U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

28–851 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018

EXPLORING INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS TO 

REDUCE THE DEPARTMENT OF THE 

INTERIOR’S MAINTENANCE BACKLOG 

OVERSIGHT HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

Tuesday, March 6, 2018 

Serial No. 115–39 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources 

( 

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

or 

Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

ROB BISHOP, UT, Chairman 

RAU ́ L M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Democratic Member 

Don Young, AK 

Chairman Emeritus 

Louie Gohmert, TX 

Vice Chairman 

Doug Lamborn, CO 

Robert J. Wittman, VA 

Tom McClintock, CA 

Stevan Pearce, NM 

Glenn Thompson, PA 

Paul A. Gosar, AZ 

Rau ́l R. Labrador, ID 

Scott R. Tipton, CO 

Doug LaMalfa, CA 

Jeff Denham, CA 

Paul Cook, CA 

Bruce Westerman, AR 

Garret Graves, LA 

Jody B. Hice, GA 

Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen, AS 

Daniel Webster, FL 

Jack Bergman, MI 

Liz Cheney, WY 

Mike Johnson, LA 

Jenniffer Gonza ́lez-Colo ́n, PR 

Greg Gianforte, MT 

John R. Curtis, UT 

Grace F. Napolitano, CA 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU 

Jim Costa, CA 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, CNMI 

Niki Tsongas, MA 

Jared Huffman, CA 

Vice Ranking Member 

Alan S. Lowenthal, CA 

Donald S. Beyer, Jr., VA 

Norma J. Torres, CA 

Ruben Gallego, AZ 

Colleen Hanabusa, HI 

Nanette Diaz Barraga ́n, CA 

Darren Soto, FL 

A. Donald McEachin, VA 

Anthony G. Brown, MD 

Wm. Lacy Clay, MO 

Jimmy Gomez, CA 

Cody Stewart, Chief of Staff 

Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel 

David Watkins, Democratic Staff Director 

(III) 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Hearing held on Tuesday, March 6, 2018 .............................................................. 1 

Statement of Members: 

Bishop, Hon. Rob, a Representative in Congress from the State of Utah ... 1 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 2 

Grijalva, Hon. Rau ́l M., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Arizona ...................................................................................................... 3 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 3 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Guertin, Steve, Deputy Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Washington, DC ............................................. 30 

Prepared statement of Mr. Guertin and Mr. Smith, U.S. Department 

of the Interior ......................................................................................... 71 

Iobst, Steve, National Park Conservation Association, National Park 

Service, Retired, Former Chief of Facility Management for Yellowstone 

National Park, Driggs, Idaho ....................................................................... 31 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 33 

Puskar, Dan, Executive Director, Public Lands Alliance, Silver Spring, 

Maryland ....................................................................................................... 38 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 39 

Rano, Jason, Vice President, Government Relations, National Park 

Foundation, Washington, DC ....................................................................... 43 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 44 

Smith, P. Daniel, Deputy Director, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC ........................................................ 5 

Prepared statement of Mr. Smith and Mr. Guertin, U.S. Department 

of the Interior ......................................................................................... 71 

Questions submitted for the record ......................................................... 6 

Additional Materials Submitted for the Record: 

List of documents submitted for the record retained in the Committee’s 

official files .................................................................................................... 73 

U.S. Department of the Interior, prepared statement of Mr. Guertin 

and Mr. Smith ............................................................................................... 71 

(1) 

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON EXPLORING INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS TO REDUCE THE 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR’S MAINTENANCE BACKLOG 

Tuesday, March 6, 2018 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Committee on Natural Resources 

Washington, DC 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., in room 

1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Rob Bishop 

[Chairman of the Committee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Bishop, Lamborn, McClintock, 

Thompson, LaMalfa, Westerman, Hice, Bergman, Curtis; Grijalva, 

Bordallo, Costa, Sablan, Beyer, Torres, Hanabusa, Barraga ́n, Soto, 

and McEachin. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right. We welcome all of you here today for 

this particular Full Committee hearing. It is a significant issue, 

and that is why we are doing it at the Committee level. 

We are here today to hear testimony on exploring innovative 

solutions to reduce the Department of the Interior’s maintenance 

backlog—that is the official title. 

Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at the 

hearing are limited to the Chairman, the Ranking Minority 

Member, and the Vice Chair. This will allow us time to actually get 

to our witnesses sooner, I hope. 

Therefore, I am going to ask unanimous consent that all other 

Members’ opening statements be made part of the hearing record, 

if they are submitted to the Subcommittee on Federal Lands Clerk 

by 5:00 p.m. today. 

Without objection, that is so ordered. 

Let me recognize myself for a very brief statement. I will put a 

longer opening in later on. It is a very brief statement. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. ROB BISHOP, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH 

The CHAIRMAN. We have problems. This Committee is hearing 

testimony because the Department of the Interior manages over 

500 million acres of surface land. That is a huge amount. That is 

one-fifth of the land mass of the United States. We have Parks, we 

have Forest Service, we have Fish and Wildlife, we have BOR, all 

of whom have some kind of backlog in the maintenance that we 

have. 

About a decade ago, we tried to just throw money at the situation, a big pile of money that went to the Interior Department, 

most of which was mismanaged, but it did not solve the problem. 

There has to be some kind of innovative and creative solution to 

actually solve the problem. 

2 

We are not going to be talking necessarily about the solutions 

today; that is going to be for next week. Today, we are going to explore the depth of the problem and find out where we are going, 

so we can then look at solutions. These are important and these 

are specific. 

Because of that, let me reserve any other comments for writing 

or for later. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bishop follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. ROB BISHOP, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON

NATURAL RESOURCES

The Committee meets this morning to hear testimony on the Department of the 

Interior’s maintenance backlog and innovative ways to finance and implement 

needed improvements with greater efficiency and effectiveness. 

In total, the Department of the Interior manages more than 500 million acres of 

surface land, or about one-fifth of the land in the United States. The Department’s 

three major land management agencies, the National Park Service, Fish and 

Wildlife Service, and Bureau of Land Management, maintain tens of thousands of 

diverse assets, including roads, bridges, buildings, and water management 

structures. 

As the Federal estate expands, existing infrastructure ages, and visitation increases, these agencies are increasingly unable to fulfill basic updates and repairs 

to keep these assets accessible and in safe, functioning order for the public. As a 

result, the Department’s deferred maintenance backlog currently exceeds $16 

billion. 

The National Park Service, which manages 417 diverse units covering more than 

84 million acres, has an estimated backlog of $11.6 billion. Since 1999, 8,000 

buildings and 2,000 miles of roads have been added to National Park Service infrastructure portfolio. The number of units that the National Park Service manages 

has grown from 390 in 2006 to 417 today. 

The Fish and Wildlife Service, which manages more than 560 National Wildlife 

Refuges and thousands of small wetlands and other special management areas, has 

an estimated deferred maintenance backlog of $1.4 billion. 

The Bureau of Land Management, which manages more than 245 million surface 

acres, has an estimated deferred maintenance backlog of $810 million, which represents a 65 percent increase over the past decade. 

These figures represent serious deficiencies in the Department’s ability to 

prioritize and manage our sprawling Federal estate. There is no question that 

decades of misplaced priorities in Congress and the executive have placed our 

Federal land management agencies in this position. Today, our objective is to better 

understand how we got here from both funding and management standpoints, and 

to chart a pragmatic path forward for the Department to carry out its management 

responsibilities with greater efficiency and effectiveness. 

The President’s Department of the Interior budget proposal for Fiscal Year 2019 

put forward innovative ideas toward achieving this end, including the establishment 

of a Public Lands Infrastructure Fund. The proposal envisions using targeted revenue increases from Federal energy leases to provide a more stable funding source 

dedicated to the maintenance backlog. The Fund will be capped at $18 billion in 

total possible expenditures, and is designed to promote significant improvements to 

the country’s most noticeable and frequently visited facilities. 

I want to thank Secretary Zinke and the Department’s leadership for their commitment to expanding public access to public lands and improving management of 

existing assets for the benefit of all Americans. Prioritizing our ballooning maintenance backlog is central to this effort. It is my hope that we can develop solutions 

on a bipartisan basis and move them expeditiously through Congress. 

I look forward to today’s discussion and I now yield to the Ranking Member for 

his opening statement. 

The CHAIRMAN. I will yield to the Ranking Minority Member if 

he has some kind of statement to make. 

3 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. RAU ́ L M. GRIJALVA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, too, have a lengthy 

statement that I will submit for the record so that we can get 

testimony from the witnesses. 

We have been grappling with this issue since I have been on this 

Committee, the issue of deferred maintenance on our parks and 

public lands. Over the last decade and a half, we have talked and 

put forward spending proposals and programs to leverage partnerships, private donations, and volunteers. 

But the amount of deferred maintenance continues to grow or 

flatline, at best. Two years ago, the National Park Service celebrated its Centennial Anniversary, and all eyes were focused on 

our parks and public lands. We had a unique opportunity to make 

a stronger investment in their future. Unfortunately, I don’t believe 

we seized that moment to right the ship and begin a pragmatic 

process. 

I would like to acknowledge Chairman Bishop’s hard work to get 

his vision of the National Park Service Centennial enacted into 

law. That bill creates new revenue streams and establishes new 

programs to leverage private investments to support our national 

parks. These are important tools that we should continue to support, although they are not enough to buy down deferred maintenance across the entire system. The Trump administration’s 

proposed Public Lands Infrastructure Fund is not the answer, 

either. 

While I am glad to see an interest in finding money to support 

our public lands, the proposal in the budget is backwards. Our 

most treasured places now depend on the fortune of the energy industry for their success and their failure: that is putting things 

backwards. We should not have to expand drilling in the Arctic, off 

the coast of Florida, or anywhere else to serve our parks. It is a 

false choice that the American public does not support. 

And the list goes on. We have to address, and my colleagues in 

the Majority have to address, the backlog maintenance amounts. 

We don’t have to risk destroying our parks in order to save them. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I will submit the rest for the record. 

Thank you and I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Grijalva follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. RAU ́ L M. GRIJALVA, RANKING MEMBER, 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Congress has been grappling with strategies to address the issue of deferred 

maintenance on our parks and public lands the entire time I’ve served on this 

Committee. Over the last decade and a half, we have talked and talked, put forward 

spending proposals, and even enacted new programs to leverage partnerships, private donations and volunteers, but the amount of deferred maintenance continues 

to grow, or flatline at best. 

Just 2 years ago, the National Park Service celebrated its Centennial 

Anniversary. All eyes were focused on our parks and public lands, and we had a 

unique opportunity to make a strong investment in their future. Unfortunately, we 

were not able to seize that moment and right the ship. 

I would like to acknowledge Chairman Bishop’s hard work to get his version of 

the National Park Service Centennial enacted into law. That bill created some new 

revenue streams and established new programs designed to leverage private investments to support our national parks. These are important tools that we should 

4 

continue support, but they are not enough to buy down deferred maintenance across 

the entire system. 

The Trump administration’s proposed Public Lands Infrastructure Fund is not the 

answer either. 

While I am glad to see an interest in finding money to support our public lands, 

the proposal in the budget is backwards. Our most treasured places should not have 

to depend on the fortune of the energy industry for their success and failure. We 

don’t have to expand drilling in the Arctic, off the coast of Florida, or anywhere else 

to save our parks. That is a false choice that the American public does not support. 

There are 40 coastal units of the National Park System already at risk of flooding 

thanks to the fossil fuels we have already burned; my Republican colleagues now 

tell us that the only way to address the maintenance backlog is to burn more fossil 

fuels, faster, and to dramatically increase the risk of damage from an oil spill to 

these NPS units. In other words, the Republican plan to address backlogged maintenance amounts to: we have to risk destroying our parks to save them. 

A need for consistent funding has been a dominant theme of all our conversations 

on this subject over the years; deferred maintenance will continue to grow if we do 

not head it off with consistent and dedicated funding. Any serious attempt to reduce 

deferred maintenance must be combined with a solid investment strategy from 

Congress. Our parks and public lands belong to all Americans, and it is our responsibility as their representatives to come up with a plan to ensure another 100 years 

of success. 

Over half of the more than $11 billion of deferred maintenance at national parks 

is for roads, bridges, and transportation. This is American infrastructure that deserves a real investment strategy. Unfortunately, Republicans are more interested 

in undermining bedrock environmental laws than putting forward a legitimate 

infrastructure proposal. 

A real infrastructure plan would identify investment opportunities, not slash 

agency budgets and push the burden of deferred maintenance onto the public by 

dramatically increasing entrance fees at iconic national parks. We can’t expect 

shrinking or flatlined budgets to sustain America’s Best Idea. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. And I appreciate your comments. I 

guess that is why you are going to withdraw your LWCF bill, aren’t 

you? 

OK. Let me introduce the guests that we have, the witnesses for 

today. 

First of all, Mr. P. Daniel Smith, who is the Deputy Director of 

the National Park Service with the Department of the Interior. 

Thank you for joining us here today. 

Mr. Steve Guertin, who is the Deputy Director of the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, once again, from DOI. 

Thank you for coming up to the Hill. 

Mr. Steve Iobst—— 

Mr. IOBST. Iobst. 

The CHAIRMAN. Iobst, thanks, who is with the National Park 

Conservation Association, retired from the Park Service. 

Thank you for being here, as well. 

Mr. Dan Puskar. 

Mr. PUSKAR. Puskar. 

The CHAIRMAN. Puskar. You guys are going to have to put some 

emphasis lines on here. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. OK. Mr. Smith—you are all Smith from here on 

out. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. He is the Executive Director for the Public Lands 

Alliance. Thank you. 

5 

And Mr. Jason Rano. I got one right? One out of four isn’t bad. 

The Vice President, Government Relations, for the National Park 

Foundation here in Washington, DC. 

We thank you all. I am going to remind the witnesses that your 

written testimony is part of the record. The oral testimony is limited to 5 minutes. Those microphones have to be turned on themselves. You have a timer in front of you—green is OK, yellow 

means you better talk real fast because I will cut you off at 5 

minutes. Not to be rude, but that is the only perk of this office I 

have. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. So, I will gavel you down when 5 minutes is 

done. 

With that, the Chair is recognizing Mr. Smith first for your 5 

minutes. And thank you very much for being here again. 

STATEMENT OF P. DANIEL SMITH, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE 

INTERIOR, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Grijalva, and members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to present the Department of the Interior’s views on potential solutions to reducing the deferred maintenance backlog. I 

would like to submit our full statement for the record, and summarize the National Park Service’s views. 

I am P. Daniel Smith, Deputy Director of the National Park 

Service. I have served with the National Park Service in a variety 

of capacities, most recently as superintendent of Colonial National 

Historical Park from 2004 to 2015. Before that, I served as Special 

Assistant to the National Park Service Director, and Assistant 

Director for Legislative and Congressional Affairs. 

My colleague, Steve Guertin, Deputy Director of the Fish and 

Wildlife Service, will speak on behalf of his bureau. 

Since Secretary Zinke’s confirmation, tackling the deferred maintenance backlog has been a top priority. The Department manages 

roughly 500 million acres of land and possesses an infrastructure 

asset portfolio valued at over $300 billion. Roads, bridges, trails, 

water systems, visitor centers, bathrooms, campgrounds, and 

drinking fountains all are part of this critical framework. After 

years of increased visitation and use, aging facilities and other 

vital structures are in urgent need of repair. The Department has a total of about $16 billion worth of deferred maintenance. Of that amount, the National Park Service has 

the largest share: $11.6 billion in 2017. Here are some examples: 

Glacier National Park in Montana has more than $154 million 

in maintenance needs, including projects to repair bridges and 

culverts, roads, and employee housing. 

Point Reyes National Seashore in California has roughly $99 

million in deferred maintenance, including projects such as the historic platform bridge, built in 1927, $1.6 million is needed for this 

project, alone. 

Colonial Parkway, part of Colonial National Historical Park, 

which I know very well, in Tidewater, Virginia, was designed in the 

1930s to provide a scenic route between historic Jamestown, 

6 

Yorktown, and Williamsburg. Today, the parkway is an important 

commuter route, carrying between 1.9 and 2.2 million vehicles and 

large tour buses each year. The total cost to repair the parkway is 

$270 million. 

Appropriated funds are currently the primary source of funding 

for deferred maintenance. However, we know that we cannot rely 

on appropriated dollars alone to address this problem, so we are 

looking at multiple avenues for making additional funds available 

through other means. 

For example, the Department’s Fiscal Year 2019 budget proposes 

to permanently authorize the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act, which expires in September of 2019. New proposals, 

including the proposed Public Lands Infrastructure Fund outlined 

in the President’s 2019 Budget, would address repairs and improvements in national parks, national wildlife refuges, and 

Bureau of Indian Education schools. 

The Administration’s proposal would set aside a portion of the 

unallocated Federal energy revenues for infrastructure needs. This 

bold investment would significantly improve the Nation’s most visible and visited public facilities that support a multi-billion-dollar 

outdoor recreation economy. 

We greatly appreciate the efforts of this Committee and your colleagues, who have sought to craft real solutions to our maintenance 

backlog. We look forward to continuing collaborative efforts that 

preserve and maintain our national treasures. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statements. I will be pleased 

to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith and Mr. Guertin, U.S. 

Department of the Interior appears on page 71.] 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD TO MR. P. DANIEL SMITH, DEPUTY

DIRECTOR, NATIONAL PARKS SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Questions Submitted by Rep. Bishop 

Question 1. How much has the National Park Service spent on deferred 

maintenance each year for the past 3 fiscal years (combining all Federal fund 

sources)? 

Answer. The NPS spent about $1 billion per year on all NPS maintenance including deferred maintenance (DM), cyclic maintenance, and day-to-day maintenance activities, in each fiscal year between 2006 and 2015. The NPS measures progress on 

reducing the deferred maintenance backlog not by dollars spent on projects, but by 

closed work orders. The table below shows the dollar value of DM work accomplished through DM work orders that are closed, as recorded in our Facility 

Management Software System and reported in the Department of the Interior 

Annual Performance Plan and Report (APP&R). This report can be viewed online 

at https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/uploads/doi_appr_-_final.pdf. Below are the 

totals for the last 3 fiscal years of retired DM work orders: 

Value of NPS deferred maintenance work orders closed.1,2

2015 2016 2017 

$508,000,000 $854,000,000 $664,000,000 

1 Amounts reflect DM that was retired and removed from the NPS DM backlog, but do not reflect the net change in backlog, due to new 

amounts of DM work orders being added. 

2 DM work orders can exist as a component of any project regardless of fund source, so this reflects projects from all sources of Federal 

funds. 

7 

1https: / /www.nps.gov/subjects/plandesignconstruct/upload/FY17-NPS-Deferred-Maintenanceby-State-and-Park_508.pdf. 

Questions Submitted by Rep. Gallego 

FULLY IMPLEMENTING THE NPS FOUR-TIER FEE STRUCTURE INSTEAD OF

UNMANAGEABLE FEE HIKES

Question 1. The Administration proposed nearly tripling entrance fees in a handful 

of parks during peak season instead of fully implementing the existing fee structure 

the park service has. 

Currently, 80 percent of fees collected at parks stay in the park where it is collected 

and 20 percent goes to a fund for other parks; 55 percent of this 80 percent of inpark fees collected goes to fund deferred maintenance projects. Fees increases should 

be a part of the conversation, but as part of a methodical and thoughtful structure 

that both benefits the parks and retains the accessibility of parks to all visitors. It 

is striking that this structure already exists within the park service but has not yet 

been fully implemented. Before we do something drastic, shouldn’t we implement the 

well-thought-out, demographically-informed plan we have in place? 

Answer. After carefully considering the public comments provided on the 2017 fee 

proposal, the NPS revised its proposal and developed a balanced plan that implements modest increases at the 117 fee-charging parks as opposed to larger increases 

proposed for 17 highly visited national parks. As part of this plan, the NPS will also 

fully implement the four-tier existing fee structure by 2020. 

Question 2. Please detail how the four-tier structure is designed to work, and what 

factors it considers. 

Answer. The four-tier structure groups units of the National Park System based 

on legislative designation and park attributes and sets fee rates to provide pricing 

consistency within each particular tier. There are four price points within each tier: 

per person, per vehicle, per motorcycle, and per park specific annual pass. The per 

vehicle rate is twice the per person rate and the park specific annual pass is twice 

the per vehicle rate. The motorcycle rate falls between the per person and per 

vehicle rate. 

Question 3. How much revenue would be generated for deferred maintenance if all 

parks participating in the four-tier structure charged what is permissible under the 

existing regime? 

Answer. We estimate that bringing all non-conforming parks into alignment with 

the four-tier structure would generate approximately $7.7 million in additional revenue. A little over half (55 percent) of that amount would be required to be spent 

on deferred maintenance. 

Questions Submitted by Rep. Westerman 

Question 1. Mr. Smith, the NPS FY 2017 report 1 on deferred maintenance lists 

the Arkansas total deferred maintenance at $37.6 million. Could you please provide 

a comprehensive breakdown of this total, including a delineation between structural 

and transportation deferred maintenance across all park units? 

Answer. Attachment #1 contains two tables showing the asset count and deferred 

maintenance (DM), respectively, by asset category for each of the seven national 

park units in Arkansas as of the end of Fiscal Year 2017. The bottom row in each 

table provides a percentage breakout of Arkansas asset counts and DM by asset category. There are notes below the tables providing further detail on several asset 

categories. 

Question 2. Additionally, for each individual park unit listed in the report, could 

you please provide the following statistics: 

2a. Visitation numbers for each of the past 5 years 

2b. Overnight stays for each of the past 5 years 

2c. Current entrance fee 

2d. Site net revenue over the past 5 years 

8 

2e. Total number of concession contracts, historic leasing contracts, and any other 

third-party use contracts at each site 

2f. Total acreage of each site 

2g. Number of structures at each site 

Answer. Visitation numbers, overnight stays, total acreage, and a variety of other 

statistics are available for all NPS units separately or grouped by state can be 

viewed online at: https://irma.nps.gov/Stats/Reports/National. The information to 

your specific items are found in either the charts below or attachments to this 

question for the record. 

The following charts include the statistics regarding sub-questions a–g: 

a. Visitation numbers for each of the past 5 years 

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 

Arkansas Post National Memorial .................. 36,420 30,860 38,702 34,405 36,079 

Buffalo National River .................................... 1,125,227 1,357,057 1,463,304 1,785,359 1,471,330 

Fort Smith National Historic Site ................... 69,584 88,790 111,469 163,636 141,914 

Hot Springs National Park .............................. 1,325,719 1,424,484 1,418,162 1,544,300 1,561,616 

Little Rock Central High School National 

Historic Site ................................................ 114,144 115,908 125,956 129,540 170,413 

Pea Ridge National Military Park ................... 95,251 104,686 114,578 119,490 121,163 

President William Jefferson Clinton 

Birthplace Home National Historic Site ..... 9,838 11,113 10,463 10,468 10,177 

b. Overnight stays for each of the past 5 years 

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 

Arkansas Post National Memorial .................. 0 0 0 0 0 

Buffalo National River .................................... 66,578 92,414 101,545 98,413 105,334 

Fort Smith National Historic Site ................... 0 0 0 0 0 

Hot Springs National Park .............................. 15,100 19,606 24,148 24,021 24,010 

Little Rock Central High School National 

Historic Site ................................................ 0 0 0 0 0 

Pea Ridge National Military Park ................... 0 0 0 0 0 

President William Jefferson Clinton 

Birthplace Home National Historic Site ..... 0 0 0 0 0 

c. Current entrance fees 

Fee 

Arkansas Post National Memorial ............................................................. $0 

Buffalo National River ............................................................................... $0 

Fort Smith National Historic Site .............................................................. $7 per person (age 16 and above) to view 

exhibits 

Hot Springs National Park ......................................................................... $0 

Little Rock Central High School National Historic Site ............................. $0 

Pea Ridge National Military Park .............................................................. $15 per vehicle, $10 per motorcycle 

President William Jefferson Clinton Birthplace Home National Historic 

Site.

$0 

d. Site net revenue for the past 5 years for the two Arkansas sites which collect 

fees 

FY17 FY16 FY15 FY14 FY13 Average 

Fort Smith National Historic 

Site .................................... $64,717 $62,457 $56,909 $50,489 $53,305 $57,575 

Pea Ridge National Military 

Park ................................... $72,509 $81,778 $73,957 $74,361 $71,280 $74,777 

e. Information on concession contracts, historic leasing contracts, and any other 

third-party use contracts at each site is included in Attachment #2. 

9 

f. Total acreage of each site 

Acres 

Arkansas Post National Memorial ............................................................................................................. 663.91 

Buffalo National River .............................................................................................................................. 91,807.04 

Fort Smith National Historic Site .............................................................................................................. 37.96 

Hot Springs National Park ........................................................................................................................ 4,998.10 

Little Rock Central High School National Historic Site ............................................................................ 2.22 

Pea Ridge National Military Park ............................................................................................................. 4,278.75 

President William Jefferson Clinton Birthplace Home National Historic Site .......................................... 0.68 

g. Number of structures at each site 

Structures 

Arkansas Post National Memorial ............................................................................................................. 11 

Buffalo National River .............................................................................................................................. 225 

Fort Smith National Historic Site .............................................................................................................. 4 

Hot Springs National Park ........................................................................................................................ 65 

Little Rock Central High School National Historic Site ............................................................................ 2 

Pea Ridge National Military Park ............................................................................................................. 12 

President William Jefferson Clinton Birthplace Home National Historic Site .......................................... 3 

Question 3. Mr. Smith, as you know, the National Park Service comprises only a 

portion of the deferred maintenance at the Department of the Interior. Could you 

please provide me a breakdown, much like the aforementioned report, of each of the 

deferred maintenance totals at each of the different Federal lands units within 

Arkansas? I’m eager to see the total number for my state, and the breakdown between 

the different land management agencies. 

Answer. For Fiscal Year 2017, the following information is reported for the 

bureaus within the Department of the Interior: 

• there is no Bureau of Land Management deferred maintenance in Arkansas; 

• the total deferred maintenance for NPS sites in Arkansas is $37,617,654; 

• the total deferred maintenance for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National 

Wildlife Refuges and National Fish Hatcheries is $28,402,983; and 

• for information about deferred maintenance on lands managed by the U.S. 

Forest Service, we defer to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

Question 4. Finally, can you provide detailed statistics on the success of the 

Historic Leasing Contracts at Hot Springs National Park, and other parks utilizing 

those contracts around the country? Have they reduced the overall maintenance backlog at their respective parks, and how much do each of those contracts contribute to 

the revenue of each individual park unit? 

Answer. Currently, five buildings are leased at Hot Springs National Park. The 

park does not have statistics that would gauge the success of those leases in reducing the maintenance backlog, but the program has been successful in stabilizing, 

restoring, and utilizing the majority of structures in the park. 

Servicewide, the NPS has approximately 350 facilities under lease agreements, 

and last year, over $9.3 million in revenue was generated through leasing. More 

information on the Servicewide leasing program may be found in Attachment #3, 

which is a letter sent to the Senate Appropriations Committee on March 29, 2018, 

containing a list of the currently leased buildings broken down by State, park, and 

facility name. 

Questions Submitted by Rep. Don Young 

Question 1. Historic leasing is a tool that can be used to lease structures to qualified non-Federal parties for a variety of uses, including for commercial, educational, 

and residential purposes. Under those leases, the lessee has the duty to restore, rehabilitate and maintain the buildings. Do you agree that NPS should be using this tool 

aggressively to reduce the maintenance backlog and to prevent structures from 

coming onto the backlog in the future? 

10 

Answer. The NPS authority to lease historic structures is a valuable tool to generate funding that can help reduce the maintenance backlog and to provide the 

preventive and corrective maintenance needed to avoid adding to the backlog. We 

are actively using this authority as allowed by our laws, regulations, and policies. 

Question 2. There is an old NPS attitude that the Service should not use leases 

or similar tools for any structure in a national park because it results in less than 

total control by the local park staff. Do you ascribe to that attitude? 

Answer. The NPS supports the use of the leasing authority. There are cases 

where the NPS is unable to use this authority due to legal or financial viability reasons, however the NPS does not avoid its use because of any perceived loss of 

control. 

Question 3. What is NPS doing to explore the use of historic leasing throughout 

the Park System? How many historic leases have been issued by NPS and for what 

parks and what uses? 

Answer. We currently have approximately 350 facilities under lease agreements 

throughout the National Park System and we continue to identify new potential 

facilities on an ongoing basis. By law, a park has to determine, among other things, 

that a structure is not needed for park purposes before it can be offered for lease. 

Attachment #3 is a letter sent to the Senate Appropriations Committee on March 

29, 2018, which contains a list of the currently leased buildings broken down by 

State, park, and the facility name. 

Question 4. Are there any units of the National Park System where historic leasing 

is specifically prohibited or ruled out as an option by any rules, policies, or planning 

documents? If so, what is the basis for that action by NPS? 

Answer. There are no units of the NPS that specifically prohibit or rule out the 

option of leasing. However, by law (54 U.S.C. 102102) and regulation (36 CFR 18) 

the NPS is prohibited from entering into a lease where the proposed activities are 

subject to authorization through a concession contract, commercial use authorization, or similar instrument. 

Questions Submitted by Rep. Sablan 

Question 1. In the Northern Marianas, American Memorial Park was badly damaged by Typhoon Soudelor in August 2015. It has been over 2 years and recovery 

work is still underway. Ongoing issues include debris removal, repair of the riprap 

at the marina, and replanting of trees that were uprooted by the storm. Can you provide a list of items still requiring repair/replacement and an action timeline? 

Answer. Work to restore facilities and grounds of American Memorial Park is ongoing. Over $500,000 was expended in the first 18 months after the storm to accomplish the most urgent repairs including replacing lighting and walkways. Additional 

projects have been identified and are being reviewed for funding in future fiscal 

years. The American Memorial Park staff are continuing to clean up and dispose 

of the remaining vegetative debris. The Saipan Mayor’s office has been providing 

support to the park to rehabilitate the area north of the pathway to Micro Beach. 

The NPS is very appreciative of the Mayor’s continued support and assistance as 

the park continues to recover from the typhoon. 

Typhoon-related repair/replacement items in progress and identified for American 

Memorial Park include: 

• Replace Landscape Lighting Damaged by Typhoon Soudelor: New lights will 

be installed by park staff in early fall 2018. 

• Replace Rusted Culvert & Concrete Walkway at Reconstructed Wetland with 

Bridge: Design underway, construction contract to be awarded in early 2019. 

• Rehabilitate Walkway & Seating Area at Amphitheater to Improve Visitor 

Experience & Safety: Design underway. 

• Resurface Tennis Court Play Surface. 

• Install Roll-out pavers on unpaved Access Roads. 

• Replace Four Flagpoles at the Court of Honor. 

• Install Asphaltic Concrete Pavement on Micro Beach Loop Road. 

• Repair Shoreline Barriers at Smiling Cove & Outer Cove. 

• Rehabilitate/Seal Leaks in Concrete Structure at Administrative Offices. 

• Revegetate Area North of Micro Beach Damaged by Typhoon Soudelor. 

11 

Question 2. At my request, and under P.L. 113–291, the Park Service is undergoing a study of the unique natural and cultural resources of the island on Rota in 

the Northern Marianas to determine the national significance of the area and the 

suitability and feasibility of designating the area as a unit of the National Park 

System. Public Meetings on Rota were held in February of last year. Can you provide 

an update on the progress of the study and a timeline for its conclusion? 

Answer. The study team is preparing preliminary findings (resource significance, 

suitability, feasibility, and need for NPS management) for review by NPS. After this 

review, we will share the preliminary findings and any alternatives by NPS leadership, with local leadership and the people of Rota. After that, the study will be finalized, and then transmitted to Congress. We expect this process to take at least 

another year and a half. 

Questions Submitted by Rep. Costa 

Question 1. In 2017, Secretary Zinke indicated that the Department of the Interior 

(Department) would study allowing private enterprise to expand their current management of certain campgrounds throughout the National Parks System (NPS). Has 

the Department considered or modeled the impacts of the additional contract fees 

and/or additional revenues that could be gained through this modification of policy 

and how this might help address the issue of maintenance backlog? 

Answer. Currently, analysis of campground management and decisions about contracting with concessioners for additional campground operations are made at the 

park level. NPS commercial services experts help individual parks determine whether converting an NPS-operated campground to a concessioner-operated campground 

would improve the facilities, financial sustainability, visitor experiences, etc. 

National Park System units that have recently converted NPS-operated campgrounds to concessioner-operated facilities include Denali National Park, Everglades 

National Park, and Olympic National Park. 

Question 2. Secretary Zinke proposed increasing fees considerably at 17 highly 

visited national parks, including Yosemite National Park, during peak visitor seasons. There was an overwhelming outcry from the public opposing the proposed fee 

increases. Can you tell us the status of the analysis of those public comments and 

the Administration’s next steps? 

Answer. After carefully considering the public comments provided on the 2017 fee 

proposal, the NPS revised its proposal and developed a balanced plan that implements modest increases at the 117 fee-charging parks as opposed to larger increases 

proposed for 17 highly visited national parks. As part of this plan, the NPS will also 

fully implement the four-tier existing fee structure by 2020. 

Questions Submitted by Rep. McClintock 

Question 1. At its current capacity, how much annual funding could the National 

Park Service expend toward the completion of deferred maintenance projects? 

Answer. The NPS Denver Service Center (DSC) provides project management, 

quality assurance, compliance, permitting, and technical support services for 

projects, which include deferred maintenance on existing facilities, historic structures, and infrastructure systems. In Fiscal Year 2017, the Design and Construction 

division managed 281 projects worth more than $1.7 billion, which is an indicator 

of NPS capacity to address maintenance needs under our current funding levels. 

For transportation projects that involve roads, bridges, tunnels, etc., the NPS 

utilizes a 1983 Interagency Agreement with the Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA) to provide technical engineering services and project construction awards, 

and construction management through the Federal Lands Highway Program. 

Consequently, the NPS capacity to manage these projects also relies on that of the 

FHWA. 

Question 2. With substantially more funding available through the Infrastructure 

Fund, how long would it take the park service to ramp up its project planning and 

operations capacity to take on more deferred maintenance projects? 

Answer. To implement the Fund, the NPS would move quickly to leverage resources and expertise Department-wide to speed up construction capabilities. The 

number and type of FTE or contracted staff that would be needed to accomplish deferred maintenance projects would depend on the amount of additional funding 

made available, but the NPS would mobilize to strengthen short-term capacity in 

12 

procurement, project planning and project management. Several projects within the 

NPS 5-year plans could be accelerated if additional funds are available and the NPS 

is working to develop a longer list of shovel ready projects should the Fund be enacted. Typical recurring maintenance projects accomplished with 1-year funds can 

take up to a year to complete while larger projects through multi or no year fund 

sources can take up to 4 or more years to complete. Should legislation become law, 

the Park Service is confident that it can expend the increased resources in an 

efficient and capable manner to help resolve our maintenance backlog. 

Question 3. Klondike Gold Rush National Historical Park in Skagway, Alaska is 

a successful example of the Historic Leasing Program. Historic buildings are leased 

to local businesses that provide visitor services. What steps can be taken to expand 

this revenue generating program to provide additional funding for the National Park 

Service that could be put to address the deferred maintenance backlog? 

Answer. Attachment #3 is a letter to the Senate Appropriations Committee dated 

March 29, 2018, which discusses regulatory impediments to expanded use of leasing 

authority. 

Question 4. One-half ofthe NPS maintenance backlog is paved roads, bridges, and 

tunnels (50.8 percent according to latest FY 2017 NPS report). Considering that some 

National Park Service owned parkways, such as George Washington Memorial 

Parkway, are essentially busy commuter highways, do you believe that tolling could 

play a role in generating funds to repair these roads and bridges? 

Answer. The NPS does not currently have authority to levy tolls. Such authority 

would have to come from congressional action. A comprehensive analysis including 

mission, policy, cultural resource impacts, technology alternatives, staffing, and 

financial sustainability would be required to determine whether tolling would be a 

cost effective way to generate repair funds. 

Question 5. Mr. Smith, NPS’ contracting authority was expanded under recent law, 

which authorizes management contracts rather than the traditional concession contracting process in certain situations. We have heard concerns that such a move 

would be outside NPS’ expertise, could expose the Federal Government to additional 

financial risk, and could exacerbate the current NPS capital funding problems. 

Answer. The Visitor Experience Improvements Authority (VEIA), enacted in 2016 

as part of the National Park Service Centennial Act (P.L. 114–289), provides the 

Secretary with additional flexibility to expand, modernize and improve commercial 

services contracts for the operation and expansion of commercial visitor facilities 

and visitor services programs in units of the national park system. To the extent 

that there are risks in using the VEIA authority, the risks are minimized by the 

fact that this authority is time-limited through 2023; it can only be used for contracts lasting 10 years or less; it cannot be used for contracts that have a preferential right of renewal or contracts for outfitter and guide services; and it will not 

provide any leasehold surrender interest or other compensation to the contractor at 

the termination of a VEIA contract. In addition, NPS has hired a consultant with 

expertise in this field to assist in the development and implementation of sound 

VEIA business models that would not create undue financial risks. The NPS intends 

to use the VEIA authority, as appropriate, in addition to continuing to use the concession authority provided by the Concessions Management Improvement Act of 

1998 to provide the greatest benefits to the parks and visitors. 

Question 6. Are you aware of ongoing work within NPS to move away from 

concession contracts? 

Answer. The NPS is committed to using the range of authorities it has to provide 

the best visitor services possible. Using VEIA, along with traditional concession contracts, commercial use authorizations, and leasing, will allow the NPS to find the 

right tool to provide the best visitor experience. 

Question 7. What is your position on a transition from concession contracts to the 

use of management contracts? 

Answer. At this time, the NPS is developing operating procedures and regulations 

for VEIA and has not yet began to utilizing these types of contracts. However, we 

believe that management contracts have the potential to greatly benefit the NPS by 

increasing revenues, increasing competition for contracts, improving the quality of 

commercial services and improving customer service and satisfaction. 

13 

Additional Information Provided for the Record 

Several questions were asked of Deputy Director Smith during the hearing that 

required follow-up information. That information is provided below. 

Representative LaMalfa asked how many parks have had fires in the last 15–20 

years. 

Answer. Over the 20-year period of 1998–2017, 216 National Park Service (NPS) 

units have had at least one fire on lands within their park boundaries. This number 

includes both wildland fires and prescribed burns. 

Representative McClintock asked how much of the backlog maintenance cost is due 

to regulations. 

Answer. The current estimated $11.6 billion NPS maintenance backlog reflects 

the labor and material costs associated with maintenance work that has been deferred for at least 1 year. The costs for completing National Environmental Policy 

Act and National Historic Preservation Act (NEPA/NHPA) compliance, planning, 

design, construction management services, and construction contingency are not 

included in the $11.6 billion figure. These costs are developed at the project formulation stage and applied on a project-by-project basis. 

The deferred maintenance backlog estimate also does not include non-deferred 

maintenance costs. Most projects, however, include both deferred and non-deferred 

maintenance components. Correcting code deficiencies is an example of a nondeferred maintenance activity. The activity does not relate to the failure to perform 

scheduled maintenance (resulting in a deferral), but relates to upgrades needed to 

meet evolving code compliance. 

As an example, at Yosemite National Park, the Fiscal Year 2018 Line Item 

Construction (LIC) project to rehabilitate the Wawona Wastewater Treatment Plant 

includes both deferred maintenance and code compliance components. Much of the 

work involves constructing new systems needed to prevent effluent discharge in the 

Merced River as the State will no longer permit such discharge. The project’s total 

net construction amount is $18.286 million, of which 20 percent is deferred maintenance. After construction contingency and construction management services are 

included, the Fiscal Year 2018 LIC budget request is $21.578 million. 

As another example, at Mammoth Cave National Park, the Fiscal Year 2018 LIC 

project to Reconstruct Unsafe Cave Trails has a net construction value of $11.775 

million, of which 90 percent is deferred maintenance. The only non-deferred maintenance component relates to the addition of handrails, stairs, and ramps in some 

areas to enhance safety. After construction contingency and construction management services are included, the Fiscal Year 2018 LIC budget request is $13.894 

million. 

The LIC program typically budgets 22 percent of the estimated net construction 

costs for compliance, and planning and design, which are ideally funded 1 to 2 years 

prior to the construction budget request. Because these costs are calculated for 

projects that combine deferred and non-deferred maintenance elements, we are not 

able to determine the portion of these costs that are associated only with the deferred maintenance components of NPS projects. 

Delegate Bordallo asked about a requirement regarding local hiring in the enabling 

legislation for the War in the Pacific National Historical Park. 

Answer. The requirement regarding local hiring is referenced in the Park’s legislation and it directs the NPS to employ and train residents of Guam or of the 

Northern Mariana Islands to develop, maintain and administer the park. Delegate 

Bordallo was interested in what efforts the NPS has undertaken to meet this requirement in recruiting qualified Guam residents for vacancies at the War in the 

Pacific National Historical Park. 

Employing residents is integral to accomplishing the mission for War in the 

Pacific National Historical Park. Residents know the local cultures and languages, 

which is critical to developing appropriate education and outreach programs. They 

also know local experts with whom the park can partner to accomplish projects. Of 

the 24 War in the Pacific National Historical Park employees on Guam, 18, or 75 

percent of the park’s workforce, are Guam residents. 

The park has been very successful in using student-hiring authorities to recruit 

Guam’s youth into the NPS and uses the Pathways program frequently, converting 

many student hires into permanent positions. Six employees (29 percent of the 

14 

park’s workforce) began their careers as student interns and are now permanent 

employees. The park also uses the Veterans’ Recruitment Appointment hiring 

authority, and presently has five veterans on staff, all of whom are Guam residents. 

Although seasonal hiring authority is not used often, the park has hired local residents to help during the summer when education programs and other events are 

scheduled. The park has used temporary or term appointments to provide some 

flexibility in their staffing strategy for larger projects, such as facility repair or 

rehabilitation. 

***** 

Attachment 1 


28851.001.eps 28851.002.eps
15 

Attachment 2 


28851.003.eps

Authorzation 

Park Unit Type Operator Servcies 

Arkansas Post Coop. Ass., Eastern National Interpretative merchandise, convenience items National Memorial Concession 

Buffalo National Concession Buffalo Point Lodging, food and beverage, convenience items and merchandise 

River Concession retail, catering services 

Buffalo National Concession Lost Valley Canoe and Canoe rental and transportation, kayak, raft and tube rental and 

River Lodging, Inc. transportation 

Buffalo National Concession Gordon Motel, Inc. Canoe rental and transportation, kayak, raft and tube rental and 

River transportation 

Buffalo National Concession Silver Hill Float Canoe rental and transportation, kayak, raft and tube rental and 

River Service transportation 

Buffalo National Concession Buffalo River Canoe rental and transportation, kayak, raft and tube rental and 

River Outfitters transportation 

Buffalo National Concession Buffalo River Outdoor Canoe rental and transportation, kayak, raft and tube rental and 

River Center transportation 

Buffalo National Concession Riverview Motel Canoe rental and transportation, kayak, raft and tube rental and 

River Canoe Rental transportation 

Buffalo National Concession Crockett's Canoe Canoe rental and transportation, kayak, raft and tube rental and 

River Rental transportation 

Buffalo National Concession Buffalo Camping and Canoe rental and transportation, kayak, raft and tube rental and 

River Canoeing, Inc. transportation 

Buffalo National Concession Buffalo River Float Canoe rental and transportation, kayak, raft and tube rental and 

River Service, Inc. transportation 

Buffalo National Concession Buffalo River Canoes, Canoe rental and transportation, kayak, raft and tube rental and 

River LLC transportation 

Buffalo National Concession Dirst Canoe Rental Canoe rental and transportation, kayak, raft and tube rental and 

River transportation 

Buffalo National Coop. Ass., Eastern National Interpretative merchandise, convenience items River Concession 

Buffalo National CUA Arkansauce Retail Sales River 

Buffalo National CUA Buffalo River Float Fishing- spin or fly River Service 

Buffalo National CUA Camp Sabra Camping- backcountry River 

Buffalo National CUA Cotter Trout Dock Fishing- spin or fly River 

Buffalo National CUA Crockett's Country Food and Beverage River Store 

Buffalo National CUA Dally's Ozark Fly Fishing- spin or fly River Fisher 
16 


28851.004.eps

Buffalo National CUA Explore Austin Other· describe in comments River 

Buffalo National CUA Harmony Retail Sales River 

Buffalo National CUA Kanakuk Kamps Other· describe in comments River Ministries 

Buffalo National CUA leader Treks camping. bad:country River 

Buffalo National CUA leader Treks Other· describe In comments River 

Buffalo National CVA Mary's Uttle Lambs Retail Sal .. River 

Buffalo National CUA Meramec Adventure· Camping· badccountry River GreatCirde 

Buffalo National CVA Misty's Shell food and ee ... rage River 

Buffalo National CVA National Park Radfo Retail Sales River 

Buffalo National CVA Newland's Fklat Trips Fishing-spin or fty River 

Buffalo National CUA Outdoor Leader Camping- backcountty River Trainers of AmeriQ 

Buffalo National CVA Ozaf1c: Mtn Takers Hiking· backcounuv River Hiking Adventures 

Buffalo National CUA Ozark Society Other- describe in comments River 

Buffalo National CVA Paddle Arkansas Retail Sales River 

Buffalo National CUA Rose Trout Dock Fishing· spin or fly River 

Buffalo National CVA Ruby's Diner Food and Beverage River 

Buffalo National CUA SierraOub Other- describe in comments River 

Buffalo National CUA SOAR Ot~r • descri~ in comments River 

Buffalo National CUA Texas A&M University Other· describe In comments River 

Buffalo National CVA Tim Ernst Photography lnstructk>n River 

Buffalo National CUA Townhouse Cafe F-ood and Sever age River 

Buffalo National CVA Western Kentucky Environmental Education· birding classes. biology courses. etc. River University 

Buffalo National CVA White Buffalo Resort Fishing· spin or fly River 

Buffalo National CUA Wild Bill's Outfitter f-ishing· spin or tty River 

Buffalo National lease Boxley Valley Grist Science Educatton River Mill 

Fort Smith Historic Coop. Ass., Eastern National Interpretative merchandise, convenience items Site Conces.s&on 

Hot Springs, Observation tower acees.s with interpretation, mer<:handfse retail and 

Conc:ession HSMT,llC limited food and beverage snac.k items. coin~perated scenic viewers National Park and spedalevents 

Hot Springs Conussion Buckstaff Bath House Trad itional bathhouse, massage therapy, spa services.. merchandise 

National Park Company retail, 
17 

*** 

Attachment 3 

March 29, 2018 

The Honorable Lisa Murkowski 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Interior, 

Environment, and Related Agencies 

Committee on Appropriations 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Chairman Murkowski: 

This letter is in response to the Subcommittee’s request to provide a report on 

the National Park Service’s use of leasing authority for historic structures. 

Language contained in House Report 114–632 accompanying the Department of the 

Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriation Bill, 2017 (H.R. 5538) is 

included in the Joint Explanatory Statement that accompanied the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2017. The language from House Report 114–632 is as follows: 

Leasing of Historic Buildings.—Leasing of historic park buildings has 

proven to be an effective public-private partnership that has brought private 

investment to the repair and maintenance of historic park resources. In previous Committee reports, the Committee has encouraged the Service to make 

expanded use of leasing authority. The Committee commends the Service for 

recent steps it has taken to increase the utilization of this tool, including establishing a leasing manager to oversee and expand the historic leasing program. The Committee renews its previous request that directs the Service to 

provide a report, within six months of enactment of this Act, detailing its 

progress toward expanding use of this authority. Included in this report 

should be (1) a list of structures the Service considers high-priority candidates for leasing, (2) a list of structures currently under a lease arrangement, (3) an estimate of the number of leases that have enabled private 

sector investments using the Service-administered historic tax credit, and (4) 

any statutory or regulatory impediments that now inhibit the enhanced use 

of leasing of historic structures. 


28851.005.eps 28851.017.eps
18 

The National Park Service (NPS) has authority to lease historic and other buildings and associated property under the National Historic Preservation Act and the 

National Park Omnibus Management Act of 1998. The NPS continues to make 

progress toward increasing the number of public-private partnerships through leasing. In the last 18 months the NPS has executed a master residential lease at First 

State National Monument; a lease with Navajo Nation Hospitality Enterprises, a 

wholly owned subsidiary of the Navajo Nation, at Canyon De Chelly National 

Monument; and executed an Inter-Agency Agreement with the United States Forest 

Service to lease two buildings at Fort Vancouver National Historic Site. 

In addition, the NPS is currently preparing to enter into negotiations with a potential lessee for the Riis Beach Bathhouse at Gateway National Recreation Area; 

is working on an agreement with the Bureau of Indian Affairs to occupy one of the 

buildings at Fort Vancouver National Historic Site; and recently issued a request 

for proposal for the Maurice bathhouse at Hot Springs National Park. The leasing 

program staff is also continuing to develop formal training for NPS staff to expand 

capacity across the NPS to initiate and manage park-level leasing programs. As part 

of that effort, the NPS has integrated a leasing section into the annual Commercial 

Services Training for Superintendents curriculum. 

House Report 114–632 requested that the following information be included as 

part of this report: 

• A list of structures that the Service considers high-priority 

candidates for leasing 

See enclosed list. The NPS prioritizes eligible properties for leasing based on 

knowledge that park staff have regarding local market demand for facilities, along 

with direction from the servicewide leasing program office. The enclosed list reflects 

those properties for which parks and regions are actively working on leasing. The 

list contains properties under a range of situations, including those for which the 

NPS expects to issue a Request for Proposal within the next 2 years, those for which 

a Request for Proposal received no responses, and those that were under life 

tenancy and have recently transferred to NPS control. 

• A list of structures currently under a lease arrangement 

See enclosed list, which includes properties reported by parks through regional 

leasing and concession staff. This information has been checked against the NPS 

facility management database. 

• An estimate of the number of leases that have enabled private sector 

investments using the Service-administered historic tax 

While the NPS does not include language in its leases that would prevent a lessee 

from taking advantage of the historic preservation tax credit, there are requirements for obtaining historic preservation certification from the National Park 

Service and the State Historic Preservation Office, as well as Internal Revenue 

Service regulations governing the tax credits for rehabilitation that must be met before the tax credit can be utilized by the lessee. 

The NPS is currently aware of three lessees that have taken advantage of the 

benefits offered by this program: Cavallo Point Lodge at Fort Baker, the Argonaut 

Hotel in Golden Gate National Recreation Area, and the Quapaw Bathhouse at Hot 

Springs National Park. It is possible that other lessees have used the historic tax 

program previously, but NPS records do not cover a number of the early years of 

the tax-credit program. 

• Are there any statutory or regulatory impediments that now inhibit 

the enhanced use of leasing of historic structures? 

The NPS has authority to enter into a lease with any ‘‘. . . person or government 

entity . . .’’ (54 U.S.C. § 102102(a)). Other agencies, with some exceptions, generally 

do not have such authority, which is instead vested with the General Services 

Administration (GSA) (40 U.S.C. § 585). Therefore, other federal agencies are often 

reluctant to execute agreements with the NPS to occupy facilities that are administered by the NPS without going through the General Services Administration. So, 

while the NPS is authorized to lease structures to any governmental entity, other 

agencies do not have clear, specific authority to enter into a lease with the NPS 

without going through GSA. However, under the Service First authority (43 U.S.C. 

§ 1703), the NPS can enter into leases with other agencies within the Department 

of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture, without consultation of GSA. 

In general, market conditions and demand pose the greatest challenge to expanding the current leasing program. Investors are often more interested in purchasing 

19 

outright ‘fee title’ property, rather than investing in the rehabilitation of a property 

that is owned by, and possession of which will eventually be returned to, the federal 

government. Also, the lease opportunities available within parks may not provide 

a viable business opportunity given the higher costs associated with the restoration 

or rehabilitation of the structures compared to the relatively low rents available in 

local areas, many of which are rural and sparsely populated. In more urban areas, 

there appears to be a greater demand from the public to lease facilities in parks 

for residential use, office space, or other commercial activity. 

Additionally, NPS has limited resources available to conduct the up-front 

planning necessary to determine fair market value rent, and to develop the required 

Request for Proposal to lease historic facilities. Without such work, the NPS cannot 

accurately gauge the level of private sector interest in its properties. 

The NPS greatly appreciates the Committee’s support throughout the appropriations process and looks forward to collaborating to find creative ways to utilize 

public-private partnerships to help preserve and maintain historic assets for future 

generations to use and enjoy. 

A similar letter has been sent to the Honorable Tom Udall, Ranking Minority 

Member, Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, Committee 

on Appropriations, U.S. Senate; the Honorable Ken Calvert, Chairman, 

Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, Committee on 

Appropriations, House of Representatives; and the Honorable Betty McCollum, 

Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related 

Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives. 

Sincerely, 

OLIVIA B. FERRITER, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary 

Budget, Finance, Performance, and Acquisition 

Enclosures 

20 

Enclosures 


28851.006.eps

Bi b Priority Candidates for Leasing 

State National Park Systtm Unll Facility Name 

Albnsu Hot Spnnp Nllioull'lrt Mluric< 

Calofomoa Saola Monica Mouno•ns NMional Recratooo Amo I'<UtSUIUSSRJftcbllouse 

Diablo Eoso Manna SoO« 

Diablo Eoso Marina 

Amistad NationaJ Recreation Art-A Maintenanoc Yard 

Texas Maintenance Ouildina, 

Roug.h Canyon Mn.rina 

Sa:n Antonjo Mission! Na •onall li~1orltall,a k Kunoz Soore IUid Saloon (SisSOII IIOUIO) 

Robinson HOUSI: lllinoiJ Lincoln Home National UJSIOrical Sue ShuU House 

Kaooud<y MommotbC..'CN.._..I'Irt Gaoml Soor<IDCI Savi«> Soadon Buold1111 

M....,._,. Miau!eMin Nllionll Hosooriclll'lrt Go~mg-Ciad<-

- Kewcuulw N>tionll mn«ieall'lrt Quin<cy Mini~!& CO<npony Pay Office 

Mkh1pn 

Sleeping Bcao- Dunes NMionall.ale ShO<e Slcepmg 6cor lruo 

Sleeping 6cor Inn G""'i" 

10 I Drive 66S 

106 DriV<l665 

116 Drive66S 

140 Drivc66S Ministlppl Natehcz Trace Parkway I 52 Drive 66S 

168 Ori>'C 66S 

Haus< 11 Dnve 66S 

116Drh'e66S 

Dda>o"ltt Wlkt()ap N.._.. Reat~~mAmo 

hnns)t..r•ua Gcu)'lbutg Nllional Mololll)' PMt --

BusloooomHousc 

Valley F«ge Nation31 His.,.,eoll'lrt Maurice Stcpllms House 

New HamJKhln Saint.Qaudcns Nlllionalll<tooricol Powt Blow Me Down Faml'J 

Fon Hancoek-Cap,.in$' Quarocn 09 

Fort Haocock..Capr.a.ins' Qu11ners I 0 

Fort Ham::ook.CIIptains' Quanet:s II 

Von Hancock-Captains'Qua•te-1 13 

FOI1 H~tncotk-C pta:ins' Quaners 14 - Fon Hancoek-Copo.ono' Quaotcn IS 

Fon Hancoclt-CO<nmlllding Offica's Quancn 12 

Ncwknc:y GllewayNiliooll R-1011Amo Fon "-:oct·l..o<WIIIIII!'Quancn 03 

Foni--~Quancn03 

F0<1 funcoek-Li<.......,. Quancrs GO 

Fon Hancoei<·U...CIIMIS' Quanm 03 -

Fort Hanooct-LiculenanQ' Q,.wiC'rs 06 

Fort Haneodt::·Lieutenmus' Quaner1 08 

Fort Hanooc:lc·Lieuteruants' Quarters t6 

Fort HMcoc:k-Lieu1eon.nts' ~wrters 17 
21 


28851.007.eps

Hil!h Priot·itv Candidates for Leasio . (continued) 

State National Park System Unit Fa<ility Name 

Jacob R.ijs Park · Bmthhousc - Be8ch Pavilion 

New YOrk Gateway NationaJ Recreation Area Jacob Riis Park • Bathhouse - E.ntnnce Pavilion 

Jacob Riis Park· Bathhouse - West Wing 

PaY ilion 

Ebcy"s Landing Nllionat H~torical Reserve fllmlland & Other 

Washington 

Fon VMcotwer Nati01:~al Historical Site OLDO ns Finance Office East 
22 


28851.008.eps

Facilities Currently Leased by the NPS 

Sta te Nationa l Park System Unit l' ncility Name 

lynch & K .. ncd)l 

VawuwhcdoBid& 

KlarlcliROoi<Wsi!NalioNIIIISIOrbl Pao1t Absb llernCIIJIPCf 

RcdFroN 

Boos Bid& 

Wmngcll St Elias Nauonol Park II. Prcscrve Rocn:auon lillll 

- Mo!el Uni!S (42 ROOOill) • CACH 001 343 CPSO 

Cafeteria· CACII 001 350 CPSO 

Offioc & Curio Shop • CACH 00 I 353 CPS 

Motd Uniu 24·35 • CACH 001 343 CPSO 

M-RC$idcn<c 

Rcsid<nce/-I 2 

Rcsid<nce/ House I J 

- Canyon De Chclly Nati«<AI Monumcnl RcsillcnW HouJc I I 

lodge Room• 6 & 8 • CACH 001 295 CPSO 

lodgeROOlft9 

lodge Room I 0 & II 

Motd Unlu 14·23 

M~ond laundry Build"'' 

l'asscofl" l.ood"'' ShdWt 

Buffalo Natioaal RiYet Boxley Valley Onst Mall 

Pea Ridge National Md1!1t)' Patk Stornae racilil)' and hay 

Qullf)aw OothhoiiSC 

Artanus Mod leal Dirocl(ll's Hou"' 

HM Spnngs Natiocal Patk Hale Bathhouse 

Suptrior Bamhouoe 

~butldll&. loci Floor 

Quonm 607 FB~ FORO 

Qullttcrt S49 F0-5<19 FORO 

QuAtters S47 FO·S•I7 FBRG 

Quruters S46 FB-546 FBRO 

Posl Hospitol Gati~i< fll-556 FORO 

Post llcadquai1CtJ FB~ FORO 

C:alifomil Golden Got< Nlliooal Rtmllian Area PoJt Exdlanll' .t 0)'1M1Slum f8.62J FBRO 

otr~C<JS Quancn FO.Q9 FBRO 

otriCUS Quancn ro~ FBRO 

Offiocrs Quaru:11 FB~5 FORO 

NCO Qu•tlc11 FO-SJO FBRO 

NCO Quoncn 1'0·529 FBRO 

NCO Quanors 1'0·523 FllRO 

-
23 


28851.009.eps

Facilities Currently Leased by the NPS (continued) 

State National Park System Unit Facility Name 

Wareltouse Laundry FB-4()7 FBRG 

Hospital Stewards Quarters FB-522 FBRG 

Hospital FB-533 FBRG 

Guardhouse, Fort Ba~er (FB 615) FBRG 

Garage FB-564 FBRG 

Garage FB-S45 FBRO 

Garage FB·S43 FBRO 

Garage FB-534 FBRO 

Enlisted Men's Barra~s (FB-601) FBRG 

Commandi"g OfrJCetS Quarters (FB-604) FORO 

Cltapel, (F0-5 19) FORO 

Building 602, Restautant FBRG 

Officers Quarters 631 (FB-031) FBRO 

Building 568 (FB-568) FBRG 

Building 1562 West #l6(FBI562) FORO 

Building 1561 WestMl6(FBI561) FORO 

Building 1560 West #12 (FB1560) FBRG 

Building 1550 East #12(FB1550) FBRO 

Building I 552 East# I 0 (FB 1552) FBRG 

california (continued) Golden Oate National Recreation Area (oontinued) Building 1553 East #9 (FB1553) FBRO 

Building 1554 East68(F815S4) FBRO 

Building 1555 East#7 (FBI555) FBRO 

Building 1556 East#6(FBI556) FBRO 

Building 1557 East#5 (FBI557) FBRG 

Buildutg 1558 East N4 (FBI558) FBRO 

Building 1559 EastNJ (FBI559) FBRG 

Renegade Ranch 

Horse Barn - Renegade Ranch 

Water DistribuLion System- Renegade Ranch 

Waste Water System - Renegade Ranch 

EleeLtical SyStem- Renegade Ranch 

Moss Beach Ranch 

Water Distribution System-Moss Beach Ranch 

Waste Water System - Moss J3eadl Ranch 

Electrica1 Sysrem - Moss Deach Ran<:.h 

Ocean View Farms 

Horse Bam- Ocean View Fanns 

'House · Ocean View Farms 

Water Distribution System . Ocean View FamlS 

Waste Water System· Ocean View fanns 
24 


28851.010.eps

- Facilities Currently Leased by the NPS (continued) 

State National Pa rk System Unit Faeiliry Name 

Eleclrical System ·Ocean View Fomu 

Em~>« RidJe EqtJC>Uian C<ntaHone Bvn • Embct Ridge Eq-CentaWater Distribution Sysrcm- Ember Rid&e Eqootnan Center 

Waste Water S)stem- Ember Ridge Equestri1n Ctnter 

Electrical System -Ember Ridg.e l!questrian Center 

- Golden Gate Dairy Hay Bam MB-102 MB Stlll>les 

Golden Oate Dairy Sanitary Bam MB-104 Mil Stablet 

- Golden Gate Dairy Sh«! MB-IOS MB Slltbles 

BIIIITV·21 

Miwok C..·ered Riding Ring TV-109 

Miwot HOISt SlaJJs ond S-TV-105 

Mh"* Sanimy Bam TV-106 

Mlwoi<SiltbleTV-107 

Miwoi<Residenc:ell TV-101 

Miwok Rcsid<nee 12 TV -I 02 

Stable (PRC) East FA-902 

S•oble (PRC) West FA-901 

Orftcei'S Club (FM-1 ) FMC 

Celifomia (eontinocd) Golden Gate National Recreation Area (continued) Chapel (~"M 230) FMC 

Building A, Lower Fon Mason ~"M-308) FMC 

- Bui1dina B. Lower Fon Mll$0!1 (FM-310) FMC 

Bwlding C, Lower Fon Mason (FM·312) FMC 

Building D, Lower Fon Mason (FM314) FMC 

Guard S<Mion (FM303) FMC 

l'1cr 2 Shed, Lower Fon Mason (FM·J 19) FMC 

Pier 3 Sh«!, Lower Fon Mason (FM·321) FMC 

Provost Marshalls Office (OatehoU$0) (FM.()302) FMC 

Fire Station & Transfonner Vault (FM309) FMC 

Fon Mason Storage Sh«! (FMJOS) FMC 

Sulro llistoric District Restauran1 

Quaners 2 (Brooks House) {FM·2) Residential Lease 

Quaners 3 (Hasten Housc)(FM·3) Rcsidenhel Lease 

Quanm 4 (Palmer House) (FM-4) Rcsulmtiel Lase 

- Oorop:(FM·S) 

Quane1'S 7 (FM-7) Residentiel Lease 

- Quane1'S 9 (FM-9) Rcsidentiel Lease 

Broob House O"'age (FM·II) 

--- Quarters 23 1 (FM-231) Rc:sidentiall.ease 

Quarters 232 (FM-232) Residential Lease 
25 


28851.011.eps

Facilities Cu.-rcntly Leased by the NPS (continued) 

State Nationa l Pork System Unit Facility Name 

Quarters 234 (FM-234) Rc:sidentialt.eose 

Quancts 235(FM-235) Residential Lease 

QUAJterS 238 (FM-238) Residentlalt.eose 

Quaners 239 (FM-239) Residentlalt.eose 

Building 36 (FM-36) Residential Lease 

Building 38 (FM-38) Residential Lel.lSc 

Building 39 (FM-39) Residential Le~~Sc 

Qunners 41 (FM-4 1) Residential Lease 

Quortets 42 (FM-42) Residential Lease 

Quortets 43 (FM-43) Residential Lease 

California (cominued) Golden Gate National Recreation Area (continued) Quatlers 44 {FM-44) Residential Lease 

Quarters 46 (FM-46) Residential Lease 

Quorters 47 (FM-47) Residential Lea.<e 

Quarte11 48 (FM-48) 

Quaners 49 (FM-49) Residential Lease 

Quarte11 SO (FM-0050) Residential Lease 

Fort Barry 955 

fort Barry 956 

Quruters 17 (PB-008) Residentinll.eose 

Quarters 18 (PB-009) 

Quaners 19 (PB-QIO) 

G~(PB-6) 

San Francisco Maritime Na1i011al Hist.oriCtal Park Hasleu Warehouse 

100 Ramsc:y Road Ganoge 

137A Beaver Valley Rd Spring House 

140 llwver Valley Rd Born 

400 Ramsey Rd Garoge 

404 Ramsey Rd Garoge 

406 Ramsey Rd Bam 

4 700 Thompson Bridge Rd Shed 

4700 Thompsoo Bridge Rd Bonk Bam 

Oc:Jawarc First State National Historical Park 4100 Thompson Bridge Rd (isre,ge 

4700 l ltompson Bridge Rd Pole Dam 

500 WoodJawn Garage 

502 Woodlawn Garage 

800 a~ver Valley Garllgc 

800 Bc~IVer Valley Rd Spring House 

810 Beaver Valley Rd Spring I louse 

I 00 R11msey Road 

137 Beaver Valley Rd 
26 


28851.012.eps

Facilities Currently Leased by the NPS (continued) 

State Natio11al Park System Unit Facility Name 

140 Beaver Valley Rd 

400 Ramsey Rd 

404 Ramsey Rd 

406 Ramsey Rd 

4 700 Thompson Brid&e Rd 

498 Woodlawn 

500 Woodlawn Rd 

Delawate (continued) First State National Historical Park. (continued) 502 Woodlawn Rd 

503 Beaver Valley Rd 

601 Seaver Valley Rd 

601A Beaver Valley Rd 

701 Beaver Valley Rd 

800 Beaver Valley Rd 

810 Beaver Valley Rd 

Ramsey House 

Oistrict of Columbia Chesapeake & Ohio Canal National HistoricaJ Park: Washington Canoe Club 

Fou Pulaski National Monument Cockspur Island Pilot House 

445 Edgewood Ave. NE 

5Hllvd 

55 Blvd 

54·A Howell St 

54B Iio"~IISt 

54C Ho"~ll St 

472 Auburn Avenue 

474 Aubum Avenue 

476 Auburn Avenue 

478 Auburn Avwuc 

480 Auburn Avenue 

GCOfgia Mar1in L.ulhc.r King. Jr. National Historic Site 484 Auburn Avtmte 

488 Aubum Avenue 

492 Aubum Avtflue 

506 1 A Auburn Avenue 

506 2B Auburn A venue 

506 3C Aubum Avenue 

5060 Auburn Avenue 

509IAAubumAvenue 

509 2A Auburn Avenue 

509 JA Auburn Avenue 

509 4A Auburn Avenue 

509 SS Auburn A venue 
27 


28851.013.eps

Facilities Currently Leased by the NPS (continued) 

State National Park System Un it Facility Name 

S09 6B Auburn Avenue 

S09 7B Auburn A\'enuc 

SIO Aubum Avenue 

SI4A Auburn Avenue 

514 9 Aubom Avenue 

522 Auburn Avenue 

S3S Auburn Avenue 

Geor&,ia (oontinucd) M.a.rtin LuLhe:r King, Jr. National Historic Sire 54G-A Auburn Avenue (con1lnued) 

S4Q..B Auburn Avenue 

S46-A Auburn Avenue 

5468 Auburn Avenue 

SSO·A Aubutfl Avenue 

SSOB Auburn Avenue 

SSOC Auburn Avenue 

SSO 0 Auburn Avtnuc 

Hawaii Hawaii Volcanoes NaLional Pork 1877 Volcano House 

UJinois Lincoln Home Nt1tional Historic Site Satab Cook House 

Annco·Fcrro 

Cypress Log Gabin •1d Guest ROU$e 

Florida Tropical HOU$C': 

Lindstrom/Wahl Farm Indiana Indiana Ow,es Nadonft.l Lakeshore House ofTomorrow 

Jacob Luston House 

Oscar and Lrenc Nelson Site 

WiebCJid·Rostone 

lowa Herbert Hoover National H.iscoricaJ Site P0<10fficc: 

KMsas Drown v. Board of Education NationnJ Historical Site Former Mo.,roe Elementary School 

Antietam National Batdc:fic:ld Piper fann Pori I 

Wesl House Site 

Maryland Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Nn1ionnl Historical PIUX Coop<THOUS< 

Reitzel! House 

Myers House Stable and Osm 

Point Biro Farm House 

Point Biro Fatm Garage 

Point Biro Fann Blun 

Point Biro Fann Shed Obio Cuyahoga Valley National PM< Welton Frum House 

Wcllon Farm Barn 

Wel1on Fann Shed 

Sehmidt·F'ostu J. am1 Hous¢ 
28 


28851.014.eps

Facilities Currently Leased by the NJ>S (continued) 

State National Park System Unit Facility Name 

Sclunidt-Fostet Fann Darn 

Edg:ufarm 

Holland Farm House 

Martin fann House 

Martin Fann Shed 

Benedict 

Happy DaY$. Hines Hill Conference Center and Stone 

Ohio (continued) Cuyahoga Valley National Part (continued) Cona•e 

Vaughn Farm 

Wallace fann-lnn 

Conrad Borzum Farmstead 

Garvey Farm House 

Grether F'arm House 

Gleeson Fann House 

Parry Farm 

B·299C Bear Island Ught St>tion • BoatliouS< 

9 -299 Bear Island Light Station- Keepers House 

M:.tine Acadia National Patk B·299A Bear Island Li8)1t Station· Light Tower 

B-2998 Sear Island Light SUlliOn· Barn 

Bear Island Historic Landscape 

0 uilding32 

Boston National Historical Park Building 125 

Constitution Museum-Gift Shop 

Kugel-Oips House 

Ahw n House 

Higgins House 

Rider House 

Hatch House 

McKay House 

Soule House 

Massachusetts Cape Cod National Seashore Sima House 

fh»ercnt Ounc Shad: 

Watson.Schm.id Dune Shack 

Weidlin,ger House 

Bartlett 

Oriver-Srady 

Highland House Museum 

Pamet River Coosr Guard Station 

Market Mills L.owell National Historical Sire Old City Hall 

New Bedford Whaling Nat al Hiscorical Park 21 .. 25 Water Street 
29 


28851.015.eps

Facilities Currently Leased by the NPS (continued) 

State National Park System Un it Facility Name 

Massachuseus Elisha Jones House 

(cominlled) Minute Man National His1orica1 Park SwnsuHousc 

Michigan Keweenaw National Historical PMk 

Quincy Mine Office 

Quincy Mining Comp!ll)' Pll)' Office 

8uilding33S 

S~tndy Hook Building 21 

New Jersey Gateway Notional Recreation Area S.;~ndy Hook Building 22 

SMdy Hook Chapel 

Sandy Hook Theater 

Morristown National Historical Park Rcynolds House 

federal Hu,IJ National Memorial l'cdcrol Hall (£;VENTS) 

Manin V1u' Buren NtltionaJ llistorical Site Roxbury Fann 

Ferm Cottage 

Starue of Uberty National Monument Laundry/Hospital Outbuilding 

Home of franklin 0 Rooscvelt Nntional Drive In 

HilltorieaJ Site Red Jiouse 

fire l.slertd National St-adlore Bay and Gllrl>o Houses 

Bujlding 74 · Land Lensc 

Hangors I end 2 

Fon Tilden T -4 11teatre 

Rockaway uule !.<ague (Building T ·158) 

JABA BU-NSFB-C Riding Aaulemy Main/Arena Bldg 

New York: !ABA BU-NSFB-C Riding Academy Isolation Bldg 

Bergen Beach Su1bles 

!ABA BU-BP-P-RPYC Rockaway Point Yacht Club 

0 -BP-P RI'YC Rockaway Point Yacht Club Dock 

Gateway National Rt:crc-atlon Arta !ABA PK-BP-P RPVC Rockaway Point Yacht Club Parkin•l.ol 

GR·BP Rockaway l,oint Maintained Landscape: 

BU·BP·P·RPYC Rockaway Point Showtt House 

BU-BP·P·RPYC Rocknw•y Point O..llouse 

BU·BP·P-RPYC Rockaw11y Point Gazebo 

Rii$ 8eotcl1 Say 9 West Mall Building. Suite I 

Riis BeacJ' Bays 2 

Riis Bench Bays 14 

Rii$ Oct~ch Suite 3 
30 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. I appreciate that. 

We will now turn to Mr. Guertin, who is recognized for 5 minutes 

for your opening testimony. 

STATEMENT OF STEVE GUERTIN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, U.S. 

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE 

INTERIOR, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. GUERTIN. Good morning, Chairman Bishop, Ranking 

Member Grijalva, and members of the Committee. I am Steve 

Guertin, Deputy Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. I 

previously served as Regional Director for Mountain Prairie Region 

based out in Colorado and, before that, as the budget officer for the 


28851.016.eps
31 

Service here in headquarters. I appreciate the opportunity to testify about the Service’s maintenance backlog. 

The Service manages 566 national wildlife refuges and 72 national fish hatcheries. We are responsible for over $46 billion in 

constructed real property assets that include over 40,000 structures, roads, bridges, dams, and water control structures. Our 

estimated deferred maintenance backlog is $1.4 billion. 

National wildlife refuges are vitally important to conserving the 

wildlife heritage of America, and are also valued destinations for 

local residents, as well as vacationers. Every state and territory 

has wildlife refuges, and over 50 million Americans visit these sites 

each year. They generate over $2 billion for local economies, and 

support tens of thousands of private-sector jobs. 

A refuge that could benefit from infrastructure funding is Big 

Oaks Refuge in Indiana. This is an especially important place for 

migratory birds, and it is home to more than 200 bird species. 

Access is impaired because a bridge on the refuge has been closed 

since 2001. 

Wallkill River Refuge in New Jersey is home to many grassland 

birds, migratory water fowl, wintering raptors, and endangered 

species. Public access to this refuge is significantly reduced because 

one of its trails is closed due to extensive dangerous degradation. 

Besides infrastructure funding, another way to reduce the maintenance backlog is to grant the Service the authority to use 

compensation obtained from responsible parties to directly repair 

damages to refuges. Under current law, when our resources are injured, the costs of repair are added to our maintenance backlog and 

must come from our appropriated budget. Congress can help by enacting the Administration’s legislative proposal to give the Service 

this needed authority. 

Thank you for your interest in addressing the Service’s maintenance backlog, and the opportunity to testify today. I will be glad 

to answer any questions the Committee has. Thank you for your 

time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith and Mr. Guertin, U.S. 

Department of the Interior appears on page 71.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. And I appreciate the Administration’s testimony being extremely brief, too. 

Mr. Iobst, you are now recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF STEVE IOBST, NATIONAL PARK CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, RETIRED, 

FORMER CHIEF OF FACILITY MANAGEMENT FOR 

YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK, DRIGGS, IDAHO 

Mr. IOBST. Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva, and 

members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me to testify at 

this important hearing. I am Steve Iobst, and I worked for the 

National Park Service for 43 years. I retired as Deputy Superintendent of Yellowstone National Park in 2016, after several 

assignments in parks in the Denver Service Center. 

Relevant to this hearing, I was responsible for planning, design, 

rehabilitation, construction, and historic preservation projects, as 

32 

well as facility maintenance and park operations that totaled nearly $1 billion. I testify today in my capacity as the member of the 

Northern Rockies Regional Council, the National Parks Conservation Association, an organization that represents more than 1.2 

million members and supporters across the country. I am also affiliated with the Coalition to Protect America’s National Parks, a 

membership of over 1,200 former National Park Service employees. 

The NPCA, the Coalition, the Pew Charitable Trust, and the 

National Trust for Historic Preservation are among the many public interest groups throughout the country dedicated to addressing 

this issue, and we are grateful for your attention to the need. 

Increasing current funding sources is critical, including philanthropic giving and appropriated fee revenue to address the full 

scope of the maintenance backlog. In this regard, we commend 

Senators Warner and Portman, as well as Representatives Herb 

Kilmer, Reichert, and Hanabusa for introducing the National Park 

Service Legacy Act. 

My first career assignment in the Park Service was as a design 

engineer completing projects in over 40 parks, and with 

Yellowstone in 1979 as the park engineer. At the Rocky Mountain 

National Park, I was Chief of Facility Management, then appointed 

Deputy Superintendent of Grand Teton. I returned to Yellowstone 

in 2003 as Chief of Facility Management, and was promoted to 

Deputy Superintendent. 

During my time with the National Park Service we struggled to 

address park maintenance needs that were constantly falling behind in making repairs. Currently, the backlog is estimated at a 

half-a-billion dollars. This may be a staggering total, but it is not 

only the restrooms, there are trails that need repair. It is also 

many large projects that are tens and even hundreds of millions of 

dollars. At Yellowstone, the largest need is for road reconstruction. 

During my time, appropriating funding was not sufficient for 

reaching maintenance. Caring for the inventory of assets only second to the Department of Defense requires consistent and sufficient 

funding. At Yellowstone we consistently ran at a maintenance 

funding of about 40 percent of what was needed, just to keep the 

deferred maintenance backlog from growing. Revenue certainly 

helps, and a lot of that is dedicated to deferred maintenance. 

However, the recently proposed fee hike would address less than 1 

percent of the backlog. 

Deferred maintenance also addresses many significant historic 

structures across our great Nation. We do have a number of questions and look forward to greater clarity of the Administration’s 

proposed Public Lands Infrastructure Fund. We note that any fund 

to address maintenance should not be or not rely on any energy initiatives that threaten the health of our public lands, waters, our 

parks and ecosystems that we rely on. 

The revenue sources cannot just be dedicated funds. It must also 

be reliable and dependable. Construction projects rely on multiyear funding that is known and dependable. Consider the 

Yellowstone Road program, a program of projects identified well 

into the future. Project development often starts 5 years before construction. Document preparation, as well as contracting, starts 2 to 

3 years out. Yellowstone’s road program has been successful for 30 

33 

years, due to multiple-year programs and projects with reliable and 

predictable funding stream. 

Addressing park maintenance is critical. Americans and international visitors are coming in more numbers every year—2017 

saw 330 million visits to our park system, equal to the Centennial 

year of 2016. 

In conclusion, the National Parks Conservation Association and 

our many partners concerned with the park funding crisis are 

grateful for the Administration and Members of Congress on both 

sides of the aisle for now prioritizing public lands infrastructure. 

We also commend the Administration for now supporting the concept of dedicated funding. We urge the Administration and 

members of the Committee to work with the bipartisan champions 

of the National Park Service Legacy Act. 

I ask that you consider that national parks are precious to 

America as pristine watersheds and carbon sinks. The parks represent America’s natural and cultural heritage. Our parks reflect 

who we are, as Americans. If we don’t care for them and restore 

them, it reflects poorly on us, as a people. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify and for the Committee’s 

consideration of our views. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Iobst follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF STEVEN F. IOBST, NORTHERN ROCKIES REGIONAL COUNCIL

MEMBER, NATIONAL PARKS CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION

Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva, and members of the Committee, 

thank you for inviting me to testify at this important hearing. I am Steven F. Iobst. 

I worked for the National Park Service for 43 years in many different assignments. 

I retired as Deputy Superintendent of Yellowstone National Park in 2016 after several assignments in parks and the Denver Service Center. Relevant to this hearing, 

I was responsible for planning, design, and construction as well as facility maintenance and park operations over those 43 years. I am a civil engineer. 

I testify today in my capacity as a member of the Northern Rockies Regional 

Council of the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA), an organization 

that represents more than 1.2 million members and supporters across the country 

who care deeply about our national parks. I am also affiliated with the Coalition 

to Protect America’s National Parks, a group of over 1,200 former National Park 

Service (NPS) employees who continue to support the parks. That group has testified before this Committee as to the urgency of addressing park maintenance needs 

and I appreciate the opportunity to build on those observations and recommendations. NPCA, the Coalition to Protect America’s National Parks, the Pew Charitable 

Trusts, and the National Trust for Historic Preservation are among the many 

public-interest groups throughout the country dedicated to addressing this issue, 

and we are grateful for your attention to the need. 

Through my testimony I hope to convey the scope of the national park deferred 

maintenance needs and the urgency of addressing the need through a robust, 

consistent and dependable funding source. Increasing current funding sources is 

critical, as are supplemental funding sources including philanthropic giving and appropriate fee revenue. However, what is ultimately needed to address the full scope 

of the maintenance backlog is dedicated funding. We commend the bipartisan interest in Congress, in particular the sponsors of the National Park Service Legacy Act, 

for recognizing this need, and now the Administration for supporting a dedicated 

funding approach to public lands infrastructure. 

During my time at NPS, we struggled to address park maintenance needs and 

were constantly falling behind in making repairs. My first career assignment was 

as a civil engineer in design at the Denver Service Center. Design and construction 

assignments included projects in over 40 parks, including Shenandoah, Yosemite, 

Acadia, St. Gaudens, Gateway, Fire Island, Virgin Islands, and National Capital 

Sites. In 1979, I moved to Yellowstone where I began my career in park operations 

as an engineer in Maintenance and Concessions Management as well as working directly for the Superintendent to guide Planning, Compliance, and Development. 

34 

Rocky Mountain National Park pulled me away from Yellowstone in late-1988 

where I served as Chief of Facility Management which included a special assignment as Acting Chief of Park Facility Management in Washington, DC, where I 

worked with a team to develop today’s Asset Management Program. In 1997, I 

returned to the greater Yellowstone area serving as Deputy Superintendent at 

Grand Teton National Park and Acting Superintendent from November 2000 to 

February 2002. I returned to Yellowstone in April 2003 to serve as Chief of Facility 

Management for Yellowstone National Park until August 2011 when I was promoted to Deputy Superintendent. I am proud to say that I have extensive experience in facilities maintenance, rehabilitation, design, engineering, construction, and 

contracting. In 43 years I directed or provided indirect oversight of nearly $1 billion 

in rehabilitation, new construction, replacement, or historic preservation. 

My experience at the park service was one of countless NPS staff who have long 

struggled with the reality that park assets are aging and have not received the capital investment they require. This is posing serious threats to the ability of parks 

to meet their mission, preserve our natural and cultural heritage, and bolster the 

visitor experience on which countless local economies rely. 

Currently, Yellowstone National Park, where the bulk of my NPS career was, is 

estimated to have at least $497 million in repair needs, as of September 30, 2017, 

according to the NPS online database. This may be a staggering total but one thing 

that is important for Congress to understand is that overdue repair projects are not 

only the leaky roofs, degraded trails and pathways, and bathrooms that need repair. 

These projects certainly add up, but there are also many large projects at 

Yellowstone and throughout the country that are each dozens and even hundreds 

of millions of dollars each. At Yellowstone, the largest need is for major road repairs 

and reconstruction after many years during which there have not been available 

funds to address the need. NPS highlighted the large scope of the Yellowstone roads 

need at https://www.nps.gov/transportation/pdfs/Yellowstone_Roads_Reconstruction022016.pdf among numerous other park transportation ‘‘megaprojects’’ outlined at 

https : / / www.nps.gov / transportation / transportation_needs_beyond_core_program. 

html. 

While philanthropy and fee revenue have been critical to Yellowstone and other 

parks, it is not realistic to expect that such funding sources could cover projects of 

this magnitude. And of course for needs such as the many large water and wastewater infrastructure projects, there is simply no appeal for philanthropists who expect the government to do its share to care for its assets. 

In my career I do not recall a time when funding matched need, with ‘‘need’’ being 

defined as the amount of funding required to perform routine repairs and preventive 

maintenance as well as cyclic maintenance to keep all assets in good condition. 

What I experienced firsthand each year was that the chief cause of the growth of 

the maintenance backlog was insufficient funding to maintain, repair, and in some 

cases, reconstruct park assets. Caring for an inventory of assets second only to the 

Department of Defense requires consistent and sufficient funding. Unfortunately, 

the Park Service has not been receiving this funding. My analysis at Yellowstone, 

utilizing the Park Asset Management Planning Tool, was that we consistently ran 

a routine maintenance program as I just described with 40 percent of the funding 

required to just keep deferred maintenance from growing. 

Parks throughout the system face a diversity of maintenance needs, from roads 

and buildings to trails, water systems, docks, parking lots and more. Examples 

include: 

• Roads: Kolob Canyon Road, a popular 5-mile scenic drive at Zion National 

Park, needs $15 million in repairs—an amount that is nearly equal to the 

entire value of the road itself; 

• Trails: Also at Zion, among millions of dollars in trail needs are the Overlook 

Point Trail, the famed Angel’s Landing Trail and the West Rim Trail. 

Walking, hiking, and biking trails at Yosemite are in disrepair or closed. 

More than $17 million in deferred maintenance affects these systems, including the Yosemite Bike Path, the Stubblefield Canyon Trail, and the Clark 

Point Spur Trail; 

• Historic buildings: At San Antonio Missions National Historical Park, 

nearly $400,000 is needed to repair the office and sacristy of the Franciscan 

father-president, who oversaw development of these historically important 

missions. A compound where Native Americans lived, and the walls that 

encircle it, also requires restoration at a cost of $600,000; 

35 

• Campsites: At Voyageurs National Park, campsites have more than $1 

million worth of deferred maintenance. This includes restoring and improving 

tent sites, maintaining fire rings, and repairing and installing new bear-proof 

food storage lockers; 

• Water Systems: At Rocky Mountain National Park, the primary water 

system at the park’s headquarters, where the Beaver Meadows Visitor Center 

is located, has 50- to 70-year-old pipes that need to be replaced. The cost estimate for this work is nearly $5 million; 

• Historic landscapes: At Gettysburg National Military Park they comprise 

by far the largest investment need to restore the park to its original appearance, including addressing invasive plants. 

These and other needs are highlighted by the Pew Charitable Trusts on its 

website at http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/fact-sheets/2017/05/ 

national-park-case-studies. Included with my testimony are several of these case 

studies we ask to be submitted for the record. 

Park infrastructure needs are not only facilities that promote and enhance the 

visiting experience. The maintenance problem includes projects that help protect 

natural resources, such as channel markers in the Everglades that prevent boaters 

from harming sensitive seagrasses. It also includes many historic structures of 

national significance. From the inspiring civil rights movement history shared at 

Martin Luther King, Jr. National Historical Park’s historic buildings to the several 

hundred Native American cultural sites and cliff dwellings at Mesa Verde National 

Park, these world-renowned places tell the diverse stories of our Nation. Unfortunately, according to FY 2016 data, historic assets represent 45 percent of the maintenance backlog and without dedicated funding to address these needs, conditions 

will continue to deteriorate and risk permanent loss of these resources. 

There are several ways these diverse repair needs can be addressed. I’ve briefly 

noted the importance and limitations of philanthropy, and my colleagues on the 

panel offer great insight into this issue. Notably, matching philanthropic funds with 

Federal dollars is critical. A successful program in this regard has been the 

Centennial Challenge, which now thanks to the support of this Committee, enjoys 

a dedicated funding source through senior pass revenue. Importantly, this program 

should continue to receive appropriated funding, as there is tremendous philanthropic interest in this program, beyond what can be matched through the senior 

pass alone. We urge the Administration to propose appropriations for this important 

program in future budgets. 

Fee revenue, too, is critical, but can only be increased so much without becoming 

prohibitive. Even the recently proposed fee hike for the peak visiting season at 17 

parks throughout the system would only address less than 1 percent of the NPS 

backlog, and that proposed fee hike is one we and others oppose because we fear 

it is too much and threatens to price Americans out of their parks. Fees play an 

important role, particularly in parks such as Yellowstone, but are not a realistic or 

appropriate source to provide the level of funding needed to address the bulk of park 

maintenance needs. 

We know that in recent years, NPS has explored avenues for greater efficiencies 

and cost savings such as improvements in energy efficiency. We know that 

technology improvements are among the avenues NPS can continue to explore to 

identify savings that can help with maintenance costs. However, these and other 

supplemental funding sources cannot cover the scope of the backlog problem. They 

cannot alone be relied on to address park needs; a serious Federal investment is 

needed. 

Appropriations for day-to-day, cyclic maintenance and larger repair projects for 

non-transportation assets have long been insufficient. Appropriations should be increased to better meet these needs. We commend the appropriations committees for 

increasing funding for the NPS, including for its maintenance needs, over the last 

3 fiscal years, with a particularly helpful boost in FY 2016. We urge Congress to 

build on these investments. 

On this subject, I must note that the Administration’s FY 2018 and FY 2019 

budget proposals for appropriated funding are unhelpful and in many ways, damaging. We urge the Administration to do better in future budgets, and for upcoming 

FY 2019 budget hearings in this Committee to address national park funding needs 

including but not limited to the deferred maintenance challenge. 

At this moment, members of this Committee are positioned to advocate for improved funding for NPS in both FY 2018, given the recent budget deal, and FY 

2019. NPS transportation assets that comprise half of the backlog should also receive increased funding through appropriations for the Nationally Significant 

Federal Lands and Tribal Projects Program in the Transportation, Housing and 

36 

Urban Development Appropriations Subcommittee, as well as in the next transportation bill. We’re grateful the last transportation bill, the FAST Act, increased funding for park transportation infrastructure, but funds remain vastly insufficient. 

We are dismayed that in the current budget climate, and for the foreseeable 

future, the constraints on these funding sources, including through the Budget 

Control Act, will make difficult securing the robust level of funding that is needed 

to address the national park repair backlog, despite the commendable bipartisan 

support Congress has shown—and must continue showing—for park funding 

through current transportation and non-transportation revenue sources. 

Thus a dedicated, robust funding source to address the large scope of the backlog 

is needed. In this regard, we commend Senators Warner and Portman and 

Representatives Hurd, Kilmer, Reichert, and Hanabusa for introducing the National 

Park Service Legacy Act (S. 751/H.R. 2584), as well as the many bipartisan 

Members of Congress who have thus far agreed to co-sponsor this important bill. 

The bill would dedicate more than $11 billion to the parks backlog over 30 years 

through receipts from onshore and offshore energy development not otherwise dedicated to other purposes. 

We also commend Congressman Simpson for his commitment to the public lands 

backlog, as well as to the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), through the 

LAND Act. The concept of addressing both the parks backlog and LWCF needs is 

one NPCA wholeheartedly supports. In this regard, we also commend Senators 

Murkowski and Cantwell for their commitment to both of these important needs in 

the energy bill currently before Congress. 

In this context, we feel it is important for the Administration to not only express 

support for and provide its own recommendations for addressing park infrastructure, but to work with both parties in Congress to arrive at legislation that dedicates reliable revenue to the backlog problem through a dedicated funding source. 

In this regard, the Administration’s recent proposal is very helpful. 

We do have a number of questions about, and look forward to greater clarity of, 

the Administration’s proposed Public Lands Infrastructure Fund, which deposits 

‘‘half of additional receipts generated by expanded Federal energy development’’ to 

address the backlog on Department of the Interior (DOI) lands, as well as for 

Bureau of Indian Education schools. 

We must note that any fund to address maintenance should be sure to not rely 

on any energy initiatives that threaten the health of our public lands and waters, 

our parks and the ecosystems on which they rely. NPCA urges Congress to recognize that explicitly linking infrastructure funding to environmentally threatening 

and damaging energy production proposals would not only threaten the integrity of 

our land, air, water and wildlife but also compromise the bipartisan support that’s 

needed to pass a bill to address public lands maintenance. 

Critically, the revenue source cannot just be a dedicated fund; it must also be a 

reliable and dependable one. Legislation that dedicates funding to the deferred 

maintenance problem should include several components: 

Reliable Funding: Any funding source for national park repairs must have 

certainty. If a funding source relies on projected revenue as the Administration’s 

proposal appears to, then those projections must be sound such that there is a high 

level of confidence that there will be sufficient funds to address parks’ billions of 

dollars in repair needs. As this Committee knows well, passing legislation is very 

difficult, so it is important that legislation will actually address the problem with 

realistic and reliable funds. 

Certainty of Funding Stream: Any funding source must be dependable. As I 

experienced during my time at the Park Service, construction projects rely on multiyear funding that is known and dependable at the outset, which in part helps NPS 

to stage projects and work with contractors who need funding certainty. 

Consider the Yellowstone Road Program, something I have extensive experience 

with and without question the best inter-agency partnership (with the Federal 

Highway Administration) I have ever experienced. It is a program of projects identified well into the future. Scoping, permitting, compliance and surveying often start 

5 years before construction; design, leading to contract documents usually takes 2 

to 3 years. Once construction begins, the project has been in the queue for 3 to 5 

years. Yellowstone’s Road Program has been successful for 30 years due to multiple 

6-year programs of projects with a reliable, and predictable, funding stream. 

We fear that without a specific, known amount each year, the uncertainty of the 

funding available would challenge NPS’ capacity to engage in the procurement and 

contracting that is needed for successful repair and reconstruction projects. The 

backlog includes many projects such as water systems that require at least tens of 

millions of dollars for each project; these projects need multi-year funding. 

37 

Legislation to address the repair backlog must be designed in such a way as to 

provide a dependable revenue stream in this regard. 

In addition to consistent and robust dedicated annual funding, legislation to 

address deferred maintenance should consider: 

• Funding parity between transportation and non-transportation deferred 

maintenance needs; 

• A public-private partnership component to leverage non-Federal funds for 

projects that can attract philanthropic interest, while still dedicating robust 

funding to the many projects that cannot receive philanthropic support; 

• Giving appropriators discretion with the list of priority projects while still 

ensuring a dedicated funding stream. 

Addressing park maintenance is critical in part because our national parks resonate so deeply with the American public, frequenting our parks like never before. 

The National Park Service celebrated its Centennial in 2016. Americans and international visitors participated by visiting in record numbers, with more than 330 

million visits last year, an all-time record. While the data released last week indicate on-average essentially flat 2017 visitation compared to 2016, visitation clearly 

remains high. Notably, in some parks to the extent that it is further challenging 

the ability of park superintendents to meet needs with insufficient staffing and 

other resources. 

While last year’s crowds stressed the capacity of the Service to meet the demand, 

public reaction remained high, topping 90 percent satisfaction. Similarly, the private 

businesses that support and accommodate park visitors saw record years. During 

peak visitor season, these businesses employ more people than the National Park 

Service. As a result of visitor spending in surrounding communities, many of them 

rural, national parks support $32 billion in economic activity nationally and nearly 

300,000 jobs. The existence value of our heritage has significant value to Americans: 

a recent economic study done by Harvard University and the University of Colorado 

concluded that the American public values the services of the National Park Service 

at $92 billion. 

Addressing the maintenance backlog also creates jobs. A recent study, Restoring 

Parks, Creating Jobs: How Infrastructure Restoration in the National Park System 

Can Create or Support Jobs, commissioned by The Pew Charitable Trusts and conducted by the independent firm Cadmus Group, found that more than 110,000 jobs 

could be created or supported if funds were invested to resolve the NPS maintenance backlog. 

On the subject of infrastructure, we must also note before concluding this testimony our deep concern with many provisions in the Administration’s Legislative 

Outline for Rebuilding Infrastructure in America. The proposal seeks to undermine 

fundamental environmental laws, dispose of the NPS-managed George Washington 

Memorial Parkway, allow for expedited construction of pipelines through national 

parks, and otherwise threaten the cultural and natural resources central to the 

preservation of our national parks and their ecosystems. As the Administration and 

Congress work together to address infrastructure, we urge these concepts be left out 

of any legislative package. Such provisions would not only threaten public lands and 

the broader environment, but would also compromise needed bipartisanship to move 

such a package to the President’s desk. 

In conclusion, NPCA and our many partners concerned with the park funding 

crisis are grateful that the Administration and Members of Congress on both sides 

of the aisle are now prioritizing public lands infrastructure. We also commend the 

Administration for now supporting the concept of a dedicated funding stream for 

public lands maintenance needs. Legislation addressing the maintenance backlog 

must have a realistic and dependable funding stream. And such legislation should 

not rely on undermining the integrity of our land, air, water and wildlife 

protections. 

We urge the Administration and members of this Committee to work with the bipartisan champions of the National Park Service Legacy Act, appropriators, party 

leadership and other Members of Congress to support a dedicated, robust funding 

stream for national park repair needs. 

I am encouraged by the paradigm shift that could lead to a transformational 

change in funding deferred maintenance projects on National Park Service lands. 

I ask that you consider that national parks are national, regional, and local economic engines; that national parks are precious to America as pristine watersheds 

and carbon sinks; that park sites represent America’s natural and cultural heritage; 

and that they are our national identity and irreplaceable. 

38 

Our national parks reflect who we are as Americans. From Yellowstone to the 

Everglades and the Statue of Liberty to the Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial Site, 

these places are our heritage. If we don’t care for them and restore them, it reflects 

poorly on us as a people. We have an opportunity before us to do right for our parks 

and the Americans who own and have a deep connection with them. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify and for the Committee’s consideration of 

our views. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Now, Mr. Puskar. Did I get the emphasis right this time? 

Mr. PUSKAR. Perfect. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right. It will be the last time I do it correctly. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. You are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF DAN PUSKAR, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PUBLIC 

LANDS ALLIANCE, SILVER SPRING, MARYLAND 

Mr. PUSKAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member, 

and to all members of the Committee for being here. 

The Public Lands Alliance was created 40 years ago by and for 

the non-profit partners of America’s public lands. Our 135 member 

organizations are truly operational partners, not just of national 

parks and wildlife refuges, but also national conservation areas, 

forests, and more that this Committee oversees. 

Ours are the folks helping to staff visitor centers. They are hiring 

and managing conservation corps. They are providing educational 

programs, they are managing volunteers, they are supplying interpretive and educational materials. And they are not doing these 

things on the ground in these public lands, they are funding it. 

Over $250 million annually is given to these public lands 

through gifts, through in-kind services to help save and leverage 

the other dollars that Congress and others are providing to the 

parks, refuges, and more. And it is because of these investments 

in the visitor experience that we are helping to create jobs in local 

communities to enhance tourism. 

Our members, therefore, rely on and support the infrastructure 

in all of these important places. And deferred maintenance drags 

down or makes impossible the visitor experience they want to have, 

and can create unsafe conditions for those working there, whether 

our esteemed colleagues at the agencies or folks like ours on the 

ground working there day to day. 

When we look at places just down the road like Prince William 

Forest, where Nature Bridge is doing an incredible job bringing 

hundreds and thousands of youth from around the DC area to have 

a residential learning experience, they should not be worried about 

the 1930s-era pipes that are keeping the cabins that those kids are 

staying in working. They should be worrying about tick season, not 

worrying about sewage spilling over. We need to get more kids 

there, and these kinds of deficiencies are preventing that from 

happening. 

At places like Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area, the 

Southern Nevada Conservancy would love to be doing more 

educational programs on their boardwalks, one of the few ADAcompliant areas to go into the most built core of the national 

39 

conservation area, but they have had to curtail those tours, they 

have had to curtail the ability to go there, because of the maintenance problems. 

Partners are working to solve these issues. We are not just there 

hoping that the government will take care of us. 

At Rocky Mountain National Park, the Rocky Mountain 

Conservancy partnered through a Centennial Challenge Grant to 

help repair the Alluvial Fan Trail, bringing on their conservation 

corps, matching one-to-one with the government and their own private funds to get work done. 

At St. Mark’s National Wildlife Refuge in Florida, the Friends of 

St. Mark’s are helping to restore a historic lighthouse that can 

barely get a visitor in it. They open it once a year, just so people 

can see it is still there. There is predicted 40,000 visitors a year 

would go into this historic structure, and they can’t because there 

is no money available. Partners are raising funds to make that 

happen. 

As my colleague, Jason Rano, will be talking about as well, private philanthropy, non-profit support is a key piece of making this 

solution happen. We can raise money for historic structures. We 

can invest in the visitor experience, in recreational opportunities. 

But it is not possible and unlikely that you would get donors interested in paving your roads, rebuilding your sewage systems. 

They are not going to be able to do bridges. And, if you can imagine 

a group like Jason’s, the National Park Foundation, sending out a 

letter to their donors saying, ‘‘Hey, can you help us build a road,’’ 

he is not going to get as many supporters as you want him to have. 

We need, as everyone has said on this panel already, dedicated, 

reliable, sizable funding. We need to think big. We need to take 

ideas like the National Park Service Legacy Act that the Public 

Lands Alliance fully supports. We need to think big, like the Public 

Lands Infrastructure Fund proposal, both of which, at their core, 

look to the possibility of taking revenue from energy that is happening on our public lands, and reinvesting it in infrastructure. 

That is a great idea. We shouldn’t just do it in national parks, we 

shouldn’t just do it in parks and wildlife refuges. We should do it 

across Department of the Interior lands. 

We should invest in things like the Centennial Challenge, not 

just in the Park Service, but give other lands the opportunity to 

have those matching funds, as well. Together, with things like fees 

and others, we can solve this. 

Thank you so much for your time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Puskar follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAN PUSKAR, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

PUBLIC LANDS ALLIANCE

Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva, and members of the Committee, 

thank you for inviting me to testify today on this critical issue. 

I serve as executive director of the Public Lands Alliance (PLA), an organization 

created 40 years ago by and for the non-profit partners of America’s public lands. 

Our 135 member organizations are operational partners of more than 600 parks, 

refuges, conservation areas, lakes, and forests with an on-the-ground presence in 

every U.S. state and territory. They staff visitor centers, hire and manage youth and 

veterans corps, conduct educational programs, and provide interpretive materials. 

Not only do PLA members save and leverage government funds when providing 

these services, they also annually contribute more than $250 million to our public 

40 

lands through their philanthropic grants, programs and services. By enhancing the 

public lands visitor experience, PLA members create jobs and support national and 

international tourism. 

The vast majority of PLA members rely on public lands infrastructure to operate 

their organizations and programs. PLA commends this Committee, the Senate 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, and the Administration for its focus 

on enhancing public lands infrastructure, especially those assets that have fallen 

into disrepair after years of neglect. Deferred maintenance is an overall drag on the 

visitor experience as facilities become worn or less reliable. 

Through the examples and discussion below, PLA will encourage the Committee 

to: 

• Create a dedicated, reliable, and sizable funding source for all DOI public 

lands that eliminates the existing maintenance backlog while providing 

necessary routine and cyclic maintenance funding to prevent future backlogs. 

• Incentivize philanthropy and non-profit support for appropriate maintenance 

projects and other visitor experience enhancements by expanding matching 

fund programs, like the NPS Centennial Challenge, to other DOI agencies. 

IMPACT OF THE BACKLOG ON NON-PROFIT SUPPORT

The deferred maintenance backlog has direct and indirect impacts on non-profit 

public lands partners. Consider the following examples: 

• Prince William Forest Park, VA (NPS): Congress designated the park 

during the Great Depression as a retreat where urban youth could immerse 

themselves in nature. The park welcomed thousands of children, who slept in 

cabins built by the Civilian Conservation Corps and the Works Progress 

Administration. Non-profit partners like NatureBridge continue this legacy by 

bringing children and teens from the DC metro area for daytime and overnight environmental education programs. Unfortunately, the park’s plumbing 

rests on the original pipes from the 1930s, which are not properly insulated 

and have a high risk of bursting in the winter. Consequently, buildings used 

for youth programs are closed from December through March. Additionally, 

the old pipe system has issues with backing up, which limits the number of 

youth who can participate during the already truncated season. 

• Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area, NV (BLM): Red Spring 

Boardwalk is in dire need to replacement. Not only is Red Spring Boardwalk 

one of the most family friendly destinations in Red Rock Canyon, it should 

be used regularly for school field trips and is perhaps the most significant 

ADA compliant trail. The old wooden decking is dry-rotted through in many 

places and creates a serious safety hazard. Patchwork repairs have been attempted, but the condition has deteriorated to the point of partial closure and 

one of its non-profit partners, Southern Nevada Conservancy, is no longer 

able to take groups there for educational programming. Without a complete 

replacement, the boardwalk may be closed in its entirety. 

• Shenandoah National Park, VA (NPS): As the philanthropic partner to 

the park, the Shenandoah National Park Trust is charged to provide a margin 

of excellence to park programs, not to support fundamental park functions. 

However, due to a more than $79 million backlog and uncertainties in appropriated funds, NPS in recent years has asked the Trust to redirect its philanthropy. Over the past 3 years, the Trust has therefore provided over a 

quarter-million dollars of our philanthropy to trail maintenance. As a ‘‘hiker’s 

park’’ with over 500 miles of trails, routine trail maintenance should be supported by base funding. This has distracted the Trust from achieving other 

core mission goals, shared with the NPS, including field trips to our park for 

Title I schools and critical natural resource research and management 

programs. 

Directly and indirectly, the backlog is detrimentally effecting these non-profit 

organizations capacity to provide educational and experiential learning to young 

visitors due to a higher-order need for visitor access and safety. PLA believes that 

barriers to access and safety on public lands are a core responsibility of the Federal 

Government and should not be pushed on to non-profit or other partners. 

A DEDICATED, RELIABLE, AND SIZEABLE FUNDING SOURCE

Whether it is a deteriorating road or bridge or a crumbling historic structure, 

neglected built assets on America’s public lands can have a detrimental impact on 

41 

the experience of visitors as well as the employees of land management agencies, 

non-profit partners, concessioners and others whose jobs rely on them. Non-profit 

partners are unable to assist with fixing roads—the primary source of deferred 

maintenance across Federal public lands—or baseline assets like wastewater and 

sewer systems. Philanthropy is unavailable and inappropriate for these core Federal 

Government responsibilities. 

Yet there are examples of infrastructure—such as a resource for which a public 

land was preserved (e.g. the Statute of Liberty or a historic lodge) or a source of 

recreation and enjoyment (e.g. a hiking trail)—for which private support can be 

marshalled. Take, for example, the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, managed 

by the NPS in California. The maintenance backlog had resulted in unsafe and deteriorating buildings on Alcatraz Island. The conditions threaten the island’s ability 

to host visitors including the declining fixed wharf on Alcatraz. Maintenance backlog on trails, historic buildings, waterfront wharfs and restrooms erode the visitor 

experience. Because of the historic nature and private interest in Alcatraz, the 

Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy has provided a tremendous investment of 

more than $10 million toward its historic buildings and grounds, and yet much more 

funding is required. NPS currently estimates the deferred maintenance needs of 

Golden Gate National Recreation Area at more than $325 million. The private sector, even if led by an organization as sophisticated as the Conservancy, cannot be 

expected to tackle this massive charge. 

PLA calls on the Committee to identify a dedicated, reliable, and sizable funding source that can meaningfully tackle the more than $20 billion of deferred maintenance on all Federal public lands, including those managed by DOI. 

PLA supports the bipartisan National Park Service Legacy Act (H.R. 2584/ S. 751) as one innovative solution. The bill provides more than $11 billion to the 

NPS backlog over 30 years through receipts from onshore and offshore energy development that are not dedicated to other purposes. It scales this funding up gradually 

so that the NPS and its partners have time to prepare for larger, more complicated 

projects. Importantly, it also leverages philanthropy and non-profit support by enabling projects with private funding matches to rise higher in priority. 

PLA also welcomes the Administration’s outline of the Public Lands Infrastructure Fund, which is funded by 50 percent of increased Federal energy leasing and 

development activities over Fiscal Year 2018 budget projections. PLA looks forward 

to seeing a complete bill or proposal to understand more clearly how the Infrastructure Fund would achieve its revenue target. 

Though using different mechanisms, both the Legacy Act and the Infrastructure 

Fund rely on monies generated annually through the production or sale of energy 

on Federal public lands should be invested in deferred maintenance projects on 

public lands. This basic premise is the underpinning of the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund, as well as $50 million provided by the Helium Stewardship Act 

of 2013 for NPS deferred maintenance projects. PLA supports this general approach, 

with the caveat that the revenue stream must be predictable and meet its multiyear targets. 

In a final bill, PLA further urges the Committee to: 

• Broaden the approach to all DOI public lands, including the National Park 

Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, and Bureau of Land Management. 

Although beyond the scope of this hearing, the needs of the U.S. Forest 

Service are also significant. 

• Maintain an incentive for public private partnership, like the Legacy Act’s use 

of matching funds to effect prioritization. 

• Institute a gradual increase of available annual funds so that land management agencies can scale up their maintenance, contracting, or other staff to 

efficiently put these funds to use. Similarly, once the deferred maintenance 

backlog has been reduced to a manageable level, taper but do not eliminate 

these annual funds to avoid a new backlog increase in the future. 

• Pair this focus on the deferred maintenance backlog with continued, coordinated investments in regular and cyclic maintenance and line item construction funding. Without these investments, the backlog will continue to grow, 

increasing in the long term both public and private costs. 

INCENTIVIZE PHILANTHROPY AND NON-PROFIT SUPPORT

As their budgets tighten, land management agencies increasingly have called 

upon non-profit partners to fund deferred maintenance projects directly. Congress 

too has looked to non-profit partners to tackle the backlog in recent legislation, 

especially the Helium Stewardship Act of 2013 and the National Park Service 

42 

Centennial Act of 2016, by making new funding available for deferred maintenance 

in the National Park Service if matched at a minimum of 1:1 by private funds. Nonprofit partners have stepped up, delivering more than $77 million in matching funds 

to Centennial Challenge funds alone since 2015. 

Yet opportunities for leverage are uneven across DOI public lands. Consider the 

following: 

• Rocky Mountain National Park, CO (NPS): Secretary Zinke recently 

visited the park to announce combined $400,000 by way of a public-private 

partnership with the Rocky Mountain Conservancy to rebuild the Alluvial 

Fan Trail, which sustained serious damage during the 2013 Colorado Floods 

and remains among the disaster’s most visible marks within the park. The 

money—a Centennial Challenge project that matches $200,000 from the NPS 

with an identical amount from the Conservancy—will fund Conservation 

Corps hired and managed by the Conservancy, building skills in youth while 

simultaneously restoring a popular trail. 

• St. Mark’s National Wildlife Refuge, FL (FWS): The refuge is the home 

of an iconic Gulf Coast lighthouse, which the Coast Guard transferred to FWS 

with a leaky roof, rotten floors, and more. Due to unsafe conditions, the site 

can only be visited once annually by the public. However, the Friends of St. 

Mark’s National Wildlife Refuge has worked with partners to fund a structural assessment that estimated $1.6 million would be needed to fully restore 

and open it to a projected 40,000 annual visitors. To date, the Friends have 

raised more than $725,000 and, with contributions from partners and the 

state of Florida, the tower and keeper house are being restored now. The 

Friends have also restored the lantern room and the light’s lens; a late spring 

opening is anticipated. FWS has not been able to contribute any funds to this 

project. 

In addition to highlighting the incredible impact of conservation corps on deferred 

maintenance, the Rocky Mountain National Park example underscores the value of 

the Centennial Challenge to national park partners. However, as this program is 

limited to the NPS, national wildlife refuges cannot partake in it and organization’s 

like the Friends of St. Mark’s must seek leverage outside the Federal Government. 

Given the success of the Centennial Challenge, PLA strongly recommends that 

the Centennial Challenge program should scaled up and embrace other land management agencies. Although the tradition of private philanthropy is not as long in 

FWS or BLM as it is in the NPS, the example of the Friends of St. Mark’s 

highlights its new emphasis, as does this Committee’s long-standing support for a 

congressionally chartered Bureau of Land Management Foundation. 

PLA believes there is a compelling need to supplement to the dedicated, reliable, 

and sizable funding source with matching funds that can be used not only to tackle 

the deferred maintenance backlog, but also projects worthy of philanthropy that will 

grow the backlog if not addressed in a timely manner. Programs like the Centennial 

Challenge that can be used on deferred maintenance yet also tackle a broader array 

of educational and conservation needs give land managers in the field and their 

partners greater flexibility to deliver a meaningful visitor experience. 

ENHANCING ACCESS AND THE VISITOR EXPERIENCE

The vast majority of deferred maintenance backlog issues can be attributed to a 

need to increase access to public lands and then to improve the experience of those 

who do visit these special places. Non-profit organizations that partner with DOI 

bureaus like the National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, and Bureau of 

Land Management share that mission and are eager to work with this Committee 

and their agency colleagues where appropriate and useful. As a representative of 

these partners, PLA stands ready to assist the Committee in any way it can to 

develop a long-lasting solution for the deferred maintenance backlog in all DOI 

managed lands. 

Thank you again for the invitation to testify. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

And finally, Mr. Rano. 

43 

STATEMENT OF JASON RANO, VICE PRESIDENT, GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, NATIONAL PARK FOUNDATION, 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. RANO. Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva, and 

members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me to testify at 

today’s important hearing. My name is Jason Rano. I am the Vice 

President of Government Relations at the National Park 

Foundation, the congressionally chartered philanthropic partner of 

the National Park Service. 

As you know, 2016 was the 100th anniversary of the National 

Park Service. NPS and the Foundation worked together to take advantage of this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to bring Americans 

together to celebrate, and look forward to the second century of our 

national parks through our Find Your Park public awareness 

campaign. 

Thanks in part to these efforts, 2016 saw a record 331 million 

visits to our parks. And just last week, NPS released 2017 visitation numbers, which showed a similar number of visits to our 417 

national parks. That visitation has risen and maintained these levels is a testament to the love and importance of our national parks. 

However, increased and sustained visitation to our national 

parks increases the already high strain on them. Secretary Zinke 

and many members of this Committee have made tackling the 

$11.6 billion deferred maintenance backlog a priority. 

The focus of my testimony today is the role of philanthropy in reducing the backlog, what can philanthropy do, and what is best 

done with Federal dollars. 

NPF’s centennial campaign for America’s national parks began in 

2016 with a $350 million goal. As of today, the Foundation has 

raised $494 million toward our new $500 million goal. Working together with NPS, this money has been spent with an eye toward 

improving the visitor experience through the rehabilitation and repair of trails and facilities, protecting and restoring wildlife habitat, and supporting the work of youth and veterans corps to 

enhance our parks. 

The deferred maintenance backlog is a top priority for anyone 

who loves our national parks. As we see increased visitation, we 

see increased strain on the facilities, the trails, the roads, the 

bridges, and the staff, all of which can have a negative impact on 

the visitor experience. 

Imagine being a first-time or infrequent visitor and encountering 

closed bathrooms, washed out trails, and impassible roads. 

Needless to say, that may impact whether you return to the park. 

And it doesn’t just impact the park, it also plays a role in the financial health of the hundreds of gateway communities that rely 

on park visitors for survival. In fact, in 2016 the 331 million visits 

to our national parks resulted in $18.4 billion in spending, and 

supported 318,000 jobs. 

As the conversation has increased around how to tackle the deferred maintenance backlog, there has been more discussion about 

what role philanthropy can play in helping to do so. Philanthropy 

can play a role, but it is limited to specific areas. Philanthropy is 

not a panacea for deferred maintenance. 

44 

Through our fundraising campaign, the Foundation has found 

that donors are enthusiastic about projects in national parks that 

rehab, repair, and build trails, as well as restoring historic buildings and memorials. What we haven’t found is donors who are willing to support roads, bridges, sewer systems, water pipes, or other 

hard infrastructure. This type of maintenance is viewed by donors 

as an inherently governmental responsibility that should be funded 

by Congress. Donors prefer to provide the margin of excellence that 

NPF can’t, because of lack of funds or because of the length and 

uncertainty of the appropriations process. 

The National Park Foundation is committed to continuing our 

work with Congress and our partners at NPS to do what we do 

best: raise philanthropic funds for our parks that match donor interest with Park Service need, including the backlog. 

It is important to note, though, that while NPF and local friends 

groups around the country have raised hundreds of millions of 

dollars for projects and programs, and while philanthropic enthusiasm for our parks has never been higher, philanthropy is not a 

panacea for deferred maintenance. 

Thank you. I look forward to answering your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rano follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JASON RANO, VICE PRESIDENT, GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, 

NATIONAL PARK FOUNDATION

Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva, and members of the Committee, 

thank you for holding this hearing on ‘‘Exploring Innovative Solutions to Reduce the 

Department of the Interior’s Maintenance Backlog’’ and inviting me to testify. My 

name is Jason Rano and I am the Vice President, Government Relations at the 

National Park Foundation, the congressionally chartered philanthropic partner of 

the National Park Service. 

Chartered by Congress in 1967, the National Park Foundation was founded on a 

legacy that began more than a century ago, when private citizens from all walks 

of life acted to establish and protect our national parks. As we celebrate our 50th 

anniversary throughout this year, the National Park Foundation carries on that 

tradition as the only national charitable non-profit whose sole mission is to directly 

support the National Park Service. 

As you know, 2016 was the 100th anniversary of the National Park Service. The 

National Park Service and National Park Foundation worked together hand-in-hand 

to take advantage of this ‘once in a lifetime’ opportunity to bring Americans of all 

ages, races, genders, ethnicities, sexual orientations, and political affiliations 

together to celebrate the Centennial and look forward to the second century of our 

national parks. 

Thanks in part to these efforts, 2016 saw a record level of visitation to our parks 

with 331 million visits. Just last week NPS released visitation numbers for 2017, 

which showed a similar number of visits to our 417 national parks. In fact, according to NPS, there were only 88,000 fewer visits to our parks in 2017 from the record 

setting number we saw in 2016. 

That visitation has risen and maintained these levels is a testament to the love 

and importance of our national parks for Americans and people from around the 

world. Our national parks tell the story of America—including important and difficult stories in our history. 

However, increased and sustained visitation to our national parks increases the 

already high strain on the facilities, roads, bridges, trails as well as hurting the 

visitor experience by creating traffic jams and not having enough staff to effectively 

interact with visitors. 

Secretary Zinke and many members of this Committee have made tackling the 

nearly $11.6 billion deferred maintenance backlog (as of September 30, 2017) a 

priority. 

The focus of my testimony today is the role of philanthropy in tackling the maintenance backlog—basically what can philanthropy do and what is best done with 

Federal dollars. 

45 

CENTENNIAL CAMPAIGN FOR AMERICA’S NATIONAL PARKS

As many of you are aware, one of the National Park Foundation’s priorities over 

the several years has been to capitalize on the philanthropic enthusiasm for our 

parks as part of our Centennial Campaign for America’s National Parks. Launched 

in February 2016 with an initial goal of $350 million, the campaign has raised $494 

million to date toward a goal of $500 million. We look forward to reaching this 

historic goal in the next several months. 

This money has been spent with an eye toward improving the visitor experience 

through the rehabilitation and repair of trails and facilities, protecting and restoring 

wildlife habitat, connecting 4th graders and their families to parks, and supporting 

the work of youth and veterans corps to enhance our parks. 

Deferred Maintenance 

The deferred maintenance backlog is a top priority for anyone who loves our 

national parks. As we see increased visitation we see increased strain on our 

parks—the facilities, the trails, the roads, the bridges, and the staff—all of which 

can have a negative impact on the visitor experience. 

The National Park Foundation’s Find Your Park/Encuentra Tu Parque campaign 

targeted the millennial generation as the next generation of park visitors, many of 

whom may be first time or infrequent visitors. Imagine being a first time visitor to 

a park and encountering closed bathrooms, washed out trails, and impassable roads. 

Needless to say that may impact whether you return to the park. And that doesn’t 

just impact the park. It also plays a role in the financial health of the hundreds 

of gateway communities that rely on park visitors for their survival. 

In 2016 the 331 million visits to our national parks resulted in $18.4 billion in 

spending and supported 318,000 jobs. 

PHILANTHROPIC ROLE IN DEFERRED MAINTENANCE

As the conversation has increased around how to tackle the deferred maintenance 

backlog there has been more discussion about what role philanthropy can play in 

helping to tackle the deferred maintenance backlog. Philanthropy can play a role 

but it is limited to specific areas and often provides the margin of excellence. 

Philanthropy is not a panacea for deferred maintenance. 

Through our fundraising campaign, the Foundation has found that donors are enthusiastic about projects in national parks that rehabilitate, repair, and build trails 

as well as restoring historic buildings and Memorials—like the Lincoln Memorial 

and Washington Monument. 

A few projects include: 

• $189,885 to date to support restoration and preservation of Grand Canyon 

National Park’s historic Train Depot. This ongoing project will address accessibility to the Depot for people with disabilities and support structural repairs 

to the Depot’s foundation. 

• $2 million in matching funds for a 2016 Centennial Challenge project to 

restore the Drakes Estero marine wilderness at Point Reyes National 

Seashore. NPF’s partnership with Point Reyes National Seashore allowed 

NPS to clean up 5 miles of oyster racks and remove more than 500 tons of 

aquaculture debris. 

• $303,034 to Sequoia & Kings Canyon National Parks and Sequoia Parks 

Conservancy to fund the parks’ 21st Century Conservation Service Corps 

since 2015. The Corps recruits disadvantaged young adults from Fresno and 

Los Angeles to work in the front and back country of Sequoia & Kings 

Canyon National Parks. Corps members gain a deep connection to the park 

and valuable training while completing projects such as wilderness trail 

maintenance, watering and care of restoration area plantings, interpretive 

services for visitors, boundary fencing assessment and repair, exotic vegetation removal, and more. 

• $26,000 for a 2015 Centennial Challenge project at Florissant Fossil Beds 

National Monument. NPF’s support was matched with $26,000 in Federal 

funds to help the park establish an interdisciplinary Youth Conservation 

Corps crew. The crew consisted of nine underserved youth from Colorado 

Springs who developed skills in trail maintenance, trail design and safety 

features, and protecting and monitoring paleontological sites. 

46 

• $150,000 to restore the helical staircase and replicate and install the original 

light fixtures at Glacier National Park’s historic Many Glacier Hotel. In partnership with Glacier National Park Conservancy, NPF’s funds helped restore 

the lobby to its historical significance. 

• Over $110,000 to support work on highly trafficked trails at Glacier National 

Park, including funding for a 21st Century Conservation Corps to reconstruct 

the park’s iconic Hidden Lake Trail at Logan Pass in 2016. 

• $121,250 to support a 5-year grant for Yellowstone National Park’s Youth 

Conservation Corps in partnership with Groundwork USA. In August 2017, 

participants created 60 feet of buck and rail fence, built and installed 20 

bumper guards, revitalized four campsites, maintained 6 miles of trail, 

revegetated 50 yards of steep mountain, and installed and maintained 47 

bear proof boxes. 

• $18.5 million for the rehabilitation and restoration of and expanded public 

space at The Lincoln Memorial. 

• $12.35 million for the full restoration of Arlington House, The Robert E. Lee 

Memorial. 

• $5.3 million to renovate and rehabilitate the Marine Corps War Memorial 

(Iwo Jima). 

• $3 million to renovate the elevator at the Washington Monument. 

What we haven’t found in our fundraising is donors who are willing to support 

roads, bridges, sewer systems, water pipes or other hard infrastructure. This type 

of maintenance is viewed by donors as inherently governmental responsibilities that 

should be funded by Congress. 

Donors understand that our parks need their support but also understand that 

our parks belong to all of us and that the government has a responsibility to fund 

them. Donors prefer to provide that margin of excellence that NPS can’t provide because of lack of funds or because it will take too long. 

Another important note on the role of philanthropy’s limitations is the overall 

dollars raised. NPF is very proud of our Centennial Campaign for America’s 

National Parks, which upon its completion will have raised $500 million over 5 

years (including the quiet phase of the campaign). In contrast, the Fiscal Year 2018 

Interior Appropriations bill passed by the House last year provides $2.9 billion for 

the National Park Service. Even if donors were willing to fund hard infrastructure, 

the dollars aren’t there to cover the needs. 

CONCLUSION

The National Park Foundation is committed to continuing to work with Congress 

and our partners at the National Park Service to raise philanthropic funds to support key projects and programs throughout the park system including those that 

help with the deferred maintenance backlog. 

It’s important to note though that while NPF and local friends groups around the 

country have raised hundreds of millions of dollars for projects and programs and 

while philanthropic enthusiasm for our parks has never been higher, philanthropy 

is not a panacea for deferred maintenance. 

There are a lot of tools that must be utilized to begin the process of improving 

the visitor experience for everyone. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank our witnesses for your oral testimony. 

Thank you all for staying within the time limit. We will now turn 

to questions from Committee members. 

I remind the Committee members also that we are on the 5- 

minute system here, so you have 5 minutes to ask the questions 

and have them answered. I am asking the Committee to be kind 

enough not to ask a question if there is not enough time to actually 

get an answer back, because I will still cut you off at 5 minutes. 

Mr. Lamborn, we come to you first. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for having this important hearing. Thank you to all of the witnesses for 

being here. 

47 

I would like to follow up on what you were just talking about, 

Mr. Smith. And Mr. Rano, thank you. Thank you. I couldn’t see the 

tag from here. 

But for both of you, we talk about philanthropy as having a 

role—not a panacea, but having an important role to play—and, I 

hope, an increasing role. What are the policies, and do we need to 

look again at the policies concerning giving recognition to that person? Without maybe billboards and over-commercialization, but a 

tasteful and reasonable recognition that I think is a legitimate and 

proper thing, especially if it keeps those contributions coming further. Could you both comment on that, please? 

Mr. RANO. I think that is absolutely right. And Director’s Order 

21, which was finalized a few years ago, made incredible progress 

in doing that. It has played a huge role in the Foundation being 

able to partner with corporate partners, and the recognition has 

been something that they have really appreciated. 

So, throughout the Find Your Park campaign, which actually 

continues in another form today, there was recognition of our premiere level corporate partners. And that is something that has 

helped bring in about $90 million in corporate donations to the 

Foundation, which has helped. 

Mr. LAMBORN. What about signs on the project itself? A sign 

saying this building was contributed through the funds of XYZ 

Corporation. 

Mr. RANO. I would have to defer to my Park Service colleague 

on that. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Smith? 

Mr. SMITH. The Park Service has come a long way with 

Director’s Order 21, and many of the philanthropic partners understand the limitations that have been put on donor recognition. 

Many of them are now fully aware that recognition on a donor 

board inside a visitor center or whatever else is a very substantial 

way to recognize this. To start to put nomenclature on every single 

thing that gets done, a walkway or bridge or whatever else, is 

problematic. 

In my short time back, I am hearing that the donor community 

understands the limits that we have on this, but understands that 

the recognition that we do now provide under Director’s Order 21 

does meet their needs. If it is more of a problem, certainly we can 

have that discussion. But I believe we have come a long way to addressing that issue, Congressman. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Well, I think we have come a long way, also. I 

would like to keep looking at that. Recognition is important, as 

long as we are striking the proper balance. 

And Mr. Smith, I have you talking here. I would like to follow 

up with a different question. The Committee recently passed the 

21st Century Conservation Service Corps Act, by unanimous consent. Secretary Zinke was a supporter of this bill when he was on 

this Committee. This bill would engage more corps and thousands 

of young people and veterans who serve in the corps, like in 

Colorado, to help address more high-priority projects, including 

backlog maintenance. 

Can you talk about the impact that getting thousands of more 

young people and veterans working on these projects would have? 

48 

Mr. SMITH. Congressman, it is one of the most thrilling things 

that I can deal with, coming back, to get youth to participate on 

the land, to realize stewardship, to get an understanding that these 

public lands are important to the American public. Fully, the 

Department and I, as Deputy Director of the Park Service, fully 

support getting as many of our youth on our Park Service sites 

nationwide through all the corps responsibilities, through the 

Student Conservation Association, through YMCAs, whatever. 

To connect young people and veterans back to these public lands 

is one of the best things we can do to support the National Park 

Service. And the Department is moving in that direction, certainly, 

to support that legislation and to get people on the ground. I have 

been signing grants to accomplish just that in the national parks 

for this coming year, involving all of those types of youth groups 

and veterans groups who will provide that on-the-ground stewardship this year. 

Mr. LAMBORN. So, these plans are coming along? 

Mr. SMITH. Yes. Yes, they are. 

Mr. LAMBORN. OK, I appreciate that. 

My time is drawing to a close, so I will yield back the balance 

of my time. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. You are doing really well. I am proud 

of you. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Grijalva, match that. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. I hate the unattainable goals that you set for me, 

Mr. Chairman. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Iobst—and I am sorry if I didn’t say that 

correctly—one of the deep concerns about the Fiscal Year 2019 

budget for the Department of the Interior is it basically eliminates 

all funding for Federal land acquisition. The budget document justifies this massive elimination and cut as an opportunity to then 

focus on deferred maintenance and other land management priorities. It undermines 50-plus years of success of the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund. And land acquisition, I think, is an important 

tool that makes management more efficient and does increase 

access to our public land. 

In your experience, sir, does land acquisition contribute to the 

deferred maintenance across the National Park System? 

Mr. IOBST. If I understand your question, does land acquisition 

contribute to the deferred maintenance backlog? 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Yes. 

Mr. IOBST. My experience is very little in holdings that are purchased, which actually reduce maintenance costs and operations 

costs in certain parks that I have worked with, like Rocky 

Mountain and Grand Teton. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. And yes, you just mentioned what the importance 

is in promoting access to public lands and acquisition. Do you have 

to eliminate, as is proposed in the budget, land acquisition to focus 

on deferred maintenance? 

Mr. IOBST. I don’t believe that it is something that is mutually 

exclusive. I think the Park Service and other agencies in the 

49 

Department of the Interior, based on my experience, need both emphases in order to carry out their mission. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Yes. Again, sir, if I may, the other concern is the 

lack of dependability and certainty of the funding stream in the 

President’s proposed Public Lands Infrastructure Fund. 

Construction projects, as mentioned, rely on multi-year funding 

that is known and dependable at the outset. It helps the National 

Park Service and other agencies to stage their project work with 

contractors. The uncertainty of available funding would create difficulty for National Park Service to engage in procurement and contracting that is needed to successfully repair these reconstruction 

projects that are run multi-year. 

In your perspective, and in your experience, with many different 

positions in the National Park Service that you have had, can you 

speak about the importance of that dependability of funding, 

particularly for multi-year projects? 

Mr. IOBST. Yes, sir, thank you. My experience, and not just large 

construction projects, but also programs like the repair rehab program and cyclic maintenance program that are part of the National 

Park Service appropriate—when I, as a park manager and as a 

chief of facility management, knew what a multi-year program 

looked like, there is a certain amount of preparation to take place 

at the park and through centralized contracting offices with project 

managers to anticipate and even do pre-planning for certain 

projects. 

Therefore, the more successful programs in the National Park 

Service, based on my experience, are those where there is a known 

and reliable funding source well into the future. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Yes. Do you have concerns, I mentioned two about 

the Administration’s proposal to fund deferred maintenance. Do 

you have other concerns that you would like to address at this 

point? 

Mr. IOBST. If I may, I am very encouraged by the idea of a dependable, reliable funding source that is significant in dollars to 

address what is approaching a $12 billion backlog in the Park 

Service. I do have concerns regarding operating funds and the fact 

that diminishment of operating funds in the Fiscal Year 2018 and 

Fiscal Year 2019 budgets, as examples, do nothing more than contribute to that deferred maintenance backlog, because that is why 

we are in the condition we are, if you will, with annual funding and 

operational funding never meeting the need, just to keep that deferred maintenance backlog from growing. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. And a self-fulfilling prophecy, which I think, in 

the course of the budget reductions across this area in the last decade and a half, has contributed to that backlog. And no investment 

that we can see, other than a wish and a hope that energy production is so robust, so huge, that it begins to deal with deferred 

maintenance. 

I appreciate your answer, and I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. McClintock. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Smith, what regulatory hurdles have you encountered in 

addressing these deferred maintenance needs? 

50 

Mr. SMITH. One more time, Congressman. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. What regulatory hurdles have you 

encountered? 

Mr. SMITH. Certainly in some of the ones that we do for our 

major projects, the Park Service, because of our historic buildings 

and because of the nature of our land holdings, we always have the 

National Environmental Policy Act to have to consider. And that is 

a process. The Secretary of the Interior has instructed us to 

streamline that process and not have it take years when we do 

environmental impacts. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Yes. I was going to say it is a big process. It 

goes on for many, many years, and runs up enormous costs. Does 

it not? 

Mr. SMITH. Yes. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. And how much does that add to our 

maintenance costs? This simply filling bureaucratic regulatory 

needs? 

Mr. SMITH. It is certainly part of the cost. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. How big a part? Would you hazard a guess? 

Mr. SMITH. I would not want to hazard a guess, but it is 

certainly—just in time, to get these projects on line—and then 

certainly there is a dollar amount, but I would not—— 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Would you have your folks look into that and 

get back to this Committee? I would like to know. Of these $12 

billion or so of deferred maintenance needs of the National Park 

Service, how much of it is the actual reconstruction of a bridge or 

repaving of a road, and how much of it is simply meeting all of 

these regulatory demands that we placed in your way. 

Mr. SMITH. We will provide that for the record, Congressman. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. I think that would be very enlightening for all 

of us. 

Mr. Rano, have we taken on too much public land? I am from 

California. We own 48 percent of California, 93 percent of my 

county of Alpine in the Sierra Nevada, 85 percent of the entire 

state of Nevada, 65 percent of Utah, 62 percent of Idaho and 

Alaska. 

A few years ago, Mr. Gohmert on this Committee compared the 

Federal Government to the old miser whose mansion is the city 

eyesore, the windows broken, paint peeling, weeds growing in the 

yard, because he spends all of his time and money plotting how to 

buy his neighbor’s properties. 

What is your viewpoint on this? 

Mr. RANO. Thank you, Congressman. The Foundation does not 

have a stance or a view on new units or purchasing too much land. 

We are asked from time to time by the Department and the Service 

to support new units with philanthropic money, which we are 

happy to do. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. But we can’t take care of the land we have. 

And as I look at these numbers, it looks like we have an awful lot. 

Mr. Puskar, what are your views on the subject? 

Mr. PUSKAR. The Public Lands Alliance very much supports the 

fact that so many visitors want to experience these public lands. 

And there is a distinction, we think, between the amount of public 

51 

land and what kind of built assets we need to create to make sure 

that the American public can really experience them. 

So, I absolutely believe that investing in roads so there is easier 

access to get into these places is—— 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. We had the National Park Service Director 

here a few years ago. I asked him, ‘‘What would be your preference, 

as far as prioritizing money, maintenance or acquiring new land?’’ 

He said maintenance. 

Mr. PUSKAR. I think, given the substantial hurdles that exist for 

it, I would agree with him. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Mr. Puskar, I want to go on to another question, and that is that concessionaires seem to take care of their 

facilities much more efficiently than the land management agencies. Should we be looking at more concession contracts as a better 

way to manage campsites, trails, restrooms, and other facilities? 

Mr. PUSKAR. There are certainly many ways in which the private 

sector can be supportive of those kinds of efforts. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. I am not talking about being supportive. I 

mean hiring to take care of the stuff that we can’t take care of. 

Mr. PUSKAR. Absolutely. And there are many non-profits across 

the system, as well, through historic leasing agreements, that are 

able to provide similar kinds of changes to the maintenance, to rehabilitate and ensure that those places can be used by the public. 

Historic leasing is one of those areas we think the Park Service can 

expand its work. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you. 

Mr. Rano, you mentioned record visitation of the national parks. 

But doesn’t that include visits to Washington, DC memorials, and 

the like? If I walked down the Capitol Mall and I just drop in to 

see the Lincoln Memorial, the Washington Monument, the Vietnam 

Veterans Memorial, the Korean War Memorial, does that count as 

five visitations? 

Mr. RANO. It does. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Because I am killing an hour on the Mall. 

Mr. RANO. Yes, but also—— 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. OK, what concerns me, though, is that number, I think, is very misleading. What is going to happen to 

overnight stays? It is the overnight stays that I think better represent the use of our national parks as planned destinations for 

visitors. 

The CHAIRMAN. You will get a chance to—— 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Up or down? Is it going up or going down? 

Mr. RANO. I don’t have that number. 

The CHAIRMAN. OK. Ms. Bordallo. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Smith, the 1978 Federal law that establishes the War in the 

Pacific National Historic Park directs the National Park Service to 

employ and train residents of Guam and the Northern Marianas 

Islands to develop, maintain, and administer the park. The directive reflects the fact that locally hired staff have less turnover, 

especially in remote but very important national park units like 

Guam’s War in the Pacific National Park. 

Can you please speak to the National Park Service’s efforts to 

meet this congressional directive? I have heard numerous 

52 

complaints from my constituents that the National Park Service 

does not attempt to recruit Guam residents for staffing vacancies 

at the War in the Pacific National Historic Park. I have seen this, 

myself, so Mr. Smith, could you answer that? 

Mr. SMITH. Yes, Delegate. I am not personally aware of the situation, but I certainly will look into it. With that kind of direction, 

and especially with the location of Guam, I don’t know why we 

wouldn’t consider residents of Guam for those positions. But sitting 

here today, I do not have a definitive answer on that. 

I will look into it. Again, with that congressional direction, we 

certainly will look to see what that situation is on Guam. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Smith, can you then get that report back to 

my office? 

Mr. SMITH. Yes, I will get something back to you very shortly. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you. I appreciate that. My next question 

is for Mr. Guertin. 

As this Committee examines how best to eliminate the maintenance backlog, we should also look at how agencies within the DOI 

budget for and prioritize projects. 

I understand that the Fish and Wildlife Service gives significant 

deference to its regions in how resources are allocated among the 

national wildlife refuge units during the annual budgeting process. 

My question to you is, some regions appear to link the amount 

budgeted for operations and maintenance to the number of fulltime employees assigned to each refuge. This effectively shortchanges refuges that are under-staffed, but have substantial needs. 

Mr. Guertin, can you please confirm whether Region 1, which includes the Pacific territories and Guam National Wildlife Refuge, 

engages in this budgeting practice? 

Mr. GUERTIN. Thank you for your question. We have about a $40 

million allocation we ship out to the eight regions of the Fish and 

Wildlife Service for deferred maintenance. We tier those allocations 

off the Secretary’s priorities of sportsmen’s access, taking care of 

habitat, health and safety, and eroding the high-priority maintenance backlog as the national level drivers. 

There is some discretion given to the eight operating units at the 

regional level to sub-allocate, based on regional priorities. I am not 

completely aware of the specifics of your question on the specifics 

of Region 1. We would be glad to provide an update for you after 

the hearing and give you a more detailed answer on what happens 

between Portland, Oregon and the field station out there. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you. A quick question here. My concern is 

that linking budgeting to the number of full-time employees does 

not reflect accurately the unique maintenance public safety needs 

at our refuges. 

So, Mr. Guertin, will the Fish and Wildlife Service commit to 

make the Service’s standard guidance for regional budgeting available to the members of this Committee? 

Mr. GUERTIN. Yes, we certainly will. 

Ms. BORDALLO. All right, thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Will you yield for 1 second? 

Ms. BORDALLO. Yes. 

53 

The CHAIRMAN. Put 1 minute back out there. That is how much 

time you didn’t use. I like the question you asked. 

Mr. Guertin, would you give her a direct answer? Is the number 

of employees a precondition or a condition that is used in allocation 

of the budget, which is what she was asking? 

Mr. GUERTIN. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I can fully brief you on what 

we do at the national level. I am not 100 percent personally confident of what happens at the regional level to drive their allocations. That is why I am asking if we can brief you back after I do 

the due diligence and research for the benefit of the leadership 

here. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. That was a unique question. I 

appreciate you getting back with us on that answer. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Please get back to us. It is important. 

Mr. GUERTIN. Yes, ma’am. You bet. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

All right. We are done? Ms. Bordallo, you have more? 

Ms. BORDALLO. I yield. 

The CHAIRMAN. We are done? 

OK. Mr. LaMalfa. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And our witnesses, for 

your time and testimony today and expertise. Again, I will come 

back to Mr. Smith. I also wanted to follow up Mr. McClintock on 

NEPA. 

It is interesting. Some hearing meetings we hear the statements 

that NEPA never costs or delays any project that we are trying to 

do in this country. What kind of things do you see, Mr. Smith, 

when you are trying to renovate a building sometimes already existing in a park 50 or 60 or more years, what do you learn from 

having done the NEPA study about that renovation that causes a 

different effect than what you would have just done if you had just 

redone that piece of infrastructure, building a road, a trail, what 

have you? 

Does NEPA cause you to have to do different things to that infrastructure that you would not have done, had you just gone out and 

done it? 

Mr. SMITH. NEPA can, depending on where the structure is and 

what you are doing. 

But in the case of historic buildings, we have to deal with Section 

106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. And that is a shorter 

process, but it does require coordination with the state historic 

preservation officer, which then requires certain public hearings 

and that type of thing. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Is that a conflict? 

Mr. SMITH. It is not a conflict. We have tremendous coordination 

with the state historic preservation officers. 

Mr. LAMALFA. I mean does it conflict with NEPA goals by having 

that goal? Does that mean you cannot restore historically, because 

NEPA is causing you to do something else? 

Mr. SMITH. It doesn’t prevent us, but you do go through the process to get to a final decision that you can take actions on buildings 

or roads. You do have those processes to consider. 

Mr. LAMALFA. And does that change the nature of building the 

road from its intention or from how it historically really was? 

54 

Mr. SMITH. No. Usually, it gets you to where you need to be to 

be accurate, as far as your historic preservation, or—— 

Mr. LAMALFA. The NEPA process means you don’t have to tear 

out a road, tear out a fence, tear out a building, or make it smaller, 

or something on that order? 

Mr. SMITH. No, NEPA would not—— 

Mr. LAMALFA. So, what do you actually learn from going through 

the NEPA process about restoring something that has already been 

there? 

Mr. SMITH. Well, that is, again, more of the historic preservation 

process, rather than NEPA. 

Mr. LAMALFA. But you are still required to do a NEPA, which 

takes how long and how much cost? On average, who knows? It 

doesn’t really matter right now for this Committee, other than it 

takes a lot of time and extra cost. 

What do you learn from going through a NEPA that really helps 

you in the process? See, to me, it seems like it just slows you down 

and helps the $12 billion, or whatever the number is, get larger, 

and the list get longer and older. 

Mr. SMITH. In my experience as a superintendent, when I dealt 

with my historic buildings, it was with the National Historic Preservation Act, not so much NEPA. NEPA comes into effect on these 

big projects such as sewer systems and that type of thing that do 

affect the environment around the project. 

I may be slightly missing your context, Congressman. But those 

two Acts, the regulations from those, are used in determining what 

we do on projects within the parks. It is a process that does require 

time, but in the final analysis, we do get to answers. 

I will say again that Secretary Zinke has streamlined the process 

and we are now shortening our NEPA process. He is stating that 

we need to do those within a year, and we are moving to do those 

time frames. 

Mr. LAMALFA. And I appreciate he is doing that. He has been in 

place a little over a year. Has this process actually played out? 

Have you had a chance to do it in practice, and then not been sued 

over having a shortened process yet? 

Mr. SMITH. There is always a chance to be sued, Congressman. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Have you been sued yet over the shortened 

process? 

Mr. SMITH. To the best of my knowledge, we have not. And I 

have sent the guidance to the National Park Service, within the 

past 4 weeks that I have been in the Department, of our streamlining procedures. 

Some of that decision will be that we will go to environmental 

assessments, rather than full-blown EISs. In that case, you do 

sometimes leave yourself vulnerable for lawsuits. But if an EA is 

done properly, it cuts that time limit down dramatically, and you 

can get to the goals that we hope to get to and be sensitive to the 

environment. 

Mr. LAMALFA. I am short of time here. Let me ask. What is your 

inventory of dead or dying trees in your western states’ parks, 

especially? 

Mr. SMITH. I don’t have a definitive answer on that, but it 

certainly is a problem in our national parks. 

55 

Mr. LAMALFA. Would you believe that having a process where 

you could be thinning out and removing some of this material 

might make our parks safer? How many of your parks have been 

burned out in the last 15 or 20 years because of this? 

Mr. SMITH. I can certainly provide that number for the 

Committee. And, yes, the Secretary again has sent instructions 

that we need to be looking at various ways to manage these lands 

and to remove that stored up fuel source in these parks to 

hopefully—— 

Mr. LAMALFA. How bold are you willing to be to actually do 

something about it, instead of continuing to look at it? 

Mr. SMITH. I believe we are moving to remove materials, not just 

look at it, under the Secretary’s plan to take action on these parks. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Beyer. 

Mr. BEYER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks all of you for 

being here. 

I really want to thank Deputy Director Smith for working with 

me and my office on the GW Parkway South, the speeding problems, the accident problems. All of our constituents are very 

grateful. 

Mr. Iobst, you write that a fee revenue is critical. But it can only 

be increased so much without becoming prohibitive, and even the 

recently proposed fee hike for the peak visiting seasons would address less than 1 percent of the National Park Service backlog. 

I am really concerned about the tripling of fees at a number of 

parks like Shenandoah National Park during peak season for two 

reasons. Number one, is the price elasticity of demand, are you actually going to raise more or less? And Number two, not only is it 

chasing away potential visitors, but the fact that places like 

Shenandoah are weekend retreats for local residents, rather than 

destinations like Yosemite or Yellowstone. 

I understand there is also a four-tier fee structure that the Park 

Service has in place. How much revenue will be generated for deferred maintenance if all the parks that are authorized to use the 

four-tier structure actually use it? And is this a better alternative 

than tripling the fees at places like Shenandoah? 

Mr. IOBST. Thank you very much for your question. Early in my 

career, I spent 2 years in Shenandoah National Park, so I am very 

familiar with that place. 

Mr. BEYER. Lots of bears. 

Mr. IOBST. And beautiful valley. So, I guess I would agree with 

your comments. My concern, both professionally and personally, is 

I don’t know what the price point is. I am not sure if the National 

Park Service has ever studied what the price point is today versus 

5 years ago versus, you know, 5, 10 years into the future, with regard to appropriate fees for entry to the national parks. 

Again, my quick analysis that was performed for my testimony 

with regard to the current proposed doubling of fees in, I think, 17 

parks in the Service during the 5-month or 7-month—I can’t 

remember whether it was 5 or 7—main visitor season, again, the 

amount of revenue that that would contribute, as I said in my testimony, was about 1 percent of what that backlog is. 

56 

So, what is the cause and effect here? And what we don’t know 

is who does that prohibit from coming to parks? I believe, personally and professionally, that it would prohibit some people from 

coming to parks. If you compare a trip to Disneyland or a movie 

and a pizza or whatever it is, I don’t think those are very good 

comparisons. 

The fact of the matter is that the difference is that these were 

created mostly by the Congress. There is a responsibility through 

the appropriation process to properly fund these parks. What is before us is a significant effort in that direction. And my concern is 

that the intent may be good, but the effect of that may prevent 

those, especially from diverse parts of our Nation, from coming to 

our parks. 

Mr. BEYER. My concern is it is now $70 to take your family for 

a hike in Shenandoah Park. 

Mr. Iobst, again, you wrote and I am going to edit, ‘‘we commend 

Senator Warner et al. for introducing the National Park Service 

Legacy Act. . . . The bill would dedicate more than $11 billion to 

the parks backlog through receipts from onshore and offshore 

energy development not otherwise dedicated to other purposes.’’ 

Then a page later you talk about worrying about explicitly linking infrastructure funding to environmentally threatening and 

damaging energy production, et cetera. How do you link those two? 

And is there a danger of ramping up fossil fuel, ramping up the 

climate change, danger to the parks in putting those two together? 

Mr. IOBST. That is specifically the concern of the National Parks 

Conservation Association, who I represent, that the interest in 

energy development, how close is that going to be to public lands. 

And then how much of it takes place on public lands? Certainly 

there are public lands where oil and gas development and coal 

mining and other mineral extraction take place. 

The concern is how much of that is directly related to damaging 

air quality, water quality, scenic vistas in as well as out of national 

parks, specifically, to other public lands. In other words, at what 

cost to the environment, to the quality of life, would that increased 

extraction cause in order to fund the deferred maintenance 

backlog? And that is a concern. 

Mr. BEYER. Thank you. 

Mr. Guertin, a very short answer. I will not ask my whole question. Elephant importation. You changed your mind from where the 

President was. What is the current state in Zimbabwe, Zambia? 

Mr. GUERTIN. Congressman, we are continuing to work with the 

White House and DOI political leadership on a new vision to govern the importation of all sport-hunted trophies. We have 

announced—should I keep going, sir? 

The CHAIRMAN. No. You are right to stop. Give them time to get 

the answers in. 

Mr. Westerman. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the 

witnesses for being here today. I am from Hot Springs, Arkansas, 

where Hot Springs National Park is located. Some people may not 

realize, but the thermal waters there were discovered in the 1500s 

by DeSoto and had been used, estimated, thousands of years before 

by indigenous peoples. The park was first set aside in 1832 by an 

57 

Act of Congress, before Arkansas was even a state, and long before 

the National Park System was ever in existence. So, there is a long 

history of recreation and protection there in the thermal waters of 

Hot Springs. 

In the 1800s, spring baseball was invented in Hot Springs 

National Park because the baseball teams came there to take the 

waters, as they would say, and they started doing spring practice. 

It was a very popular tourist destination for a long time. But as 

time went on, less people used the park, and there were these magnificent bathhouses there that began to sit idle. 

So, in Hot Springs the Park Service started doing these longterm leases. It was a pretty innovative process that they developed 

there, where they would do the lease and, instead of the Park 

Service having to keep these historic buildings maintained and 

keep the heating and cooling on the building, they would get tenants that would come in and remove that maintenance cost, but 

also generate a little bit of income through the lease, and also create a lot of economic develop there, with tourists coming in. 

They even have now, it is the only one in the Park Service that 

has a brewery that uses the thermal waters to make beer in one 

of the bathhouses. Pretty creative and innovative. 

Mr. Smith, are historic property leasing contracts like the ones 

going on in Hot Springs an innovative method for addressing 

Interior maintenance backlog? 

Mr. SMITH. Congressman, I believe so. And I dealt with those 

bathhouses back as far as the 1980s, when I was at the Department. So, I am familiar with that unbelievable history at Hot 

Springs. 

Historic leasing is certainly something in the Park Service that 

we have in policy. Each one is a case-by-case. For me to hear that 

you have one that is very successful and very innovative is certainly the way that the Agency is moving. I don’t know what the 

rest of your question is, except that that is a very positive sign. 

Historic leases are difficult in some ways because of the investment that we require for those properties. And if you have gotten 

over that hump, then obviously it is something that we should look 

at in other areas. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. Yes. Out of all the bathhouses there, there is 

only one that is not currently in use or under lease. They just 

created a new lease to make a boutique hotel and a destination getaway in one of the bathhouses. 

But my question is are there other places in the Department of 

the Interior where leases are being utilized like that, or where they 

could be used to remove some of the maintenance backlog? 

Mr. SMITH. There certainly are. Right now none come to my 

mind, but I could certainly provide those for the record. And we do 

look for those. They are not as easy in some areas as others, because of the amount that is required to go in and take over those 

properties. But in dealing with some of our non-profits and some 

of our other people who have testified today, those are the innovative ways to now address these problems through historic leasing. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. Yes, I know that in Hot Springs the maintenance backlog is about $12 to $13 million, and most of that is in 

58 

roadways. From looking at the data, I believe across the national 

parks, well over half of the maintenance backlog is in roadways. 

We have already talked about private-public partnerships, the 

issues that you face trying to get private donors to fund roadways 

or sewer systems or other parts of the infrastructure that are critical, but might not look quite as good in an advertisement to say 

you supported that. 

I am running out of time, but as far as the roadways, are we seeing more and more transportation systems degrading, or is there 

any kind of improvement? Have you been able to stabilize that over 

the years? 

Mr. SMITH. We certainly have degrading systems. I believe that 

about 5,000 of our 70,000 roads are in deferred maintenance at this 

time. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Costa. 

Mr. COSTA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I think the 

oversight hearing exploring innovative solutions to reduce the 

Department of the Interior’s maintenance backlog on our parks and 

our recreational facilities throughout the country is appropriate. 

And I think we all know what the challenge is. 

This backlog has not happened yesterday or the day before. It 

has accumulated over decades. And when we look at just the 

National Park Service, we are talking about 417 units covering 

more than 84 million acres. The deferral backlog there is $11 

billion of the $16 billion in totality that there is estimated to be 

when we include all of the other refuges, wetlands, and special 

management areas that are a part of Interior’s overall 

responsibility. 

I have been one of those that has been critical of the Secretary’s 

proposal to simply try to deal, at least with a part of this backlog, 

through increase in fees for parks across the country, or some of 

the major parks, because I think that is an uneven way to handle 

it, and does not really get to the heart of the problem. And it certainly, I think, creates tremendous disadvantages for Americans 

who want to enjoy their parks, whether people are going for a 

destination vacation, or whether people are nearby. 

Let me use, as an example, one of the glamour parks, for lack 

of a better term, but certainly one of America’s great national 

parks, Yosemite, that is in my backyard. Yosemite’s maintenance 

backlog is estimated to be over $550 million. A lot of us who are 

in the area like to think it is our park. But King’s Canyon is also 

a part of that, as well. 

They have a maintenance backlog of buildings, $107 million; 

campgrounds, $4 million; housing, $16 million; paid roads, which 

is access to the park, $269 million is the single largest deferred; 

$17 million in trails; $3 million in unpaved roads; $73 million in 

water systems. So, you add it all up, it is $555 million. 

Because it is a legacy park, and because it has an international 

reputation as well as a national reputation, there is a lot of support. The Yosemite Conservation Foundation, that I support, and 

many other people have raised over $100 million in recent years. 

That $100 million distributed about $6 to $10 million annually. 

And they get about $20 million in donations because it is such a 

59 

high legacy park and there is a lot of attraction to it. But private 

sector donations literally by itself is not enough to deal with $555 

million in backlog. 

So, I think we have to look at some other areas that provide support for not only the high profile parks in this country that get the 

most amount of usage, but also all of the other park units, and wetlands, and other areas. I think the National Park Service Legacy 

Act that Congressman Will Hurd has that is a bipartisan bill, one 

that I am a co-sponsor, that is a companion measure to the Warner 

bill on the Senate side, is the way to do it. It would provide $11 

billion over 30 years to address maintenance backlog through receipts of offshore and onshore energy development already dedicated to other important purposes, like the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund. 

I think this is an area that we can and should have bipartisan 

support, unlike other issues in this Committee, where we tend to 

have a more partisan perspective. The fact of the matter is that so 

many of our national parks throughout the country need the 

support. 

This money, that would be generated over a period of time, 

would provide backlog for transportation projects that Congress 

needs. We also need to look at challenges to the Highway Trust 

Fund. For many of these parks, the challenge is access. So, I think 

that we can and should do something about this, not just for our 

legacy parks, but the other units. 

So, I would hope, Mr. Chairman, that we could kind of focus our 

time on a bipartisan bill that could provide real money to do this. 

Certainly I think raising the fees is not the answer to addressing 

this issue. I yield back the balance of my time. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. We will have a bipartisan bill. Just 

keep doing what I tell you to do, and everything is OK. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Thompson. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, Chairman. Thanks, members of the 

panel, for being here. A very important topic, dealing with our 

maintenance backlog. 

Mr. Smith, there is a 2016 Government Accountability Office 

(GAO) report on the National Park Service asset maintenance 

prioritization. And it noted that ‘‘the Park Service does not have a 

plan or time frame for evaluating whether the capital investment 

strategy has been successful.’’ 

Has the National Park Service leadership made efforts to examine the strategy since the study’s release, to ensure that taxpayer 

dollars were being directed in the most effective and efficient 

manner regarding deferred maintenance? 

Mr. SMITH. Congressman, yes. I have been briefed in my short 

time back that we are looking at the actual management system, 

managing the assets to really make that process make more sense 

to the field, to get numbers that we actually can rely on. 

Then, through the capital investment strategy, we are looking at 

ways to make that more transparent to where we are actually putting our assets. And that is a ground-up type of review. It is not 

top-down. 

60 

Mr. THOMPSON. Very good. Well, I wanted to follow up on the 

capital investment strategy. It doesn’t seem like it has been successful, or maybe just minimally so, because the deferred maintenance backlog has grown by almost $2 billion over the past decade. 

Do you think the capital investment strategy is successful? And 

if so, what are your measures of success? 

Mr. SMITH. The last 4 years especially, Congressman, the deferred maintenance is, basically we are keeping it level. I hope 

Congress realizes we will never get to zero on deferred maintenance. But it would be very important to get it down to a much 

lower number in the billions of dollars. 

Again, being back just this short time, I probably need to get 

more information on the strategy, and I certainly will provide that 

to the Committee. 

Mr. THOMPSON. As we have seen, the National Park Service has 

certainly been particularly popular in the past few years, which is 

great. Has the Park Service taken any steps to leverage this newfound interest, and create new streams of revenue to help with 

addressing some of the backlog issues? 

Mr. SMITH. You have heard from our partners that have appeared today as witnesses that those efforts—obviously, the 

Secretary is looking at fees, we do have a fee structure, and he is 

coming at it in a different angle. We are working with him on options to look at the best way. 

But the fee structure, whether you deal with it on a local level 

or a state level, fees are part of what you do to keep these areas 

that are so important to people available. And the fee structure 

that we have in the Park Service has been an important element 

in that. 

I believe last year it was $318 million that was derived from that 

system. I remember in the mid-1980s, we actually endeavored to 

come to Congress to establish a fee program, so it has been tremendously successful in generating those funds. 

What is before the Committee today in concept with this new infrastructure fund is a way to look at this. And we hope that, in 

coordination and cooperation with the Committee, we will get to a 

bill that will provide this type of funding for deferred maintenance. 

We don’t have all the answers, but we are trying to find solutions. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you. 

Mr. Guertin, thanks for testifying before the Committee. I appreciate your kind of focus, your emphasis on collaborative efforts. I 

have always believed one-size-fits-all solutions rarely work. And in 

this case, Federal funding is certainly necessary to help eliminate 

the Department’s backlog, but it is not the final and only solution. 

You had mentioned a number of collaborative efforts between the 

Department and outside organizations that have created opportunities to improve Federal lands. How can we create more of these opportunities, moving forward, and leverage the Federal dollars with 

local, with non-profits, with all the different places that we see 

when we do collaboration? 

Mr. GUERTIN. Thank you for your question, Congressman. 

Secretary Zinke is really stressing the idea of conservation without 

conflict and collaborating across landscapes in developing a shared 

vision amongst the partners. Certainly that drives the Fish and 

61 

Wildlife Service, our refuge system hatcheries and our other 

Federal agencies to partner with groups like these, the private sector, the all-important relationship with the state fish and game 

agencies and the state parks departments and the other Federal 

agencies to develop this shared vision, go after these bundled or 

larger program implementation schemes, and leverage all of our 

dollars against these shared objectives. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Ms. Hanabusa. 

Ms. HANABUSA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My question is to 

Steven, is it Iobst? 

Mr. Iobst, thank you, first of all, for your 43 years of service to 

the Park Service. I would like to ask you. Can you distinguish between yearly maintenance and deferred maintenance? At what 

point does it become deferred maintenance? And what is the problem? Is the problem the way the National Park Service looks at 

maintenance, is it that we have this huge deferred maintenance 

backlog, and we are meeting our yearly maintenance requirements? 

Mr. IOBST. Thank you for the question. I should also say, and I 

said earlier, thank you very much for your support of the National 

Park Service Legacy Act. 

Ms. HANABUSA. Thank you. 

Mr. IOBST. The deferred maintenance begins on a facility, whether it is a road or a trail, the day it is constructed. It is man-made 

or human-made, and if the funding is not there year after year to 

do the routine maintenance, replace critical components, re-roof 

buildings, re-paint, do renovations and restoration, as necessary, on 

buildings that are maintained into perpetuity, which is our mission, then there becomes this gap between annualized funding, if 

you will, through appropriations, donations, and other fund 

sources, and the real need, so that every year that—40 percent in 

Yellowstone—my experience in Yellowstone was annual funding or 

routine maintenance funding met about 40 percent of the need that 

was determined by the park asset management planning process, 

which is a very reliable process of understanding what the need is. 

That gap will grow every year, because your 40 percent, 40 percent 

of the 100 percent that is necessary. 

Ms. HANABUSA. So, in other words, 60 percent every year is 

falling into this category called deferred maintenance. 

Mr. IOBST. Yes, that is a simplistic way to look at it, ma’am, but 

yes, that is essentially what is happening. 

Ms. HANABUSA. And when we introduced the legacy fund, our intent was to figure out some independent funding source that would 

sort of assist in making up the difference, because clearly the annual appropriations are not going to do it. And even if we try to 

get some sort of partnership, that is not going to do it, because that 

amount is a huge amount. 

What would you say is the deferred maintenance now at Yellowstone? You said about $400-something million? 

Mr. IOBST. It is close to half-a-billion dollars. 

Ms. HANABUSA. Half a billion? And the total amount for the 

whole Park Service is amounting to what? How much would you 

say? 

62 

Mr. IOBST. The report that came out in I think it was late January or February of this year for 2017 puts it at about $11.6 

billion, service-wide. 

Ms. HANABUSA. Do you know how the National Park Service 

prioritizes who will get the funds? 

Mr. IOBST. Well, there was never enough for Yellowstone. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. HANABUSA. Of course, I expected you to say that. 

Mr. IOBST. Or other parks I worked at. 

Yes, I do understand. And there are different fund sources. There 

is the operation of the National Park System, which includes, with 

regard to routine maintenance dollars, repair, rehab, other programs that are an annual appropriation, those are somewhat based 

on history, if you will. 

However, our science, as I call it, for facilities, the asset management plans, the system that we have used for a number of years, 

it generates priorities based on how important that asset, whether 

it is a road or historic structure, concession operated facility, is to 

the significance of that park, and how it serves visitors. 

So, the assets are prioritized and then, depending on the size of 

the project that is necessary, there is a competition that takes 

place. However, it is based on need, and it is park need, and then 

against the needs of other parks in that region and then, ultimately, against all the parks in the system. 

Ms. HANABUSA. So, would it be a correct statement to say that 

a popular park, which is used more than another esoteric park, for 

example, would probably get the maintenance funds before that 

park that is not in such a demand? 

Mr. IOBST. No, that is not true. It depends on the significance of 

the asset. 

Ms. HANABUSA. Thank you very much. And I hope you call upon 

your, I think it is about 1.2 million, members of the National Park 

Conservation Association to assist us with getting the legacy fund 

bill through. Thank you very much and I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Bergman. 

Mr. BERGMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thanks to all of 

you for being here. You learn never say always and never say 

never, because Murphy will make a liar out of you real quickly. I 

saw a flag quilt downstairs in the Capitol a month ago that said, 

‘‘Freedom is always worth fighting for.’’ So, I have changed my 

mind on there is one always. 

In addition to the Natural Resources Committee, why I bring 

that up at this point is I also serve on Veterans Affairs. As a 

veteran, honoring our military service members’ sacrifices to our 

country is very important, not only to me, but to all of us, and I 

know you, as well. 

More than one-third of our national parks commemorate and interpret military history. These parks have roughly $6.2 billion— 

with a B—in deferred maintenance, roughly half of the total backlog, I understand. In addition to these military heritage parks, 

parks in general offer places of restoration and of healing to our 

returning vets of all ages. 

Mr. Smith, what is the Department’s plan to ensure that these 

park sites are in good repair and honor the memory and the service 

63 

of our veterans, and still provide a place of positive refuge for them 

when they seek it? 

Mr. SMITH. Congressman, as a veteran and the son of a veteran, 

I would certainly associate myself with your remarks. And, as you 

know, part of those units that you are talking about came to us in 

the 1930s, all the national cemeteries came to us, the battlefields 

came from other departments. Those are certainly in line with our 

operations of the National Park System, all of those parks certainly 

are in that mix for annual funding. 

We also, for the Civil War parks, we have wonderful partners, 

Civil War Trust, who is out there, working with us on land issues 

at those parks, and bringing money outside the government to take 

care of preserving those types of areas that you have mentioned. 

I must admit that I have never heard that breakout that you just 

gave, of there being that many of the units of the National Park 

System that have that theme. But I believe we are very responsive 

in those historic areas to make sure that we tell that history, from 

the Mall here, with all of the monuments that have been built, to 

the battlefields around the country, such as Gettysburg or 

Manassas. 

Mr. BERGMAN. Thank you. This is a question for any or all of you 

to respond to. When you have deferred maintenance you are probably going to have a combination of materials, whether it be things 

like asphalt or gravel or fertilizer or building materials, whatever, 

but something that is a physical material that you have to purchase or grow or whatever, and you are going to have labor. And 

you may have a third cost in your equation. 

In your numbers, is there a breakdown of half of it is labor, half 

of it is materials, 70 percent, whatever? Anybody? Could you give 

me an idea of what the breakdown of that money is? 

Mr. IOBST. I would be happy to answer that question. It is a 

field-driven system of need and project that is based on the very 

simple work order. It can be a whole building or a component of 

a building. Within that work order are estimated costs for labor, 

for materials. There are equipment costs. Different specialized 

equipment may be necessary on that project. There is a breakdown 

on the individual work order or activity or specific project that then 

works its way up through the system, so that that information is 

provided on any specific project. 

Mr. BERGMAN. Let me ask you a question. Are these contracts let 

to a vendor to perform the work that includes the labor and the 

materials in it? Or do you purchase separately? In other words, 

let’s say if there was not enough money to go around, and we know 

there is not enough money to go around. OK? Materials you have 

to have. Wherever you buy them, hopefully, best practices are 

going to get you the best quantity, price. But labor could come from 

different sources. 

Are we able to do that, if we got money and said, OK, we are 

going to put it all in materials, but oh, by the way, here is what 

we are going to do with labor. Have you done that before? Or have 

you considered that? 

Mr. IOBST. We have done projects like that, based on my experience, where it may all be contract, where all the costs are covered 

by a contract, whether certain overhead costs and things like that. 

64 

However, there have been projects where government has 

supplied—— 

Mr. BERGMAN. I see my time has expired, Mr. Chairman. I yield 

back. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Soto. 

Mr. SOTO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Director Guertin, we have a relocation permit in Winter Haven, 

Florida for the sand skink. The initial approval has been approved, 

but there has been quite a delay in getting the publication. This 

is in an area, a socio-economically depressed status that, we have 

a community center. So, I hope that your office can look into that 

for us. 

Mr. GUERTIN. Thank you for your question, Congressman. I am 

aware of this project. We have been working very closely with the 

municipal government. We have allowed them to move forward 

with about 98 percent of the footprint of the entire project period 

to work on construction. We have asked them to buffer about 2 

percent for the skink population down there. 

We are required to go through some additional steps, including 

a 30-day public comment period, but this is an enormous priority 

for our office down there, the region. And from the Director’s Office 

we will keep it pedal to the metal, and check back with your office 

with further progress updates. 

Mr. SOTO. Thank you. This is an important project in our 

district. 

I wanted to also reach out about the status of the Florida 

manatees. What is the current endangered status? Is it threatened 

now? And is there any additional movement that we may see on 

the Florida manatee? 

Mr. GUERTIN. We have downgraded them, Congressman, to a 

threatened status. This is a success story, working in partnership 

with the Florida Game and Fish Commission, with the recreational 

boating community, and with a lot of the youth groups and other 

industry and community groups down there who are all very interested in the ongoing status of manatee populations. They are a 

beloved animal in Florida and the rest of the country, and we are 

all very hopeful that we can ultimately move toward recovery of 

that species. 

But I come back to, this is an enormous partnership effort and 

a shared vision with the great people of Florida and recreational 

boaters out there. 

Mr. SOTO. I just want to express my concern of shifting it further 

than that, because we have a large shift in population based upon 

if we have a cold winter. We could have hundreds of Florida 

manatee die, so I just want you to be aware of the erratic nature 

of the population there. 

Mr. GUERTIN. Yes, sir. And a lot of that is contingent on how 

they over-winter each year. Disease comes in, red tide, other external impacts. But the proactive nature of conservation, of everybody 

pulling together toward this shared objective is really helping all 

of us keep an eye on the fate of this beloved species. 

Mr. SOTO. I also wanted to reach out about the Florida panther. 

I know there have been ample studies in Florida universities about 

how this is a subspecies and warrants protection. And right now 

65 

it is protected. Is there any push to try to change that now or in 

the near future? 

Mr. GUERTIN. We are currently just evaluating the status of the 

species throughout Florida. My wife is from Okeechobee, Florida, 

so I am pretty familiar with a lot of those animals and habitat 

down there. But we are a science-driven agency, sir. We are working very closely with State Fish and Game to keep an eye on an 

ultimate path toward recovery. A lot of this is going to be corridors 

for them to move from safe zones to others. We also have a lot of 

potential conflict issues we have to work with: agriculture, landowners, and even homeowners and pets. But we are working very 

closely with our state counterparts on that front, sir. 

Mr. SOTO. And we are certainly sensitive to the balance. We just 

want to make sure it is no longer deemed a subspecies when there 

is ample scientific basis from some of our local universities. 

I next want to turn to what Congressman Beyer started talking 

about, the trophies of African elephants from Zimbabwe and 

Zambia. As you know, there has been a 30 percent decline in the 

African elephant population from 2007 to 2014. And I see, in the 

case-by-case, this is going to be ESA findings and scientific-based 

assessment. 

My question is, when do you make an assessment for the whole 

species, rather than an individual elephant basis, since all of them 

would be in a similar risk? How would it work with a case-by-case 

assessment? 

Mr. GUERTIN. Sure, Congressman. We had a response to a recent 

D.C. Circuit Court opinion, and we are trying to balance the mandates of that opinion with our responsibilities. We are revising our 

procedures and assessing applications for these findings on an application-by-application basis, rather than on a country-wide basis. 

We are always willing to be driven by the science, the larger status 

of these species. 

This comes back to the larger argument—what role does hunting 

play in species conservation? What role does the dollars sportsmen 

invest in guides, permits, outfitters, the rates that they are 

paying—— 

Mr. SOTO. Would elephants in each of these countries be equally 

at risk? 

Mr. GUERTIN. We have to take a look at the larger trends and 

the dynamics of management and the specific threats in each of 

those. It is not a common set of threats across the entire range of 

their distribution. Some countries have stronger frameworks, 

higher hunting culture. Others have more poaching. 

Sorry, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. That is OK. 

Mr. Hice. 

Dr. HICE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Director Smith, let me just begin with you. In 2001, when 

President Bush came to office, the National Park Service had a 

backlog of roughly $4.9 billion. And from our research, that backlog 

appears to have increased by about $2 billion throughout his presidency, and about the same throughout Obama’s administration. 

So, the question is why. Why the backlog? Would you attribute 

it for maintenance primarily to the Park Service increasing its 

66 

assets, and the public lands, monuments, that you have a bigger 

footprint now? Or is it due to aging, the aging process, or some 

other reason, or all of the above? 

Mr. SMITH. Congressman, it is basically both of those. When you 

have a system that is aging like ours, and the fact that Congress 

keeps adding to our system, those are all factors that either affect 

operational budgets, which affect cyclic maintenance, or they affect 

deferred maintenance in these units when you have as many assets 

as we have to deal with. 

Dr. HICE. OK. As I understand, you have—well, a general rule 

of thumb, I think, for most homeowners and so forth, is about 11⁄2

percent of the value of the home to be set aside for annual maintenance and that type of thing. Of course, the older it gets, then it 

goes up anywhere from 3 to 5 percent. 

As I understand, you are close to that range. Do you have enough 

now to take care of the backlog issues? 

Mr. SMITH. No, we certainly do not at this time. That is why we 

are here looking at other possibilities of funding, to reach back and 

take care of that deferred maintenance. 

Dr. HICE. What percentage of the overall infrastructure portfolio 

is needed, based on the value of the assets? Do you have any idea? 

Mr. SMITH. We are somewhere between 40 and 45 percent of our 

assets that are in deferred maintenance right now, with others 

catching up to that. 

And we touched on, in one of the questions today, the difference 

between cyclic maintenance and deferred maintenance. A perfect 

example would be, we have done cyclic maintenance on a huge 

HVAC system. It eventually will have a life cycle, and then it will 

have to be replaced. So, it moves from where you can deal with it 

in cyclic maintenance. You have to deal with it by replacing it, and 

that becomes a deferred maintenance issue. 

Dr. HICE. Tell me again what that 40, 45 percent is. 

Mr. SMITH. Half of it is roads, bridges, things to do with our transportation systems. I think our latest number on that is $5.9 

billion of the $11.6 billion is dealing with roads and bridges. The 

other would be dealing with our assets, which would include buildings, campgrounds, trails, all of the above that we—— 

Dr. HICE. That 45 percent, though, would be 45 percent of the 

total assets? 

Mr. SMITH. Yes. 

Dr. HICE. That are in backlog? 

Mr. SMITH. Yes, and especially those that are aging. For those 

of you who cross Memorial Bridge every day, if you come from 

Virginia, that is a 75-year-old bridge, and it needs to be replaced. 

Dr. HICE. All right. Assuming that we arrive at some sort of solution, how do you assure this Committee and the American people 

that we don’t get in this mess again? 

Mr. SMITH. There will always be some deferred maintenance, because of all the assets that we have. But certainly, once we are on 

top of it, it will help us prioritize much more of those things that 

are aging, or those things that we need to take care of. But it will 

never be a zero, as far as deferred maintenance, just because we 

have so many assets that annually go into meeting some type of 

maintenance. 

67 

Dr. HICE. Well, I understand that. But how can you assure us 

that we are not going to get in another situation where we have 

45 percent in a backlog of maintenance issues? 

Mr. SMITH. Well, I can assure you that if we can find steady 

funding sources, we will tackle this issue, which has been around 

since the 1980s, and which we have not caught up to. 

One reason why we have so many more exact numbers on what 

the backlog is is that during the Bush administration we developed 

the process that we now use to ascertain all of these numbers. So, 

the issue probably was bigger than we knew back then. We now 

have a system of looking at these assets that really gives us these 

numbers that we brought before Congress that need to be 

addressed. 

Dr. HICE. OK. Thank you very much. I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Curtis. 

Mr. CURTIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to represent a district that has two national parks: Arches and 

Canyonlands. And if you haven’t been to Arches, this is my formal 

invitation to have you come personally visit. 

We are here to talk about creative solutions to some of these 

funding problems. Mr. Smith, at Arches, you may be familiar, we 

have a unique problem where we are loving our parks to death. 

And on site they are looking at one possible solution, which is a 

reservation system. That is meeting with quite a bit of angst in the 

community, from an economic development, there are many layers. 

If we have long lines of people waiting to pay fees to enter these 

parks, which we need, can we spend a little bit more time in this 

creative mode seeing how we can accommodate the visitors into the 

park, without it being an overload? And that is what the locals are 

asking. Have we looked at enough solutions? 

I don’t know how personally familiar you are with that particular 

issue. If you are not, I would love to invite you to get involved. And 

I am not sure, I was just down there this last weekend, the locals 

clearly don’t feel like we have explored all the options. Do you have 

any comments on that, or are you close enough to that to know? 

Mr. SMITH. Two things, Congressman. Thank you for your question. When I worked on staff here for Congressman Hanson, I certainly visited Red Rock country. So, I am very familiar with all of 

your wonderful parks, not only in your district, but in the state of 

Utah. 

Mr. CURTIS. Right. 

Mr. SMITH. We are looking at reservation systems as one answer 

to where we have so much visitation. I don’t know the particulars 

of what we looked at at Arches, but I definitely will look at that 

when I get back. But we have the situation in Yosemite, we have 

the situation in other parks, and we are trying to make it so that 

our visitors are accommodated without the long waits and that 

type of thing which ruin their experience. 

But I will look into that situation, Congressman, and get back to 

you on that. 

Mr. CURTIS. Thank you. There are good models. Zion is not perfect, but they, of course, accommodate a lot more because of their 

transportation system there. The locals on the ground would have 

68 

us look at another mode of entrance into the park. There is a high 

percentage of that park that is not visited because of access, so 

thank you for your willingness to do that. 

I also might mention I had the delight to serve as the mayor of 

my city before Congress, and dealt with a lot of these maintenance 

issues and not enough funds and that constant battle which you all 

are experiencing. And I learned and found that there are different 

types of different maintenance. A parking lot that doesn’t get a 

crack and seal becomes a far more expensive repair if we don’t 

spend that money now, versus other projects. Does your system 

take that into account? And is there a factor that you are applying 

to things that actually cost us more money if we don’t address 

them right now? 

Mr. SMITH. Yes, it does. And those are driven from the park up, 

not from anywhere above down, but they are taken in priority in 

each park. 

Then, as far as the funding, it does have to go through a process 

with the region to look back at what we are doing. The need is so 

great, and the money is such that we have to make priority decisions in the parks, and that occurs every year as we look at our 

budgets. 

Mr. CURTIS. Let me go back to that bottom up, because I also 

would applaud that, and found once again, as mayor, that generally, those that were right there knew the most. How much input 

do they have on the park level that is coming up and being filtered 

and listened to? 

Mr. SMITH. Well, they have a lot. And I have let it be known that 

I have come back to Washington after retiring for 3 years, that I 

am coming back with a superintendent’s hat, and not a Washington 

bureaucratic hat. I have said I don’t know how long that will last, 

but it is my intent right now. 

The parks are listened to. And I will certainly, serving as Deputy 

Director, will make sure that they are listened to, because they do 

know what is happening on the ground more than we do here in 

Washington. 

Mr. CURTIS. Thank you. If you attempted to remove that hat, I 

am sure we will help remind you how important that philosophy 

is. I appreciate that. 

Mr. SMITH. And Congressman, the Secretary of the Interior will 

remind me of that, too. He wants us to deal with all these issues 

from the front, in the parks, and he has made that very clear to 

me. 

Mr. CURTIS. Yes, I applaud that. Thank you. 

I yield my time, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Let me ask a couple of questions, if 

I could. Let me start with Mr. Guertin. 

The Administration’s proposed public lands infrastructure funding includes your agency, the Park Service, as well as the Bureau 

of Indian Education. Can you speak to why the five other departments within Interior were not included in that, specifically BLM, 

which has 245 million acres? 

Mr. GUERTIN. Yes, Mr. Chairman. My understanding is that the 

three agencies selected for the initial deployment of the Act, if it 

is enacted by the Congress, are largely those aligned around the 

69 

Secretary’s initial guidance to us to promote the outdoor recreation, 

the access areas, the parks and refuges, get a preponderance of the 

visitation, get a preponderance of the visiting public. 

The other Interior agencies were not ranked as high in that initial cut of which agencies to propose, going forward. But it comes 

back to the role the Service and Park Service play in outdoor recreation and access. And for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the needs 

are very dire there for societal reasons, as well as health and safety 

in the schools, and programs like that. 

The CHAIRMAN. Not a whole lot of visitation in those schools. We 

will look at that again one time. 

Mr. Rano, if I could talk to you, I appreciated working with you 

on the Centennial Act. I am assuming that you accept that those 

proposals so far have been successful? 

Mr. RANO. Absolutely, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any additional revenue sources that we 

didn’t make into that bill that you believe we should be considering 

as a Committee? 

Mr. RANO. Absolutely. There is a proposal in the bill—and thank 

you again for your leadership in ensuring its passage—that would 

have dedicated money, another dedicated revenue stream of overnight fees in lodging in National Park Service lodges. And we believe there is an opportunity to revisit that at this point. 

I think we ran out of time and lacked consensus, and I think 

there is an opportunity to revisit that and make it fair and bring 

on all parties. 

The CHAIRMAN. There may be some other areas we can look at 

for all these purposes, even for BLM purposes, so we can reach 

some of the maintenance. 

Both Mr. Costa and Mr. Beyer were talking about fees. I think 

there is some point where we need to talk about fees to make sure 

those fees are going back to the areas in which they are generated 

and we are not having a lot of that fee money being used elsewhere, or coming back here to Washington. 

I think we need to look at—there are a lot of groups out there 

that actually make a whole lot of money on the using of our public 

lands, but put very little back into the maintenance of those public 

lands. Maybe we should be looking at some innovative ways of 

doing that, at the same time. 

Also, some of the Members have brought up some other issues. 

Mr. Smith, let me ask you. Are there other areas that we should 

be talking about to you that are an impediment to prioritizing your 

efforts or tackling this backlog that prohibit you from having 

greater efficiency and effectiveness? 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, thank you for that question. One that 

comes to mind immediately in my short time back is concessions 

policy. I actually dealt with it on this Committee back in 1998, 

when we passed the Concessions Policy Act. 

There seems to be, because of the need for infrastructure at such 

high dollar amounts, that if the 20-year limit could be raised to 30, 

we would have a lot more success in the concessions type of contracts. That one would require an Act of Congress, and that one 

comes to mind immediately in my short time back because it has 

70 

come up in situations all over the country already. So, that is one 

that I am certainly familiar with. 

The CHAIRMAN. I know Congress sometimes, in our effort to be 

helpful and effective—for example, the McKinney-Vento Act requires that any time you have any kind of change into a housing 

or building structure, that you have to ensure that you do a study 

to see if they are suitable for homeless facilities. That is a cost that 

probably has very little value to it. Sounded good at the time. But 

we need to look at some of those practices that are impeding efforts 

to go into it. 

I know people have said that we don’t need innovation and that 

these are gimmicks. But what the Administration is proposing here 

is definitely more than that. We are trying to look at some kind 

of permanent fund that goes through there. 

Mr. Guertin, maybe I could ask you the same thing. Are there 

things other than just the revenue that we are talking about that 

streamline that cumbersome process of Federal acquisition or contracting, hiring, or planning? 

Mr. GUERTIN. Thank you for the question, Mr. Chairman. We 

have requested similar authority to the National Park System, 

where we can collect and keep any damages that come from some 

of the vandalizing, destroying, or otherwise harming the National 

Wildlife Refuge System. While not big money, this could be hundreds of thousands to $5 or $6 million a year. These damages, 

under current authorizations, go right onto our maintenance backlog, so that is part of the President’s request for appropriations. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Let me cut myself off. I appreciate 

the Committee being here, and being here perhaps a little bit 

longer than we anticipated. I appreciate the witnesses coming here 

and testifying at the same time. 

I think, as we go through this process, we will identify in the 

coming weeks other ways in which we can come up with a permanent fund that can assist in the backlog. We will be creative in 

those type of efforts. Maybe there is some other revenue sources 

that need to be added or considered as we go through that. 

I realize the one thing I don’t want to do, as has happened some 

times in the past, is the idea of helping to solve the problem of 

funding of our public lands. It is just keeping people off of the public lands, and therefore you don’t have to fund them. There are 

some people that actually look at that as a proper policy. If people 

are not engaged in public lands, our park systems and the fish and 

wildlife refuges, if they are not visiting there, there is no reason 

to have them in the first place. So, that is the one thing we will 

never go back to, at least that approach to it. 

I would remind the witnesses, as well as the Committee, that 

there may be some further questions people have, as well as some 

statements. You have already said you would provide us with information later on. If there are other questions coming from this 

Committee, they will be sent to you in writing within 3 business 

days. We would ask for your response at that particular time. 

With that, once again, our great appreciation for you being here. 

As we look forward, we said this is like a twofold process. Today, 

we are dealing with the problem. Next week, we start dealing with 

the solutions to those problems. We will be coming back to you 

71 

again. Thank you for your participation, thank you for the testimony you have given. Anything else you wish to add to the record 

will be added to the record, as well. 

With that, the hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:49 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

[ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

ON BEHALF OF

MR. P. DANIEL SMITH, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE AND MR. STEVE

GUERTIN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva, and members of the Committee, 

thank you for the opportunity to present the Department of the Interior’s 

(Department) views on potential solutions to reducing the deferred maintenance 

backlog of the Department of the Interior. Representing the Department at today’s 

hearing are P. Daniel Smith, Deputy Director of the National Park Service, and 

Steve Guertin, Deputy Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Since Secretary Zinke’s confirmation, tackling the Department’s deferred maintenance backlog has been one of his top priorities. The Department manages roughly 

500 million acres of land and possesses an infrastructure asset portfolio valued at 

over $300 billion. Roads, bridges, trails, water systems, visitor centers, and student 

dorms—even bathrooms, campgrounds, and drinking fountains—are all part of this 

critical, but often unnoticed, framework. After years of increased visitation and use, 

aging facilities and other vital structures are in urgent need of restoration. The Department has a total of about $16 billion worth of deferred maintenance. Of that amount, the National Park Service (NPS) has the largest share—$11.6 

billion in 2017. 

Here are just a few examples of needed repairs in our Nation’s national parks. 

Glacier National Park, one of the NPS’ crown jewels, is home to the headwaters for 

streams that flow to the Pacific Ocean, the Gulf of Mexico and Hudson’s Bay. This 

popular Montana park has more than $154 million in maintenance needs alone, 

including projects to repair bridges and culverts, roads, and employee housing. 

In California, Point Reyes National Seashore is home to majestic marine mammals and multi-generational beef and dairy ranches. The park has roughly $99 

million in deferred maintenance, including single projects that include the historic 

Platform Bridge. This bridge, built in 1927, carried both people and automotive 

traffic, but due to the lack of ongoing necessary rehabilitation work, $1.6 million is 

needed for this project alone. Roads and other transportation assets account for $5.9 billion—about half—of the 

NPS deferred maintenance backlog. The NPS maintains over 5,500 miles of paved 

roads, including historic routes such as the Blue Ridge Parkway, Natchez Trace 

Parkway, and Skyline Drive in Shenandoah National Park. Congress provides for 

a significant portion of transportation maintenance and repair through the Department of Transportation, primarily through the Federal Lands Transportation 

Program, which includes $292 million for NPS projects in FY 2019 alone. Additional 

funding for maintaining transportation assets is provided through NPS operations 

and construction appropriations. 

Just like some of its other more famous parkway sites, Colonial Parkway in 

Tidewater, Virginia was designed in the 1930s to provide a scenic, pleasurable driving experience between historic Jamestown, Yorktown, and Williamsburg. Today, 

the parkway is an important commuter route with the busiest sections carrying between 1.9 million and 2.2 million vehicles per year. In addition, large tour buses 

use the route, adding weight and capacity that was not envisioned when it was 

designed. The total cost to repair the parkway is $270 million. 

Known for its scenic views and vibrant autumns, Great Smoky Mountains 

National Park welcomes millions of visitors each year. The park has $215 million 

in deferred maintenance needs. A key destination for park visitors, Sugarlands 

Visitor Center houses exhibits on wildlife, geology, and history, and is in need of 

total reconstruction that will cost roughly $25 million. The park is also well known 

for its historic buildings—from churches, barns, and smokehouses to a working grist 

mill—but many of them need rehabilitation to ensure they remain safe and 

welcoming destinations. 

Appropriated funds are currently the primary source of funding for deferred maintenance. However, we know that we cannot rely on appropriated dollars alone to 

72 

address this problem, so we are looking at multiple avenues for making additional 

funds available through other means. 

For example, the Department’s Fiscal Year 2019 budget proposes to permanently 

reauthorize the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (FLREA), which expires in September 2019. As a precaution, the budget also proposes appropriations 

language to provide a 2-year extension of FLREA through September 2021. The revenues collected from these recreation fees across several DOI bureaus—$318.8 

million in 2017—are an important source of funding for land management operations, maintenance, and improvements to recreation facilities on public lands. 

Most importantly, we are looking at a new proposal to raise funds for this purpose 

by dedicating a portion of Federal energy revenues to address this problem. The proposed Public Lands Infrastructure Fund (Fund) outlined in the President’s 2019 

budget would address repairs and improvement in national parks, national wildlife 

refuges, and Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) schools. The Administration’s proposal would set aside for infrastructure needs a portion of unallocated Federal 

energy revenues exceeding FY 2018 Budget baseline projections. These receipts 

would be derived from Federal energy revenues, including mineral leasing, e.g., oil, 

gas and coal, under the Mineral Leasing Act and Outer Continental Shelf Lands 

Act, as well as solar, wind, and geothermal development. While the budget estimate 

assumes this initiative would result in $6.8 billion in expenditures from the Fund 

over 10 years, the proposal allows for as much as $18 billion to be available through 

this legislation. The Department would distribute funds using established criteria, 

such as consideration of asset condition and mission criticality, and would measure 

and report on agency-wide progress. This bold investment would significantly improve the Nation’s most visible and visited public facilities that support a multibillion dollar outdoor recreation economy. 

While the NPS is the focus of this proposal, the Fund would also be used for 

deferred maintenance at Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) schools and national 

wildlife refuges. The Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs and its bureaus have 

maintenance responsibilities for over 169 elementary and secondary schools and 14 

dormitories which service nearly 47,000 students. The estimated deferred maintenance backlog for BIE schools is $634 million, which does not include the cost for 

school replacement projects. Major projects to address deferred maintenance are reviewed by the Indian Affairs Construction Investment Review Board and are 

prioritized as part of the Five-Year Deferred Maintenance and Construction plan. 

Schools that could potentially benefit from these investments would include the 

BIE operated Cheyenne Eagle Butte School, which is one of the largest schools serving Indian tribes in South Dakota. The school promotes academic achievement along 

with traditional Lakota cultural, language, and extracurricular activities in two of 

the poorest counties in the state and Nation. Cheyenne Eagle Butte is in urgent 

need of a variety of repairs, especially structural. For example, classrooms have 

been closed due to the presence of dangerous mold, numerous roof leaks allow water 

to seep through three floors of classrooms, and repetitive heating system failures 

have caused 2 weeks of lost instruction during the current academic year. Kindergarten students alone have been displaced from their regular classrooms for 3 years. 

Deferred maintenance issues are not unique to Cheyenne Eagle Butte School. As 

reported in a 2016 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, the Department’s ability to adequately address maintenance issues have been inhibited, even 

for those schools which pose great risk to the health and safety of students. Highlighted in the same GAO report is a frightening example where 7 of a school’s 11 

boilers failed inspection due to natural gas leaks and elevated carbon monoxide 

levels. The boilers were in such bad condition that the school was evacuated for approximately 2 weeks to conduct emergency repairs. Overall, the Department, the 

Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the BIE are working closely to address outstanding 

GAO recommendations and improve operations and service delivery in BIE-funded 

schools. 

The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) manages 566 national wildlife refuges and 

38 wetland management areas and operates national fish hatcheries, fish technology 

centers and fish health centers. FWS is responsible for over $46 billion in constructed real property assets that include over 25,000 structures (e.g., buildings and 

water management structures) as well as nearly 14,000 roads, bridges, and dams. 

The estimated deferred maintenance backlog for FWS facilities is $1.4 billion. 

National wildlife refuges are a hub for outdoor recreation and conservation and 

are valued destinations for local residents as well as vacationers. Every state and 

territory has wildlife refuges, and over 50 million people visit FWS refuges and 

hatcheries each year. They are places where families go on a weekend day to spend 

quality time outdoors, through activities such as hunting, fishing and birding. FWS 

lands generate over $2 billion for local economies and support tens of thousands of 

73 

private-sector jobs. Examples of refuges that could benefit from the Fund include 

Big Oaks refuge in Indiana and Wallkill River refuge in New York and New Jersey. 

Big Oaks is home to more than 200 species of birds and 46 species of mammals, 

and the refuge has been designated as a ‘‘Globally Important Bird Area’’ because 

of its value to migratory birds. However, public access to Big Oaks is impaired because a deteriorated, unsafe bridge with trees growing through it on the refuge has 

been closed since 2001. Wallkill River refuge has many grassland birds, migrating 

waterfowl, wintering raptors, and endangered species. Public access to this refuge 

is also significantly reduced because its Papakating Valley Rail Trail has been 

closed since 2010 due to extensive, dangerous degradation. Rehabilitating it will 

expand 9.5 miles of former railroad beds into multi-purpose public trails. 

Another way Congress can help reduce the FWS’ maintenance backlog—in 

addition to enacting the proposed Fund—is to enact the Administration’s 2019 

Budget legislative proposal to provide FWS with authority to seek compensation 

from responsible parties who injure or destroy national wildlife refuges or other 

FWS resources. This new authority would be similar to that of the NPS and the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Under current law, when FWS 

resources are injured or destroyed, the costs of repair and restoration must be addressed through appropriations and are added to the FWS’ maintenance backlog. 

These damages are not uncommon. Each year vandalism, trespassing, and other violations damage FWS assets. One example is a case of illegally created roads through 

Sequoyah refuge, Oklahoma, causing over $175,000 in estimated damages; another 

is a trespass and illegal excavation of a pipeline at San Bernard refuge, Texas, with 

estimated response and repair costs of $7.5 million. 

As Secretary Zinke said when announcing the 2019 budget, ‘‘President Trump is 

absolutely right to call for a robust infrastructure plan that rebuilds our national 

parks, refuges, and Indian schools, and I look forward to helping him deliver on that 

historic mission. Our parks and refuges are being loved to death, but the real heartbreak is the condition of the schools in Indian Country. We can and must do better 

for these young scholars. This is not a Republican or Democrat issue, this is an 

American issue, and the President and I are ready to work with absolutely anyone 

in Congress who is willing to get the work done.’’ Whether it is our national parks, 

national wildlife refuges, or BIE schools, we have a responsibility to be good 

stewards of the land and resources we manage. The Department’s needs span all 

the way from Massachusetts to Alaska to Guam. We greatly appreciate the effort 

of this Committee and your colleagues in Congress who have sought to craft real 

solutions to our maintenance backlog. We look forward to continuing those efforts 

by working with each of you in a collaborative manner that preserves and maintains 

our national treasures. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes the Department’s statement. We would be pleased 

to answer any questions you or other members of the Committee may have. 

[LIST OF DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD RETAINED IN THE

COMMITTEE’S OFFICIAL FILES]

—The Pew Charitable Trusts, Statement for the Record. 

—List of national and local organizations, cities/counties, and 

elected officials who support addressing the multi-billion 

dollar backlog plaguing our National Park System. 

Æ