National Park Service
Efforts Underway to Address Its Maintenance Backlog Gao ID: GAO-03-1177T September 27, 2003GAO, the Department of the Interior, and others have reported on the National Park Service's efforts to develop an effective maintenance management process that would, among other things, enable the agency to accurately and reliably estimate the amount of deferred maintenance on its assets. Over the years, the agency's estimates of the cost of its deferred maintenance have varied widely--sometimes by billions of dollars. Currently, the agency estimates that its deferred maintenance backlog will cost over $5 billion. In April 2002, GAO reported on the status of efforts to develop better deferred maintenance data. (National Park Service: Status of Efforts to Develop Better Deferred Maintenance Data,GAO-02-568R (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 12, 2002)) This testimony presents the results of GAO's April report and updates the progress the Park Service is making in implementing its new asset management process.
In 2002, GAO reported that the design of the National Park Service's new asset management process was complete but implementation was just beginning. The new process will address deferred maintenance, commonly referred to as the maintenance backlog, as part of a much broader approach to its asset management. When fully developed and implemented, the new process will, for the first time, enable the agency to have a (1) reliable inventory of its assets; (2) process for reporting on the condition of the assets in its inventory; and (3) consistent, systemwide methodology for estimating the deferred maintenance costs for its assets. As a result, agency managers and the Congress should receive much more accurate and reliable information on the amount of deferred maintenance needs throughout the national park system. Nonetheless, while the Park Service's current efforts are promising, GAO reported on a few areas that the agency needed to address to improve the performance of the process. These included the need to (1) develop costs and schedules for completing the implementation of the process, (2) better coordinate the tracking of the process among Park Service headquarters units to avoid duplication of effort within the agency; and, (3) better define its approach to determine the condition of its assets, and how much the assessments will cost. Since that report, the agency appears to have made progress. While the complete implementation of the process will not occur until fiscal year 2006, the agency has completed, or is nearing completion of, a number of substantial and important steps. According to the Park Service, the agency has completed its asset inventory and trained staff on the use of the required computer software. In addition, the Park Service provided information indicating that it was addressing each of the concerns identified in GAO's 2002 report. Specifically, the Park Service (1) developed cost and schedule estimates for the complete implementation of the process, (2) developed a plan with an implementation schedule to eliminate any duplication or inconsistencies between organizational components, and (3) completed annual condition assessments--visual inspections--on all but nine of the larger parks in the system for which it only plans to perform a more comprehensive condition assessment. According to the Park Service, the work done so far are necessary steps and reflect some of the best practices of the private sector in developing and implementing an effective facility management process.
GAO-03-1177T, National Park Service: Efforts Underway to Address Its Maintenance Backlog
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-03-1177T
entitled 'National Park Service: Efforts Underway to Address Its
Maintenance Backlog' which was released on September 27, 2003.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a
longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Testimony:
Before the Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation and Public Lands,
Committee on Resources, House of Representatives:
United States General Accounting Office:
GAO:
For Release on Delivery Expected at 10:00 a.m. PDT:
Saturday, September 27, 2003:
National Park Service:
Efforts Underway to Address Its Maintenance Backlog:
Statement of Barry T. Hill, Director Natural Resources and Environment:
GAO-03-1177T:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-03-1177T, a testimony to the Subcommittee on
National Parks, Recreation and Public Lands, Committee on Resources,
House of Representatives
Why GAO Did This Study:
GAO, the Department of the Interior, and others have reported on the
National Park Service‘s efforts to develop an effective maintenance
management process that would, among other things, enable the agency
to accurately and reliably estimate the amount of deferred maintenance
on its assets. Over the years, the agency‘s estimates of the cost of
its deferred maintenance have varied widely”sometimes by billions of
dollars. Currently, the agency estimates that its deferred maintenance
backlog will cost over $5 billion. In April 2002, GAO reported on the
status of efforts to develop better deferred maintenance data.
(National Park Service: Status of Efforts to Develop Better Deferred
Maintenance Data,GAO-02-568R [Washington, D.C.: Apr. 12, 2002])
This testimony presents the results of GAO‘s April report and updates
the progress the Park Service is making in implementing its new asset
management process.
What GAO Found:
In 2002, GAO reported that the design of the National Park Service‘s
new asset management process was complete but implementation was just
beginning. The new process will address deferred maintenance, commonly
referred to as the maintenance backlog, as part of a much broader
approach to its asset management. When fully developed and
implemented, the new process will, for the first time, enable the
agency to have a (1) reliable inventory of its assets; (2) process for
reporting on the condition of the assets in its inventory; and (3)
consistent, systemwide methodology for estimating the deferred
maintenance costs for its assets. As a result, agency managers and the
Congress should receive much more accurate and reliable information on
the amount of deferred maintenance needs throughout the national park
system. Nonetheless, while the Park Service‘s current efforts are
promising, GAO reported on a few areas that the agency needed to
address to improve the performance of the process. These included the
need to (1) develop costs and schedules for completing the
implementation of the process, (2) better coordinate the tracking of
the process among Park Service headquarters units to avoid duplication
of effort within the agency; and, (3) better define its approach to
determine the condition of its assets, and how much the assessments
will cost.
Since that report, the agency appears to have made progress. While the
complete implementation of the process will not occur until fiscal
year 2006, the agency has completed, or is nearing completion of, a
number of substantial and important steps. According to the Park
Service, the agency has completed its asset inventory and trained
staff on the use of the required computer software. In addition, the
Park Service provided information indicating that it was addressing
each of the concerns identified in GAO‘s 2002 report. Specifically,
the Park Service (1) developed cost and schedule estimates for the
complete implementation of the process, (2) developed a plan with an
implementation schedule to eliminate any duplication or
inconsistencies between organizational components, and (3) completed
annual condition assessments”visual inspections”on all but nine of the
larger parks in the system for which it only plans to perform a more
comprehensive condition assessment. According to the Park Service, the
work done so far are necessary steps and reflect some of the best
practices of the private sector in developing and implementing an
effective facility management process.
What GAO Recommends:
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-1177T.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click
on the link above. For more information, contact Barry T. Hill at
(202) 512-3841 or hillbt@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
I am pleased to be here today to discuss the National Park Service's
maintenance backlog. GAO, the Department of the Interior, and others
have reported on the Park Service's efforts to develop an effective
maintenance management process that would, among other things, enable
the agency to provide accurate and reliable estimates of the amount of
deferred maintenance on its assets. Over the years, the agency's
estimates of the amount of its deferred maintenance backlog have varied
widely--sometimes by billions of dollars. Currently, the agency
estimates its deferred maintenance backlog at over $5 billion. Although
the Park Service has spent almost two decades addressing its
maintenance backlog, it acknowledges that it still does not have the
data it needs to properly manage the broad array of historic, cultural,
and natural assets placed in its care--including accurate and reliable
data on its deferred maintenance needs.[Footnote 1] In 1998, spurred by
continuing congressional concerns and new federal accounting
standards,[Footnote 2] the Park Service initiated the design of a new
asset management process that is intended to provide the agency with a
better overall approach to managing its asset inventory. A major goal
of this new process is to provide the Park Service with a reliable and
systematic method for estimating and documenting its deferred
maintenance needs and tracking progress in reducing the amount of
deferred maintenance.
My testimony today will (1) summarize our prior work regarding the
potential of the Park Service's new asset management process to provide
maintenance data that will permit agency managers and the Congress to
monitor progress in reducing deferred maintenance and (2) update the
progress the Park Service is making in implementing its new asset
management process and realizing its potential for improved management.
For the most part, my testimony is based on a report we issued last
year.[Footnote 3] At that time, the design of the new process was
complete but implementation was just beginning. In preparing for
today's hearing, we obtained updated information from the Park Service.
However, we did not have the opportunity to independently verify the
information the Park Service provided. To do so would have required
work at regional offices and parks. We conducted our work in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Results in Brief:
As we previously reported, the Park Service's new asset management
process is designed to address deferred maintenance, commonly referred
to as the maintenance backlog, as part of a much broader approach to
asset management. When fully and properly implemented, the new process
is expected, for the first time, to enable the agency to have a (1)
reliable inventory of its assets; (2) process for reporting on the
condition of each asset in its inventory; and (3) consistent,
systemwide methodology for estimating the deferred maintenance costs
for each asset. As a result, agency managers and the Congress should
receive much more accurate and reliable information on the extent of
deferred maintenance needs throughout the national park system.
Nonetheless, while the Park Service's current efforts are promising, we
reported on a few areas that the agency needed to address to improve
the performance of the process. These included the need to (1) develop
costs and schedules for completing the implementation of the process so
that the agency's performance could be monitored and assessed, (2)
better coordinate the tracking of the process among Park Service
headquarters units to avoid duplication of effort within the agency,
and (3) better define its approach to assessing the condition of its
assets, and determining how much the assessments will cost.
Since our report last year, I am pleased to say that the agency appears
to have made progress. While complete implementation of the process
will not occur until fiscal year 2006, the agency has completed, or
nearly completed, several substantial and important steps. According to
the Park Service, it has completed its asset inventory, trained staff
on the use of the required computer software, and completed most of the
on-site inspections necessary to determine the condition and
maintenance needs of inventoried assets. In addition, the Park Service
provided information indicating that it was addressing each of the
concerns identified in our prior report.
Background:
The national park system contains 388 park units. These park units have
a diverse inventory of facilities and other assets, including over
18,000 permanent structures, 8,000 miles of roads, 1,800 bridges and
tunnels, 4,400 housing units, about 700 water and wastewater systems,
over 400 dams, and 200 solid waste operations. The Park Service values
these assets at over $35 billion. Needless to say, the proper care and
maintenance of the national parks and their supporting infrastructure
is essential to the continued use and enjoyment of our national
treasures by this and future generations. However, for years Park
Service officials have highlighted the agency's inability to keep up
with its maintenance needs. In this connection, Park Service officials
and others have often cited a continuing buildup of unmet maintenance
needs as evidence of deteriorating conditions throughout the national
park system. The accumulation of these unmet needs is commonly referred
to as its "maintenance backlog." Although the Park Service has spent
almost two decades and about $11 million addressing this problem, it
still does not have a reliable estimate of deferred maintenance needs
for its facilities and other assets.
In the past several years, concerns about the cost of operating and
maintaining federal recreation sites within the National Park Service,
as well as other federal land management agencies, led the Congress to
provide a significant new source of funds. This additional source of
funding--the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program[Footnote 4]--was,
in part, aimed at helping the agencies address their backlogged repair
and maintenance problems. This new funding source is in addition to
annual appropriations the Park Service receives each year for
maintenance activities.[Footnote 5]
Despite the years of attention and funding and the well-intended
efforts of the agency and the Congress to resolve the maintenance
backlog dilemma, it has not gone away. While Congress continues to
provide hundreds of millions of dollars annually to deal with the
maintenance backlog at the national parks, the Park Service still has
no reliable data on the size of the problem, raising questions about
what has been accomplished with the provided funds.
When Fully and Properly Implemented, the Park Service's New Asset
Management Process Should Provide Accurate and Reliable Deferred
Maintenance Data:
As we reported in April 2002, the Park Service has made progress in
developing a new asset management process that, when fully and properly
implemented, should provide the agency with more accurate and reliable
estimates of the amount of deferred maintenance of its assets. As
currently planned, the new process will, for the first time, enable the
agency to have a (1) reliable inventory of its assets; (2) process for
reporting on the condition of assets in its inventory; and (3)
systemwide methodology for estimating deferred maintenance costs for
assets.
The new asset management process is composed of both systemwide,
integrated software to track cost and maintenance data and regular
condition assessments of Park Service assets. The cornerstone of the
new asset management process is the Facility Management Software
System. This cradle-to-grave asset and work management process will
allow park, regional office, or Park Service headquarters managers to
track when, what, and how much maintenance and related costs has been
directed at each specific asset.
In addition to using the software system, the Park Service plans to
assess the condition of its assets. These assessments will be
inspections to document the condition of an asset as measured against
applicable maintenance or condition standards. There are two types of
condition assessments--annual and comprehensive. Annual assessments
are essentially "eyeball inspections" of facilities to identify obvious
and apparent deficiencies. Comprehensive assessments are more in-depth
inspections to identify less obvious deficiencies, such as foundation
or structural problems. While the eye-ball assessments are annual, the
comprehensive assessments, which are much more expensive and time-
consuming, occur in 5-year cycles. The Park Service is to use the
information obtained from these condition assessments to establish the
overall condition of a facility or asset, including the resources
needed to address its deferred maintenance needs and future facility
needs. The cost of identified deferred maintenance needs will be
estimated using another computer software system that will provide a
uniform method for estimating repair and maintenance costs for each
asset in the inventory. Agency managers will use the condition
assessment information in combination with an asset priority ranking
system to set priorities for deferred maintenance projects.
While the design of the new process is complete, we reported in April
2002 that the Park Service had just begun implementing it. For example,
at that time, the agency was still inventorying its assets and training
staff on how to use the new process at about a third of the park units
in the national park system. We reported that because managers at each
park will be required to implement this new process using a uniform
systemwide methodology, the resulting deferred maintenance estimates
should permit agency managers, as well as the Congress, to monitor
progress in reducing deferred maintenance both at the individual park
and systemwide levels. However, we noted that while the new process is
promising, its success cannot be determined until staff in each of the
park units are trained and the new asset management process is fully
and properly implemented.
In our last report, we also raised three concerns about the Park
Service's implementation of the new asset management process. While
these matters were not significant enough to undermine the overall
merit of the new process, we believed that addressing them would
improve the effectiveness of the process. First, even though the Park
Service had been developing its new process for more than 3 years, it
had not yet estimated its total implementation costs or developed a
schedule for completing implementation. While the agency had made
progress in developing schedules and costs for some components of the
process, it had not yet estimated when it will complete all the
required condition assessments or what they will cost. We noted that
monitoring and assessing performance against budgets and time frames
would be difficult without complete estimates and schedules that
include all components of the process, including the completion of
condition assessments.
Second, two different operating divisions within the Park Service--
Concessions Management and Facilities Management--were developing
separate processes for tracking and reporting deferred maintenance,
even though both units are responsible for managing the condition of
government-owned facilities. Because both of these units have similar
responsibilities, it seemed reasonable that they would work together in
a coordinated way to ensure that their efforts are not duplicative.
Finally, the Park Service reported that about one-third of the park
units were to complete annual condition assessments by the end of
fiscal year 2002. We noted that this approach may be appropriate for
meeting programmatic and financial reporting needs in the short term;
however, without comprehensive assessments, this approach might result
in overlooking more complex and costly problems in the long term. As a
result, this approach could understate the extent of the deferred
maintenance problem. Park Service officials told us that the agency
eventually planned to conduct comprehensive assessments for all assets.
However, at the time they had not developed a plan detailing where,
when, and how the assessments will be done or what they will cost.
The Park Service Has Made Progress Implementing Its Asset Management
Process Since Our Last Report:
Although full implementation of the new asset management process is
still years from completion, the Park Service appears to have made
progress since our last report. Also, importantly, Park Service
management has demonstrated its commitment to implementing this process
by withholding some fiscal year 2003 funding from parks that are not
complying with the agency's implementation goals.
The agency now reports that it has completed its inventory of assets
for all park units as well as the first round of staff training on the
use of the facilities management software. The agency also contracted
with a consulting firm to evaluate its training and implementation
efforts to help ensure that the training is effective and that the
software system is being consistently applied throughout the park
system. The Park Service has analyzed the firm's results and is now
developing a training curriculum to address the firm's recommendations.
The Park Service expects to begin implementing the training in January
or February 2004.
The agency is also addressing each of the issues raised in our last
report. Specifically, the Park Service has now developed cost and
schedule estimates for the complete implementation of the process.
According to the schedule, the process is to be fully implemented by
the end of fiscal year 2006, when all the comprehensive condition
assessments are complete for all park units and deferred maintenance
and other needs can be estimated on a reliable and consistent basis for
assets throughout the national park system. The Park Service estimates
now that the cost of the complete rollout and implementation, including
performing condition assessments, will be about $91 million from fiscal
years 1999 through 2006. Thereafter, it estimates that the annual costs
of sustaining the process once it is fully operational will be about
$20 million.
In response to our concern that two different operating divisions
within the agency--Concessions Management and Facilities Management--
were developing separate processes for maintaining government-owned
facilities, the Park Service told us that they agreed and are committed
to implementing a single facilities management process. According to
the agency, it has developed a plan with an implementation schedule to
eliminate any duplication or inconsistencies between these two
components of the organization.
The Park Service has also made progress in performing its servicewide
facility condition assessments. According to the Park Service, it has
completed annual condition assessments--visual inspections--on all but
nine of the larger parks in the system.[Footnote 6] In addition, the
Park Service is concurrently performing the more detailed,
comprehensive condition assessments on other park units. According to
the Park Service, the work done so far are necessary steps and reflect
some of the best practices of the private sector in developing and
implementing an effective facility management process.
Conclusion:
The Park Service has a solemn responsibility to take care of the
nation's natural, cultural and historic treasures. While it has
unfortunately taken decades to achieve the current level of focus on
maintaining these treasures, the Park Service apparently now has made
substantive progress in developing and implementing a system it can use
to determine the conditions of the assets in its portfolio and develop
accurate and reliable estimates of its deferred maintenance needs.
However, the agency has not yet completed the task. Determining the
assets' conditions and their maintenance costs will require years of
sustained commitment by the agency and by the Congress to ensure that
the full benefits of the agency's new facility management process are
realized.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be happy to
respond to any questions that you or Members of the Subcommittee may
have.
GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
For further information about this testimony, please contact me at
(202) 512-3841. Cliff Fowler, Roy Judy, and Patrick Sigl made key
contributions to this statement.
FOOTNOTES
[1] This maintenance includes resources and activities needed to
maintain facilities and the infrastructure in the system, such as
buildings, trails, botanical gardens, bridges, and other structures. It
does not include maintenance or restoration of natural landscapes, such
as removing non-native plant species from a meadow.
[2] The Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards No. 6,
Accounting for Plant, Property, and Equipment, issued by the Federal
Accounting Standards Advisory Board in 1996, requires that deferred
maintenance be disclosed in federal agencies' annual financial
statements beginning in fiscal year 1998.
[3] U.S. General Accounting Office, National Park Service: Status of
Efforts to Develop Better Deferred Maintenance Data, GAO-02-568R
(Washington, D.C.: Apr. 12, 2002).
[4] Since fiscal year 1996, the Park Service, as well as three other
federal land management agencies, have been authorized to have a fee
demonstration program. Under this temporary program, the agencies are
permitted to experiment with increased and/or new recreation fees. The
revenue generated from this program remains available for agency use to
address a variety of needs, including maintenance,without further
appropriation.
[5] The House Committee on Appropriations has stressed that recreation
fees should never be used to replace appropriated funds; the fees
should be used for direct improvements on site that enhance the
recreation experience. H.R. Rep. No. 106-646 (2000).
[6] In order to expedite the condition assessments, the Park Service
decided to only complete the more comprehensive condition assessments
on the nine larger parks. These parks include Appalachian Trail,
Delaware Water Gap, Gateway, Golden Gate, Grand Canyon, Great Smoky
Mountains, Rocky Mountain, Yellowstone, and Yosemite. By the end of
fiscal year 2003, the Park Service will have completed these
assessments for five of the nine parks with the remaining four to be
completed by the end of fiscal year 2004.
