United States Government Accountability Office

GAO Statement for the Record for the 

Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, 

and Related Agencies, Committee on 

Appropriations, House of Representatives 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

Major Operations Funding 

Trends and How Selected 

Park Units Responded to 

Those Trends for Fiscal 

Years 2001 through 2005 

Statement for the Record 

Robin M. Nazzaro, Director 

Natural Resources and Environment 

For Release on Delivery

Expected at 10:00 a.m. EDT 

Wednesday, April 5, 2006

 

GAO-06-631T 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

April 5 2006

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 

Major Operations Funding Trends and 

How Selected Park Units Responded to 

Those Trends for Fiscal Years 2001 

through 2005 

Highlights of GAO-06-631T, a statement 

for the record to the Subcommittee on 

Interior, Environment, and Related 

Agencies; Committee on Appropriations; 

U.S. House of Representatives

In recent years, some reports 

prepared by advocacy groups have

raised issues concerning the 

adequacy of the Park Service’s

financial resources needed to 

effectively operate the park units. 

This statement addresses (1) 

funding trends for park service

operations and visitor fees for 

fiscal years 2001-2005; (2) specific 

funding trends for 12 selected highvisitation park units and how, if at 

all, the funding trends have 

affected operations; and (3) recent

management initiatives the Park

Service has undertaken to address

fiscal performance and 

accountability of park units. This 

statement is based on GAO’s March 

2006 report, National Park Service: 

Major Operations Funding Trends 

and How Selected Park Units 

Responded to Those Trends for 

Fiscal Years 2001 through 2005, 

GAO-06-431 (Washington, D.C.: 

March 31, 2006). 

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that the

Department of the Interior allow 

park units to use visitor fee 

revenues to pay the costs of

permanent employees 

administering projects funded by 

visitor fees. 

Overall, amounts appropriated to the National Park Service (Park Service) in 

the Operation of the National Park System account increased from 2001 to 

2005. In inflation-adjusted terms, amounts allocated by the Park Service to 

park units from this appropriation for daily operations declined while 

project-related allocations increased. Project-related allocations increased 

primarily in (1) Cyclic Maintenance and Repair and Rehabilitation programs 

to reflect an emphasis on reducing the estimated $5 billion maintenance 

backlog and (2) the inventory and monitoring program to protect natural 

resources through the Natural Resource Challenge initiative. Also, on an 

average annual basis, visitor fees collected increased about 1 percent—a 2 

percent decline when adjusted for inflation. 

All park units we visited received project-related allocations, but most of the 

park units experienced declines in inflation-adjusted terms in their 

allocations for daily operations. Each of the 12 park units reported their 

daily operations allocations were not sufficient to address increases in 

operating costs, such as salaries, and new Park Service requirements. In 

response, officials reported that they either eliminated or reduced some 

services or relied on other authorized sources to pay operating expenses that 

have historically been paid with allocations for daily operations. Also, 

implementing important Park Service policies—without additional 

allocations—has placed additional demands on the park units and reduced 

their flexibility. For example, the Park Service has directed its park units to 

spend most of their visitor fees on deferred maintenance projects. While the

Park Service may use visitor fees to pay salaries for permanent staff who 

administer projects funded with these fees, it has a policy prohibiting such 

use. To alleviate the pressure on daily operations allocations, we believe it 

would be appropriate to use visitor fees to pay the salaries of employees 

working on visitor fee funded projects. Interior believes that, while 

employment levels at individual park units may have fluctuated for many 

reasons, employment servicewide was stable, including both seasonal and 

permanent employees. 

GAO identified three initiatives—Business Plan, Core Operations Analysis, 

and Park Scorecard—to address park units’ fiscal performance and 

operational condition. Of the park units with a business plan we visited, 

officials stated that the plan, among other things, have helped them better 

identify future budget needs. Due to its early development stage, only a few 

park units have participated in the Core Operations Analysis; for those we 

visited who have, officials said that they are better able to determine where

operational efficiencies might accrue. Park Service headquarters used the 

Scorecard to validate and approve increases in funding for daily operations 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-631T. for fiscal year 2005. 

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Robin Nazzaro 

at (202) 512-3841 or nazzaror@gao.gov. 
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

We are pleased to provide for the record a summary of our report on 

issues surrounding the principle sources of funding for the operations of 

the National Park Service (Park Service) from fiscal years 2001 through 

2005, and how the selected park units we visited responded to their 

allocations of such funds. Congress provides funding for the Park Service 

through a number of appropriations accounts; the largest is the Operation 

of the National Park System (ONPS), which funds the management, 

operations, and maintenance of park areas and facilities and the general 

administration of the Park Service.1

 Congress has made additional funding

available by permitting the Park Service to charge and retain recreation 

fees, referred to in this report as “visitor fees.” The Park Service also has, 

among other sources, authority to charge and retain concessions fees and 

to accept donations and voluntary services. As with any federal program, 

the Park Service is expected to manage within whatever level of funding is

provided and to allocate resources to its park units in a way that is both 

efficient and effective in delivering services. 

The Park Service has chosen to allocate funds to its park units in two 

categories—for daily operations, and another for specific, non-recurring 

projects. Park managers use allocations for daily operations to pay for 

visitor and resource protection, interpretation and education, and facilities 

operations, among other things. About 80 percent or more of the park 

units’ daily operations allocations pay for salaries and benefits for staff to 

carry out these mission components, while the remainder is used for 

overhead expenses such as utilities, supplies, and training. The projectrelated portion provides funds for non-recurring projects such as replacing

roofs on park facilities or rehabilitating campgrounds. Park managers 

generally use these project allocations to pay temporary employees or 

contractors to complete these projects. 

In recent years, concerns over the deteriorating condition of the national

parks have received increasing attention. Some reports prepared by 

advocacy groups cite a lack of sufficient staff and financial resources 

necessary to effectively operate the park units. They report dwindling 

 1

The Park Service has aseparate appropriation account for construction, which includes

major improvements and repairs; an appropriation account for the U.S. Park Police; and

other appropriation accounts, such as National Recreation and Preservation, Historic 

Preservation, and Land Acquisition and State Assistance. However, they are not the subject

of this report. 

Page 1 GAO-06-631T 
visitor services, crumbling buildings, and threatened resources at many 

park units including the Everglades, Gettysburg, Great Smoky Mountains, 

Olympic, Yellowstone, and others. Some of these reports argue that the

purchasing power of the park units’ funding has been weakened due to 

inflation and required employee pay and benefit increases that were not 

accounted for in their daily operations funding. However, the Department 

of the Interior stated that the Park Service’s operating funds have 

increased significantly from 1980 through 2005, particularly when 

compared to other domestic federal agencies. 

This statement, which is based on our recent report on the operating 

condition of the national parks,2

 addresses (1) funding trends for Park 

Service operations and visitor fees for fiscal years 2001 through 2005; (2) 

specific funding trends for several high-visitation park units and how, if at

all, these funding trends have affected operations, including the park units’ 

ability to provide services for fiscal years 2001 through 2005; and (3) 

recent management initiatives the Park Service has undertaken to address 

the fiscal performance and accountability of park units. 

To identify funding trends for Park Service operations and visitor fees 

from fiscal years 2001 through 2005, we obtained and analyzed

appropriations legislation, data on the Park Service’s allocation of funds 

from the ONPS account, and data on visitor fees.3

 To determine funding 

trends for selected individual park units and how these trends affected the 

park units’ ability to provide services to visitors, we selected 12 park units

based on visitation, regional diversity, and preliminary data on allocations 

for daily operations. We visited the 12 park units, gathered and analyzed

funding and cost data, and interviewed park officials to determine 

allocation trends and their impact on operations (including visitor 

services). To identify recent management initiatives the Park Service has 

under way to address fiscal performance and accountability for fiscal 

years 2001 to 2005, we gathered and reviewed documentation on several 

management initiatives and interviewed Park Service headquarters, 

regional office, and individual park unit officials. A more detailed 

 2

U.S. Government Accountability Office, National Park Service: Major Operations 

Funding Trends and How Selected Park Units Responded to Those Trends for Fiscal

Years 2001 through 2005, GAO-06-431 (Washington, D.C.: March 31, 2006).

3

To remove the effects of inflation, we adjusted nominal dollars using the Gross Domestic 

Product Price Index for Government Consumption Expenditures and Gross Investment 

(federal nondefense sector), with 2001 as the base year. 

Page 2 GAO-06-631T 
description of our scope and methodology is contained in the report on 

which this statement is based. We performed our work from January 2005 

to March 2006 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. 

In summary we found that 

• Overall, amounts appropriated to the Park Service in the ONPS account

increased from fiscal years 2001 through 2005. The amounts appropriated 

rose from about $1.4 billion in fiscal year 2001 to almost $1.7 billion in 

fiscal year 2005—an average annual increase of about 5 percent, or about 1 

percent when adjusted for inflation. The Park Service makes this 

appropriation available to park units by allocating amounts for daily 

operations and for projects. In inflation-adjusted terms, the Park Service’s 

allocation for daily operations declined slightly while the project-related

allocations increased. The amount the Park Service allocated to park units

for daily operations increased from about $903 million in fiscal year 2001 

to almost $1.03 billion in fiscal year 2005—an average annual increase of 

about 3 percent per year, but a slight decline of 0.3 percent per year when 

adjusted for inflation. In allocating resources to park units, the Park 

Service increased allocations for project-related activities at a higher rate

than for daily operations. Project-related allocations increased overall in

both nominal and inflation-adjusted dollars. Total project-related 

allocations rose from $478 million in 2001 to $641 million in 2005, an 

average annual increase of about 8 percent per year, or about 4 percent

per year in inflation-adjusted dollars. In addition to this funding, the Park 

Service collected a total of about $717 million in visitor fees from fiscal 

years 2001 through 2005—or about $670 million when adjusted for 

inflation. 

• All of the 12 high-visitation park units that we visited received projectrelated allocations between fiscal years 2001 through 2005, but for most 

park units their allocations for daily operations declined in inflationadjusted terms. Allocations of project-related funds at the 12 highvisitation park units we visited varied from year to year. Although 

allocations for daily operations increased in nominal terms from 2001 

through 2005 at all 12 parks we visited, 8 of the 12 experienced a decline in 

inflation-adjusted allocations and 4 experienced an increase in inflationadjusted allocations. Park managers at all 12 park units we visited 

reported their allocations were not sufficient to address increases in 

operating costs, such as salary and benefit increases and rising utility 

costs; and new Park Service requirements directed at reducing its deferred 

maintenance needs, implementing its asset management strategy, and 

maintaining law enforcement levels. Officials also stated that these factors 

Page 3 GAO-06-631T 
reduced their management flexibility. For example, the Park Service set a 

goal to spend the majority of its visitor fees on deferred maintenance 

projects. While the Park Service may use visitor fees to pay salaries for 

permanent staff that administer projects funded with these fees, it has a 

policy prohibiting such use. Instead, these salaries are paid using 

allocations for daily operations, which reduces the amount of the 

allocation available for visitor services and other activities, and limits the 

park units’ ability to maintain these services and activities. To alleviate the 

pressure on daily operations allocations, we believe it would be 

appropriate to use visitor fees to pay the salaries of employees working on 

visitor fee-funded projects. 

• In response to daily operations allocation trends, increased costs, and new 

policy requirements, parks reported that they either eliminated or reduced

some services; they also relied on other authorized funding sources and 

volunteers to pay for activities that have historically been paid for from the 

allocations for daily operations. Because allocations for daily operations 

did not increase commensurately with rising costs, officials at the park 

units we visited stated that they absorbed these additional costs by 

reducing spending on personnel and other expenditures. Park officials 

also told us that they reduced services including, reducing visitor center 

hours, educational programs, basic custodial duties, and law enforcement 

operations, such as back-country patrolling. Officials at the park units also 

stated that they increasingly relied on volunteers and nonprofit partner 

organizations to provide services that were traditionally offered by park 

rangers, including providing information and educational programs to 

visitors. In commenting on a draft of our report, the Department of the 

Interior said that the report creates a misleading impression concerning 

the state of park operations, claiming that (1) record high levels of funds 

are being invested to staff and improve parks and (2) the report does not 

examine the results achieved with these inputs. The department also 

believes that while employment levels at individual park units may have 

fluctuated for many reasons, employment servicewide was stable, 

including both seasonal and permanent employees. We believe, however, 

that the report provides a detailed analysis of the major funding trends 

affecting Park Service operations, including those at the 12 park units we 

visited, as well as the department’s initiatives and efforts to achieve

results. 

• We identified three management initiatives that the Park Service has 

undertaken to address fiscal performance and accountability and to better 

manage within available resources: the Business Plan Initiative (BPI), the

Core Operations Analysis (COA), and the Park Scorecard. These initiatives

Page 4 GAO-06-631T 
are in varying stages of development and implementation. For the most 

part, it is too soon to assess the effectiveness of these initiatives. 

The Park Service is the caretaker of many of the nation’s most precious 

natural and cultural resources. Today, more than 130 years after the first 

national park was created, the National Park System has grown to include 

390 units covering over 84 million acres. These units include a diverse mix 

of sites—now in more than 20 different categories.4

 The Park Service’s 

mission is to preserve unimpaired the natural and cultural resources of the 

National Park System for the enjoyment of this and future generations. Its 

objectives include providing for the use of the park units by supplying 

appropriate visitor services and infrastructure (e.g., roads and facilities) to 

support these services. In addition, the Park Service protects its natural 

and cultural resources (e.g., preserving wildlife habitat and Native 

American sites) so that they will be unimpaired for the enjoyment of future 

generations.

The Park Service receives its main source of funds to operate park units 

through appropriations in the ONPS account. The Park Service chooses to

allocate funds to its park units in two categories—one for daily operations, 

and another for specific, non-recurring projects. Daily operations 

allocations for individual park units are built on park units’ allocation for 

the prior year. Park units receive an increased allocation for required pay 

increases and may request specific increases for new or higher levels of 

ongoing operating responsibilities, such as adding additional law 

enforcement rangers for increased homeland security protection. As is 

true for other government operations, the cost of operating park units will 

increase each year due to required pay increases, the rising costs of 

benefits for federal employees, and rising overhead expenses such as 

utilities. The Park Service may provide additional allocations for daily 

operations to cover all or part of these cost increases. If the continuation 

of operations at the previous year’s level would require more funds than 

are available, park units must adjust either by identifying efficiencies 

Background 

 4

These include (1) national parks, such as Yellowstone in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming;

Yosemite in California; and Grand Canyon in Arizona; (2) national historic parks, such as

Harper’s Ferry in Maryland, Virginia, and West Virginia; and Valley Forge in Pennsylvania; 

(3) national battlefields, such as Antietam in Maryland; (4) national historic sites such as

Ford’s Theatre in Washington, D.C.; and Carl Sandburg’s home in North Carolina; (5)

national monuments, such as Fort Sumter in South Carolina and the Statue of Liberty in

New York and New Jersey; (6) national preserves, such as Yukon-Charley Rivers in Alaska; 

and (7) national recreation areas, such as Lake Mead in Arizona and Nevada. 

Page 5 GAO-06-631T 
within the park unit, use other authorized funding sources such as fees or

donations to fund the activity, or reduce services. Upon receiving their 

allocations for daily operations each year, park unit managers exercise a 

great deal of discretion in setting operational priorities. Generally, 80 

percent or more of each park unit’s allocation for daily operations is used 

to pay the salaries and benefits of permanent employees (personnel costs). 

Park units use the remainder of their allocations for daily operations for 

overhead expenses such as utilities, supplies, and training, among other 

things. 

In addition to daily operations funding, the Park Service also allocates 

project-related funding to park units for specific purposes to support its 

mission. For example, activities completed with Cyclic Maintenance and 

Repair and Rehabilitation funds include re-roofing or re-painting buildings, 

overhauling engines, refinishing hardwood floors, replacing sewer lines, 

repairing building foundations, and rehabilitating campgrounds and trails. 

Park units compete for project allocations by submitting requests to their 

respective regional office and headquarters. Regional and headquarters 

officials determine which projects to fund. While an individual park unit 

may receive funding for several projects in one year, it may receive none 

the next. 

Park units are authorized to collect revenue from outside sources such as 

visitor fees and donations—although how they are used may be limited to

specific purposes. Since 1996, the Congress has provided the park units 

with authority to collect fees from visitors and retain these funds for use 

on projects to enhance recreation and visitor enjoyment, among other 

things.5

 Since 2002, the Park Service has required park units to spend the 

majority of their visitor fees on deferred maintenance projects, such as 

road or building repair. The Park Service also receives revenue from 

concessionaires under contract to perform services at park units—such as 

operating a lodge—and cash or non-monetary donations from non-profit 

 5

During the period of this review, the Park Service collected fees, referred to as “offsetting 

collections,” under the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program authorized by Pub. L. No. 

104-134, as amended, which stipulated that uses for these funds include backlogged repair 

and maintenance projects, interpretation, signage, habitat or facility enhancement, 

resource preservation, annual operation (including fee collection), maintenance, and law 

enforcement relating to public use. Under this program at least 80 percent of the fees were

retained by a park unit and 20 percent went to a central fund managed by the Park Service. 

Under current legislation (the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act, Pub. L. No. 108-

447, enacted December 8, 2004), park units are allowed to collect and use visitor fees in a 

generally similar fashion. 

Page 6 GAO-06-631T 
organizations or individuals. These funds may vary from year to year and, 

in the case of donations, may be accompanied by stipulations on how the 

funds may be used. 

Overall appropriations for the ONPS account—including the amounts the 

Park Service allocated for daily operations and projects—rose in both 

nominal and inflation-adjusted dollars overall from fiscal year 2001 

through 2005. Appropriations increased in nominal terms from about $1.4 

billion in fiscal year 2001 to almost $1.7 billion in fiscal year 2005, an 

average annual increase of about 4.9 percent (i.e., about $68 million per 

year). After adjusting these amounts for inflation, the average annual 

increase was about 1.3 percent or almost $18 million per year. By contrast, 

the Park Service’s overall budget authority increased to about $2.7 billion 

in 2005 from about $2.6 billion in 2001, an average increase of about 1 

percent per year. In inflation adjusted dollars, the total budget authority 

fell by an average of about 2.5 percent per year. Figure 1 shows the 

appropriations for the ONPS account from fiscal years 2001 through 2005.

Appropriations for the 

Operation of the 

National Park System 

Account Increased 

Overall from Fiscal 

Year 2001 to 2005; 

When Adjusted for 

Inflation, the Total 

Allocation for Daily 

Operations Declined 

Overall and the Total 

Allocation for 

Projects Increased 

Overall 

Page 7 GAO-06-631T 
Figure 1: Appropriations for the ONPS Account from Fiscal Years 2001 through 

2005 

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Dollars in millions

Fiscal year

Nominal

Real (2001)

Source: GAO analysis of Park Service data.

1,393

1,486

1,564 1,620

1,689

1,393

1,439

1,474 1,464

1,466

Note: Totals for ONPS do not include Park Service spending authority for offsetting collections, in 

nominal terms, of $17 million in fiscal year 2001, $18 million in fiscal year 2002, $17 million in fiscal 

year 2003, $21 million in fiscal year 2004, and $21 million in fiscal year 2005. These offsetting 

collections are reimbursements from other federal or state entities that are credited to this account. 

Visitor fee revenues are deposited in a separate account. 

The Park Service’s total allocation for daily operations for park units 

increased overall in nominal dollars but declined slightly when adjusted 

for inflation from fiscal year 2001 through 2005. As illustrated in figure 2,

overall allocations for daily operations for park units rose from about $903 

million in fiscal year 2001 to almost $1.03 billion in fiscal year 2005—an

average annual increase of about $30 million, or about 3 percent. After 

adjusting for inflation, the allocation for daily operations fell slightly from 

about $903 million in 2001 to about $893 million in 2005—an average 

annual decline of about $2.5 million, or 0.3 percent. The fiscal year 2005 

appropriation for the ONPS account included an additional $37.5 million 

over the amounts proposed by the House and Senate for the ONPS 

account, to be used for daily operations. The conference report 

accompanying the appropriation stated that the additional amount was to 

Page 8 GAO-06-631T 
be used for (1) a service-wide increase of $25 million and (2) $12.5 million 

for visitor services programs at specific park units. 

Figure 2: Overall Allocations for Daily Operations for Park Units from Fiscal Years 

2001 through 2005

Note: Overall allocations for daily operations include amounts for park units only, and do not include 

allocations for the national trail system, other field offices, and affiliated areas. 

Allocations for projects and other support programs increased overall in

both nominal and inflation-adjusted dollars.6

 These allocations rose from 

about $478 million in 2001 to about $641 million in 2005—an average 

annual increase of about 7.7 percent, or about $36.5 million. When 

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Dollars in millions

Fiscal year

Nominal

Real (2001)

Source: GAO analysis of Park Service data.

903 910 906 875 893

903 940 962 968

1,029

 6

Projects and other support programs include allocations from the ONPS account other 

than allocations for daily operations. It includes overall funding for numerous projectrelated sources such as Cyclic Maintenance, Repair and Rehabilitation and other support 

programs such as allocations for central offices (seven regional offices and the 

headquarters office), field resource centers, and other external administrative costs such as

telecommunications and unemployment compensation payments. 

Page 9 GAO-06-631T 
adjusted for inflation, the increase was 3.9 percent, or about $18.7 million 

per year. Figure 3 shows allocation trends of projects and other support 

programs for the Park Service from fiscal years 2001 through 2005. Three 

programs that include project funding for individual park units—Cyclic 

Maintenance, Repair and Rehabilitation, and Inventory and Monitoring—

account for over half of the increase for the project and support program 

allocations. As a percentage of total project and support program funding, 

funding for these programs rose to 31 percent in 2005 from 23 percent in 

2001. For example, Cyclic Maintenance program funding increased from 

$34.5 million in 2001 to $62.8 million in 2005—an average annual increase 

of 16.2 percent in nominal terms or 12.1 percent when adjusted for 

inflation. Increases in the Cyclic Maintenance and Repair and 

Rehabilitation programs reflect an emphasis on the effort for the Park 

Service to reduce its estimated $5 billion maintenance backlog. Increases 

in the Inventory and Monitoring Program reflect an emphasis on 

protecting natural resources primarily through an initiative called the 

Natural Resource Challenge.7

 7

From 2001 through 2005, the Park Service allocated a total of about $62 million to Natural 

Resource Challenge related-programs from its ONPS lump-sum appropriation, the majority

of which was project-related funding. 

Page 10 GAO-06-631T 
Figure 3: Project and Other Support Program Allocations from Fiscal Years 2001 

through 2005 

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Dollars in millions

Fiscal year

Nominal

Real (2001)

Source: GAO analysis of Park Service data.

478

514

554

575 557 478

531

588

636 641

Visitor fees are also used to support park units. Overall, the Park Service 

collected about $717 million in visitor fees in addition to their annual 

appropriation for operations from 2001 through 2005, increasing from 

about $140 million to about $147 million in 2005 (an average annual 

increase of about 1 percent); however, in inflation-adjusted dollars, the 

Park Service collected about $670 million in visitor fees, falling from about 

$140 million in 2001 to about $127 million 2005 (an average annual decline 

of over 2 percent). Overall, the Park Service collected an average of about 

$143 million per year in nominal terms or about $134 million per year 

when adjusted for inflation. Visitor fee revenue depends on several 

factors, including the number of visitors to each park unit, the number of 

national passes purchased, and the amount each park charges for entry 

and services. 

Page 11 GAO-06-631T 
All 12 park units we visited received allocations for projects from fiscal 

years 2001 through 2005 that varied among years and among park units. 

Allocations for daily operations for the 12 park units we visited also 

varied. On an average annual basis, each unit experienced an increase in 

daily operations allocations, but most experienced a decline in inflationadjusted terms. Officials at each park believed that their daily operations

allocations were not sufficient to address increases in operating costs and 

new Park Service management requirements. To manage within available

funding resources, park unit managers also reported that, to varying 

degrees, they made trade-offs among the operational activities—which in 

some cases resulted in reducing services in areas such as education, 

visitor and resource protection, and maintenance activities. Park officials 

also reported that they increasingly relied on volunteers and other 

authorized funding sources to provide operations and services that were 

previously paid with allocations for daily operations from the ONPS 

account. 

Park units use project-related allocations for such things as rehabilitating 

structures, roads, and trails; and inventorying and monitoring natural 

resources. The allocations for projects at the 12 park units totaled $76.8

million from 2001 through 2005. Allocations varied from park to park and 

year to year because these allocations support non-recurring projects for 

which park units are required to compete and obtain approval from Park 

Service headquarters or regional offices. For example, at Grand Canyon 

National Park, allocations for projects between 2001 and 2005 totaled $6.7 

million. However, during that time, the amount fluctuated from $824,000 in

2001 to $1.9 million in 2004 and $914,000 in 2005. Appendix I shows 

project-related allocations and their fluctuations from fiscal years 2001

through 2005 for the 12 parks we visited. 

All twelve park units experienced an annual average increase, in nominal 

terms, in allocations for daily operations; however, when adjusted for 

inflation, 8 of the 12 parks we visited experienced a decline ranging from 

less than 1 percent to approximately 3 percent. For example, Yosemite 

National Park’s daily operations allocations increased from $22,583,000 in

2001 to $22,714,000 in 2005, less than an average of 1 percent per year. 

However, when adjusted for inflation, the park’s allocation for daily 

operations fell by about 3 percent per year. Daily operations allocations at

the remaining four parks increased after adjusting for inflation, ranging 

from less than 1 percent to about 7 percent. For example, Acadia National 

Park’s daily operations allocations increased from $4,279,000 in fiscal year 

2001 to $6,498,000 in fiscal year 2005, an average annual increase of about 

11 percent in nominal terms and about 7 percent when adjusted for 

Allocation Trends for 

Projects and Daily 

Operations at 12 HighVisitation Park Units 

Varied, but All 12 

Parks Reported 

Reduced Services and 

an Increasing 

Reliance on Other 

Authorized Sources to 

Supplement Daily 

Operations 

Allocations 

Page 12 GAO-06-631T 
inflation. Park officials explained that although the daily operations 

allocation substantially increased over this period, most of the increase 

was for new or additional operations. To illustrate, in 2002, Acadia 

acquired the former Schoodic Naval Base. The increases in allocations for 

daily operations were to accommodate this added responsibility rather 

than for maintaining operations that were in existence prior to the 

acquisition.

Park unit officials reported that required salary increases exceeded the

allocation for daily operations, and rising utility costs have reduced their 

flexibility in managing daily operations allocations. Park Service 

headquarters officials reported that from 2001 through 2005, the Park 

Service paid personnel cost increases enacted by the Congress. For 

example, from fiscal years 2001 through 2005, Congress enacted salary 

increases of about 4 percent per year for federal employees.8

 Park Service 

officials reported that the Park Service covered these salary increases with 

appropriations provided in the ONPS account. The Park Service allocated

amounts to cover about half of the required increases, and park units had 

to reduce spending to compensate for the difference. As a consequence of

the increases, park units had to eliminate or defer spending in order to 

accommodate the increases. Officials at several park units told us that 

since 2001, they have refrained from filling vacant positions or have filled 

them with lower-graded or seasonal employees. For example, in an effort 

to continue to perform activities that directly impact visitors—such as 

cleaning restrooms and answering visitor questions—officials at Sequoia 

and Kings Canyon National Parks stated that they left several high-graded 

positions unfilled in order to hire a lower graded workforce to perform 

these basic operational duties. Officials at most park units also told us that 

when positions were left vacant, the responsibilities of the remaining staff 

generally increased in order to fulfill park obligations. 

In addition to increasing personnel costs, officials at many of the parks we 

visited explained that rising utility costs caused parks to reduce spending 

in other areas. For example, at Grand Teton National Park, park officials 

told us that to operate the same number of facilities and assets, costs for 

fuel, electricity, and solid waste removal increased from $435,010 in 2003

to $633,201 in 2005—an increase of 46 percent, when adjusted for 

 8

As reported on pages 8 and 9, appropriations for the ONPS account increased from about

$1.4 billion in fiscal year 2001 to almost $1.7 billion in fiscal year 2005, an average annual 

increase of about 4.9 percent. 

Page 13 GAO-06-631T 
inflation. Officials told us that, as a result, their utility budget for fiscal 

year 2005 was spent by June 2005—three months early. In August, the park

accepted the transfer requests of two division chiefs and used the salaries

from these vacancies to pay for utility costs for the remaining portion of 

the year. Officials at some parks attributed increased utility costs to new 

construction that was generally not accompanied with a corresponding 

increase to their allocation for daily operations. 

Officials at most of the parks we visited also told us that their park units 

generally did not receive additional allocations for administering new Park 

Service policies directed at reducing its maintenance backlog, 

implementing a new asset management strategy, or maintaining specified

levels of law enforcement personnel (referred to as its “no-net-loss 

policy”), which has reduced their flexibility in addressing other park 

priorities. While officials stated that these policies were important, 

implementing them without additional allocations reduced their 

management flexibility. For example, since 2001, the Park Service has 

placed a high priority on reducing its currently estimated $5 billion 

maintenance backlog. In response, the Park Service, among other things,

set a goal to spend the majority of its visitor fees on deferred maintenance 

projects—$75 million in 2002 increasing to $95 million in 2005.9

 Officials at 

several park units report that they have used daily operations allocations 

to absorb the cost of salaries for permanent staff needed to oversee the 

increasing number of visitor fee-funded projects. Park officials reported 

that the additional administrative and supervisory tasks associated with 

these projects add to the workload of an already-reduced permanent staff. 

Furthermore, while the Park Service may use visitor fees to pay salaries 

for permanent staff that manage and administer projects funded with 

visitor fees, it has a policy prohibiting such use. Instead, these salaries are 

paid using allocations for daily operations which reduce the amount of the 

allocation available for visitor services and other activities and limit the 

park units’ ability to maintain these services and activities. 

To address differences between allocations for daily operations and 

expenses, officials at the park units we visited reported that they reduced 

or eliminated some services paid with daily operations allocations—

including some that directly affected visitors and park resources. Park 

 9

In both 2001 and 2005, visitor fee spending goals for deferred maintenance were not met. 

In fiscal year 2001, the amount of visitor fees obligated for deferred maintenance was $61

million. In fiscal year 2005, the amount was $73.1 million. 

Page 14 GAO-06-631T 
officials at some of the parks we visited told us that before reducing 

services that directly affect the visitor, they first reduced spending for 

training, equipment, travel, and supplies paid from daily operations 

allocations.10 However, most parks reported that they did reduce services 

that directly affect the visitor, including reducing visitor center hours, 

educational programs, basic custodial duties, and law enforcement 

operations, such as back-country patrolling. Furthermore, when funds 

allocated for daily operations were not sufficient to pay for activities that 

were previously paid with this source, the park units we visited reported 

that they deferred activities or relied on other authorized funding sources 

such as allocations for projects, visitor fees, donations from cooperating 

associations and friends groups, and concessions fees. From 2001 to 2005, 

some parks delayed performing certain preventative maintenance 

activities formerly paid with allocations for daily operations until other 

authorized funding sources, such as project funds (including funds for 

cyclic maintenance, repair and rehabilitation, and visitor fees) could be 

found and approved. 

Rather than eliminating or not performing daily operational activities, 

some parks used volunteers and funding from authorized sources such as 

donations from non-profit partners and concessionaires’ fees to 

accomplish activities that were formerly paid with daily operations funds. 

Officials at several park units said that they increasingly depend on 

donations from cooperating associations to pay for training and equipment 

and rely on their staff and volunteers to provide information and 

educational programs to visitors that were traditionally offered by park 

rangers. Funds from these sources can be significant, but they are subject 

to change from year to year. Officials at several park units expressed 

concern about using funding from other authorized sources to address 

needs—not only because the funds can vary from year to year, but also 

because these partners’ stipulations on how their donations can be used 

may differ from the parks’ priorities. As a result, relying on these sources 

 10While these reductions do not directly affect a visitor’s experience, they also may hinder 

the park’s ability to carry out operational duties. For example, officials at several park units

explained that equipment, such as maintenance trucks, were old and in need of

replacement. For several of the park units, certain divisions’ personnel costs account for

such a large percentage of their allocation for daily operations that reductions in other 

areas are not an option. At Grand Canyon National Park, for instance, the interpretive

division had approximately $75,000 available in their allocation for daily operations in 2001

to pay for non-personnel costs such as travel and supplies. By 2005, approximately 99 

percent of the division’s allocation for daily operations was spent on personnel, relying on

other authorized funding sources to make up the difference. 

Page 15 GAO-06-631T 
for programs that require a long term funding commitment could be 

problematic. 

We identified three management initiatives that the Park Service has 

undertaken to address the fiscal performance and accountability of park 

units and to better manage within their available resources: the Business 

Plan Initiative (BPI), the Core Operations Analysis (COA), and the Park 

Scorecard. Each initiative operates separately and is at various stages of 

development and implementation. Table 2 in appendix II summarizes each 

of the three initiatives and their stages of implementation. 

Through the BPI process, park unit staff—with the help of business interns 

from the Student Conservation Association—identify all sources and uses

of park funds to determine funding levels needed to operate and manage 

park units.11 Using this information, park unit managers develop a 5-year 

business plan to address any gaps between available funds and park unit 

operational and maintenance needs. The process used in the BPI involves

6 steps, completed over an 11-week period. Park staff and the business 

interns (1) identify the park unit’s mission; (2) conduct an inventory of 

park assets; (3) analyze park funding trends; (4) identify sources and uses

of park funding; (5) analyze park operations and maintenance needs; and

(6) develop a strategic business plan to address gaps between funds and 

park needs. All 12 of the park units we visited have completed a business 

plan.12 Many officials—both at the unit level and headquarters—stated that 

business plans are, among other things, useful in helping them identify 

future budget needs. Once completed, park managers often issue a press 

release to announce its completion. Park managers may also send copies 

to their legislators, local community councils, and park partners (such as 

cooperating associations) to communicate the results. A Park Service 

official stated, however, that the Park Service is still refining these 

business plans to serve as a better tool for justifying funding needs. 

The Park Service Has 

Undertaken Three 

Management 

Initiatives to Address 

Fiscal Performance 

and Accountability of 

Park Units 

 11The Student Conservation Association provides high school and college students (among 

others) with conservation service internships and volunteer opportunities in the National

Parks, National Forests, and other public lands. 

12Park Service officials said that 2 out of the 12 parks we visited (Grand Canyon and

Yosemite National Parks) completed a BPI through contracting external consultants on 

their own. 

Page 16 GAO-06-631T 
The COA was developed in 2004 to help park managers evaluate their park

unit’s core mission, identify essential park unit activities and associated

funding levels, and make fully informed decisions on staffing and funding.

The COA is part of a broader Park Service-wide effort to integrate 

management tools to improve park efficiency. Park Service headquarters,

regional officials, and park unit staffs work together in a step-by-step 

process to conduct the analysis. These steps include preparing a 5-year 

budget cost projection (BCP) to establish baseline financial information 

and help project future park needs, defining core elements of the park 

unit’s mission, identifying park priorities, reviewing and analyzing 

activities and associated staff resources, and identifying efficiencies. 

Budget staff for each park unit first complete a 5-year BCP that uses the 

current year’s funding level for daily operations as a baseline, and 

estimates future levels, increases in non-personnel costs, and fixed costs 

such as salaries and benefits. The general target of the analysis is to adjust 

personal services and fixed costs at or below 80 percent of the unit’s 

funding levels for daily operations. Three of the twelve park units we 

visited have completed (or are in the process of completing) a COA, and 

three will begin the COA in fiscal year 2006. The remaining six park units 

we visited have yet to be selected. Park unit officials told us that the 

preliminary results have helped them determine where efficiencies in 

operations might accrue. A Park Service regional official told us that the

core operations process is still in its early development, noting that 

preliminary results are useful but too early to determine results to be 

realized by the park units. 

Park Service headquarters developed the Park Scorecard beginning in 

fiscal year 2004 to serve as an indicator of each park unit’s fiscal and

operational condition, and managerial performance. The scorecard is 

intended to provide an overarching summary of each park unit’s condition

by offering a way to analyze individual park unit needs. It also provides 

Park Service officials with information needed to understand how park 

units compare to one another based on broad financial, -organizational, -

recreational, -and resource-management criteria. Although the Park 

Scorecard is still under development, the Park Service’s headquarters 

budget office used it to validate and approve requests for increases in daily 

operations allocations for the highest priorities among park units to be 

funded out of a total of $12.5 million that was provided in 2005 for daily 

operations directed at visitor service programs. The Park Service 

approved requests for funding at 3 out of the 12 parks we visited 

(Badlands National Park, Grand Teton National Park, and Yellowstone 

National Park). Park Service headquarters officials, with the assistance 

and input of park unit managers, plan on refining the Park Scorecard to 

Page 17 GAO-06-631T 
more accurately capture all appropriate park measurements and to 

identify, evaluate, and support future budget increases for park units. The 

Park Service also intends for park managers to use the Park Scorecard to 

facilitate discussions about their needs and priorities. 

In closing, we have found that overall, from 2001 through 2004, the Park 

Service increased allocations for support programs and project funding 

while placing less of an emphasis on funds for daily operations. In fiscal 

year 2005, this trend shifted, and as evidenced by our visits to 12 park 

units, appears to be going in the direction needed to help the units 

overcome some of the difficulties they have recently experienced in 

meeting operational needs. In responding to these trends, park unit 

officials found ways to reduce spending on their allocations for daily 

operations and to identify and use authorized sources other than these 

allocations to minimize some impacts on park operations and visitor 

services. While park units are relying more on other sources to perform 

operations, using such funds has its drawbacks because it usually takes 

parks longer, with more effort from park employees to obtain and use 

these sources. Visitor fees have been an important and significant source 

of funds for park units to address high priority needs such as reducing its 

maintenance backlog. However, Park Service policy prohibiting the use of

visitor fees to pay salaries of permanent employees managing projects may 

reduce the flexibility in managing the use of funding for daily operations. 

While the Park Service is embarking upon three management initiatives 

that they believe will improve park performance and accountability, and 

better manage within available resources, it is too early to assess the 

effectiveness of these initiatives. 

To reduce some of the pressure on funding for daily operations, we 

recommended that the Secretary of the Interior direct the Director of the 

Park Service to revise its policy to allow park units to use visitor fee 

revenue to pay the cost of permanent employees administering projects 

funded by visitor fees to the extent authorized by law. In commenting on a 

draft of our report, the department generally agreed with the 

recommendation, but stated that it should clearly state that visitor fee 

revenue (and not other sources) be used to fund only a limited number of 

permanent employees and be specifically defined for the sole purpose of 

executing projects funded from fee revenue. We believe our 

recommendation, as written, gives the agency the flexibility sought. The 

department also said that our report creates a misleading impression 

concerning the state of park operations in that (1) record high levels of 

funds are being invested to staff and improve parks, and (2) the report 

GAO 

Recommendation and 

Agency Response 

Page 18 GAO-06-631T 
does not examine the results achieved with these inputs. The department 

also believes that while employment levels at individual park units may 

have fluctuated for many reasons, employment servicewide, including 

both seasonal and permanent employees, was stable. We believe however, 

that our report provides a detailed analysis of the major funding trends 

affecting Park Service operations, including those at the 12 high-visitation 

park units we visited, as well as the department’s initiatives and efforts to 

achieve results. 

This concludes our statement for the record. 

For further information on this statement, please contact Robin Nazzaro at 

(202) 512-3841 or nazzaror@gao.gov. Individuals making contributions to 

this testimony included Roy Judy, Assistant Director; Thomas Armstrong, 

Ulana Bihun, Denise Fantone, Doreen Feldman, Tim Guinane, Richard 

Johnson, Alison O’Neill, and Patrick Sigl. 

GAO Contact and 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

Page 19 GAO-06-631T 
Page 20 GAO-06-631T 

Appendix I: Project Allocations for 12 

Selected Park Units, Fiscal Years 2001 

through 2005 

Table 1: Project Allocations for 12 Selected Park Units, Fiscal Years 2001 through 2005 (dollars in thousands) 

Fiscal years 

Park unit 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Total

Acadia NP Nominal $385 $772 $699 $1,237 $481 $3,574

Inflation-adjusted 385 747 659 1,119 417 3,327

Badlands NP Nominal 217 130 689 647 1,394 3,077

Inflation-adjusted 217 126 649 585 1,210 2,787

Bryce Canyon NP Nominal 531 365 357 433 402 2,088

Inflation-adjusted 531 353 336 391 349 1,943

Gettysburg NMP Nominal 7,551 638 753 1,296 1,324 11,562

Inflation-adjusted 7,551 618 709 1,172 1,150 11,200

Grand Canyon NP Nominal 824 1,550 1,173 2,125 1,053 6,725

Inflation-adjusted 824 1,500 1,106 1,922 914 6,266

Grand Teton NP Nominal 861 423 1,327 1,233 2,070 5,914

Inflation-adjusted 861 409 1,250 1,115 1,797 5,432

Mount Rushmore NMem Nominal 271 118 113 146 696 1,344

Inflation-adjusted 271 114 107 132 604 1,228

Shenandoah NP Nominal 1,409 781 647 862 2,393 6,092

Inflation-adjusted 1,409 756 610 779 2,078 5,632

Sequoia and Kings Canyon NP Nominal 2,038 2,859 3,364 2,927 2,760 13,948

Inflation-adjusted 2,038 2,768 3,171 2,647 2,396 13,020

Yellowstone NP Nominal 43 4 9 12 3,128 3,196

Inflation-adjusted 43 4 8 11 2,716 2,782

Yosemite NP Nominal 3,620 2,718 4,034 3,532 3,778 17,682

Inflation-adjusted 3,620 2,631 3,802 3,194 3,280 16,527
Fiscal years 

Park unit 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Total

Zion NP Nominal 0 103 310 195 1,000 1,608

Inflation-adjusted 0 100 292 176 868 1,436

Legend 

NP=National Park 

NMP=National Military Park 

NMem=National Memorial 

Source: GAO analysis of Park Service data. 

Page 21 GAO-06-631T 
Page 22 GAO-06-631T 

Appendix II: Park Service Management 

Initiatives to Address Park Units’ Fiscal 

Performance and Accountability 

Table 2: Park Service Management Initiatives to Address Park Units’ Fiscal Performance and Accountability 

Management initiative Description Development and implementation

Business Plan Initiative (BPI) Park managers, with the help of 

business interns, identify all sources

and uses of park funding and 

operational requirements to 

determine levels needed to operate 

and manage their park. From this, a

plan is developed to address any 

gaps between available funds and 

park unit needs. 

Park Service headquarters and regional offices

seek voluntary participation in the BPI process

First BPI was prepared in 1997 by Yellowstone 

National Park 

About 12 parks units participate in a BPI every 

year 

As of January 2006, 25 percent of all park units

have participated 

Core Operations Analysis (COA) A step-by-step process where park 

unit, regional, and headquarters

officials evaluate the park unit’s

core mission and identify essential 

park unit activities and associated 

funding needs. 

Developed in 2004 

The Park Service intends to have all park units

complete a COA by 2011 

To achieve this goal, the Park Service will select 

50 park units per year to participate 

Park Scorecard Headquarters officials use a series

of indicators to compare each park 

unit’s fiscal and operational 

condition, and managerial 

performance. 

Park Scorecard is in the development stage 

Used to justify park units’ budget increases for 

daily operations in 2005 

To be used to support and evaluate park 

operations in the future 

Source: GAO analysis of Park Service data. 

(360696) 
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately. 
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go 

to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.” 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER