U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

29–422 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018

H.R. 5210, ‘‘NATIONAL PARK RESTORATION ACT’’; AND H.R. 2584, 

‘‘NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 

LEGACY ACT OF 2017’’ 

LEGISLATIVE HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL LANDS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

Tuesday, March 20, 2018 

Serial No. 115–42 

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 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL LANDS 

TOM MCCLINTOCK, CA, Chairman 

COLLEEN HANABUSA, HI, Ranking Democratic Member 

Don Young, AK 

Stevan Pearce, NM 

Glenn Thompson, PA 

Rau ́l R. Labrador, ID 

Scott R. Tipton, CO 

Bruce Westerman, AR 

Daniel Webster, FL 

Jack Bergman, MI 

Liz Cheney, WY 

Greg Gianforte, MT 

John R. Curtis, UT 

Rob Bishop, UT, ex officio 

Niki Tsongas, MA 

Alan S. Lowenthal, CA 

Norma J. Torres, CA 

Ruben Gallego, AZ 

A. Donald McEachin, VA 

Anthony G. Brown, MD 

Jimmy Gomez, CA 

Vacancy 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, AZ, ex officio 

(III) 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Hearing held on Tuesday, March 20, 2018 ............................................................ 1 

Statement of Members: 

Hanabusa, Hon. Colleen, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Hawaii ....................................................................................................... 3 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 4 

McClintock, Hon. Tom, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California ................................................................................................... 2 

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

Statement of Witnesses: 

Argust, Marcia, Director, Restore America’s Parks, The Pew Charitable 

Trusts, Washington, DC ............................................................................... 15 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 16 

Hoyt, Callie, Manager, Federal Affairs, Motorcycle Industry Council, 

Arlington, Virginia ........................................................................................ 27 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 29 

Hurd, Hon. Will, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas .... 8 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 8 

Lee-Ashley, Matt, Senior Fellow, Center for American Progress, 

Washington, DC ............................................................................................ 21 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 23 

Simpson, Hon. Michael K., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Idaho .......................................................................................................... 5 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 7 

Smith, P. Daniel, Deputy Director, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC ........................................................ 9 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 11 

Questions submitted for the record ......................................................... 12 

Additional Materials Submitted for the Record: 

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

official files .................................................................................................... 50 

National Parks Conservation Association, NPCA Positions on H.R. 5210 

and H.R. 2584 ............................................................................................... 45 

National Trust for Historic Preservation, Testimony on H.R. 5210 and 

H.R. 2584 ...................................................................................................... 47 

Public Lands Alliance, Statement on H.R. 5210 and H.R. 2584 ................. 49 

(1) 

LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 5210, TO 

ESTABLISH THE NATIONAL PARK RESTORATION FUND, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, 

‘‘NATIONAL PARK RESTORATION ACT’’; AND 

H.R. 2584, TO AMEND TITLE 54, UNITED 

STATES CODE, TO ESTABLISH, FUND, AND 

PROVIDE FOR THE USE OF AMOUNTS IN A 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE LEGACY RESTORATION FUND TO ADDRESS THE MAINTENANCE BACKLOG OF THE NATIONAL PARK 

SERVICE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, 

‘‘NATIONAL PARK SERVICE LEGACY ACT OF 

2017’’ 

Tuesday, March 20, 2018 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Federal Lands 

Committee on Natural Resources 

Washington, DC 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:22 p.m., in room 

1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Tom McClintock 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives McClintock, Labrador, Tipton, 

Westerman, Bergman, Cheney, Gianforte; and Hanabusa. 

Also present: Representatives Simpson, Hurd, Johnson, Graves; 

and Huffman. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. The Subcommittee on Federal Lands will come 

to order, and I apologize for our delayed convening, but votes summoned us on the Floor. 

We are here today to hear two bills. I would begin by asking 

unanimous consent that all Members on the witness list testifying 

on today’s panel be allowed to sit with the Subcommittee, give their 

testimony, and participate on the hearing from the dais. That 

would be Mr. Hurd, Mr. Simpson, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Graves, and 

Mr. Huffman. 

Without objection. 

In addition, I would remind the Committee that under 

Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at hearings are 

limited to the Chairman, Ranking Minority Member, and Vice 

Chairman to allow us to hear from our witnesses. I would ask 

unanimous consent that all other Members’ opening statements be 

made part of the hearing record if they are submitted to the 

Subcommittee Clerk by 5:00 p.m. today. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

I will now begin my opening statement. 

2 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. TOM MCCLINTOCK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. The Subcommittee meets today to hear testimony on two bills that seek to reduce the National Park Service’s 

$11.6 billion deferred maintenance backlog. 

Two weeks ago, the Natural Resources Committee held an oversight hearing to explore the maintenance backlogs facing our 

Nation’s public land management agencies. Last week, the 

Committee heard testimony from Secretary Zinke, and much of the 

conversation focused on finding a solution to the Department’s 

maintenance backlog, the majority of which lies in the National 

Park Service. 

The Federal Lands Subcommittee has three principal goals: to 

restore public access to the public lands, to restore sound management to the public lands, and restore the Federal Government as 

a good neighbor to those communities most impacted by the 

Federal lands. 

Several years ago, I asked John Jervis, the Director of the 

National Park Service, whether, if he had a choice, would he put 

new dollars into land acquisition or into deferred maintenance. He 

chose maintenance. Instead, we have continued to add new holdings to the Federal estate, while continuing to neglect the land we 

already hold. 

Louie Gohmert, a few years ago, compared this policy to the town 

miser whose mansion has become a town eyesore while he spends 

all of his money buying up his neighbors’ properties. 

We took these lands into trust for the American public’s use, resort, and recreation. This responsibility requires active management, not benign neglect. Fortunately, our public lands, properly 

managed, also produce revenues that can and ought to be used for 

their perpetual restoration, management, and enhancement. 

Today, we will be discussing bills introduced by Congressman 

Simpson and Congressman Hurd seeking new funding sources for 

critical public lands infrastructure. 

H.R. 2584, the National Park Service Legacy Act, by Congressman Hurd, would provide direct financing for the high-priority 

deferred maintenance needs of the National Park Service. The fund 

draws from 30 years of mineral revenues from 2018 to 2047 not already allocated by law. Eighty percent of the fund will be used to 

repair assets, including historic structures, visitor facilities, trails, 

water and utility systems, and enhancing access, health and safety, 

and recreation. The other 20 percent will be used to restore 

transportation-related infrastructure such as roads, tunnels, and 

bridges. The bill also promotes public-private collaboration by 

incentivizing projects that have a private donation cost-share 

component. 

H.R. 5210, introduced by Congressman Simpson of Idaho would 

establish the National Park Restoration Fund. This bill provides 

mandatory funding to address the deferred maintenance backlog of 

the National Park Service. The new fund will receive 50 percent of 

all energy production on Federal lands, including renewable 

energy, over the amounts already expected, that are not already allocated to other purposes. The program expires after 10 years, or 

sooner if it has received deposits of $18 billion. This would assure 

3 

that we are not adding to a deficit that now imperils all government responsibilities. 

I would like to thank our witnesses for appearing before the 

Subcommittee today and look forward to hearing their testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. McClintock follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. TOM MCCLINTOCK, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL LANDS

The Subcommittee meets today to hear testimony on two bills that seek to reduce the National Park Service’s $11.6 billion deferred maintenance backlog. 

Two weeks ago, the Natural Resources Committee held an oversight hearing to 

explore the maintenance backlogs facing our Nation’s public land management 

agencies. Last week, the Committee heard testimony from Secretary Zinke and 

much of the conversation focused on finding a solution to the Department’s maintenance backlog, the majority of which lies in the National Park Service. 

The Federal Lands Subcommittee has three principal goals: to restore public 

access to the public lands; to restore sound management to the public lands; and 

to restore the Federal Government as a good neighbor to those communities most 

impacted by the Federal lands. 

Several years ago, I asked Jon Jervis, the Director of the National Park Service, 

whether he would put new dollars into land acquisition or deferred maintenance, 

he chose maintenance. Instead, we have continued to add new holdings to the 

Federal estate while continuing to neglect the land we already hold. 

Louie Gohmert compared this policy to the town miser, whose mansion has 

become the town eyesore while he spends his money buying up his neighbors’ 

properties. 

We took these lands into trust for the American people’s ‘‘use, resort and recreation.’’ This responsibility requires active management—not benign neglect. 

Fortunately, our public lands, properly managed, also produce revenues that can 

and ought to be used for their perpetual restoration, management and enhancement. 

Today, we will be discussing bills introduced by Congressman Simpson and 

Congressman Hurd seeking new funding sources for critical public lands 

infrastructure. 

H.R. 2584, the National Park Service Legacy Act, by Congressman Will Hurd, 

would provide direct financing for the high-priority deferred maintenance needs of 

the National Park Service. The Fund draws from 30 years of mineral revenues 

(FY 2018–FY 2047) not already allocated by law. Eighty percent of the Fund will be 

used to repair assets including historic structures, visitor facilities, trails, water and 

utility systems, and enhancing access, health and safety, and recreation. 

The other 20 percent will be used to restore transportation-related infrastructure, 

such as roads, tunnels, and bridges. The bill also promotes public-private collaboration by incentivizing projects that have a private donation cost-share component. 

H.R. 5210, introduced by Congressman Simpson of Idaho would establish the 

National Park Restoration Fund. This bill provides mandatory funding to address 

the deferred maintenance backlog of the National Park Service. The new fund will 

receive 50 percent of all energy production on Federal lands, including renewable 

energy, over the amounts already expected, that are not already allocated for other 

purposes. The program expires after 10 years or sooner if it has received deposits 

of $18 billion. This would assure that we are not adding to a deficit that now 

imperils all government responsibilities. 

I’d like to thank our witnesses for appearing before the Subcommittee today and 

look forward to hearing their testimony. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. I am now pleased to yield to the gentlelady, 

the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, Ms. Hanabusa. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. COLLEEN HANABUSA, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF HAWAII 

Ms. HANABUSA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, I want to say 

that I am pleased we are able to have this hearing on both of these 

proposals to address deferred maintenance at our national parks 

4 

and public lands. Both bills propose strategies to finance deferred 

maintenance and infrastructure needs across the National Park 

System. 

As we heard from the Secretary last week, addressing deferred 

maintenance is a huge priority that requires a significant dedicated 

funding stream. National parks are more popular than ever. 

Annual visitation numbers continue to break records, with over 330 

million visits last year alone, with visitors spending an estimated 

$18.4 billion in local gateway regions. 

Unfortunately, current funding and revenue streams have not 

been able to address the needs of aging assets and infrastructure. 

Our local superintendents are struggling to keep up with repairs 

and rehabilitation, due to shrinking appropriations and aging infrastructure. We see it in my home state of Hawaii, where there 

is nearly $12 million of deferred maintenance at Pearl Harbor 

alone, and $85 million at the Hawaii Volcanoes National Park. 

In 2016, the National Park Service celebrated its Centennial, 

which was an incredible milestone and reminder that many of our 

parks are old. In the same year, Chairman Bishop and Ranking 

Member Grijalva worked together to pass the National Park 

Service Centennial Act to celebrate the first 100 years of national 

parks. That bill included new revenue streams to support visitor 

services and created programs to leverage private philanthropy. 

This was a great first step, but to paraphrase Chairman Bishop, we can’t expect revenues from cake sales to cover the $11.6 billion 

backlog of deferred maintenance—$11.6 billion backlog. This is why 

I am an original co-sponsor of the National Park Service Legacy 

Act, with Representatives Hurd, Kilmer, and Reichert, and why I 

co-sponsored the National Park Restoration Act, introduced by 

Representatives Simpson and Schrader. 

If we all agree that addressing deferred maintenance at our 

parks and public lands is a priority, then we should be able to find 

a bipartisan solution that would allow the National Park Service 

adequate resources to seriously address its maintenance backlog. 

Our national parks are a public legacy, and it is our responsibility to ensure that they thrive for many generations to come. Of 

course, addressing deferred maintenance is just one piece of the 

puzzle. We must remember that sufficient resources are also provided for day-to-day operations and partnerships to ensure visitor 

satisfaction. 

With that, I look forward to today’s discussion about the two 

proposals before us. 

I yield back the remainder of my time, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Hanabusa follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. COLLEEN HANABUSA, RANKING MEMBER, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL LANDS

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, I want to say that I’m pleased we are able to 

have this hearing on both of these proposals to address deferred maintenance at our 

national parks and public lands. Both bills propose strategies to finance deferred 

maintenance and infrastructure needs across the National Park System. 

As we heard from the Secretary last week, addressing deferred maintenance is a 

huge priority that requires a significant dedicated funding stream. National parks 

are more popular than ever—annual visitation numbers continue to break records, 

with over 330 million visits last year alone, with visitors spending an estimated 

$18.4 billion in local gateway regions. 

5 

Unfortunately, current funding and revenue streams have not been able to 

address the needs of aging assets and infrastructure. 

Our local superintendents are struggling to keep up with repairs and rehabilitation due to shrinking appropriations and aging infrastructure. We see it in my home 

state of Hawaii, where there is nearly $12 million of deferred maintenance at Pearl 

Harbor and $85 million at Hawaii Volcanoes National Park. 

In 2016, the National Park Service celebrated its Centennial, which was an incredible milestone, and a reminder that many of our parks are old. In the same 

year, Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member Grijalva worked together to pass the 

National Park Service Centennial Act to celebrate the first 100 years of national 

parks. That bill included new revenue streams to support visitor services and 

created programs to leverage private philanthropy. 

This was a great first step, but to paraphrase Chairman Bishop, we can’t expect revenues from cake sales to cover the $11.6 billion backlog of deferred maintenance. 

This is why I am an original co-sponsor of the National Park Service Legacy Act, 

with Representatives Hurd, Kilmer, and Reichert and why I co-sponsored the 

National Park Restoration Act, introduced by Representatives Simpson and 

Schrader. 

If we all agree that addressing deferred maintenance at our parks and public 

lands is a priority, then we should be able to find a bipartisan solution that would 

allow the National Park Service adequate resources to seriously address its maintenance backlog. 

Our national parks are a public legacy, and it is our responsibility to ensure that 

they thrive for many generations to come. Of course, addressing deferred maintenance is just one piece of the puzzle. We must remember that sufficient resources 

are also provided for day-to-day operations and partnerships to ensure visitor 

satisfaction. 

With that, I look forward to today’s discussion about the two proposals before us 

and yield back the remainder of my time. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Great. Thank you very much. We will next 

proceed to Congressman Michael Simpson, who represents Idaho’s 

2nd District for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO 

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you, Chairman McClintock. Let me begin by 

thanking you for allowing me to testify in front of your 

Subcommittee. Also, thank you to Ranking Member Hanabusa for 

co-sponsoring both this legislation and Congressman Hurd’s legislation. You have an important job of overseeing our Federal lands, 

and it is vital that we care for them because they belong to all of 

us. 

Our national parks have long been thought of as America’s best 

idea. In fact, they have other complimentary names, such as our 

crown jewels. But more than anything, they are ours. The parks 

belong to the American people, and we should care for them as our 

own. 

It is long past due that we discuss the backlog maintenance in 

our national parks. Growing up in eastern Idaho, it was a regular 

event to pack up the car each weekend and visit Yellowstone. It 

was easy to spend a day in the park and not have to wait in any 

lines. 

However, that was a different time. Today, Yellowstone has nearly 4 million annual visitors, and the backlog in maintenance is upwards of $500 million. As a member of the House Interior 

Appropriations Subcommittee, I can tell you that their annual appropriated budget of $2.9 billion for the entire agency simply won’t 

be able to account for the $11.6 billion backlog in maintenance. 

6 

To start the conversation toward solving this problem, I introduced the Lands Act to help pay for both backlog maintenance and 

the Land and Water Conservation Fund. I was careful when writing the bill to not dip into the LWCF funds to pay for the backlog 

maintenance. That is an important concept that has guided this effort. I am pleased all of the bills we are considering today honor 

that promise, and I look forward to working with Chairman Bishop 

and this Subcommittee to address the LWCF, as well. 

Moving forward, I began working with Secretary Zinke, Senators 

Alexander and King, and Congressman Schrader on a proposal that 

we could all support to fix the parks, the National Park Restoration 

Act. This legislation uses unobligated revenues from all energy 

sources, including renewable energies, to pay for the backlog maintenance in national parks. 

The bill uses the exact same funding mechanism as popular 

programs like LWCF and the Historic Preservation Fund without 

compromising their revenues. It only draws on revenues that would 

be due to the Treasury. 

The bill is projected to raise over $6.8 billion over 10 years, 

which would make a significant dent in the backlog maintenance. 

I am thankful to Congressman Hurd, Ranking Member Hanabusa, 

Congressman Garamendi, and Congressman Schrader for supporting this bill in an effort to fix our parks. As a supporter of the 

Bureau of Indian Education schools, I also look forward to addressing that critical need in this process, as Secretary Zinke has 

suggested. 

We are also considering the Legacy Act, introduced by Congressman Hurd. We all share the common goal of fixing this growing 

problem, and the Legacy Act is another positive addition to the 

conversation. I do not view these proposals as competing; they are 

complementary. They both use the same revenue source to pay for 

backlog maintenance, and both have bipartisan support. 

A key element to enacting policy in this environment is advocating for fiscally responsible legislation. The National Park 

Restoration Act does that by creating a baseline of projected energy 

revenue that must be exceeded before revenues could occur to the 

fund. This mechanism was put in place to control the costs associated with the bill, and is a fundamental component to winning support from the House, Senate, and Administration, a required step 

to become law. 

As a supporter of the national parks, LWCF, and other important 

programs that are critical to taking care of our public lands, I am 

asking that the members of the Committee examine the legislation 

for what it is, an honest effort to fix the parks. I don’t want to pit 

any programs against each other, I simply want to focus our efforts 

on using the long-time practice of existing energy revenues to fix 

public lands. I think that if this Committee can look at the various 

proposals that have been made, they can take the best of each and 

get a bill that will be bipartisan and that we can all support. 

Thank you again, Chairman McClintock and Ranking Member 

Hanabusa, and I look forward to working with all advocates for our 

national parks to fix the backlog maintenance. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Simpson follows:] 

7 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO

Chairman McClintock and Ranking Member Hanabusa, Let me begin by thanking 

you for allowing me to testify in front of your Subcommittee. Also thank you to 

Ranking Member Hanabusa for co-sponsoring my legislation. You have an important 

job of overseeing our Federal lands and it is vital that we care for them because 

they belong to all of us. 

Our national parks have long been thought of as America’s ‘‘Best Idea.’’ In fact, 

they have other complimentary names such as our ‘‘Crown Jewels.’’ But more than 

anything, they are ‘‘Ours.’’ The parks belong to the American people and we should 

care for them as our own. 

It is long past due that we discuss the backlog maintenance in our national parks. 

Growing up in eastern Idaho it was a regular event to pack into the car each weekend to visit Yellowstone. It was easy to spend a day in the park and not have to 

wait in any lines. However, that was a different time. 

Today, Yellowstone has nearly 4 million annual visitors and their backlog in 

maintenance is upwards of $500 million. As a member of the House Interior 

Appropriations Subcommittee, I can tell you that their annual appropriated budget 

of $2.9 billion, for the entire agency, simply won’t be able to account for the $11.6 

billion backlog in maintenance. 

To start the conversation toward solving this problem I introduced the LAND Act 

to help pay for both backlog maintenance and the Land and Water Conservation 

Fund. I was careful when writing the bill to not dip into LWCF funds to pay for 

backlog maintenance. That is an important concept that has guided this effort. I am 

pleased all of the bills we are considering today honor that promise and I look forward to working with Chairman Bishop and his Committee to address LWCF as 

well. 

Moving forward, I began working with Secretary Zinke, Senators Alexander and 

King, and Congressman Schrader on a proposal that we could all support to fix the 

parks—the National Park Restoration Act. This legislation uses unobligated 

revenues from all energy sources—including renewables—to pay for the backlog 

maintenance in national parks. The bill uses the exact same funding mechanism as 

popular programs like LWCF and the Historic Preservation Fund, without compromising their revenues. It only draws on revenues that would otherwise be due to 

the Treasury. The bill is projected to raise $6.8 billion over 10 years, which would 

make a significant dent in the backlog maintenance. I am thankful to Congressman 

Hurd, Ranking Member Hanabusa, Congressman Garamendi, and Congressman 

Schrader for supporting this bill in an effort to fix our parks. As a supporter of 

Bureau of Indian Education schools, I also look forward to addressing that critical 

need in this process as Secretary Zinke has suggested. 

We are also considering The Legacy Act introduced by Congressman Hurd. We all 

share the common goal of fixing this growing problem and The Legacy Act is another positive addition to the conversation. I do not view these proposals as competing. They are complimentary. They both use the same revenue source to pay for 

backlog maintenance and both have bipartisan support. 

A key element to enacting policy in this environment is advocating for fiscally responsible legislation. The National Park Restoration Act does that by creating a 

baseline of projected energy revenues that must be exceeded before revenues could 

accrue into the fund. This mechanism was put in place to control the costs associated with the bill, and is a fundamental component to winning support from the 

House, Senate, and Administration—a required step to become a law. 

As a supporter of national parks, LWCF, and other important programs that are 

critical to taking care of our public lands, I am asking that members of the 

Committee examine the legislation for what it is—an honest effort to fix the parks. 

I don’t want to pit any programs against each other. I simply want to focus our efforts on using the longtime practice of existing energy revenues to fix public lands. 

Thank you again Chairman McClintock and Ranking Member Hanabusa and I 

look forward to working with all advocates for our national parks to fix backlog 

maintenance. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Great. Thank you. 

Now we will hear from Congressman Hurd, representing Texas’ 

23rd District. 

8 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. WILL HURD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Mr. HURD. Thank you, Chairman and Ranking Member. As the 

Representative from the 23rd Congressional District of Texas, I 

have the distinct honor of advocating for eight incredible national 

parks. Our national parks are an integral part of the American experience, as we all know. And I have seen firsthand how the eight 

parks in my district, including Big Bend and the San Antonio missions, provide immeasurable cultural, environmental, and economic 

benefits. 

Each park’s landscape has a unique story that allows us to understand our past, appreciate our present, and ensure they are all 

available in the future. 

For these parks to remain beautiful and accessible, we have a responsibility as a Nation to care for them and maintain them. The 

National Park Service was created just over 100 years ago to do 

just that. But unfortunately, NPS currently faces a nationwide 

backlog of more than $11 billion to repair roads, visitor facilities, 

trails, and other park structures—$147 million of that backlogged 

maintenance is in Texas alone. 

I have seen how much of an impact this has on the maintenance 

of our parks, which is why I introduced the National Park Service 

Legacy Act of 2017 with my colleagues, including the distinguished 

Ranking Member from Hawaii, Representative Hanabusa. The bipartisan, bicameral bill would address the present backlog by distributing currently unassigned Federal mineral revenues back into 

a restoration fund. The funds can be used for overdue repairs so 

that our parks can remain beautiful and accessible for future generations of park-goers to enjoy. 

My bill demonstrates that the call for Congress to fix our aging 

parks is being heard, and has been endorsed by park champions 

like the National Parks Conservation Association, Pew Charitable 

Trusts, whom I would like to thank for being here today, and the 

National Trust for Historic Preservation. 

But our bill is not the only solution to this expanding and pervasive problem. My colleague and friend from the great state of Idaho 

has worked tirelessly on his bill, which, if enacted, would accomplish these same goals. I am tremendously supportive of the 

Chairman’s efforts, and I strongly encourage my colleagues to support both my bill and Chairman Simpson’s bill. 

I want to thank the Committee for allowing me to speak, and I 

yield back the balance of my time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hurd follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. WILL HURD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

As Representative of the 23rd Congressional District of Texas, I have the distinct 

honor of advocating for eight incredible national parks. 

Our national parks are an integral part of the American experience, and I’ve seen 

firsthand how the eight parks in my district, including Big Bend and the San 

Antonio missions, provide immeasurable cultural, environmental and economic 

benefits. 

Each park’s landscape has a unique story that allows us to understand our past, 

appreciate our present, and ensure they are available in the future. For these parks 

to remain beautiful and accessible, we have a responsibility as a Nation to care for 

and maintain them. 

9 

The National Park Service (NPS) was created just over 100 years ago to do just that. But unfortunately, NPS currently faces a nationwide backlog of more than $11 

billion to repair roads, visitor facilities, trails, and other park structures; $147 

million of that backlogged maintenance is in Texas alone. 

I’ve seen how much of an impact this has on the maintenance of our parks which 

is why I introduced the National Park Service Legacy Act of 2017 with my colleagues, including the distinguished Ranking Member from Hawaii, Rep. Hanabusa. 

The bipartisan, bicameral bill would address the present backlog by distributing 

currently unassigned Federal mineral revenues back into a restoration fund. The 

funds can be used for overdue repairs so that our parks can remain beautiful and 

accessible for future generations of park-goers to enjoy. 

My bill demonstrates that the call for Congress to fix our aging parks is being 

heard, and has been endorsed by park champions like the National Parks Conservation Association, Pew Charitable Trusts (whom I’d like to thank for being here 

today), and the National Trust for Historic Preservation. 

But our bill isn’t the only solution to this expanding and pervasive problem. My 

colleague and friend from the great state of Idaho has worked tirelessly on his bill, 

which, if enacted, would accomplish the same goals as my own. I am tremendously 

supportive of the Chairman’s efforts, and strongly encourage my colleagues to support both my bill, and Chairman Simpson’s bill. I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you. 

We will now hear from our four witnesses, and begin with Mr. 

P. Daniel Smith, Deputy Director of the National Park Service, 

U.S. Department of the Interior, who comes to us all the way from 

Washington, DC. 

STATEMENT OF P. DANIEL SMITH, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE 

INTERIOR, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. SMITH. Chairman McClintock, Ranking Member Hanabusa, 

and members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to 

present the Department of the Interior’s views on H.R. 2584, the 

National Park Service Legacy Act, and H.R. 5210, the National 

Park Restoration Act. I will summarize my testimony and submit 

my full statement for the record. 

The Department supports H.R. 5210, the National Park 

Restoration Act. We recommend amending the bill to make the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Bureau of Indian Affairs 

Education eligible for funding that would be available through the 

bill’s proposed National Park Restoration Fund. This would make 

the bill consistent with the President’s Fiscal Year 2019 budget 

proposal. 

We appreciate that H.R. 2584 seeks to accomplish the same goal 

of providing dedicated funding for the deferred maintenance backlog, but we believe that H.R. 5210 would be a better approach to 

addressing the problem. 

H.R. 5210 would establish a permanent treasury account called 

the National Park Restoration Fund. Energy development revenues 

from both renewable and conventional sources would be deposited 

into the fund. The fund would sunset after 10 years, or once it 

reaches its $18 billion cap, whichever happens first. 

H.R. 5210 protects established revenue-sharing payments to the 

states under the Mineral Leasing Act, the Gulf of Mexico Energy 

Security Act, and other statutes, as well as allocations made to 

other established funds such as the Reclamation Fund, the Land 

and Water Conservation Fund, and all other dedicated uses of 

10 

onshore and offshore revenues. These existing uses would receive 

their funding before the Restoration Fund receives anything. 

The bill identifies total energy revenue collection thresholds for 

each of the next 10 years. If collections exceed those amounts, and 

after all existing obligations are met, half of the revenue above that 

baseline would go to the National Park Service maintenance backlog. The other half would go to the Treasury. 

The Restoration Fund would receive revenue from all energy development occurring on public lands and waters, unlike the LWCF 

and the Legacy Fund, which rely solely on mineral revenues. The 

Administration’s all-of-the-above energy development strategy 

aligns with the funding mechanism for the Restoration Fund. 

H.R. 2584 would establish the National Park Legacy Fund from 

Federal mineral revenues. The bill requires 80 percent of funds to 

be used for building, utilities, and visitor facilities, and 20 percent 

to be used for transportation assets. Deposits would be made to the 

Legacy Fund from 2018 to 2047, ranging from $50 million to $500 

million per year. 

We believe H.R. 5210 holds greater potential for providing significant near-term funding than H.R. 2584 does. According to the 

Office of Management and Budget, the Public Lands Infrastructure 

Fund, which is the blueprint for H.R. 5210, would produce an estimated $6.8 billion in expenditures for deferred maintenance over 

the next 10 years, versus less than $2 billion in the next 10 years 

under H.R. 2584. 

Appropriated funds are the current primary source of funding for 

deferred maintenance. But as the Secretary noted last week in his 

budget hearings, we cannot rely solely on appropriated dollars to 

address this problem. The backlog of projects at our national parks 

limits access, lessens visitor experiences, impacts recreational 

opportunities, and compromises public health and safety. The networks of roads, trails, restrooms, water treatment systems, and visitor centers are aging and are exceeding the capacity of visitors 

they were designed to hold and support. 

In conclusion, I would like to reiterate a few key points regarding 

H.R. 5210. 

One, this bill does not interfere with GOMESA, LWCF, or any 

other dedicated funds. 

Two, nothing in this bill authorizes new areas for energy development, nor is there any proposal to increase energy production in 

our national parks. 

Three, this bill is not an incentive to develop more energy. The 

Administration remains very clear that it supports American 

energy dominance. The question before us today is how we come 

together to reinvest revenues back into our public lands. 

We greatly appreciate the efforts of Chairman Bishop and this 

Subcommittee for today’s hearing. We also thank Chairman 

Simpson and Ranking Member Hanabusa and all of your House 

and Senate colleagues for your support of H.R. 5210. The Administration looks forward to continuing the same bipartisan, bicameral 

approach as we move forward. 

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. I look forward to 

answering any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:] 

11 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF P. DANIEL SMITH, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, NATIONAL PARK

SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR ON H.R. 5210 AND H.R. 2584 

Chairman McClintock, Ranking Member Hanabusa, and members of the 

Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to present the Department of the 

Interior’s views on H.R. 2584, the National Park Service Legacy Act of 2017, and 

H.R. 5210, the National Park Restoration Act. My name is P. Daniel Smith and I 

serve as the Deputy Director of the National Park Service. 

The Department supports H.R. 5210, but recommends amending the bill to 

include the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Bureau of Indian Education for 

funding that would be available through the bill’s proposed National Park Restoration Fund. Adding those two bureaus would make the bill consistent the President’s 

FY 2019 budget proposal. In addition, we would like to work with the Committee 

on technical amendments to H.R. 5210. While we appreciate that H.R. 2584 seeks 

to accomplish the same goal of providing dedicated funding for the deferred maintenance backlog, we believe that H.R. 5210 would be a better approach to addressing 

the problem. 

H.R. 5210 would establish a separate account within the United States Treasury 

called the National Park Restoration Fund (Restoration Fund). The additional funding deposited in the Restoration Fund would help reduce the National Park 

Service’s (NPS) $11.6 billion deferred maintenance backlog. Energy development 

revenues from renewable sources, as well as from conventional sources (oil, gas, and 

coal), would be deposited into the Restoration Fund. Once the Fund accumulates 

$18 billion or 10 years have passed, which ever happens first, deposits to the fund 

would cease. 

The National Park Restoration Act would not change or modify established 

revenue sharing payments to the states under the Mineral Leasing Act (MLA), the 

Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act (GOMESA) or other statutes, nor would it affect 

deposits to other established funds, such as the Reclamation Fund, the Land and 

Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), or other dedicated uses of onshore and offshore 

revenues. These existing uses would receive all of their dedicated funding before the 

Restoration Fund receives anything. The bill identifies total energy revenue collection thresholds for each of the next 10 years; if collections exceed those amounts and 

after all existing obligations are met, half of the revenue above that baseline that 

would otherwise be deposited as miscellaneous receipts would be deposited in the 

Restoration Fund to address the NPS maintenance backlog, and the other half 

would go to the Treasury for deficit reduction. 

The Restoration Fund would be available for use, without further appropriation 

or fiscal year limitations, for the high-priority deferred maintenance needs that support critical infrastructure and visitor services, as determined by the Secretary of 

the Interior and the Director of the National Park Service. Funding could not be 

used for the acquisition of land. The bill also requires annual updates and reporting 

to Congress on the projects funded each year. 

H.R. 2584 would establish the National Park Legacy Fund (Legacy Fund), a dedicated fund from Federal mineral revenues that would otherwise not be credited to 

other accounts, and would be available to the NPS to use for high priority deferred 

maintenance needs. The bill requires 80 percent of funds to be used for building, 

utilities, and visitor facilities and 20 percent to be used for transportation assets. 

The bill would provide deposits to the Legacy Fund from 2018 to 2047, ranging from 

$50 million in each of Fiscal Years 2018, 2019, and 2020, to $500 million in each 

of Fiscal Years 2027 through 2047. 

The Department appreciates the effort of all members who co-sponsored 

H.R. 2584, and the Secretary believes it is important to work with anyone who is 

willing to tackle this important cause. However, the Department supports 

H.R. 5210, the National Park Restoration Act, because it is more closely aligned 

with the legislative proposal in the President’s FY 2019 Budget. 

If H.R. 5210 is enacted, the Restoration Fund would receive revenue from all 

energy development occurring on public lands and waters, including alternative and 

renewable sources such as solar, wind, and geothermal, unlike the LWCF and the 

Legacy Fund, which rely solely on mineral revenues. The Administration’s ‘‘all-ofthe-above’’ energy development strategy aligns with H.R. 5210’s funding mechanism 

for the Restoration Fund. 

We believe H.R. 5210 also holds greater potential for providing significant nearterm funding than H.R. 2584 does. H.R. 5210 would generate up to $18 billion over 

the next 10 years, versus less than $2 billion in the next 10 years generated under 

H.R. 2584. The Department’s maintenance needs are immediate and we support the 

proposal that we believe would result in more funding and in a more immediate 

fashion. Of note, the President’s Fiscal Year 2019 Budget assumed that its 

12 

legislative fund proposal, which the sponsors used as a reference in drafting 

H.R. 5210, would also allow up to $18 billion over the next 10 years and would result in an estimated $6.8 billion in expenditures for repairs and improvements over 

the 10-year period. 

Appropriated funds are currently the primary source of funding for deferred maintenance. However, as Secretary Zinke indicated before the Senate Energy and 

Natural Resources Committee, we cannot rely on solely on appropriated dollars to 

address this problem. Without a dedicated funding source, the deferred maintenance 

backlog will continue to grow. The backlog of projects at our national parks limit 

access, impair visitor experiences and impact recreational opportunities. The network of roads, trails, restrooms, water treatment systems, drinking water, and 

visitor centers are aging and are exceeding a capacity they were often never designed to hold and support. 

The Administration appreciates Congress’ effort to author legislation that follows 

the blueprint laid out in the FY 2019 Budget. Although not identical, of the two 

funds, the National Park Restoration Fund is the Administration’s preferred proposal to addressing the $11.6 billion maintenance backlog that the National Park 

Service faces. 

As Secretary Zinke said when announcing the FY 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 . . . 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.’’ 

We greatly appreciate the effort of this Committee, Chairmen Bishop and 

Simpson, Congresswoman Hanabusa, Senator Alexander, Senator Portman and all 

your colleagues in Congress who have sought to craft real solutions to our maintenance backlog. The bills we are discussing today reflect a bipartisan, bicameral approach that the Administration believes is necessary to achieve our end goals. We 

look forward to continuing to work with each of you on this issue in a collaborative 

manner that preserves and maintains our national treasures for generations to 

come. 

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

questions you or other members of the Committee may have. 

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

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

Question Submitted by Rep. Bishop 

Question 1. Conservation Corps accomplish millions of dollars of important work 

on maintenance, infrastructure, recreation, and wildfire remediation that address the 

priorities of the Department of the Interior each year. This work requires a good faith 

understanding that the project development and financial agreement approval process will move forward in a timely fashion, in order to recruit and train 

Corpsmembers, field staff and buy supplies like trucks and chainsaws, tents and 

boots. This work is also often seasonal, meaning there’s a short window when the 

work can be accomplished without further adding to the maintenance backlog. 

We understand there is a financial agreement review process in place for any 

project over $50,000 which has temporarily frozen nearly all of these projects around 

the country. Please share with the Committee what steps the Department is taking 

to ensure these projects will continue to meet Interior’s needs, Corps won’t have to 

turn away thousands of young adults and veterans this year, and the projects they 

have been developing with Interior will move forward in time to accomplish this 

work during the 2018 field season. 

Answer. The Department is committed to appropriately administering a grant and 

cooperative agreement program that distributed over $5.5 billion of taxpayer money 

each year. Upon arriving at the Department, Secretary Zinke began a review of the 

Department’s financial assistance programs, which included a review of the audits 

and investigation on these programs that have been conducted by the Department’s 

Office of the Inspector General. To ensure the proper management and implementation of the Department’s grants and cooperative agreements, the Department 

provided guidance to Bureaus to improve the process for managing discretionary 

financial assistance programs. With an eye on establishing a reasonable path 

13 

forward—although minimum thresholds for review were initially set—the process 

for review is an evolving one. 

For Fiscal Year 2018 financial assistance obligations, final approval is required 

from the National Park Service (NPS) Deputy Director if the amount of proposed 

funding is under $50,000. If the amount is more than $50,000, the financial assistance agreement must be reviewed by the Senior Advisor to the Assistant Secretary 

Policy, Management, and Budget prior to award. 

In order to manage and expedite this process, the NPS established an internal 

online review system. Projects are submitted for review to a central database that 

tracks budget information, project objectives, and public benefits. NPS staff review 

each project to ensure that they meet Departmental and NPS priorities. Then, 

either the NPS Deputy Director or the Senior Advisor to the Assistant Secretary for 

Policy, Management, and Budget takes action on the project. 

The NPS has worked diligently to ensure that projects are internally reviewed 

and approved to allow sufficient time for funds to be obligated and for work to be 

accomplished during the 2018 field season. 

Question Submitted by Rep. Grijalva 

Question 1. In H.R. 5210, the baseline for Fiscal Year 2019 is $8 billion. In this 

year’s budget, the Interior Department projects that in Fiscal Year 2019, we will 

collect just under $7.8 billion. So, if we collect $7.8 billion in Fiscal Year 2019 as 

expected, and the number in the bill for 2019 is $8 billion, no money would go to 

the National Park Restoration Fund in Fiscal Year 2019. 

However, in the budget, the Department projects $760 million going to the Fund 

in Fiscal Year 2019. Using the Depatiment’s projections, no money would be going 

to fix National Park infrastructure, but then you also say you expect $760 million. 

How does the Department come up with that $760 million dollar estimate? 

Answer. The Department’s budget proposal caps the funds that could be deposited 

into the Public Lands Infrastructure Fund at $18 billion. The budget estimated that 

there would be $8 billion in deposits and $6.8 billion in expenditures from the Fund 

over the course of that 10 years. Importantly, because the deposited funds would 

be available without further appropriation, this fund would be consequential for 

facilities that currently must rely on annual appropriations to address the maintenance backlog at national parks, wildlife refuges and Bureau of Indian Education 

schools. 

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 here. 

Representative McClintock asked if the NPS was able to provide an answer to his 

question asked during the House Natural Resources Committee oversight hearing 

held on March 6, 2018, about regulations adding to the cost of deferred maintenance. 

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 project list is $21.578 million. 

14 

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 project list 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. 

Representative Labrador asked for an example of compounding costs the longer a 

project is deferred. 

Answer. The longer that an asset’s deferred maintenance goes unaddressed, the 

faster that asset will deteriorate. The industry standard facility backlog deterioration rate varies between 2 percent and 10 percent annually (http://bokcms.appa.org/ 

pdfs/131-05281612.pdf). This deterioration causes the cost of repair to grow at an 

increasing rate each year. The following is a detailed example: 

Cantilever Structure—The ‘‘Cantilever Structure’’ on the Clara Barton Parkway 

(part of the George Washington Memorial Parkway) provides a good example of repair work that originally was less expensive and less complicated when the defect 

originally occurred. In 2009, a large pothole (6’ by 4’) was found in the Cantilever 

structure’s deck. At that time, the repair would have required closing that lane of 

the bridge and possibly the lanes of traffic below (part of the Westbound roadway 

overhangs the Eastbound roadway for 0.27 miles; this is the ‘‘cantilever’’). NPS staff 

completed a temporary fix by filling the pothole, which maintained the safety of the 

public using the bridge. The more extensive and expensive fix was delayed for a 

number of reasons including the complexity of the long-term repair that was beyond 

the capability of the park’s maintenance staff and a desire save costs by lumping 

the repair with a more extensive project planned for the Clara Barton Parkway 

which would reduce mobilization and demobilization costs. 

Currently, the pothole has grown both in area and in depth and now measures 

about 20’ by 10’. The deterioration requires different materials to repair, including 

repairs to the steel reinforcing material, which is more expensive than concrete. In 

addition, the larger and deeper repair requires that the structure be supported from 

underneath (from the lower roadway) during work. The more extensive repair combined with the need to close more of the road for a longer time leads to an increase 

in workzone costs. The total project cost of this repair is now approximately 

$200,000, far more than it would have been if the pothole had been fully repaired 

at the time it was first discovered. 

Representative Gianforte asked for prioritized deferred maintenance projects in 

Montana and inquired how fast work could begin on these projects. 

Answer. The table below shows the maintenance projects that are underway or 

planned for Fiscal Year 2018 and Fiscal Year 2019 that have a deferred maintenance component. These projects will begin either in 2018 or 2019. 

Planned Year Park Project 

2018 Glacier National Park Rehabilitate Albright Circle Sewer System 

2018 Glacier National Park Rehabilitate Four Comfort Stations for Accessibility at Saint 

Mary Campground 

2018 Little Bighorn Battlefield National 

Monument 

Rehabilitate Domestic Water Source and Transmission System 

2019 Big Hole National Battlefield Replace Defective Fire Protection System for Park Housing 

2019 Little Bighorn Battlefield National 

Monument 

Rehabilitate Wastewater Collection System 

2019 Glacier National Park Rehabilitate Many Glacier Sewage Force Main Connection 

15 

Planned Year Park Project 

2019 Glacier National Park Reconstruct Rock Walls and Elevate Boardwalks on Multiple 

Trails 

2019 Glacier National Park Rehabilitate Nine Sections of Trail System Associated with the 

Going to the Sun Road 

2019 Glacier National Park Rehabilitate Many Glacier Road, Route 14 

Representative Gianforte also asked about the percentages of energy development 

revenues that come from conventional energy sources (oil, gas, and coal), and from 

renewable energy sources. 

Answer. In Fiscal Year 2017, 98.7 percent of revenues were from conventional 

sources and 1.3 percent were from renewable sources. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Great. Thank you very much for your 

testimony. 

We next welcome Ms. Marcia Argust, Director of Restore 

America’s Parks for the Pew Charitable Trusts, also in 

Washington, DC. 

STATEMENT OF MARCIA ARGUST, DIRECTOR, RESTORE 

AMERICA’S PARKS, THE PEW CHARITABLE TRUSTS, 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Ms. ARGUST. Thank you. Chairman McClintock, Ranking 

Member Hanabusa, and members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the invitation to discuss two important legislative measures 

that seek to address the deferred maintenance issue within the 

National Park System. These measures are the National Park 

Service Legacy Act and the National Park Restoration Act. And I 

want to thank Representatives Hurd, Simpson, and Hanabusa for 

their support of these measures. 

Addressing the Park Service backlog and keeping it from escalating will require a bipartisan approach and collaboration. Bills 

introduced this Congress, the Administration’s recognition of the 

need to resolve the maintenance backlog, and this hearing are 

signs that we are headed in the right direction, as well as the 

opening statements that we have heard here today. 

The National Park Service estimates that repairs at sites nationwide total $11.6 billion, based on 2017 data. As the Agency manages these sites, it is responsible for the care and operation of over 

75,000 assets such as trails, roads, thousands of buildings and historic structures, battlefields, recreation amenities, and electrical 

and water systems. 

Aside from the Department of Defense, the Park Service is responsible for maintaining more assets than any other Federal 

agency. Over half of these assets have deferred maintenance. The 

reasons for this are aging infrastructure, visitation pressures, and 

inconsistent maintenance funding. Of the $11.6 billion backlog, 

$8.8 billion is attributed to highest and high-priority assets, which 

are considered critical or very important to the operations and mission of a park site. 

Restoring our national parks is about much more than the physical integrity of a trail or a building. Restoring our parks is about 

16 

preservation, access, and economics. In addition to documenting 

our Nation’s history for future generations and providing visitors 

with access to recreation opportunities, parks are proven economic 

engines for rural and urban communities. 

I have submitted with my written testimony a list of almost 

3,000 organizations that support directing more resources to park 

maintenance. These groups include counties and cities, the state of 

California, the state of Louisiana, businesses, veterans, the tourism 

industry, conservation groups, unions, and infrastructure groups, 

among others. 

There are a number of important similarities between the Legacy 

Act and the Restoration Act that I would like to highlight. They 

both establish funds in the general Treasury to direct annual 

Federal funding to park repairs. They both prohibit funds from 

being used for land acquisition. They discourage funds from supplanting discretionary funding of Park Service maintenance needs. 

They use mineral revenues from energy development on Federal 

lands and waters as their revenue stream. Each contain provisions 

ensuring that monies going into their respective maintenance funds 

would not come from revenues obligated for other purposes under 

law, such as the Land and Water Conservation Fund, the Historic 

Preservation Fund, or state funds. And the bills share a number 

of the same sponsors and co-sponsors. 

Pew endorses the National Park Service Legacy Act without 

reservation. 

We offer our support of the National Park Restoration Act with 

improvements. We would like to work with the bill’s sponsors to 

implement the following modifications. 

A funding mechanism that reflects a specific annual dollar 

amount is needed, ensuring a consistent source of park maintenance funding. As currently written, the Restoration Act relies on 

a percentage figure that means annual intake will vary from year 

to year. 

We would also like to see the addition of language to ensure 

funding parity between transportation and non-transportation 

assets. 

While not on the hearing docket today, Pew also endorses the 

Land Act authored by Representative Simpson. The legislation 

seeks to provide dedicated annual funding for maintenance needs 

within public land agencies and to provide dedicated funding for 

LWCF. 

We are committed to working with the sponsors of all of these 

bills to incorporate the best provisions of each into a final proposal 

that will provide significant reduction of the park’s backlog. Thank 

you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Argust follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARCIA ARGUST, THE PEW CHARITABLE TRUSTS ON

H.R. 5210 AND H.R. 2584 

Chairman McClintock, Ranking Member Hanabusa, and members of the 

Subcommittee, thank you for the invitation to discuss dedicated Federal funding as 

a means to help address the multi-billion dollar maintenance needs within our 

National Park System. I also want to thank Chairman Bishop and Rep. Grijalva for 

their attention to the deferred maintenance backlog. I request that my full written 

statement and accompanying documents be submitted for the record. 

17 

The Restore America’s Parks campaign at The Pew Charitable Trusts seeks to 

conserve the natural and cultural assets of the National Park System by providing 

common-sense, long-term solutions to the deferred maintenance challenge facing the 

National Park Service (NPS). 

THE DEFERRED MAINTENANCE CHALLENGE WITHIN THE NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM

At present, NPS estimates that repairs at its more than 400 sites total $11.6 

billion based on FY 2017 data [see Figure 1]. At these diverse sites—national parks, 

historic sites, national monuments, battlefields, seashores and lakeshores, national 

recreation areas—the agency is responsible for the care and operation of over 75,000 

assets. 

Figure 1 

These assets include over 12,000 miles of roads (over 5,000 of which are paved), 

nearly 1,500 bridges and 60 tunnels, 18,000 miles of trails, more than 28,000 

buildings and historic structures, approximately 1,800 waste water systems, former 

military installations, parking lots, waterfronts, campgrounds, electrical and water 

systems, interpretive facilities, and iconic monuments and memorials. 

Aside from the Department of Defense, NPS maintains more assets than any 

other Federal agency. Over half of its 75,000 assets have deferred maintenance. 

‘‘Highest’’ and ‘‘high’’ priority assets account for $8.8 billion (or 75 percent) of the 

$11.6 billion backlog [see Figure 2]. Highest priority assets are considered critical 

to the operations and mission of a park site while high priority assets are considered 

very important. 


29422.001.eps
18 

Figure 2 

Pew has completed a number of case studies that document the breadth of maintenance challenges plaguing our parks, along with a compilation of testimonials 

from local officials, community leaders, and businesses that depend on wellmaintained, safe, and accessible parks to help sustain healthy local economies. The 

case studies and testimonials can be viewed on our webpage: http:// 

www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/fact-sheets/2017/05/national-park-casestudies. 

Of specific note, Utah is known worldwide for its national parks units. They 

attracted over 14 million visits in 2016, which translated to $1 billion in direct 

spending in local communities, $1.5 billion in state economic output and over 17,000 

jobs. Yet our national parks in Utah have maintenance needs totaling $266 million. 

Zion National Park, one of the most visited sites, needs $65 million worth of repairs, 

primarily for roads that provide access to park resources. The floor of the Valley 

Road that runs through Zion Canyon, the park’s most popular destination, is now 

accessed only by shuttle or tour buses 9 months of the year. It was originally built 

to withstand the weight of cars, but its heavy use by larger vehicles caused almost 

$3 million in damage. Millions more are needed to fix roads to Zion’s campgrounds 

and visitor centers, and their accompanying parking lots, bridges, and tunnels. 

In California, national park units drew nearly 42 million recreation visits in 2016, 

leading to $2 billion in direct spending in gateway communities, $2.9 billion in state 

economic output, and more than 28,000 jobs. Despite the proven economic benefits 

that parks provide to the state of California, they have a maintenance backlog estimated at $1.8 billion. Yosemite National Park alone has $582 million in repairs, 

over $200 million of which is attributed to roads. But once visitors get out of their 

cars, they find walking, hiking, and biking trails are often in disrepair as well, including the historic Yosemite Bike Path. Yosemite’s famed Mariposa Grove has been 

impacted by a 1930s water line system that was leaking chlorinated water into the 

grove at a rate of 39,500 gallons per day, affecting the growth and longevity of the 

mature sequoias. The area will reopen this summer, after being closed for several 

years to replace the waterline system and other restoration efforts done in partnership with the Yosemite Conservancy. Aging historic properties within the park have 


29422.002.eps
19 

problems too, including the Ansel Adams Gallery, and account for over $100 million 

repair needs. 

THE CAUSES OF DEFERRED MAINTENANCE

Due to aging facilities, strain on resources caused by increased visitation in 

certain park sites, and unreliable funding, NPS has been unable to keep pace with 

necessary infrastructure repairs. 

• Aging infrastructure: Our National Park System is over 100 years old and 

many park units are showing their age. According to a December 2016 

Government Accounting Office (GAO) report, most of the NPS maintenance 

backlog is attributed to older park sites, stating specifically that ‘‘about $10.5 

billion in deferred maintenance was for park units established more than 40 

years ago.’’ Most infrastructures have a finite life span, due to factors such 

as material longevity, weather, use, and design. 

Mirroring the infrastructure problems of both urban and rural areas across 

the country, transportation needs comprise more than half of the NPS maintenance backlog and represent some of the most costly infrastructure projects, 

including roads, tunnels, and bridges. 

• Rising visitation pressures: In addition to aging infrastructure, the high 

level of visitors that many park sites have been experiencing in recent years 

is placing increasing pressures on resources that are often already showing 

signs of deterioration. 

• Unreliable funding: Years of underfunding compound the challenges of preserving the physical integrity of NPS assets. From FY 2006–FY 2015, Federal 

funding for the repair and rehabilitation, cyclic maintenance, and line-item 

construction portions of the NPS budget declined by 33 percent. 

The agency is typically $250–$320 million short of the $800 million it estimates it needs each year to maintain transportation and non-transportation 

assets at existing conditions. We greatly appreciate the increased allocations 

Congress has provided for NPS maintenance accounts over the past several 

years, but more consistent, reliable funding is needed to close this recurring 

maintenance gap and start reducing the large cumulative deficit. 

WHY WE NEED TO ADDRESS DEFERRED MAINTENANCE

Accompanying this statement is a list of almost 3,000 organizations across the 

Nation that support directing more resources to fixing our parks. These groups— 

counties and cities, local officials, businesses, veterans, the hotel and restaurant industry, conservation groups, unions, the recreation industry, infrastructure groups, 

state tourism societies—recognize the importance of investing in park maintenance 

for the following reasons: 

• Restoring our parks preserves and documents our Nation’s history for future 

generations. 

• Parks are economic engines for rural and urban communities. Based on 

FY 2016 records, 330 million park visits translated to $18 billion in direct 

spending to local communities and regions, generating nearly $35 billion in 

national economic output and 318,000 jobs. A Pew study commissioned last 

year found that fully addressing the national park backlog has the potential 

to create and support more than 110,000 additional infrastructure-related 

jobs nationwide: http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/ 

compass-points/2017/12/01/job-creation-potential-if-we-restore-our-parks. 

• Safe and accessible roads, trails and facilities are needed so visitors can 

access and enjoy park resources. 

• Investing in park maintenance provides a cost-savings, as postponement of 

projects can lead to more costly and extensive repairs. 

DEDICATED FUNDING LEGISLATION

Drawing down and preventing the escalation of a multi-billion maintenance backlog that has accrued over decades requires multiple approaches. Pew’s Restore 

America’s Parks campaign is pursuing a range of solutions including dedicated annual Federal funding, continued robust annual appropriations funding, legislative 

and administrative policy reforms, increased opportunities for public-private partnerships, and leveraging technology to achieve efficiencies as well as help generate 

revenue. 

20 

Of all of these avenues, dedicated annual funding is core to ensuring that the NPS 

can keep pace with priority repairs and keep deferred maintenance from escalating. 

When Congress established the Park Service over 100 years ago, it mandated the 

agency ‘‘. . . to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the 

wildlife therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and 

by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.’’ Congress has a responsibility to ensure that NPS has adequate resources to 

fulfill the mission it gave the agency. 

Several bipartisan bills have been introduced this Congress to tackle the deferred 

maintenance challenge within our parks, specifically the National Park Service 

Legacy Act (H.R. 2584/S. 751) and the National Park Restoration Act (H.R. 5210/ 

S. 2509). We applaud the sponsors and co-sponsors of all of these measures for their 

commitment to our national parks and for responding to the diverse voices across 

the Nation calling on Congress to fix our parks. 

There are a number of similarities between the Legacy Act and the Restoration 

Act. Each would establish a fund in the U.S. General Treasury to direct dedicated 

Federal funding each year to park maintenance needs. Both measures prohibit 

funds from being used for land acquisition and would discourage funds from replacing discretionary funding for NPS facility maintenance needs. The revenue stream 

for the Legacy Act and the Restoration Act would be royalties from energy development on Federal lands and waters that are paid into the General Treasury (it 

should be noted that the Restoration Act would also use revenues from renewables). 

Using revenues from energy development for mitigation purposes is not a new concept. The onshore and offshore mineral revenue system is an existing system set up 

decades ago under the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 and the Outer Continental Shelf 

Lands Act of 1953. Both proposals contain language to ensure that monies going 

into the maintenance funds would not come from royalties payments that are obligated for other purposes under law (such as the Land and Water Conservation 

Fund, the Historic Preservation Fund, and state funds). Additionally, the bills share 

a number of the same co-sponsors. 

Pew endorses the National Park Service Legacy Act, introduced by Senators 

Warner (D-VA) and Portman (R-OH) and Representatives Hurd (R-TX), Reichert (RWA), Kilmer (D-WA), and Hanabusa (D-HI), without reservation. In addition to the 

provisions outlined above, the legislation would provide that 80 percent of the fund 

be used for repairs to non-transportation assets (such as historic structures, visitor 

facilities, trails, water utility systems, and assets that impact disability access, 

health and safety, and recreation) and 20 percent be used to restore transportationrelated infrastructure such as roads, bridges, and tunnels. This breakdown is 

intended to ensure parity for non-transportation assets, as NPS receives some dedicated funding from the Highway Trust Fund to address transportation needs 

(though the annual amount is far from adequate). The Legacy Act would direct 

monies from the fund to ramp up over 30 years: $50,000,000 for the first 3 years, 

$150,000,000 for the next 3 years, and $250,000,000 for the following 3 years, and 

$500,000,000 for each successive year. This consistent, reliable annual funding is 

critical and would allow for more planning and integration of projects, costeffectiveness, and the ability to tackle complicated, larger-scale maintenance issues. 

The measure also contains a provision to encourage public-private collaboration by 

incentivizing projects that have a cost-share component. 

Pew offers support of the National Park Restoration Act, introduced by Representatives Simpson (R-ID) and Schrader (D-OR) and Senators Alexander (R-TN), King 

(I-ME), Heinrich (D-NM), Daines (R-MT), Gardner (R-CO), Tillis (R-NC), Moore 

Capitol (R-WV), Manchin (D-WV), with improvements. We would like to work with 

the bill sponsors to implement the following improvements: 

• Modification of the funding mechanism to reflect a specific annual dollar 

amount, ensuring a consistent, reliable source of park maintenance funding. 

A successful dedicated funding measure must provide certain and robust annual funding to effectively address long overdue park repairs. As currently 

written, the Restoration Fund would take in 50 percent of energy development revenues over a baseline figure projected for each of 10 years. Reliance 

on a percentage figure means that the annual intake will vary from year to 

year. 

• Addition of language to ensure funding parity between transportation and 

non-transportation assets. 

While not on the hearing docket today, Pew also endorses the Land and National 

Park Deferred Maintenance Act (H.R. 2863) authored by Rep. Simpson. The legislation seeks to provide dedicated annual funding for maintenance needs within public 

21 

land agencies and to provide dedicated funding for the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund over a 7-year period. 

CONCLUSION

Deferred maintenance within our National Park System is a critical issue that 

needs to be addressed. It will require a bipartisan approach and collaboration. The 

bipartisan bills that have been introduced this Congress, the Administration’s recognition of the need to resolve the maintenance backlog, and this hearing are signs 

that we’re headed in the right direction. Pew is committed to working with the sponsors of all of the deferred maintenance measures to incorporate the best provisions 

of each into a final proposal that can be enacted and will provide a significant 

reduction to the national parks backlog. 

Thank you for your consideration of these views and for the Subcommittee’s 

interest in addressing the maintenance backlog plaguing our national parks. 

***** 

The following document was submitted as a supplement to Ms. Argust’s testimony. 

This document is part of the hearing record and is being retained in the 

Committee’s official files: 

—List of supporters for addressing the National Park System backlog 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you for your testimony. 

Next, we welcome Mr. Matt Lee-Ashley, Senior Fellow at the 

Center for American Progress in Washington, DC. 

STATEMENT OF MATT LEE-ASHLEY, SENIOR FELLOW, CENTER 

FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. LEE-ASHLEY. Thank you Chairman McClintock and Ranking 

Member Hanabusa for the opportunity to testify today. My name 

is Matt Lee-Ashley, I am a Senior Fellow at the Center for 

American Progress, where I focus on natural resources, conservation, and public lands policy. 

Today’s hearing, which focuses on strengthening our investments 

in our national parks and public lands, could not be more timely. 

The immense challenges facing our public lands today include the 

rapid loss of natural areas and wildlife driven by development; 

climate change and other stressors; and the need to ensure that all 

our parks and public lands better reflect the history, cultures, and 

needs of all Americans. 

The two bills that the Committee is discussing today aim to address just one element of the many challenges facing our public 

lands: how to invest in and care for the physical, human-built 

infrastructure in our national parks, and only in our national 

parks. 

To be sure, this is a vital public policy priority, but it is a 

manageable problem if we keep three things in mind. 

First, the actual size of the deferred maintenance backlog. The 

Center for American Progress’ review of the National Park 

Service’s maintenance database found that if you strip out the 

projects that should be paid for by private hotels and restaurants 

that operate in the parks, and the road projects that should be addressed through the highway bill, the backlog is reduced by 50 

percent. 

Further, only $1.3 billion is actually listed as ‘‘critical systems 

deferred maintenance,’’ and considered by the Agency as their 

22 

highest priority for necessary maintenance. $1.3 billion is still a 

large number, but with smart budgeting, it is manageable. 

Second, we need balanced and comprehensive investment in all 

our public lands. In 2016, the U.S. Forest Service, the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, and the Bureau of Land Management had a 

combined maintenance backlog approaching $8 billion. The Trump 

administration’s budget, meanwhile, proposes massive reductions 

in operation funding for all these agencies, including the elimination of 2,000 park rangers and professionals. Piecemeal investments to fix parking lots and potholes will not overcome the 

damage that would be done by the Trump administration’s proposed budget cuts. 

And third, our investments in our great outdoors should come 

from predictable and sustainable funding sources, and not undermine the conservation values the National Park Service is obligated to protect. We are not a country that should have to allow 

mining in national monuments to pay for the bathrooms in our 

parks. 

The National Park Restoration Act, H.R. 5210, mirrors the 

Trump administration’s Public Land Infrastructure Fund, which 

Secretary Zinke discussed last week when he appeared before this 

Committee. H.R. 5210 is burdened by many of the same policy 

shortcomings as the Administration’s proposal. It would invest solely in the built infrastructure in the parks, roads, bathrooms, concessionaire facilities, but does not help the Park Service fulfill its 

mission of, for example, protecting a Civil War battlefield from 

being turned into a big box store, or creating a new access point 

for kids to go fishing. 

The bill also does not acknowledge the pressing needs of the 

other land management agencies. 

But the biggest shortcoming of H.R. 5210 is that there is no 

guarantee that even a single penny will flow to the fund. For the 

national parks to receive any benefit from this proposal, the 

Federal Government would have to collect more than $7.8 billion 

in energy revenues in 2018, a threshold that rises steadily to $9.4 

billion by 2027. This is a dubious, speculative, and uncertain 

approach to infrastructure investment. 

The condition of our national parks under no circumstances 

should be dependent on the price of oil and the decisions of OPEC, 

on whether or not we drill in the Arctic refuge or near the coasts 

of Florida or North Carolina, or whether we permit a new coal 

mine near a national monument. 

The National Park Service Legacy Act of 2017, H.R. 2584, 

presents a more balanced and realistic approach. It would dedicate 

a portion of existing Federal energy revenues to national park 

maintenance projects, thus providing clear, certain, and stable investments through 2047. Under the bill, between 2018 and 2026, 

$1.35 billion would go to national park maintenance needs, which 

along with sensible annual appropriations, would fund the Agency’s 

highest priority projects. 

Paired with sustained and balanced appropriations for the land 

management agencies and significant, permanent, and dedicated 

investments in conservation through the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund and other funding streams, H.R. 2584 can 

23 

1 64th Congress, 1st Session, ‘‘An Act to Establish a National Park Service, and for other 

Purposes,’’ enacted August 25, 1916, available at https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/ 

anps/anps_1i.htm. 2 Center for American Progress, ‘‘The Disappearing West,’’ accessed March 17, 2018, available 

at https://disappearingwest.org/. 3Matt Lee-Ashley and Nicole Gentile, ‘‘Confronting America’s Wildlife Extinction Crisis,’’ 

October, 2015, Center for American Progress, available at https://www.americanprogress.org/ 

issues/green/reports/2015/10/19/123085/confronting-americas-wildlife-extinction-crisis/. 4Diana Madson, ‘‘Climate change threatens California’s iconic ‘Dr. Seuss’ trees,’ Yale Climate 

Connections, August 31, 2017, available at https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2017/08/ 

drought-threatens-joshua-trees/; U.S. Geological Survey, ‘‘Retreat of Glaciers in Glacier National 

Park,’’ accessed March 17, 2018, available at https://www.usgs.gov/centers/norock/science/retreatglaciers-glacier-national-park?qt-science_center_objects=0#qt-science_center_objects. 

contribute to sound public lands stewardship over the next several 

decades. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lee-Ashley follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MATT LEE-ASHLEY, SENIOR FELLOW, CENTER FOR

AMERICAN PROGRESS ON H.R. 5210 AND H.R. 2584 

Thank you, Chairman McClintock and Ranking Member Hanabusa, for the opportunity to testify on H.R. 5210, the National Park Restoration Act and H.R. 2584, 

The National Park Service Legacy Act of 2017. 

My name is Matt Lee-Ashley. I am a senior fellow at the Center for American 

Progress, where I focus on natural resources, conservation, and public lands policy. 

Previously, I served as deputy chief of staff and communications director for the 

U.S. Department of the Interior. I have also had the honor for working in the U.S. 

Senate for then-Senator Ken Salazar, on behalf of my home state of Colorado. 

When Congress passed the Organic Act that established the National Park 

Service in 1916, it directed the agency ‘‘to conserve the scenery and the natural and 

historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the 

same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.’’ 1

By its founding legislation, the National Park Service has a dual mission of protecting—unimpaired—the natural, cultural, and historic resources with which it is 

entrusted and helping Americans see and experience them. Conservation and 

enjoyment. 

Today’s hearing, which focuses on strengthening our investments in our national 

parks and public lands, could not be more timely in light of the challenges we are 

experiencing in the stewardship of our natural and cultural resources and in protecting and expanding access to the great outdoors. 

This Committee well knows the conservation challenges facing our national parks, 

wildlife, and cultural and historic resources. To list a few: 

• We are losing our remaining wild places in the United States at an alarming 

rate. Between 2001 and 2011 in the West, we lost an average of one football 

field worth of natural area every 21⁄2 minutes.2

• Our Nation’s conservation policies have slowed, but not stopped, the decline 

of American wildlife populations. One in five American plant and animal 

species—nearly 1,300 total species—is at risk of extinction.3

• Tens of thousands of archaeological sites in the Southwest are largely 

unprotected and vulnerable to looting and vandalism. 

• America’s Civil War battlefields—from Fredericksburg to Gettysburg—face 

ongoing risks from encroaching development. 

• Private development threatens parks and protected areas. Chaco Canyon, 

Zion National Park, Bears Ears National Monument, and Great Sand Dunes 

National Park in Colorado are all at risk of having drilling at their doorsteps. 

Just last week, the Bureau of Land Management sold an oil and gas lease 

near the Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument in Montana for 

just $866. 

• Climate change is forcing dramatic changes to the landscape. Glaciers are disappearing in Glacier National Park. Joshua trees are dying in Joshua Tree 

National Park.4

24 

5 U.S. Department of the Interior, ‘‘Secretary Zinke Announces Record Visitation in America’s 

National Parks,’’ March 10, 2017, available at https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/secretary-zinkeannounces-record-visitation-americas-national-parks; National Park Service, ‘‘National Park 

Service Visitor Use Statistics,’’ accessed March 17, 2018, available at: https://irma.nps.gov/Stats/ 

SSRSReports/National%20Reports/Annual%20Summary%20Report%20(1904%20- 

%20Last%20Calendar%20Year. 6 Jenny Rowland, ‘‘Parks for All,’’ Center for American Progress, August, 2016, available at: 

https://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/22093415/CentennialAgendareport1.pdf. 7 Center for Western Priorities, ‘‘Landlocked: Measuring Public Land Access in the West,’’ 

November, 2013, available at http://westernpriorities.org/2013/11/25/new-report-landlockedmeasuring-public-land-access-in-the-west/. 8 National Park Service, ‘‘NPS Deferred Maintenance Reports,’’ accessed March 17, 2018, 

available at: https://www.nps.gov/subjects/plandesignconstruct/defermain.htm. 9Laura B. Comay, ‘‘The National Park Service’s Maintenance Backlog: Frequently Asked 

Questions,’’ Congressional Research Service, August 23, 2017, available at: https://fas.org/sgp/ 

crs/misc/R44924.pdf. 

Alongside the real and pressing conservation problems with which we are confronted, we are grappling with how to ensure that current and future generations 

of Americans have the opportunity to get outdoors and experience the natural, 

historic, and cultural wonders that belong to them. For example: 

• A growing population needs more ways and more places to get outdoors. Case 

in point: our national parks welcomed nearly 331 million visitors in 2016 and 

2017—a record level of visitation.5 This is wonderful news, but unless we expand close-to-home recreation opportunities and protect other deserving 

places, we are going to see more and more crowding and pressure on our park 

system. 

• We need to be doing more to engage all Americans—from all backgrounds and 

all walks of life—in our public lands. For the National Park Service, that 

means protecting places that help tell the story of all Americans. A recent 

Center for Progress analysis found that only a small portion of national park 

sites has a focus on communities of color and traditionally under-represented 

communities. Only 9 of more than 400 national park units, for example, have 

a primary focus on the contributions of women to our history. Only three have 

a primary focus on Asian-American history.6

• As a result of checkerboard land ownership patterns in some areas of the 

country, too many public lands are not actually publicly accessible. According 

to one study, more than 4 million acres of public lands in the West—an area 

nearly twice the size of Yellowstone National Park—are off limits to the public because visitors would have to cross private land or because there are no 

legal entry points.7

• Finally, to welcome visitors to our public lands, we need to invest in the physical infrastructure that visitors need and want, including roads, bathrooms, 

and campgrounds. But we also need to support the rangers, law enforcement 

personnel, scientists, and other professionals who help take care of the 

resources and who protect public safety. 

MAINTENANCE PROJECTS IN THE NATIONAL PARKS

The two bills that the Committee is discussing today aim to address just one element of the many challenges I mentioned: how to invest in and care for the physical, 

human-built infrastructure in our national parks. 

To be sure, this is a vital public policy priority, but, with the right approach and 

investments, it is a manageable problem. 

First, it is important to clarify the scale and scope of the problem we are trying 

to solve. The National Park Service reports that it has more than $11 billion in 

‘‘deferred maintenance’’ needs.8 That staggering number has rightly caused widespread concern. Congress, however, should scrutinize this number carefully to understand the highest and most pressing needs and tailor solutions accordingly. 

Maintenance of roads, tunnels, and parking lots accounts for roughly half of that 

figure; the U.S. Department of Transportation and their Federal highway programs 

therefore play a critical role in addressing the backlog.9

A Center for American Progress review of the Park Service’s ‘‘deferred maintenance’’ database also found $389 million in projects on concessionaire-operated 

facilities in the parks. These are privately run, for-profit enterprises; these companies, not U.S. taxpayers, should be paying for the upkeep of the facilities they are 

using. 

25 

10 Nicole Gentile and Matt Lee-Ashley, ‘‘Yosemite for Sale,’’ Center for American Progress, 

February 10, 2017, available at: https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/reports/2017/02/ 

10/414907/yosemite-for-sale/. 11 Carol Hardy Vincent, ‘‘Deferred Maintenance of Federal Land Management Agencies: 

FY 2007–FY 2016 Estimates and Issues,’’ Congressional Research Service, April 25, 2017, 

available at: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43997.pdf. 12 U.S. Department of the Interior, ‘‘FY 2019 Interior Budget in Brief,’’ February, 2018, 

available at: https://edit.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/uploads/fy2019_bib_dh025.pdf. 13 Natasha Geiling, ‘‘Here’s What Ryan Zinke’s public lands infrastructure investment actually 

means,’’ Climate Progress, March 14, 2018, available at: https://thinkprogress.org/zinke-publiclands-infrastructure-explainer-16d7502102fe/. 14 Nicole Gentile and Jenny Rowland, ‘‘Zinke’s Cynical Plan to Make America’s Parks Dependent on Mining and Drilling,’’ Center for American Progress, March 16, 2018, available at: https:// 

www.americanprogress.org / issues / green / news / 2018 / 03 / 16 / 448029 / zinkes-cynical-plan-makeamericas-national-parks-dependent-mining-drilling/. 

Further, our review of the Park Service’s database found that only $3.5 billion— less than 30 percent—of the National Park Service’s $11.9 billion maintenance 

backlog is labeled as ‘‘critical systems deferred maintenance.’’ Of that, only $1.3 

billion—or about 10 percent of the total backlog—is serious enough for the agency 

to consider it a priority for necessary maintenance.10 To be sure, $1.3 billion is a 

large number, but this understanding of the truly high priority maintenance needs 

should inform Congress’ budgetary decisions. 

Second, the maintenance needs in our national parks should be assessed in the 

context of the maintenance needs on other public lands as well—in our national 

forests, wildlife refuges, and national conservation lands. Yes, national parks are remarkable places. But so many of our children’s first experiences in the outdoors are 

at a campground in a national forest, visiting a national wildlife refuge on a school 

trip, or going fishing in one of the BLM’s national conservation areas. 

The maintenance challenges at these other agencies are just as pressing as in the national parks. In 2016, the U.S. Forest Service estimated that it had $5.49 billion 

in maintenance needs, while the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service estimated $1.4 

billion and the BLM $810 million.11

These maintenance needs are significant, but they not insurmountable. We need 

a long-term investment in our parks and public lands that: 

• Focuses on the highest priority maintenance needs in our national parks and 

at other land management agencies. 

• Requires for-profit entities operating on national parks and public lands to 

pay for the maintenance costs associated with the facilities they are using. 

Taxpayers should not be subsidizing corporate hotel chains in the national 

parks, for example. 

• Provides stable and sustainable funding that can be counted on year after 

year. 

• Improves the condition and stewardship of the resources that the agencies are 

responsible for conserving. 

• Expands opportunities for all Americans to get outdoors, including through 

the protection of new parks and open spaces, and by working toward a more 

inclusive system of parks and public lands. 

THE ADMINISTRATION’S ‘‘PUBLIC LANDS INFRASTRUCTURE FUND’’ PROPOSAL

In his Fiscal Year 2019 budget request of Congress, the President has asked 

Congress to establish what it has labeled a ‘‘Public Lands Infrastructure Fund.’’ The 

proposal would use Federal energy and mineral revenues that are above current 

budget projections to help fund maintenance projects in the national parks.12

In testimony to Congress last week, Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke said the proposal would generate up to $18 billion in funding for national parks and public 

lands. He stated that this would be the ‘‘largest investment in public lands infrastructure in our Nation’s history.’’ 13

This claim is not factually accurate. President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Civilian 

Conservation Corps employed more than 3 million Americans in restoring, protecting, and creating infrastructure for our parks, forests, and public lands. 

Adjusted for inflation to 2018 dollars, Congress invested $58 billion in America’s 

public lands through the CCC, far more than is promised through the Administration’s proposal.14

The problems with the Public Lands Infrastructure Fund, however, are not merely 

rhetorical. The Administration put forward its proposal for maintenance projects in 

the parks while simultaneously proposing to slash the National Park Service’s 

26 

15 U.S. Department of the Interior, ‘‘Budget Justifications and Performance Information, Fiscal 

Year 2019: National Park Service,’’ Exhibit E, February, 2018, available at: https://www.doi.gov/ 

sites/doi.gov/files/uploads/fy2019_nps_budget_justification.pdf. 

overall budget by 7 percent and the Interior Department as a whole by 16 percent. 

This would result in the elimination of up to 2,000 park rangers.15 America’s most 

effective conservation program, the Land and Water Conservation Fund, would be 

effectively eliminated. And the Administration is proposing to increase visitor fees 

at national parks, which would price many families out. 

Furthermore, the financing mechanism for the Administration’s ‘‘Public Lands 

Infrastructure Fund’’ is highly speculative and, unfortunately, in conflict with the 

conservation mission of the National Park Service. The problem, simply put is this: 

in order for park bathrooms to get fixed, the Federal Government would have to 

start collecting a lot more money from oil, gas, and mining companies. 

The three scenarios under which the Federal Government could theoretically generate $18 billion in additional revenues over the next 10 years from energy and 

mineral extraction on taxpayer-owned lands and waters are: 

A. If oil, coal, or natural gas prices rise dramatically; 

B. If Federal agencies increase royalty rates, rents, and bonus bids it collects 

from energy extraction—or requires hardrock mining companies to pay more 

than zero dollars for mining taxpayer-owned resources; or 

C. If the Administration sells off mining and drilling rights in areas of America’s 

public lands and oceans that are currently considered too special to sacrifice, 

such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the Atlantic, Pacific, and Arctic 

coasts, on the doorstep of national monuments and national parks, and in 

national forest watersheds that supply drinking water to nearby communities. 

Each of these scenarios is either unlikely or undesirable. Funding for America’s 

national parks should not be dependent on the price of oil and the decisions that 

the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) makes. This Administration is also signaling its desire to reduce—not increase—royalty rates for 

energy extraction on Federal lands and waters. And we are not a country that 

should have to drill a national wildlife refuge or mine a national monument to be 

able to fix some potholes in national park roads. For these reasons, the Administration’s promise that ‘‘up to $18 billion’’ would 

flow to the Public Lands Infrastructure Fund is unrealistic and in conflict with 

America’s conservation values. 

H.R. 5210 AND H.R. 2584

The National Park Restoration Act (H.R. 5210), in its current form, mirrors the 

Trump administration’s ‘‘Public Lands Infrastructure Fund’’ and is therefore 

burdened by many of the same policy shortcomings. 

The bill narrowly focuses on maintenance projects in the national parks and does 

not make needed investments in our national wildlife refuges, national forests, national monuments and other public lands. It would invest solely in the built infrastructure in the parks—roads, bathrooms, concessionaire facilities—but does not 

help the Park Service address the problems of inholdings, encroaching development, 

or threats to the natural resources it is protecting. In fact, it explicitly prohibits the 

National Park Service from using the funds to purchase land that might serve as 

a new trailhead or to save a former Civil War battlefield from being turned into a 

parking lot for a retail store. 

Perhaps the biggest shortcoming of the current version of H.R. 5210 is that there 

is no guarantee that any money will flow to the fund. For the national parks to receive any benefit from this proposal, the Federal Government would have to collect 

more than $7.8 billion in energy revenues in 2018—a threshold that rises steadily 

to $9.4 billion by 2027. This is a speculative and uncertain approach to infrastructure investment. The condition of our national parks should under no circumstance 

be dependent on the price of oil, on whether or not we drill near the coasts of 

Florida or South Carolina, or whether we permit a new coal mine near a national 

monument. 

The National Park Service Legacy Act of 2017, H.R. 2584, presents a more balanced and realistic approach. It would dedicate a portion of existing Federal energy 

revenues to national park maintenance projects, thus providing clear, certain, and 

stable investments through 2047. Importantly, it also clarifies that the bill would 

not affect other existing commitments of energy revenues, including the share of 

energy revenues that goes to states, the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and 

the Historic Preservation Fund. Under the bill, between 2018 and 2026, $1.35 

27 

billion would go to national park maintenance needs, which—along with sensible 

annual appropriations—would fund the agency’s highest priority projects. 

Paired with significant investments in conservation through the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund, contributions from the Department of Transportation’s Federal 

highway programs, appropriate franchise fees from private concessioners, and sustained and balanced investments in operations and maintenance of the U.S. Forest 

Service, BLM, and National Park Service, H.R. 2584 could help us lay a strong 

foundation for conservation and public lands stewardship for the next 50 years. 

CONCLUSION

Congress was truly wise when it endowed the National Park Service with the 

twin missions of preserving America’s treasures and providing for their enjoyment. 

Over the past 102 years, the National Park Service has proven that these two missions are co-dependent. To successfully preserve Yellowstone National Park, the 

Cesar Chavez National Monument, or the Underground Railroad Network to 

Freedom sites, the American public must be able to see, know, and learn about 

these places. And for American families to have a rewarding experience when they 

visit, our public lands must be healthy, our wildlife must be abundant, and our 

parks should reflect the rich diversity of our history, geography, cultures, and 

peoples. 

To be sure, we have periodically heard arguments for prioritizing public use over 

conservation in the national parks. These arguments, however, present a false 

choice. The maintenance needs in the national parks are no reason to eliminate or 

divert money from the Land and Water Conservation Fund, to stop conserving atrisk places, to slow the restoration of wildlife habitat, to price American families out 

of parks, or to undercut the rangers and professionals who care for these places. For 

more than a century—through two world wars, the Great Depression, and plenty 

of moments of national trial—our country has steadily made America’s best idea 

even better. We have done so by remaining faithful to Congress’ original vision that 

our national parks are to be enjoyed and conserved. 

Thank you. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Our final witness is Ms. Callie Hoyt. She is 

Manager for Federal Affairs for the Motorcycle Industry Council. 

She has traveled here the farthest to be with us today. She has 

come all the way from Arlington, Virginia. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF CALLIE HOYT, MANAGER, FEDERAL AFFAIRS, 

MOTORCYCLE INDUSTRY COUNCIL, ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA 

Ms. HOYT. Thank you. Chairman McClintock, Ranking Member 

Hanabusa, and members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to share the views of the 

Motorcycle Industry Council and views of other outdoor recreation 

interests, on potential solutions to reduce the deferred maintenance 

and repair backlog of the Department of the Interior, as well as 

that of the U.S. Forest Service. 

The Motorcycle Industry Council is a not-for-profit, national 

trade association representing over 600 manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and retailers of motorcycles, scooters, motorcycle and 

ATV parts, accessories and related goods and services, and members of allied trades. Our member companies and their customers, 

over 50 million off-highway motorcycle, side-by-side, and all-terrain 

vehicle riders, many of whom recreate on Federal lands, are very 

concerned over the Department of the Interior’s and the U.S. 

Forest Service’s growing deferred maintenance backlogs. 

Roads, trails, campgrounds, water systems and more recreational 

infrastructure suffer from this accumulated problem that is 

28 

negatively impacting visitor access, enjoyment, and safety on public 

lands for the rapidly growing community of outdoor recreation 

enthusiasts. 

In 2017, 330 million people visited the 417 National Park Service 

sites across the country. The National Park Service completed over 

650 million in maintenance and repair work in Fiscal Year 2017, 

but aging facilities, high visitation, and resource constraints have 

kept the maintenance backlog between $11 billion and $12 billion 

since 2010. 

The National Park Legacy Restoration Fund and the National 

Park Restoration Act are significant efforts to overcome the 

National Park Service’s $11.6 billion maintenance backlog, an 

amount that is nearly four times the Agency’s annual appropriations. Directing Federal receipts associated with the sale of publicly-owned energy resources toward addressing the maintenance 

backlog creates an opportunity to make a strategic contribution to 

our national parks early in the second century of the National Park 

Service. 

Establishing a sustainable source of funding for rebuilding recreational infrastructure is an investment, not an expense. A recent 

report from the Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Economic 

Analysis calculated the outdoor recreation industry’s annual gross 

output to be $673 billion, surpassing other sectors such as agriculture, petroleum and coal, and computer and electronic products. 

The BEA report also determined that outdoor recreation makes up 

2 percent of the U.S. GDP, and the outdoor recreation industry’s 

GDP has increased an average of 4.4 percent since 2012, significantly greater than the 3.6 percent average increase in the overall 

U.S. GDP. 

The outdoor recreation economy is among our Nation’s largest 

economic sectors, and public lands are the backbone of our industry. These measures you are considering today would be the largest 

investment the Nation has ever made in its national park system. 

National parks and other public lands and waters account for 

$45 billion in economic output and 396,000 jobs, nationwide. These 

public areas provide significant economic benefits, particularly for 

nearby rural communities. Ensuring maintenance of roads and 

trails is critical in many rural areas of the county that depend on 

those routes to provide access to important energy structures or 

infrastructure, connectivity for residents, and tourism. 

While the Park Service holds the largest share of the Interior 

Department’s overall $16 billion maintenance backlog, it is important to shine a light on other land management agencies that are 

struggling to address mounting deferred maintenance backlogs 

from a lack of adequate resources. The Bureau of Land Management’s total backlog is estimated at $810 million, which has 

increased 65 percent over the past decade. 

It is important to note that the BLM is one of the few Federal 

agencies that brings in more revenue than it spends through 

timber harvesting, livestock grazing, recreation, and energy development. The U.S. Forest Service’s $5.49 billion backlog interferes 

with the Agency’s ability to provide access and safe passage on its 

more than 158,000 miles of trails. Due to growing visitor use and 

limited funding compounded by the rising costs of wildfire 

29 

suppression and the associated decrease of nearly 40 percent in 

non-fire personnel, the Forest Service lacks capacity and resources 

for achieving a sustainable trail system. 

The Forest Service currently manages 192.9 million acres, and 

the BLM manages 248.3 million acres of public land and administers 700 million acres of Federal subsurface mineral estate 

throughout the Nation. Maintenance of Forest Service and BLM 

roads and trails is imperative because these two agencies maintain 

multiple-use missions that support a variety of activities and programs. Through this multiple use management model, the outdoor 

recreation industry thrives on Forest Service and BLM lands. 

To emphasize that point, more than 99 percent of BLM-administered lands are available for recreation use with no fees. When one 

Forest Service or BLM road or trail goes out of service, it is indefinitely placed on the backlog and can negatively impact a number 

of outdoor recreational pursuits, energy development, livestock 

grazing, and timber harvesting. 

The MIC and our outdoor recreational business community partners urge the Committee and Administration to broaden this funding measure to include maintenance of roads and trails managed 

by the Forest Service and BLM in order to establish a comprehensive solution to our public lands management agencies’ deferred 

maintenance backlogs. 

Thank you. That concludes my statement. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Hoyt follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CALLIE HOYT, MANAGER, FEDERAL AFFAIRS, MOTORCYCLE

INDUSTRY COUNCIL ON H.R. 5210 AND H.R. 2584 

Chairman McClintock, Ranking Member Hanabusa, and members of the 

Subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to share the 

views of the Motorcycle Industry Council, and views of other outdoor recreation interests, on potential solutions to reduce the deferred maintenance and repair 

backlog of the Department of the Interior, as well as that of the U.S. Forest Service. 

The Motorcycle Industry Council is a not-for-profit, national trade association representing over 600 manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and retailers of motorcycles, 

scooters, motorcycle/ATV parts, accessories, and related goods and services, and 

members of allied trades. 

Our member companies and their customers—over 50 million off-highway motorcycle, side-by-side, and all-terrain vehicle riders, many of whom recreate on Federal 

lands—are very concerned over the Department of the Interior’s and the U.S. Forest 

Service’s growing deferred maintenance and repair backlogs. Roads, trails, campgrounds, water systems and more recreational infrastructure suffer from this accumulated problem that is negatively impacting visitor access, enjoyment, and safety 

on public lands for the rapidly growing community of outdoor recreation enthusiasts. In 2017, 330 million people visited the 417 NPS sites across the country. The 

NPS completed over $650 million in maintenance and repair work in FY 2017, but 

aging facilities, high visitation, and resource constraints have kept the maintenance 

backlog between $11 billion and $12 billion since 2010. 

The National Park Legacy Restoration Fund (H.R. 2584) and the National Park 

Restoration Act (H.R. 5210) are significant efforts to overcome the National Park 

Service’s $11.6 billion maintenance backlog, an amount that is nearly four times the 

agency’s annual appropriations. Directing Federal receipts associated with the sale 

of publicly-owned energy resources toward addressing the maintenance backlog creates an opportunity to make a strategic contribution to our national parks early in 

the second century of the National Park Service. 

Establishing a sustainable source of funding for rebuilding recreational infrastructure is an investment, not an expense. A recent report from the Department of 

Commerce’s Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) calculated the outdoor recreation 

industry’s annual gross output to be $673 billion, surpassing other sectors such as 

agriculture, petroleum and coal, and computer and electronic products. The BEA 

report also determined that outdoor recreation makes up 2.0 percent of the U.S. 

30 

GDP, and the outdoor recreation industry’s GDP has increased an average of 4.4 

percent since 2012, significantly greater than the 3.6 percent average increase in 

the overall U.S. GDP. 

The outdoor recreation economy is among our Nation’s largest economic sectors, 

and public lands are the backbone of our industry. These measures you are considering today would be the largest investment the Nation has ever made in its 

National Park System. National parks and other public lands and waters account 

for $45 billion in economic output and about 396,000 jobs nationwide. These public 

areas provide significant economic benefits, particularly for nearby rural communities. Ensuring maintenance of roads and trails is critical in many rural areas of 

the county that depend on those routes to provide access to important energy structures or infrastructure, connectivity for residents, and tourism. 

While the Park Service holds the largest share of the Interior Department’s overall $16 billion maintenance backlog, it’s important to shine a light on other land 

management agencies that are struggling to address mounting deferred maintenance backlogs from a lack of adequate resources. The Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) total backlog is estimated at $810 million, which has increased 65 

percent over the past decade. It’s important to note that the BLM is one of the few 

Federal agencies that brings in more revenue than it spends through timber harvesting, livestock grazing, recreation, and energy development. The U.S. Forest 

Service’s $5.49 billion backlog interferes with the agency’s ability to provide access 

and safe passage on its more than 158,000 miles of trails. Due to growing visitor 

use and limited funding compounded by the rising costs of wildfire suppression and 

the associated decrease of nearly 40 percent in non-fire personnel, the Forest 

Service lacks capacity and resources for achieving a sustainable trail system. 

The Forest Service currently manages 192.9 million acres, and the BLM manages 

248.3 million acres of public land and administers about 700 million acres of Federal 

subsurface mineral estate throughout the Nation. Maintenance of Forest Service 

and BLM roads and trails is imperative because these two agencies maintain 

multiple-use missions that support a variety of activities and programs. Through 

this multiple use management model, the outdoor recreation industry thrives on 

Forest Service and BLM lands. To emphasize that point, more than 99 percent of 

BLM-administered lands are available for recreational use with no fees. When one 

Forest Service or BLM road or trail goes out of service, it is indefinitely placed on 

the backlog and can negatively impact a number of outdoor recreational pursuits, 

energy development, livestock grazing, and timber harvesting. 

The longer this systemic problem continues, the more challenging it will become 

for the Departments of the Interior and Agriculture to manage public lands in a way 

that maximizes opportunities for commercial, recreational, and conservation activities. Without including the Forest Service and BLM in the solution, the agencies 

will continue to be limited in their ability to carry out their multiple-use approach 

that enables prioritization of energy independence, shared conservation stewardship, 

putting Americans back to work, and serving the American public. 

The MIC and our outdoor recreational business community partners urge the 

Committee and Administration to broaden this funding measure to include maintenance of roads and trails managed by the Forest Service and BLM in order to establish a comprehensive solution to our public lands management agencies’ deferred 

maintenance backlogs. 

I thank the Subcommittee for allowing me to testify on this all too important 

issue. We look forward to working with Congress and the Administration to support 

maintenance of roads and trails on NPS, Forest Service, and BLM lands. Mr. 

Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased to answer any questions 

you or other members of the Subcommittee may have. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Great, thank you very much for your testimony. We will now proceed to Committee questions, and I will 

begin. 

Mr. Smith, I asked a few weeks ago if you could give us an estimate of how much of the deferred maintenance backlog is actual 

maintenance, like bricks and mortar stuff, and how much of it is 

meeting various environmental studies and requirements. We have 

not heard back yet. How are you coming on that? 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, I do have numbers for you that basically total, for this fiscal year, $786 million. I think I have that 

31 

number right. I know we were working on those numbers, and I 

think—— 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. No, no. The question I have is, out of the total 

$11.6 billion in deferred maintenance, how much is actually maintenance and how much of it is meeting various environmental requirements conducting environmental studies, and the like? 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, I don’t have that number for you yet. 

I know it has been worked on. But the preponderance of it is in 

the actual construction and the maintenance. The numbers for 

either design or NEPA or those type of things are minuscule, compared to the actual bricks-and-mortar projects we are talking 

about. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. OK. 

Mr. SMITH. And I apologize I don’t have that number for you 

today. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. That is good to know, but I would like to get 

the exact—— 

Mr. SMITH. I will get you that number very, very shortly. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. I appreciate that, thank you. 

Second, with the fund capped at $18 billion, what assurances do 

we have that that is actually going to be used for deferred maintenance? All funds are fungible. What is to prevent these funds from 

simply relieving other expenditures, such as salaries, bonuses, that 

sort of thing? 

Mr. SMITH. The intent of the bill is to deal with deferred maintenance. There will certainly be a report to Congress every year on 

what we have spent these funds for. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Is there any requirement that they be used 

solely for deferred maintenance, and that other funds that had previously been budgeted for deferred maintenance aren’t simply used 

for other purposes? 

Mr. SMITH. No, sir. All of the accounts that come either from appropriated funds or from this funding source will be for deferred 

maintenance. None of those will be used for personnel costs or that 

type of—— 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. No, I think you are missing the point. My concern is funds that are currently budgeted for deferred maintenance 

could be used elsewhere, then, if there is not a maintenance of effort requirement in the law. 

Mr. SMITH. Well, yes, I hear what you are saying, Congressman. 

Again, the way that Congress appropriates money, we do know 

what is dedicated to deferred maintenance, and that is blocked off 

and used for that. The intent of this bill—— 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. But there is no maintenance of effort required 

for the bureaucracies, with respect to their existing deferred maintenance budget? 

Mr. SMITH. There is nothing in the bill that guarantees that. You 

are correct, Congressman. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. When John Jervis was here, goodness, 4 or 5 

years ago now, I asked him, ‘‘If you had your choice, where would 

you prioritize funding, land acquisition or deferred maintenance?’’ 

He said deferred maintenance. Is that the view of the current 

Administration? 

32 

Mr. SMITH. It certainly is, Mr. Chairman. And when I testified 

before Congress in the 1980s it was the position then that we needed to deal with maintenance and not land acquisition. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. OK. 

Mr. SMITH. We needed to take care of what we have, rather than 

acquiring more land. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Ms. Argust, we just heard from the Center for 

American Progress that the deferred maintenance backlog is grossly overstated. Do you believe that the deferred maintenance numbers have been inflated? 

Mr. SMITH. I do not, sir. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. For Ms. Argust. 

Ms. ARGUST. Let’s be clear. The deferred maintenance number, 

$11.6 billion, the Park Service assesses its assets each year as a 

requirement under law. That number that they come up with is 

from people going in the field and assessing what the conditions of 

their assets are. I do not feel it is overstated. 

I think the numbers that we heard from CAP are misleading when they are talking about $1.9 billion in critical systems. As I 

mentioned in my testimony, of the $11.6 billion, $8.8 billion is attributed to high and highest-priority assets. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. OK. Finally, it said the concessionaires ought 

to be paying for the venues the concessionaires use. Aren’t those 

venues owned by the National Park Service and remain the property of the National Park Service? 

Ms. ARGUST. They do. The Park Service—— 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Concessionaires are, in effect, renting that 

space. 

Ms. ARGUST. There may be leases in some cases, but the Park 

Service still has to account for that deferred maintenance—— 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Right, right. 

Ms. ARGUST [continuing]. In their assessment. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you. 

Ms. Hanabusa. 

Ms. HANABUSA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Lee-Ashley, since your report was just discussed, let’s follow up with that. Do you disagree with the $11.6 billion figure? You 

said in your testimony and gave in your written testimony, as well, 

an analysis of where you think the liability should be. However, do 

you disagree with the $11.6 billion as the deferred maintenance 

amount? 

Mr. LEE-ASHLEY. The Park Service is responding to the request 

of Congress to document all of its deferred maintenance needs. So, 

the key is to get into that and understand what are the highest 

priorities. We obtained that full list through the Freedom of 

Information Act and scrutinized it and tried to understand how 

they defined their own priorities, and that is how we came to understand that their $386 million of projects that should be paid for 

by hotels and restaurants and private operators in the parks, and 

also $1.3 billion that the agency itself views as the highest priority. 

So, in a time when you are making budget decisions and tradeoffs, it is helpful to focus in on the most pressing priorities here. 

Ms. HANABUSA. When you did the analysis—I think what you 

say is that $1.3 billion, or 10 percent of the total backlog, is serious 

33 

enough for the Agency to consider it a priority for necessary maintenance. So, are you saying, of the $11.6 billion, only $1.3 billion 

is really what you would consider necessary maintenance? 

Mr. LEE-ASHLEY. This is in the words of the Agency. That is the 

highest standard for them, the most critical needs. That is not to 

say the Park Service doesn’t want more money. It is a wish list, 

in some ways, of priorities, $11.6 billion. But when Congress is 

scrutinizing that list, it is important to identify which areas deserve the most attention and which projects, in the Agency’s own 

view, are most critical. 

Ms. HANABUSA. No, I understand, and I agree with you that we have to understand where the $11.6 billion comes from. I just want 

to know whether you agree that about $1.3 billion is really what 

you would consider to be critical. 

Mr. LEE-ASHLEY. It is the highest priority. I also want to emphasize again that it is important to address the other agencies’ deferred maintenance needs, and continue to invest in conservation, 

so that when we are thinking about this, having a comprehensive 

view of how to invest in parks and public lands is absolutely 

essential. 

Ms. HANABUSA. Let me also understand when you said that about $3.5 billion, less than 30 percent of the $11.9 million backlog, 

is labeled this critical deferred, but you feel that it is only about 

$1.3 billion. So, what about the rest of that money? 

Mr. LEE-ASHLEY. The $3.5 billion, in the Agency’s view, are highpriority projects, but are not necessarily in the places that are most 

visited. So, that is a slightly lower tier of priority for them. Still 

important projects to fund, important investments in parks and 

public lands, but again, as we understand that tier system that the 

Agency uses, it is important to distinguish among them. 

Ms. HANABUSA. What do you think is the total deferred maintenance that we, as Congress, should be concerned about? What is 

that figure? Is it the $1.3 billion? 

Mr. LEE-ASHLEY. I think that is a good place to start. Obviously, 

we would support more investments in Parks, the Fish and Wildlife 

Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the Forest Service 

to address the deferred maintenance needs across the board. 

What the sweet spot is is hard to say, exactly. I do think you absolutely need to cover that $1.3 billion. You also need to understand the fact that the agencies themselves still have important 

conservation missions to fulfill. So, when there is a big box store 

that is being proposed next to a national battlefield, or a Civil War 

battlefield, the agencies need to be able to address that threat. 

It is about pursuing both the management needs of these 

agencies, while continuing to fulfill their conservation missions. 

Ms. HANABUSA. Am I hearing you correctly, that what you are 

really saying is that we may have these needs to address, but if 

it is in any way going to jeopardize—for example, if an additional 

coal mine, I think was one of the examples you gave, was going to 

be a result of this, that you would, of course, say that it shouldn’t 

result with any additional mineral rights. And that is what, I 

think, you are saying right now. Am I correct? 

Mr. LEE-ASHLEY. I was referring to H.R. 5210, where the funding mechanism for that bill is to procure more oil and gas and coal 

34 

revenues. To generate more revenues from energy extraction, either 

oil prices need to go up, you need to raise royalties, or you need 

to allow more energy development somewhere. And under this 

Administration’s proposal of drilling off of every coast and 

pursuing—— 

Ms. HANABUSA. Except Florida. 

Mr. LEE-ASHLEY. Except Florida, perhaps. There are risks to 

that, in each of those scenarios, and highly controversial, obviously, 

drilling the Arctic Refuge, or drilling near a national monument, et 

cetera. 

Ms. HANABUSA. Thank you. 

Mr. Chair, I will yield back. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you. 

Mr. Tipton. 

Mr. TIPTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank the panel for 

taking the time to be here. 

I would respectfully disagree. I think that final assessment, as 

I read through that bill, it is actually also calling for renewable resources, not just oil and gas. And I think that is an important 

point. 

Last week, we had Secretary Zinke before our Full Committee to 

examine the Fiscal Year 2019 budget for the Department of the 

Interior. Much of the discussion was around addressing crumbling 

infrastructure on Federal lands, and dealing with the massive 

deferred maintenance backlog. 

Secretary Zinke did raise a point that I think is worthy of consideration. In 2008, the Department of the Interior was the secondlargest responsible energy producer in the United States. However, 

the Department generated $18 billion in offshore revenues in 2008. 

That number is now down to $2 billion. Resources could obviously 

be being used to help address that crumbling infrastructure that 

we are discussing. 

So, when we do start to talk about setting up funds to pay down 

that maintenance backlog in the Parks, or the BLM, or the Forest 

Service, I do believe it is important that we have an understanding 

of where the money does come from. 

I have called for responsible, all-of-the-above energy policy on our 

Federal lands that includes, and we enumerate it in the bill, wind, 

solar, geothermal, hydroelectric, natural gas, oil, oil shale, coal, and 

have a bill, the Planning for American Energy Future Act, that 

would require the Department of Energy to actually work with the 

Department of Agriculture and the Department of the Interior to 

evaluate America’s future energy needs, and develop that all-of-theabove strategy to be able to meet those needs. 

Mr. Smith and Ms. Argust, I would like to visit maybe with both 

of you about how best renewable energy generated on Federal 

lands can support efforts to be able to address the National Park 

Service maintenance, as well as the backlogs within other agencies. 

Could each of you possibly discuss the impact renewable energy 

development on Federal lands can have in those efforts? 

Mr. Smith? 

Mr. SMITH. Yes, if the Department every year, or when it presents its budget to Congress, there in that document there is always the 3-year estimate of what energy revenue was going to be, 

35 

the actual for that year, and those can be looked at for as many 

back-years as you want to go to. In an assessment of that within 

the last week or 10 days the staff did, the average amount ends 

up to be about $9 billion. It is at a high, as you said, of $18 billion. 

The last administration took it to a low of $2 billion. 

But, basically, all those numbers, as far as estimates of revenue 

that we are talking about in this bill, and then actual amounts that 

come in from offshore or from all energy sources, those numbers 

are readily available for everyone to see. Again, that averages 

about $9 billion over the last 20 years. 

Mr. TIPTON. Just for clarity, for my purposes here, we do have 

renewable development of energy on Federal lands. Do they pay a 

royalty, or is it simply the lease fee? 

Mr. SMITH. Most of it is lease at this time. 

Mr. TIPTON. Lease fee. So, in terms of traditional fuel sources, 

they do pay a royalty fee, but nothing in regards to renewables? 

Mr. SMITH. I am sorry—— 

Mr. TIPTON. In terms of a royalty fee coming in off of energy 

development? 

Mr. SMITH. Royalties are certainly collected on oil and gas. That 

is how the revenue is derived. But on the wind and solar, that currently is under leases. 

Mr. TIPTON. That is just under, actually. Ms. Argust, do you have 

any comments on that? 

Ms. ARGUST. As far as with renewables, yes. I believe in some 

cases there are not royalties, so it would be production fees. 

I am not clear entirely on your question. I mean we are comfortable with the fact that renewables would be included in the 

Restoration Act. Certainly we would want to make sure that siting 

and sensitive lands are taken care of when we are talking about 

renewables. 

Mr. TIPTON. OK, great. Do you believe that our current regulatory system is set up to be able to support renewable energy 

development on Federal lands? Either one of you? 

Mr. SMITH. I certainly do, Congressman, yes. 

Mr. TIPTON. Would you agree with that? 

Ms. ARGUST. I don’t have enough information on that. I am not 

well versed on that. That is something we need to be exploring. But 

I don’t have enough information on that topic. 

Mr. TIPTON. Thank you. And I do appreciate the efforts of our 

two colleagues to be able to look at resources to actually help the 

crumbling infrastructure that we are seeing on a lot of our public 

lands, and trying to get a sustainable revenue system for that. 

So, thank you, and I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Mr. Huffman. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Deputy Director Smith, could you tell us how much of the backlog do road issues across the system, such as Tioga Road in 

Yosemite National Park, represent, approximately? 

Mr. SMITH. About 5,500 miles of road out of our 17,000 are in 

deferred maintenance. And the transportation, the road system, is 

about $5.9 of the $11.8 billion in backlog. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Significant. 

36 

Mr. SMITH. Significant. And that is bridges, culverts, everything 

associated with roads, not just the concrete or the asphalt. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. It seems to me that we should fix transportation 

funding first, instead of incentivizing expanded drilling on public 

lands as a way to fund maintenance needs. I am wondering if you 

can explain why the Federal Lands Highway Fund is not supporting the reconstruction of these roads. 

Mr. SMITH. Congressman, it certainly is. We do get money from 

the Federal Highway Trust Fund. It is certainly not keeping up 

with the demands for roads, but we do get a share in our appropriations from that transportation—— 

Mr. HUFFMAN. But we are falling further behind. 

Mr. SMITH. Yes, we are, sir. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. All right. Let’s go to Ms. Argust. H.R. 2584 

leverages taxpayer investments with donations for NPS projects, 

which is a good idea, in my opinion. Groups like the Golden Gate 

Park Conservancy near my district are well suited to step into this 

role. And, to date, the Conservancy has provided over $500 million 

in support to Golden Gate National Park. 

Could you talk a little more about the support provided by these 

donations, and the importance of leveraging that taxpayer 

contribution? 

Ms. ARGUST. Sure. We are very supportive of that component in 

the Legacy Act, would love to see that provided in the Restoration 

Act, as well. 

Public-private partnerships are very important in addressing de- ferred maintenance. Unfortunately, when we are talking about $11 

billion, public-private partnerships can only do so much. But we 

would certainly like to incentivize that, and the provision in the 

Legacy Act does that. 

The Golden Gate Conservancy is a great example. The Yosemite 

Conservancy, as well. The Yosemite Conservancy has put up 

matching dollars for a restoration project there in the Mariposa 

Grove, the friends group put up $20 million to restore a deferred 

maintenance issue there. So, we are very supportive of publicprivate partnerships. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. All right, thank you. 

Mr. Lee-Ashley, the solution to the backlog that H.R. 5210 offers 

is essentially to repair national parks inside their boundaries by 

expanding drilling just outside on public land. I happen to think we 

should not be tying the future of our parks to this Trump administration notion of energy dominance, whatever that is, and I think 

it really means fossil fuel energy dominance. 

Could you speak a little more about the downside of that 

linkage? 

Mr. LEE-ASHLEY. Sure. As we speak, there is an auction happening on BLM lands in Utah, a good example. One lease parcel 

is being offered right next door to Canyons of the Ancients National 

Monument. The leases that are being sold right now, about 3 out 

of 10 are being sold for the minimum bid, $2 an acre, so we are 

not getting a whole lot right now out of our oil and gas program 

at the Bureau of Land Management. 

Moreover, what this Administration is proposing offshore, to expand drilling off the Pacific Coast, off the Atlantic Coast, and the 

37 

Arctic, is also highly speculative and very controversial. It is not 

guaranteed we will receive the kinds of revenues back from those 

initiatives that would be required to actually address some of these 

maintenance needs. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. OK. Back to Deputy Director Smith, the estimates 

in the President’s budget project $760 million would be credited in 

the National Park Restoration Fund in Fiscal Year 2019. Could 

you explain how this number was developed? 

Mr. SMITH. Give me the number again, Congressman. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. I have $760 million. 

Mr. SMITH. Yes, that is the number for this year. And it is 

developed from our deferred maintenance statistics that we have. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. What are the assumptions on the activities that 

would generate the revenue to credit that? 

Mr. SMITH. That currently would be out of our congressional 

appropriations. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. I may need to follow up with you on that. But I 

am out of time. 

So, Mr. Chair, I will yield back. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Great, thanks. Votes have been called, and 

there are about 12 minutes remaining on the clock, but there is 

only one vote, so Members can come and go as they wish. 

Chairman Bishop. 

Mr. BISHOP. All right, I will stay. This is more important than 

the vote you have going on there. 

Mr. Smith, let me talk to you for just a second about it, because, 

let’s face it, about a decade ago there was a Stimulus Act that put 

about $900 million back into the budget, and it basically did diddly 

squat, as far as the maintenance and backlog. So, there have to be 

some other issues. I mean, we have to do something differently if 

we are going to make some kind of a difference. 

And there are also costs that you guys are facing that are nonfiscal hurdles in the Park Service, like processes for procurement, 

contracting, hiring, compliance, planning. What are you already 

doing now, as a service, to try to address those costs that take 

away money that could be going into maintenance and backlog? 

Mr. SMITH. In this Administration, the Secretary has issued a 

direct Secretarial Order for us to streamline the NEPA process, basically to keep that within a year. And that is for an EIS. He actually expects that an EA could be done much earlier than that, even 

allowing for the public comment phases. He also is asking for us 

to look very carefully to see if we can find categorical exclusions for 

some of our projects, so we don’t have to go through the NEPA 

process. 

I know that some of the Section 106 work takes a little bit of 

time. But, Mr. Chairman, I really believe it is not process. It really 

is the fact that we don’t have the money we have to do deferred 

maintenance. I think we can work through the process issues and 

get the money on the ground if we have it. 

Mr. BISHOP. I appreciate that, I just don’t want government to 

be able to nickel and dime you on money that you actually need 

to go through those other funds at the same time. 

38 

Even if we were to dump a whole boatload of money on you right 

now, does the Park Service have to ramp up in order to actually 

spend it efficiently and effectively? 

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir. For instance, these bills supposedly would 

double the amount of our appropriations, so yes, in certain areas, 

in contracting and in design and planning, we would have to ramp 

up a little bit. But it would be a very reasonable process to do that. 

And, of course, we would not ever move toward doing that until we 

knew we had this funding coming in to the National Park Service. 

Mr. BISHOP. That makes total sense to me. 

What we are talking about here is not a unique phenomenon. 

Yellowstone was the first national park that was established. It 

took 6 years before Congress ever funded it, so this is not something that is new or unique. And, as I said, we put a whole bunch 

of money in the Stimulus. That didn’t help it. And expecting to find 

money within the budget year after year after year is also a pipe 

dream that just does not exist. 

We have to generate some kind of specific new revenue source, 

and I think that is what you are trying to do. I am happy to know 

that alternative energy is part of that process. Anything else you 

can get above that baseline would be part of the process of trying 

to help it. 

So far, we are talking about Park Service. Ms. Hoyt, if I can ask 

you just one simple question. If we were to do the same thing for 

parks, for fish and wildlife refuges, for forests, would that be helpful to the people you represent? 

Ms. HOYT. Yes, absolutely. Thank you for the question. The 

Forest Service manages the largest trail system in the country, and 

well-cared-for trail systems are vital for connecting visitors and 

communities to their public lands. 

And, particularly for the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land 

Management, which are operated under a multi-use mission, when 

one forest trail goes out of commission, it can affect a number of 

different recreational uses that impact a number of people within 

the outdoor recreation community. 

Mr. BISHOP. All right. Thank you. I am also pained in some way 

to hear people actually talking about, well, let’s hope that the farm 

bill can raise some money, or let’s hope that the roads bill can raise 

some money, T&I. If we don’t do something like this and identify 

a specific revenue source, I get you are just going to have to do a 

whole lot of bake sales to try to come up with the revenue you need 

for maintenance and backlog. There has to be an identifiable source 

that comes there. 

And it is also frustrating to me to consider that sometimes 

LWCF money coming from royalties is good, this money coming 

from royalties would be bad. That just does not make sense at all. 

In fact, I wish LWCF could be used more for maintenance and 

backlog. Even though it could be, it is not, it has not, and unless 

we change things it won’t be. 

Mr. Smith, how big of a buffer zone do the parks actually need 

around them to control things? I have heard of how bad it would 

be to do any kind of drilling or mining just outside the boundaries 

of a park, or heard of leases that were let in Utah where nobody 

actually applied for those leases anyway. Do you all need a huge 

39 

buffer zone? And if it is, how many states do you need to buffer 

every park? 

Mr. SMITH. Well, it certainly varies, case by case. 

Mr. BISHOP. You have 4 seconds to do it. 

Mr. SMITH. Many of our national parks in the West are buffered 

by Forest Service wilderness, Mr. Chairman. A lot of those boundaries are very protected. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. My time is up. I appreciate that. I appreciate all of you being here at the same time. Now I am going 

to go vote, too. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. OK, thank you. 

Ms. Cheney. 

Ms. CHENEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to all of our 

witnesses for being here. 

I have a question, Mr. Smith. I am trying to sort through, and 

I understand that in Mr. Simpson’s bill, there is language that protects allocations that are already made to the states. 

But I wonder if you could explain to me exactly how that will 

work. Once you get above the projected amount, if you are looking 

at 48 percent, hopefully, eventually, we will get back to the 50 

percent, that is going back to the states, are we then talking about 

a smaller pie above the projected amounts? I am trying to understand how the percentage process will work, so that states are actually protected. 

Mr. SMITH. We are talking about all of the funds that currently 

go—whether it be to Land and Water Conservation Fund, to 

GOMESA, to the Reclamation Fund—I understand there might be 

23 or such that are already there. All of those allocations will be 

paid before you look at any money going into the National Park 

Service Restoration Fund. All of those commitments will be met 

before. 

And then, when you look at that baseline, whatever is above 

that, then the consideration would be for 50 percent of that to go 

into the Park Service Restoration Fund and the rest to the 

Treasury. 

Ms. CHENEY. So, once you get above the baseline projection—and 

I have a question about how we got the baseline projection—but 

once you get above the baseline projection, then you have a whole 

pie above the baseline projection, and you are going to allocate the 

percentages to those other places and then take 50 percent of what 

is left? 

Mr. SMITH. Yes. All of those other allocations come out before 

that baseline triggers anything coming to the National Park 

Service Restoration Fund. That is a commitment made in the bill 

very, very, very strongly, and in my testimony today very strongly. 

Ms. CHENEY. Well, I appreciate that. We will look further into 

that. I think that is some concern. 

The other concern is how we got to these projected amounts. I 

understand that OMB has projected what the revenue will be, but 

I know there is certainly a lot of concern that we are going to get 

to a point where that projected amount is somewhat arbitrary into 

the future. 

We have done a tremendous amount of work, I think very good 

work, in this Administration in terms of stopping the war on fossil 

40 

fuels, in terms of encouraging increased development, in terms of 

showing how responsible that development can be. And I would 

hate to see a situation where we were coming back now and imposing additional fees, for example. And I know the bills guarantee 

that won’t happen, but I think that that is certainly a concern, that 

we are going to have additional fees imposed that will actually end 

up slowing the development that we have seen and that we know 

that we need. 

Mr. SMITH. Congresswoman, I appreciate your remarks. Sitting 

where I sit and wearing the hat that I wear, I leave scoring to 

OMB and for you all, for CBO, to do that. I don’t do it from where 

I sit. 

Ms. CHENEY. Well, I appreciate that. I would just say I very 

much applaud the effort to come up with some innovative ways to 

deal with this crucial issue. I am concerned that these fall short 

in a couple of important ways that we have to study additionally 

before we proceed here. 

But it is a tough issue. I appreciate very much the work that you 

are all doing on it, and I yield back. Thank you. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you. I am afraid we are going to have 

to take a brief recess until some of the Members come back. I 

assume there are Members that still want to ask questions. They 

should be on their way back, and we will reconvene in a few minutes, as soon as Mr. Tipton arrives. 

With that, I extend the Subcommittee’s apologies, but it is just 

an occupational hazard of life around here. So, we will stand in 

brief recess. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. TIPTON [presiding]. I would like to recognize Mr. Labrador 

for his questions. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 

holding the hearing today. 

Over the past several years, we have repeatedly heard testimony 

about the need to address the maintenance backlog of the National 

Park Service. While I am not opposed to using revenue from energy 

production on Federal lands to help address the deferred maintenance backlog, we need to ensure that Congress is playing a role 

in this process. 

Mr. Smith, thank you for being here again, and thank you for 

being here to testify on this issue. Both of the bills we are discussing today are attempts to address the nearly $12 billion deferred maintenance backlog of the NPS. As I am sure you are 

aware, most conservatives oppose creating new mandatory spending programs. We believe that Congress needs to be in control of 

the spending. 

This is especially true because, while we totally appreciate the 

work that Secretary Zinke is doing at Interior, we remember that 

not too long ago, just a year-and-a-half ago, we had a Secretary 

that was not as easy to work with. So, that is why it is so important to having Congress approve the funding each year to some of 

us. 

Can you tell me what safeguards the bill puts in place to ensure 

that the funding would actually go to addressing the backlog, and 

not to other priorities of future administrations? 

41 

Mr. SMITH. Congressman, as in the normal appropriations process, when money is put into those accounts, we certainly have to 

deal with the Antideficiency Act and put money where Congress 

has told us. 

In this bill, it is my full understanding that the way we would 

keep Congress informed is with an annual report that details very, 

very succinctly everything that we are spending these funds on if 

they come from this new park restoration account. 

Mr. LABRADOR. OK. 

Mr. SMITH. And I am not aware in other legislation where there 

is some kind of a guarantee. But again, any department of government knows that Congress has an oversight and a fiduciary responsibility, and we are always very aware of that. 

Mr. LABRADOR. OK. Addressing the deferred maintenance 

backlog is going to cost a lot of money, money that should or could 

be going to pay off our national debt, for example. What steps is 

NPS taking to ensure that the money will actually get spent on the 

ground, and not get tied up in overhead, bureaucracy, or litigation? 

Mr. SMITH. Well, I can speak for this current Administration and 

this current Secretary. He has been very explicit about where these 

funds will go, and that he does not want any bureaucracy to get 

in the way of where these funds would go. 

Mr. LABRADOR. In your experience, how much do costs compound 

on projects the longer they are deferred? 

Mr. SMITH. There is an escalation of cost, just in the way inflation works on that, or in doing things in phases. Most of the time 

in contracting, if you can do an entire project you save money, 

rather than phasing it over a number of years. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Do you have an example of something costing 

more because you did not have the funding to fix it sooner? 

Mr. SMITH. I won’t try to think right now of one, but I certainly 

can provide many of those examples, if you would like, for the 

record, Congressman. 

Mr. LABRADOR. All right. That would be great. 

Ms. Argust, your organization has conducted in-depth research 

and analysis on the NPS maintenance log, and the Center for 

American Progress report claims that only 10 percent of the total 

backlog is serious enough to be a priority for necessary maintenance. Do you believe that the National Park Service has inflated 

their deferred maintenance estimates? 

Ms. ARGUST. I do not, $8.8 billion is highest and high-priority 

assets. In other words, $5.6 billion is considered highest-priority 

assets that are critical to the mission of those park sites. 

Mr. LABRADOR. All right, thank you. 

I have no further questions, and I will yield to somebody who 

may have additional questions. 

Mr. TIPTON. Thank you, Mr. Labrador. 

Mr. Gianforte, you are now recognized for your 5 minutes. 

Mr. GIANFORTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the 

panel for being here today. 

Deputy Director Smith, thank you for taking some time to be 

with us. As you know, Montana is home to some of the most recognizable national parks in our system. People come from all over 

the world to visit us. Yellowstone and Glacier National Park each 

42 

have had over 3 million visitors this past year, which has a 

tremendous effect on our local communities, but also strains the infrastructure in and around the parks. 

The rising visitation has created a backlog, as you are well aware, of over $500 million in Yellowstone National Park alone. 

The problem extends to Little Big Horn Battlefield, which has a 

backlog of over $5 million, and is in desperate need of a visitor 

center there. 

I understand that Congress will receive reports on the projects 

that are funded. You have told that to us multiple times here, but 

how will you prioritize which projects will move forward first? 

Mr. SMITH. That is the whole reason for having the process we 

are talking about today of where the numbers have come from, the 

total $11.6 billion. 

The priority system, which has been talked about several different times today, when we look at the highest priority, they are 

the ones that we are going to put into play first. The high priorities 

are also necessary and need to be funded, but we have to say what 

are we going to do first out of all the choices that we have. And 

in that whole scale, only the lowest projects are the ones that 

maybe there is some flexibility of do we not repair, do we actually 

remove, and that type of thing. 

But all of those priorities, high, highest high, and medium, are 

all projects that need to be done. It is just a matter of how I 

prioritize with the money that we have. If there is more money allocated from either the new fund, from this legislation, or if it is 

money appropriated by Congress, we have to prioritize what we are 

going to do. And a lot of those now, Congressman, are health and 

safety needs. They are water systems and dams and that type of 

thing that we have to repair because of health and safety needs. 

Mr. GIANFORTE. OK. With almost a billion dollars in delayed 

maintenance in Montana alone between our two parks and other 

battlefields, have you identified specific projects in our region, if 

this legislation passes? And how quickly can you start work? 

Mr. SMITH. Well, they certainly have been identified. They are in 

the deferred maintenance system. And again, there will be projects 

that will be started this year. I can’t speak directly to those in 

Montana, but I certainly can get you a list on that, and let you 

know from that region which ones are in the queue for this next 

year. 

Mr. GIANFORTE. OK. Well, we have been facing increasing visitor 

levels, and that is a real priority. So, as you identify projects, I 

would encourage you to use funds on infrastructure that would increase access, in particular, and safety in these parks. And by 

strengthening our roads, bridges, and visitors centers, we can continue to welcome more and more people to these parks without 

wearing them out in the process. 

I want to shift gears, but I also have a question for you, Mr. 

Smith, related to the funding mechanism. I am curious if you have 

numbers on the estimated percentage of revenue if this legislation 

were to pass. What percentage of revenue would come from onshore 

and offshore energy development versus the percentage derived 

from alternative renewable sources? Have you looked at that? I am 

curious about the split. 

43 

Mr. SMITH. I don’t have an exact figure on that. But, obviously, 

the onshore and offshore would be much more than the renewables. 

But the renewables are now growing. Wind and solar energy are 

growing, but the preponderance of that would still be on onshore 

and offshore revenue. 

Mr. GIANFORTE. OK. And as we discussed earlier, it sounds like 

the revenues from renewables are from leases, as opposed to royalties. Is that correct? 

Mr. SMITH. That is correct at this time. Yes, Congressman. 

Mr. GIANFORTE. And the $2 billion number that you gave us earlier for total revenues last year, did that include the renewable 

leases? 

Mr. SMITH. I don’t remember the $2 billion number that I gave. 

Mr. GIANFORTE. It was a number that started at $18 billion from 

energy development and then dropped to $2 billion last year. 

Mr. SMITH. I am not familiar with that exactly, I know the number was from the last administration. I don’t have the details on 

that. I imagine that that one would have included some of that, but 

I am not positive, Congressman. I will have to get back to the 

Committee on that. 

Mr. GIANFORTE. Just curious of the make-up of the number and 

how we are going to pay for this. 

So, both bills take a significant step in addressing our maintenance backlog. I commend you and the sponsors of this bill for taking a look at this, and look forward to working with you on these 

bills. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. TIPTON. Thank you. I now recognize Mr. Graves for his 5 

minutes. 

Mr. GRAVES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you all 

for being here today. I want to make sure I understand the background or impetus for this hearing and the legislative proposal. 

So, what we are talking about is a scenario whereby we have a 

maintenance or a conservation issue, and dollars need to be invested to address those issues so it doesn’t become more expensive 

and become a bigger problem. Is that basically a summary of what 

we are dealing with today? 

Mr. SMITH. Yes. 

Mr. GRAVES. Is that fair? Anybody else object to that? Sort of? 

Close enough? All right. 

And again, under both proposals, where does this money come 

from? 

Mr. SMITH. It comes from natural resource revenues. 

Mr. GRAVES. So, from conventional energy production and 

alternative energy production. 

Mr. SMITH. Also, yes. 

Mr. GRAVES. And following up on Mr. Gianforte’s line of questioning, the reality is that the majority of these revenues would ultimately come from offshore energy production. I represent the 

state of Louisiana, where we produce 80 to 90 percent of all the offshore energy in Federal waters in the United States. 

I am going to say this, I think, because every single time we 

have a hearing there is an opening to do so, and I am not going 

to let folks forget about this. We have lost 2,000 square miles of 

44 

our coast—2,000 square miles. If that were the state of Rhode 

Island, it would no longer exist. If that were the state of Delaware, 

it would only exist of water bodies. 

It is really confusing to me why we would be taking not tens of 

millions, not hundreds of millions, but billions of dollars in revenue 

from an area where this is being generated, from an area that, 

clearly, is not sustainable, and sending it to other places. 

And Mr. Chairman, we have heard a few times, and we finally 

pulled these numbers. To give you an idea of where, the Land and 

Water Conservation Fund is what actually purchases the property. 

So, from our revenues in Louisiana that we generate, just in 2011 

to 2016, $3.7 million has gone to Alabama; $87 million has gone 

to, I believe that is Florida; $135 million has gone to California. 

Louisiana, just for comparison purposes, has received about $5 

million in LWCF revenues. 

The point is, again, if this is an unsustainable area, why are we 

proposing that dollars be extracted from this area and sent to other 

places, rather than carrying out the same type of maintenance or 

conservation type issues or programs in that very area that is causing all of this revenue to be generated? Could someone help me understand that? 

Mr. SMITH. The Land and Water Conservation Fund formula is 

based on state population and state land area. I guess because of 

that is why Louisiana gets less of a share of that than some other 

states, like California. 

Mr. GRAVES. Right. So, my point in that was just that Louisiana 

is losing there, under LWCF, but more so based on these backlog 

maintenance bills. Why should we take money from an area that 

is not sustainable itself and has major conservation needs, some of 

the greatest environmental needs in the Nation, why should we 

take them and send them to other places before first sustaining 

that very area? 

Mr. SMITH. Well, Congress, in passing all the legislation that you 

are talking about that takes these revenues from not just offshore 

and onshore, but we are talking about coal, we are talking about 

gas, we are talking about mineral development—— 

Mr. GRAVES. OK. Well, if this proposal is to be altered to address 

those others and take it from those other places, that is fine. 

Mr. Lee-Ashley, do you have a response? 

Mr. LEE-ASHLEY. Congressman, I think your point is right on, 

and especially highlighting the impacts that your coastline is experiencing, and the real conservation challenges that you are grappling with, and the need to find a conservation funding stream to 

address those needs. 

I will note elsewhere in the country, too, there are similar, perhaps not the same scale, challenges. We found that a football field 

worth of natural area in the West is disappearing every 21⁄2

minutes to development. So, how do we build a conservation 

funding stream to address—— 

Mr. GRAVES. Well, it is not disappearing. 

Mr. LEE-ASHLEY. Perhaps—— 

Mr. GRAVES. It not disappearing, it is still there. We actually lose 

about a football field every hour. 

Mr. LEE-ASHLEY. Literally, yes. 

45 

Mr. GRAVES. And ours does actually disappear. 

Ms. Hoyt, I just noted in the first page of your testimony how 

you say that the outdoor recreation industry’s gross output is $673 

billion. I am assuming recreational fishing is part of that. 

Ms. HOYT. Absolutely, yes. 

Mr. GRAVES. Yes, which in Louisiana, we are losing the ecological 

productivity to be able to participate in those activities. 

So, I want to say for myself, and I think I can actually say for 

Mr. Johnson—I am not allowed to speak for my wife, but I think 

Mr. Johnson will let me—we would oppose these bills, as written, 

Mr. Chairman, and would very much look forward to working with 

the Department of the Interior to address this real problem, but do 

so in a manner that does not take from an unsustainable area. 

Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. TIPTON. Thank you, Mr. Graves. And I would like to thank 

all of our witnesses for their valuable testimony, and the Members 

for their questions today. 

Members of the Committee may have some additional questions 

for the witnesses, and we will ask you to respond to these in writing. Under Committee Rule 3(o), members of the Committee must 

submit witness questions within 3 business days following the 

hearing by 5:00 p.m., and the hearing record will be held open for 

10 business days for these responses. 

If there is no further business, without objection, the 

Subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:55 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]

Rep. Grijalva Submissions 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL PARKS CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION ON

H.R. 2584 AND H.R. 5210 

SUBMITTED BY

KRISTEN BRENGEL, VICE PRESIDENT, GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS

Since 1919, National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) has been the leading voice of the American people in protecting and enhancing our National Park 

System. On behalf of our more than 1.3 million members and supporters nationwide, please consider our positions on the following bills when they come up at the 

House Natural Resources Federal Lands Subcommittee hearing on March 20, 2018. 

The National Park Service recently celebrated its 100-year anniversary, yet the 

Service is suffering from $11.6 billion in deferred maintenance needs including 

crumbling roads and bridges, run-down trails, deteriorating historic buildings, 

memorials and monuments, and outdated and unsafe water, sewer and electrical 

systems. Roughly one-third of the overall list is critical projects. This challenge is 

largely due to aging infrastructure that in some cases has outlived its life-cycle and 

insufficient Federal funding over decades. 

NPCA is pleased to see bipartisan, bicameral interest in addressing our national 

parks maintenance needs and it is our hope that Congress can deliver a solution 

that provides robust, realistic and dependable multi-year funding. 

H.R. 2584: 

National Park Service Legacy Act of 2017—NPCA supports this legislation which 

will dedicate nearly $12 billion over the next 30 years to address the National Park 

Service’s $11.6 billion deferred maintenance backlog. The funding would come from 

onshore and offshore mineral royalties that are not otherwise dedicated to other 

purposes such as the Land and Water Conservation Fund and the Historic Preservation Fund, two programs that NPCA also supports. 

46 

This legislation would provide park managers the consistent and reliable funding 

by setting specific amounts of funding every year to plan for and effectively address 

backlog projects. Many of the largest, high-priority projects will require certainty for 

multi-year funding. The bill also dedicates 80 percent to non-transportation projects 

(trails, visitor facilities, water systems, etc.) and 20 percent to transportation 

projects, which receive additional funding from the Highway Trust Fund. In addition, this law includes a philanthropic component to prioritize projects that can 

leverage a partnership match. 

H.R. 5210: 

National Park Restoration Act—NPCA is concerned that this bill doesn’t provide 

the funding reliability and certainty like the National Park Service Legacy Act. The 

bill would establish a fund that would receive 50 percent of royalties from all types 

of energy development on Federal lands and waters over expected revenues that are 

not already obligated to other purposes like the Land and Water Conservation Fund 

and the Historic Preservation Fund. NPCA is concerned that very little funding 

could result over the 10-year bill to address the maintenance backlog if the projections are correct. 

NPCA is also concerned with the lack of certainty of the funding stream. 

Construction projects rely on multi-year funding that is known and dependable at 

the outset, which in part helps the National Park Service stage projects and work 

with contractors who need multi-year funding certainty. We fear that without a specific, known amount each year, the uncertainty of the funding available would challenge the National Park Service to engage in the procurement and contracting that 

is needed for successful repair and reconstruction projects. 

Finally, NPCA needs assurances that the funding source in this bill does not have 

to rely on the Secretary of the Interior’s proposal to expand drilling into sensitive 

areas, as stated in the Administration’s infrastructure proposal. 

In conclusion, investing in park infrastructure makes good sense: it preserves our 

Nation’s heritage for future generations, creates infrastructure-related jobs, and protects local communities that depend on park tourism. The national parks need 

Congress to provide a solution that provides robust, realistic and dependable multiyear funding. 

A Few Examples of Park Maintenance Needs That Must Be Addressed: 

Trail and Road Repair at Grand Canyon National Park 

Drawing in millions of visitors each year, the Grand Canyon suffers from $329 

million in deferred maintenance. To repair just three of the most popular trails in 

the park—South Kaibab, North Kaibab, and Bright Angel—would cost $33 million. 

One of the most frequented roads, Desert View Drive, winds around the Canyon’s 

South Rim and requires over $18 million for repairs. 

Road Repairs in Zion National Park 

Zion’s millions of visitors each year put quite a strain on its concentrated roads, 

causing them to need major repairs. A particularly scenic and popular road, the 

Kolob Canyon Road, requires a staggering $15 million for its repairs. Overall, Zion 

National Park suffers from $65 million in needed repairs. 

Electrical System Upgrades at Kalaupapa National Historical Park 

Kalaupapa National Historical Park tells the story of Hawaiians banished by King 

Kamehameha V to the north shore of Molokai for contracting leprosy. $7 million is 

needed to replace the unsafe and failing electrical system in the park. 

Trail Repairs in Yosemite National Park 

Yosemite National Park is home to some of our country’s most breathtaking cliffs, 

domes and waterfalls. However, the park suffers from $582 million in needed repairs. For example, more than $17 million is needed to rehabilitate the Yosemite 

Bike Path, the Stubblefield Canyon Trail, and the Clark Point Spur, a path that 

leads to the famous Vernal Fall. 

Thank you for considering our views. 

47 

1 54 U.S.C. §§ 312102(a), 320101. 

2S. Rep. No. 1110, 81st Cong., 1st Sess. 4 (1949). 

3 National Park Service data, FY 2016. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION ON

H.R. 2584 AND H.R. 5210 

Chairman McClintock, Ranking Member Hanabusa and members of the 

Subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to share the National Trust for Historic 

Preservation’s perspectives on two pieces of legislation (H.R. 5210 and H.R. 2584) 

that address the National Park Service’s maintenance backlog. My name is Tom 

Cassidy and I am the Vice President of Government Relations and Policy. 

The National Trust for Historic Preservation is a privately-funded charitable, 

educational and non-profit organization chartered by Congress in 1949 in order to 

‘‘facilitate public participation in historic preservation’’ and to further the purposes 

of Federal historic preservation laws.1 The intent of Congress was for the National 

Trust ‘‘to mobilize and coordinate public interest, participation and resources in the 

preservation and interpretation of sites and buildings.’’ 2 With headquarters in 

Washington, DC, 9 field offices, 27 historic sites, more than 1 million members and 

supporters and a national network of partners in states, territories, and the District 

of Columbia, the National Trust works to save America’s historic places and advocates for historic preservation as a fundamental value in programs and policies at 

all levels of government. 

We appreciate the Committee scheduling this hearing to discuss two legislative 

proposals to address the National Park Service’s maintenance backlog and thereby 

preserve the ability for Americans and visitors to enjoy and experience iconic historic resources and natural wonders on Federal lands. This testimony supplements 

our previously submitted testimony to the Natural Resources Committee on March 

6, 2018. 

THE NEED

The National Park System is one of our Nation’s best ideas—a network of 417 

parks and sites that protect spectacular historic, cultural, and natural resources and 

tell the stories of remarkable people and events in our country’s history. The 

National Park Service (NPS) is responsible for maintaining a system comprised of 

more than 84 million acres across all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and many 

U.S. territories. 

The National Park System tells an incredible story at sites as diverse as 

Gettysburg National Military Park, the Statue of Liberty, Shenandoah National 

Park, the Martin Luther King Jr. National Historical Park, and Native American 

cultural sites like those at Chaco Culture National Historical Park and Mesa Verde 

National Park. National parks, and the historic and cultural sites they protect, are 

some of our Nation’s most popular attractions and were visited by over 330 million 

people last year. In 2015 alone, these millions of visits generated visitor spending 

of an estimated $16.9 billion in nearby communities—spending that supported 

295,300 jobs and provided a $32 billion boost to the national economy. 

The size and complexity of the NPS infrastructure and the importance of 

preserving our parks’ invaluable resources represent a significant challenge. Unfortunately, after 100 years of operation and inconsistent public funding, the National 

Park System faces a deferred maintenance backlog estimated at $11.6 billion, and 

according to FY 2016 data, 47 percent of the backlog is attributed to historic assets.3

Deferred maintenance in our national parks puts historic and cultural sites at 

risk of permanent damage or loss, and in the absence of funding, the condition of 

these assets will continue to deteriorate and become more expensive to repair and 

preserve in the future. Some of the National Park Service’s most significant historic 

sites are at risk of falling into disrepair. For example, the Statue of Liberty National 

Monument in New York Harbor, which includes Ellis Island—an iconic symbol of 

American freedom and immigration—has repair needs of over $160 million. 

LEGISLATIVE SOLUTION

The NPS maintenance backlog of $11.6 billion demonstrates that additional investments and new strategies are necessary if NPS is to meet their stewardship responsibilities. We are encouraged by the many statements of support by Secretary 

Zinke, members of this Committee, and others for reducing the maintenance backlog 

and prioritizing this issue as part of policy proposals to make investments in our 

Nation’s infrastructure. 

48 

4 National Park Service, ‘‘Yellowstone National Park Road Reconstruction’’ https:// 

www.nps.gov/transportation/pdfs/Yellowstone_Roads_Reconstruction-022016.pdf; February 2016. 

The National Trust has worked closely with many stakeholders—including The 

Pew Charitable Trusts and National Parks Conservation Association—on a legislative solution that would provide dedicated funding to address the maintenance backlog. We strongly support the bipartisan efforts to introduce the National Park 

Service Legacy Act (H.R. 2584, S. 751) by Representatives Hurd, Kilmer, Reichert, 

and Hanabusa and Senators Warner and Portman and thank them and the 80 cosponsors of these bills for their leadership and support. 

We appreciate the many other legislative and policy proposals to address the 

maintenance backlog—including the National Park Restoration Act (H.R. 5210, 

S. 2509)—which demonstrate a recognition this is a pressing issue that must be addressed. We believe the National Park Service Legacy Act proposal and its strong, 

bicameral support can serve as a starting point for what we hope will be immediate 

action and a bipartisan, legislative compromise to tackle the maintenance backlog. 

As this Subcommittee considers legislation to address these needs, we offer the 

following recommendations for elements that would successfully address these 

challenges: 

Reliable and Dedicated Funding 

A reliable, dedicated Federal funding source distinct from annual appropriations 

is necessary to address the maintenance backlog, along with providing sufficient 

staffing capacity to ensure that we preserve historic sites, maintain buildings and 

infrastructure in safe condition, and keep our parks open and accessible. The Legacy 

Act (H.R. 2584) provides such dedicated funding through receipts from onshore and 

offshore energy development that are not otherwise allocated to other purposes. This 

legislation would guarantee contributions toward reducing the maintenance backlog 

over the next 30 years, starting at $50 million in 2018 with incremental increases 

over time through 2047. 

While the National Park Restoration Act would also direct funding to the maintenance backlog through receipts from onshore and offshore energy development, 

annual allocations would be limited to 50 percent of the revenue above estimated 

annual projections, which makes a solution to the backlog and protection of irreplaceable NPS assets dependent on oil prices and production. It is also unclear 

whether the projected increases in energy prices will result in real revenue. We believe any legislative solution should include reliable and dedicated funding and provide certainty for park units about the availability of funds for high priority 

projects. 

Priorities for Maintenance Projects 

The National Trust strongly supports a provision in the Legacy Act that provides 

funding parity between non-transportation and transportation-related maintenance 

needs, which ensures that funds are available for the preservation of historic structures and cultural artifacts. Many of the large projects included in the NPS backlog 

are transportation-related and will require significant investments. 

For example, several of the road systems at Yellowstone National Park have an 

estimated maintenance cost of at least $850 million.4 With limited annual allocations to a dedicated fund for the maintenance backlog and additional funding for 

transportation projects available through the Highway Trust Fund, a provision to 

ensure funding parity will ensure that the maintenance needs of historic and cultural assets are also addressed. 

Additional Provisions 

The National Trust strongly supports provisions in the Legacy Act that promote 

public-private partnerships that leverage private funding for maintenance projects 

and discretion for congressional appropriators to evaluate priority projects. 

We also believe that congressional appropriations providing sustained and robust 

funding levels for Repair and Rehabilitation, Cyclic Maintenance, and Line-Item 

Construction are needed to alleviate the maintenance backlog and ensure adequate 

preservation and protection of resources in our parks. After years of level funding 

or modest increases for both Repair and Rehabilitation and Cyclic Maintenance, we 

were pleased to see increases for FY 2016 enacted of $35 million for both accounts, 

followed by an additional increase of $39 million for FY 2017. Unfortunately, the 

President’s budget request proposes substantial decreases for these two key 

accounts that address the deferred maintenance backlog, with Repair and Rehabilitation seeing a $25 million decrease and Cyclic Maintenance a $13.6 million 

49 

decrease. As Congress considers FY 2019 funding levels, we believe that additional 

investments in these key accounts will contribute to the successful preservation of 

historic sites and other resources in the National Park System. 

The Nation faces a challenging fiscal environment, and the National Trust recognizes there is a need for fiscal restraint and cost-effective Federal investments. 

However, we do not believe that preservation and conservation programs should suffer from disproportionate funding reductions, or that a successful solution to address 

the maintenance backlog can omit significant and reliable financial investments. 

CONCLUSION

Thank you again for the opportunity to present the National Trust’s perspectives 

on these issues, and we look forward to working with the Committee, Administration, and other key stakeholders as you consider policy proposals to address the deferred maintenance backlog. We hope that these critical investments continue to 

sustain our Nation’s rich heritage of cultural and historic resources that generate 

lasting economic vitality for communities throughout the Nation. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE PUBLIC LANDS ALLIANCE ON

H.R. 2584 AND H.R. 5210 

SUBMITTED BY

DAN PUSKAR, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

The Public Lands Alliance (PLA) commends the Subcommittee for considering two 

valuable, bipartisan bills: H.R. 2584, the National Park Service Legacy Act, and 

H.R. 5210, the National Park Restoration Act. Deferred maintenance on America’s 

public lands is a serious issue. By permitting roads, bridges, historic sites, trails, 

and sewer systems, the maintenance backlog creates an overall drag on the visitor 

experience as facilities become worn or less reliable. 

The vast majority of PLA members rely on public lands infrastructure to operate 

their organizations and programs. 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. They annually contribute more than $250 

million to our public 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. 

In its testimony before the House Committee on Natural Resources at its March 

6, 2018 oversight hearing, ‘‘Exploring Innovative Solutions to Reduce the 

Department of the Interior’s Maintenance Backlog,’’ PLA encouraged 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. 

As the Subcommittee discusses these bills that address the National Park Service 

backlog, PLA reaffirms these points. 

Deferred Maintenance Negatively Impacts All Public Lands 

Both bills under consideration provide dedicated, reliable, and sizable funding 

sources to tackle NPS deferred maintenance outside of the normal appropriations 

process. PLA applauds the bipartisan commitment to this ideal and encourages the 

Subcommittee to apply this commitment to the other Federal lands within its 

jurisdiction. 

As Chairman Bishop explained at the ‘‘Exploring Innovative Solutions to Reduce 

the Department of the Interior’s Maintenance Backlog,’’ all Federal lands have a 

maintenance backlog including the Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife 

Service, and U.S. Forest Service. In its FY 2019 budget proposal, the Administration 

suggested a mechanism similar to what is proposed in H.R. 5210, the National Park 

Restoration Act, but included the Fish and Wildlife Service and its decaying facilities. PLA believes an opportunity for a more holistic approach to the Federal 

50 

deferred maintenance problem was missed by removing national refuges in the 

process of converting the Administration’s proposal to legislative language. 

PLA believes that as the Subcommittee works toward finding consensus on a final 

bill that it include all Federal land management agencies under its jurisdiction to 

participate in the deferred maintenance fund. A final bill should address failing facilities like the boardwalks in BLM lands and the historic lighthouse on a FWS 

refuge that were highlighted in PLA’s earlier testimony. 

Incentivize Philanthropy and Non-profit Support 

Many deferred maintenance projects in the National Park Service have been addressed successfully in recent years through appropriations to the Centennial 

Challenge fund and through mineral sales identified in the Helium Stewardship Act 

of 2013. In each program, park philanthropy and non-profit support were required 

to match Federal dollars before an expenditure from the Treasury could be made. 

Tackling the entire public lands deferred maintenance backlog cannot rely on this 

model. Too many projects like roads, bridges, and sewer systems are unworthy of 

philanthropy and the Federal Government must fully fund them. However, when 

the deteriorating resources are historical assets like the Statute of Liberty, or a 

source of recreation and enjoyment such as a hiking trail, private support can be 

marshalled successfully. 

H.R. 2584, the National Park Service Legacy Act, provides an innovative solution 

to leverage private support. The bill encourages public-private partnerships that will 

reduce the overall deferred maintenance costs to the NPS by including in its annual 

list of funded projects those that have a 25–33 percent private sector match depending on the total amount of the project. Not only are the highest priority projects 

funded, but so too are those projects that non-profit partners have been able to mobilize private sector donors to support. H.R. 5210, the National Park Restoration 

Act, unfortunately provides no incentive for private sector support. 

As consensus is reached on a final bill, PLA urges the Subcommittee to include 

incentives for non-profit park partners to rally donors and work with land management agencies to address failing facilities that affect the visitor experience. 

PLA sincerely appreciates the Subcommittee’s steadfast commitment to enhancing 

America’s public lands and the experience of their hundreds of millions of visitors. 

Thank you for your consideration of its views. 

[LIST OF DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD RETAINED IN THE

COMMITTEE’S OFFICIAL FILES]

Rep. Denham Submission 

—U.S. Travel Association, Testimony dated March 20, 2018. 

Rep. Grijalva Submissions 

—Letter to Chairman McClintock and Ranking Member 

Hanabusa from the CorpsNetwork dated March 20, 2018. 

—American Society of Civil Engineers, Statement for the 

Record dated March 20, 2018. 

Æ