National Park Service Deferred Maintenance: Frequently Asked Questions (CRS Report for Congress)
Premium Purchase PDF for $24.95 (23 pages)
add to cart or
subscribe for unlimited access
Pro Premium subscribers have free access to our full library of CRS reports.
Subscribe today, or
request a demo to learn more.
Release Date |
Revised May 13, 2020 |
Report Number |
R44924 |
Report Type |
Report |
Authors |
Laura B. Comay |
Source Agency |
Congressional Research Service |
Older Revisions |
-
Premium Revised Aug. 23, 2017 (19 pages, $24.95)
add
-
Premium Aug. 3, 2017 (19 pages, $24.95)
add
|
Summary:
This report addresses frequently asked questions about the National Park Service's (NPS's) backlog of deferred maintenanceâmaintenance that was not performed as scheduled or as needed and was put off to a future time. NPS's deferred maintenance, also known as the maintenance backlog, was estimated for FY2018 (the most recent year available) at $11.920 billion. More than half of the NPS backlog is in transportation-related assets. Other federal land management agencies also have maintenance backlogs, but NPS's is the largest and has drawn the most congressional attention.
During the past decade (FY2009-FY2018), NPS's maintenance backlog grew by $1.751 billion in nominal dollars while declining by $0.368 billion in inflation-adjusted dollars. Many factors might contribute to growth or reduction in deferred maintenance, including the aging of NPS assets, the availability of funding for maintenance activities, acquisitions of new assets, agency management of the backlog, completion of individual projects, changes in construction and related costs, and changes in measurement and reporting methodologies. The backlog is distributed unevenly among states and territories, with California, the District of Columbia, and Virginia having the largest amounts of NPS deferred maintenance. The amounts also vary among individual park units. In terms of individual projects, transportation-related projects are among those with the highest deferred maintenance estimates.
Sources of funding to address NPS deferred maintenance include discretionary appropriations, allocations from the Department of Transportation, park entrance and concessions fees, donations, and others. It is not possible to determine the total amount of funding from these sources that NPS has allocated each year to address deferred maintenance, because NPS does not aggregate these amounts in its budget reporting.
NPS prioritizes its deferred maintenance projects based on the condition of assets and their importance to the parks' mission, as well as other criteria related to financial sustainability, resource protection, visitor use, and health and safety. NPS has taken a number of steps over the decade to improve its asset management systems and strategies. Some observers, including the Government Accountability Office (GAO), have recommended further improvements. Both GAO and NPS itself have identified some challenges to managing the maintenance backlog, such as challenges related to disposing of unneeded assets.
Congress has addressed NPS deferred maintenance through oversight, appropriations, and other legislation. For example, the National Parks Centennial Act (P.L. 114-289) established two new funding sources available for NPS maintenance needs. Some Members of Congress and other stakeholders have proposed additional measures. Bills in the 116th Congress to increase NPS funding for deferred maintenanceâincluding H.R. 1225, S. 500, and S. 3422âwould draw from federal energy revenues currently going to the Treasury. Other proposed funding sources have included monies from the Land and Water Conservation Fund, income tax overpayments and contributions, new motorfuel taxes, coin and postage stamp sales, and new fees on visas and travel authorizations for foreign visitors (S. 2783), among others. Other bills focus on funding and prioritization for transportation-related deferred maintenance in particular (H.R. 5503).
The extent to which NPS deferred maintenance funding should be a priority, given other NPS and broader governmental needs, has been under debate. The additional funding sources in some bills have been opposed for various reasons. Some stakeholders have suggested that NPS's maintenance backlog could be reduced without additional fundingâfor example, by improving the agency's capital investment strategies or increasing the role of nonfederal partners in park management.