Should the National Park Service be planning multi-million-dollar capital projects when it's $12 billion maintenance backlog is hanging overhead?/Rebecca Latson photo of Wonder Lake, Denali National Park
It has been mentioned so often, that it seemingly has lost its impact: The National Park Service is roughly $12 billion behind in maintaining its infrastructure. And maybe numbness to that backlog is why Park Service planners are continuing to plan capital projects.
Of course, it's not entirely the Park Service's fault. The agency is mandated to preserve the incredible places throughout the National Park System and their resources, and to provide for recreation and interpretation for visitors. And with the recent years' trend of increasing visitation, there are demands, and needs, to build anew.
Still, doesn't it give anyone pause that the Park Service is more than likely looking to spend tens of millions of dollars -- possibly hundreds of millions? -- on new projects while that $12 billion maintenance backlog continues to dangle overhead?
Most recently the Park Service spent around $6 million to build a bridge across the Brooks River at Katmai National Park and Preserve in Alaska. That spendy decison went against a previous decision to move all human facilities from the north side of the river to the south side. Ray Bane, who was superintendent of Katmai at the time the relocation was proposed, said it was "in keeping with findings and recommendations of research carried out by wildlife biologists, of the Katmai General Management Plan, and fundamental resource management standards of the NPS."
In light of Katmai's maintenance backlog of about $10 million, might a more prudent capital decision have been made, one that followed the park's GMP and the biologists' recommendations?
Among the projects currently being considered, or recently approved, by various parks are:
* The relocation of the headquarters of Chesapeake & Ohio Canal National Historical Park (complete with a new visitor center) in Maryland;
* The "redevelopment" of the United States Park Police horse stables on the National Mall in Washington, D.C.;
* The expansion of the trails network at Prince William Forest Park in Virginia, and, most recently;
* The beginning of public discussion of an upgrade for the Kantishna and Wonder Lake areas of Denali National Park.
That's just a small sampling of the project planning that goes on throughout the National Park System.
Trying to find estimated construction budgets (not to mention ongoing maintenance and operations costs) for these projects is not always easy, but the words that seem to be cropping up more and more are "development is dependent on funding," or something similar. It's reflective of the Park Service's recognition that just because they go through the effort of planning something, that doesn't mean Congress will come through with the dollars to make it happen.
What the folks at Denali say with their Kantishna proposal is that they currently don't know what their alternatives will cost, and until they closely analyze those costs, they won't settle on a predetermined path. Which is good.
But, should parks even be considering multi-million-dollar capital projects unless and until Congress provides the funds to make significant inroads into that $12 billion maintenance backlog? There is legislation pending in Congress to provide $6.5 billion over five years to help chew away at the backlog, but similar legislation died in the last Congress, and there's no guarantee this measure will reach the president's desk.
"That’s a question that needs to be seriously addressed," Paul Anderson, a now-retired veteran of more than four decades with the Park Service, including 11 as Denali's superintendent, told me as we discussed the Kantishna project earlier this month and whether the park should even be considering it in light of the overall maintenance backlog and Denali's own $51,784,800 backlog of needed repairs and maintenance.
"When they put their plan together, those alternatives all need to be 'costed' out, and that cost needs to be right up front so the public has an opportunity to look at it and see what we’re getting into," he said. "You know, we’re always good at building infrastructure, so to speak. We can always do good capital projects. But once we’re done with a capital project, we don’t have the money to take care of it. And that’s where the maintenance backlog comes from."
To illustrate those words, the former superintendent pointed to a backcountry management plan that he had a hand in developing for Denali.
"We got initial funding for it, and we hired about four or five people to do the backcountry management for us in resources and protection, and as far as I can tell there’s one person working in the backcountry now," he said.
"In this case, there’s a significant capital investment in the proposal. Anything beyond the lowest level of development is going to cost a lot of money, and it’s going to create a need for continuing attention and maintenance," said Anderson, returning to the Kantishna proposal. "But part of it has to be weighed against what kind of resource damage is occurring because it’s not there. And you know, given the whole picture, there will be a lot more to that plan than just creating infrastructure that needs to be supported.
“For example, if they got capital funding one year to build those trails, put them in excellent condition, the cost for maintaining those trails and the resource damage that is going on right now would be minimalized. So that would be a benefit," he noted. "Putting in ten or 15 campsites in the campground is not going to be a big impact on the area, or on the Park Service. But putting in housing for the employees, and putting in a shop, that’s going to create a need for funding that we don’t have right now.”
At the end of the day, there's a serious budget problem that the Park Service continues to struggle with. And unless some tough decisions are made, it's only going to get worse.
Comments
Well put. It makes little sense to use your limited funds to build a second home when your primary residence is falling apart.
I do wish, however, that we had more visibility into the receipts and expenditures from gate fees. This seems to be a very large pool of money that is totally unaccounted for. (pardon the sentence ending preposition)
Remember that much -- if not most -- of what NPS does is driven directly by political pressures from Congress or local governments. That may not reflect wise use of park dollars and resources.
Regardless of what it "should" do, I have no doubt NPS management will continue to prioritize new projects over maintenance of existing facilities. Political and community pressures certainly affect decisions, but decades of Park Service development culture have promoted the proponents of 'More' to managerial dominance.
It both gives me pause and makes me question just how legitimate the backlog actually is. I'm also intrigued by the parallels between nps funding and public education funding. Both seem to have a never ending appetite and are always on the brink of disaster (if you are to listen to the rhetoric). I can't help but wonder if like public education, much of the problem (real and manufactured) is due to the unions or just symptomatic of the government not being very good at doing things.
Actually, it is accounted for more closely than many of the NPS fund sources. The vast majority of the dollars spent must be proposed, tracked quarterly, and and then acounted for upon project completion in the NPS project management information system every fiscal year, which is then reviewed by regional and national fee manangement and comptroller staff.
I reject your premise that there are only options A and B. On the other hand the appropriators for both public education and the National Park Service are part of "government", be they school boards, local commissioners, state legislators, Congress, or the Office of the POTUS, so in that regard you may be right. They aren't very good about doing their jobs sometimes.
OK - show us the numbers.
ec--
Anonymous above is right: FLREA spending _is_ more accounted for internally. And a park that can't write project proposals to meet the requirements (direct impact on visitor experience, project not operations, etc., or else now >50% deferred maintenence) doesn't get to spend its 80% of the revenue.
But you are right in principle: there's no transparency for the public (or even most employees) to see the actual accounting and accountability. And, while there's a substantial push for all science and natural resource data to be transparent and available to the public, I've never heard even a whisper about making FLREA or appropriated fund budgeting available to the public. I'm in favor of transparency for both, but I can only affect (& effect!) the science side.