Deferred Maintenance of Federal Land Management Agencies: FY2013-FY2022 Estimates and Issues

Deferred Maintenance of Federal Land
August 8, 2023
Management Agencies: FY2013-FY2022
Carol Hardy Vincent
Estimates and Issues
Specialist in Natural
Resources Policy
Each of the four major federal land management agencies maintains tens of thousands of diverse

assets, including roads, bridges, buildings, and water management structures. These agencies are
the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), National Park

Service (NPS), and U.S. Forest Service (FS). Congress and Administrations have continued to
focus on the agencies’ deferred maintenance and repair of these assets—in essence, the cost of any maintenance or repair that
was not done when it should have been or was scheduled to be done. Deferred maintenance and repair sometimes is called
the maintenance backlog.
In FY2022, the most recent year for which estimates are available, the four agencies had combined deferred maintenance
estimated at $35.53 billion. This figure includes approximately $21.09 billion (59%) in deferred maintenance for NPS, $7.66
billion (22%) for FS, $4.77 billion (13%) for BLM, and $2.02 billion (6%) for FWS. Estimates reflect project costs.
From FY2013 to FY2022, total deferred maintenance for the four agencies increased in current dollars (i.e., amounts are not
adjusted for inflation) by $15.95 billion (81%), from $19.58 billion in FY2013 to $35.53 billion in FY2022. The change
among the four agencies differed considerably, from a $9.82 billion (87%) increase for NPS to relatively flat for FWS. BLM
had the largest percentage increase—$4.03 billion (545%), and FS increased by $2.10 billion (38%) over the decade. In
constant dollars (FY2022 base year), total deferred maintenance for the four agencies increased over the 10-year period by
$8.15 billion, from $27.38 billion to $35.58 billion (30%). Again, the change among the four agencies varied greatly. 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.
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. In both current and constant dollars,
FWS had the third-largest portion of total deferred maintenance through FY2019; thereafter, BLM assumed the third spot,
and FWS has had the smallest share.
Congressional debate has focused on varied issues, including the level and sources of funds needed to reduce deferred
maintenance, whether agencies are using existing funding efficiently, how to balance the maintenance of existing
infrastructure with the acquisition of new assets, whether disposal of assets is desirable given limited funding, and the priority
of maintaining infrastructure relative to other functions.
Deferred maintenance fluctuations over time are likely the result of many factors, among them the following:
• Agencies have altered methods of defining and quantifying the maintenance needs of their assets.
• Levels of funding for maintenance, including funding to address the maintenance backlog, vary from year
to year. Economic conditions, including costs of services and products, also fluctuate.
• The asset portfolios of the agencies change, with acquisitions and disposals affecting the number, type,
size, age, and location of agency assets.
The extent to which these and other factors affected changes in each agency’s maintenance backlog over the past decade is
not entirely clear. In some cases, comprehensive information is not readily available or has not been examined.
The Great American Outdoors Act (GAOA, P.L. 116-152) provided a new source of funding to address deferred
maintenance, with up to $1.9 billion in mandatory spending for the four agencies (and the Bureau of Indian Education) for
each of FY2021-FY2025. The agencies have cited GAOA appropriations as likely leading to less deferred maintenance,
although the precise change is uncertain currently. Among other reasons, agencies continue to obligate and manage
appropriations for projects, generally remove an asset’s deferred maintenance from their total when work is completed, and
are expected to receive appropriations through FY2025 and to continue work on some projects for several years thereafter.
The impact of GAOA appropriations also likely depends on the agencies’ effectiveness in managing appropriations.
Congressional Research Service


link to page 4 link to page 5 link to page 6 link to page 7 link to page 7 link to page 11 link to page 13 link to page 14 link to page 14 link to page 14 link to page 16 link to page 17 link to page 17 link to page 18 link to page 20 link to page 20 link to page 10 link to page 10 link to page 10 link to page 10 link to page 12 link to page 12 link to page 13 link to page 13 link to page 8 link to page 8 link to page 9 link to page 9 link to page 22 Deferred Maintenance of Federal Land Management Agencies

Contents
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Deferred Maintenance Estimates ..................................................................................................... 2
FY2022 ...................................................................................................................................... 3
Overview of Decade (FY2013-FY2022) ................................................................................... 4
Changes in Estimates in Current and Constant Dollars ...................................................... 4
Agency Shares of Deferred Maintenance in Current and Constant Dollars ....................... 8
Issues in Analyzing Deferred Maintenance ................................................................................... 10
Methodologies Used by Agencies ............................................................................................ 11
NPS Construction-Related Costs ....................................................................................... 11
Roads ................................................................................................................................. 11
Other Factors ..................................................................................................................... 13
Funding ................................................................................................................................... 14
Great American Outdoors Act, P.L. 116-152 .................................................................... 14
Impacts of Funding ........................................................................................................... 15
Alternatives to Funding..................................................................................................... 17
Asset Number, Condition, Acquisition, and Disposal ............................................................. 17

Figures
Figure 1. Change in Deferred Maintenance by Federal Land Management Agency in
Current Dollars, FY2013-FY2022 ............................................................................................... 7
Figure 2. Change in Deferred Maintenance by Federal Land Management Agency in
Constant Dollars, FY2013-FY2022 ............................................................................................. 7
Figure 3. Deferred Maintenance Total by Federal Land Management Agency in Current
Dollars, FY2013-FY2022 ............................................................................................................. 9
Figure 4. Deferred Maintenance Total by Federal Land Management Agency in FY2022
Constant Dollars, FY2013-FY2022 ........................................................................................... 10

Tables
Table 1. Estimated Deferred Maintenance by Agency in Current Dollars,
FY2013-FY2022 .......................................................................................................................... 5
Table 2. Estimated Deferred Maintenance by Agency in Constant Dollars,
FY2013-FY2022 .......................................................................................................................... 6

Contacts
Author Information ........................................................................................................................ 19

Congressional Research Service

Deferred Maintenance of Federal Land Management Agencies

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).
Number and Type of Federal Land Management Agency Assets
The most recent available data from the four major federal land management agencies on assets they manage
include the fol owing:

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages over 47,000 assets, including 4,446 buildings, 18,915 roads,
and 23,641 other structures.

National Park Service (NPS) manages over 75,000 assets, including 25,163 buildings; 3,661 housing units;
1,657 campgrounds; 6,244 trails; 1,767 wastewater systems; 1,578 other water systems; 5,664 unpaved roads;
11,961 paved roads; and 17,737 other assets.

Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) manages over 41,000 assets, including 5,300 buildings; 18,000 roads,
bridges, and trails; 8,500 water management assets; and 9,500 other real property assets.

Forest Service (FS) manages over 92,000 assets of the fol owing types: 30,000 recreation sites; more than
39,000 buildings; more than 14,000 road bridges and trail bridges; more than 4,600 drinking water systems;
more than 4,700 wastewater systems; and nearly 500 agency-owned dams. FS also manages nearly 163,000
miles of trails and more than 372,000 miles of roads, nearly 65,000 miles of which were operated for
passenger vehicles.
Sources: For BLM, NPS, and FWS, U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Budget, May 31, 2023. For FS,
U.S. Department of Agriculture, FS, Legislative Affairs Office, May 9, 2023.
Notes: Data represent the most recent available: September 30, 2022, for NPS and FS; spring 2023 for BLM
and FWS.
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

1 This definition is taken from the Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards 42: Deferred Maintenance and
Repairs, p. 1442 (pdf) of the FASAB Handbook of Federal Accounting Standards and Other Pronouncements, as
Amended
, as of June 30, 2022, available on the website of the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board at
https://files.fasab.gov/pdffiles/2022_%20FASAB_%20Handbook.pdf.
2 Ibid., p. 1442.
Congressional Research Service

1

link to page 13 Deferred Maintenance of Federal Land Management Agencies

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

3 U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), Federal Real Property: Agencies Attribute Substantial Increases in
Reported Deferred Maintenance to Multiple Factors
, GAO-23-106124, October 28, 2022, p. 2, at https://www.gao.gov/
assets/gao-23-106124.pdf. Hereinafter cited as GAO-23-106124.
4 P.L. 116-152, the Great American Outdoors Act, provided a new source of mandatory funding for deferred
maintenance for FY2021-FY2025, as discussed in the “Issues in Analyzing Deferred Maintenance” section of this
report.
5 In this report, the 10-year period from FY2013 to FY2022 is sometimes referred to as a decade.
6 For a brief description of Forest Service (FS) condition assessments, see U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA),
2022 Agency Financial Report, pp. 155-157, at https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/fy-2022-agency-
financial-report.pdf. For a brief description of U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) condition assessments, see DOI,
Agency Financial Report 2022, p. 139, at https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/doi-fy2022-afr-508c.pdf.
7 For FY2022, the 11 asset classes were buildings, communication systems, dams, drinking water systems, heritage,
minor constructed features, road bridges, roads, trail bridges, trails, and wastewater systems. This information was
provided to CRS by the FS Legislative Affairs Office on April 6, 2023.
8 The change to a single figure resulted from revisions to federal financial accounting standards that took effect in
FY2015. See the Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards 42: Deferred Maintenance and Repairs, in the
FASAB Handbook of Federal Accounting Standards and Other Pronouncements, as Amended, available on the website
of the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board at https://files.fasab.gov/pdffiles/
2022_%20FASAB_%20Handbook.pdf.
9 DOI, Agency Financial Report, FY2014, p. 126, at https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/doi-fy-2014-afr.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

2

Deferred Maintenance of Federal Land Management Agencies

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

10 Ibid, p. 126.
11 For instance, the FY2015 deferred maintenance estimate was taken from USDA, FS, Fiscal Year 2017 Budget
Justification
, p. 411, at https://www.fs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/fy-2017-fs-budget-justification.pdf.
12 The FS Legislative Affairs Office provided the FY2022 estimate to CRS on April 6, 2023. The FY2022 estimate is
the most recent available.
13 CRS calculated this mid-range figure as the average of the high and low estimates.
14 In addition, policy discussions of agency deferred maintenance commonly have referred to a single mid-range
estimate, as shown in this report.
15 The DOI Budget Office has provided deferred maintenance information to CRS periodically throughout the decade.
DOI provided the FY2022 estimate to CRS on March 27, 2023. The FY2022 estimate is the most recent available. The
DOI estimates provided to CRS generally are based on DOI financial reports and may differ from figures reported by
the agencies independently. In particular, in some years the National Park Service (NPS) has independently reported
estimates that differ from those reflected in agency financial reports. These NPS estimates have included certain
concessioner owned or operated assets as well as assets that are not owned by the NPS but for which the agency has
maintenance responsibility.
16 Estimates do not reflect indirect costs, such as salaries and benefits for government employees.
17 For comparison, the four agencies combined had FY2022 regular discretionary appropriations of roughly $14 billion
and FY2022 total budget authority (including supplemental, emergency, and mandatory appropriations) of roughly $27
billion.
18 Some NPS sources show a higher FY2022 deferred maintenance estimate. For instance, an estimate of $22.29 billion
is contained in the NPS Budget Justifications and Performance Information, Fiscal Year 2024, p. SpecEx-2, at
https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/fy2024-nps-greenbook.pdf-508.pdf. Similarly, the NPS website contains an
estimate of $22.3 billion; see https://www.nps.gov/subjects/infrastructure/deferred-maintenance.htm. The NPS
discussion in this memorandum is based on the estimate of $21.09 billion that CRS received from DOI on March 27,
2023, unless otherwise noted. Among other reasons, the NPS independently reported estimate reflects certain
concessioner owned or operated assets as well as assets that are not owned by the NPS but for which the agency has
maintenance responsibility, unlike the estimate CRS received from DOI on March 27, 2023. This explanation of the
difference in the estimates was provided to CRS by the NPS Office of Legislative and Congressional Affairs on August
1, 2023.
For additional information on NPS deferred maintenance, see CRS Report R44924, National Park Service Deferred
Maintenance: Frequently Asked Questions
, by Laura B. Comay.
Congressional Research Service

3

link to page 8 link to page 10 Deferred Maintenance of Federal Land Management Agencies

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.

19 This was a reduction over the 10-year period in the proportion for this category of NPS deferred maintenance. For
instance, in FY2013, the proportion of NPS deferred maintenance for roads, bridges, and trails was 58%. Similarly, five
years ago (FY2018) the proportion was 57%. More recently, the proportion declined from 57% in FY2020 to 46% in
FY2021 to 33% in FY2022. The change from FY2021 to FY2022 reflected a decrease in the estimate of deferred
maintenance of roads, bridges, and trails from $10.53 billion in FY2021 to $6.97 billion in FY2022. The reasons for
these reductions are not readily available.
20 “Current dollar” figures have not been adjusted for inflation.
21 The four main NPS asset classes had differing amounts of increase of the $9.82 billion total over the 10-year period.
The increases for each asset class were: $4.61 for buildings; $3.17 billion for other structures; $1.64 billion for
irrigation, dams, and other water structures; and $0.40 billion for roads, bridges, and trails.
22 Specifically, the largest increase in the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) deferred maintenance estimate for
roads, bridges, and trails occurred between FY2019 and FY2020—from $0.71 billion to $3.59 billion—primarily due
to a change in estimation methodology for this asset category.
Congressional Research Service

4

link to page 10 link to page 13 link to page 9 link to page 10 link to page 10 link to page 9 link to page 9 Deferred Maintenance of Federal Land Management Agencies

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.
Table 1. Estimated Deferred Maintenance by Agency in Current Dollars,
FY2013-FY2022
(in billions of current dollars)
Agency
FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 FY2017 FY2018 FY2019 FY2020 FY2021 FY2022
BLM
0.74
0.74
0.75
0.81
0.84
0.96
1.09
4.09
4.38
4.77
FWS
2.01
1.53
1.33
1.40
1.38
1.30
1.33
1.46
1.76
2.02
NPS
11.27
11.50
11.73
10.93
11.18
11.92a
12.71
14.37
22.78
21.09b
FS
5.56
5.10
5.20
5.49
5.00
5.20
5.22
5.86
6.28
7.66
Total
19.58
18.87
19.02
18.62
18.39
19.38
20.35
25.78
35.20
35.53
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-

23 “Constant dollar” figures have been adjusted for inflation, with FY2022 as the base year.
Congressional Research Service

5

Deferred Maintenance of Federal Land Management Agencies

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.
a. This figure differs from DOI’s estimates for NPS in other years. It includes assets that typically are excluded
from DOI’s calculations for agency financial reports, such as assets that are not owned by the NPS but for
which the agency has maintenance responsibility. Excluding these assets, the FY2018 estimate for NPS was
$11.50 bil ion.
b. This figure differs from independent NPS estimates, including $22.29 bil ion in the agency’s FY2024 budget
justification (on page SpecEx-2, at https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/fy2024-nps-greenbook.pdf-508.pdf)
and $22.3 bil ion on the agency’s website (at https://www.nps.gov/subjects/infrastructure/deferred-
maintenance.htm).
Table 2. Estimated Deferred Maintenance by Agency in Constant Dollars,
FY2013-FY2022
(in billions of FY2022 constant dollars)
Agency
FY2013
FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 FY2017
FY2018
FY2019 FY2020 FY2021 FY2022
BLM
1.03
1.01
1.00
1.07
1.09
1.20
1.31
4.78
4.95
4.77
FWS
2.81
2.09
1.78
1.86
1.79
1.63
1.59
1.71
1.99
2.02
NPS
15.76
15.68
15.68
14.50
14.51
14.91
15.23
16.81
25.73
21.09
FS
7.77
6.95
6.95
7.28
6.49
6.50
6.25
6.85
7.09
7.66
Total
27.38
25.73
25.43
24.70
23.86
24.24
24.38
30.15
39.75
35.53
Sources: Current dol ar estimates for FS were taken from the annual budget justification to Congress for
FY2013-FY2015 and were provided by FS for FY2016-FY2022. Current dol ar 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 dol ar estimates were converted to FY2022 constant dol ars by CRS using 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.
Congressional Research Service

6



Deferred Maintenance of Federal Land Management Agencies

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 dol ar estimates for FS were taken from the annual budget justification to Congress for
FY2013-FY2015, and were provided by FS for FY2016-FY2022. Current dol ar estimates for Department of the
Congressional Research Service

7

link to page 12 link to page 13 link to page 13 link to page 13 Deferred Maintenance of Federal Land Management Agencies

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 dol ar estimates were converted to FY2022 constant dol ars 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.

24 An analysis of data over a longer period would provide additional perspective and, in some respects, a different one
than presented in this report. For instance, in current dollars the four agencies had a combined deferred maintenance of
$14.40 billion in FY1999, the first year for which estimates for all agencies are readily available. In contrast to the
FY2013-FY2022 years covered in this report, in FY1999, FS had the largest share of the backlog—$8.90 billion, or
62% of the total. This was more than twice the NPS amount of $4.25 billion, or 29% of the total. The estimates for the
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the BLM in FY1999 were $0.95 billion (7%) and $0.30 billion (2%),
respectively. From FY1999 through FY2022, total deferred maintenance of the four agencies increased in current
dollars by $21.13 billion (147%), from $14.40 billion to $35.53 billion. As compared with the 10-year period examined
in this report, agencies had different amounts of change during this 24-year period. Specifically, estimates of deferred
maintenance increased for the three DOI agencies: by $16.84 billion (396%) for NPS, $4.47 billion (1,490%) for BLM,
and $1.07 billion (113%) for FWS. By contrast, the FS estimate declined by $1.24 billion (14%).
Congressional Research Service

8


Deferred Maintenance of Federal Land Management Agencies

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

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.
Congressional Research Service

9


Deferred Maintenance of Federal Land Management Agencies

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

Sources: Current dol ar estimates for FS were taken from the annual budget justification to Congress for
FY2013-FY2015 and were provided by FS for FY2016-FY2022. Current dol ar 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 dol ar estimates were converted to FY2022 constant dol ars 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

25 Information provided to CRS by the DOI Budget Office on February 27, 2015. Also, the FS partly attributed an
earlier increase (in current dollars) in the deferred maintenance estimate for roads from FY2006 to FY2007 to rises in
fuel prices and other associated construction costs. See USDA, FS, Fiscal Year 2009 President’s Budget, Budget
Justification
, pp. Special Exhibits, 15-18, at https://www.fs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/fy2009-forest-service-budget-
justification.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

10

Deferred Maintenance of Federal Land Management Agencies

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

26 For instance, regarding DOI, see GAO-23-106124, p. 6, at https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-23-106124.pdf.
Regarding NPS, see Nicolas D. Loris, Tackling the Enormous Deferred Maintenance Backlog for America’s National
Parks
, The Heritage Foundation, Backgrounder No. 3500, June 9, 2020, p. 2, at https://www.heritage.org/environment/
report/tackling-the-enormous-deferred-maintenance-backlog-americas-national-parks.
27 NPS, Infrastructure, “Frequently Asked Questions,” at https://www.nps.gov/subjects/infrastructure/faqs.htm. Another
NPS source indicates that the agency had been including non-construction costs in estimating deferred maintenance for
transportation assets, but not for other categories of assets. See NPS, “National Park Service Modernizes Facility
Management Practices; Updates How Repair Needs Are Calculated,” news release, May 9, 2022, at
https://www.nps.gov/orgs/1207/05-09-2022-dm-r.htm.
28 GAO-23-106124, p. 7, at https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-23-106124.pdf.
29 CRS consultation with DOI and BLM staff on June 16, 2021.
Congressional Research Service

11

Deferred Maintenance of Federal Land Management Agencies

(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

30 See DOI, BLM, Budget Justifications and Performance Information, Fiscal Year 2020, p. VI-127, at
https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/uploads/fy2020_blm_budget_justification.pdf.
31 Information in this paragraph was derived from a CRS consultation with DOI and BLM staff on June 16, 2021. In
addition, in a 2022 report, GAO noted that DOI attributed the roughly $3 billion increase in BLM deferred maintenance
from FY2019 to FY2020 to a new system for evaluating the conditions of roads. See GAO-23-106124, p. 7, at
https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-23-106124.pdf.
32 DOI, FWS, Budget Justifications and Performance Information, Fiscal Year 2015, p. NWR-30, at
https://www.fws.gov/media/fiscal-year-2015-fish-and-wildlife-service-presidents-budget.
33 DOI, FWS, Budget Justifications and Performance Information, Fiscal Year 2017, p. NWRS-36, at
https://www.fws.gov/media/fiscal-year-2017-fish-and-wildlife-service-presidents-budget.
34 Phone communication between CRS and FS staff on March 17, 2015, and FS annual budget justifications.
35 Information provided to CRS by the FS Legislative Affairs Office on March 13, 2015.
36 Other years during the decade had varying amounts of increase or decrease in the roads backlog related to prior
years.
Congressional Research Service

12

Deferred Maintenance of Federal Land Management Agencies

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

37 More recently, the FS again modified its method of estimating deferred maintenance of roads, in response to a 2017
audit report that expressed concerns about the random sampling approach that was in use. The change was noted in
USDA, FS, Fiscal Year 2020 Budget Justification, p. 87, at https://www.fs.fed.us/sites/default/files/media_wysiwyg/
usfs-fy-2020-budget-justification.pdf. For a discussion of the audit findings on the random sampling method, see
USDA, Office of Inspector General, Audit Report 08601-0004-31, Forest Service Deferred Maintenance, May 2017,
pp. 27-28, at https://www.oversight.gov/sites/default/files/oig-reports/USDAOIG/08601-0004-31.pdf. Hereinafter cited
as USDA OIG 2017 FS Audit.
Additional examples of FS changes in roads methodology that appear to have affected deferred maintenance estimates
pertain to years earlier than the 10-year period reflected in this report (e.g., changes first reflected in estimates for
FY2007 and FY2008).
38 Information provided to CRS by the DOI Budget Office on February 27, 2015.
39 See, for example, DOI, Agency Financial Report FY 2014, p. 126, at https://www.doi.gov/pfm/afr/2014.
40 In addition to changes in methodology, the accuracy and consistency in agency application of estimation methods
and in reporting on deferred maintenance also may affect estimates. For instance, the 2017 audit of FS deferred
maintenance (for FY2014 and FY2015) identified inaccuracies and inconsistencies in some areas. See USDA OIG
2017 FS Audit, pp. 27-31, at https://www.oversight.gov/sites/default/files/oig-reports/USDAOIG/08601-0004-31.pdf.
41 Industry-standard assets include buildings, housing, campgrounds, trails, unpaved roads, water utilities, and
wastewater utility systems. See DOI, NPS, Budget Justifications and Performance Information, Fiscal Year 2019, pp.
ONPS-57-58, at https://www.nps.gov/aboutus/upload/FY2019-NPS-Budget-Justification.pdf.
42 NPS categorizes 17,737 of its total assets as non-industry standard (of a 75,432 total assets), including utility
systems, dams, constructed waterways, marinas, aviation systems, railroads, ships, monuments, fortifications, towers,
interpretive media and amphitheaters. The agency indicates that “NPS continues to improve the data quality for this
subset of the portfolio.” See DOI, NPS, Budget Justifications and Performance Information, Fiscal Year 2024, p.
SpecEx-2, at https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/fy2024-nps-greenbook.pdf-508.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

13

Deferred Maintenance of Federal Land Management Agencies

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.

43 For additional information on the operation of the fund, see CRS In Focus IF11636, The Great American Outdoors
Act (P.L. 116-152)
, by Carol Hardy Vincent, Laura B. Comay, and Bill Heniff Jr.
44 This funding has been provided in the annual appropriations laws for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies.
See, for example, the appropriations law for FY2023 (P.L. 117-328, Division G, §431) and the accompanying
explanatory statement, which allocated the funding among the agencies and identified specific projects that would
receive funding.
Congressional Research Service

14

Deferred Maintenance of Federal Land Management Agencies

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

45 The facilities condition index (FCI) is an accepted industry measure of the condition of constructed assets at a
specific point in time. It serves as a performance measure for condition improvement. It is the ratio of the deferred
maintenance to the current replacement value of the asset. As a general guideline, a facility with an FCI less than 0.15
is considered to be in acceptable condition. See DOI, BLM, Budget Justifications and Performance Information, Fiscal
Year 2024
, p. V-136, at https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/fy2024-blm-greenbook.pdf-508.pdf.
46 For instance, a 2017 audit report asserted that reducing the FS maintenance backlog “will require devoting the
necessary resources over an extended period of time,” and that “increasing wildfire management costs have left the
agency without extra funding to concentrate on reducing deferred maintenance.” See USDA OIG 2017 FS Audit, p. 6.
As another example, the Interior Budget in Brief for FY2021 (and earlier fiscal years) set out a proposal for the
establishment of a “Public Lands Infrastructure Fund,” with revenues from energy development on federal lands, to be
used for deferred maintenance needs of the four agencies (as well as the Bureau of Indian Education). See DOI, The
Interior Budget in Brief, Fiscal Year 2021
, p. DH-37, at https://www.doi.gov/budget/appropriations/2021https://
www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/uploads/2020_highlights_book.pdf. A similar proposal was enacted by the 116th
Congress in P.L. 116-152, the Great American Outdoors Act, as discussed in the report.
47 GAO-23-106124, p.5, at https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-23-106124.pdf. This report focused on four federal
departments/agencies, including DOI.
48 DOI, Office of the Secretary, Questions for the Record: Senate Energy and Natural Resources, Subcommittee on
National Parks, Hearing on Implementation of the Great American Outdoors Act, February 9, 2022, p. 8 (pdf), June 1,
2022, at https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/june-2022-qfr.pdf.
49 FWS, Infrastructure Management, at https://www.fws.gov/program/infrastructure-management.
50 The information was provided to CRS by the DOI Budget Office on February 27, 2015, and by the FS Legislative
Affairs Office on March 13, 2015. ARRA provided emergency funding to the agencies for FY2009, with the monies
available for obligation through September 30, 2010. Some of the projects were completed in subsequent fiscal years.
Under the law, the four agencies received $1.99 billion in appropriations for various accounts and purposes (excluding
funding for wildland fire management), although the portion used for deferred maintenance is not clear. These funds
were in addition to regular appropriations for FY2009.
Congressional Research Service

15

Deferred Maintenance of Federal Land Management Agencies

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

51 DOI, FWS, Budget Justifications and Performance Information, Fiscal Year 2016, p. NWR-31, at
https://www.fws.gov/media/fiscal-year-2016-fish-and-wildlife-service-presidents-budget. The FWS deferred
maintenance estimate for FY2010 was $3.02 billion (in current dollars). Other information provided to CRS by DOI
(for NPS) and by FS attributed reductions or slower growth of deferred maintenance to ARRA funding.
52 USDA, FS, Fiscal Year 2024 Budget Justification, p. 30a-175, at https://www.fs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/FS-
FY24-Congressional-Budget-Justification.pdf.
53 DOI, Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs), Deferred Maintenance and Repair (DM&R), “Why does the DM&R
backlog continue to grow?”, at https://www.doi.gov/gaoa-faqs#DM&R%20FAQs.
54 Ibid, “Does the DM&R backlog account for projects that are in progress?”
55 DOI, Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs), Great American Outdoors Act National Parks and Public Land Legacy
Restoration Fund (GAOA LRF), “When will GAOA LRF funding run out?,” at https://www.doi.gov/gaoa-faqs#DM&
R%20FAQs.
56 DOI, Office of Inspector General, The U.S. Department of the Interior Needs a Strategy to Coordinate
Implementation of the Great American Outdoors Act
, Report No. 2021-CR-031, pp. 3-4, March 2022, at
https://www.oversight.gov/sites/default/files/oig-reports/DOI/FinalInspectionGAOATaskForcePublic.pdf.
57 Ibid, p. 6.
58 DOI, Great American Outdoors Act, National Parks and Public Land Legacy Restoration Fund, Strategic Plan,
October 21, 2022, at https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/gaoa-lrf-strategic-plan-2022.10.21-final-508.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

16

Deferred Maintenance of Federal Land Management Agencies

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 non-federal funding should be used for
deferred maintenance. There also are varying views on the types of any non-federal 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 20th 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

59 DOI, Office of Inspector General, Inspector General’s Statement Summarizing the Major Management and
Performance Challenges Facing the U.S. Department of the Interior, Fiscal Year 2022, at https://www.doioig.gov/
reports/top-management-challenges/inspector-generals-statement-summarizing-major-management-and-6. The report
states, on page 4, that with the additional GAOA funding, “DOI will likely face challenges ensuring it can promptly
deploy the funding, prioritize projects, maintain staffing and resource capacity, and establish sufficient oversight. We
are performing work to assess the NPS and BIE [Bureau of Indian Education] processes for addressing the deferred
maintenance.”
60 GAO, National Park Service: Process Exists for Prioritizing Asset Maintenance Decisions, but Evaluation Could
Improve Efforts
, GAO-17-136, pp. 34-37, December 2016, at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-17-136. Hereinafter
cited as GAO 2016 NPS Asset Maintenance Report.
61 Property and Environment Research Center, Breaking the Backlog, 7 Ideas to Address the National Park Deferred
Maintenance Problem
, February 2016, at https://www.perc.org/wp-content/uploads/old/pdfs/
BreakingtheBacklog_7IdeasforNationalParks.pdf.
62 This proposal applies to recreation fees under the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act. For an overview of
this authority, see CRS In Focus IF10151, Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act: Overview and Issues, by Carol
Hardy Vincent.
63 Nicolas D. Loris, Tackling the Enormous Deferred Maintenance Backlog for America’s National Parks, The
Heritage Foundation, Backgrounder No. 3500, June 9, 2020, at https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2020-06/
BG3500.pdf.
64 The total FY2015 deferred maintenance estimate cited by GAO was $11.9 billion. This figure is different than the
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service

17

Deferred Maintenance of Federal Land Management Agencies

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


figure reflected in this CRS report ($11.73 billion), because it reflects assets that are not owned by the agency but for
which the agency has maintenance responsibility, among other reasons.
65 GAO 2016 NPS Asset Maintenance Report, pp. 22-23, at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-17-136. Note that the
year a park unit was established is not necessarily reflective of the age of the assets in the unit; for example, newly
established units of the National Park System may contain historic properties.
66 As one example, the NPS undertook a $227 million renovation of Arlington Memorial Bridge to address deferred
maintenance. For information on the bridge restoration, see the NPS website at https://www.nps.gov/gwmp/learn/
management/bridge-rehabilitation.htm.
67 GAO-23-106124, p. 6, at https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-23-106124.pdf.
68 DOI, NPS, Budget Justifications and Performance Information, Fiscal Year 2020, p. CONST-66, at
https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/fy2020-nps-justification.pdf.
69 USDA OIG 2017 FS Audit, p. 11, at https://www.oversight.gov/sites/default/files/oig-reports/USDAOIG/08601-
0004-31.pdf.
70 See, for example, USDA, FS, FY2020 Budget Justification, p. 83 and p. 127, at https://www.fs.fed.us/sites/default/
files/media_wysiwyg/usfs-fy-2020-budget-justification.pdf.
71 DOI, FWS, Budget Justifications and Performance Information, Fiscal Year 2016, p. NWR-31, at
https://www.fws.gov/media/fiscal-year-2016-fish-and-wildlife-service-presidents-budget.
72 DOI, NPS, Budget Justifications and Performance Information, Fiscal Year 2017, p. ONPS-Ops&Maint-14, at
https://www.nps.gov/aboutus/upload/FY17-NPS-Greenbook-for-website.pdf .
Congressional Research Service

18

Deferred Maintenance of Federal Land Management Agencies



Author Information

Carol Hardy Vincent

Specialist in Natural Resources Policy



Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service
R43997 · VERSION 14 · UPDATED
19