data in FMSS. Park unit officials also said that Park 

Service headquarters makes frequent data requests—for example, for 

electric utility metering data, or for verification of square footage values in 

FMSS—and that these data requests can interfere with park unit staff’s 

ability to complete tasks, including condition assessments, on time. In 

addition, some park units are located remotely or in challenging climates, 

making it difficult to inspect all assets on the recommended schedule. For 

example, officials we interviewed at three park units said that they had to 

hike or fly to certain assets because they are located remotely or the 

assets are inaccessible in the winter because of snow; however, winter 

 27According to the Department of the Interior Asset Management Plan, the department’s 

agencies are to perform annual condition assessments of assets with a current 

replacement value of more than $5,000 and comprehensive assessments of assets with a 

current replacement value of more than $50,000 at least every 5 years. Department of the 

Interior, Department of the Interior Asset Management Plan, Version 3.0 (Washington, 

D.C.: June 2008).
Page 31 GAO-17-136 National Park Service

might be the only time the park unit had staff available to conduct 

assessments.

For Park Service paved roads and bridges, the Department of 

Transportation conducts condition assessments for the Park Service. 

According to Department of Transportation officials, they typically 

conducts condition assessments of major paved roads—thoroughfares in 

large parks with more than 10 miles of roadway—within each park unit 

once every 5 years and of secondary paved roads once every 10 years. 

In addition, the department conducts condition assessments of all bridges 

within each park unit once every 2 years in accordance with National 

Bridge Inspection Standards.28 Specifically, a team of six to eight 

Department of Transportation staff, working in teams of two, drive a 

vehicle with special equipment that can assess the condition of the 

pavement along park roads. Department of Transportation officials 

estimate that these teams have assessed about 5,900 road miles in the 

last 4 years; by comparison, the Park Service has 5,500 miles of paved 

roads. Once a road is assessed, the Department of Transportation 

provides the condition data to relevant park unit staff who enter the data 

into FMSS and determine if a work order is needed.

Based upon the condition assessments, Park Unit staff create one or 

more work orders in FMSS that document an asset’s deficiencies. They, 

in turn, combine work orders to generate projects to conduct the 

maintenance work needed to address identified deficiencies. Specifically, 

according to Park Service officials, staff bundle a series of work orders to 

address multiple deficiencies—such as replace a door, paint a wall, or fix 

the roof—in one building as part of the same project. Work orders 

generally contain a basic description of the work needed and an estimate 

of the material and labor costs, among other things. Park units submit 

these maintenance projects annually to the regional offices as part of an 

agency-wide call for projects, which marks the beginning of the Park 

Service’s budget formulation cycle. Park Service headquarters officials 

provide guidance to help park units to identify which fund sources can be 

used for a project, among other things. The staff may also choose to 

address a deficiency directly, using the park unit’s facility operations 

funds rather than applying for project funds. Some park unit officials we 

 2823 C.F.R. §§ 650.301 – 317 (2016).

Park Unit Staff Combine 

Work Orders to Generate 

Projects and Identify Fund 

Sources
Page 32 GAO-17-136 National Park Service

interviewed said that they typically do this for maintenance work that is 

routine in nature, such as grounds keeping.

The Park Service’s most recent agency-wide call for projects was for 

projects to be funded in fiscal year 2019, and it directed park units and 

regional offices to have projects ready for review by headquarters by April 

3, 2017. As part of doing this, park unit staff identify which of the Park 

Service’s fund sources would be appropriate to use for the various 

maintenance projects. To identify the appropriate fund source, park unit 

staff use information about the nature of the maintenance work needed as 

identified in the project’s work orders, as well as the annual fund source 

guidance that the Park Service provides.29 The guidance for each fund 

source includes questions about the projects to help determine if the 

project is eligible for a particular fund source. For example, to obtain 

cyclic funds for a project, fund source guidance has directed park unit 

staff to explain how the project supports or extends the life cycle of the 

asset or how funding the project will positively affect visitor health and 

safety, among other things. Park unit staff also enter projects into the 

agency’s Project Management Information System.30 All projects entered 

into this system then compete for funds in the region, or nationwide, 

depending on the type of project and fund source.

Since 2012, the Park Service has used its Capital Investment Strategy to 

evaluate and rank maintenance projects for funding. Agency officials 

stated that the Capital Investment Strategy was created to help ensure 

that park units do not allow assets to fall into a severe state of disrepair 

before repairing them. According to the Park Service’s Capital Investment 

Strategy Guidebook, the strategy is designed to promote several of the 

agency’s mission goals, including the repair and improvement of assets 

that parks commit to maintain in good condition and the disposition of 

nonessential facilities to reduce deferred maintenance. In addition, one of 

the strategy’s objectives is to enable the Park Service to demonstrate to 

 29The Park Service provides fund source guidance to park units each year as part of the 

instructions for the agency-wide call for projects. The guidance describes what the agency 

wants to accomplish with the fund source, such as projects that address deferred 

maintenance. In addition, it lists the eligibility requirements projects must meet to be 

considered for the fund source and the evaluation criteria Park Service officials will use to 

determine if the project is eligible for the fund source.

30The Park Service uses the Project Management Information System to manage its 

ranking, selection, funding, and project management processes.

Park Unit Staff Use the 

Park Service’s Capital 

Investment Strategy to 

Rank Maintenance 

Projects for Funding, but 

the Agency Does Not 

Have a Plan to Evaluate 

Outcomes
Page 33 GAO-17-136 National Park Service

Congress and others that the agency optimizes taxpayer dollars to 

preserve high-priority assets. To meet this objective, the Capital 

Investment Strategy uses a formula based on asset information to score 

projects and gives preference to projects that address assets in optimizer 

bands 1 or 2.

As part of the agency-wide call for projects, park unit staff use the Capital 

Investment Strategy to score projects that will be funded by the cyclic 

maintenance, repair and rehabilitation, line item construction, Federal 

Lands Transportation Program, and recreation fees fund sources in the 

Project Management Information System. The formula used in the Capital 

Investment Strategy scores projects from 1 to 1,000 by, in part, 

individually evaluating each work order in a project according to FMSS 

data in four elements: financial sustainability, resource protection, visitor 

use, and health and safety. For example, the visitor use element 

considers investment in assets that directly enable outdoor recreation as 

well as interpretive media. The most points within this element are 

awarded to those projects that improve and sustain the experience of the 

greatest number of visitors. Projects are scored higher if they target 

optimizer band 1 or 2 assets for deferred maintenance reduction and 

optimizer band 5 assets for disposition.

Park Service officials, either at the regional office or headquarters, review 

and approve projects for funding based on the fund source guidance 

provided as part of the agency-wide call for projects. For all fund sources 

except for line item construction, Park Service regional officials determine 

which maintenance projects are to receive funding by convening expert 

panels, which review the scored projects provided by the park units in 

their regions. For maintenance projects associated with the repair and 

rehabilitation fund source that are estimated to cost less than $1 million, 

the Park Service convenes a nationwide panel of experts to determine 

which will be funded. For line item construction projects estimated at 

more than $1 million, Park Service headquarters staff review and select 

which projects will receive funding. The Park Service identifies the line 

item construction projects the agency wants to fund by name, description, 

estimated cost, and project score in its annual budget justification 

submission to Congress.

Fiscal year 2015 was the first budget year in which projects ranked using 

the strategy were funded, and as such some regional and park unit 

officials said that it is too soon to determine if the Capital Investment 

Strategy is meeting its objectives, such as maintaining the condition of its 

high-priority assets. Officials we interviewed at more than half of the park 
Page 34 GAO-17-136 National Park Service

units said that the Capital Investment Strategy so far has helped them 

identify their park units’ most important maintenance needs. However, 

several regional and park unit officials said that the Capital Investment 

Strategy’s focus on optimizer band 1 and 2 assets could result in 

continued deterioration of assets in other optimizer bands, leading to 

increased deferred maintenance.

The Park Service does not have a plan or time frame for evaluating 

whether the strategy has been successful. A senior official said that the 

agency had not determined what is needed to begin such an evaluation 

and that it would be beneficial to verify that the Capital Investment 

Strategy is achieving intended outcomes and if changes need to be 

made. According to the National Academies Federal Facilities Council,31

investments made in assets are not often immediately visible or 

measurable but are manifest over a period of years, and it is important 

that agencies track the outcomes of those investments to improve 

decision making about those investments and to improve asset 

management. Moreover, according to the council, to understand the 

outcomes of facilities investments, federal agencies need to establish 

facilities asset management performance goals that have a time frame for 

attainment, among other things. By evaluating the Capital Investment 

Strategy and its results after it has been in place for a few years, the Park 

Service may be able to determine if the strategy is achieving its intended 

outcomes or if changes need to be made. For example, the agency could 

consider evaluating the improvement or deterioration in the overall 

condition of assets in each optimizer band to determine whether the 

agency should continue to prioritize allocations to maintenance on 

optimizer band 1 and 2 assets.

The Park Service is taking a variety of actions to help address asset 

maintenance needs and potentially reduce deferred maintenance. These 

actions include the following:

• Using philanthropic donations. The Park Service receives 

donations from several philanthropic sources to enhance park assets 

and, in some cases, address maintenance needs. For example, the 

National Park Foundation intends to raise up to $350 million to 

support the Park Service as part of its Centennial Campaign for 

 31Cable et al., Key Performance Indicators for Federal Facilities Portfolios.

The Park Service Is 

Working with Partners 

and Volunteers and 

Taking Other Actions 

to Help Address 

Maintenance Needs
Page 35 GAO-17-136 National Park Service

America’s National Parks. The foundation reported in February 2016 

that it had raised about $200 million toward this goal.32 Some of these 

funds are to be used to address asset maintenance, such as repairing 

trails at Jenny Lake in Grand Teton National Park in Wyoming and 

rehabilitating Constitution Gardens, part of the National Mall, in 

Washington, D.C. Stemming from the National Park Foundation’s 

efforts, in July of 2014 the Park Service announced a donation of 

about $12 million to restore and improve access to Arlington House, 

the Robert E. Lee Memorial, which is located in Arlington National

Cemetery. In addition, philanthropic funds are available through the 

Centennial Challenge program.33 From fiscal years 2015 through 

2016, Congress appropriated $25 million for this program. For 

projects funded by this program, at least 50 percent of the costs must 

come from nonfederal donations. According to Park Service 

documents, the agency has selected more than 150 projects to be 

funded by the program, which as of October 20, 2016, had received 

more than $45 million in matching funds from philanthropic donors. 

Some of the projects are to directly address deferred maintenance, 

such as a project at the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National 

Historical Park that will rehabilitate the Conococheague Aqueduct in 

Maryland.

• Working with volunteers. Volunteer groups are providing assistance 

to several parks to help address asset maintenance needs. For 

example, at the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, in North 

Carolina and Tennessee, a local volunteer group maintains several of 

the park’s trails. Park unit officials said this arrangement has reduced 

the deferred maintenance for the park’s trails by about $1 million since 

2009. Officials at some of park units we interviewed said volunteer 

groups perform a variety of maintenance duties that help address 

deferred maintenance, including grounds and facilities cleanup, 

clearing roadways of vegetation, and campground maintenance.

• Leasing properties. Several park units are leasing assets to other 

parties in exchange for the lessee rehabilitating or maintaining the 

assets. According to Park Service documents, all net income from 

such leases is to be reinvested to fund historic preservation, capital 

improvements of historic properties, park infrastructure, or any 

deferred maintenance needs. For example, the Park Service leases 

 32The National Park Foundation is the Park Service’s congressionally chartered nonprofit 

partner, established in 1967. 

33Pub. L. No. 113-235, 128 Stat. 2403 (2015). 
Page 36 GAO-17-136 National Park Service

several buildings at the Golden Gate National Recreational Area in 

San Francisco.34 The Park Service also leases several historic 

buildings at Hot Springs National Park in Arkansas. Park unit officials 

said that the buildings at Hot Springs were in serious disrepair prior to 

being leased. The officials said that the lessees are to repair and 

rehabilitate the structures in lieu of rent for the first several years of 

their lease terms, thereby reducing the park’s deferred maintenance. 

Officials at some of the park units we interviewed said that they were 

considering implementing leasing programs, in part, to help reduce 

their deferred maintenance. To help facilitate leasing, the Park 

Service hired a national leasing manager in 2015 to formalize its 

leasing program, and some parks units and regions have developed 

active leasing programs.

• Engaging partners. The Park Service is engaged in partnerships 

where outside organizations are assuming some asset maintenance 

responsibilities. For example, the Park Service entered into a 

partnership with a nonprofit organization to operate and maintain the 

visitor center associated with Independence National Historical Park 

in Philadelphia. In this case, the Park Service owns the visitor center 

and contributes funds—about $800,000 annually—to cover some of 

its basic operating costs, but the nonprofit organization covers the 

majority of the facility’s operating and maintenance costs. Park unit 

officials said that the 30-year agreement with the nonprofit 

organization provides the park with a modern visitor center that 

maintenance staff do not have to physically maintain, and provides a 

location where rangers can be stationed to answer questions about 

the park.

• Entering into other arrangements. The Park Service is taking steps 

to reduce, or in some cases eliminate, the need to allocate 

maintenance funds to some park assets by entering into 

arrangements with other entities to manage those assets. For 

example, officials at two of the park units we interviewed said that 

they had turned over the some of their campgrounds to concessioners 

to operate and maintain.

• Partnering with states for transportation grants. The Park Service 

has worked with states to submit joint applications for a variety of 

Department of Transportation grants. For example, the Park Service, 

jointly with the District of Columbia’s Department of Transportation, 

 34The Park Service leases Fort Mason—a group of former military buildings—to a local 

nonprofit, which uses the buildings to operate an arts and cultural center. 
Page 37 GAO-17-136 National Park Service

received a $90 million grant from the Department of Transportation’s 

Fostering Advancements in Shipping and Transportation for the LongTerm Achievement of National Efficiencies (or FASTLANE) grant 

program to rehabilitate the Arlington Memorial Bridge, which links the 

District of Columbia to Arlington National Cemetery in Virginia. In 

addition, the Tennessee Department of Transportation received a $10 

million Department of Transportation grant—Transportation 

Investment Generating Economic Recovery (or TIGER) grant—to 

complete a section of the Foothills Parkway that runs through Great 

Smoky Mountains National Park, in North Carolina and Tennessee. 

The Park Service contributed an additional $10 million and the state 

contributed an additional $15 million in funds toward the $35 million 

project.

Park Service officials said that these actions have helped address 

deferred maintenance at some park units, but that not all of these 

activities are well-suited to all park units or all maintenance needs. For 

example, they said that not all park units have assets that would be 

desirable for leasing. In addition, officials at several park units we 

interviewed said that philanthropic donors generally prefer to donate 

funds to projects that enhance parks or add new features, as opposed to 

addressing existing maintenance needs.

The Park Service has allocated $1.16 billion on average to maintain its 

assets in fiscal years 2006 through 2015, but its deferred maintenance 

has continued to increase. To address its maintenance needs, the agency 

uses tools that are consistent with asset management guidance from the 

Office of Management and Budget and the National Academies Federal 

Facilities Council. In addition, the Park Service has determined that its 

highest-priority assets should be considered first for funding to keep them 

in good condition, and park unit staff use the agency’s Capital Investment 

Strategy to rank and prioritize projects for funding. However, several of 

the regional and park unit officials we interviewed said that the focus on 

high-priority assets may result in continued deterioration of less-critical 

assets, thereby increasing deferred maintenance. The Park Service does 

not have a plan or time frame for evaluating whether the Capital 

Investment Strategy has been successful. We recognize that it may be 

too soon to determine if the strategy is meeting its objectives given that 

fiscal year 2015 was the first budget year in which projects ranked using 

the strategy were funded. However, evaluating the Capital Investment 

Strategy and its results in a few years may allow the Park Service to 

determine if the strategy is achieving its intended outcomes or if changes 

need to be made.

Conclusions
Page 38 GAO-17-136 National Park Service

To ensure that the elements of the agency’s process for making asset 

maintenance decisions are achieving desired outcomes, we recommend 

that the Secretary of the Interior direct the Director of the Park Service to 

evaluate the Capital Investment Strategy and its results to determine if it 

is achieving its intended outcomes or if changes need to be made.

We provided a draft of this report to the Departments of the Interior and 

Transportation for review and comment. The GAO Audit Liaison from the 

Department of the Interior responded via e-mail on December 5, 2016, 

that the department agreed with our recommendation and also provided 

technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. The 

Department of Transportation had no comments.

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of 

this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the 

report date. At that time, we will send copies to the appropriate 

congressional committees, the Secretaries of the Interior and 

Transportation, and other interested parties. In addition, the report is 

available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff members have any questions about this report, please 

contact me at (202) 512-3841 or fennella@gao.gov. Contact points for 

our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found 

on the last page of this report. GAO staff members who made major 

contributions to this report are listed in appendix III.

Anne-Marie Fennell

Director, Natural Resources and Environment

Recommendation for 

Executive Action

Agency Comments
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 39 GAO-17-136 National Park Service

Our objectives were to examine (1) how much the National Park Service 

(Park Service) has allocated to maintain assets in fiscal years 2006 

through 2015, (2) the amount and composition of the Park Service’s 

deferred maintenance in fiscal years 2009 through 2015, (3) how the Park 

Service makes asset maintenance decisions, and (4) the actions the Park 

Service is taking to help address its maintenance needs.

To examine how much the Park Service has allocated to maintain assets 

in fiscal years 2006 through 2015, we obtained and analyzed 

maintenance allocation data from the Park Service for that period. 

According to the Park Service, deferred maintenance data from the end of 

fiscal year 2015 were the most current data available when we began this 

review. We analyzed the data to determine the amount of funds the Park 

Service had allocated in each year to the eight fund sources the agency 

uses for maintenance work: cyclic maintenance, repair and rehabilitation, 

facility operations, line item construction, recreation fees for routine 

maintenance, recreation fees for capital improvements, recreation fees for 

deferred maintenance, and Federal Lands Transportation Program. We 

assessed the reliability of these data through interviews with Park Service 

officials who were familiar with these data and reviews of relevant 

documentation. We found these data to be sufficiently reliable for the 

purposes of our reporting objectives. We also examined Park Service 

budget documents, including several agency budget justifications, and 

interviewed relevant Park Service officials at headquarters, regional 

offices, and park units to better understand the fund sources used for 

maintenance work. In addition, we obtained and analyzed Park Service 

funding data for fiscal years 2006 through 2015 from the Office of 

Management and Budget MAX Information System to compare agency 

funding to maintenance allocations.1

To examine the amount and composition of Park Service’s deferred 

maintenance in fiscal years 2009 through 2015, we obtained and 

analyzed Park Service data on deferred maintenance for the agency’s 

assets. We obtained these data from the Facility Management Software 

System (FMSS), an agency-wide database that Department of the Interior 

agencies, including the Park Service, use to collect, track, and analyze 

asset management data. We also interviewed Park Service staff at the 

 1

The Office of Management and Budget’s MAX Information System is a database used to 

support its federal management and budget processes. The system collects, validates, 

analyzes, models, and publishes information relating to the agency’s government-wide 

management and budgeting activities. 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 40 GAO-17-136 National Park Service

headquarters, regional, and park unit levels to better understand deferred 

maintenance. We began our data analysis with fiscal year 2009 because 

it is the first year the Park Service reported deferred maintenance for all 

of the assets under its management. From fiscal years 2006 through 

2008, the Park Service reported deferred maintenance for eight major 

asset categories as agreed with the Office and Management and 

Budget—paved roads, buildings, campgrounds, housing, trails, unpaved 

roads, water systems, and waste water systems. In fiscal year 2009, the 

Park Service began reporting deferred maintenance for an additional 

category called all others to convey the deferred maintenance for assets 

that did not, by definition, fall into one of the other eight categories. The 

all others category used by the Park Service includes assets such as 

marinas, railroads, and interpretive media.

We determined how the amount and composition of deferred 

maintenance had changed from fiscal year 2009 to fiscal year 2015 by 

obtaining Park Service reports generated from FMSS on the amount of 

deferred maintenance for each fiscal year by major asset category. 

According to the Park Service, deferred maintenance data from the end of 

fiscal year 2015 are the most current data available and include 409 park 

units as well as other properties under Park Service jurisdiction, such as 

regional offices. Park Service officials said that the data provided for each 

fiscal year were a snapshot in time that reflected the asset categorization 

methods in place at the time each report was generated. For example, 

officials said that some assets categorized as one type may have been 

treated as another type in a subsequent year. We analyzed these data 

over this period in both nominal and inflation-adjusted terms.2

We also obtained detailed data for fiscal year 2015 from FMSS for each 

of the Park Service’s more than 75,000 assets. We analyzed these data 

to identify how deferred maintenance varied according to certain key 

characteristics, such as asset priority, asset category, park unit age, and 

region. We assessed the reliability of the data by interviewing Park 

Service officials familiar with these data, observing those officials use 

FMSS, and reviewing relevant documentation. We found these data to be 

sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our reporting objectives.

 2

We adjusted nominal dollars using the fiscal year chain-weighted gross domestic price 

index, with 2015 as the base year.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 41 GAO-17-136 National Park Service

To determine how the Park Service makes asset maintenance decisions 

and to identify actions the Park Service is taking to help address 

maintenance needs, we interviewed relevant officials at the headquarters 

level. We also interviewed Department of Transportation officials who 

described the process the department uses to assess the condition of 

Park Service roads and bridges; park unit staff use these assessments to 

make maintenance decisions about those assets. In addition, we 

analyzed relevant documents, such as the Park Service’s Asset 

Management Plan, asset maintenance guidance documents, the Capital 

Investment Strategy Guidebook, and fact sheets, to obtain additional 

information about the process and tools. We compared information we 

learned about the Park Service’s process for making asset management 

decisions to the Office of Management and Budget’s Capital 

Programming Guide,3 the Federal Real Property Council’s Guidance for 

Real Property Inventory Reporting,4 and the National Academies Federal 

Facilities Council’s Key Performance Indicators of Federal Facilities 

Portfolios.

5 We supplemented our analysis with information obtained from 

our prior reports.

6 In addition, we interviewed the chief facility 

management official at each of the Park Service’s seven regions to 

understand the role they play in overseeing and managing maintenance 

needs at the park units within their regions. We also asked them to 

identify park units within their regions that had taken notable actions to 

help address deferred maintenance.

We conducted semistructured interviews at 21 park units to learn about 

the process each follows to make asset maintenance decisions as well as 

 3

Office of Management and Budget, Capital Programming Guide, V 3.0, Supplement to 

Office of Management Budget Circular A-11: Planning, Budgeting, and Acquisition of 

Capital Assets (Washington, D.C.: 2015).

4

General Services Administration, Federal Real Property Council 2012 Guidance for Real 

Property Inventory Reporting Version 4 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 25, 2012). 

5

J. H. Cable and J. S. Davis, in association with Federal Facilities Council Ad Hoc,

Committee on Performance Indicators for Federal Real Property Asset Management, 

National Research Council, Key Performance Indicators for Federal Facilities Portfolios: 

Federal Facilities Council Technical Report Number 147 (Washington, D.C.: The National

Academies Press, 2005).

6

GAO, National Park Service: Efforts to Identify and Manage the Maintenance Backlog, 

GAO/RCED-98-143 (Washington, D.C.: May 14, 1998); National Park Service: Status of 

Agency Efforts to Address Its Maintenance Backlog, GAO-03-992T (Washington, D.C.: 

July 8, 2003); and National Park Service: Revenues from Fees and Donations Increased, 

but Some Enhancements Are Needed to Continue This Trend, GAO-16-166 (Washington, 

D.C.: Dec. 15, 2015). 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 42 GAO-17-136 National Park Service

actions the park units were taking to help address deferred maintenance. 

From the 409 park units in existence when we began this review, we 

selected 21 parks based on several criteria. Specifically, for each of the 

seven regions, we selected three parks: (1) the park with the greatest 

amount of deferred maintenance as of the end of fiscal year 2015, (2) a 

park that had a deferred maintenance amount in the lower half of all park 

units in that region, and (3) a park unit recommended by regional officials 

as taking additional or notable actions to help address deferred 

maintenance. We also ensured that these parks represented different 

types of park unit types, such as scenic, historical, military, recreational, 

and seashores.7 This sample is not generalizable to all park units. We 

visited 3 of these park units in person—(1) Independence National 

Historical Park, in Philadelphia; (2) George Washington Memorial 

Parkway, in Maryland, Virginia, and Washington, D.C.; and (3) Manassas 

National Battlefield Park, in Virginia—and interviewed officials with the 

remaining 18 park units by telephone or in person. See table 3 for a list of 

the parks we selected, along with selection criteria.

Table 3: Park Units Selected to Represent Each National Park Service Region, Different Amounts of Deferred Maintenance, 

Actions to Help Address Deferred Maintenance Needs, and Different Park Unit Types

Region Park unit Reason selected

Deferred maintenance 

amount as of the end of 

fiscal year 2015 (dollars) Park unit type

Alaska Denali National Park and 

Preserve 

Largest amount of deferred 

maintenance in region

52,628,329 Parks

Sitka National Historical Park In lower half of deferred 

maintenance amounts in region

2,831,968 Historic

Wrangell - St Elias National 

Park and Preserve

Actions to help address deferred 

maintenance needs

19,403,782 Parks

Intermountain Yellowstone National Park Largest amount of deferred 

maintenance in region

631,679,666 Parks

Bent’s Old Fort National 

Historic Site

In lower half of deferred 

maintenance amounts in region

416,821 Historic

Grand Teton National Park Actions to help address deferred 

maintenance needs

207,816,744 Parks

 7

In the Southeast Region, in order to include a National Seashore park unit, we selected 

Cumberland Island National Seashore (deferred maintenance of $9,078,118) for the 

category of deferred maintenance in the lower half of the region, even though its deferred 

maintenance was just above the threshold (deferred maintenance of $8,043,654). 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 43 GAO-17-136 National Park Service

Region Park unit Reason selected

Deferred maintenance 

amount as of the end of 

fiscal year 2015 (dollars) Park unit type

Midwest Ozark National Scenic 

Riverways

Largest amount of deferred 

maintenance in region

48,347,306 Rivers, 

Lakeshores, 

and Seashores

River Raisin National 

Battlefield

In lower half of deferred 

maintenance amounts in region

721,584 Military

Jefferson National Expansion 

Memorial

Actions to help address deferred 

maintenance needs

24,801,274 Monuments 

and Memorials

National Capital National Mall Largest amount of deferred 

maintenance in region

840,318,085 Monuments 

and Memorials

Manassas National Battlefield 

Park

In lower half of deferred 

maintenance amounts in region

3,274,954 Military

George Washington 

Memorial Parkway

Actions to help address deferred 

maintenance needs

473,738,117 Roads

Northeast Gateway National Recreation 

Area

Largest amount of deferred 

maintenance in region

730,716,564 Trails and 

Recreation

Upper Delaware Scenic and 

Recreational River

In lower half of deferred 

maintenance amounts in region

3,348,980 Rivers, 

Lakeshores, 

and Seashores

Independence National 

Historical Park

Actions to help address deferred 

maintenance needs

49,103,481 Historic

Pacific West Yosemite National Park Largest amount of deferred 

maintenance in region

555,015,819 Parks

Pu’ukoholā Heiau National 

Historic Site

In lower half of deferred 

maintenance amounts in region

753,040 Trails and 

Recreation

Sequoia & Kings Canyon 

National Parks

Actions to help address deferred 

maintenance needs

160,357,481 Parks

Southeast Blue Ridge Parkway Largest amount of deferred 

maintenance in region

516,603,622 Roads

Cumberland Island National 

Seashore

Park unit was selected to ensure 

diversity of park unit typesa 9,078,118 Rivers, Lakeshores, 

and Seashores

Great Smoky Mountains 

National Park

Actions to help address deferred 

maintenance needs

232,283,727 Parks

Source: GAO analysis of National Park Service information. | GAO-17-136

a

We selected Cumberland Island National Seashore (deferred maintenance of $9,078,118) for the 

category of deferred maintenance in the lower half of the region in order to include a National 

Seashore park unit. Its deferred maintenance was just above the threshold of the lower half of 

deferred maintenance in the Southeast Region (deferred maintenance of $8,043,654).
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 44 GAO-17-136 National Park Service

We conducted this performance audit from July 2015 to December 2016 

in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Appendix II: Top 100 National Park Service 

Park Units with Fiscal Year 2015 Deferred 

Maintenance

Page 45 GAO-17-136 National Park Service

Table 4 shows the top 100 National Park Service park units ranked by the 

amount of deferred maintenance as of the end of fiscal year 2015.

Table 4: Top 100 National Park Service Units with Fiscal Year 2015 Deferred 

Maintenance

Number Park unit

Fiscal year 2015 

deferred 

maintenance 

(dollars in 

millions)

1 National Mall & Memorial Parks 840.3

2 Gateway National Recreation Area 730.7

3 Yellowstone National Park 631.7

4 Yosemite National Park 555.0

5 Blue Ridge Parkway 516.6

6 George Washington Memorial Parkway 473.7

7 Grand Canyon National Park 371.6

8 Natchez Trace Parkway 368.7

9 San Juan National Historic Site 330.5

10 Mount Rainier National Park 285.4

11 Golden Gate National Recreation Area 278.2

12 Great Smoky Mountains National Park 232.3

13 Grand Teton National Park 207.8

14 Colonial National Historical Park 203.1

15 Glacier National Park 179.8

16 Lake Mead National Recreation Area 172.8

17 Statue of Liberty National Monument 160.6

18 Sequoia & Kings Canyon National Parks 160.4

19 Death Valley National Park 155.0

20 Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area 145.7

21 Olympic National Park 139.8

22 Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park 134.3

23 Mojave National Preserve 131.8

24 Glen Canyon National Recreation Area 129.1

25 Point Reyes National Seashore 102.6

26 Boston National Historic Park 102.2

27 San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park 92.9

28 Shenandoah National Park 90.2

29 Big Bend National Park 86.8

Appendix II: Top 100 National Park Service 

Park Units with Fiscal Year 2015 Deferred 

Maintenance
Appendix II: Top 100 National Park Service 

Park Units with Fiscal Year 2015 Deferred 

Maintenance

Page 46 GAO-17-136 National Park Service

Number Park unit

Fiscal year 2015 

deferred 

maintenance 

(dollars in 

millions)

30 Crater Lake National Park 84.0

31 Mammoth Cave National Park 82.1

32 Hawai’i Volcanoes National Park 78.9

33 Everglades National Park 78.2

34 Zion National Park 69.8

35 Acadia National Park 68.3

36 Rocky Mountain National Park 62.8

37 Cape Hatteras National Seashore 61.5

38 Joshua Tree National Park 60.7

39 Mesa Verde National Park 56.9

40 Dry Tortugas National Park 56.3

41 Petrified Forest National Park 55.7

42 Gettysburg National Military Park 55.3

43 Denali National Park & Preserve 52.6

44 Chickamauga and Chattanooga National Military Park 49.5

45 Independence National Historical Park 49.1

46 Ozark National Scenic Riverways 48.3

47 Cape Cod National Seashore 47.7

48 Rock Creek Park 47.7

49 Dinosaur National Monument 46.3

50 Carlsbad Caverns National Park 44.4

51 Canyonlands National Park 43.1

52 Whiskeytown National Recreation Area 43.0

53 Lava Beds National Monument 41.2

54 Cuyahoga Valley National Park 40.8

55 Theodore Roosevelt National Park 40.7

56 Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area 39.4

57 Bryce Canyon National Park 37.1

58 Valley Forge National Historical Park 36.9

59 Steamtown National Historic Site 36.8

60 Chickasaw National Recreation Area 32.2

61 Boston Harbor Islands National Recreation Area 30.3

62 Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area 30.0

63 Governors Island National Monument 29.1
Appendix II: Top 100 National Park Service 

Park Units with Fiscal Year 2015 Deferred 

Maintenance

Page 47 GAO-17-136 National Park Service

Number Park unit

Fiscal year 2015 

deferred 

maintenance 

(dollars in 

millions)

64 Perry’s Victory & International Peace Memorial 28.9

65 Redwood National Park 28.9

66 Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area 27.7

67 Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore 27.1

68 Fort Vancouver National Historic Site 25.3

69 Vanderbilt Mansion National Historic Site 25.0

70 Jefferson National Expansion Memorial 24.8

71 Assateague Island National Seashore 24.5

72 Lassen Volcanic National Park 23.8

73 Kalaupapa National Historical Park 23.5

74 Bandelier National Monument 23.2

75 Canaveral National Seashore 22.8

76 Haleakala National Park 22.3

77 North Cascades National Park 21.8

78 Gulf Islands National Seashore 21.5

79 Wolf Trap National Park for the Performing Arts 21.0

80 Colorado National Monument 20.5

81 Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore 20.0

82 Arches National Park 19.9

83 Hot Springs National Park 19.6

84 Wrangell-St Elias National Park & Preserve 19.4

85 Prince William Forest Park 19.0

86 Vicksburg National Military Park 18.6

87 Canyon de Chelly National Monument 18.4

88 Little Bighorn Battlefield National Monument 18.4

89 Fort Pulaski National Monument 18.0

90 New River Gorge National River 17.8

91 Badlands National Park 17.5

92 Big Cypress National Preserve 17.2

93 Great Basin National Park 16.9

94 Channel Islands National Park 16.7

95 Cape Lookout National Seashore 16.7

96 Eleanor Roosevelt National Historic Site 16.6

97 Oregon Caves National Monument 16.3
Appendix II: Top 100 National Park Service 

Park Units with Fiscal Year 2015 Deferred 

Maintenance

Page 48 GAO-17-136 National Park Service

Number Park unit

Fiscal year 2015 

deferred 

maintenance 

(dollars in 

millions)

98 Saratoga National Historic Park 16.2

99 Voyageurs National Park 16.0

100 Isle Royale National Park 15.5

Source: GAO analysis of National Park Service information. | GAO-17-136
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 49 GAO-17-136 National Park Service

Anne-Marie Fennell, (202) 512-3841 or fennella@gao.gov

In addition to the contact named above, Elizabeth Erdmann (Assistant 

Director), Ying Long, Mick Ray, Anne Rhodes-Klein, and Michelle K. 

Treistman made key contributions to this report. Additional contributions 

were made by John Bauckman, Anna Brunner, Greg Campbell, 

Antoinette Capaccio, Scott Heacock, Carol Henn, Kim McGatlin, John 

Mingus, and Carmen Yeung.

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments

(100251)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and investigative 

arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 

responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of the 

federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public 

funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, 

recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed 

oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government 

is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is 

through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, GAO 

posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, go to http://www.gao.gov

and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of production and 

distribution and depends on the number of pages in the publication and whether 

the publication is printed in color or black and white. Pricing and ordering 

information is posted on GAO’s website, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537.

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, MasterCard, 

Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube.

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov.

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400, 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125, 

Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

James-Christian Blockwood, Managing Director, spel@gao.gov, (202) 512-4707

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7814, 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Strategic Planning and 

External Liaison

Please Print on Recycled Paper.