U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

89–076 PDF 2003

S. HRG. 108–94

NATIONAL PARKS BACKLOG

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

TO CONDUCT OVERSIGHT OF THE MAINTENANCE BACKLOG, LAND

ACQUISITION BACKLOG, AND DEFICIT IN PERSONNEL WITHIN THE

NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM, INCLUDING THE IMPACT OF NEW PARK

UNIT DESIGNATIONS ON RESOLVING EACH OF THESE CONCERNS

JULY 8, 2003

(

Printed for the use of the

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

(II)

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico, Chairman

DON NICKLES, Oklahoma

LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho

BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska

JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri

CONRAD BURNS, Montana

GORDON SMITH, Oregon

JIM BUNNING, Kentucky

JON KYL, Arizona

JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota

BOB GRAHAM, Florida

RON WYDEN, Oregon

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana

EVAN BAYH, Indiana

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington

ALEX FLINT, Staff Director

JAMES P. BEIRNE, Chief Counsel

ROBERT M. SIMON, Democratic Staff Director

SAM E. FOWLER, Democratic Chief Counsel

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming, Chairman

DON NICKLES, Oklahoma, Vice Chairman

BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado

LAMAR ALEXANDER. Tennessee

CONRAD BURNS, Montana

GORDON SMITH, Oregon

JON KYL, Arizona

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota

BOB GRAHAM, Florida

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana

EVAN BAYH, Indiana

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York

PETE V. DOMENICI and JEFF BINGAMAN are Ex Officio Members of the Subcommittee

THOMAS LILLIE, Professional Staff Member

DAVID BROOKS, Democratic Senior Counsel

(III)

C O N T E N T S

STATEMENTS

Page

Akaka, Hon. Daniel K., U.S. Senator from Hawaii .............................................. 3

Campbell, Hon. Ben Nighthorse, U.S. Senator from Colorado ............................ 2

Cornelssen, Curtis E., Director, Hospitality Leisure Group, PricewaterhouseCoopers, Boston, MA ......................................................................... 26

Dillinger, Eric, Vice President, Carter and Burgess, Inc., Fort Worth, TX ........ 23

Hill, Barry T., Director, Natural Resources and Environment, General Accounting Office ...................................................................................................... 9

Kiernan, Thomas C., President, National Parks Conservation Association ....... 28

Murphy, Donald W., Deputy Director, National Park Service, Department

of the Interior ....................................................................................................... 4

Thomas, Hon. Craig, U.S. Senator from Wyoming ............................................... 1

APPENDIXES

APPENDIX I

Responses to additional questions .......................................................................... 43

APPENDIX II

Additional material submitted for the record ........................................................ 45

(1)

NATIONAL PARKS BACKLOG

TUESDAY, JULY 8, 2003

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m. in room

SD–366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Craig Thomas presiding.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CRAIG THOMAS,

U.S. SENATOR FROM WYOMING

Senator THOMAS. Good morning. The time has arrived so we will

begin, and I hope we will have some more members here. I think

we will have. Thank you all for being here. I particularly want to

welcome the National Park Service, General Accounting Office and

other witnesses for appearing before today’s National Parks Subcommittee hearing. Our purpose is to talk a little bit about the deferred maintenance and plans to deal with that over time, and of

course it’s one of the issues that is always before us with respect

to these facilities.

Over the years, of course, the Park Service has for various reasons deferred, or perhaps even had to set aside facility maintenance until funds were available and of course you know, if you use

that approach on your car, it wouldn’t be long before it would stop

running, and so there has to be a plan of some kind over time to

be able to maintain those facilities if we are going to maintain the

kind of parks that all of us want.

And the estimates are large. We have heard a lot lately about the outstanding needs in the range of $4 to $6 billion, a tremendous amount of money. The GAO conducted a review of the backlog

in 1998 and identified several things that I am sure we will talk

about today, and I am glad they joined us today.

I think the Park Service has historically had a difficult time in

trying to take care of all the facilities that are there and identifying

all of those, and so I was pleased when the Secretary and the Director released a report on their progress a week ago in terms of

how best to do this, and I think that’s important that we have a

system. I think, you know, in any sort of business that we have,

the maintenance of facilities has to be one of the things in the operating budget or you run into big problems.

Basically what we’re seeking to do today, I think, is get a feel

from you all as to the scope of the deferred maintenance backlog

that is there, I think to get some idea with respect to reducing or

2

eliminating that backlog, what has been done and as importantly,

what yet needs to be done, and of course talk about systems to do

that. I think we ought to consider somewhere along the line the impact of new park unit designations and additions and what impact

that has on the Park’s ability to maintain the facilities that we now

have, 388 facilities or something, and every week there is more, all

of which are good, but there also needs to be at some point some

decisions made there; I think whether or not the Park Service either reduced or had to have neglected some other activities in order

to have a maintenance backlog and of course, whether or not that

funding has delayed filling job vacancies and imposed itself upon

the operating budget in particular.

I’m also interested, I have heard and seen, I think, some administration ideas that there would be $4 or $5 billion available for

this backlog over time, but yet, I believe that the current budget

recommendation is about the same as last year, so I would be interested in knowing what the plans are there.

I think it will be an excellent time for us to really deal with this

issue and see how we can help to do that.

Senator, welcome. Glad to have you here, sir. Do you have any

opening comments?

[A prepared statement from Senator Campbell follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL,

U.S. SENATOR FROM COLORADO

Thank you for calling this hearing, Senator Thomas. The advent of our national

parks system was a hallmark of the 20th century. Our parks have and continue to

be regarded as the world’s best, attracting tourists from all over the globe.

Unfortunately, toward the end of the last century, the National Park Service has

become burdened by a tremendous maintenance backlog. The reasons for that backlog are many, in no small part due to Congress’ consistent expansion of the system.

Under Secretary Norton’s leadership, the Service has done an admirable job in

meeting that backlog, especially if one considers the need to spend greater resources

on security on tighter budgets. Interior’s recent document titled, National Park

Service: Partnering and Managing for Excellence, highlights the Park Service’s successes in meeting the maintenance backlog. For example, it points out that since

FY 2002, nearly $2.9 billion has been provided to address the $4.9 billion backlog.

Approximately 900 repair/rehabilitation projects were addressed in FY 2001 and

2602, and another 500 projects are being tackled in FY 2003. The report goes on

to note the innovative partnerships between the Park Service and state and local

governments, as well as working with third-party interests in meeting funding

needs.

However, the Park Service seems to focus on quantity and not quality in

prioritizing its backlog. For example, at Mesa Verde National Park in my state of

Colorado is home to some of the greatest cultural resources in the Americas. Mesa

Verde has long been an important site to several Indian Tribes who return to the

Park for all manner of sacred and traditional rituals. In fact, three million artifacts

dating from 600 to 1300 A.D. were found and are stored at Mesa Verde.

Unfortunately, the curatorial storage facility housing these treasures was woefully

inadequate, resulting in the tangible loss of history. Mesa Verde’s curatorial facility

has long been recognized as lacking. Recently, the Park spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to improve the facility, yet it still only meets 60% of Secretary Norton’s own criteria defining adequate storage. To make matters worse, Mesa Verde

is constantly threatened by a very real sense of danger from wildfire. Just last year,

all of the artifacts had to be temporarily relocated to a new facility when a catastrophic wildfire blazed through the Park.

Even though the current facility fails the Secretary’s own scorecard, and wildfire

and inadequate storage threatens the existence of priceless artifacts, the National

Park Service did not list a new facility as a priority for next year or even the year

after that. Rather, the NPS provides funding for a new facility in 2009—seven years

from now.

3

I was perplexed at how can the Park Service delay and delay saving and preserving these artifacts year after year so I did a little checking on how the Service identifies and manages its backlog. As I understand it, the NPS uses a system called,

‘‘choosing by advantages,’’ which is similar to a cost-benefit analysis. In this case,

the NPS identifies a high value because it would be protecting 3 million priceless

artifacts. The Service then divides that value by the cost of the protection.

In this case, because we are talking about preserving 3 million priceless resources,

the cost of building such a structure would be expensive because it would have to

be relatively large. In the case of the Mesa Verde Park, the result of ‘‘choosing by

advantages’’ is that the project with the greatest value, even where there is the

greatest need, can be relegated to second tier or FY09 status.

Something needs to change. I commend the National Park Service and Secretary

Norton. However, so much more needs to be done. I urge the Park Service to take

a hard look at the way in which it prioritizes projects in administering its backlog.

Thank you.

STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL K. AKAKA, U.S. SENATOR

FROM HAWAII

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank

you very much for scheduling this hearing.

When I came to Senate in 1990, the National Park Service deferred maintenance backlog was a major issue, and it remains one

today. While I understand there are different views about the extent of the backlog and progress being made to reduce it, I know

we all agree on the importance of addressing this issue.

I hope this hearing will serve two purposes. First, it is important

that we get a better understanding of the underlying facts and

issues that are involved. For example, what is our best estimate of

the backlog and what progress have we made toward reducing it?

Even more basic, is there agreement on what actually constitutes

deferred maintenance, or are we double counting already scheduled

maintenance projects? In other words, we need a clear understanding of what service categories of deferred maintenance and backlog

reduction are consistent and accurate over time. Second, this hearing is important to draw attention to this matter because whatever

the reason for the backlog accumulating in the first place, the only

way it’s going to be reduced or eventually eliminated is by having

more money appropriated.

As a former member of the House Appropriations Committee, I

can appreciate the difficulties my colleagues on the Appropriations

Committee will face in trying to find additional funds for this or

any other worthwhile program. Unlike many issues facing the committee, National Park issues are rarely partisan. I hope we will

focus not on who is responsible for the problem, or who should get

credit for an increase in maintenance funding, but rather, on how

we will solve this problem.

Finally, as important as it is to try to reduce the maintenance

backlog, I think we need to remember that this is not the only priority for the Park Service. Deferred maintenance funding cannot

come at the expense of management and interpretive needs of the

Park Service, and we need to ensure that we don’t offset money

from existing operational accounts to increase the score card on

maintenance. The Park Service must have the ability to accomplish

its primary mission, and that is to protect and preserve our irreplaceable natural, cultural, and historic treasures.

Mr. Chairman, again, I want to thank you for holding this hearing and I look forward to hearing our distinguished witnesses.

4

Senator THOMAS. Thank you, sir. Senator Alexander, do you have

a statement?

Senator ALEXANDER. Glad to be here, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to hearing from the witnesses and I will ask my questions

after that.

Senator THOMAS. That was a beautiful short statement, thank

you, sir. A bit unusual around here.

Let’s go on then with the panel. We would like to welcome Donald Murphy, Deputy Director, National Park Service, who is with

us this morning, and Barry Hill, Director, Natural Resources and

Environmental Issues for the GAO. Welcome, gentlemen. Glad to

have you here.

Go right ahead, Mr. Murphy, please.

STATEMENT OF DONALD W. MURPHY, DEPUTY DIRECTOR,

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to

appear before the subcommittee and discuss the National Park

Service’s backlog of deferred maintenance and some of the related

issues. We’re pleased to have the opportunity to share our successes in addressing the deferred maintenance backlog with you

this morning, which in an important component of the President’s

Parks Legacy Program.

As you already mentioned, Secretary Norton and Director

Maniella did issue a report just recently, gave it to the President,

on the National Park Service: Partnering and Managing for Excellence, where we highlighted some of the accomplishments that we

have made as far as the maintenance backlog is concerned. As you

pointed out, the backlog has been estimated anywhere from $4 to

$6 billion. There was the original report by the General Accounting

Office that highlighted approximately a $4.9 billion maintenance

backlog and the President of the United States, or course during

the campaign and then early on in the administration, took that

number as an estimate of what the current maintenance backlog

happened to be and made a pledge to try to tackle at a minimum,

that much of the maintenance backlog.

So far, over the past 2 years, we have of course spent approxi- mately $2.9 billion tackling that backlog. He’s proposing more than

$760 million annually over a 5-year period that will totally roughly

$3.84 billion toward addressing that backlog, as well as during that

same period approximately $1.26 billion to handle road maintenance. The funds provided to date have addressed very specific

projects, everything from wastewater treatment plants that you

have read about in the report to money that has gone to Federal

Hall Foundation, some to respond to some of our resource management projects as well, $2.1 million to Yellowstone to replace a

wastewater treatment plant and relocate sewer lines that were

threatening Old Faithful. Approximately 900 repair and rehab

projects have been addressed during that period, with another 500

or so in the pipeline.

I think the most important thing that we will say here this

morning is that we really have to get an honest handle on what

the maintenance backlog is. The only way we can do that is

through a systematic approach of inventorying what you have, and

5

prior to just 2 years ago, the National Park Service had absolutely

no inventory of the facilities that made up its facility maintenance

program. We have undertaken over the last 2 years to begin that

inventory, have completed 125 parks so far, and the last parks will

be completed by the end of this fiscal year, except for the four largest, which will be completed by the end of fiscal year 04. So first

of all, you have to establish the universe of what you have and

that’s what the physical inventory does.

The next most important step in that is establishing a facility

condition index for that inventory that you have, and that facility

condition index is based on what it costs you to keep a facility in

good repair, divided by its current replacement value. That gives

you a ratio and as long as that ratio is .1 or below, you know your

facilities are in good condition. If that number is above that, you

know that you need to start taking care of those facilities.

Not only that, that has to be coupled with what’s called also an

asset priority index, which allows you to prioritize the importance

of the facilities that you do have, so that not only do you have a

facility condition index that you supplement with a priority index,

and that gives you the ability to then focus on just those projects

that are the most important and the most critical, those that you

can really begin to make the most of the monies that you are

spending.

This program never existed in the National Park Service before

and it’s really not until this program is really fully implemented

that you’re going to really have a very good understanding and

handle on what the maintenance backlog is. Right now we’re dealing with estimates and they’re fairly good estimates, but they are

not objective and systematic estimates based on real data.

That’s what we’re undertaking to do in the National Park Service

and until that job is complete, all of this talk about what the scope

of the maintenance backlog is just your best guess based upon the

situation at any given moment.

We have provided CD-ROMs that we will give to the members

that will really explain in great detail exactly how this facility assessment program will work in the National Park Service. It’s used

by the Department of Defense, it’s used by other agencies across

the Nation, and it really is a state-of-the-art computerized program

that will help us finally get a handle on our maintenance or facility

maintenance program. It’s extremely important to us.

I think the other important thing to mention this morning is, you

know, it’s really important that we focus on the National Park

Service’s ability to connect with the American people. So as part of

the President’s Legacy program, he’s encouraging American people

to participate in the protection of national and cultural resources

through such programs such as the Land and Water Conservation

Fund, the new Preserve America program which was just announced, Take Pride in America, which is a program that has existed for a number of years and encourages volunteers to come and

work in land management agencies as volunteers. And so, this is

an extremely important part of the administration’s focus on the

Legacy for National Parks as well.

I think you all know of the effects of 9/11 on increased security

in this Nation. The National Park Service has 9 designated areas

6

as critical infrastructure in this nation. There are icon parks,

places such as the Status of Liberty, the Mall right here in Washington, all of the monuments, the Jefferson Memorial, all of these

areas are falling under our areas with the need for increased security and we’re focusing our efforts and resources on that as well.

You mentioned the addition of new units to the National Park

Service. During the last 5 years, 14 new units have come into the

National Park system. Congress created 11 new units, President

Clinton established by proclamation three.

For fiscal year 04, it is important to know that the proposed op- erating budgets for these new units is nearly $4 million dollars and

includes a total of 10 full-time equivalents, and their staff will, of

course, be expected to increase over the years and they do, of

course, have an impact on the overall funding needs of the National Park Service.

So, we appreciate the opportunity to outline some of the visions

that this administration has for managing the parks, particularly

in the area of maintenance backlog and I seriously look forward to

answering your questions as forthrightly as I can, and I have prepared testimony that we have made available for the committee as

well. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Murphy follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DONALD W. MURPHY, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before your subcommittee

to discuss the National Park Service (NPS) backlog of deferred maintenance and related issues.

We are pleased to have the opportunity to share our successes in addressing the

deferred maintenance backlog, which is an important component of President Bush’s

National Parks Legacy Project. The Legacy Project was initiated to ensure proper

care of our National Park System and is designed to enhance ecosystems, improve

outdoor opportunities, address infrastructure needs, and establish accountability

through performance goals. As the President said in his first address to a joint session of Congress in 2001, ‘‘Our national parks have a special place in our country’s

life. Our parks are places of great national beauty and history. As good stewards,

we must leave them better than we found them.’’

On July 2, 2003, Interior Secretary Gale Norton and NPS Director Fran Mainella

issued a report entitled ‘‘National Park Service: Partnering and Managing for Excellence’’ (NPS Accomplishments Report) that highlights the progress toward fulfilling

the goals of President Bush’s National Parks Legacy Project. A major focus of the

report is the accomplishments NPS has made in addressing the deferred maintenance backlog.

The President has committed significant funding to address both the repair and

management aspects of the deferred maintenance backlog. He is proposing more

than $760 million annually over a five-year period, for a total of $3.84 billion, to

pay for non-road maintenance and construction and nearly $1.26 billion during the

same period for road maintenance. In addition, for the first time ever, NPS has established the Asset Management Program which includes the implementation of the

Facility Management Software System (FMSS), an off-the-shelf system to monitor

and prioritize ongoing maintenance needs that will allow NPS to manage the backlog and prevent a recurrence of maintenance backlogs in the future. Most importantly, through the establishment of this program, NPS will be able to measure performance in improving facility conditions through a Facility Condition Index (FCI).

This will allow us to track progress in achieving results, rather than just counting

funds.

A May 1998 General Accounting Office report (‘‘Efforts to Identify and Manage

the Maintenance Backlog’’ GAO/RCED-98-143) stated that the NPS ‘‘does not have

a routine, systematic process for determining its maintenance backlog’’ and cited

concerns about the accuracy of the NPS estimate of $4.9 billion (excluding new construction). Using the only estimate available, President Bush committed to provide

at least $4.9 billion in funding for NPS to address the deferred maintenance backVerDate 11-SEP-98 14:55 Sep 03, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\89-076 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
7

log. The Administration is on a path to meet that goal. To put the funding increases

in perspective, the more than $1 billion requested for FY 04 is nearly 50 percent

more than was provided in FY 00 and double what was provided in FY 97.

Funds provided to date are achieving tangible results, and the NPS has begun to

improve the condition of hundreds of park assets using the increased funding Congress has appropriated at President Bush’s request. For example:

• $16.5 million has gone to Federal Hall National Memorial to repair cracks in

the building; • $4.1 million is being used at Everglades National Park to repair a 135,000 gallon-per-day wastewater treatment system; • $4.1 million has gone to Lava Beds National Monument to relocate the visitor

center away from fragile underground resources; and • $2.1 million is being used at Yellowstone National Park to replace a wastewater

treatment plan and relocate the Old Faithful sewer line.

In the past two years, NPS has tackled approximately 900 repair and rehabilitation projects. These projects, including 60 fire safety projects, have enhanced visitor

and employee safety. They have improved health protection by upgrading and repairing 186 water, wastewater, and sewer facilities. They have made buildings better and safer for visitors through over 325 general building and safety rehabilitation

projects. Another 500 projects are underway in 2003 and approximately 400 more

are programmed for 2004.

As part of the President’s Legacy Project, park roads, too, will be brought into

good condition. In 2001, just 35 percent of park roads were in good condition. Under

the proposed highway transportation bill, which would provide $1.89 billion over six

years for the Park Roads and Parkways Program, over 80 percent of paved park

roads would be brought into good or excellent condition, and virtually no paved road

would be in poor condition.

An essential component of the National Parks Legacy Project is to prevent future

backlogs by bringing state-of-the-art facility management to the parks. An essential

component of the National Parks Legacy Project is to prevent future backlogs by

bringing state-of-the-art facility management practices to the parks through the

Asset Management Program. The Asset Management Program will give us the capacity to generate information about our assets on a service-wide basis. To accomplish this goal, NPS is implementing a new off-the-shelf software system, the Facility Management Software System (FMSS). This system is now operational in some

parks and will be fully implemented by 2006. NPS has developed a CD-ROM that

explains the asset management program. We have provided a copy to this subcommittee and hope that you will have an opportunity to view it.

NPS is taking the necessary steps to ensuring effective and efficient implementation of the Asset Management Program. The first step is to better understand the

condition of the NPS infrastructure at each park by conducting an inventory, identifying deficiencies, and estimating the cost of repair and current replacement value

of park assets. NPS is accelerating its efforts to complete these facility condition assessments at all 388 park units to provide, for the first time, a complete inventory

of maintenance needs. Facility condition assessments at 125 parks were completed

by December 2002. By the end of FY 03, facility condition assessments will be completed at all but four of the largest parks. The NPS will complete the final facility

condition assessments on these parks in FY 04.

Our current estimates of NPS infrastructure show that it includes more than

26,000 historic structures and other buildings, 8,500 monuments, over 12,000 miles

of trails, some 1,200 water systems, and about 1,400 wastewater treatment plants.

Our road network is estimated to consist of nearly 5,500 paved miles of road, more

than 6,000 miles of unpaved roads, and some 1,700 bridges. The facility condition

assessments, completed as part of the Asset Management Program will allow NPS

to refine and validate these numbers further.

The next step in implementing the Asset Management Program is to determine

the Facility Condition Index (FCI) for park assets, except for roads which use the

Pavement Condition Rating (PCR). The FCI is a performance measure used to help

quantify or determine the condition of a particular park asset based on the cost of

repair and the current replacement value. To determine the cost of repair of an

asset, NPS uses FMSS to link information derived through the facility condition assessments to an industry-standard cost-estimating tool. Thus, NPS can measure

progress against the industry-standard measure of a FCI for certain types of assets

such as buildings. Other assets, however, such as monuments and cultural landscapes do not have industry-standard measures and are more difficult to compare.

Once the FCI is determined for individual assets, NPS will be able to establish

a service-wide FCI baseline, and then use the baseline to determine FCI target

8

ranges for improved future conditions. NPS has established an initial FCI baseline

by using statistical modeling on the facilities condition assessments completed thus

far for eight major categories of regular assets (i.e., buildings, campgrounds, trails,

paved roads, unpaved roads, water systems, wastewater treatment plants, and employee housing). FCI target ranges are NPS performance goals. NPS is still working

to verify these numbers and determine the FCI levels for fair and good condition,

so we are not yet in a position to discuss the total costs of bringing the facility average up to fair or better condition. We expect to be able to use FCI performance

measures and targets to support the President’s 2005 Budget. This process will

allow NPS to evaluate the impact of particular funding levels on asset performance

and condition and quantify the consequences of delaying or not accomplishing repairs.

The final step in implementing the Asset Management Program is to use FCI, the

Asset Priority Index (API), and other policy considerations to prioritize the maintenance needs of park assets. The API is used by park managers to identify the importance of the asset in accomplishing the park’s mission. Through the Asset Management Program, NPS will have to articulate clearly and consistently its asset priorities, the investment needed to sustain them, and the rate of deterioration over

time. Other important reasons to invest in a facility include such considerations as

critical health, safety, and resource protection needs, partnerships, and visitor services requirements. Likewise, it may be appropriate to demolish structures for which

the costs to improve the condition are prohibitive.

Professional facility management also requires regular maintenance to prevent facilities from gradually falling into disrepair. In FY 03, funding for cyclic maintenance increased from $22 million to $42 million, and in FY 04 is slated to increase

to $56 million under the President’s budget. By ensuring cyclic and preventative

maintenance at regular intervals, this investment will help prevent a maintenance

backlog recurrence. While new park facility maintenance needs will continue to

emerge, the combination of increased funding and management reforms instituted

through the Asset Management Program will allow the NPS to find the point where

sustainable funding levels will cover an asset’s life cycle maintenance and capital

replacement costs.

Another component of the President’s Legacy Project and the NPS Accomplishments Report recognizes NPS’ special connection to the American people and its

unique ability to engage the public, establish partnerships and promote volunteerism. The NPS is serving as a catalyst and encouraging many individuals and organizations to leverage resources and information, overcome organizational and procedural barriers, and increase cooperation and consultation. The President is encouraging the American people to participate in the protection of natural and cultural

resources through such programs as Land and Water Conservation Fund stateside

grants, the Preserve America Initiative, Take Pride in America, and the creation of

public and private partnerships. Through these programs, our goal is to create a

seamless national network of parks, historic places, and open spaces.

The President’s Legacy Project also seeks to improve visitor service and keep the

parks safe. The September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States and the

resulting world events require increased security for our national parks and monuments throughout the National Park System. As the principal steward of our nation’s most treasured cultural icons, the NPS has assigned nearly 200 additional

protection rangers to meet increased security needs. Secretary Norton has issued directives to improve the management of the law enforcement program within the

NPS and across the Department of the Interior. NPS also has developed a comprehensive Emergency Preparedness and Response plan to protect public health in

the unique settings of the national parks and is coordinating with other bureaus

and agencies to ensure complete communications integration. NPS will continue to

strengthen security efforts through better training of personnel and improved equipment.

The efforts outlined in the NPS Accomplishments Report demonstrate the President’s commitment to taking better care of the parks already under our stewardship. Because this effort focuses on addressing the deferred maintenance backlog,

the Department has been asking Congress to defer action on bills that would establish new units of the National Park System, despite the fact that some of these proposals might otherwise merit our support. We have taken this position because we

are concerned about the demands each new unit could create on the NPS budget.

When Congress authorizes new units, additional funding for operation, maintenance, and usually, land acquisition and construction are ultimately required. Additional personnel are also usually required. Existing authorizations to acquire land

for new units and boundary expansions exceed available funds.

9

During the last twelve years (1991-2002), 34 new units of the National Park System were established. Congress created 31 of the new units and President Clinton

established three by Presidential Proclamation. For FY03, the operating budgets for

these new units total $25.6 million. Some of these units are so new, they are not

fully operational, so their operational costs will likely grow. For these 34 units, the

current system of identifying needs in the park contain over $30 million in recurring

unfunded operational needs and over $265 million in unfunded one-time projects.

While all of these items will not be funded anytime soon, they represent new demands on the National Park System that were not there 12 years ago. The President’s FY 04 request includes $5.1 million or 36 percent of the total request for programmatic increases for parks with new responsibilities. A portion of this amount

includes planning and start-up money for some of the newly authorized units.

We are trying to slow the growth of the National Park System so that we can

focus our resources for the time being on reducing the deferred maintenance backlog. In advancing President Bush’s National Parks Legacy Project, the NPS has substantially reduced the deferred maintenance backlog and instituted measures to prevent its recurrence. We are also taking other steps to be the most effective and efficient agency possible with the financial resources we have at our disposal.

We appreciate this opportunity to outline the vision of caring for and enhancing

the special places in our National Park System, as set forth in President Bush’s National Parks Legacy and the ‘‘National Park Service: Partnering and Managing for

Excellence’’ Report. We will continue to work with this subcommittee as we move

forward with our efforts to address the maintenance backlog and improve the management of the National Park System.

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. I would be pleased to answer any

questions you may have.

Senator THOMAS. Thank you, sir. I’m sure we will have some

questions.

Mr. Hill.

STATEMENT OF BARRY T. HILL, DIRECTOR, NATURAL

RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT, GENERAL ACCOUNTING

OFFICE

Mr. HILL. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I’m

pleased to be here today to discuss the National Park Service maintenance backlog and if I may, I would like to briefly summarize my

prepared statement and submit the full text of the statement for

the record.

Senator THOMAS. It will be included.

Mr. HILL. For decades, GAO, the Department of the Interior and

others have reported on the Park Service’s efforts to develop an effective maintenance management process that would enable the

Agency to provide accurate and reliable estimates of the amount of

deferred maintenance on its assets. Over the years, the Agency’s

estimates of its deferred maintenance backlog have varied widely,

sometimes by billions of dollars. Today the Agency estimates that

its deferred maintenance backlog is about $5 billion. The Agency

acknowledges that it still does not have the data needed to properly

manage the broad array of historic, cultural and natural assets

placed in its care. In 1998 the Park Service initiated and designed

a new asset management process that is intended to provide the

Agency with a better overall approach to managing its asset inventory.

My testimony today summarizes our prior work regarding the potential of the Park Service’s new asset management process and

provides an update on the progress the Park Service is making in

implementing it.

Let me start by briefly summarizing our prior work. In April

2002, we reported the Park Service had made progress in developVerDate 11-SEP-98 14:55 Sep 03, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\89-076 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
10

ing a new asset management process that when fully and properly

implemented, should provide the Agency with more accurate and

reliable estimates of the amount of deferred maintenance on its assets. As currently planned the new process will, for the first time,

enable the Agency to have a reliable inventory of its assets, a process for reporting on the condition of the assets in its inventory, and

a system-wide methodology for estimating deferred maintenance

costs for its assets.

Although the new process appears promising, we raised the following concerns. First, the success of the process could not be determined until staff at each of the park units are trained and the

process is fully and properly implemented.

Second, the Park Service had not yet estimated what the total

implementation cost for the process would be, or developed a schedule for when full implementation would occur. Third, two different

operating divisions within the Park Service, that being concessions

management and facilities management, were developing separate

processes for tracking and reporting deferred maintenance and it

was unclear whether their efforts were duplicative. And finally,

only about one third of the park units complete annual conditions

systems by the end of fiscal year 2002. While this approach may

have been appropriate for meeting management and financial reporting needs in the short term, without comprehensive assessments, more complex and costly problems might be overlooked in

the long term.

Now let me update the progress we’re aware of in implementing

the new process. Since our last report, I’m pleased to say that the

Park Service has made progress. The Park Service now reports

that it has completed its inventory of assets for all park units as

well as the first round of staff training on the use of the computer

software.

The Agency has also developed costs and schedule estimates for

implementing the process. According to the schedule, the process is

to be fully implemented by the end of fiscal year 2006 at a cost of

about $90 million, including the costs of performing condition assessments on park assets. Thereafter, the annual cost of sustaining

the process will be about $20 million.

Also, the Park Service is now in the early stages of developing

a plan to eliminate any duplication or inconsistencies between the

concessions and the facilities management organizations. Furthermore, the Agency has completed annual condition assessments on

all but 9 of the larger parks in the system, and is concurrently performing the more detailed comprehensive condition assessments on

other park units.

Mr. Chairman, may I point out that we have not had the opportunity to verify the information I’m providing on the status of the

Park Service implementation of its new process. However, we believe that if this new process is fully implemented as planned, the

Park Service will be in a better position to determine the conditions

of the assets in its portfolio and to develop accurate and more reliable estimates of its deferred maintenance needs.

This concludes my prepared statement and I will be more than

happy to answer any questions you or the members may have.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hill follows:]

11

1This maintenance includes resources and activities needed to maintain facilities and the infrastructure in the system, such as buildings, trails, botanical gardens, bridges, and other structures. It does not include maintenance or restoration of natural landscapes, such as removing

non-native plant species from a meadow. 2The Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards No. 6, Accounting for Plant, Property, and Equipment, issued by the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board in 1996, requires that deferred maintenance be disclosed in federal agencies’ annual financial statements

beginning in fiscal year 1998. 3 U.S. General Accounting Office, National Park Service: Status of Efforts to Develop Better

Deferred Maintenance Data, GAO-02-56SR (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 12, 2002).

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BARRY T. HILL, DIRECTOR, NATURAL RESOURCES AND

ENVIRONMENT, GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: I am pleased to be here today

to discuss the National Park Service’s maintenance backlog. GAO, the Department

of the Interior, and others have reported on the Park Service’s efforts to develop an

effective maintenance management process that would, among other things, enable

the agency to provide accurate and reliable estimates of the amount of deferred

maintenance on its assets. Over the years, the agency’s estimates of the amount of

its deferred maintenance backlog have varied widely—sometimes by billions of dollars.

Currently, the agency estimates its deferred maintenance backlog at over $5 billion. Although the Park Service has spent almost two decades addressing its maintenance backlog, it acknowledges that it still does not have the data it needs to properly manage the broad array of historic, cultural, and natural assets placed in its

care—including accurate and reliable data on its deferred maintenance needs.1 In

1998, spurred by continuing congressional concerns and new federal accounting

standards,2 the Park Service initiated the design of a new asset management process that is intended to provide the agency with a better overall approach to managing its asset inventory.

A major goal of this new process is to provide the Park Service with a reliable

and systematic method for estimating and documenting its deferred maintenance

needs and tracking progress in reducing the amount of deferred maintenance.

As you requested, my testimony today will (1) summarize our prior work regarding the potential of the Park Service’s new asset management process to provide

maintenance data that will permit agency managers and the Congress to monitor

progress in reducing deferred maintenance and (2) update the progress the Park

Service is making in implementing its new asset management process and realizing

its potential for improved management.

For the most part, my testimony is based on a report we issued last year.3 At

that time, the design of the new process was complete but implementation was just

beginning. In preparing for today’s hearing, we obtained updated information from

the Park Service. However, we did not have the opportunity to independently verify

the information the Park Service provided. To do so would have required work at

regional offices and parks. We conducted our work in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

RESULTS IN BRIEF

As we previously reported, the Park Service’s new asset management process is

designed to address deferred maintenance, commonly referred to as the maintenance backlog, as part of a much broader approach to asset management. When

fully and properly implemented, the new process is expected, for the first time, to

enable the agency to have a (1) reliable inventory of its assets; (2) process for reporting on the condition of each asset in its inventory; and (3) consistent, system-wide

methodology for estimating the deferred maintenance costs for each asset.

As a result, agency managers and the Congress should receive much more accurate and reliable information on the extent of deferred maintenance needs throughout the national park system. Nonetheless, while the Park Service’s current efforts

are promising, we reported on a few areas that the agency needed to address to improve the performance of the process. These included the need to (1) develop costs

and schedules for completing the implementation of the process so that the agency’s

performance could be monitored and assessed, (2) better coordinate the tracking of

the process among Park Service headquarters units to avoid duplication of effort

within the agency, and (3) better define its approach to assessing the condition of

its assets, and determining how much the assessments will cost.

Since our report last year, I am pleased to say that the agency appears to have

made progress. While complete implementation of the process will not occur until

fiscal year 2006, the agency has completed, or nearly completed, several substantial

12

4Since fiscal year 1996, the Park Service, as well as three other federal land management

agencies, have been authorized to have a fee demonstration program. Under this temporary program, the agencies are permitted to experiment with increased and/or new recreation fees. The

revenue generated from this program remains available for agency use to address a variety of

needs, including maintenance, without further appropriation. 5The House Committee on Appropriations has stressed that recreation fees should never be

used to replace appropriated funds; the fees should be used for direct improvements on site that

enhance the recreation experience. H.R. Rep. No. 106-646 (2000).

and important steps. According to the Park Service, it has completed its asset inventory, trained staff on the use of the required computer software, and completed most

of the on-site inspections necessary to determine the condition and maintenance

needs of inventoried assets. In addition, the Park Service provided information indicating that it was addressing each of the concerns identified in our prior report.

BACKGROUND

The national park system contains 388 park units. These park units have a diverse inventory of facilities and other assets, including over 18,000 permanent structures, 8,000 miles of roads, 1,800 bridges and tunnels, 4,400 housing units, about

700 water and wastewater systems, over 400 dams, and 200 solid waste operations.

The Park Service values these assets at over $35 billion. Needless to say, the proper

care and maintenance of the national parks and their supporting infrastructure is

essential to the continued use and enjoyment of our national treasures by this and

future generations.

However, for years Park Service officials have highlighted the agency’s inability

to keep up with its maintenance needs. In this connection, Park Service officials and

others have often cited a continuing buildup of unmet maintenance needs as evidence of deteriorating conditions throughout the national park system. The accumulation of these unmet needs is commonly referred to as its ‘‘maintenance backlog.’’

Although the Park Service has spent almost two decades and about $11 million addressing this problem, it still does not have a reliable estimate of deferred maintenance needs for its facilities and other assets.

In the past several years, concerns about the cost of operating and maintaining

federal recreation sites within the National Park Service, as well as other federal

land management agencies, led the Congress to provide a significant new source of

funds. This additional source of funding the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program 4—was, in part, aimed at helping the agencies address their backlogged repair

and maintenance problems. This new funding source is in addition to annual appropriations the Park Service receives each year for maintenance activities.5

Despite the years of attention and funding and the well-intended efforts of the

agency and the Congress to resolve the maintenance backlog dilemma, it has not

gone away. While Congress continues to provide hundreds of millions of dollars annually to deal with the maintenance backlog at the national parks, the Park Service

still has no reliable data on the size of the problem, raising questions about what

has been accomplished with the provided funds.

WHEN FULLY AND PROPERLY IMPLEMENTED, THE PARK SERVICE’S NEW ASSET MANAGE- MENT PROCESS SHOULD PROVIDE ACCURATE AND RELIABLE DEFERRED MAINTENANCE

DATA

As we reported in April 2002, the Park Service has made progress in developing

a new asset management process that, when fully and properly implemented, should

provide the agency with more accurate and reliable estimates of the amount of deferred maintenance of its assets. As currently planned, the new process will, for the

first time, enable the agency to have a (1) reliable inventory of its assets; (2) process

for reporting on the condition of assets in its inventory; and (3) system-wide methodology for estimating deferred maintenance costs for assets.

The new asset management process is composed of both system-wide, integrated

software to track cost and maintenance data and regular condition assessments of

Park Service assets. The cornerstone of the new asset management process is the

Facility Management Software System. This cradle-to-grave asset and work management process will allow park, regional office, or Park Service headquarters managers to track when, what, and how much maintenance and related costs has been

directed at each specific asset.

In addition to using the software system, the Park Service plans to assess the condition of its assets. These assessments will be inspections to document the condition

of an asset as measured against applicable maintenance or condition standards.

There are two types of condition assessments annual and comprehensive. Annual

assessments are essentially ‘‘eyeball inspections’’ of facilities to identify obvious and

13

apparent deficiencies. Comprehensive assessments are more in-depth inspections to

identify less obvious deficiencies, such as foundation or structural problems. While

the eye-ball assessments are annual, the comprehensive assessments, which are

much more expensive and time-consuming, occur in 5-year cycles. The Park Service

is to use the information obtained from these condition assessments to establish the

overall condition of a facility or asset, including the resources needed to address its

deferred maintenance needs and future facility needs. The cost of identified deferred

maintenance needs will be estimated using another computer software system that

will provide a uniform method for estimating repair and maintenance costs for each

asset in the inventory. Agency managers will use the condition assessment information in combination with an asset priority ranking system to set priorities for deferred maintenance projects.

While the design of the new process is complete, we reported in April 2002 that

the Park Service had just begun implementing it. For example, at that time, the

agency was still inventorying its assets and training staff on how to use the new

process at about a third of the park units in the national park system. We reported

that because managers at each park will be required to implement this new process

using a uniform system-wide methodology, the resulting deferred maintenance estimates should permit agency managers, as well as the Congress, to monitor progress

in reducing deferred maintenance both at the individual park and system-wide levels. However, we noted that while the new process is promising, its success cannot

be determined until staff in each of the park units are trained and the new asset

management process is fully and properly implemented.

In our last report, we also raised three concerns about the Park Service’s implementation of the new asset management process. While these matters were not significant enough to undermine the overall merit of the new process, we believed that

addressing them would improve the effectiveness of the process. First, even though

the Park Service had been developing its new process for more than 3 years, it had

not yet estimated its total implementation costs or developed a schedule for completing implementation. While the agency had made progress in developing schedules

and costs for some components of the process, it had not yet estimated when it will

complete all the required condition assessments or what they will cost. We noted

that monitoring and assessing performance against budgets and time frames would

be difficult without complete estimates and schedules that include all components

of the process, including the completion of condition assessments.

Second, two different operating divisions within the Park Service—Concessions

Management and Facilities Management—were developing separate processes for

tracking and reporting deferred maintenance, even though both units are responsible for managing the condition of government-owned facilities. Because both of

these units have similar responsibilities, it seemed reasonable that they would work

together in a coordinated way to ensure that their efforts are not duplicative.

Finally, the Park Service reported that about one-third of the park units were to

complete annual condition assessments by the end of fiscal year 2002. We noted that

this approach may be appropriate for meeting programmatic and financial reporting

needs in the short term; however, without comprehensive assessments, this approach might result in overlooking more complex and costly problems in the long

term. As a result, this approach could understate the extent of the deferred maintenance problem. Park Service officials told us that the agency eventually planned to

conduct comprehensive assessments for all assets. However, at the time they had

not developed a plan detailing where, when, and how the assessments will be done

or what they will cost.

THE PARK SERVICE HAS MADE PROGRESS IMPLEMENTING ITS ASSET MANAGEMENT

PROCESS SINCE OUR LAST REPORT

Although full implementation of the new asset management process is still years

from completion, the Park Service appears to have made progress since our last report. Also, importantly, Park Service management has demonstrated its commitment to implementing this process by withholding some fiscal year 2003 funding

from parks that are not complying with the agency’s implementation goals.

The agency now reports that it has completed its inventory of assets for all park

units as well as the first round of staff training on the use of the facilities management software. The agency also contracted with a consulting firm to evaluate its

training and implementation efforts to help ensure that the training is effective and

that the software system is being consistently applied throughout the park system.

The Park Service is now analyzing the firm’s results and recommendations to determine what changes it should make for the next training cycle and in the ongoing

implementation of the process.

14

6These parks include Appalachian Trail, Delaware Water Gap, Gateway, Golden Gate, Grand

Canyon, Great Smoky Mountains, Rocky Mountain, Yellowstone, and Yosemite.

The agency is also addressing each of the issues raised in our last report. Specifically, the Park Service has now developed cost and schedule estimates for the complete implementation of the process. According to the schedule, the process is to be

fully implemented by the end of fiscal year 2006, when all the comprehensive condition assessments are complete for all park units and deferred maintenance and

other needs can be estimated on a reliable and consistent basis for assets throughout the national park system. The Park Service estimates now that the cost of the

complete rollout and implementation, including performing condition assessments,

will be about $91 million from fiscal years 1999 through 2006. Thereafter, it estimates that the annual costs of sustaining the process once it is fully operational will

be about $20 million.

In response to our concern that two different operating divisions within the agency—Concessions Management and Facilities Management—were developing separate processes for maintaining government-owned facilities, the Park Service told us

that they agreed and are committed to implementing a single facilities management

process. According to the agency, it is now in the early stages of developing a plan

to eliminate any duplication or inconsistencies between these two components of the

organization.

The Park Service has also made progress in performing its service-wide facility

condition assessments. According to the Park Service, it has completed annual condition assessments—visual inspections—on all but nine of the larger parks in the

system.6 In addition, the Park Service is concurrently performing the more detailed,

comprehensive condition assessments on other park units. According to the Park

Service, the work done so far are necessary steps and reflect some of the best practices of the private sector in developing and implementing an effective facility management process.

CONCLUSION

The Park Service has an awesome responsibility in taking care of the nation’s natural, cultural and historic treasures. While it has unfortunately taken decades to

achieve the current level of focus on maintaining these treasures, the Park Service

apparently now has made substantive progress in developing and implementing a

system it can use to determine the conditions of the assets in its portfolio and develop accurate and reliable estimates of its deferred maintenance needs. However,

the agency has not yet completed the task. Determining the assets’ conditions and

their maintenance costs will require years of sustained commitment by the agency

and by the Congress to ensure that the full benefits of the agency’s new facility

management process are realized.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be happy to respond to any questions that you or Members of the Subcommittee may have.

Senator THOMAS. Okay, thank you. Mr. Murphy, let me go back

to the administration’s idea of how much money they are going to

put in there. How is that reflected in the President’s budget now

that’s being considered?

Mr. MURPHY. Well, as I pointed out in my testimony, roughly

$760 million is included in the President’s budget for facility maintenance in the National Park Service and that, I think people often

ask what that consists of, so let me just take a minute and explain

the components there.

That consists of our line item construction program, repair and

rehabilitation, cyclic maintenance, and it also includes roads as

well, and that totals the roughly $760 million included in the President’s budget, as stated earlier in my testimony.

Senator THOMAS. My information is that the construction budget is more like $325 million.

Mr. MURPHY. That’s the line item construction budget. That’s

why I was taking pains to include or explain the fact that the overall facility maintenance program includes line item construction,

which you just mentioned. It includes repair and rehab, and it also

15

includes the roads program as well, and that’s how you come up

with that total I just mentioned.

Senator THOMAS. What about the fee demo program?

Mr. MURPHY. That’s the other component that I left out. That’s roughly, $75 million dollars is the total that the fee demo program—we have asked all of our park units to concentrate a certain

percentage of the fee demonstration program on facility maintenance, and that contributes about $75 million annually to the program as well.

Senator THOMAS. Most of the emphasis there, though, has been

for visitors’ enjoyment, hasn’t it? It’s a little tough to have the visitors think about fixing the sewer.

Mr. MURPHY. Well, it certainly has, but visitor enjoyment certainly includes repair and rehab of visitor service facilities, and

those kinds of facilities affect restrooms. A visitor certainly

wouldn’t be able to enjoy themselves if restroom facilities aren’t

available.

Senator THOMAS. I understand. What is the process for setting

priorities in terms of the Park Service priorities for maintenance

and picking up things that need to be done?

Mr. MURPHY. Well, I will just reiterate for a minute and maybe

staff can give you a little more detail about how the facility assessment program works. In the past, you know, we really haven’t had

a very objective and systematic way of establishing priorities. So

now in this new program under this management performance, we

have what is called the asset priority index, and we actually have

a sheet where every single facility asks a series of questions which

allows us to then establish a priority for that particular facility.

There are about 10 questions and those questions add up to

about 40 points—I’m sorry, add up to a number of points, it’s more

than 40, and based on the number of points that that particular

facility gets, 40 or more says that that facility is an extremely important asset. And then that coupled with the facility condition

index, which I mentioned earlier, the ratio of what it costs to keep

the facility in good condition divided by its current replacement

values, those two things taken together will allow the National

Park Service now to establish clear and defensible priorities for the

maintenance of its various facilities throughout the National Park

Service. That’s extremely important to us because in the past we

really have not had a systematic way of doing that.

Currently, our priorities are mainly based upon health and safety, and then down from there according to the visitor——

Senator THOMAS. So if I’m a park superintendent, so I list these

things, and then I suppose it goes to the regional office, and then

it goes here and you make these decisions at each level, is that it?

Mr. MURPHY. They’re reviewed at each level, after we give out—

we give out what we call budget instructions or instructions on how

things are to be done and prioritized. Right now, as I was saying,

health and safety are the main criteria that are used to establish

priorities for doing certain of our projects. Ultimately, though, as

I explained with the new program, we have this objective measure,

and it’s one that’s agreed upon throughout the Service, and everyone is trained in it, including the regional offices and including the

Washington office. Then we come to Congress and we present it to

16

you and we say look, we have a very objective system that we’re

using that’s credible, it’s based in data, and we would have agreement across the board.

The Department of Defense uses this program now, it has agreements with Congress that this is the way we develop our budget,

it’s very clear and systematic, and now we would like to have

agreement that these are our priorities and they should be funded

as such. A much more objective approach than we’ve ever had.

Senator THOMAS. I was surprised when you said only 14 units

had been added in the last 5 years.

Mr. MURPHY. Yes, since 1990 or so.

Senator THOMAS. I don’t believe that can be quite accurate. It

seems like we have a couple of them every week around here.

[Laughter.]

Mr. MURPHY. These units are since 1998 through 2002, and

they’re Little Rock, Tuskegee Airmen, the Minuteman Missile,

Rosie the Riveter, First Ladies National Historic Site, Sam Creek,

Great Sand Dunes, Governor’s Island was added, Virgin Islands

Coral Reef——

Senator THOMAS. These aren’t, they don’t include Heritage and

some of those other kinds of facilities?

Mr. MURPHY. Not the Heritage, no, because these are units that

were actually added to the National Park System.

Senator THOMAS. Okay, thank you. Senator Akaka?

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Murphy, please extend my greetings to Director Maniella.

Mr. MURPHY. I will pass it along.

Senator AKAKA. I have questions about old money and new

money, and would like to try and clarify some of the budget numbers you referred to in your testimony. You stated that the President proposed $3.84 billion in funding for non-road maintenance in

the National Park System and $1.26 billion for road maintenance

over the next 5 years, to address the $4.9 billion that are estimated

backlog. When I look at the budget numbers, however, it looks like

most of that funding is essentially a continuation of existing funding levels. For example, the current fiscal year, about $730 million was appropriated for park construction and maintenance accounts excluding roads. That amount is slightly lower than the $736 million that

was appropriated for those same accounts the previous year, and

somewhat higher than the $600 million that was appropriated during the last year of the previous administration. So, my question

to you is, how much of this funding is new money that will help

reduce the backlog deficit, as opposed to simply maintaining current funding levels?

Mr. MURPHY. Roughly $2 to $300 million, and the difference between those numbers that you cited for those 2 fiscal years, there

is often variation in line item construction projects that are done.

Some years, those projects are higher and some years they’re lower,

but if you look at the money, for example, that has gone into—let’s

take cyclic maintenance, which is one of the areas. That’s increased

significantly, because if you don’t do cyclic maintenance on a regular basis, clearly, you are going to be adding to the maintenance

backlog if you’re not doing it the way they should be on a cyclic

17

basis. And that has roughly gone from about $23 million in fiscal

year 2000 and is now at roughly $46 million dollars and is proposed to go up to $57 million in fiscal year 04. That’s an example.

Our repair and rehab money has increased as well, and then we

mentioned for example, the fee demonstration program, monies

that we’re now adding, roughly $75 million on an annual basis is

also money that’s going into the facility maintenance program. So

roughly over those years, there is about a $2 to $300 million increase in terms of new money.

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. Following up on that previous question, the booklet that the Park Service published last week, I went

through it yesterday. It claims that the administration has already

spent $2.9 billion to reduce the backlog. Are you now claiming that

the backlog has been reduced from $4.9 billion to $2 billion over

the past years?

Mr. MURPHY. No. I wouldn’t for a minute, you know, start down

that road, because the fact of the matter is, as I stated earlier, the

knowledge and the understanding of what the entire backlog is in

the National Park Service will not be fundamentally addressed

until these facility condition assessments are done and this program is fully in place. That’s when we’re going to know and have

a very good objective understanding of what’s going on.

What was done at the beginning of the administration, there was

some very, the best estimates that could have been made at the

time possible that what we were talking about in terms of maintenance needs, that is, maintenance projects that weren’t done on

their normally scheduled time, that had gone undone for a period

of time, that’s basically what deferred maintenance is, and people

made their best guess, that number was roughly $4.9 billion.

The administration said well, we’re going to really concentrate on

addressing at least that much of the program while we do what

should have been done years ago and put into place the right kind

of facility maintenance management system that allows us to really

understand what the nature of the maintenance backlog is. And so,

we are saying that we have spent $2.9 billion addressing what we

understood or understand the current snapshot of a backlog to

have been at a particular point in time.

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. Mr. Hill, I would like to follow up

on my previous question to Mr. Murphy. The administration is

claiming to have already spent almost $3 billion on the backlog and

claims to be on track to fully address the issue at the end of the

5-year funding cycle proposed by President Bush. Based on your reviews, are we making significant reductions in the backlog and will

it be eliminated in the next 5 years at the funding levels that the

President is proposing?

Mr. HILL. Well, that’s an excellent question. Unfortunately, there

is no way to answer that question because of just the problems we

have been talking about with this backlog. Until now, that backlog

is a moving target, it’s just a guesstimate, it’s really not based on

any type of inventory of the assets, the condition of those assets,

the amount of money it’s going to cost to deal with that problem.

And I think Congress is asking the right question, if we put $2.9

billion into dealing with this backlog problem, why does that number just keep staying and floating between $4 and $6 billion.

18

There is really no accountability right now in terms of the money

that you’re investing to deal with this problem versus the progress

that’s being made to correct it. And that’s because you have an estimate that’s just basically a guess on the part of the individuals

that are running the park system. I think the new maintenance

management system that they are coming in with will hopefully

give us the tool that we can now get a handle on just what is the

true extent of this backlog problem, so that in the future, when

Congress invests money to deal with this problem, the Park Service

will be able to come back and show you how that money was used

and how it impacted that backlog.

Senator AKAKA. Thank you for your response. What concerned

me is hearing no accountability, no real data, I hear best guess,

and as you pointed out it’s a moving target, so it makes it very difficult for us to try to figure this out too, but thank you very much.

Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Chairman, if I may have just a brief follow up

on the no accountability statement. I understand what folks are

saying in terms of the objectivity and the ability of not having a

system that allows you to fundamentally measure how you’re doing

over time, but there is a level of accountability in the sense that

these projects are real projects.

There are fundamental changes that are taking place in the National Park Service over time, and you can go back in and look at

the data and the number of projects that are done, and see both

quantitatively and qualitatively change.

I just wanted to make the subtle difference that what we don’t

have, sir, is a clear understanding of the total scope, because we

haven’t done all of these assessments and these inventories yet, but

the money we’re spending is accountable to you and we can show

what it has gone to.

Senator THOMAS. Thank you. I think the hopeful thing is, as you

pointed out earlier, that there is a process going on that will put

us in a better position to be able to know exactly what the situation

is.

Mr. MURPHY. That’s true.

Senator THOMAS. Some of the things like business plans and so

on that are taking place in the parks, I think are all part of this

and that needs to be done.

Senator.

Senator ALEXANDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Murphy,

when will this process be finished? When will you be able to come

before the committee and say we have gone through this process

and here’s our 5- or 10-year maintenance plan and here’s what it

costs, here’s what we can afford to do?

Mr. MURPHY. We should be able to do that by fiscal year 06, and

right now where we are is we will have completed the inventories

for all of the parks except for the four major at the end of this fiscal year, the four other parks will be finished at the end of the next

fiscal year, and then we have to systematically go about putting together the facility condition indexes with the asset priority indexes,

and putting together a plan.

Senator ALEXANDER. Okay.

Mr. MURPHY. So it will be 2006.

19

Senator ALEXANDER. Will you separate road construction from

everything else?

Mr. MURPHY. Road construction is now separated. In other

words, our roads program has a roads condition index that we do,

and we work with Federal Highways on putting that together and

it is separated. The numbers I talked about today did include the

roads, but it is part of this program too, and actually it’s up and

running right now.

Senator ALEXANDER. Well, your new proposal, which I applaud,

is to go up to a $300 million dollar figure if Congress approves it

this year, but then will there be additional general appropriation

funds for park roads to be spent, or is that the whole amount?

Mr. MURPHY. That would be the whole amount, it would raise

the numbers up to $300 million. We’re roughly getting $165 million

right now, and so it would be increased to $300 million. What’s

really important about that program is that we’re working with

Federal Highways really to expedite the expenditure of that money

so that we can bring these roads up to good condition expeditiously.

For example, the National Park Service usually does individual

roads projects with individual parks, and one of the things that we

have already explored and entered into with Federal Highways is

to bundle these road projects together so that they can be bid on

by contractors, and you can get economies out of it and also get

these projects done quicker than they would be done individually.

Senator ALEXANDER. I applaud that, and I for one want to work

within the Senate to try to see that we stick to the $300 million

figure, because that helps make the idea of seriously addressing

the non-road maintenance issues realistic, when 10 or 15 years ago

there wasn’t any gas tax money, as I remember, going for park

roads, or not much, and this basically frees a lot of money that otherwise would be spent on the roads for other purposes.

Let me ask you, one of the President’s commitments as I remember was to fully fund the park backlog problem, and I applaud that.

Another was to fully fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund.

Can you explain to me where we are on that and where the administration hopes to go, and particularly talk about why some of the

money that you count for Land and Water Conservation Fund

doesn’t go to land acquisition but goes to other purposes?

Mr. MURPHY. Let me talk about one of the things that has been

coming up in this committee, land acquisition, and the National

Park Service has provided testimony on a number of occasions that

we are wanting to slow the growth, for example, of the National

Park Service so that we can concentrate on some of the current

needs of the National Park Service. And so therefore, the question——

Senator ALEXANDER. Well, land and water also includes the State

sites, so if you don’t want to spend it federally, what’s your attitude

toward spending it on the State side?

Mr. MURPHY. Well, I think it’s important to have funds provided

for the State side of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and

the administration continues to be committed to the State side of

the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Some of the funding in

the Land and Water Conservation Fund has gone to projects such

as the cooperative conservation initiative which the administration

20

has brought forth, which allows communities to participate in the

conservation of parks locally, which I think is a good idea. And State side, of course, has been roughly between $100 and $150 million, depending on how Congress has acted on the President’s budget, but the Administration remains committed to the

State side of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. I think it’s

extremely important to continue to provide those kinds of funds for

outdoor recreation.

Senator ALEXANDER. Help me with my figures, please, if I’ve got

them wrong. The full funding of the Land Water Conservation

Fund would be $900 million a year equally divided, Federal and

State; is that right?

Mr. MURPHY. Yes.

Senator ALEXANDER. Is it the administration’s position that there

ought to be full funding of the $900 million equally divided between Federal and the States?

Mr. MURPHY. Well, I know the administration has looked upon

the Land and Water Conservation Fund as an opportunity to put

together programs that provide money, both Federal and State, in

various projects, some of them new projects, that accomplish the

goals of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. I know the administration has made a commitment to fully funding the Land

and Water Conservation Fund, and I think that commitment, as

far as I know, remains.

Senator ALEXANDER. Good. I want to encourage that commitment

and be supportive of it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator THOMAS. Thank you. It’s going to be kind of interesting

when you talk about the highway fund. As you know, there is not

as much money in that fund as there was last time because of 11

September and so there is going to be competition for those dollars

as there was now. So, there is direct funding from the highway

fund, however, for park highways; is that correct?

Mr. MURPHY. That’s correct.

Senator THOMAS. So that is not part of what we’re talking about

here in terms of having a budget for the parks?

Mr. MURPHY. Well, it is in the sense that we’re getting the $165

million from Federal Highways now, and this new proposal that we

offered provided $135 million.

Senator THOMAS. Perhaps.

Mr. MURPHY. Yes, that’s the proposal.

Senator THOMAS. But if the highway fund does not have it, we

will see. Okay.

What about new construction? In terms of the dollars that we are

talking about here that are available for maintenance, how much

of that goes to new—how do you divide that between new construction and maintenance of existing construction?

Mr. MURPHY. Well, the new construction programs, again, all of

the funding that we are committing in the National Park Service

is prioritized based on health and safety needs, the needs for rehabilitating worn out facilities, and that’s sort of where the emphasis

is. And when we get new park units in, some of that money is

budgeted for new facilities that comes before Congress or gets proposed in the President’s budget. But the emphasis is on maintaining those facilities that we do have. We go through a prioritization

21

process for available funding, which gives priorities to existing facilities and to health and safety.

Senator THOMAS. But there is a difference between routine maintenance and new construction.

Mr. MURPHY. Yes.

Senator THOMAS. And so when you’re talking about having over time $4.9 billion to deal with maintenance, are you talking about

new construction as well in there?

Mr. MURPHY. No, not generally, we are not talking about new

construction. When we do our line item construction programs,

what we’re trying to do in those programs is look at facilities that

are in dire need of repair, and facilities that meet the criteria process that we’ve established within the National Park Service and

the Department of the Interior for determining what’s going to go

into those programs. And in our prioritization, we don’t give as

high priority to new construction based on our need to take care

of what we have.

Senator THOMAS. Mr. Hill, how do you, or what issues do you

identify as you talk about the operational portion, the management

portion, what do you contribute the maintenance backlog to primarily, why is that there?

Mr. HILL. There is a number of reasons that it was created. First

of all, obviously it’s a huge system and many of the facilities in

that system are aging. You have a high visitation volume, visitors

are using those facilities. And then clearly, the operations and

maintenance budget over the years has not kept pace with the

maintenance needs, and that’s how the backlog was created. And

then it’s compounded when the size of the system continued to increase. I mean, the more parks you add to the system, the more

assets you now have in the system, the more assets you need to

maintain. So, it’s a problem that has been building over the years

and it just has to be dealt with.

Senator THOMAS. Well, of course, you talk about being used and

being old, we know that’s the case but nevertheless, that’s true

with anybody’s facilities, so in the management process, you have

to set aside a certain amount of dollars for maintenance as opposed

to operations. That’s not a new concept, but apparently it hasn’t

been done in this case.

Mr. HILL. It has not been done well in the past. Here again, a

problem that has already been alluded to, the Park Service has not

had a good handle on the problem. In the past they have had an

inconsistent definition of what maintenance was, park units were

trying to use a different definition, so you don’t have good data, you

don’t have a good inventory of what your assets are, you don’t

know what the conditions of those assets are, and it compounds

and snowballs into the problem that you have now.

Senator THOMAS. Mr. Murphy, do you believe that the maintenance difficulty has resulted in reduction of other facilities such as

security, such as employees, other operational problems? Some people say well, you haven’t done much of what you should be doing

over in another area because of this. Has that had an impact?

Mr. MURPHY. I think when you’re dealing with a situation where

you have limited resources and limited capacity, there is always

some effect of one system on another, but then it becomes a matter

22

of management and prioritization, so we try to manage and

prioritize in such a way that, for example, we don’t compromise

health and safety, and critical needs in the National Park Service,

while making some clear management priority decisions about

what we are going to focus on. And in this case where we have all

these facilities that haven’t been taken care of in the past, it’s very

important for us to utilize the resources that we do have for taking

care of our maintenance needs and beginning to address this very

severe maintenance backlog.

And so, we have managed in such a way that we don’t impact,

for example, security, our law enforcements needs in these particular instances. And we try to augment where we can by putting in

additional funding so we don’t get into this robbing Peter to pay

Paul situation.

But clearly, it has been our position that we need to slow the

growth of the National Park Service so that we don’t have a situation where new units coming in, adding new facilities on while the

maintenance budget is not increasing will further exacerbate the

problem that we’re trying to resolve.

Senator THOMAS. That’s a tough issue. Senator, do you have further questions?

Senator AKAKA. No questions.

Senator THOMAS. Senator Alexander.

Senator ALEXANDER. Just one. Help me understand where visitation fits into your, the process you’re establishing. We all—I will

speak for myself. I know more about the Great Smoky Mountains

National Park than I do about others. I know it had 9 or 10 million

visitors a year, three times what any other park would have, I

think that’s about right. I know that when I go hiking in it, a lot

of my friends are up there doing volunteer trail maintenance, and

that’s a good thing, but they tell me that maybe half the trail

maintenance is done by volunteers.

So, are you taking into account when you develop this process—

well, I’m sure you are. How are you taking into account as you develop this process the fact that some of our parks and other National Park facilities are extremely heavily used and have more

wear, more maintenance, and deserve a higher legal of funding for

that reason?

Mr. MURPHY. It’s a very good question. First of all, parks that

are highly used and have greater wear and tear on those facilities,

this program in our facilities maintenance management system actually captures that in an objective way. We will be able to tell if

those facilities are wearing out, including the trails that you mentioned, which are included as a category in our facility assessment

program, so that will be captured, where we have more trails, more

wear and tear, that easily gets taken into consideration and captured in a very objective way.

In fact, Great Smoky Mountains is one of the four parks which

we are spending more time on, that’s why it won’t be completed

until 2004, for the very reason that you mentioned, more visitation,

more facilities, greater wear and tear, it is going to take a little bit

longer to do those kinds of assessments. This is a very objective

system that takes that into consideration right up front.

Senator ALEXANDER. Thank you.

23

Senator THOMAS. Thank you. I’m more familiar with Yellowstone, and I think that’s a good example of some of the things that

have been done, $22 million spent in the past 5 years to do part

of the backlog on water and wastewater treatment there, $6.9 million research center at Gardner. $48 million spent on paving 49

percent of the park’s 300 and some miles, which is good. So you

know, we’re making some progress.

What about the security that you mentioned? Does Homeland Security, do you get any funding from Homeland Security to do things

like the border in Mexico and so on?

Mr. MURPHY. We’re in discussions currently about that. The answer right now is no. And we hope to continue to work with Homeland Security to make it clear what our responsibilities are, what

Border Patrol’s responsibilities happen to be, and to make sure

that we’re coordinated in our efforts. But currently we are not receiving any funding from Homeland Security for those issues.

Senator THOMAS. Gentlemen, we thank you. I think the most encouraging thing is that there is apparently a system in place that’s

going to be able to put us in a better position to know where we

are and be able to manage more towards those needs, so we appreciate that very much, and we appreciate you being here. Thank

you.

Okay. We will have our second panel, Mr. Eric Dillinger, program manager, Carter and Burgess, Fort Worth, Texas; Mr. Curtis

Cornelssen, director, Hospitality and Leisure Group, PricewaterhouseCoopers, Boston; and Tom Kiernan, president, National

Parks Conservation Association, who I understand had a little bicycle difficulty.

Mr. KIERNAN. Yes, sir, need more bike paths.

Senator THOMAS. I hope you’re doing well.

Okay. Let’s start with Mr. Dillinger.

STATEMENT OF ERIC DILLINGER, VICE PRESIDENT,

CARTER AND BURGESS, INC., FORT WORTH, TX

Mr. DILLINGER. I am pleased to be here, Mr. Chairman, and have

this opportunity to testify and to give you information on some of

the issues you identified. In particular, I would like to focus my

comments on the maintenance backlog issue, and slightly on the

personnel issue, and focus in those two areas. I have prepared

some testimony that I ask that you include in the record as well.

Senator THOMAS. It will be included.

Mr. DILLINGER. A lot of my background on this issue comes from

working in 1998 and previously on a publication that the Federal

Facilities Council developed called ‘‘Stewardship of Federal Facilities,’’ and the focus of that document was to look at some of the

questions that the subcommittee has asked with respect to, are we

caring for our facilities appropriately, where did this current maintenance backlog issue come from, and that is truly the test for the

Congress.

In particular, and more recently, the GAO has provided two documents that I think are key to this, in their High Risk Series. One

focused on the risk with respect to intellectual capital, smarts, if

you will, that the Government has, and the second one focused on

facilities. And I would suggest that the intersection of those two

24

issues, well-trained individuals managing public facilities, is a key

to your questions. So it is very important to have quality folks involved in this process for the process to succeed, because that process happens every day at the location in the individual parks.

That’s where the maintenance occurs. So from an accountability

standpoint, quality staff at that location becomes key, so you focus

on people and facilities, it’s the intersection of those two that you

have to have your sights on, if you will.

The second issue that we have identified extensively, and I think

I have heard the committee discuss, and I want to put it in real

basic terms. The chairman used the analogy of the vehicle, maintaining a car, and the facilities are much like having a fleet of vehicles, and deferred maintenance represents the case when we didn’t

have time to rotate and balance the tires and we continuously replaced tires prematurely because we didn’t have the opportunity to

rotate and balance the tires, and because of this tires might be required to be replaced, and that would relate to our maintenance

backlog. Our challenge becomes to shift out of that mode and to

start to figure out how to rotate and balance the tires so they don’t

wear out prematurely.

Additionally, it’s recognized that tires have a defined life, that we

buy a new set when they reach 40,000 miles, so at the end of that

40,000 miles, we should not act overly surprised when we need a

new set. That seems reasonable.

What we found in the Stewardship of Federal Facilities work and

the work that we’ve done later is that while we typically recommend that agencies receive and spend about 2 to 4 percent of

their assets value, what Mr. Murphy referred to as current replacement value, we rarely see that occur. So the genesis of the maintenance backlog is in the lack of annual maintenance expenditures,

which seems obvious but may be a real important concept to get

out briefly.

The maintenance backlog will continue to grow as we fail to fund

annual maintenance adequately. That is true in every agency and

in every public sector organization where there’s insufficient funding. If we focus on the maintenance backlog, we’re focusing on how

many things have occurred, but not on how we stem the inflow. So

those business practices in most organizations that are most successful on this issue in the private and the public sector combine

removing or decreasing the maintenance backlog with stemming

the inflow from future events. If we focus solely on the backlog, we

will continue to have an inflow.

Some of the questions I think have come up are, what will the

backlog look like in 5 years? Well, it will look like what we did,

plus whatever occurred between now and then. So, the ability to

draw it down to zero is tied to the ability to fund the maintenance

appropriately so that we stem the inflow, and then to accomplish

a maintenance program, so that we stem the inflow, or else our

maintenance backlog will continue to shift and at any point in time

it’s just a static estimate, if you will, of what’s broke. Tomorrow,

additional things will occur and it will shift once again.

So, I think that’s an important consideration as you look at the

mix, is not just what we’re spending on maintenance backlog, but

are we focusing enough dollars on annual maintenance so that we

25

draw down the inflow of maintenance backlog in future events. And

in that respect we can start to preserve the assets and get ahead

of the game. If the inflow of maintenance backlog exceeds the expenditures, the backlog will continue to grow. That’s the fundamental piece that I think needs to be addressed as you look at those

pieces. With that, I would be happy to answer any questions, and

I appreciate this opportunity.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Dillinger follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ERIC DILLINGER, PROGRAM MANAGER,

CARTER AND BURGESS, INC., FORT WORTH, TX

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee.

My name is Eric Dillinger. I am the Vice President for Facility Management Services at Carter & Burgess, Inc. and one of the Committee Members responsible for

the development of the 1998 National Research Council publication ‘‘Stewardship of

Federal Facilities’’ as well as a number of other research efforts and publications

focused on the subject of deferred maintenance, maintenance backlog, and total cost

of ownership.

I am happy to have the opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee on National Parks and intend to focus my comments on two of the areas identified; maintenance backlog, and the personnel deficit.

Stewardship of Public Assets (Buildings and Infrastructure) is a critical issue in

today’s resource constrained environment and one that appears to have engaged

every public sector entity. Recent efforts by the General Accounting Office including

their ‘‘High Risk Series’’ have clearly indicated the important challenges facing the

public sector.

The challenge to provide appropriate Stewardship is further compounded by limited personnel and resources as the General Accounting Office identified in another

one of the ‘‘High Risk Series’’ publications.

I believe the combination of those two issues identifies one of the most significant

issues facing every public agency, the availability of personnel and resources to provide appropriate Stewardship to Public Assets.

The issue of maintenance backlog within Federal Government has been widely

discussed. The 1998 National Research Council committee found that Federal government processes and practices are generally not structured to provide effective accountability for the stewardship of federal facilities. Congress, the Office of Management and Budget, federal agency senior executives, facilities program managers,

and field staff all make decisions that affect maintenance and repair programs. Because decision-making authority is so widely dispersed, no single entity can be held

responsible or accountable for the results.

Inadequate funding for the maintenance and repair of public buildings at all levels of government and academia has been a long-standing and well-documented

problem. While reliable and consistent expenditure data has been difficult to identify due to variations in terminology and expenditure strategies, agencies that

briefed the Committee consistently reported that they received less than 2% of the

aggregate current replacement value of their inventory. This level of funding is

below the 2-4% guideline that is widely quoted in facilities management literature.

Several factors contribute to the lack of adequate funding. Maintenance and repair expenditures generally have less visible or less measurable benefits than other

operating programs. There is the tacit assumption that maintenance and repair can

always be deferred one more year or 5 more years in favor of more visible projects.

However, in the short term, deferring maintenance diminishes the quality of

building services. In the long term, it can lead to a shorter service life and reduced

asset value.

The scope of the problem is evident in the magnitude of deferred maintenance

backlogs reported by agencies. The costs of eliminating these backlogs are estimated

to be in the tens of billions of dollars. The total dollar amounts and the methods

for arriving at these figures can be argued. However, the existence of deferred maintenance implies that the quality or reliability of service provided by the infrastructure is less than it should be to adequately serve the public.

Beyond the 1998 NRC committee’s efforts, more recent investigations have begun

to focus their attention not only on the current maintenance backlog, but also on

an organization’s strategy for limiting the growth of future backlog. This shift in

focus and strategy has come in part over the realization that the root of the problem

26

lays not in the backlog number, but in the effective management and mitigation of

potential future backlog through appropriate maintenance and repair efforts.

I believe this issue is at least as significant, if not more so than the current backlog as it represents important decisions and management issues that have the ability to slow the growth of future backlog concurrent with addressing the existing

backlog.

Land management agencies face a particularly difficult challenge due to the mix

of remote location, historical nature, and age of their assets. The availability and

cost associated with training and maintaining the types of expertise required for

good Stewardship in such remote locations is considerably more challenging than

similar operations and maintenance requirements in an urban setting.

In summary, I believe you have identified several of the key issues facing Federal

property managers but more importantly linked a key concern between the availability of personnel and the Stewardship requirements inherent in managing some

of the Federal Governments most well known, and significant assets.

Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony to the Subcommittee on such

an important issue.

Senator THOMAS. Thank you very much.

Mr. Cornelssen.

STATEMENT OF CURTIS E. CORNELSSEN, DIRECTOR, HOSPITALITY LEISURE GROUP, PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS,

BOSTON, MA

Mr. CORNELSSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the committee, I

want to thank you for the opportunity to present today regarding

maintenance backlog and related matters in our National Parks. I

am Curt Cornelssen, director of the Hospitality Leisure Group at

PricewaterhouseCoopers, also responsible for our work with the

National Park Service on their concessions program. Over the next

few minutes I would like to provide you with our perspectives on

the maintenance backlogs in the context of the concession operations and facilities. This is where I have the most knowledge and

expertise and that’s where we ought to focus, so I will not address

the land acquisition factors during my testimony.

Prior to presenting the approach that we’re pursuing with the

Park Service owned concessions facilities, I wanted just to make

sure we pointed out a couple important facts. First of all, concession facilities are government-owned assets regardless of whether

the concessioner has a possessory interest or leaseholds on the

premises. I don’t know, Mr. Chairman, but I think there has been

some misunderstanding on that issue. These are governmentowned assets.

Certainly, many of these assets are historic and are true icons

of the parks in which they reside, such as the Old Faithful Inn at

Yellowstone, and Ahwahnee Hotel at Yosemite. Unlike most Park

Service assets, however, these facilities are operated and maintained by concessioners under a contractual relationship. Another

way of looking at it is that the Park Service has outsourced operations and maintenance of these assets to the private sector. Lastly, it’s important to note that in many of the large parks, concession improvements represent a significant if not predominant proportion of the total asset base.

In establishing an asset management regimen for Park Service

concession facilities based on existing policy, we first work to ensure that the first priority for financial return is asset reinvestment. We want the money going back into the assets. In addition,

27

per the law, we must ensure a fair and reasonable return to the

concessioners. And these two priorities are not mutually exclusive,

as concessioners rely on these assets for their profitability and investment returns. I would like to provide a quick synopsis of our

approach for concessions asset management.

We assembled a multi-disciplined team of experts to tackle concession assets. This includes engineers from Carter Burgess, appraisers, accountants and other financial and business experts. We

start by conducting through asset inventories and condition assessments. This includes detailed inspections and analysis of every

building or improvement down to the component level. From this,

we are able to develop replacement cost values as well as the

amount and type of deferred maintenance that exists. With our engineers, we then develop a life-cycle asset management plan for all

facilities. We evaluate the cost requirements for this plan using

both engineering and financial based budgeting approaches. If this

group of engineers tell us they need the money, that doesn’t mean

they necessarily get it, we have to look at it from a financial perspective as well.

Our team then establishes facility and operating standards and

inserts these requirements into the prospectus and RFPs for all

bidders.

Lastly, we establish ongoing asset monitoring and oversight procedures to ensure that all facilities are well maintained and properly capitalized during the term of the new contract, and this is

typically 10 to 15 years. Importantly, we must ensure that the proposed plan is realistic and affordable. Otherwise, we won’t have

any bidders for the new contract if this is not financially sound.

The approach presented above follows industry best practices in

the public and private sectors, the same approach that prospective

hospitality owners follow when they conduct due diligence for an

acquisition or new contract.

Thus far, the team has completed this work for 18 major contracts at 15 national parks. In general, we are finding that the facilities are being maintained with reasonable standards. Nonetheless, most concession assets with or without PI, have some level of

deferred maintenance. We are, however, able to structure plans

that address this maintenance backlog as well as ensure that assets are aggressively maintained during the new contract term. As

such, the Park Service is addressing all deferred maintenance in

the new concession contracts. Some contracts will require creative

funding and management strategies due to the significant costs of

managing large asset bases. We are working diligently with both

the Park Service and concessioners to enhance and sustain these

high quality concession assets for visitors and for the American

public.

Mr. Chairman, thank you once again for the opportunity to testify. I’m happy to answer any questions that you or the committee

members may have.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cornelssen follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CURTIS E. CORNELSSEN, DIRECTOR,

HOSPITALITY LEISURE GROUP, PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Committee, I want to thank you

for the opportunity to present today regarding the maintenance backlog and related

28

matters at our National Parks. I am Curt Cornelssen, Director in the Hospitality

and Leisure Consulting Group at PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. I am also responsible for our work with the National Park Service on their concessions program.

Over the next few minutes, I would like to provide you with our perspectives on

the NPS maintenance backlog in the context of the concession operations and facilities, as this is the are where I have the most knowledge and expertise. I will not

address the land acquisition backlog during the course of my testimony.

Prior to presenting the approach that we are pursuing with the NPS on their concessions facilities, I would like to point out a few important facts. First of all, concessions facilities are government owned assets, regardless of whether the concessioner has a compensable interest such as Possessory Interest (PI) or Leasehold Surrender Interest (LSI). Secondly, many of these assets are historic and are true icons

of the parks in which they reside (for example the Old Faithful Inn at Yellowstone

or the Ahwahnee Hotel at Yosemite). Unlike most NPS assets, however, these facilities are operated and maintained by concessioners under a contractual relationship.

Another way of looking at it is that the NPS has outsourced operations and maintenance of these assets to a private sector partner. Lastly, it is important to note that

in many of our large parks, the concession improvements represent a significant if

not predominant proportion of the total asset base.

In establishing an asset management regimen for NPS concession facilities, and

based on existing policy, we work to ensure that the first priority for financial return is asset reinvestment. In addition, per the law, we must ensure a fair and reasonable return to the concessioners. These two priorities are not mutually exclusive

as concessioners rely on high quality assets for their profitability and investment

returns. I would now like to provide a brief synopsis of our approach for concessions

asset management.

PwC has assembled a multi-disciplined team of experts to tackle concessions assets. This includes engineers from Carter-Burgess, appraisers, accountants and

other financial/business experts. We start by conducting thorough asset inventories

and condition assessments. This includes detailed inspections and analyses of every

building or improvement down to the component level. From this information, we

are able to develop replacement cost values, as well as the amount and type of deferred maintenance that exists. With our engineers, we then develop a complete lifecycle asset management plan for all facilities. We evaluate the cost requirements

for this plan using both engineering and financial based budgeting approaches. Our

team then establishes facility and operating standards and inserts these requirements into the prospectus for all bidders. Lastly, we establish ongoing asset monitoring and oversight procedures to ensure that all facilities are well maintained and

properly capitalized during the term of the new contract (typically 10-15 years). Importantly, we must ensure that the proposed plan is realistic and affordable. Otherwise, we will not have any bidders for the new contract.

The approach presented above follows industry best practices in the public and

private sectors. This is the same approach that prospective hospitality industry owners follow when they conduct ‘‘due diligence’’ for an acquisition or for a new contract.

Thus far, our team has completed this work for 18 major contracts at 15 national

parks. In general, we are finding that the facilities are being maintained to reasonable standards. Nonetheless, most concession assets (with or without PI) have some

level of deferred maintenance. We are, however, able to structure plans that address

this maintenance backlog as well as ensure that assets are aggressively maintained

during the new contract terms. As such, NPS is addressing all deferred maintenance

in the new concession contracts. Some contracts will require creative funding and

management strategies, due to the significant costs of managing large asset bases.

We are working diligently with both the NPS and concessioners to enhance and sustain high quality concession assets for visitors and the American public.

Mr. Chairman, thank you once again for the opportunity to testify. I would be

happy to answer any questions that you or the Committee members may have.

Senator THOMAS. Thank you very much.

Mr. Kiernan.

STATEMENT OF THOMAS C. KIERNAN, PRESIDENT,

NATIONAL PARKS CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION

Mr. KIERNAN. Mr. Chairman and Senator Akaka, thank you for

the opportunity to testify before you today. I am Tom Kiernan,

president of the National Parks Conservation Association. We are

America’s only nonprofit advocacy group dedicate to protecting and

29

enhancing America’s National Park System. We were founded in

1919, 3 years after the Park Service itself was established, and now

have over 350,000 members throughout the country.

I have 3 broad points I would like to make, first on the backlog,

if I may, which as I think everyone has mentioned, has accumulated over time and is thus neither a Republican nor a Democratic

issue. Both sides of the aisle can share in responsibility for the creation of the backlog, and hopefully share in the credit for its coming reduction.

Second, this maintenance backlog of road and building projects

is only really one component of the total backlog that our national

parks face. There is a very important and significant backlog of

natural resource protection projects as well. For example, Shenandoah National Park, 20 percent of the plant and animal species

are non-native invasive species in the park and need to be removed. That is as well a backlog project, if you will, but falls in

the natural resource category, not a road or building category.

Similarly, now in the Great Smokies, we know 10,000 species of

plant and animals; we estimate there are probably about 100,000

species down in the park as well, and that is a backlog, an intellectual backlog and we need to invest similarly in that significant onetime project to complete the inventory in that park and similarly

in other parks. So the backlog truly is more than just roads and

buildings, there’s also a natural resource knowledge backlog in the

parks.

The third broad point I would like to make about the backlog is

that eliminating it will require a multi-pronged strategy and if I

can, I would like to just highlight four components of that recommended multi-pronged strategy. First of all is the need for a better inventory methodology, and we would like to praise the administration’s effort that Mr. Murphy articulated. That does seem to be

a good solid process that they are putting in place and we praise

them for it.

Secondly, in addition to the inventory, there needs to be significant non-congressional funding to help address the backlog, and we

would like to recognize the chairman and this committee for making the effort to make permanent the fee demonstration program.

We see that as a strategy long term for helping address the backlog.

The third component is a significant amount of new congressional funding. In our opinion, the administration has mistakenly

tried to implement the President’s pledge of eliminating the Maintenance and Resource Protection Act, while only contributing $371

million of additional new total funding over the last 3 years. So

while the backlog is $4.9 billion, we calculate there has only been

an additional $371 million of funding over the last 3 years to address and reduce that backlog.

The last component that we believe needs to be part of this fourpronged strategy is an increase in the operating budget, and I

would like to echo Mr. Dillinger’s comment that one of the best, if

not the best means of long-term reducing the backlog is by increasing the annual operating support for our national parks. His analogy on rotating the tires, so to speak, is in the annual operating

30

budget of the parks where the funding is provided for rotating the

tires, so to speak.

We would also like to recognize, again, the chairman’s work, and

Senator Akaka and others for recognizing and working to reduce

the annual operating funding shortfall that we estimate at roughly

32 percent.

On land acquisition, we would like to make 3 points, if I may.

We are aware of the concern that many have expressed that by

adding new parks and new lands to the park system, we are adding to the long-term cost requirements of the parks. I would like

to put forward somewhat of a counterpoint, that without the historic growth and diversification of the park system, we would not

now have the degree of support from the American public. The system has succeeded, the National Park System has succeeded because it has grown and because it continues to strive fully to represent the increasingly diverse values that Americans represent.

Secondly, and quite specifically, this country is becoming increasingly diverse. Our National Park System must grow to reflect the

history and stories of all Americans.

The last reason to look at continued support for land acquisition

is the significant problem our parks face with in-holdings. There’s

a significant number of in-holdings inside our national parks where

we have willing sellers that would like to sell, and that by selling

to the Federal Government, we can obviously improve the ecological integrity of the park but also reduce some of the management

burdens and challenges that the superintendent faces with that inholding.

Lastly, if I may mention on the personnel deficit that was referenced at the beginning, this is as well a result of the annual operating shortfall of 32 percent that we have calculated. There are

a whole series of anecdotes that are in our written testimony that

I will not repeat that lead to shortfalls in the interpretation and

resource protective work, as a result of the personnel deficit.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify this morning.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kiernan follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THOMAS C. KIERNAN, PRESIDENT,

NATIONAL PARKS CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity

to testify before you today. I am Tom Kiernan, president of the National Parks Conservation Association. NPCA is America’s only national private, nonprofit advocacy

organization dedicated solely to protecting, preserving, and enhancing the National

Park System. NPCA was founded in 1919 and today has approximately 300,000

members across the country that care deeply about the well being of our national

parks.

We greatly appreciate you focusing on the backlog of unmet needs throughout our

national park system. You have asked that we discuss the maintenance backlog,

land acquisition backlog, and deficit in personnel within the National Park System.

In addition, you have asked that we explore the interaction of these issues and discuss whether certain parts of the system appear more affected by them than others.

I want to start by thanking you, Chairman Thomas, for helping to champion the

bipartisan effort in the Senate to increase operational funding for the National Park

Service. NPCA appreciates your leadership on this issue, working in a bipartisan

fashion with senators Graham, Akaka, Smith, Bingaman, and others. Addressing

the operational shortfalls in our parks is critical to both avoiding backlogs of the

future and to ensuring the Park Service meets its mission to protect park resources

and provide visitors to our national parks with the best possible memories and experiences.

31

MAINTENANCE BACKLOG

Managing the National Park Service is an enormous undertaking. The 388 units

that comprise the national park system include more than 30,000 structures and 80

million artifacts. The Park Service’s portfolio includes 8,000 miles of roads, 1,500

bridges, 5,385 housing units, 1,500 water and wastewater systems, 200 radio systems, 400 dams and more than 200 solid waste operations. These items are all integrated into one of the most awe-inspiring repositories of our collective American heritage that exists.

There is no question that the maintenance backlog in our national parks is a

problem. According to the National Park Service’s recent report, Partnering & Managing for Excellence: ‘‘This backlog has had a profound effect on the visitor experience and the public’s ability to appreciate and enjoy our national parks’ natural, historic, and cultural wonders.’’

To better understand the backlog, one must understand its root cause—lack of

sufficient funding for park operations and maintenance. It is also important to note

that backlog is not a static term, but rather the backlog ledger is constantly changing as some maintenance needs are met and others arise. Additionally, effectively

addressing the backlog requires an understanding about the condition of our parks.

Historically, the Park Service and the rest of us have been ill equipped to know the

extent of the maintenance needs in parks. According to the January 2003 GAO report Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of the Interior:

‘‘Despite the importance of its maintenance program, the Park Service has yet to

accurately assess or define the scope of its maintenance needs . . . the agency does

not have an accurate inventory of the assets that need to be maintained, nor accurate data on the condition of these assets.’’

Since GAO issued its report, the Park Service has been engaged in a multi-year

effort to develop an accurate baseline of backlog needs. They appear to be making

progress with this important first step, and we are encouraged by reports of their

new state-of-art system to inventory, monitor and prioritize backlog maintenance.

This will be enormously helpful to the parks, Congress, and the public in better understanding and addressing the maintenance backlog in the parks. We also understand that the Park Service has launched an aggressive training and implementation plan to inventory and assess the condition of park facilities. The Park Service’s

recently released document entitled Partnering and Managing for Excellence, though

it paints an overly rosy picture of the state of our national parks, reports that assessments at 125 parks were completed by December of 2002, and that by the end

of FY 2003 assessments will be completed at all but four of the largest parks. We

encourage the Park Service to share each assessment as it is completed.

The park maintenance backlog knows no party line. It has accumulated through

Democratic and Republican administrations and congresses. We have been encouraged by the bipartisan support for addressing the operational funding shortfall for

the parks, the root cause of the backlog. We also believe it to be critically important

to have a highly transparent process for identifying the current unfunded backlog

and how its dollar value compares with prior estimates, so we can collectively determine how to address the problem once and for all.

As you know, in 1998 the General Accounting Office estimated the maintenance

backlog to be approximately $6.1 billion based on Park Service data from 1993.

However, $1.2 billion of this estimate was for the construction of new facilities, leaving approximately $4.9 billion for existing facility maintenance and construction.

GAO indicated in January of this year that the Department of Interior estimated

the backlog to be between $4.1 and $6.8 billion.

Clearly, addressing the backlog will require a significant increase in the rate of

investment for the programs that comprise it-facility maintenance and constructionas well as more realistic annual operational funding for the Park Service to prevent

additional backlog from accumulating. We had high hopes at the beginning of this

administration, but have been disappointed by the administration’s failure to come

close to increasing the rate of investment to the extent necessary to significantly reduce and ultimately eliminate the backlog.

Nonetheless, we gave the administration credit for a number of its funding-related

initiatives in our recent evaluation of their efforts. One area where the administration deserves praise is for its proposed increase for the park roads and parkways

program. The administration’s proposed transportation reauthorization bill would

increase funding for park roads from $165 million to $300 million in fiscal year

2004, $310 million in 2005 and $320 million annually thereafter. The proposal

would also dedicate $30 million for alternative transportation, but makes several

agencies eligible for the funds, leaving alternative transportation funds substantially short of the $1.6 billion the Department of Transportation has conservatively

32

estimated will be needed over the next 20 years an issue we encourage the subcommittee to examine. Clearly, however, given the competing demands for funds

within the transportation reauthorization bill it will be extremely difficult to achieve

the overall funding level the administration has proposed, and we hope they will

make this a litmus test issue as part of the reauthorization effort.

FEE DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM

The Park Service’s Recreational Fee Demonstration Program has made important

contributions to addressing a number of maintenance backlog needs in the parks,

and we very much appreciate the leadership that Chairman Thomas and Senator

Bingaman have shown on this issue. Although NPCA has taken no position on

whether to expand that program to other agencies, we support your efforts to make

the program permanent for the National Park Service. As you know, it is enormously important that the Park Service’s fees be closely monitored and that the program supplement, not supplant federal dollars. Since it began in fiscal year 1997

the program has already provided $584 million to the Park Service, with another

estimated $250 million in FY 2003 and 2004. Public surveys have shown strong, but

not unlimited, support for entrance and use fees. The fee program is not the solution

to the backlog, but it is part of the solution.

OPERATIONAL FUNDING

The failure of the Park Service’s annual operations budget to adequately meet the

needs in the parks contributes to the backlog. While Congress has placed a great

deal of focus and attention to the maintenance backlog, we must be equally if not

more diligent in our efforts to address the operational shortfall in our parks. Shortfalls in annual operations funding create new backlog. In addition, discussions of the

backlog frequently gravitate toward bricks-and-mortar, but as the subcommittee

knows, there is a critical backlog of unmet resource protection needs throughout the

park system.

NPCA estimates based on the Park Service’s business plans from more than 50

parks that national parks suffer from an annual shortfall in operational funding of

roughly 32 percent. Although Congress, with the help and involvement of this subcommittee, has moderately increased the operating budget for the Park Service, this

funding has not kept pace with the needs of the parks. Furthermore, NPCA shares

the concern recently raised by the House Interior Appropriations Committee in its

report on the fiscal year 2004 Interior bill—the erosion of base program budgets.

According to the House appropriators, the capacity of the Park Service to serve the

American people is eroding because recent budgets have only partially funded costs

of pay increases proposed by the administration and approved by Congress, and

have not provided sufficient inflationary adjustments. The resulting necessity for

the National Park Service operating account to absorb fixed costs during the last

two years has been equivalent to a three percent reduction from 2001 program levels. The end result is an erosion, not an increase, in the operational resources available to the Park Service—a critical issue when attempting to reduce the backlog

over the long term.

The National Park Service has a tremendous responsibility as the caretaker for

these national treasures, yet it does not have the tools it needs to do so fully. Homeland security demands have added a new dimension to the problem. Many parks

throughout the system have shipped critical personnel elsewhere to augment homeland security demands at other sites, further straining resources that are already

stretched to the limit. In addition, it is estimated to cost the National Park Service

$63,000 per day every time the Department of Homeland Security issues an orange

alert. Each park has to bear the impact of these costs, making an austere budget

climate even more grim. Across the system, the impact of these costs quickly adds

up. Unfortunately, while the Park Service has faced increased costs due to homeland security needs, its budget has not increased correspondingly, nor is the Park

Service eligible for funding under the Department of Homeland Security.

While it is important to address the current facility maintenance and resource

protection backlog needs in the parks, if we continue to provide insufficient operating funding for the parks, we will only be replacing existing backlogs with new ones.

PERSONNEL DEFICIT

The 2001 National Park System Advisory Board report, Rethinking the National

Parks for the 21st Century, focused important attention on the institutional capacity

of the Park Service to accomplish its evolving mission. According to the report, ‘‘The

Park Service must have the expertise to administer parks as educational resources,

protect park resources in landscapes that are increasingly altered by human activVerDate 11-SEP-98 14:55 Sep 03, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\89-076 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
33

ity, and fashion broad collaborative relationships with academia, the private sector,

state, local, and other federal agencies. It must continue to provide high quality visitor experiences, and present America’s unfolding story in a manner that connects

with the nation’s increasingly diverse population.’’

The employees of the National Park Service, from rangers to maintenance workers, do a remarkable job with the resources available to them. They are committed

individuals for whom the Park Service and public service are a way of life. Unfortunately, there aren’t enough of them to meet the significant, evolving challenges that

our national parks face.

Many of us remember how many campground programs, ranger walks, and other

casual encounters we used to have with park rangers, interpreters, and other park

service personnel when we were young. Unfortunately, our children have fewer opportunities, both because there are so many more visitors to the national parks

today than there were 20 or 30 years ago, and because park service staffing has not

kept pace with the need.

At Death Valley National Park, for example, public education activities were cut

by more than one-third in fiscal year 2002. The park can no longer afford a staff

member dedicated to public education and outreach, including environmental education programs for school and community groups. Today there are 1837 full time

equivalent (FTE) interpreters in the national parks and 765 FTE among the part

time ranks. That means the park service has roughly 1 interpreter per 100,000 park

visitors. Although this is an admittedly crude measure of capacity, it illustrates the

enormous challenge the Park Service faces in providing a quality experience to park

visitors.

The Park Service also faces other staffing challenges. Several regional directors

will retire in the very near future. Many parks have shortages in critical positions.

For example, the number of commissioned law enforcement rangers has actually decreased since 1980. According to the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center,

there were1841 commissioned permanent rangers and 616 seasonal rangers in 1980.

But by 2001 the number of permanent commissioned rangers had dropped 16.4 percent, to 1539, and the number of seasonals had dropped 23.9 percent, to 147. During

the same time, visitation to the parks has increased by nearly 60 million people and

the number of units has increased by 59.

The national parks provide incredible opportunities to connect all Americans, but

especially youth with our collective history and to train the next generation of scientists. As the Advisory Board report points out, education that links classroom

learning with field experiences produces better results. When students, or adults,

for that matter, visit a Gettysburg, the battle and its historical importance comes

to life. When they visit the Adams Historic Site, figures from their past become

more tangible than when read about in textbooks. When students participate in a

paleontological dig at Petrified Forest or hear a wolf howl at Yellowstone, these remarkable places and their value and meaning come to life.

Unfortunately, many parks must turn away requests from schools for on-site education programs. At Gettysburg, the Park Service must hold a lottery for its on-site

education programs, denying one out of four schools. Petrified Forest is unable to

accommodate many requests from local schools. At Yellowstone, lack of staff requires the park to turn away nearly 60 percent of all school groups wishing to participate in a week-long, hands-on educational program. Joshua Tree had to turn

down approximately 75 requests for school programs in FY 2001. And these parks

are not alone.

The business plans the Park Service has been producing at many national park

units provide important information about how well existing resources enable park

managers and staff to accomplish their mission. The Park Service deserves credit

for continuing to use and improve the business planning process. The Business Plan

Initiative helps strengthen financial management capabilities at parks and facilitate

meaningful dialogue about park needs. Every year the Park Service’s business plans

get stronger, and the evolution of the program promises to continue delivering important benefits in the coming years.

The plans examine funding and staffing trends, describe the history and growth

of the parks, provide functional analyses and identify strategic priorities and ways

to more efficiently use scarce financial resources for the benefit of park resources

and visitors. They typically examine five program areas: (1) resource management;

(2) visitor experience and enjoyment; (3) facility operations; (4) maintenance; and (5)

management and administration.

Two of the most important functional areas throughout the national parks are resource protection and visitor experience and enjoyment, both of which are generally

also the most underfunded. Resource protection programs generally include collecVerDate 11-SEP-98 14:55 Sep 03, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\89-076 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
34

tions, historic structures, and natural resources. Visitor experience programs generally include interpretation, education and visitor safety.

The fiscal year 2001 business plan for Gettysburg National Military Park and Eisenhower National Historic Site shows a resource protection deficit of $907,000 and

10.73 FTE on a total resource protection budget of $2.48 million and 42.5 FTE (full

time equivalent positions). The shortfall is particularly acute in the cultural resource management program, therefore impacting the preservation and protection

of historic structures, collections, and landscapes. Visitor experience and enjoyment

programs at the two units are $1.3 million and 13.3 FTE short of the need, compared with total available funding of $1.5 million and 32.4 FTE. According to the

plan, underfunding in this area means the parks have too few interpretive rangers

to meet the demand of visitors and schools. Underfunding also means too few staff

to orient visitors at the visitor center and insufficient operating funds to properly

maintain, monitor and inspect the structural fire suppression system.

According to its business plan, Bandalier National Monument in 2000 had a

shortfall of $954,504 and 20 FTE for resource management compared to available

funding of $1.48 million and 22.1 FTE. The visitor experience budget was short

$461,650 and 9 FTE compared with available funding of $646,066 and 12.8 FTE.

Consequently, the park’s primary challenge in this area is insufficient staffing for

interpretation. In the case of Bandalier, the challenges the park faces in these two

areas is joined by a management and administration funding shortfall of $632,403

and 7.7 FTE compared to a management budget of $487,270 and 7.9 FTE.

The chart below shows the business plan findings for a reasonably illustrative

group of parks, to provide the subcommittee with an idea for how funding and personnel shortfalls are typically distributed within the parks. In highlighting these

parks, we in no way wish to signal that they require more or less attention than

others. Rather, they all produced quality business plans that can help the committee

understand the resource and staffing challenges that face virtually all units of the

national park system.

FUNDING AND STAFFING NEEDS SELECT PARK UNITS

Park & Program Total Available $ 1

Total

Required $

Unfunded

Need

Park

FTE

FTE

Deficit

Gettysburg (FY 2001) —Resource Protection ............... $2,479,466 $3,386,465 ($907,019) 42.46 (10.73)

—Visitor Experience .................. $1,515,120 $2,813,654 ($1,298,534) 32.42 (13.28)

—Facility Operations ................ $946,644 $1,494,375 ($547,731) 18.07 (4.70)

—Maintenance ........................... $230,375 $422,860 ($192,485) 3.46 (4.20)

—Management & admin. .......... $1,383,092 $1,997,816 ($614,724) 20.11 (4.08)

Bandalier (FY 2000)

—Resource Protection ............... $1,484,621 $2,439,125 ($954,504) 42.11 (20.07)

—Visitor Experience .................. $646,044 $1,107,717 ($461,650) 21.83 (8.99)

—Facility Operations ................ $469,597 $837,720 ($368,123) 13.11 (6.27)

—Maintenance ........................... $1,057,241 $1,406,324 ($349,083) 8.60 (1.05)

—Management & admin. .......... $487,270 $1,119,672 ($632,403) 15.57 (7.66)

Acadia (FY 2000)

—Resource Protection ............... $931,501 $2,609,995 ($1,678,494) 42.2 (25.7)

—Visitor Experience .................. $1,690,769 $2,952,904 ($1,262,134) 65.9 (24.6)

—Facility Operations ................ $1,765,259 $2,829,305 ($1,064,046) 49.8 (18.0)

—Maintenance ........................... $1,195,498 $3,254,330 ($2,058,832) 35.7 (20.2)

—Management & admin. .......... $956,374 $2,235,184 ($1,278,810) 53.0 (20.9)

Joshua Tree (FY 2001)

—Resource Protection ............... $1,242,993 $2,012,095 ($769,102) 20.3 (11.7)

—Visitor Experience .................. $1,499,907 $2,283,081 ($783,175) 33.81 (12.7

—Facility Operations ................ $1,140,766 $1,594,449 ($453,683) 15.58 (4.6)

—Maintenance ........................... $1,116,011 $1,310,011 ($194,000) 10.65 (4.6)

—Management & admin. .......... $990,167 $1,436,010 ($445,843) 13.1 (4.2)

Fort Stanwix (FY 2001) 2

—Resource Protection ............... $72,951 $337,500 ($264,549) 2 0.7 (3.1) 2

—Visitor Experience .................. $213,992 $387,406 ($173,418) 2 5.16 (3.0) 2

—Facility Operations ................ $185,790 $294,803 ($109,013) 2 3.25 (1.9) 2

—Maintenance ........................... $56,141 $56,315 ($174) 2 0.21 (0.0) 2

—Management & admin. .......... $277,272 $472,926 ($195,654) 2 5.1 (1.7) 2

1 Includes appropriated and non-appropriated funds.

2Fort Stanwix received a $570,000 appropriated base budget increase in FY 2002, nearly

eliminating the entire 47 percent shortfall. The Fort is nearly fully funded.

35

Importantly, business plans are a tool that parks put to use. For each of the parks

described above, the plans identified needs that park managers are working to address. Their challenge, of course, is implementing creative programs to maximize

available resources and finding the additional funds to truly meet the needs of their

parks. They have challenging jobs, which they and their staff do very well.

The chairman asked that we describe whether shortfalls in personnel and resources tend to be concentrated in certain regions, among different types of park

unit, or tend to be specific to parks. The short answer is that we cannot yet be certain. However, our preliminary analysis suggests that most of the primary problems—particularly in interpretation (visitor experience) and resource preservation—

are evenly distributed. Nor does there appear to be a significant difference between

the national parks, historic parks, national monuments or other units. In general,

the business plans developed with the Park Service have shown an overall shortfall

ranging between 20 and 40 percent, with a small number of parks like Fort Stanwix

National Monument, which received sufficient funds in FY 2002 to eliminate virtually its entire shortfall and is instituting strategies identified in the business plan

to address the remainder. An analysis of the business plans developed by the Park

Service thus far indicates that funding and staffing challenges are relatively similar

across the system. The budget functions that tend to have the most significant need

generally include resource protection and visitor experience. Overall, the ubiquitous

nature of these shortfalls illustrates the enormous challenge that continues to face

the park service, and calls into serious question the administration’s aggressive effort to outsource Park Service positions.

Despite these challenges, modern technology presents incredible opportunities to

bring the national parks closer to people who may be hundreds or even thousands

of miles away—opportunities the Park Service works to provide through its Parks

as Classrooms program. Volunteers provide enormous assistance to the parks

through their dedication and devotion. In fiscal year 2002, 125,000 volunteers donated 4.5 million hours (equivalent to 2156 FTE) to the national parks. Since 1990,

the number of volunteers in the national parks has increased by roughly 5 percent

per year. But even though volunteers and technology provide invaluable tools to

help protect the parks and even educate park visitors, they are not the entire solution.

Efforts to significantly increase volunteerism in the parks will require that sufficient staff be made available to supervise them. Volunteers must be trained and

guided, and park staff need to determine how to put them to use.

LAND ACQUISITION

Since Congress created it in 1964, the Land and Water Conservation Fund

(LWCF) has been the principal federal source of funding to acquire new park and

recreation lands. Similar to the Highway Trust Fund, the LWCF account was envisioned as the primary dedicated funding source for land conservation. Revenues generated principally from drilling on the outer continental shelf are supposed to be allocated to land management agencies for land acquisition and recreation. However,

as the subcommittee is aware, Congress has not fully funded the LWCF to its authorized $900 million annually, despite trust fund revenues that far exceed expenditures. Through fiscal year 2001, the total amount that could have been appropriated

over the years was $24.5 billion, but only $11.4 billion had been appropriated—less

than half the authorized amount.

To address this situation, in fiscal year 2001 Congress reached an historic agreement to significantly increase funding for the LWCF through a new Conservation

Trust Fund. This groundbreaking bipartisan accomplishment was intended to protect America’s conservation, recreation, wildlife, and historic resources. As members

of the subcommittee are aware, this funding mechanism was created as a compromise during the debate surrounding the passage of the Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA). The Conservation Trust Fund was intended to provide a dedicated level of annual funding for LWCF and other conservation programs for fiscal

years 2001-2006, for a total $12 billion during this period. Unfortunately, the Conservation Trust Fund was dramatically underfunded in fiscal year 2003, and appears to face similar shortfalls in the upcoming fiscal year.

Expansions of and additions to the national park system are necessary. Clearly,

expansions of the system have had an impact on the fiscal and personnel needs of

the Park Service, but the extent to which they have diminished the resources available for other Park Service needs is unknowable. It is far from clear that the Park

Service would have the same financial resources or support it has today if these expansions had not occurred.

36

Until the rate of investment for the Park Service has increased to the point that

is necessary to fulfill the Park Service’s mission and purpose, the Park Service will

have to struggle between competing priorities. NPCA strongly believes the operations budget should be a significant priority, but that we cannot turn a blind eye

to once-in-a-lifetime opportunities or newly emerging threats to the very places

we’re trying to preserve for future generations. If a park is endangered and the acquisition of an in holding or adjacent land will help protect it, that acquisition

should become a priority.

Importantly, in holdings frequently create management burdens for national park

personnel. In some cases the acquisition of an in holding or adjacent land may actually reduce those burdens and enable personnel to focus on other needs. As the

members of the subcommittee know, owners of ecologically, culturally or historically

sensitive land within and adjacent to parks periodically decide to sell or develop

those lands. At times, such situations pose direct threats to the enjoyment of park

visitors and the well being of the parks, themselves. The Park Service must have

the ability to acquire these lands when necessary to protect the integrity of a given

park.

For example, Petrified Forest National Park is known worldwide as the premier

window into Triassic era paleontology, but only 6 miles of the 22-mile long famous,

fossil-rich Chinle escarpment are within the park. This is a priceless, rare resource

that should be protected as part of the park, particularly with the primary landowners anxious to sell their land and with strong support from the local communities. The park holds a time capsule of untapped scientific knowledge that can help

us unravel some of the thorniest environmental questions of our time.

Among the select few land acquisition needs for which the administration requested funds in its fiscal year 2004 budget request are sensitive lands in Big

Thicket National Preserve and at Valley Forge National Historical Park. Land acquisition at Big Thicket is essential to prevent timbering on non-federal lands at

the preserve that would endanger the fragile ecosystem of the Big Thicket area.

Timber companies are divesting themselves of 1.5 million acres in the surrounding

area. Proposed development at Valley Forge National Historical Park threatens an

area that once was occupied by the Continental Army during its encampment at

Valley Forge in 1777-1778.

And as the result of the Chairman’s initiative, the National Park Service recently

acquired 1,406 acres of state lands and mineral interests within the boundary of

Grand Teton National Park. In holdings like those in Grand Teton exist throughout

the National Park System, and their acquisition by the parks when owners wish to

sell them is generally in the strong interest of long-term park preservation.

SERVING THE NEW FACE OF AMERICA

History is not static, but is made every day. The national park system must

evolve to remain the ‘‘best idea America ever had’’ and to serve the rapidly changing

population of our nation. Unfortunately, America’s ‘‘ethnic minorities’’ still remain

largely absent from our parks as visitors, employees, contractors, subjects of interpretation and political champions. In 2003, the year that confirmed Hispanics as the

largest growing minority in the country, not one of the 388 units that currently

make up the national park system honors the legacy of an individual contemporary

Latino. The same can be said for Asian Americans and American Indians. For its

failure to embrace diversity, this great American idea is at risk of becoming largely

irrelevant to half the population at a time when our national parks need the broadest possible constituency to ensure their preservation unimpaired for future generations.

This worst-case scenario, however, need not come to pass. Surveys demonstrate

that Asian, Latino, African American and American Indian people have a great regard for the natural wonders celebrated and preserved in large national parks such

as Yosemite and Yellowstone. The Park Service, for its part, is one of the largest

curators of Asian, Latino, Indian and African American history and culture. These

existing links need to be reinforced and better publicized in order that these natural

allies fully support and appreciate one another.

Thoughtful and judicious expansion of the park system to include new units commemorating our diverse history and culture would provide an even greater opportunity to overcome the relevancy gap that exists between the Park Service and

many people of color. The addition of sites commemorating the groundbreaking work

of African American scholar Carter G. Woodson and labor rights activist Cesar E.

Chavez would be an excellent first step toward better engaging people of color as

national park advocates. It’s also the right thing to do if we are truly interested in

37

having a national park system that accurately and adequately reflects the many

faces of America.

Some argue that no new national parks should be added until the backlog maintenance concerns currently plaguing the system have been addressed. Furthermore,

some have stated the cost of these outstanding concerns is so great that resolving

them will prevent us from funding any new units for the national system. The truth

is that, over time, adequate funding would enable the Park Service to handle its

backlog maintenance and operational needs, serve park visitors, and make prudent

additions to the system that celebrate the cultural diversity and honor our common

heritage as Americans. In a time where everyone, from NASCAR to Major League

Baseball to the Elk’s Club, is embracing diversity as way to remain socially relevant, political effective, and economically viable, we cannot afford to tell 47 percent

of the population there’s no more room in the national park system for your heroes

and leaders. Diversity is the strength of our nation and should also be a strength

of our national park system.

CONCLUSION

Thank you for focusing attention on this important issue today. When national

parks are created, most Americans would like to assume they are protected. As you

know, the park system faces constant pressure and a significant struggle for resources. NPCA is pleased to be of assistance to the subcommittee as you examine

how best to address these challenges and protect our beloved national parks for future generations.

Senator THOMAS. Thank you, and thanks to all of you for being

here.

Mr. Dillinger, you work in other areas other than parks. How

does the maintenance backlog in parks compare to other State or

Federal agencies or similar kinds of activities?

Mr. DILLINGER. I have yet to encounter a public agency that

didn’t have a backlog. What I think you will find is that the right

comparative metric measurement, if you will, that Mr. Murphy offered, is that facility condition index. And what you find in testimony from our National Wildlife Refuge, is that tends to run between .1 and .3 in many of our public agencies, and it’s left relatively consistent, but it exists out there across those. The Park

Service itself has some unique challenges in both remoteness and

the age of their assets and their infrastructure, and that caused

some complications for them whereas some of the other public

agencies that might have assets that were in the 30-year range instead of the 80-year range.

Senator THOMAS. So you’re suggesting that a percentage of the

operating budget, whatever is available, be set aside for the maintenance of facilities?

Mr. DILLINGER. I think the key is, and Mr. Kiernan said as well,

if we don’t adequately fund the annual maintenance, that rolls over

into maintenance backlog. And so if we focus our attention just on

maintenance backlog, we’re focusing on an event that will continue

to pile up due to inadequate annual funding, and those agencies

that have public sector agencies, private sector as well, have started to focus on spending the right money up front tends to naturally

draw down their backlog. But you will find that there is always

some maintenance backlog and it is perhaps never appropriate to

believe that you can entirely eliminate it. There is a new piece always occurring tomorrow, and the idea is to keep it below that

range that Mr. Murphy mentioned, of 10 percent of the total value.

Senator THOMAS. I’m sure that more money is always, of course,

the solution to everything, and you can come with us as we go

about our business, and you will find that everyone we talk to has

38

a need for more money, and I don’t disagree with that. However,

there also has to be some attention given to how you better spend

the money you have, and of course that’s probably what we’re doing

here.

Mr. Cornelssen, concessions are a little different, aren’t they?

The maintenance of a concession has to do, I suppose, with the arrangement made on the concessioners.

Mr. CORNELSSEN. Yes, sir. The challenge here is we’re not doing

it ourself, we have to get the private sector to do it on our behalf,

that is, on the Park Service’s behalf, so we have to specify some

fairly clear standards and operating guidelines.

Senator THOMAS. But that kind of goes into the leasing arrangement, doesn’t it?

Mr. CORNELSSEN. Yes, sir.

Senator THOMAS. And there ought to be an opportunity to make

enough money to maintain the facilities and then to ensure that

they are maintained, which, do you think that’s done generally in

the parks?

Mr. CORNELSSEN. We are certainly doing it now. The approach

that we’re taking on the large contracts, what we call the big 50,

is we make sure there is adequate funding going back first and

foremost to the assets, but that there is also a fair return to the

concessioners.

Senator THOMAS. You mentioned that all of the facilities actually

belong to the park. That’s sort of a little hard to—now Yellowstone,

for example, the assets do belong to the park, they don’t belong to

the hospitality group, but the others, although they’re under lease

and control, they actually are paid for the facilities if they don’t

continue the concession. Is that true?

Mr. CORNELSSEN. Yes, sir. The reason I made that distinction is

that the Government does and needs to recognize that these are

government, these are assets that are titled to the U.S. Government, so whether there is possessory interest or not, the Government has a responsibility for these assets.

Senator THOMAS. Mr. Kiernan, there are other—you know, in

part of your last statement, where of course the parks need to continue to grow, there are also other ways of maintaining facilities,

are there not, such as State parks and other kinds of things?

Mr. KIERNAN. Absolutely. There is, to use the administration’s

coined phrase, a network of park systems throughout this country,

and obviously it is the local, State and national park systems that

in aggregate provide some of the recreation, but also resource protection needs of this country. That being said, the National Park

System represents the superlative examples of the treasures of this

country. The Flight 93 Memorial, obviously from September 11, is

one example of a number that we feel should be recognized.

Senator THOMAS. No question. We do need to think a little bit

sometimes about the standards that decide which of these categories they fall into, because there are some pretty nice things

that are in State parks and so on.

Somebody mentioned earlier that during this last several years

there has been a $2.9 billion reduction in backlog. You don’t seem

to agree with that.

39

Mr. KIERNAN. We agree with the administration’s calculation that they have supplied, with Congress, $2.9 billion, but at the beginning of this administration, they were funding those accounts at

roughly what would have been $2.5 billion, so the administration

has proposed an additional, we calculate, $371 million. That’s good

and we support that, but clearly, that additional incremental funding of $371 million only makes a very small dent in reducing the

$4.9 billion log. That’s why, as we understand it from the Department’s numbers, the backlog as they calculated this past January,

is between $4.1 and $6.8 billion, the backlog is still up in that

range, it is not being reduced because there has not been significant additional funding the backlog or significant increase in the

operating budget for the parks.

Senator THOMAS. I don’t quite understand. I think you said reduced it by 3. something, the backlog?

Mr. KIERNAN. They have only reduced it $371 million.

Senator THOMAS. I’m sorry, I misunderstood you. I thought you

were talking $3.7 billion, which I thought was pretty significant.

Mr. KIERNAN. Right, $371 million.

Senator THOMAS. All right, thank you.

Senator.

Senator AKAKA. Mr. Cornelssen, you stated in your testimony,

developing new concession contracts, that you are able to structure

plans to address any maintenance backlog with respect to the concession facilities involved, as well as ensure proper ongoing maintenance. While this is encouraging, doesn’t it mean a trade-off with

other funding needs? The funds spent by concessioners to address

backlog maintenance means either a lower franchise fee or other

foregone use of the revenue that we’re contemplating in the concessions we farm out.

Mr. CORNELSSEN. That’s a good question, sir. I mean, I guess the

way we do it is I guess, don’t kill the goose that laid the golden

egg concept. In other words, first and foremost, we have to make

sure the money goes back into the assets to ensure that those assets are in good condition, the visitors have a good experience, they

are willing to continue to pay for that experience. So that’s a high

priority for the investment. I do believe when the Concessions Reform Act was passed in ’98, a lot of people viewed it as potentially

a windfall of all kinds of extra money, but what we’re seeing as we

view these contract by contract, there is additional returns coming

back, but a lot of the money does need to go back into the assets

at the park level.

Senator AKAKA. Mr. Kiernan, you stated that NPCA believes

only, and let me make sure of the figure, $371 million in new

money has been available in recent years. Given the current fiscal

climate and the intense competition for discretionary funds in the

appropriations process, my question to you is where do you propose

that we find the additional money that would be needed to reduce

the backlog?

Mr. KIERNAN. A wonderful question, Senator, and a difficult one.

I would respond in the following way: The National Park System

tells truly the American story and the values that we stand for

need to be protected, need to be communicated, need to be reinforced through our National Park Service. Now is the time when

40

we are making investments, whether it’s in Homeland Security,

foreign affairs, the investment in our National Park Service is absolutely part of that strategy. We need to be investing in our parks

because they are, they represent the best and finest of this country,

and also they represent the times and places where this country

has made mistakes. We need to take care of these places and learn

from them. These need to be the highest, or some of the highest

funding priorities of this country at this time. So, that’s not a specific answer to your question, but we are calling for a $600 million

funding increase in the operating budget of the parks and that is

a number that seems in the realm of the doable in the Federal

budget, sir.

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. In my opening statement, I mentioned my concern that as important as this issue is, it’s not only

the concern for the Park Service or even the highest priority, there

are many other parts there. Given the scarce resources available,

what areas does NPCA think are the most important, and what

should receive priority in funding?

Mr. KIERNAN. I believe it’s easy for Congress and the administration to focus on those aspects of the park that are the superficial,

I don’t mean that as a criticism, but the visible, and so the maintenance backlog, the condition of roads and the buildings is something that’s quite visible and is receiving attention. I think it is a

lot of the invisible behind the scenes, the lack of scientific understanding of the natural resource management challenges in the

parks, as I mentioned in my testimony, needs significant increases

in funding. So I would answer it by saying natural resource protection, cultural resource protection, protecting those fourth elements

of the parks for which they were founded should be the highest priority.

I would also mention, if I may, that in the last 3 years the total

Park Service budget, backlog funding, operating funding, has only

increased on average 1 percent over the last 3 years. In the end

of the 1990’s, it was increasing an average rate of 9 percent, so the

rate of increase of our total National Park Service funding has dramatically dropped and I think this will lead to additional future

problems both on the operating budget and in the backlog.

Senator AKAKA. Thank you for your response. I just want to say

that there is an additional concern too, in terms of availability of

personnel and resources for these public assets. So, I thank you all

very much for your comments.

Senator THOMAS. Thank you. We’re about to wind up here, guys.

I would like to have you say in about this length of time, these are

the three things I think are most important that we do right now

to deal with parks and this backlog.

In the meantime, Tom, I have to say that you’re publishing here

as saying the administration has a D minus for its operations in

the parks, and I was a little surprised at that. It’s a tough issue,

but I think there are some pretty good activities that have carried

on.

Mr. KIERNAN. Thank you, sir. We did try in that assessment to

highlight those park policies and efforts of the administration that

we do think are positive, we are trying to point out the good things,

some of which were mentioned this morning.

41

Senator THOMAS. Mr. Dillinger, what are the three things you

think we ought to do?

Mr. DILLINGER. Number one would be to, understanding the financial constraints, but nonetheless understand the appropriate

level of maintenance dollars that could be spent. Number two, complete the effort that Park Service currently has underway to develop their facilities management system but expand it to include

the maintenance requirements. The third issue is to get well

trained people in the field, continue to do that, not that people

there are bad, just that there is a continued departure of quality

folks as the work force ages, and we need to train new folks, new

stewards to be in the field.

Senator THOMAS. Thank you, sir.

Mr. CORNELSSEN. I would echo some of what Eric said. First, investing in people, both internally through training programs as

well as using external resources as necessary. Secondly, putting together a good plan; I know that’s tossed around a lot, but we believe in it, we believe you have to have a plan. Third, I guess I

would call it financial discipline, which I think gets to your point,

Mr. Chairman, which is understanding the resources that you

have, and how you work with those resources to leverage them and

maintain a tight financial discipline.

Senator THOMAS. Thank you.

Mr. Kiernan.

Mr. KIERNAN. We would recommend continuing to increase the

natural resources challenge program and the funding for that. That

has seen significant improvement of science and management in

the national parks. Secondly would be to continue the administration’s work to roll out business plans to all the parks as a means

of understanding the operating challenges and coming forward

with recommendations to fulfill the operating challenges. And

thirdly, and somewhat as a result of those two things, significantly

increasing the operating budget of the Park Service, because we

think that will both better protect the resources and deal with

backlog.

Senator THOMAS. Thank you, gentlemen. We appreciate your

input and appreciate your support for the parks. The committee is

adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 11:31 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

(43)

APPENDIXES

APPENDIX I

Responses to Additional Questions

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE

Question 1. What issues did GAO identify that contribute to the maintenance

backlog?

Answer. The body of work that we have done throughout the national park system

suggests that it is a combination of things. These include aging facilities and infrastructure, budgets not keeping pace with the growth of the system, and the lack of

sustained attention and commitment by Park Service management to properly address the issue.

Question 2. Did GAO identify any administrative or management practices within

the National Park Service that impede or prolong action toward correcting the maintenance backlog?

Answer. Yes, the lack of a sustained commitment to properly address its need to

better manage its maintenance backlog, including getting a better understanding of

the condition of its facilities and how much it will cost to maintain them. GAO, Interior’s Office of Inspector General, and others have pointed this out for decades.

While the current facility management initiatives within the agency appear promising, it will take time to fully implement them. Agency management will have to

keep focused on seeing the initiatives through—it will require the kind of sustained

commitment that the agency has not demonstrated in the past.

Question 3. How much do you think the maintenance backlog might ultimately

cost and how long might it take to correct?

Answer. Right now, the Park Service has no reliable, system-wide data on the

condition of its facilities or the size of the backlog to properly maintain them. Until

this is known, we would only be guessing about the size of the problem and how

tong it might take to correct it.

Question 4. What advice can you offer the Park Service regarding the maintenance backlog?

Answer. After decades of discussion and attempts to better manage the maintenance backlog, the Park Service is now in the process of implementing a new facility

management process that appears very promising. However, it is going to take years

to fully and properly implement this process so that all of its benefits can be realized—including getting more accurate and reliable data on the condition of its assets

and the size of the maintenance backlog. Our advice to agency managers would be

to stay focused on the effective implementation of its current facility management

initiative and give it the sustained effort and commitment to see it through.

(45)

APPENDIX II

Additional Material Submitted for the Record

STATEMENT OF THE ASSOCIATION OF NATIONAL PARK RANGERS

Chairman Thomas and Members of the National Parks Subcommittee: We are

honored and pleased to have the opportunity to provide this statement for the

record.

The Association of National Park Rangers (ANPR) is an organization created to

communicate for, about, and with park rangers; to promote and enhance the park

ranger profession and its spirit; and to support the management and perpetuation

of the National Park Service and System. In meeting these purposes, ANPR provides education and other training to develop and improve the knowledge and skills

of park rangers and those interested in the profession; provides a forum for discussion of common concerns of park rangers; and provides information to the public.

Our membership—approximately 1,000 National Park Service employees—is comprised of individuals who are entrusted with and committed to the care, study, explanation, and protection of those natural, cultural, and recreational resources included in the National Park System, as well as of individuals who support these efforts.

We would like to begin by thanking the Subcommittee for holding this hearing

and examining issues which we believe should be of significant concern to policy

makers and to the American public.

The American National Park System is a worldwide model. Much emulated, and

still unrivaled, it is at once a diverse and amazing collection of beautiful natural

resources and monuments, an enriching source of learning about American history

and culture, as well as a source of recreation and enjoyment for more than 400 million visitors each year. Yet, this amazing system will not endure without proper

care. And that is the role of the National Park Service. Drawn from its enabling

statute, the Organic Act of 1916, the mission of the Service is—

. . . to promote and regulate the use of the . . . national parks . . . which

purpose is to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the

wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner

and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future

generations.

Thus, the vitality and perpetuation of the System is very dependent upon a properly staffed and skilled Service.

PERSONNEL DEFICITS

The National Park Service is experiencing shortages in virtually all personnel position types—i.e., law enforcement commissioned rangers, interpretive rangers, administrative support, resource management, and maintenance workers. For example, according to the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, between 1980 and

2001, the number of permanent law enforcement commissioned rangers dropped

from 1,841 to 1,539 (a reduction of 302 or 16.4%) and the number of seasonal law

enforcement commissioned rangers fell from 616 to 469 (a reduction of 147 or

23.9%). Yet, during this same period, the number of park units increased by more

than 62, park acreage increased from 77 million to 84.5 million, and park visitation

increased from approximately 300 million to more than 400 million persons.

Similar data for other position types are not available, but service-wide anecdotal

information supports the contention that we have insufficient numbers of—

• interpreters to provide tours and programs to more than a small percentage of

visitors;

• resource managers to perform inventories, and to monitor or restore ecosystems

to insure their perpetuation;

46

• maintenance workers to keep trails, signs, historic structures, and other resource-related facilities in safe and useable condition; and

• support personnel such as information technologists, administrative clerks, and

fee collectors to run the parks on a consistent, sustained and professional basis.

During the preceding 12 months, the Department of the Interior and the Service

have developed a variety of law enforcement reforms. This resulted in a number of

NPS directives to the field, one of which was to give the filling of law enforcement

positions the highest priority.

In light of the aforementioned data, this is reasonable, appropriate and in general

strongly supported by ANPR. At the same time, retirements, transfers, changing

park needs, and effects of recent internal reorganizations also have left some parks

with very critical shortages in other types of positions. ANPR therefore strongly supports preserving the discretion of park superintendents to establish local personnel

priorities consistent with documented strategic, business, and safety needs.

A particular personnel issue that greatly concerns ANPR is the prospective retirement of several NPS regional directors. We feel that it is mission critical for their

replacements to be veteran NPS employees. Their regional duties, as well as their

participation on the Director’s National Leadership Council, require extensive

knowledge of Park Service history, culture, and operational issues. Given the many

challenges presently facing the national parks and the Service, it would be most unfortunate to have any of those positions filled by individuals with little or no Park

Service experience.

We offer two final, general points on NPS personnel. The first is that any discussion of personnel must be viewed from the context and effect of operational budgets.

The Operation of National Park Service (ONPS) budget, adjusted for current dollars,

has dropped about 20 percent in the past 25 years. Consequently, parks are operating at 98 percent and higher fixed costs (personnel, utilities, etc.) and have been

for 7-10 years. In some cases fixed costs exceed 100 percent of ONPS (in FY 2003,

some parks are at 120+ percent fixed costs). In some cases, permanent salaries must

be covered out of ‘‘soft money.’’ The common practice for dealing with this is what

we call ‘‘managing by lapse’’—or leaving positions vacant for a year or more in order

to have the funds to cover other essential costs. It should be noted that this practice

generally has not worked in smaller parks, those with no turnover in staff, or those

that have low (or no) project funds.

The second point pertains to the unique nature of service in NPS. We frequently

serve in remote locations and, while we all have job descriptions, our work is frequently as unpredictable as Mother Nature and human behavior. Thus, in emergency situations, park employees work as teams to see that whatever needs doing

is done. These emergencies may involve severe weather, injured and/or lost visitors,

wildfires, or simply ensuring that visitors are served as needed. The following story

is told by a young employee from a Western park.

As a GS-5 visitor use assistant, I am clearly at the bottom of park staffing.

Today, I treated a man for a nearly unstoppable razor cut to his face, spoke to

3 groups of 330 plus people each, dealt with 5 different school groups visiting

the park, and will in one half hour, deliver a 45 minute talk and walk of the

park to over 120 people. This morning we were lucky, thanks to the ‘‘donation’’

of two law enforcement rangers from other parks, so we had law enforcement

support. The only other uniformed ranger was one really good experienced GS9. And that’s how we intend to deal with nearly 1000 visitors and their questions and even their small emergencies. Want more? How clear do we need to

be that more uniformed presence is needed? Our maintenance mart ended up

playing interpreter to two school groups out of lack of staff We had no volunteers, interns or other help for the first 3 hours of the day and this is typical.

MAINTENANCE BACKLOG

While there is little agreement on the size of the maintenance backlog, we are

very concerned about the significant effect that it has on the operations of parks

and, under the current level of funding, the inability of the Service to properly staff

them. We see superintendents being forced to make Hobson’s Choices—e.g., to keep

an area or building open to the public because of its popularity, knowing that it

could involve a safety risk, or closing the area or building and having to deal with

irate visitors. These are difficult decisions to make. We see historic structures that

are rapidly deteriorating. And we see how unfunded and pressing maintenance

needs contribute to ‘‘managing by lapse.’’

47

LAND ACQUISITION

As employees entrusted with fulfillment of the NPS mission and the care of our

Nation’s heritage, we support completion of the system via timely accomplishment

of goals and priorities established in park Land Protection Plans. For many years,

the completion of land acquisitions has not been possible and this has had a significant impact on the ability of the Service and its employees to preserve, protect and

promote enjoyment of lands that Congress has deemed nationally significant. The

Federal government made these determinations and should follow through to properly fund adequate protection of these nationally significant lands. An excellent way

of assessing where we stand in meeting this responsibility is to review the land protection measures developed by each park. To what degree are the parks able to

achieve the goals associated with these measures? To the extent that these goals

are prioritized, are the parks able to adequately address even their highest priorities?

The effect of land acquisitions on the maintenance backlog and on the personnel

deficit is obviously to increase them. We would be pleased if careful assessments

were routinely conducted and acted upon in a timely manner—with adequate funding—to insure that this Nation’s heritage is preserved and protected. The next generation of Americans should expect no less and certainly deserves as much.

Thank you for the opportunity to submit this statement. We would be pleased to

provide any other information that the Subcommittee needs.

STATEMENT OF ANDREW N. TODD, CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL PARK HOSPITALITY ASSOCIATION

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to submit testimony for this oversight hearing on

maintenance and land acquisition backlog in the national parks. As a chairman of

the Board of Directors of the National Park Hospitality Association (‘‘NPHA’’), I represent an industry membership that is responsible for most of the visitor services

provided by the private sector in our National Parks.

The National Park Hospitality Association members strongly support full federal

funding for the National Park Service budget for Fiscal Year 2004 which includes

a request of $1 billion in deferred maintenance projects that will be funded through

appropriations, recreational fees and road improvement funds contained in TEA 21.

This level represents a 50 percent increase over FY 2003 levels and is a large but

necessary request. The industry believes that it is important that federal funding

levels are maintained and that relying on private sector sources for park operations

income is insufficient for the long term well-being of the parks.

NPHA strongly supports President Bush’s commitment to continue the progress

in reducing the maintenance backlog within five years and to providing ‘‘good roads,

safe trails, clean lakes and streams, and well-kept campgrounds.’’

Interior Secretary Gale Norton and NPS Director Fran Mainella have just released a special report, National Park Service: Partnering and Managing for Excellence, on July 2, 2003 that highlights many of the National Parks Legacy Project

and NPS efforts to handle the existing maintenance backlog and plans to prevent

this from recurring. We would also like to commend the NPS accomplishments in reducing the $4.9

billion maintenance backlog identified in the 1998 General Accounting Office report

by nearly $2.9 billion the since FY 2002 through 900 separate repair and rehabilitation projects system wide. There are still over 800 maintenance backlog projects to

be undertaken, as well as necessary park road projects in order to return the park

roads to good condition.

NPHA favors the continuation of the fee demo program and the concession franchise fee program which allows 80 percent of the gate entrance fees and other franchise fees generated by the park to remain for use in that park unit. These programs have provided much assistance in providing needed maintenance and improved visitor services directly to the parks.

Key to this management effort is the National Park Service facility condition assessments program that allows the NPS to put into place a maintenance system to

flag maintenance needs, and allows both the National Park Service and Congress

to better manage these needs and prevents recurrence of deferred maintenance

backlogs.

The Facility Maintenance Software System (FMSS) is scheduled to be completed

and the system will be in use as a work planning, costing, tracking, budgeting and

prioritizing tool in the parks by the end of calendar year 2003. Ultimately, this computerized system will be the first time that the National Park Service will have a

comprehensive inventory and baseline condition assessment of all 7,500 park faciliVerDate 11-SEP-98 14:55 Sep 03, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\89-076 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
48

ties. We strongly support this initiative and believe it will be very helpful in planning, scheduling and prioritizing the maintenance of these park facilities.

NPHA is seeing some very good work coming out in the recent prospectus releases

due to the NPS’ business partnership with PricewaterhouseCoopers, who is bringing

a private sector vision into this process. NPHA members have worked actively with

the National Park Service on the comprehensive condition assessment initiative that

identifies deferred maintenance on concession facilities and establishes the ongoing

maintenance requirements of the concession facilities. This information used in developing the prospectus and is very useful in assisting the concessioner in planning

and scheduling of necessary improvements and budget forecasting.

NPHA supports this committee’s efforts to ensure that the park service has adequate, trained personnel to operate the park system and strongly supports full funding for the NPS operating account. Almost a billion dollars was requested for FY

2004 to fund the operations at 388 park units. NPS has taken on a number of additional duties in patrolling the border as many border parks have seen an increase

in traffic of undocumented aliens and illegal drug smuggling as a result of heightened security at borders outside the parks. It is important to the safety and security

of the park visitors that the agency receive adequate funding to meet these new duties.

NPHA supports the planned new Flight 93 National Memorial, but contends that

the maintenance backlog should be retired before new lands and parks are acquired

and added to the system.

We commend this committee for its leadership of the national parks and look forward to continuing to work with you and your committee, Mr. Chairman.

Æ