Introduction

Each of the four major federal land management agencies has maintenance responsibility for tens of thousands of diverse assets in dispersed locations. These agencies are the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and National Park Service (NPS), all within the Department of the Interior (DOI), and the U.S. Forest Service (FS), within the Department of Agriculture. These agencies maintain assets to preserve their functioning and to repair and replace components as needed (see text box below).

The infrastructure needs of the federal land management agencies have been a subject of federal and public attention for many years. Congressional and administrative attention has focused on deferred maintenance and repairs, defined as "maintenance and repairs that were not performed when they should have been or were scheduled to be and which are put off or delayed for a future period."¹ Maintenance and repair include a variety of activities intended to preserve assets in an acceptable condition, including activities such as preventive maintenance and replacement of parts, systems, and components. These terms do not include activities intended to expand the capacity of assets to allow them to serve different purposes or significantly increased needs.²

Deferred maintenance and repairs often are called the maintenance backlog. The federal land management agencies assert that continuing to defer the maintenance and repair of facilities accelerates the rate of these facilities' deterioration, increases their repair costs, and decreases their value. Similarly, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has reported that "deferring needed maintenance and repair may ultimately result in significantly higher maintenance, repair, and operating costs, or premature replacement."³ Debate has focused on varied issues, including the level of funds needed to reduce deferred maintenance, whether agencies are using existing funding efficiently, the priority of deferred maintenance relative to regular maintenance, and the effect of a relatively new source of mandatory funding on deferred maintenance.⁴ Other issues include how to balance the maintenance of existing infrastructure with the acquisition of new assets, whether disposal of assets is desirable given limited funding, and how much to prioritize maintaining infrastructure relative to other government functions.

These varying issues depend on reliable estimates of deferred maintenance. Thus, a key issue relates to the dollar amount of deferred maintenance and the reasons for fluctuations over time. This report focuses on these issues. It first provides agency deferred maintenance estimates for FY2022, the most recent fiscal year for which this information is available. It next discusses changes in deferred maintenance estimates over 10 years, FY2013-FY2022.⁵ It then identifies some of the factors that likely contributed to these changes.

Deferred Maintenance Estimates

The agencies typically identify deferred maintenance through periodic condition assessments of facilities.⁶ For FY2022, FS reported an annual deferred maintenance dollar total composed of estimates for 11 classes of assets. These classes include roads, buildings, trails, and drinking water systems, among others.⁷ DOI agencies currently report annual deferred maintenance composed of estimates for four broad categories of assets: (1) roads, bridges, and trails; (2) irrigation, dams, and other water structures; (3) buildings; and (4) other structures. The "other structures" category includes a variety of assets (e.g., recreation sites and hatcheries).

For each of the 10 years covered by this report, FS reported the amount of deferred maintenance as a single figure. DOI agencies began reporting deferred maintenance as a single figure in FY2015.⁸ Prior to FY2015, DOI agencies reported estimates as a range. For FY2014, for instance, the range had an "accuracy level of minus 15 percent to plus 25 percent of initial estimate."⁹ According to DOI, a range was used because, "due to the scope, nature, and variety of the assets entrusted to DOI, as well as the nature of deferred maintenance itself, exact estimates are very difficult to determine."¹⁰

FS estimates of deferred maintenance included in this report for FY2013-FY2015 were taken from the agency's annual budget justifications to Congress.¹¹ The FS Legislative Affairs Office provided the Congressional Research Service (CRS) with estimates for FY2016-FY2022.¹² The DOI Budget Office provided CRS with a deferred maintenance range for each DOI agency for FY2013-FY2014. From these ranges, CRS calculated mid-range figures. For instance, DOI estimated NPS deferred maintenance for FY2014 at between $9.31 billion and $13.70 billion. The CRS-calculated mid-range figure is $11.50 billion.¹³ This report reflects CRS's mid-range calculations for FY2013-FY2014 to facilitate comparison with FS estimates.¹⁴ Since FY2015, the DOI Budget Office has provided CRS with a single estimate for each DOI agency, and those figures are used in this report. For both the DOI agencies and the FS, the figures represent deferred maintenance as of the end of the fiscal year (i.e., September 30).¹⁵ Also, they generally reflect project costs.¹⁶ Finally, totals shown in the body and in tables of this report may not add to 100% due to rounding.

FY2022

The four agencies had combined FY2022 deferred maintenance estimated at $35.53 billion.¹⁷ The agencies had widely varying shares of the total. NPS had the largest portion, 59%, based on an estimate of $21.09 billion.¹⁸ The FS share was 22% of the total, with an estimated deferred maintenance of $7.66 billion. The BLM portion was 13%, based on a backlog estimate of $4.77 billion. The FWS had the smallest share, 6%, reflecting the agency's deferred maintenance of $2.02 billion.

Each agency's deferred maintenance estimate for FY2022 consisted of various components. For FS, the single largest asset class was roads, which comprised 58% of the FY2022 total of $7.66 billion. The next largest asset class was buildings, which represented 21% of the FS FY2022 total. The next two largest asset classes were trails and road bridges, each with 6%. Seven other asset classes made up the remaining 9%.

For NPS, the largest asset category was roads, bridges, and trails, which comprised 33% of the FY2022 deferred maintenance total of $21.1 billion.¹⁹ The buildings category comprised 30% of the total, followed by 26% for other structures, and 11% for water and wastewater systems.

Roads, bridges, and trails also reflected the largest share of BLM's FY2022 deferred maintenance, with 82% of the $4.77 billion total. Three other categories of assets had relatively small portions, specifically 8% for buildings; 5% for irrigation, dams, and other water structures; and 5% for other structures.

Roads, bridges, and trails made up the smallest portion of FWS's FY2022 $2.02 billion deferred maintenance total, unlike for the other agencies. Moreover, the four asset categories had roughly comparable portions, as follows: 28% for buildings; 26% for other structures; 25% for irrigation, dams, and other water structures; and 21% for roads, bridges, and trails.

Overview of Decade (FY2013-FY2022)

Changes in Estimates in Current and Constant Dollars

As shown in Table 1 and Figure 1, in current dollars,²⁰ the total deferred maintenance estimate for the four agencies showed considerable variation over the 10-year period from FY2013 through FY2022. The total estimated deferred maintenance was at a low in FY2017 ($18.39 billion) and a high in FY2022 ($35.53 billion). From the start of the decade, deferred maintenance estimates increased overall by $15.95 billion (81%), from $19.58 billion in FY2013 to $35.53 billion in FY2022. Of the four agencies, the NPS had the largest dollar increase over the decade—$9.82 billion (87%).²¹ However, BLM had the largest percentage increase—$4.03 billion (545%)—primarily from an increase in the roads, bridges, and trails category, beginning in FY2020.²² The FS estimate increased by $2.10 billion (38%) over the decade. In contrast to the other three agencies, the FWS estimate was relatively flat, with a $0.01 billion (<1%) increase over the decade.

Within these overall changes, there was considerable variation among agency trends. The BLM estimate increased relatively gradually through FY2019, steeply from FY2019 to FY2020, and then more moderately through FY2022. The FWS estimate generally declined for the first three years, leveled off somewhat after FY2015, then increased in the last few years. The NPS estimate fluctuated, with a modest overall decrease, during the first half of the decade. It then increased relatively steeply through FY2021, followed by a decrease in FY2022. The FS estimate fluctuated between $5.00 billion and $5.56 billion through FY2019, then increased each subsequent year with the largest dollar and percent change from FY2021 to FY2022. Figure 1 depicts the annual changes in current dollars for each agency and for the four agencies combined. Factors that might have contributed to the changes are discussed in the "Issues in Analyzing Deferred Maintenance" section, below.

As shown in Table 2 and Figure 2, in FY2022 constant dollars,²³ the total deferred maintenance estimate for the four agencies increased over the course of the 10-year period by $8.15 billion, from $27.38 billion to $35.53 billion, or 30% (as compared with an 81% increase in current dollars). Two agencies had overall increases: $3.74 billion (363%) for BLM and $5.33 billion (34%) for NPS. Two agencies had overall decreases: $0.79 billion (28%) for FWS and $0.11 billion (1%) for FS.

As was the case for current-dollar estimates, the overall changes in constant dollars reflected various fluctuations. Two agencies, BLM and NPS, had relatively large overall increases in estimated deferred maintenance during the decade. For BLM, the sharpest increase occurred from FY2019 to FY2020, when the estimate more than tripled. However, the BLM estimate decreased in constant dollars in the last year of the period (from FY2021 to FY2022), essentially returning to the FY2020 level. For NPS, there was considerable fluctuation within the overall increase during the decade. More specifically, in constant dollars, the NPS estimate decreased overall from FY2013 to FY2019 (with a low in FY2016), increased relatively steeply from FY2020 to FY2021, then dropped in FY2022. The other two agencies, FWS and FS, had differing decreases in deferred maintenance over the decade. The FWS estimate declined considerably overall, with a constant-dollar low in FY2019 and annual increases thereafter. The FS declined modestly overall, with fluctuations between $6.25 billion and $7.77 billion in constant dollars. Four years exceeded $7.00 billion (FY2013, FY2016, FY2021, and FY2022). Figure 2 depicts the annual changes in constant dollars for each agency and for the four agencies combined.

Figure 1. Change in Deferred Maintenance by Federal Land Management Agency in Current Dollars, FY2013-FY2022

Sources: Estimates for FS were taken from the annual budget justification to Congress for FY2013-FY2015 and were provided by FS for FY2016-FY2022. Estimates for Department of the Interior (DOI) agencies for FY2013-FY2014 were calculated by CRS based on deferred maintenance ranges provided by the DOI Budget Office. DOI agency estimates for FY2015-FY2022 were provided by the DOI Budget Office. Notes: BLM = Bureau of Land Management; FWS = Fish and Wildlife Service; NPS = National Park Service; FS = Forest Service.

Figure 2. Change in Deferred Maintenance by Federal Land Management Agency in Constant Dollars, FY2013-FY2022

Sources: Current dollar estimates for FS were taken from the annual budget justification to Congress for FY2013-FY2015, and were provided by FS for FY2016-FY2022. Current dollar estimates for Department of the Interior (DOI) agencies for FY2013-FY2014 were calculated by CRS based on deferred maintenance ranges provided by the DOI Budget Office; DOI agency estimates for FY2015-FY2022 were provided by the DOI Budget Office. Current dollar estimates were converted to FY2022 constant dollars by CRS using the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Table 3.9.4, "Price Indexes for Government Consumption Expenditures and Gross Investment" for nondefense structures. Notes: BLM = Bureau of Land Management; FWS = Fish and Wildlife Service; NPS = National Park Service; FS = Forest Service.

Agency Shares of Deferred Maintenance in Current and Constant Dollars

Throughout the decade, agency shares of the deferred maintenance totals differed, as shown in Figure 3 and Figure 4. In both current and constant dollars, in each fiscal year NPS had the largest portion of total deferred maintenance and considerably more than any other agency. FS consistently had the second-largest share. FWS had the third-largest portion of total deferred maintenance in each year through FY2019, but since FY2020, FWS has had the smallest share. BLM assumed the third spot in FY2020, due to a relatively large increase in estimated deferred maintenance. Through FY2019, BLM had had the smallest portion of the total deferred maintenance, though the difference with the FWS had narrowed over the years.

The NPS and BLM portions of the total annual deferred maintenance rose during the 10-year period. From FY2013 to FY2022, the NPS portion increased from 58% to 59% and the BLM portion increased from 4% to 13%. By contrast, both FS and FWS had declining shares over the decade. The FS share decreased from 28% in FY2013 to 22% in FY2022, and the FWS share dropped from 10% to 6%.²⁴

During the decade, the asset class that included roads comprised the largest portion of the four agencies' combined deferred maintenance. Roads represented the largest portion of FS deferred maintenance from FY2013 to FY2022. Over the 10-year period, the NPS roads, bridges, and trails category had the highest share of the agency's deferred maintenance. Roads, bridges, and trails also was the biggest category of BLM's deferred maintenance from FY2013 to FY2022. For FWS, a decline in the estimate for roads, bridges, and trails resulted in a sizeable drop in overall FWS deferred maintenance beginning in FY2013 (as discussed in the "Issues in Analyzing Deferred Maintenance" section below). Accordingly, this category has not been the largest for the FWS for several years and was the smallest in each of FY2017-FY2022.

Figure 3. Deferred Maintenance Total by Federal Land Management Agency in Current Dollars, FY2013-FY2022 (in billions of dollars)

Sources: Estimates for FS were taken from the annual budget justification to Congress for FY2013-FY2015 and were provided by FS for FY2016-FY2022. Estimates for Department of the Interior (DOI) agencies for FY2013-FY2014 were calculated by CRS based on deferred maintenance ranges provided by the DOI Budget Office. DOI agency estimates for FY2015-FY2022 were provided by the DOI Budget Office. Notes: BLM = Bureau of Land Management; FWS = Fish and Wildlife Service; NPS = National Park Service; FS = Forest Service.

Figure 4. Deferred Maintenance Total by Federal Land Management Agency in FY2022 Constant Dollars, FY2013-FY2022 (in billions of dollars)

Sources: Current dollar estimates for FS were taken from the annual budget justification to Congress for FY2013-FY2015 and were provided by FS for FY2016-FY2022. Current dollar estimates for Department of the Interior (DOI) agencies for FY2013-FY2014 were calculated by CRS based on deferred maintenance ranges provided by the DOI Budget Office; DOI agency estimates for FY2015-FY2022 were provided by the DOI Budget Office. Current dollar estimates were converted to FY2022 constant dollars by CRS using the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Table 3.9.4, "Price Indexes for Government Consumption Expenditures and Gross Investment" for nondefense structures. Notes: BLM = Bureau of Land Management; FWS = Fish and Wildlife Service; NPS = National Park Service; FS = Forest Service.

Issues in Analyzing Deferred Maintenance

Fluctuations in deferred maintenance estimates are likely the result of many factors. Deferred maintenance estimates might vary due to economic conditions that are not related to agency efforts or within the control of facility managers. If deferred maintenance estimates reflect costs of needed materials, fuel, supplies, and labor, then the cost of deferred maintenance might change as the costs of these products and services change. In the past, both FS and DOI have identified changes in some of these costs as affecting deferred maintenance. For instance, DOI has noted that NPS deferred maintenance estimates could fluctuate with inflation and market trends (e.g., construction-related).²⁵ More recently, supply chain issues related to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic may have contributed to increased estimates of deferred maintenance. Additionally, federal land management agencies and other observers have cited changing levels of visitation as affecting deferred maintenance, with increased visitation contributing to maintenance needs.²⁶

Other factors that may contribute to fluctuations in deferred maintenance estimates include data collection and estimation methods, levels of funding, and asset portfolios, as discussed below. The extent to which these and other factors affected year-to-year changes in any one agency's maintenance backlog during the decade is unclear, in part because comprehensive information is not readily available in all cases or has not been examined. Therefore, the data in this report may not fully explain the changes in deferred maintenance estimates over time.

Methodologies Used by Agencies

Methods for assessing the condition of assets and estimating deferred maintenance have varied over the years. Examples provided below pertain to NPS construction, roads for the four agencies, and other factors. As a result of these and other methodological changes, it is unclear what portion of the change in deferred maintenance estimates over time is due to the addition of maintenance work that was not done on time and what portion may be due to changes in methods of assessing and estimating deferred maintenance.

NPS Construction-Related Costs

The overall increase in NPS deferred maintenance estimates since FY2019 has been attributed in part to a change in agency estimation methods. Through FY2018, the agency had included only construction costs in its estimates, according to the NPS. Beginning in FY2019, NPS included the "full scope of construction-related costs, like design and construction management," to align with industry standards and other agency calculations.²⁷ DOI similarly attributed an $8.8 billion increase in the Department's total deferred maintenance from FY2020 to FY2021 to "the addition of design, compliance, and construction management costs" to NPS estimates, according to a 2023 GAO report.²⁸

Roads

During the past decade, the four federal land management agencies altered methods for estimating the deferred maintenance of roads, as shown in the following examples. A BLM change in road methodology led to an increase in the deferred maintenance for roads, bridges, and trails category of $2.89 billion (408%), from $0.71 billion in FY2019 to $3.59 billion in FY2020. The increase in this category mirrors the roughly four-fold increase in BLM's total deferred maintenance from FY2019 to FY2020. BLM's methodology change stemmed from a Department of Transportation determination that BLM's methodology differed from that used by most other agencies, according to DOI and BLM.²⁹ BLM had been focusing on discrete road deficiencies (e.g., potholes) rather than on overall road condition and performance. Beginning in FY2020, BLM implemented the Pavement Surface Evaluation Rating (PASER) system, regarded as an industry standard tool for assessing overall road condition.³⁰ BLM made related changes to evaluate every surface road (rather than a subset) and to enter data into the new system in a timelier way. BLM's FY2020 estimate of deferred maintenance of roads was based on modeling and was expected to be updated in FY2021 following actual road assessments. This update could contribute to additional changes in the estimates, according to DOI and BLM.³¹ In FY2022—the most recent year available—the deferred maintenance estimate for BLM roads, bridges, and trails was $3.92 billion.

The other three land management agencies changed road evaluation methods in earlier years. The FY2015 FWS budget justification states that

[i]n 2012, Service leadership concluded that condition assessment practices and policies in place at that time were unintentionally producing higher than appropriate [deferred maintenance (DM)] cost estimates for some types of constructed real property. DM estimates for our extensive inventory of gravel and native surface roads are a major contributor to this challenge. In response, the FWS is refining its practices and procedures to improve consistency of DM cost estimates and their use in budget planning. Significant reductions in the DM backlog are resulting from this effort.³²

Subsequent FWS budget justifications have elaborated on changes to methods of estimating deferred maintenance for roads. For instance, the FY2017 document states, "deferred maintenance estimates for our extensive inventory of roads were further classified to emphasize public use and traffic volume. As a result, minimally used administrative roads are now generally excluded from contributing to deferred maintenance backlog calculations."³³ Of note is that the roads, bridges, and trails category of FWS deferred maintenance declined (by $1.17 billion, 80%) in the past several years in current dollars, from $1.46 billion in FY2012 to $0.29 billion in FY2020. This decline is reflected in the smaller FWS deferred maintenance total for FY2020 ($1.46 billion). The FWS change in the method of estimating deferred maintenance for roads, bridges, and trails appears to be a primary reason for the decreased estimate for this category and total FWS deferred maintenance over the 10-year period.

Similarly, FS attributes variations in deferred maintenance partly to changes in the methodology for estimating roads.³⁴ For example, in FY2013 and FY2014, FS adjusted the survey methodology for passenger-car roads, with the goal of providing more accurate estimates of the roads backlog.³⁵ The FS estimate of deferred maintenance for roads fell in current dollars by $0.84 billion (22%) from FY2012 to FY2014, from $3.76 billion to $2.92 billion.³⁶ The extent to which the drop is attributable to changes in methodology, including regarding the types of roads reflected in the estimates, is not certain.³⁷

Finally, in FY2014, NPS first reflected deferred maintenance for unpaved roads as part of its total deferred maintenance estimate (in agency financial reports). The agency's deferred maintenance for roads, bridges, and trails increased in current dollars by $0.26 billion (4%) from FY2013 to FY2014, from $6.57 billion to $6.83 billion. DOI cited the inclusion of unpaved roads as among the reasons for changes in NPS deferred maintenance estimates,³⁸ although the extent of the effect on NPS estimates is unclear.

Other Factors

Broader changes in methodology for assessing asset condition occurred during the decade. For example, DOI agencies had been using an accuracy range of -15% to +25% to derive the estimated range of deferred maintenance for industry-standard assets.³⁹ The change from a range to a single estimate beginning in FY2015 could have affected DOI deferred maintenance estimates as reflected in this report.⁴⁰

As another example, agencies have enhanced efforts to define and quantify the maintenance needs of their assets generally. Efforts have included collecting comprehensive information on the condition of facilities and maintenance and improvement needs. For instance, the first cycle of comprehensive condition assessments of NPS industry-standard facilities was completed at the end of FY2006.⁴¹ However, NPS continues to develop business practices to estimate the maintenance needs of nonindustry standard assets. Nonindustry standard assets make up about a quarter of NPS's total asset portfolio. This category presents particular challenges because it includes some unique asset types.⁴²

Funding

Opinions differ on the extent to which increased, level, or decreased funding should be provided to deferred maintenance. There also are varying views on the types of funds (e.g., discretionary or mandatory) and sources of funds (e.g., General Treasury or special funds) that might be best suited to address the maintenance backlog. Evaluations of the sufficiency of federal funding for deferred maintenance, and the appropriate types and sources of funding, may be hindered by the lack of total funding figures and by the incomparability of appropriations and deferred maintenance estimates.

It is unclear how much total funding is provided each year for deferred maintenance for the four agencies because annual presidential budget requests, appropriations laws, and supporting documents typically do not aggregate funds from all sources for deferred maintenance. During the 10-year period examined, portions of deferred maintenance funding (for one or more of the four agencies) have come from agency maintenance and construction accounts, recreation fees, the Highway Trust Fund (Department of Transportation) for roads, the Timber Sale Pipeline Restoration Fund (for FS and BLM), NPS concession fees, the NPS Centennial Challenge account, and the National Parks and Public Land Legacy Restoration Fund, among other accounts.

In addition, funding figures are not directly comparable to deferred maintenance estimates because the estimates are limited to project costs and thus do not reflect indirect costs, such as salaries and benefits for government employees. Annual appropriations figures typically reflect indirect costs.

Great American Outdoors Act, P.L. 116-152

Recent Congresses debated whether to enact additional appropriations for deferred maintenance needs of agencies. In P.L. 116-152, the Great American Outdoors Act (GAOA), Congress established a new fund with mandatory spending authority for deferred maintenance. Mandatory funding was intended to provide more predictability of funding for agencies to plan and engage in activities to address maintenance needs. The new fund—the National Parks and Public Land Legacy Restoration Fund—provides funding for the four major federal land management agencies and the Bureau of Indian Education. The fund is to receive certain revenues from energy development on federal lands, for each of FY2021-FY2025, up to $1.90 billion annually. For use of the annual deposits to the fund, NPS is to receive the largest share—70%—according to GAOA. Under the law, the other agency shares are 15% for FS and 5% for each of BLM, FWS, and the Bureau of Indian Education. At least 65% of each agency's funds are to be used for nontransportation projects.⁴³ Congress first provided funding under this authority for FY2021, and has since provided funding for FY2022 and FY2023.⁴⁴ For each year, the appropriation was approximately $1.9 billion.

Impacts of Funding

Consistent and comprehensive information on the effect of federal funding on the condition of facilities and deferred maintenance over the decade does not appear to be available. For instance, information based on the facilities condition index (FCI) seems to be incomplete or inconsistent in agency budget justifications.⁴⁵ In some cases, budget justifications either do not provide FCI figures for assets or provide figures only for certain years. In other cases, it is not clear whether the FCI figures cover all agency assets or a subset of the assets. Together, the budget justifications present a mix of FCI information using quantitative measurements; percentage measurements; and qualitative statements, such as that a certain number or percentage of structures are in "good" condition, but without corresponding FCI figures.

Although comprehensive information on amounts and impacts of deferred maintenance funding may not be readily available, audits of agency programs, Administration budget requests, and other sources at times have asserted a need for increased appropriations to reduce agency backlogs.⁴⁶ Some agencies have contended that insufficiency of funding for regular maintenance (e.g., annual maintenance) has led to increases in deferred maintenance.⁴⁷ For instance, DOI has asserted that "the total backlog will continue to grow if there is a gap in the funding of annual maintenance needs. When annual funding to address routine and cyclic maintenance falls short of what is necessary, it leads to asset degradation."⁴⁸ Similarly, FWS has attributed increases in the backlog over time to "inadequate investments in life cycle infrastructure management and base maintenance."⁴⁹

In the past, agencies sometimes have attributed reductions in deferred maintenance (or slower rates of increase) in part to additional appropriations, such as those provided in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA; P.L. 111-5).⁵⁰ The FY2016 FWS budget justification noted the ARRA funding as one factor contributing to a reduction in the backlog following a high in FY2010, for instance.⁵¹ Agencies also sometimes have anticipated decreases in deferred maintenance as a result of increased appropriations. Most recently, federal land management agencies, among others, have cited GAOA appropriations as likely leading to less deferred maintenance. For instance, the FS claimed that "once [GAOA] projects identified through 2022 are completed, over $550 million in deferred maintenance will be addressed at over 2,000 recreation sites, 100 buildings, 16,500 miles of trail, and 6,500 miles of road."⁵² Also, DOI claimed that GAOA funding "will help to retire a significant amount of DM&R [deferred maintenance and repair], helping to slow the growth of the backlog."⁵³

The effect of GAOA appropriations for FY2021-FY2023 on the maintenance backlog of the federal land management agencies is not clear. This is because agencies continue to obligate funding for projects and manage the work on projects that received appropriations. Agencies generally do not remove an asset's deferred maintenance from the total estimate until the work is completed.⁵⁴ Also, under GAOA, up to $1.9 billion will be available for each of FY2024 and FY2025, and work on funded projects likely will continue for several years thereafter due to the complexity of some construction projects.⁵⁵

The impact of GAOA appropriations on deferred maintenance estimates also is likely to depend on the agencies' effectiveness in managing these appropriations. A March 2022 report by the DOI Office of Inspector General identified various actions DOI completed to implement GAOA. However, the report stated that at that time, DOI had not taken two particular actions—development of a strategy to maximize the impact of GAOA funding and development of best management practices for deferred maintenance projects.⁵⁶ According to the Inspector General, "without a documented strategy or best management practices for deferred maintenance, the Department and its bureaus are at risk of repeating the same practices that led to the continued increase in deferred maintenance. In addition, without a sound, documented strategy, the Department may face other risks—for example, financial, contracting, or logistical risks—as it spends the resources allocated to it."⁵⁷ Accordingly, the Inspector General recommended that DOI develop, document, and implement an effective strategy for GAOA funding and develop best management practices for deferred maintenance projects. In response, in October 2022, DOI issued a strategic plan for GAOA funding.⁵⁸ About the same time, the DOI Inspector General also included DOI deferred maintenance and GAOA funding in its FY2022 report on major management and performance challenges.⁵⁹

Alternatives to Funding

There are differing opinions on the extent to which nonfederal funding should be used for deferred maintenance. There also are varying views on the types of any nonfederal funding that might be suitable for addressing the maintenance backlog. Some observers and stakeholders have identified ways to potentially address deferred maintenance without solely relying on federal funding. For instance, a 2016 GAO report on NPS deferred maintenance listed various actions that NPS is taking at some park units. They include using donations, volunteers, and partnerships to assist with maintenance; leasing assets to nonfederal parties in exchange for rehabilitation or maintenance; and partnering with states in seeking transportation grants.⁶⁰ As another example, a 2016 report by a research institute set out options including outsourcing certain agency operations to the private sector, establishing a franchising system for new park units, and disposal of assets.⁶¹ A more recent research institute analysis proposed streamlining environmental assessments under the National Environmental Policy Act to expedite work on deferred maintenance; setting entrance fees at NPS units at market rate to generate additional revenue that could be retained and used for deferred maintenance;⁶² charging foreign visitors to federal lands higher fees because they do not pay taxes; enhancing private philanthropy, including through corporate partnerships; expanding opportunities for concessions; and selling federal land.⁶³

Asset Number, Condition, Acquisition, and Disposal

The asset portfolios of the four agencies vary considerably in terms of number, type, size, age, and location of agency assets. Although comprehensive data on these variables over the past decade are not readily available, it is likely that they affect agency maintenance responsibilities and maintenance backlogs. For instance, NPS has more assets than the other DOI agencies, a sizeable portion of which were constructed before 1900 or in the first half of the 20^th century. The 2016 GAO report assessed various characteristics of the NPS maintenance backlog, including the age of park units. The agency determined that of the total FY2015 NPS deferred maintenance,⁶⁴ park units established over 100 years ago had the largest share (32%). Further, park units established more than 40 years ago collectively accounted for 88% of all NPS deferred maintenance.⁶⁵ Moreover, some NPS assets are in urban areas or are iconic structures, which could affect maintenance costs.⁶⁶ More recently, GAO reported that DOI officials cited "aging assets that are more expensive to repair and maintain as time goes on," together with increasing visitation, as accelerating degradation of assets and associated increases in maintenance and repair needs.⁶⁷

The effect of changes in agency asset portfolios on deferred maintenance is not entirely clear. However, it could be asserted that the acquisition of assets, such as a sizeable number of large or iconic assets in relatively poor condition, would increase regular maintenance needs and the backlog, if maintenance is not performed when scheduled. For instance, the NPS contended that "when parks are created or when new land is acquired, the properties sometimes come with facilities that are in unacceptable condition or are unstable for the park or partner organizations.... When facilities are excess to the park ... they also contribute to the deferred maintenance backlog."⁶⁸ Similarly, it could be asserted that disposal of assets, such as a large quantity of old assets in poor condition, could reduce deferred maintenance. For example, a 2017 audit of the FS recommended that the agency "establish goals and milestones to aggressively reduce the number of unused or underused assets in the agency's portfolio" as one way to reduce maintenance backlogs given limited resources.⁶⁹

Agencies examine whether to retain assets in their current condition or dispose of some assets, as the following examples indicate. FS has sought to reduce its maintenance backlog by conveying unneeded or underused administrative sites, as well as decommissioning roads, road and facility infrastructure, and nonpriority recreation sites.⁷⁰ FWS has attributed reductions in deferred maintenance in part to "disposing of unneeded assets."⁷¹ NPS identifies assets that are not critical to the agency's mission and that are in relatively poor condition for potential disposal. In the past, the agency has noted that although the agency seeks to improve the condition of its asset portfolio by disposing of assets, "analysis of removal costs versus annual costs often precludes the removal option."⁷²