National Park Service: Process Exists for Prioritizing Asset Maintenance Decisions, but Evaluation Could Improve Efforts
Published: 2016-12-13T00:00:00

Fast Facts:
At the end of fiscal year 2015, the National Park Service reported $11.9 billion in deferred maintenance—that is, the estimated costs of asset maintenance or repairs that the agency has postponed for more than a year and has not yet resolved.
To address its maintenance needs, the agency has determined that its highest priority assets—assets that are critical to the operation of parks—should be considered first for funding to keep them in good condition.
The agency has not yet evaluated this approach and does not have plans underway to do so. We recommend that the Park Service evaluate whether this approach is working or if changes are needed.

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: The Park Service manages more than 75,000 assets, including buildings, roads, and water systems, at 413 park units across all 50 states. In 2015, the agency estimated that its deferred maintenance on these assets was $11.9 billion.
GAO was asked to review how the Park Service manages its maintenance needs. This report examines, among other things, (1) agency allocations to maintain assets in fiscal years 2006 through 2015, (2) the amount and composition of the agency's deferred maintenance in fiscal years 2009 through 2015, and (3) how the agency makes maintenance decisions. To conduct this work, GAO analyzed Park Service allocation data for fiscal years 2006 through 2015 and deferred maintenance data in fiscal years 2009 (first year data for all assets was available) through 2015 (most current data available); reviewed planning and guidance documents and compared the process for making asset management decisions to guidance developed by the National Academies, among others; and interviewed Park Service officials at headquarters, all seven regions, and 21 park units selected to include those with large and small amounts of deferred maintenance, among other things. This sample is not generalizable to all park units.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: In fiscal years 2006 through 2015, the Department of the Interior's National Park Service (Park Service) allocated, on average, $1.16 billion annually to maintain assets. In fiscal year 2015, allocations to maintenance accounted for about one-third (or $1.08 billion) of the agency's total funding of $3.3 billion. The largest portion of maintenance funds in fiscal year 2015 was allocated to facility operations, which includes maintenance that is routine in nature, such as maintenance of trails.
The Park Service's deferred maintenance—maintenance of its assets that was not performed when it should have been and is delayed for a future period—averaged $11.3 billion from fiscal years 2009 through 2015. Bridges, tunnels, and paved roadways consistently made up the largest share of the agency's deferred maintenance, accounting for half of all deferred maintenance in fiscal year 2015. Older park units have the most deferred maintenance, with $10.5 billion in fiscal year 2015 in park units established more than 40 years ago.
The Park Service uses several tools to determine an asset's importance and condition and assign maintenance priority. Park unit staff assess the condition of the asset and identify maintenance projects. Once identified, park unit staff use the agency's Capital Investment Strategy to evaluate and rank projects. Projects score higher if they target critical assets with deferred maintenance. Fiscal year 2015 was the first budget year in which projects ranked using the strategy were funded, and regional and park unit officials said that it is too soon to determine if the strategy is meeting its objectives, such as maintaining the condition of its most important assets. However, the Park Service does not have a plan or timeframe for evaluating whether the strategy has been successful. A senior official said that the agency has not determined what is needed to begin such an evaluation and that it would be beneficial to verify that the Capital Investment Strategy is achieving intended outcomes. According to the National Academies Federal Facilities Council, it is important that agencies track the outcome of investments to improve decision making and asset management. Evaluating the strategy may help the Park Service determine if the strategy is achieving intended outcomes or if changes need to be made.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO recommends that the Park Service evaluate the Capital Investment Strategy and results to assess whether it has achieved its intended outcomes. The Department of the Interior agreed with GAO's recommendation.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The National Park Service (Park Service), within the Department of the  Interior, manages more than 75,000 assets—including buildings, roads,  and water systems—at 413 park units that cover 84 million acres across  all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and some territories. Park units,  which include national parks, recreation areas, and battlefields, received  307 million visits in 2015. In recent years, reports prepared by the Park  Service and stakeholder groups have highlighted challenges that the Park  Service faces—particularly fiscal challenges—and the Park Service has  reported that its funding does not cover the cost of its mission to preserve  the parks for current and future generations to enjoy. In a 2013 testimony  before Congress, the Director of the Park Service said that the  organization faced a maintenance backlog of about $11.5 billion at the  end of fiscal year 2012 and would need to spend nearly $700 million per  year on deferred maintenance to keep the backlog from continuing to  grow. The Park Service defines deferred maintenance as maintenance  that was not performed when it should have been or was scheduled to be  and is delayed for a future period. As of September 30, 2015, the Park  Service estimated that its deferred maintenance had grown to about  $11.9 billion.
With the Park Service celebrating its centennial in 2016 and park visits at  an all-time high, policymakers and others have expressed concern about  the condition of park units and the amount of Park Service deferred  maintenance. You asked us to review how the agency manages its  maintenance needs. This report examines (1) how much the Park Service  has allocated to maintain assets in fiscal years 2006 through 2015, (2) the  amount and composition of the Park Service’s deferred maintenance in  fiscal years 2009 through 2015, (3) how the Park Service makes asset  maintenance decisions, and (4) actions the Park Service is taking to help  address its maintenance needs.
To examine how much the Park Service has allocated to maintain assets  in fiscal years 2006 through 2015, we obtained and analyzed  maintenance allocation data from the Park Service for that period.  Maintenance allocation data from fiscal year 2015 are the most current  data available. We analyzed these data to identify the amount of funds  allocated to specific types of maintenance. We assessed the reliability of  these data through interviews with Park Service officials who were  familiar with these data and reviews of relevant documentation. We found  these data to be sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our reporting  objectives. We also examined Park Service budget documents, including  several agency budget justifications, and spoke with relevant Park  Service officials at the headquarters, regional, and park unit levels to  better understand these data.
To examine the amount and composition of the Park Service’s deferred  maintenance in fiscal years 2009 through 2015, we obtained and  analyzed data from the Park Service’s Facility Management Software  System (FMSS), an agency-wide database the Park Service uses to  collect, track, and analyze asset management data. We began our data  analysis with fiscal year 2009 because it is the first year the Park Service  reported deferred maintenance for all of the assets under its  management. According to the Park Service, deferred maintenance data  from the end of fiscal year 2015 are the most current data available and  include deferred maintenance for its 409 park units as well as other  properties under Park Service jurisdiction, such as regional offices. We  analyzed the data to identify how the amount and composition of deferred  maintenance had changed during that time, and further analyzed deferred  maintenance data from fiscal year 2015 to identify how deferred  maintenance varied according to characteristics such as asset priority  and park unit age. We assessed the reliability of these data by  interviewing Park Service officials familiar with these data, observing  them use FMSS, and reviewing relevant documentation. We found these  data to be sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our reporting objectives.  We also interviewed Park Service staff at the headquarters, regional, and  park unit levels to better understand deferred maintenance.
To determine how the Park Service makes asset maintenance decisions  and to identify actions the Park Service is taking to help address  maintenance needs, we examined Park Service documents and  interviewed agency officials at the headquarters, regional, and park unit  levels. We also interviewed Department of Transportation officials who  are responsible for obtaining the information about roads and bridges in  park units that park unit staff use to make maintenance decisions about  those assets. We obtained information about how park unit staff make  asset maintenance decisions and about actions they use to help address  deferred maintenance needs by using a semistructured interview at visits  to 3 park units and through telephone interviews with officials at 18 other  park units. In selecting these 21 park units, we included a park unit in  each of the seven Park Service regions that (1) had the greatest amount  of deferred maintenance, (2) was identified by regional officials as taking  actions to address maintenance needs, and (3) reflected a smaller  amount of deferred maintenance. We also ensured that we had different  park unit types (such as historic, military, and scenic) represented in our  sample. This sample is not generalizable to all park units. In addition, we  analyzed relevant documents, such as the National Park Service’s Asset  Management Plan, asset maintenance guidance documents, the Capital  Investment Strategy Guidebook, and fact sheets to obtain additional  information about the process and tools. We compared information we  learned about the Park Service’s process for making asset management  decisions to the Office of Management and Budget’s Capital  Programming Guide, the Federal Real Property Council’s Guidance for  Real Property Inventory Reporting, and the National Academies Federal  Facilities Council’s Key Performance Indicators of Federal Facilities  Portfolios. We supplemented our analysis with information obtained from prior GAO reviews. Appendix I contains a more detailed description of  our objectives, scope, and methodology.
We conducted this performance audit from July 2015 to December 2016  in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: The National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 established the Park  Service within the Department of the Interior to promote and regulate the  use of the National Park System with the purpose of conserving the  scenery, natural and historic objects, and wildlife therein and to leave  them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations. Yellowstone  National Park in Wyoming was the first national park, established in 1872,  and the most recent as of this report—Katahdin Woods and Waters  National Monument in Maine—was established August 24, 2016.
subsections: section_title: Park Service Structure, Visitation, and Funding
paragraphs: The Park Service manages its responsibilities through its headquarters  office located in Washington, D.C., seven regional offices, and 413  individual park units that are part of the system. Figure 1 shows the  geographic areas that make up the Park Service’s seven regions.
Park unit types include national scenic parks, such as Yellowstone and  Great Smoky Mountains; national historical parks, such as Valley Forge,  in Pennsylvania, and Lewis and Clark, in Oregon; national battlefields,  such as Wilson’s Creek, in Missouri, and Fort Donelson, in Tennessee;  national historic sites, such as Fort Bowie, in Arizona, and Theodore  Roosevelt’s birthplace, in New York; national monuments, such as Muir  Woods, in California, and Tule Springs Fossil Beds, in Nevada; national  preserves, such as the Yukon-Charley Rivers, in Alaska, and Big  Cypress, in Florida; national recreation areas, such as Lake Meredith, in  Texas, and Whiskeytown, in California; and national lakeshores, such as  Sleeping Bear Dunes, in Michigan, and the Apostle Islands, in Wisconsin.  Visitation levels reached an all-time high in 2015, when more than 307  million people visited park units. This is an increase of more than 14  million visitors from 2014. Park Service officials said that they expect  visitation to rise again in 2016, with the celebration of the Park Service  centennial.
The Park Service generally receives funding through annual  appropriations acts. These appropriated funds include base funding for  the operation of park units and for Park Service-wide programs, such as  funding for visitor services, park protection, and maintenance projects. It  also includes funding for technical and financial assistance programs that  support resource preservation and recreation outside of the national park  system. The Park Service also collects and uses funds from fees,  donations, and other funding sources. Total funding for the Park Service  increased about $0.6 billion, or 22 percent, from $2.65 billion in fiscal year  2006 to nearly $3.25 billion in fiscal year 2015. However, when adjusted  for inflation, total funding for the Park Service increased by only $160  million in fiscal year 2015 dollars, or 5 percent, during this 10-year period.  During this time, the number of park units in the system has grown from  390 in 2006 to 413 as of October 2016. Some Park Service officials said  that this increase in park units meant that the agency’s appropriations had  to be divided among an increasing number of units.
section_title: Park Service Maintenance Needs, Past GAO Findings, and Government-Wide Asset Guidance
paragraphs: The Park Service defines deferred maintenance as maintenance that was  not performed when it should have been or was scheduled to be and is  delayed for a future period. Deferred maintenance includes maintenance  within national park units as well as maintenance related to other  properties under Park Service jurisdiction, such as Park Service regional  offices. According to the Park Service, maintenance funding has not kept  pace with agency needs for several years. In general, maintenance needs  are almost double the annual funding, which leads to an annual increase  in deferred maintenance. As maintenance work is identified and is not  completed because of limited resources, deferred maintenance  increases.
The Park Service defines an asset as real property that the agency tracks  and manages as a distinct identifiable entity. These entities may be  physical structures or groupings of structures, landscapes, or other  tangible properties that have a specific service or function, such as  cemeteries, campgrounds, marinas, or sewage treatment plants.  Maintenance can range from work needed for visible assets, such as  buildings, roads, and trails, to less visible needs, such a water and  sewage systems. Many of these assets were constructed decades or  hundreds of years ago. For example, the walls lining Skyline Drive in  Shenandoah National Park, in Virginia, and some of the park’s buildings  were constructed by the Civilian Conservation Corps, a program created  in 1933 by President Franklin Roosevelt to help generate jobs and  improve the condition of the country’s natural resources. A number of  Park Service facilities date back half a century to the Mission 66 program.  From 1956 through 1966, Congress appropriated more than $1 billion for  Mission 66 improvements, which included updated facilities for hundreds  of visitor centers and employee residences, as well as employee training  centers at Harpers Ferry, West Virginia, and the Grand Canyon, in  Arizona. Many of the structures built through these programs as well as  other efforts are coming to the end of their anticipated life spans and are  in need of rehabilitation, repair, replacement, or disposal, according to  various documents we reviewed.
In 1998, we examined the Park Service’s deferred maintenance and  found, among other things, that the agency did not have an accurate  estimate of its total deferred maintenance and a means for tracking  progress so that it can determine the extent to which its needs are being  met. We also found that the Park Service was beginning a number of initiatives to better manage its maintenance and construction program,  including developing a plan to prioritize projects. Specifically, in 1998, the  Park Service began designing a new asset management process that  among other things was to provide the agency with a systematic method  for documenting deferred maintenance needs and tracking progress in  reducing the amount of deferred maintenance. In 2003, we testified that  the Park Service had made progress in developing its new asset  management process.
In February 2004, Executive Order 13327 recognized the need to  promote the efficient and economical use of federal real property  assets. The order directed federal agencies to develop and implement  asset management planning processes and develop asset management  plans. The order also created the Federal Real Property Council and  directed the council to develop guidance for each agency’s asset  management plan, among other things. In developing asset management  plans, the agencies were directed to take several actions, including  identifying and categorizing all of their assets and prioritizing actions to  improve the operational and financial management of these assets.
section_title: Park Service Allocated $1.16 Billion on Average in Fiscal Years 2006 through 2015 to Maintain Assets
paragraphs: In fiscal years 2006 through 2015, the Park Service allocated $1.16 billion  on average to operate and maintain the agency’s assets. Most recently,  in fiscal year 2015, the Park Service allocated $1.08 billion to  maintenance, which was about one-third of the total funding the agency  received that year. As shown in figure 2, the Park Service’s annual  maintenance allocations varied little during this period except in fiscal  year 2009, when the agency also used American Recovery and  Reinvestment Act funds to carry out maintenance work.
The Park Service allocates funds for maintenance in four broad budget  categories—operations, construction, recreation fees, and  transportation—according to what the agency refers to as fund sources,  which generally describe the type of maintenance work being done with  those funds. Figure 3 shows that maintenance allocations to operations,  recreation fees, and transportation have remained fairly stable in fiscal  years 2006 through 2015, with the exception of 2009, when the agency  also used American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds to carry out  maintenance work.
As shown in table 1, the Park Service uses eight fund sources within  these broad budget categories to track allocations for different types of  maintenance.
The types of projects eligible for different fund sources vary. For example,  cyclic maintenance projects are preventive in nature, that is, projects  intended to prevent growth of deferred maintenance. Officials at  Manassas National Battlefield Park said that they received cyclic  maintenance funds to do maintenance work on the roofs of several  historic buildings, which helps prevent further damage to the interior  walls, ceilings, and other parts of the buildings. Line item construction  projects are generally larger in scope and expense. For example, an  official at Yellowstone National Park said that in January 2016 park staff  had proposed relocating a dormitory near the Old Faithful geyser to a  safer location away from the release of harmful gases, at an estimated  cost of $9.9 million.
As shown in figure 4, the Park Service allocated the largest amounts of  funds to facility operations ($328.9 million, or 30.3 percent) and  transportation ($240 million, or 22.1 percent) in fiscal year 2015, and less  than $100 million to the other types of maintenance work described by the  remaining six fund sources.
Table 2 shows that allocations have generally increased from fiscal year  2006 through 2015 for such fund sources as facility operations and  recreation fees for routine maintenance. In contrast, allocations have  generally decreased for other fund sources, such as line item  construction, for the same time period.
section_title: Deferred Maintenance Averaged $11.3 Billion from Fiscal Years 2009 through 2015, and Paved Road Maintenance Accounted for Nearly Half
paragraphs: The Park Service’s deferred maintenance averaged about $11.3 billion  from fiscal year 2009 through fiscal year 2015. In each of those years,  deferred maintenance for paved roads made up the largest share of the  agency’s deferred maintenance. The sum of deferred maintenance for  assets in the other categories used by the Park Service generally  declined from fiscal year 2009 through fiscal year 2015. Also, in fiscal  year 2015, deferred maintenance varied broadly among other  characteristics, such as asset priority, category of asset, when the park  unit was established, and region.
subsections: section_title: Deferred Maintenance Averaged $11.3 Billion from Fiscal Year 2009 through Fiscal Year 2015
paragraphs: The Park Service’s deferred maintenance averaged about $11.3 billion in  nominal dollars from fiscal year 2009 through fiscal year 2015. During  that time, deferred maintenance in nominal dollars generally increased  from about $10.2 billion in fiscal year 2009 to about $11.9 billion in fiscal  year 2015, as shown in figure 5. Overall, the Park Service’s deferred  maintenance in nominal dollars grew, on average, about 3 percent per  year from fiscal year 2009 through fiscal year 2015.
The Park Service reported that it had a portfolio of 75,526 assets at the  end of fiscal year 2015, which the agency has organized into the  following nine categories:
Buildings, which includes structures such as visitor centers, offices,  and comfort stations.
Campgrounds.
Housing, which includes Park Service and Department of the Interior  employee housing and associated buildings, such as detached  garages, shower and laundry facilities, and storage.
Paved roads, which includes bridges, tunnels, paved parking areas,  and paved roadways.
Trails, which includes hiking trails.
Unpaved roads, which includes unpaved parking areas and unpaved  roadways.
Water systems, which includes potable and nonpotable water  systems.
Waste water systems, which includes structures such as sanitary  sewers and stormwater systems.
All others, which includes other utility systems, dams, constructed  waterways, marinas, aviation systems, railroads, ships, monuments,  fortifications, towers, interpretive media, and amphitheaters, and other  structures that did not fall into the other eight asset categories.
Deferred maintenance for paved roads was consistently the largest  category of the Park Service’s deferred maintenance from fiscal year  2009 through fiscal year 2015. On average, deferred maintenance for  paved roads made up about 44 percent of the Park Service’s total  deferred maintenance from fiscal year 2009 to fiscal year 2015 in both  nominal and inflation-adjusted dollars, and it generally grew—from about  $3.4 billion in fiscal year 2009 to about $6.0 billion in fiscal year 2015 (or,  from $3.8 billion to $6.0 billion in fiscal year 2015 dollars). Overall, the  sum of deferred maintenance for assets in the other eight categories  generally declined—from about $6.8 billion to about $6.0 billion from fiscal  year 2009 through fiscal year 2015 (or, from about $7.4 billion to about  $6.0 billion in fiscal year 2015 dollars). However, within this group,  deferred maintenance for some asset categories increased over the  period. For example, deferred maintenance for water systems generally  increased—from about $330 million in fiscal year 2009 to about $422  million in fiscal year 2015 (or, from about $361 million to $422 million in  fiscal year 2015 dollars). Figure 6 shows the amount of deferred  maintenance for each asset category over this period.
section_title: Deferred Maintenance in Fiscal Year 2015 Varied by Priority, Asset Category, Age, and Region
paragraphs: The Park Service’s $11.9 billion in deferred maintenance in fiscal year  2015 varied by priority, asset category, park age, and region.
subsections: section_title: Priority
paragraphs: About 20 percent ($2.4 billion) of the agency’s deferred maintenance in  fiscal year 2015 was for what the Park Service identified as its highest  priority, non-transportation assets. According to Park Service documents,  the agency’s highest-priority assets are those that are critical to the  operations and missions of their respective park units or have high visitor  use. For example, the Park Service has identified a potable water  distribution system at Grand Canyon National Park and a seawall at West  Potomac Park located in the National Mall in Washington, D.C., as among  the agency’s highest priority, non-transportation assets with some of the  largest amounts of deferred maintenance—both with more than $50  million for fiscal year 2015.
section_title: Asset Category
paragraphs: Nearly $6 billion (about 50 percent) of the Park Service’s deferred  maintenance in fiscal year 2015 was associated with paved roads. As  shown in figure 7, the all others category was the next largest in terms of  the dollar amount of deferred maintenance, at about $2.4 billion (about 20  percent).
In terms of the number of assets, buildings was the largest category in  fiscal year 2015, accounting for about 25,000 of the Park Service’s more  than 75,000 assets (about 33 percent), followed by all others with about  18,000 assets (about 24 percent) and paved roads with about 12,000  assets (about 16 percent), as shown in figure 8.
The majority of the Park Service’s deferred maintenance in fiscal year  2015 was for assets in park units that were established more than 40  years ago. Specifically, about $10.5 billion in deferred maintenance was  for park units established more than 40 years ago. Of these, park units  established more than 100 years ago had the greatest amount of fiscal  year 2015 deferred maintenance—more than $3.8 billion—as shown in  figure 9. This includes parks such as the National Mall in Washington,  D.C., with about $840 million; Yellowstone National Park, in Idaho,  Montana, and Wyoming, with about $632 million; and Yosemite National  Park, in California, with about $555 million. For assets in parks  established in the last 40 years, deferred maintenance in fiscal year 2015  was about $1.0 billion. See appendix II for a listing of the top 100 park  units in terms of deferred maintenance amounts.
About $2.7 billion of the agency’s deferred maintenance is associated  with parks located in the Pacific West Region. As shown in figure 10, four  Park Service regions each had more than $1.8 billion in deferred  maintenance, while the Midwest Region ($434 million) and the Alaska  Region ($115 million) each had deferred maintenance well below $1  billion.
section_title: Park Service Uses Information on the Importance and Condition of Assets to Prioritize Maintenance Decisions, but the Agency Has Not Evaluated This Process
paragraphs: The Park Service uses several tools to rate an asset’s importance and  condition and assign maintenance priority to its assets. Park unit staff  update asset condition information through periodic assessments and use  that information to create work orders to address identified deficiencies,  but they face some challenges in completing these tasks. Park unit staff  combine these work orders each year to generate projects to address the  deficiencies and identify fund sources for the various maintenance  projects. Once projects are identified, park unit staff use the Park  Service’s Capital Investment Strategy to rank maintenance projects for  funding decisions. However, the Park Service has not evaluated its  process for making asset maintenance decisions to determine if it is  achieving intended outcomes.
subsections: section_title: Park Service Uses an Asset’s Importance and Condition to Assign Maintenance Priority
paragraphs: To assign maintenance priority to an asset, the Park Service uses two  tools to rate an asset’s importance and condition—the asset priority index  (API) and facility condition index (FCI)—both of which are consistent with  asset management guidance from the Office of Management and Budget  and the National Academies Federal Facilities Council. Park staff use the  ratio of API to FCI to assign assets to a level of maintenance priority,  called an optimizer band, and document how these calculations were  made in Park Asset Management Plans.
subsections: section_title: Asset Priority Index
paragraphs: API identifies the relative importance of the various assets at a park. To  do this, park unit staff use four weighted criteria to determine an asset’s  API value on a scale from 1 to 100, in which assets that scored 100 are  most important. The criteria follow:
Resource preservation. This criterion identifies whether the asset  directly contributes to a park’s ability to preserve natural resource  processes, is a cultural asset, or enhances a park’s ability to preserve  and protect its cultural resources. This criterion determines 35 percent  of an asset’s API.
Visitor use. This criterion identifies the extent to which the asset  contributes to visitor accessibility, understanding, and enjoyment.  Assets are rated as high, medium, low, or none, and the score  contributes to 25 percent of an asset’s API.
Park support. This criterion considers the extent to which an asset  directly supports day-to-day operations of a park unit or employees’  ability to perform park operations. Assets are also rated as high,  medium, low, or none under this criterion, and it contributes to 20  percent of an asset’s API.
Asset substitutability. This criterion refers to the degree to which a  comparable substitute asset exists to fulfill the functional requirements  or purpose of that asset. To rate this criterion, park unit staff consider  the question “if this asset is lost, what would be the impact,” and park  unit staff are to answer high impact, low or no impact, or there is no  substitute for the asset. This criterion determines 20 percent of an  asset’s API.
Park unit staff establish values for these criteria by answering a series of  questions about each asset that are included in guidance provided by the  Park Service. For example, one question used to establish an asset’s  visitor use value is if the asset provides access to, houses, or delivers  visitor understanding through education. The total API for each asset is  recorded in the agency’s FMSS. Park Service officials said that an  asset’s API should not change unless something substantial occurs, such  as an asset being destroyed in a weather event or being taken out of  service because it is no longer needed. If park unit staff determine that an  asset’s API value should be changed, regional approval is needed to  make the change.
The Park Service’s use of API as part of its process for making asset  maintenance decisions is consistent with the Office of Management and  Budget’s Capital Programming Guide, which states that the use of tools  such as API helps managers identify the most important assets and  provides logical guidance for directing limited funding. In addition, the  guide notes that API is important for planning for recurring maintenance  and preventive maintenance.
section_title: Facility Condition Index
paragraphs: FCI is a method of measuring the current condition of an asset to assess  how much work, if any, is recommended to maintain or change its  condition to acceptable levels to support organizational missions. The  Park Service uses FCI to rate the condition of an asset on a scale from 0  to 1. It is calculated by dividing the deferred maintenance associated with  an asset by its current replacement value, and the lower the asset FCI  value, the better the condition of the asset. For example, a new asset  would likely have little or no deferred maintenance associated with it and  therefore have a low FCI.
Park unit staff record the projected cost of repairs and current  replacement value for each asset in FMSS and update those values when  appropriate. To calculate the projected cost of an asset’s repair, park unit  staff use the Park Service’s cost estimating software system. The system  bases calculations on industry standard tools, materials, and methods  according to data from a North American supplier of construction cost  information. In addition, the Park Service instructs staff to consider  adjustments as needed, such as when requirements for historically  accurate materials or construction methods are required. For example,  according to a maintenance official at Independence National Historic  Park in Philadelphia, repairs to a deteriorated rain gutter on  Independence Hall were more complex and expensive than similar work  on modern or nonhistoric buildings. A failed section of the gutter’s  downspout had to be replaced with historically accurate materials in order  to meet cultural resource preservation standards. To avoid damaging  historic building fabric nearby, the new section of pipe was soldered into  place with unique equipment that did not use a flame. Park unit staff  calculate the current replacement value of an asset using the Park  Service’s current replacement value calculator. According to Department  of the Interior policy, current replacement value is defined as the  standard industry cost and engineering estimate of materials, supplies,  and labor required to replace an asset at its existing size and functional  capability, and to meet applicable regulatory codes.
The Park Service’s use of FCI as part of its process for making asset  maintenance decisions is consistent with the Federal Real Property  Council’s Guidance for Real Property Inventory Reporting, which  identified this type of condition index as a performance measure. In  addition, in 2005, the National Academies Federal Facilities Council found  that many agencies use FCI to measure the current condition of assets to  assess how much work, if any, is recommended to maintain or change  their condition to acceptable levels to support organizational missions.
section_title: Optimizer Bands
paragraphs: The Park Service uses the ratio of an asset’s API and FCI to assign the  asset to an optimizer band, which is used to determine the priority level  for maintenance. The agency began using optimizer bands in 2012 to  help determine which projects would obtain project funds and ensure that  limited funds are allocated to the most important assets.
According to Park Service guidance, optimizer bands act as a triage  framework for allocating limited funds. For example, optimizer band 1  assets are the highest-priority assets. The agency defines them as critical  to the operations and mission of a park unit or as having high visitor use.  They are to be considered first for funding to keep them in good condition.  In contrast, optimizer band 5 assets are the lowest-priority assets. The  agency does not need them for the operations and mission of the park,  and many of these assets may be candidates for disposal. To ensure that  the highest-priority assets are maintained to the greatest extent possible,  the Park Service established minimum levels of funding park units are to  allocate for preventive maintenance. Specifically, park units are to use  funds from the operations budget category to address a minimum of 55  percent of the preventive maintenance work needed to maintain optimizer  band 1 assets in good condition. The minimum levels of funding for  optimizer bands 2 and 3 are 50 and 25 percent, respectively, and there  are no minimum levels of funding for bands 4 and 5.
Park unit staff have some flexibility in assigning assets to optimizer  bands. Park Service officials said that park units may reassign an asset to  a different optimizer band, but that these changes are to be approved by  regional officials. Officials we interviewed at some of the park units said  that they had changed optimizer bands for some assets. For example,  one park unit changed the optimizer band of the building where park unit  staff work from optimizer band 3 to optimizer band 2. Officials at this park  unit said that the building is vital to the park because it is the only building  space in or near the park that staff can use to perform the administrative  duties required for managing a park unit, including maintaining FMSS.  However, the building had been assigned to optimizer band 3 because it  has no visitor use, which meant that the asset was not a priority for  maintenance funding and therefore difficult to keep in acceptable  condition. Officials at other park units identified reasons to change the  optimizer band levels. For example, officials at two park units noted that  the quality of housing can be poor because of low maintenance priority,  which can affect both the ability of staff to do their jobs well and the visitor  experience. According to Park Service officials, housing can also  deteriorate past the point of acceptable living conditions, at which point  park units would no longer be able to use those assets to house  employees.
Park unit staff report asset optimizer bands, as well as API and FCI, in  their Park Asset Management Plans. Many of the park unit officials we  interviewed said that they had most recently established these values for  their assets within the last 7 years, often as part of updating the park  unit’s Park Asset Management Plan. According to Park Service asset  management guidance, a Park Asset Management Plan is a strategic and  operational plan that park units are to develop to articulate how the park  unit intends to manage its asset portfolio over a 10-year period based on  the analysis of asset data. Park Service officials said that park units use  them to assess all of their assets and determine the amount of funds  needed to maintain assets in good condition.
The Office of Management and Budget’s 2015 Capital Planning Guide  does not use the term optimizer band but notes that graphical  representations of a distribution of assets graphed by their importance to  mission and their condition can be a useful tool in segmenting and  presenting asset portfolios. Specifically, by plotting an asset according to  API and FCI, an agency can determine when an asset no longer supports  the mission of the site or bureau or is a candidate for disposal because it  has a low API and high FCI.
section_title: Park Unit Staff Conduct Periodic Assessments to Identify Deficiencies
paragraphs: The Park Service’s asset management plan instructs park units to  determine the condition of park assets through annual condition  assessments—high-level inspections that identify obvious and apparent  deficiencies—and comprehensive condition assessments—more detailed  assessments of assets performed every 5 years. The plan also instructs  park unit staff to record condition assessment information in FMSS and  update the projected cost of repairs of the asset.
Officials we interviewed at several of the park units said that for annual  assessments staff regularly visually inspect assets during the normal  course of business, such as opening buildings for seasonal use or  performing maintenance on nearby assets. Some officials also said that  comprehensive assessments are either performed by park unit staff with  expertise or contractors. For example, a regional official said that park  units in the region hired contractors to inspect sewer lines as part of a  comprehensive assessment, since they do not have in-house expertise to  do so. The Park Service provides guidance to park unit staff on how to  perform comprehensive assessments for each of the asset categories.  Officials we interviewed at several park units said that they organize  comprehensive condition assessments to account for 20 percent of park  assets annually, so that they can complete a comprehensive condition  assessment for all park assets within a 5-year period.
Officials we interviewed at more than half of the park units said that they  were unable to complete annual or comprehensive assessments of all  assets on schedule because of other duties or scheduling challenges.  Specifically, staff who are to conduct the assessments perform other  duties, such as overseeing asset maintenance and entering and  maintaining asset data in FMSS. Park unit officials also said that Park  Service headquarters makes frequent data requests—for example, for  electric utility metering data, or for verification of square footage values in  FMSS—and that these data requests can interfere with park unit staff’s  ability to complete tasks, including condition assessments, on time. In  addition, some park units are located remotely or in challenging climates,  making it difficult to inspect all assets on the recommended schedule. For  example, officials we interviewed at three park units said that they had to  hike or fly to certain assets because they are located remotely or the  assets are inaccessible in the winter because of snow; however, winter  might be the only time the park unit had staff available to conduct  assessments.
For Park Service paved roads and bridges, the Department of  Transportation conducts condition assessments for the Park Service.  According to Department of Transportation officials, they typically  conducts condition assessments of major paved roads—thoroughfares in  large parks with more than 10 miles of roadway—within each park unit  once every 5 years and of secondary paved roads once every 10 years.  In addition, the department conducts condition assessments of all bridges  within each park unit once every 2 years in accordance with National  Bridge Inspection Standards. Specifically, a team of six to eight  Department of Transportation staff, working in teams of two, drive a  vehicle with special equipment that can assess the condition of the  pavement along park roads. Department of Transportation officials  estimate that these teams have assessed about 5,900 road miles in the  last 4 years; by comparison, the Park Service has 5,500 miles of paved  roads. Once a road is assessed, the Department of Transportation  provides the condition data to relevant park unit staff who enter the data  into FMSS and determine if a work order is needed.
section_title: Park Unit Staff Combine Work Orders to Generate Projects and Identify Fund Sources
paragraphs: Based upon the condition assessments, Park Unit staff create one or  more work orders in FMSS that document an asset’s deficiencies. They,  in turn, combine work orders to generate projects to conduct the  maintenance work needed to address identified deficiencies. Specifically,  according to Park Service officials, staff bundle a series of work orders to  address multiple deficiencies—such as replace a door, paint a wall, or fix  the roof—in one building as part of the same project. Work orders  generally contain a basic description of the work needed and an estimate  of the material and labor costs, among other things. Park units submit  these maintenance projects annually to the regional offices as part of an  agency-wide call for projects, which marks the beginning of the Park  Service’s budget formulation cycle. Park Service headquarters officials  provide guidance to help park units to identify which fund sources can be  used for a project, among other things. The staff may also choose to  address a deficiency directly, using the park unit’s facility operations  funds rather than applying for project funds. Some park unit officials we  interviewed said that they typically do this for maintenance work that is  routine in nature, such as grounds keeping.
The Park Service’s most recent agency-wide call for projects was for  projects to be funded in fiscal year 2019, and it directed park units and  regional offices to have projects ready for review by headquarters by April  3, 2017. As part of doing this, park unit staff identify which of the Park  Service’s fund sources would be appropriate to use for the various  maintenance projects. To identify the appropriate fund source, park unit  staff use information about the nature of the maintenance work needed as  identified in the project’s work orders, as well as the annual fund source  guidance that the Park Service provides. The guidance for each fund  source includes questions about the projects to help determine if the  project is eligible for a particular fund source. For example, to obtain  cyclic funds for a project, fund source guidance has directed park unit  staff to explain how the project supports or extends the life cycle of the  asset or how funding the project will positively affect visitor health and  safety, among other things. Park unit staff also enter projects into the  agency’s Project Management Information System. All projects entered  into this system then compete for funds in the region, or nationwide,  depending on the type of project and fund source.
section_title: Park Unit Staff Use the Park Service’s Capital Investment Strategy to Rank Maintenance Projects for Funding, but the Agency Does Not Have a Plan to Evaluate Outcomes
paragraphs: Since 2012, the Park Service has used its Capital Investment Strategy to  evaluate and rank maintenance projects for funding. Agency officials  stated that the Capital Investment Strategy was created to help ensure  that park units do not allow assets to fall into a severe state of disrepair  before repairing them. According to the Park Service’s Capital Investment  Strategy Guidebook, the strategy is designed to promote several of the  agency’s mission goals, including the repair and improvement of assets  that parks commit to maintain in good condition and the disposition of  nonessential facilities to reduce deferred maintenance. In addition, one of  the strategy’s objectives is to enable the Park Service to demonstrate to  Congress and others that the agency optimizes taxpayer dollars to  preserve high-priority assets. To meet this objective, the Capital  Investment Strategy uses a formula based on asset information to score  projects and gives preference to projects that address assets in optimizer  bands 1 or 2.
As part of the agency-wide call for projects, park unit staff use the Capital  Investment Strategy to score projects that will be funded by the cyclic  maintenance, repair and rehabilitation, line item construction, Federal  Lands Transportation Program, and recreation fees fund sources in the  Project Management Information System. The formula used in the Capital  Investment Strategy scores projects from 1 to 1,000 by, in part,  individually evaluating each work order in a project according to FMSS  data in four elements: financial sustainability, resource protection, visitor  use, and health and safety. For example, the visitor use element  considers investment in assets that directly enable outdoor recreation as  well as interpretive media. The most points within this element are  awarded to those projects that improve and sustain the experience of the  greatest number of visitors. Projects are scored higher if they target  optimizer band 1 or 2 assets for deferred maintenance reduction and  optimizer band 5 assets for disposition.
Park Service officials, either at the regional office or headquarters, review  and approve projects for funding based on the fund source guidance  provided as part of the agency-wide call for projects. For all fund sources  except for line item construction, Park Service regional officials determine  which maintenance projects are to receive funding by convening expert  panels, which review the scored projects provided by the park units in  their regions. For maintenance projects associated with the repair and  rehabilitation fund source that are estimated to cost less than $1 million,  the Park Service convenes a nationwide panel of experts to determine  which will be funded. For line item construction projects estimated at  more than $1 million, Park Service headquarters staff review and select  which projects will receive funding. The Park Service identifies the line  item construction projects the agency wants to fund by name, description,  estimated cost, and project score in its annual budget justification  submission to Congress.
Fiscal year 2015 was the first budget year in which projects ranked using  the strategy were funded, and as such some regional and park unit  officials said that it is too soon to determine if the Capital Investment  Strategy is meeting its objectives, such as maintaining the condition of its  high-priority assets. Officials we interviewed at more than half of the park  units said that the Capital Investment Strategy so far has helped them  identify their park units’ most important maintenance needs. However,  several regional and park unit officials said that the Capital Investment  Strategy’s focus on optimizer band 1 and 2 assets could result in  continued deterioration of assets in other optimizer bands, leading to  increased deferred maintenance.
The Park Service does not have a plan or time frame for evaluating  whether the strategy has been successful. A senior official said that the  agency had not determined what is needed to begin such an evaluation  and that it would be beneficial to verify that the Capital Investment  Strategy is achieving intended outcomes and if changes need to be  made. According to the National Academies Federal Facilities Council,  investments made in assets are not often immediately visible or  measurable but are manifest over a period of years, and it is important  that agencies track the outcomes of those investments to improve  decision making about those investments and to improve asset  management. Moreover, according to the council, to understand the  outcomes of facilities investments, federal agencies need to establish  facilities asset management performance goals that have a time frame for  attainment, among other things. By evaluating the Capital Investment  Strategy and its results after it has been in place for a few years, the Park  Service may be able to determine if the strategy is achieving its intended  outcomes or if changes need to be made. For example, the agency could  consider evaluating the improvement or deterioration in the overall  condition of assets in each optimizer band to determine whether the  agency should continue to prioritize allocations to maintenance on  optimizer band 1 and 2 assets.
section_title: The Park Service Is Working with Partners and Volunteers and Taking Other Actions to Help Address Maintenance Needs
paragraphs: The Park Service is taking a variety of actions to help address asset  maintenance needs and potentially reduce deferred maintenance. These  actions include the following:
Using philanthropic donations. The Park Service receives  donations from several philanthropic sources to enhance park assets  and, in some cases, address maintenance needs. For example, the  National Park Foundation intends to raise up to $350 million to  support the Park Service as part of its Centennial Campaign for  America’s National Parks. The foundation reported in February 2016  that it had raised about $200 million toward this goal. Some of these  funds are to be used to address asset maintenance, such as repairing  trails at Jenny Lake in Grand Teton National Park in Wyoming and  rehabilitating Constitution Gardens, part of the National Mall, in  Washington, D.C. Stemming from the National Park Foundation’s  efforts, in July of 2014 the Park Service announced a donation of  about $12 million to restore and improve access to Arlington House,  the Robert E. Lee Memorial, which is located in Arlington National  Cemetery. In addition, philanthropic funds are available through the  Centennial Challenge program. From fiscal years 2015 through  2016, Congress appropriated $25 million for this program. For  projects funded by this program, at least 50 percent of the costs must  come from nonfederal donations. According to Park Service  documents, the agency has selected more than 150 projects to be  funded by the program, which as of October 20, 2016, had received  more than $45 million in matching funds from philanthropic donors.  Some of the projects are to directly address deferred maintenance,  such as a project at the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National  Historical Park that will rehabilitate the Conococheague Aqueduct in  Maryland.
Working with volunteers. Volunteer groups are providing assistance  to several parks to help address asset maintenance needs. For  example, at the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, in North  Carolina and Tennessee, a local volunteer group maintains several of  the park’s trails. Park unit officials said this arrangement has reduced  the deferred maintenance for the park’s trails by about $1 million since  2009. Officials at some of park units we interviewed said volunteer  groups perform a variety of maintenance duties that help address  deferred maintenance, including grounds and facilities cleanup,  clearing roadways of vegetation, and campground maintenance.
Leasing properties. Several park units are leasing assets to other  parties in exchange for the lessee rehabilitating or maintaining the  assets. According to Park Service documents, all net income from  such leases is to be reinvested to fund historic preservation, capital  improvements of historic properties, park infrastructure, or any  deferred maintenance needs. For example, the Park Service leases  several buildings at the Golden Gate National Recreational Area in  San Francisco. The Park Service also leases several historic  buildings at Hot Springs National Park in Arkansas. Park unit officials  said that the buildings at Hot Springs were in serious disrepair prior to  being leased. The officials said that the lessees are to repair and  rehabilitate the structures in lieu of rent for the first several years of  their lease terms, thereby reducing the park’s deferred maintenance.  Officials at some of the park units we interviewed said that they were  considering implementing leasing programs, in part, to help reduce  their deferred maintenance. To help facilitate leasing, the Park  Service hired a national leasing manager in 2015 to formalize its  leasing program, and some parks units and regions have developed  active leasing programs.
Engaging partners. The Park Service is engaged in partnerships  where outside organizations are assuming some asset maintenance  responsibilities. For example, the Park Service entered into a  partnership with a nonprofit organization to operate and maintain the  visitor center associated with Independence National Historical Park  in Philadelphia. In this case, the Park Service owns the visitor center  and contributes funds—about $800,000 annually—to cover some of  its basic operating costs, but the nonprofit organization covers the  majority of the facility’s operating and maintenance costs. Park unit  officials said that the 30-year agreement with the nonprofit  organization provides the park with a modern visitor center that  maintenance staff do not have to physically maintain, and provides a  location where rangers can be stationed to answer questions about  the park.
Entering into other arrangements. The Park Service is taking steps  to reduce, or in some cases eliminate, the need to allocate  maintenance funds to some park assets by entering into  arrangements with other entities to manage those assets. For  example, officials at two of the park units we interviewed said that  they had turned over the some of their campgrounds to concessioners  to operate and maintain.
Partnering with states for transportation grants. The Park Service  has worked with states to submit joint applications for a variety of  Department of Transportation grants. For example, the Park Service,  jointly with the District of Columbia’s Department of Transportation,  received a $90 million grant from the Department of Transportation’s  Fostering Advancements in Shipping and Transportation for the Long- Term Achievement of National Efficiencies (or FASTLANE) grant  program to rehabilitate the Arlington Memorial Bridge, which links the  District of Columbia to Arlington National Cemetery in Virginia. In  addition, the Tennessee Department of Transportation received a $10  million Department of Transportation grant—Transportation  Investment Generating Economic Recovery (or TIGER) grant—to  complete a section of the Foothills Parkway that runs through Great  Smoky Mountains National Park, in North Carolina and Tennessee.  The Park Service contributed an additional $10 million and the state  contributed an additional $15 million in funds toward the $35 million  project.
Park Service officials said that these actions have helped address  deferred maintenance at some park units, but that not all of these  activities are well-suited to all park units or all maintenance needs. For  example, they said that not all park units have assets that would be  desirable for leasing. In addition, officials at several park units we  interviewed said that philanthropic donors generally prefer to donate  funds to projects that enhance parks or add new features, as opposed to  addressing existing maintenance needs.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: The Park Service has allocated $1.16 billion on average to maintain its  assets in fiscal years 2006 through 2015, but its deferred maintenance  has continued to increase. To address its maintenance needs, the agency  uses tools that are consistent with asset management guidance from the  Office of Management and Budget and the National Academies Federal  Facilities Council. In addition, the Park Service has determined that its  highest-priority assets should be considered first for funding to keep them  in good condition, and park unit staff use the agency’s Capital Investment  Strategy to rank and prioritize projects for funding. However, several of  the regional and park unit officials we interviewed said that the focus on  high-priority assets may result in continued deterioration of less-critical  assets, thereby increasing deferred maintenance. The Park Service does  not have a plan or time frame for evaluating whether the Capital  Investment Strategy has been successful. We recognize that it may be  too soon to determine if the strategy is meeting its objectives given that  fiscal year 2015 was the first budget year in which projects ranked using  the strategy were funded. However, evaluating the Capital Investment  Strategy and its results in a few years may allow the Park Service to  determine if the strategy is achieving its intended outcomes or if changes  need to be made.
section_title: Recommendation for Executive Action
paragraphs: To ensure that the elements of the agency’s process for making asset  maintenance decisions are achieving desired outcomes, we recommend  that the Secretary of the Interior direct the Director of the Park Service to  evaluate the Capital Investment Strategy and its results to determine if it  is achieving its intended outcomes or if changes need to be made.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to the Departments of the Interior and  Transportation for review and comment. The GAO Audit Liaison from the  Department of the Interior responded via e-mail on December 5, 2016,  that the department agreed with our recommendation and also provided  technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. The  Department of Transportation had no comments.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of  this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the  report date. At that time, we will send copies to the appropriate  congressional committees, the Secretaries of the Interior and  Transportation, and other interested parties. In addition, the report is  available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff members have any questions about this report, please  contact me at (202) 512-3841 or fennella@gao.gov. Contact points for  our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found  on the last page of this report. GAO staff members who made major  contributions to this report are listed in appendix III.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: Our objectives were to examine (1) how much the National Park Service  (Park Service) has allocated to maintain assets in fiscal years 2006  through 2015, (2) the amount and composition of the Park Service’s  deferred maintenance in fiscal years 2009 through 2015, (3) how the Park  Service makes asset maintenance decisions, and (4) the actions the Park  Service is taking to help address its maintenance needs.
To examine how much the Park Service has allocated to maintain assets  in fiscal years 2006 through 2015, we obtained and analyzed  maintenance allocation data from the Park Service for that period.  According to the Park Service, deferred maintenance data from the end of  fiscal year 2015 were the most current data available when we began this  review. We analyzed the data to determine the amount of funds the Park  Service had allocated in each year to the eight fund sources the agency  uses for maintenance work: cyclic maintenance, repair and rehabilitation,  facility operations, line item construction, recreation fees for routine  maintenance, recreation fees for capital improvements, recreation fees for  deferred maintenance, and Federal Lands Transportation Program. We  assessed the reliability of these data through interviews with Park Service  officials who were familiar with these data and reviews of relevant  documentation. We found these data to be sufficiently reliable for the  purposes of our reporting objectives. We also examined Park Service  budget documents, including several agency budget justifications, and  interviewed relevant Park Service officials at headquarters, regional  offices, and park units to better understand the fund sources used for  maintenance work. In addition, we obtained and analyzed Park Service  funding data for fiscal years 2006 through 2015 from the Office of  Management and Budget MAX Information System to compare agency  funding to maintenance allocations.
To examine the amount and composition of Park Service’s deferred  maintenance in fiscal years 2009 through 2015, we obtained and  analyzed Park Service data on deferred maintenance for the agency’s  assets. We obtained these data from the Facility Management Software  System (FMSS), an agency-wide database that Department of the Interior  agencies, including the Park Service, use to collect, track, and analyze  asset management data. We also interviewed Park Service staff at the  headquarters, regional, and park unit levels to better understand deferred  maintenance. We began our data analysis with fiscal year 2009 because  it is the first year the Park Service reported deferred maintenance for all  of the assets under its management. From fiscal years 2006 through  2008, the Park Service reported deferred maintenance for eight major  asset categories as agreed with the Office and Management and  Budget—paved roads, buildings, campgrounds, housing, trails, unpaved  roads, water systems, and waste water systems. In fiscal year 2009, the  Park Service began reporting deferred maintenance for an additional  category called all others to convey the deferred maintenance for assets  that did not, by definition, fall into one of the other eight categories. The  all others category used by the Park Service includes assets such as  marinas, railroads, and interpretive media.
We determined how the amount and composition of deferred  maintenance had changed from fiscal year 2009 to fiscal year 2015 by  obtaining Park Service reports generated from FMSS on the amount of  deferred maintenance for each fiscal year by major asset category.  According to the Park Service, deferred maintenance data from the end of  fiscal year 2015 are the most current data available and include 409 park  units as well as other properties under Park Service jurisdiction, such as  regional offices. Park Service officials said that the data provided for each  fiscal year were a snapshot in time that reflected the asset categorization  methods in place at the time each report was generated. For example,  officials said that some assets categorized as one type may have been  treated as another type in a subsequent year. We analyzed these data  over this period in both nominal and inflation-adjusted terms.
We also obtained detailed data for fiscal year 2015 from FMSS for each  of the Park Service’s more than 75,000 assets. We analyzed these data  to identify how deferred maintenance varied according to certain key  characteristics, such as asset priority, asset category, park unit age, and  region. We assessed the reliability of the data by interviewing Park  Service officials familiar with these data, observing those officials use  FMSS, and reviewing relevant documentation. We found these data to be  sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our reporting objectives.
To determine how the Park Service makes asset maintenance decisions  and to identify actions the Park Service is taking to help address  maintenance needs, we interviewed relevant officials at the headquarters  level. We also interviewed Department of Transportation officials who  described the process the department uses to assess the condition of  Park Service roads and bridges; park unit staff use these assessments to  make maintenance decisions about those assets. In addition, we  analyzed relevant documents, such as the Park Service’s Asset  Management Plan, asset maintenance guidance documents, the Capital  Investment Strategy Guidebook, and fact sheets, to obtain additional  information about the process and tools. We compared information we  learned about the Park Service’s process for making asset management  decisions to the Office of Management and Budget’s Capital  Programming Guide, the Federal Real Property Council’s Guidance for  Real Property Inventory Reporting, and the National Academies Federal  Facilities Council’s Key Performance Indicators of Federal Facilities  Portfolios. We supplemented our analysis with information obtained from  our prior reports. In addition, we interviewed the chief facility  management official at each of the Park Service’s seven regions to  understand the role they play in overseeing and managing maintenance  needs at the park units within their regions. We also asked them to  identify park units within their regions that had taken notable actions to  help address deferred maintenance.
We conducted semistructured interviews at 21 park units to learn about  the process each follows to make asset maintenance decisions as well as  actions the park units were taking to help address deferred maintenance.  From the 409 park units in existence when we began this review, we  selected 21 parks based on several criteria. Specifically, for each of the  seven regions, we selected three parks: (1) the park with the greatest  amount of deferred maintenance as of the end of fiscal year 2015, (2) a  park that had a deferred maintenance amount in the lower half of all park  units in that region, and (3) a park unit recommended by regional officials  as taking additional or notable actions to help address deferred  maintenance. We also ensured that these parks represented different  types of park unit types, such as scenic, historical, military, recreational,  and seashores. This sample is not generalizable to all park units. We  visited 3 of these park units in person—(1) Independence National  Historical Park, in Philadelphia; (2) George Washington Memorial  Parkway, in Maryland, Virginia, and Washington, D.C.; and (3) Manassas  National Battlefield Park, in Virginia—and interviewed officials with the  remaining 18 park units by telephone or in person. See table 3 for a list of  the parks we selected, along with selection criteria.
We conducted this performance audit from July 2015 to December 2016  in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.
section_title: Appendix II: Top 100 National Park Service Park Units with Fiscal Year 2015 Deferred Maintenance
paragraphs: Table 4 shows the top 100 National Park Service park units ranked by the  amount of deferred maintenance as of the end of fiscal year 2015.
section_title: Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, Elizabeth Erdmann (Assistant  Director), Ying Long, Mick Ray, Anne Rhodes-Klein, and Michelle K.  Treistman made key contributions to this report. Additional contributions  were made by John Bauckman, Anna Brunner, Greg Campbell,  Antoinette Capaccio, Scott Heacock, Carol Henn, Kim McGatlin, John  Mingus, and Carmen Yeung.