a

GAO

United States Government Accountability Office

Report to Congressional Requesters

March 2006 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
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

March 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-06-431, a report to 

congressional requesters 

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. 

GAO was asked to identify (1) 

funding trends for Park Service 

operations and visitor fees for 

fiscal years 2001-2005; (2) specific 

funding trends for 12 selected high

visitation 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. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that Interior 

allow park units to use visitor fee 

revenues to pay the costs of

permanent employees 

administering projects funded by 

visitor fees.

In commenting on the draft report, 

Interior suggested the

recommendation be modified to

dictate that visitor fee revenue be

used to fund only a limited number

of employees and to specific

projects. GAO believes its 

recommendation, as written, 

provides the latitude sought.

Interior also commented that it

believes the report creates a 

misleading impression of the state

of park operations. 

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 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 that 

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 we visited with a business plan, 

officials stated that the plans, 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-06-431. 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. 
Page i GAO-06-431 Operating Condition of the National Parks

Contents

Letter 1

Results in Brief 4

Background 8

Appropriations for the Operation of the National Park System 

Account Increased Overall from Fiscal Years 2001 to 2005; the 

Total Allocation for Daily Operations Declined Overall and the 

Total Allocation for Projects Increased Overall When Adjusted 

For Inflation 12

Allocation Trends for Projects and Daily Operations at 12 

High-Visitation Park Units Varied, but All 12 Parks Reported 

Reduced Services and an Increasing Reliance on Other 

Authorized Sources to Supplement Daily Operations

Allocations 22

The Park Service Has Undertaken Three Management Initiatives to 

Address Fiscal Performance and Accountability of Park Units 40

Conclusions 44

Recommendation for Executive Action 45

Agency Comments and Our Response 45

Appendixes

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 51

Appendix II: Operation of the National Park System Account and Visitor 

Fee Revenue, Fiscal Years 2001 through 2005 55

Appendix III: Summary of Funding and Personnel Trends for 12 Selected 

Park Units 57

Appendix IV: Recreation Visitation Trends for the Park Service and 12 

Selected Park Units, Fiscal Years 2001 through 2005 82

Appendix V: Comments from the Department of the Interior 83

GAO Comments 92

Appendix VI: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 96

Related GAO Products 97
Contents

Page ii GAO-06-431 Operating Condition of the National Parks

Tables Table 1: Number and Percentage of Park Units with Overall 

Declines or Increases in Allocations for Daily Operations 

when Adjusted for Inflation Based on Average Recreation 

Visits from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2005 17

Table 2: Allocations for Cyclic Maintenance, Repair and 

Rehabilitation, and Inventory and Monitoring Programs 

from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2005 19

Table 3: Project Allocations for 12 Selected Park Units, Fiscal Years 

2001 through 2005 23

Table 4: Daily Operations Allocations at Selected Park Units from 

Fiscal Years 2001 through 2005 in Nominal Dollars 25

Table 5: Daily Operations Allocations at Selected Parks Units from 

Fiscal Years 2001 through 2005 in Inflation-Adjusted 

Dollars 26

Table 6: Average Annual Change in Personnel Expenditures and 

Personnel Funded with Allocations from Daily Operations 

from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2005 in Inflation-Adjusted 

Dollars 28

Table 7: Percentage of Allocations for Daily Operations Spent on 

Personnel from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2005 29

Table 8: Other Funding Source Amounts from Fiscal Years 2001 

through 2005 in Nominal Dollars 37

Table 9: Park Service Management Initiatives to Address Park 

Units’ Fiscal Performance and Accountability 41

Table 10: Park Service Units that GAO Visited 53

Table 11: Operation of the National Park System Account and Visitor 

Fee Revenue, in Nominal Dollars, Fiscal Years 2001 

through 2005 55

Table 12: Operation of the National Park System Account and Visitor 

Fee Revenue, in Inflation-Adjusted Dollars, Fiscal Years 

2001 through 2005 56

Table 13: Total Personnel Expenditures at 12 Selected Park Units, in 

Nominal Dollars, Fiscal Years 2001 through 2005 57

Table 14: Total Personnel Expenditures at 12 Selected Park Units, in 

Inflation-Adjusted Dollars, Fiscal Years 2001 through

2005 58

Table 15: Personnel (Full Time Equivalent) by Funding Source at 12 

Selected Park Units, Fiscal Years 2001 through 2005 60

Table 16: Employee Numbers and Nominal Personnel Costs Per 

Retirement System at 12 Selected Park Units, Fiscal Years 

2001 through 2005 64
Contents

Page iii GAO-06-431 Operating Condition of the National Parks

Table 17: Employee Numbers and Inflation-Adjusted Personnel 

Costs Per Retirement System at 12 Selected Park Units, 

Fiscal Years 2001 through 2005 70

Table 18: Other Authorized Funding Source Amounts for 12 Selected 

Park Units, in Nominal Dollars, Fiscal Years 2001 through 

2005 76

Table 19: Other Authorized Funding Source Amounts for 12 Selected 

Park Units, in Inflation-Adjusted Dollars, Fiscal Years 2001 

through 2005 79

Table 20: Recreation Visitation Trends for the Park Service and 12 

Selected Park Units, Fiscal Years 2001 through 2005 82

Figures Figure 1: Principal Operations Funding Sources for National Park 

Units 11

Figure 2: Appropriations for the Operation of the National Park 

System Account from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2005 13

Figure 3: Overall Allocations for Daily Operations for Park Units 

from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2005 14

Figure 4: Number of Park Units for Different Average Annual 

Percent Changes in Inflation-Adjusted Terms in 

Allocations for Daily Operations from Fiscal Years 2001 

through 2005 16

Figure 5: Project and Other Support Program Allocations from 

Fiscal Years 2001 through 2005 18

Figure 6: Park Service Allocations for Daily Operations as a 

Percent of the Operation of the National Park System 

Account from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2005 20

Figure 7: Park Service Visitor Fee Revenue from Fiscal Years 2001 

through 2005 21
Contents

Page iv GAO-06-431 Operating Condition of the National Parks

Abbreviations

BCP Budget Cost Projection

BPI Business Plan Initiative

COA Core Operations Analysis

CSRS Civil Service Retirement System

FERS Federal Employee Retirement System

FMSS Facility Maintenance Software System

FTE Full Time Equivalent

GDP Gross Domestic Product

ONPS Operation of the National Park System

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.
Page 1 GAO-06-431 Operating Condition of the National Parks

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

A

March 31, 2006 Letr

The Honorable Charles Taylor

Chairman, Subcommittee on Interior, Environment,

and Related Agencies

Committee on Appropriations

House of Representatives

The Honorable Norman Dicks

Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Interior, Environment,

and Related Agencies

Committee on Appropriations

House of Representatives

The National Park Service (Park Service) manages 390 park units covering 

over 84 million acres that provide recreational and educational 

opportunities—and numerous other benefits—to millions of visitors each 

year. From 2001 to 2005, park units averaged a total of about 274 million 

recreation visits per year. Visitors come to the park units to experience 

such features as grand waterfalls, mountain vistas, canyons and gorges, 

giant redwood trees, wildlife, historical landmarks such as Revolutionary 

and Civil War battlefields, Native American dwellings and artifacts, and 

memorials honoring veterans. Within its mandate to conserve park 

resources and to provide for their enjoyment in a manner that leaves them 

unimpaired for future generations, the Park Service provides a variety of 

visitor services such as interpretative education films, guided tours, and 

information centers where visitors can learn about the unique features of 

the park units. 

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 

1

The Park Service has a separate 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 Fund, and Land Acquisition and State Assistance. However, they are not the 

subject of this report. 
Page 2 GAO-06-431 Operating Condition of the National Parks

things, 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 for 

specific, non-recurring projects. Park managers use funding for daily 

operations to pay for visitor and resource protection, interpretation and 

education, and facilities operations, among other things. About eighty 

percent or more of the park units’ daily operations funds 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 project-related portion provides funds for non-recurring 

projects such as replacing roofs on park facilities or rehabilitating 

campgrounds. Park managers generally use these project funds to pay 

temporary employees or contractors to complete these projects. 

In addition to providing the funding for daily operations and projects, the 

Congress has enacted legislation authorizing park units to collect visitor 

fees to provide additional funds to use for specified park operations. Visitor 

fees have been used, for example, to construct roadside exhibits and to 

rehabilitate boat launch facilities. The Park Service has recently set a goal 

to spend the majority of its visitor fees on reducing its estimated $5 billion 

deferred maintenance backlog. The Congress also authorizes the Park 

Service to receive revenues from other sources to assist it in performing its 

mission. These can include fees from concessionaires under contract to 

perform services at park units, such as operating a lodge, and cash or nonmonetary donations from non-profit organizations or individuals, among 

others. 

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 park units. They report problems such as 

dwindling 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. Some contend that 

other funds, such as donations, are being used to fund operational activities 

that they believe should be paid with funding for daily operations. 
Page 3 GAO-06-431 Operating Condition of the National Parks

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. 

To gain a better understanding of funding issues and their effects on the 

park units, you asked us to identify (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. We analyzed the data in both nominal 

(actual) and real (adjusted for inflation) terms.2

 A “nominal dollar” is the 

value of a dollar in the prices of the current year, or for purposes of this 

analysis, the year in which a dollar is appropriated. A “real dollar” is a 

dollar that has been adjusted to remove the effects of inflation by dividing 

the nominal dollar by a price index. Appropriations are made in nominal, or 

current-year, dollars. The purpose of showing dollars in inflation-adjusted 

terms is to permit comparisons of purchasing power. 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 

nominal and real funding and cost data and interviewed park officials to 

determine allocation trends and their impact on operations (including 

visitor services). Our analysis represents our findings at these 12 parks 

units and the results may or may not be representative of the individual 

experiences of other park units or the experience of the National Park 

System as a whole. 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, 

2

We adjusted nominal dollars using the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) Price Index for 

Government Consumption Expenditures and Gross Investment (federal nondefense sector), 

with 2001 as the base year.
Page 4 GAO-06-431 Operating Condition of the National Parks

regional office, and individual park unit officials. We assessed the reliability 

of the data by reviewing the methods of data collection for relevant Park 

Service databases. We also sent uniform data requests to the 12 park units, 

provided uniform guidance, and interactively worked with park officials to 

compile the data. We determined that the data are sufficiently reliable for 

the purposes of this report. A more detailed description of our scope and 

methodology is presented in appendix I. We performed our work from 

January 2005 to March 2006 in accordance with generally accepted 

government auditing standards.

Results in Brief Overall, amounts appropriated to the Park Service in the Operation of the 

National Park System 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 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 3 percent, but a slight decline of 0.3 percent when 

adjusted for inflation. The fiscal year 2005 appropriation for the Operation 

of the National Park System Account included an additional $37.5 million 

over the amounts proposed by the House and Senate for the Operation of 

the National Park System Account, to be used for daily operations. The 

conference report accompanying the appropriation stated that the 

additional amount was to be used for (1) a service-wide increase of $25 

million and (2) $12.5 million for visitor services programs at specific park 

units. Allocations for daily operations varied across parks. Allocations to 

212 of the 380 units fell in inflation-adjusted terms by an average of about 2 

percent annually while the other 168 remained level or increased. In 

allocating resources to park units, the Park Service increased funding for 

project-related activities at a higher rate than for park daily operations. 

Project-related allocations increased overall in both nominal and inflationadjusted dollars. Total project-related allocations rose from $478 million in 

2001 to $641 million in 2005, an average annual increase of about 8 percent, 

or about 4 percent in inflation-adjusted dollars. Three programs that 

provide 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. 
Page 5 GAO-06-431 Operating Condition of the National Parks

Increases in cyclic maintenance and repair and rehabilitation programs 

reflect an emphasis on the effort for the Park Service to reduce its 

estimated $5 billion deferred maintenance backlog. Increases in inventory 

and monitoring program reflect an emphasis to protect natural resources 

primarily through an initiative called the Natural Resource Challenge. 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. On an average annual basis, visitor fees 

collected increased about 1 percent, a 2 percent decline in inflationadjusted dollars.

All park units that we visited received project-related allocations between 

fiscal years 2001 through 2005 but for most park units the allocations for 

daily operations fell in inflation-adjusted terms. Allocations of projectrelated funds at the 12 high-visitation park units we visited varied from 

year-to-year. For example, at Grand Canyon National Park allocations 

increased (in nominal dollars) from $824,000 in 2001 to $1.9 million in 2004, 

and then declined to $914,000 in 2005. Although funds allocated for daily 

operations increased from 2001 through 2005 at all 12 park units we visited, 

8 of the 12 experienced a decline, and 4 experienced an increase, in daily 

operations allocations when adjusted for inflation. Park managers at all 12 

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 

reduced their management flexibility. As a result, park unit managers 

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; managers also increasingly relied on volunteers and other 

authorized funding sources to provide operations and services that were 

previously paid with allocations for daily operations. In commenting on a 

draft of this report, the Department of Interior said that the 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 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 
Page 6 GAO-06-431 Operating Condition of the National Parks

units we visited, as well as Interior’s initiatives and efforts to achieve 

results.

In an effort to reduce its estimated $5 billion maintenance backlog, the 

Park Service set a goal to spend a majority of its visitor fees on deferred 

maintenance projects. While the Park Service could 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 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. Park Service 

headquarters officials recognize the strain that its policy has had on daily 

operations funding. Park Service headquarters officials said that its policy 

was first established under the original visitor fee program because the 

authority was temporary and it did not want park units to hire more 

permanent staff than were needed. In addition, officials stated that it 

wanted visitor fees to go towards projects that provided visible results 

rather than permanent staff. However, given that Congress has recently 

provided longer-term authority (10 years) for collecting visitor fees, 

headquarters officials stated that they are considering changing this policy. 

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

would be appropriate for the Park Service to follow through with revising 

this policy. In commenting on a draft of this report, the Department of the 

Interior suggested the recommendation be modified to clearly dictate that 

fee revenues 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 revenues. We believe that the recommendation, as 

written, provides sufficient latitude for the department to define how to 

implement the recommendation.

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

policy requirements, parks reported that they either eliminated or reduced 

services, or relied on other authorized funding sources to pay operating 

expenses 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. Since personnel costs account for a 

large percentage of a park’s daily operations budget, officials told us they 

have refrained from filling vacant positions or have filled them with lowergraded or seasonal employees. Park officials also told us that they reduced 

services including, reducing visitor center hours, educational programs, 
Page 7 GAO-06-431 Operating Condition of the National Parks

basic custodial duties, and law enforcement operations, such as backcountry patrolling. Officials at park units also stated that they increasingly 

relied on volunteers and nonprofit partner organizations to provide 

information and educational programs to visitors; traditionally these 

activities were offered by park rangers. For example, at Badlands National 

Park, officials stated that approximately 65 percent of visitor contacts in 

2004 were provided by employees of the park’s nonprofit partner—the 

Badlands Natural History Association—compared to 45 percent in 2001. 

Park unit officials explained, however, that relying on volunteers and other 

authorized funding sources such as donations can be problematic because 

there is no guarantee that funds and staff from these sources will be 

available in the future, and partner priorities could change from year to 

year. 

We identified three management initiatives that the Park Service has 

undertaken to address fiscal performance and accountability and to better 

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

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

initiatives are in varying stages of development and implementation. 

Specifically:

• Through the BPI process, park unit managers—with the help of outside 

business interns—identify all sources and uses of park funding to 

determine levels needed to operate and manage their park units. Using 

this information, park unit managers develop a business plan to address 

any gaps between available funds and park unit needs. The Park Service 

does not require park units to participate, but about 25 percent of all 

park units have participated in the process. All 12 of the park units we 

visited have completed a business plan, and many officials stated that 

the plans are useful, by helping them better identify future budget needs. 

Park Service officials stated that they are still refining their processes 

for developing these plans. 

• The COA was developed in 2004 to assist park unit managers in 

identifying efficiencies for carrying out their core mission. Through a 

step-by-step process, park unit, regional, and headquarters officials 

evaluate the park unit’s core mission, and identify essential park unit 

activities and associated funding levels. Although the COA is in the early 

stages of development, the Park Service plans to have all units complete 

an analysis by the end of fiscal year 2011. Three of the 12 park units we 

visited have completed—or are in the process of completing—a COA. 

Park unit officials noted that the preliminary results have helped them 
Page 8 GAO-06-431 Operating Condition of the National Parks

better determine where efficiencies in operations might accrue, but it is 

too early to determine what benefits their park units will realize from 

the process. 

• Park Service headquarters developed the Park Scorecard in 2004 to 

provide an overarching summary of each park unit’s fiscal and 

operational condition and managerial performance. The Park Scorecard 

analyzes individual park units by comparing them to one another based 

on broad financial-, organizational-, recreational-, and resourcemanagement criteria. Although it is still being developed, the Park 

Service budget office stated that the Park Scorecard played a role in 

allocating the $12.5 million that the conference report accompanying the 

fiscal year 2005 ONPS Account had directed at visitor service programs. 

The Park Service plans to refine the Park Scorecard to better identify, 

evaluate, and support future budget increases for park units.

Background 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 in 49 states, the District of 

Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, Saipan, and the Virgin 

Islands. The Park Service manages its responsibilities through 

headquarters, seven regional offices, and its individual park units. These 

units include a diverse mix of sites—now in more than 20 different 

categories. These include (1) national parks, such as Yellowstone in Idaho, 

Montana, and Wyoming; Yosemite in California; and Grand Canyon in 

Arizona; (2) national historical 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. Some of these 

park units, such as Yellowstone, cover millions of acres and employ 

hundreds of employees. Other units, such as Ford’s Theatre which 

encompasses two historic structures, are small and have few employees.

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 
Page 9 GAO-06-431 Operating Condition of the National Parks

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. Due to the complexity of its mission, large 

land area, and the number and diversity of its park units, the Park Service 

faces many challenges—including a deteriorating infrastructure (due in 

part to an estimated $5 billion maintenance backlog), threats to preserving 

natural and cultural resources, and challenges to maintaining visitor 

services. Moreover, despite fiscal constraints facing all federal agencies, 

the number of park units continues to expand—12 units, mostly small 

units, have been authorized since fiscal year 2001.

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

through appropriations from the ONPS account. The Park Service chooses 

to allocate funds to its park units in two categories—allocations for daily 

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

operations allocation levels for individual park units are built on park units’ 

allocation level for the prior year. Park units receive an increased 

allocation for required pay increases and request specific increases for new 

or higher levels of ongoing operating responsibilities, such as adding 

additional law enforcement rangers for increased homeland security 

protection. Park Service headquarters takes the initiative in requesting the 

funding for all required employee pay increases on a service wide basis. 

However, for park-specific increases, once funding is appropriated, park 

units compete against one another through their regional office and 

headquarters for the available funds. 

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 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. Typically, these 

decisions involve trade-offs among four categories of spending: (1) visitor 

services (e.g., opening a campground or adding law enforcement staff), (2) 

resource management (e.g., monitoring the condition of threatened species 
Page 10 GAO-06-431 Operating Condition of the National Parks

or water quality), (3) maintenance needs (e.g., repairing a trail), and (4) 

park administration and support (e.g., updating computer systems or 

attending training). Generally, about 80 percent 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 may also receive revenue from outside sources such as visitor 

fees and donations—although there are often limitations on how these 

revenues may be used. 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.3

 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 

organizations or individuals, among others. For example, as we reported in 

July 2003, about 200 cooperating associations and “friends groups” helped 

3

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 are to 

be retained by park units and 20 percent go 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 11 GAO-06-431 Operating Condition of the National Parks

support 347 park units, contributing over $200 million from 1997 to 2001.4

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.

Figure 1 illustrates the principal funding sources used by park units to 

perform operations.

Figure 1: Principal Operations Funding Sources for National Park Units

Note: Offsetting collections, such as the fees that park units collect and retain, reimbursables, and the 

gift authority authorizing the park units to retain donations and contributions, are a form of 

appropriation.

4

U.S. General Accounting Office, Park Service: Agency Needs to Better Manage the 

Increasing Role of Nonprofit Partners, GAO-03-585 (Washington, D.C.: July 18, 2003).

National

Park Units

Source: GAO.

Daily Operations allocations are used by park units

for basic daily operating expenses including 

administration, interpretation and education, visitor 

and resource protection, and facilities management. 

Generally most of the allocations (about 80 percent) 

are used to pay park employees and the rest is used 

for overhead expenses such as utilities and supplies.

ONPS - Daily Operations

Project allocations provide park units with a source 

of funds for programs such as Cyclic Maintenance, 

Repair and Rehabilitation, Inventory and 

Monitoring, the Youth Conservation Corps, 

Vanishing Treasures, and the Cultural Resources

Preservation Program, among others.

ONPS - Projects

Park units receive funding from 

numerous other sources such as

fees collected from concessionaires.

Other Authorized Sources

Park units are authorized to accept and use 

monetary and non-monetary donations to meet the 

purposes of the Park Service. Examples include 

donations from non-profit cooperating associations

or friends groups for interpretive exhibits, park 

literature, new construction, enhancement of wildlife 

programs, or habitat restoration.

Donations

Park units are authorized to collect fees from 

visitors for entry into park units and for certain 

services. In general, at least 80 percent are 

retained at the site to enhance visitor facilities and 

programs.

Visitor Fees
Page 12 GAO-06-431 Operating Condition of the National Parks

Appropriations for the 

Operation of the 

National Park System 

Account Increased 

Overall from Fiscal 

Years 2001 to 2005; the 

Total Allocation for 

Daily Operations 

Declined Overall and 

the Total Allocation for 

Projects Increased 

Overall When Adjusted 

For Inflation

Total appropriations for the ONPS account increased overall in both 

nominal and inflation-adjusted dollars from fiscal year 2001 through 2005. 

However, the agency allocated funds such that, in inflation-adjusted terms, 

the total allocation for daily operations from these appropriations fell 

slightly overall, while the total allocation for projects increased overall. 

About 56 percent of the individual park units and about 74 percent of the 

more highly visited parks experienced an overall decline in their allocation 

for daily operations when adjusted for inflation during this period. The 

agency allocated funding for projects at a higher rate than for daily 

operations. 

Appropriations for the 

Operation of the National 

Park System Account 

Increased Overall from 

Fiscal Years 2001 to 2005

As shown in figure 2, 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 years 2001 through 2005. Nominal dollars 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 (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.5

 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.

5

For more specific data on appropriations for the ONPS account, funding for daily 

operations, projects, and other support programs, see appendix II. 
Page 13 GAO-06-431 Operating Condition of the National Parks

Figure 2: Appropriations for the Operation of the National Park System Account 

from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2005 

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, which are deposited in a separate account, are included in figure 7.

With the increases in appropriations for the ONPS account, the Park 

Service increased allocations for projects and other support programs such 

as the Repair and Rehabilitation, Cyclic Maintenance, and Inventory and 

Monitoring programs, among others. The overall allocation for daily 

operations, on the other hand, declined slightly on average when adjusted 

for inflation. 

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
Page 14 GAO-06-431 Operating Condition of the National Parks

Overall Allocations for Daily 

Operations for Park Units 

Declined Slightly When 

Adjusted For Inflation 

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

increased overall in nominal dollars but the total allocation fell slightly 

when adjusted for inflation from fiscal years 2001 through 2005. As 

illustrated in figure 3, 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 

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 3: Overall Allocations for Daily Operations for Park Units from Fiscal Years 

2001 through 2005

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
Page 15 GAO-06-431 Operating Condition of the National Parks

Note: Funding 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. Appendix II contains figures for 

daily operations for these. 

Daily Operations 

Allocations for Many Park 

Units Declined after 

Adjusting for Inflation

Of the 380 park units that received funding for daily operations for the 

entire period of our review, 212 (or about 56 percent), saw an average 

annual decline in inflation-adjusted terms of about 2 percent.6

 The declines 

ranged from less than 0.1 percent at the Mary McLeod Bethune Council 

House National Historic Site to about 5.2 percent at Petroglyph National 

Monument.7

 The remaining 168 park units’ daily operations funding trends 

were either flat or increasing from 2001 through 2005, with the largest 

increase being about 39 percent at Rosie the Riveter/WWII Home Front 

National Historic Park. Figure 4 shows the number of park units and their 

respective average annual percent changes in daily operations allocations 

from 2001 through 2005.

6

Of the 390 park units, 8 were not in existence from fiscal years 2001 through 2005 and 

therefore did not receive daily operations funding. In addition, two park units were in 

existence but did not receive funding for daily operations. 

7

The 5.2 percent decline for Petroglyph National Monument was due to moving an 

information management position to the regional office. Minuteman Missile National 

Historic Site, which was authorized by the Congress on November 29, 1999, with its first 

year of base appropriations in 2001, showed a 42.6 percent average annual decline between 

fiscal year 2001 to 2005. However, the trend was an anomaly due to its start-up costs in fiscal 

year 2001—almost $5 million—compared to $335,000 in fiscal year 2002. 
Page 16 GAO-06-431 Operating Condition of the National Parks

Figure 4: Number of Park Units for Different Average Annual Percent Changes in 

Inflation-Adjusted Terms in Allocations for Daily Operations from Fiscal Years 2001 

through 2005

Note: This analysis includes 380 park units of varying sizes; therefore, the average annual change in 

daily operations allocations from fiscal year 2001 to 2005 may affect park units differently. 

The park units for which figure 4 shows declines in inflation-adjusted 

dollars allocated for daily operations include most of the park units with 

large allocations for daily operations. These 212 park units represented 

about 69 percent of the total allocation for daily operations for all park 

units in fiscal year 2001 and about 64 percent in fiscal year 2005. 

Conversely, the 168 park units for which figure 4 shows increases in 

inflation-adjusted terms in allocations for daily operations represented 

about 31 percent of the total allocations for daily operations for all units in 

fiscal year 2001 and about 36 percent in fiscal year 2005. 

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

More

than 4

More

than

2 to 4

Less 0 to 2

than

0 to -2

Less

than

-2 to -4

Less

than -4

Park units

Source: GAO analysis of Park Service data.

Average annual percent change in allocations for daily operations

9

100 103

66

35

67
Page 17 GAO-06-431 Operating Condition of the National Parks

Most of the Highly Visited 

Park Units Saw a Decline in 

Allocations for Daily 

Operations after Adjusting 

for Inflation 

About seventy-four percent of the 83 most highly visited park units—over 

one million recreation visits per year—showed an average annual decline 

in inflation-adjusted terms in daily operations allocations from fiscal years 

2001 through 2005.8

 For example, allocations for daily operations at Lake 

Meade National Recreation Area (includes Parashant National Monument), 

Hawaii Volcanoes National Park, and Olympic National Park fell in real 

terms by about 4 percent, 3 percent, and 2 percent, respectively. In 

contrast, about 47 percent of the park units with less than 200,000 

recreation visits per year saw declines in real terms of the allocations for 

daily operations. Table 1 shows the number and percentage of park units 

receiving average annual percentage increases and declines in inflation 

adjusted allocations for daily operations by categories of average annual 

recreation visits. 

Table 1: Number and Percentage of Park Units with Overall Declines or Increases in 

Allocations for Daily Operations when Adjusted for Inflation Based on Average 

Recreation Visits from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2005

Source: GAO analysis of Park Service data.

Note: Of the 380 park units in existence from fiscal years 2001 through 2005, 22 do not keep statistics 

on visitation for the 5-year period of our analysis, so they were excluded from this analysis. Recreation 

visits are based on park units’ reported annual averages from fiscal years 2001 through 2005. 

Changes in funding for daily operations are based on the average annual change in funding levels from 

fiscal years 2001 through 2005 adjusted for inflation.

8

These 83 park units represent the top 21 percent of the most highly visited park units in the 

National Park System. The Park Service defines a recreation visit as the entry of a person 

onto lands or waters administered by the Park Service for recreational purposes excluding 

government personnel, through traffic (commuters), trades-persons, and persons residing 

within park unit boundaries. 

Park units with overall 

declines in inflationadjusted terms in daily 

operations allocations

Park units with overall 

increases in inflationadjusted terms in daily 

operations allocations

Recreation visits

Total 

number Number Percent Number Percent

More than 1 million 83 61 74 22 27

200,001 to 

1,000,000 106 63 59 43 41

0 to 200,000 169 80 47 89 53

Total 358 204 57 154 43
Page 18 GAO-06-431 Operating Condition of the National Parks

Allocations for Projects and 

Other Support Programs 

Increased Overall Even after 

Adjusting for Inflation

Allocations for projects and other support programs increased overall in 

both nominal and inflation-adjusted dollars.9

 As figure 5 illustrates, 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 adjusted for inflation, the increase was 3.9 percent, or about 

$18.7 million per year. Figure 5 shows allocation trends of projects and 

other support programs for the Park Service from fiscal years 2001 through 

2005. 

Figure 5: Project and Other Support Program Allocations from Fiscal Years 2001 

through 2005

9

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

allocations for daily operations. It includes overall funding for numerous project-related 

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.

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
Page 19 GAO-06-431 Operating Condition of the National Parks

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.10 Table 2 shows funding for these three programs from 

fiscal years 2001 through 2005. 

Table 2: Allocations for Cyclic Maintenance, Repair and Rehabilitation, and Inventory and Monitoring Programs from Fiscal 

Years 2001 through 2005 

Source: GAO analysis of Park Service data.

a

Cyclic Maintenance figures include those for both the regular Cyclic Maintenance program and the 

Cyclic Maintenance for Historic Properties program.

b

Repair and Rehabilitation figures include those for projects and for maintenance systems.

10From 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.

In millions

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Average 

annual 

change 

(percent)

Cyclic Maintenancea Nominal $34.5 $32.3 $51.9 $65.1 $62.8 16.2%

Inflation-adjusted 34.5 31.3 48.9 58.8 85.4 12.1

Repair and 

Rehabilitationb

Nominal 58.5 72.6 84.4 94.4 95.1 12.9

Inflation-adjusted 58.5 70.3 79.5 85.4 82.6 9.0

Inventory and 

Monitoring Program

Nominal 17.5 21.8 32.4 36.9 39.6 22.6

Inflation-adjusted 17.5 21.1 30.5 33.4 34.4 18.3
Page 20 GAO-06-431 Operating Condition of the National Parks

Allocations for other support programs had smaller increases or declined. 

For example, allocations for central offices—seven regional offices and the 

headquarters office—increased by less than 1 percent on an average annual 

basis when adjusted for inflation. 

Between fiscal years 2001 and 2005, the share of the ONPS account 

allocated to daily operations fell slightly, indicating a slight change in 

emphasis toward project-related programs for park units. In fiscal year 

2001, about 65 percent of the Park Service’s appropriations from the ONPS 

account were allocated for daily operations. By 2004, the allocation for 

daily operations had fallen to about 60 percent, increasing slightly to about 

62 percent for fiscal year 2005. Figure 6 shows the trend for the ratio of 

daily operations allocations to overall funding for operations for fiscal 

years 2001 through 2005.

Figure 6: Park Service Allocations for Daily Operations as a Percent of the Operation 

of the National Park System Account from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2005

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Percent

Source: GAO analysis of Park Service data.

Fiscal year

65 64 62 60 62
Page 21 GAO-06-431 Operating Condition of the National Parks

Visitor Fees Also Used to 

Support Park Units

As shown in figure 7, total visitor fees collected by the Park Service 

increased from about $140 million in 2001 to about $147 million in 2005 (an 

average annual increase of about 1 percent); however, in inflation-adjusted 

dollars, the fees fell to about $127 million in 2005 (an average annual 

decline of over 2 percent). Overall, the Park Service collected about $717 

million in visitor fees in addition to their annual appropriation for 

operations from 2001 through 2005—an average of about $143 million per 

year. When adjusted for inflation, these visitor fees total about $670 

million—an average of about $134 million per year. 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. 

Figure 7: Park Service Visitor Fee Revenue from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2005 

Note: Visitor fee revenues include revenue collected from the Recreational Fee Program and the 

National Parks Passport program.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Dollars in millions

Fiscal year

Nominal

Real (2001)

Source: GAO analysis of Park Service data.

140 141 140

149 147

140 136 132 135 127
Page 22 GAO-06-431 Operating Condition of the National Parks

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

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 inflation-adjusted 

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. 

All 12 Park Units Received 

Allocations For Projects 

Each of the 12 park units received allocations for projects from 2001 

through 2005.11 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. Table 3 shows 

project-related allocations and their fluctuations from fiscal years 2001 

through 2005 for the 12 park units we visited.

11Eleven park units received allocations for projects for each year between 2001 and 2005. 

Zion National Park received allocations for projects from 2002 through 2005, but did not 

receive allocations for projects in 2001.
Page 23 GAO-06-431 Operating Condition of the National Parks

Table 3: Project Allocations for 12 Selected Park Units, Fiscal Years 2001 through 2005 

Legend

NP = National Park

NMP = National Military Park

NMem = National Memorial

Source: GAO analysis of Park Service data.

The following examples illustrate projects that have been completed using 

these funds:

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 1,960

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

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

Inflation-adjusted 0 100 292 176 868 1,436
Page 24 GAO-06-431 Operating Condition of the National Parks

• Grand Canyon National Park received a total of $6.7 million in project 

allocations. Projects included $494,000 to repair and rehabilitate the 

North Bass trail; $175,000 to rehabilitate the Mather Amphitheater, 

which hosts evening ranger programs; and $31,000 to survey the 

declining northern leopard frog population. 

• Grand Teton National Park received a total of $4.4 million in project 

allocations. Projects included $40,600 to perform cyclic maintenance on 

three historic log cabins; $280,000 for bison demographic disease 

surveillance; and $313,800 to rehabilitate a water sewer line. 

• Acadia National Park received a total of $3.6 million in project 

allocations. In 2002, the park obtained $17,800 through the Natural 

Resource Preservation Program to work with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service and others to determine baseline information about the ecology 

and to assess the population status of wintering purple sandpipers.

• Gettysburg National Military Park received a total of $11.6 million in 

project allocations. Projects included $444,000 to replace failing septic 

systems in the park; $129,000 to replace water lines in historic 

structures; $385,000 to repair observation towers; and $92,000 to repair 

historic fences on Little Roundtop—a highly-visited civil war battle site.

• Yellowstone National Park received a total of $3.2 million in project 

allocations. Projects included $170,000 to repair thermal area walkways, 

and $290,000 to rehabilitate roads in the Madison area of the park.

As with allocations for projects from fiscal years 2001 through 2005, 

allocations for daily operations for the 12 park units we visited also varied. 

Allocations for Daily 

Operations at Most Park 

Units Declined When 

Adjusted For Inflation

All 12 park units experienced an annual average increase in allocations for 

daily operations, however when adjusted for inflation, 8 of the 12 parks we 

visited experienced a decline ranging from less than one 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 
Page 25 GAO-06-431 Operating Condition of the National Parks

fiscal year 2005, an average annual increase of about 11 percent in nominal 

terms and about 7 percent when adjusted for 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. In addition, park 

officials at Mount Rushmore National Memorial reported that most of their 

increases for daily operations were to increase law enforcement staff to 

address new homeland security measures following the September 11, 

2001, attacks. Tables 4 and 5 show allocations for daily operations and 

average annual increases or declines for the 12 park units we visited, from 

fiscal years 2001 through 2005. 

Table 4: Daily Operations Allocations at Selected Park Units from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2005 in Nominal Dollars 

Legend

NP=National Park

NMP=National Military Park

NMem=National Memorial

Source: GAO analysis of Park Service data from 12 selected park units.

Dollars in thousands

Daily operations allocations

Park unit 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Average annual 

change 

(percent)

Acadia NP $4,279 $5,708 $6,386 $6,349 $6,498 11.0%

Badlands NP 2,996 3,055 3,063 3,056 3,417 3.3

Bryce Canyon NP 2,607 2,671 2,681 2,674 2,768 1.5

Gettysburg NMP 5,044 5,177 5,195 5,174 5,483 2.1

Grand Canyon NP 18,199 18,594 18,916 18,567 18,921 1.0

Grand Teton NP 8,559 8,670 9,082 9,258 10,290 4.7

Mt. Rushmore NMem 2,473 2,532 2,903 3,315 3,727 10.8

Sequoia and Kings Canyon NP 12,234 13,039 13,018 12,903 13,308 2.1

Shenandoah NP 10,253 10,488 10,535 10,169 10,406 0.40

Yellowstone NP 25,122 27,112 27,669 28,116 29,845 4.4

Yosemite NP 22,583 23,142 23,142 23,128 22,714 0.14

Zion NP 5,605 5,978 6,014 6,008 6,153 2.4
Page 26 GAO-06-431 Operating Condition of the National Parks

Table 5: Daily Operations Allocations at Selected Parks Units from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2005 in Inflation-Adjusted Dollars 

Legend

NP=National Park

NMP=National Military Park

NMem=National Memorial

Source: GAO analysis of Park Service data from 12 selected park units.

Increases in Operating 

Costs and New Park Service 

Management Requirements 

May Affect Daily Operations

Despite increases in inflation-adjusted allocations for daily operations at 4 

of the 12 park units visited, officials at all 12 park units explained that this 

funding did not increase commensurately with increases in operating costs 

and new management requirements. Park unit officials explained that 

these factors have reduced their flexibility in addressing other park 

priorities.

Dollars in thousands

Daily operations allocations

Park unit 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Average annual 

change (percent)

Acadia NP $4,279 $5,525 $6,019 $5,741 $5,041 7.2%

Badlands NP 2,996 2,957 2,887 2,880 2,966 -0.25

Bryce Canyon NP 2,607 2,586 2,527 2,418 2,403 -2.0

Gettysburg NMP 5,044 5,011 4,896 4,679 4,760 -1.4

Grand Canyon NP 18,199 17,999 17,828 16,790 16,426 -2.5

Grand Teton NP 8,559 8,393 8,560 8,372 8,933 1.1

Mt. Rushmore NMem 2,473 2,451 2,736 2,998 3,236 7.0

Sequoia and Kings Canyon NP 12,234 12,622 12,269 11,668 11,553 -1.4

Shenandoah NP 10,253 10,152 9,929 9,196 9,034 -3.1

Yellowstone NP 25,122 26,245 26,078 25,426 25,910 0.78

Yosemite NP 22,583 22,402 21,811 20,915 19,719 -3.3

Zion NP 5,605 5,787 5,668 5,433 5,342 -1.2
Page 27 GAO-06-431 Operating Condition of the National Parks

Operating Cost Increases 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. 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. The consequence of the 

increases was that park units had to eliminate or defer spending in order to 

accommodate the increases. For example, officials at Gettysburg National 

Military Park stated that they achieved personnel cost savings by taking a 

number of actions to reduce spending, including refraining from filling—

and delaying filling—several permanent and seasonal vacancies. Park 

officials said they estimate the personnel cost savings from 2002 through 

2005 was about $1,434,781, in inflation-adjusted terms. Total personnel 

expenditures at the park unit declined from $4,460,000 in 2001 to $4,143,000 

in 2005—an average annual decline of about 2 percent, in inflation-adjusted 

terms.12 In contrast, at Mount Rushmore National Memorial, total personnel 

expenditures increased from $2,014,000 in 2001 to $2,552,000 in 2005—or 

an average of about 6 percent per year. Officials said that the increase was 

due to required salary increases for permanent staff and expenditures on 

new personnel hired for homeland security measures. As shown in table 6, 

expenditures for personnel from 2001 through 2005 increased for seven 

park units, and declined for the other five units, after adjusting for inflation. 

12Tables 13 and 14 in appendix III show personnel expenditures at the 12 park units we 

visited in both nominal and inflation-adjusted terms. Table 15 in appendix III shows 

personnel (FTEs) by funding source at the 12 park units we visited. 
Page 28 GAO-06-431 Operating Condition of the National Parks

Table 6: Average Annual Change in Personnel Expenditures and Personnel Funded with Allocations from Daily Operations from 

Fiscal Years 2001 through 2005 in Inflation-Adjusted Dollars 

Source: GAO analysis of Park Service data from 12 selected park units.

a

A full-time equivalent (FTE) is a workforce measure equal to one work year.

Personnel costs (salaries and benefits) comprised an average of 74 to 89 

percent of the total operating expenses at these 12 park units; therefore 

officials said that it is difficult to offset increases in personnel costs 

without reducing personnel. 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. 

Park Service budget officials told us that they expect personnel costs to 

continue to grow faster than any increases in allocations for personnel in 

fiscal years 2006 and 2007. As a result, they said that in some cases the 

Dollars in thousands

Personnel expenditures (in thousands) Personnel (FTEsa)

Park units 2001 2005

Average annual 

change 

(percent) 2001 2005

Average annual 

change 

(percent)

Acadia NP $3,524 $4,613 7.0 69 83 4.7%

Badlands NP 2,273 2,256 -0.2 48 41 -3.7

Bryce Canyon NP 2,204 2,002 -2.4 40 35 -3.0

Gettysburg NMP 4,460 4,143 -1.8 84 69 -4.7

Grand Canyon NP 13,409 12,614 -1.5 231 227 -0.4

Grand Teton NP 6,509 6,724 0.8 132 121 -2.2

Mt. Rushmore NMem 2,014 2,552 6.1 42 42 0.1

Sequoia and Kings Canyon NP 9,164 9,202 0.1 201 188 -1.6

Shenandoah NP 8,578 7,617 -2.9 180 133 -7.3

Yellowstone NP 17,587 19,161 2.2 338 351 1.0

Yosemite NP 17,602 17,748 0.2 361 317 -3.2

Zion NP 4,268 4,422 9.0 83 90 2.1
Page 29 GAO-06-431 Operating Condition of the National Parks

parks may choose to hire seasonal employees or contract out more duties 

than fill vacant positions. Table 7 shows the average annual percentage of 

daily operations funding that the 12 park units we visited spent on 

personnel costs.

Table 7: Percentage of Allocations for Daily Operations Spent on Personnel from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2005

Source: GAO analysis of Park Service data from 12 selected park units.

In addition, Park Service budget officials said that park units’ personnel 

costs have also increased because they pay more of the costs of benefits for 

employees under the newer Federal Employee Retirement System (FERS) 

than they do for employees under the older Civil Service Retirement 

System (CSRS). As a result, the officials said that total compensation 

(salary and benefits) is higher for a FERS employee at the same salary level 

as a CSRS employee. Unlike CSRS, for example, FERS requires federal 

agencies to match up to 5 percent of employees’ contributions to their 

retirement account. In addition, as CSRS employees retire and are replaced 

by FERS employees, the officials said that the Park Service’s personnel 

costs will increase, when all else remains the same. 

At the park units we visited, benefits paid to FERS employees rose at a 

faster rate and were generally higher on average than those for CSRS 

employees. At almost all the park units, average total compensation for a

Park unit 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Average 2001-

2005

Acadia NP 84% 75% 77% 81% 84% 80%

Badlands NP 77 79 82 87 80 81

Bryce NP 86 82 78 83 85 83

Gettysburg NP 89 90 87 89 88 89

Grand Canyon NP 71 72 77 79 79 76

Grand Teton NP 79 77 76 85 78 79

Mt. Rushmore NMem 83 80 81 81 82 81

Sequoia and Kings Canyon NP 78 79 81 83 81 80

Shenandoah NP 85 85 86 87 85 86

Yellowstone NP 72 71 75 77 76 74

Yosemite NP 79 86 86 90 90 86

Zion NP 81 81 85 84 86 83
Page 30 GAO-06-431 Operating Condition of the National Parks

CSRS employee exceeded that for a FERS employee.13 For instance, at 

Shenandoah National Park, average benefits for a FERS employee 

increased at an annual rate of about 3 percent from 2001 through 2005 

compared with about 2 percent per year for a CSRS employee (adjusted for 

inflation). In 2005, the average FERS total compensation was $44,242, 

including $11,713 for benefits, compared to an average CSRS total of about 

$54,134, including $9,401 for benefits. Tables 16 and 17 in appendix III show 

nominal and inflation-adjusted personnel costs per retirement system at 

the 12 park units we visited.

In addition to increasing personnel costs, officials at many of the park units 

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 

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. In 2003, Yellowstone 

National Park constructed The Heritage Center with line item construction 

appropriations to house 5.3 million artifacts of natural and cultural 

significance. In 2001, the park officials requested but did not receive an 

additional $250,000 that they estimated was required to pay for the center’s 

costs for power, water, sewer, and information technology. A Park Service 

headquarters official told us that while there is a need to replace old 

facilities with new construction, it is unlikely—given the overall fiscal 

demands on the federal government—that park units will receive 

corresponding increases in funding for daily operations necessary to 

operate new facilities. 

13Although the average cost for a CSRS employee was greater at 11 of the 12 park units for 

2005, at the other park—Mt. Rushmore National Memorial—the average cost of a FERS 

employee was greater.
Page 31 GAO-06-431 Operating Condition of the National Parks

New Park Responsibilities 

Affected Management Flexibility

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

Over the years, the estimates of the amount of the agency’s deferred 

maintenance backlog have varied widely—sometimes by billions of dollars. 

Since 1998, we have issued several reports on the agency’s efforts to reduce 

its backlog.14 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 2005.15 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. For example, at 

Acadia National Park, officials told us that although visitor fee-funded 

projects have benefited the park, supervisors have reduced the extent to 

which they supervise their existing daily operating staff in order to manage 

temporary staff working on visitor fee-funded projects. 

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. Park Service headquarters 

officials recognize the strain that its policy has had on allocations for daily 

operations. Park Service headquarters officials said that its policy was first 

established under the original Recreational Fee Demonstration Program 

14Pages 97 through 100 of this report list our related reports and testimonies including those 

addressing the Park Service’s approach to addressing its maintenance backlog.

15In 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 32 GAO-06-431 Operating Condition of the National Parks

and provided several reasons for doing so. First, it did not want park units 

to use the revenue to hire more permanent staff than the park units needed. 

In addition, the Park Service wanted the revenue to be used for projects 

that provided visible results, such as rehabilitating a visitor facility, rather 

than on salaries for permanent employees. It also did not want to use 

visitor fee revenue to hire permanent staff because the recreational fee 

demonstration authority was temporary, therefore forcing park units to 

find another funding source to pay permanent employee salaries if the 

authority was discontinued. However, due to the strain this policy has had 

on allocations for daily operations combined with the recent passage of the 

Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act, which provides longer-term 

authority (10 years) for collecting visitor fees, Park Service headquarters 

officials stated that they are considering changing this policy. To alleviate 

the pressure on funds for daily operations, we believe it would be 

appropriate for the Park Service to follow through with revising this policy. 

In an effort to better manage its maintenance backlog and improve asset 

management, the Park Service implemented a new asset management 

initiative in 1998. As a part of this initiative, park units are required to 

complete condition assessments and maintain this data in the Facility 

Maintenance Software System (FMSS), a system-wide, integrated software 

management tool to track parks’ assets, their condition, and the costs 

needed to keep each asset in a good operating condition. Overall, park 

managers viewed this new system as a worthwhile endeavor. However, 

park officials explained that their units were not provided additional funds 

needed to implement this new responsibility. As a result, most of the parks 

used existing staff to inventory assets and enter the data into the software 

system at the expense of their primary duties. According to officials at 

many of the park units we visited, staff no longer had sufficient time to 

perform primary duties and responsibilities, such as regularly scheduled 

preventative maintenance or bathroom cleaning. The effect of 

implementing FMSS was particularly problematic for park units whose 

maintenance divisions were already operating with a reduced staff. For 

example, Badlands National Park, which has lost seven maintenance 

division employees since 2001, used the equivalent of two full time 

employees and two seasonal employees to enter data and work on other 

duties related to FMSS. Because the park had to use existing staff to 

comply with new asset-management requirements, regularly scheduled 

activities such as painting buildings and other structures were deferred, 

thus adding to its maintenance backlog.
Page 33 GAO-06-431 Operating Condition of the National Parks

Another new Park Service policy impacting park units relates to its law 

enforcement personnel. In response to studies that described the level of 

law enforcement personnel as approaching a level for which basic resource 

and visitor protection may be in jeopardy, the Park Service, in 2002, 

implemented a no-net-loss policy for law enforcement personnel. 

Accordingly, Park Service headquarters directed the park units to not fall 

below 2002 law enforcement employee levels. Thus, unlike other divisions, 

when law enforcement positions become vacant, officials are required to 

fill the vacancy or request a waiver of the policy. For those park units that 

have adhered to the policy, officials told us that they have had to forgo 

hiring what they consider other priority vacant positions in other divisions 

in order to comply with the no-net-loss policy. Officials at other park units 

have been unable to maintain 2002 levels, either because they were unable 

to afford to re-hire vacant positions or because other vacant positions were 

deemed by park management to also be a priority. 

Park Units Have Taken 

Various Actions to Address 

Trends in Allocations for 

Daily Operations

In response to allocations for daily operations trends, increased costs, and 

new policy requirements, park officials at the 12 park units we visited said 

that activities funded with daily operations have been reduced or 

eliminated, delayed until other authorized funding sources became 

available, or performed with the use of other authorized funding sources. 

Park managers reported that because they have to manage within available 

funding resources, they make trade-offs among the operational activities 

such as education, visitor and resource protection, and maintenance 

activities. The extent and type of such responses vary among the park 

units. 

Park Units Reduced or 

Eliminated Some Services 

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.16 Park 

officials at some of the park units 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

16Table 20 in appendix IV shows visitation trends for the 12 park units we visited and for the 

Park Service as a whole.
Page 34 GAO-06-431 Operating Condition of the National Parks

allocations.17 However, most park units 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 backcountry patrolling. To illustrate:

• Shenandoah National Park reduced the number of days the Loft 

Mountain Visitor Contact Station operated in 2004 and then closed it 

entirely in 2005. This station offered the only interpretive services at the 

south end of the park; thus, visitors entering the park at the south end 

have to drive 50 miles to reach another contact station. In addition, 

because the park was not able to afford to fill vacancies in 2002, the 

park had to close all ranger programs at Mathews Arm campground in 

the north district (which contains 179 campsites) beginning in 2003. A 

park official said that as of the beginning of 2006, there continues to be 

no ranger programs offered at the Mathews Arm campground.

• Grand Teton National Park reduced the interpretive division’s staffing 

level that was paid out of daily operations funding, from 17 FTEs in 2001 

to 12 FTEs in 2005. Because fewer staff were available, the park reduced 

the operating hours of the Colter Bay Visitor Center by one hour per day 

and reduced the number of times they offer the Tour of the Indians Art 

Museum and the Teton Highlights programs. 

• At Bryce Canyon National Park, law enforcement officials told us that, 

since 2001, in order to maintain patrols in high-visitor-use areas, they 

reduced backcountry patrolling. As a result, the park has very little 

backcountry resource protection capability. For example, while park 

officials are aware of poaching in the park, they told us that they do not 

have the capability to prevent or investigate this illegal activity. 

• Acadia National Park closed all seven restrooms along roads and 

trailheads in the park’s popular winter-use areas during the 2004-2005 

17While 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; therefore, 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 35 GAO-06-431 Operating Condition of the National Parks

winter season. Park officials told us that they chose to close the 

restrooms in the winter in order to have sufficient resources to keep 

them open in the summer.

• Grand Canyon National Park reduced interpretive programs available to 

visitors from 35 in 2001 to 23 in 2005. 

• Zion National Park reduced cleaning of a heavily used restroom facility 

at a popular visitor destination from twice per day to once per day in 

2004. Maintenance officials told us that, after reducing the cleaning 

frequency, they received several complaints about the condition of the 

facilities. 

• At Gettysburg National Military Park, the Maintenance Division has lost 

one of its key preservation specialist positions responsible for the 

technical repair and restoration of cannon carriages. According to park 

officials, the lack of daily operations funds to hire a replacement has 

impaired the park's cannon carriage restoration project as the first 

attempt to restore carriages dating from the 1890s. The inability to fill 

this position has limited the restoration effort, requiring the storage of 

previously stripped and primed carriages in inadequate storage areas 

throughout the park. Most carriages will require efforts to reverse the 

rust damage while in storage. As a result, the estimated completion of 

the project increased to 15 years from 10 years. The personnel costs 

required for this extended time period plus the need to re-work the 

previously readied carriages is estimated to increase the overall costs of 

the project by approximately $260,000. 

• At Yellowstone National Park, the permanent law enforcement staffing 

level that was paid from daily operations funding was reduced from 51 

FTEs in 2001 to 45 FTEs in 2005. Park officials told us that this resulted 

in fewer back-and front- country patrols, and a reliance on less 

experienced and less trained personnel to perform these duties. 

• At Yosemite National Park, park officials told us that, as a result of 

reduced funding levels, four vacant dispatcher positions can not be 

replaced—threatening the park’s ability to provide 911 services 7 days 

per week and 24 hours per day. In order to fill the key deputy chief 

ranger and fire chief vacancies, park officials have had to forgo re-filling 

several law and non-law enforcement positions. As a result, remaining 

staff worked overtime to perform the added responsibilities. With 

expected retirements, officials said that a critical branch chief position 
Page 36 GAO-06-431 Operating Condition of the National Parks

will be unfilled, as will several patrol positions and positions to staff the 

jail. However, the Department of the Interior stated that Yosemite 

National Park is working with Lassen Volcanic National Park and 

Whiskeytown-Shasta-Trinity National Recreation Area to provide joint 

services and that Yosemite is in full 911 compliance.

• Law enforcement officials at Acadia National Park and Grand Canyon 

National Park explained that after accounting for personnel costs, little 

is left to pay for equipment and supplies. For example, officials at 

Acadia National Park told us that they are unable to replace emergency 

response equipment, such as vehicles and boats. The park’s law 

enforcement division lost two patrol cars in the last three years and has 

been unable to replace the vehicles. Officials at the park told us that to 

be able to afford to replace one vehicle, they would have to forgo hiring 

a seasonal ranger—a position that park officials say they must maintain 

for the safety of park visitors and resources. At Grand Canyon National 

Park, 1.4 percent of the law enforcement division‘s funding for daily 

operations is available for law enforcement supplies and training. 

Officials at this park told us that this amount is not sufficient to pay for 

supplies such as first-aid provisions, ammunition, and bullet-proof vests.

Park Units Used Other 

Authorized Funding Sources 

to Support Park Service 

Operations

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. 

Table 8 shows funding from other authorized sources at four of the 12 park 

units we visited. Tables 18 and 19 in appendix III show funding from other 

authorized sources for all 12 of the park units we visited.
Page 37 GAO-06-431 Operating Condition of the National Parks

Table 8: Other Funding Source Amounts from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2005 in Nominal Dollars 

Source: GAO analysis of Park Service data from selected park units.

Note: The other revenue category includes authorized revenue collected from various other 

miscellaneous sources. Examples of other revenue include rent collected through employee housing, 

transportation fees, cell tower permits, boat permits, and outfitter permits.

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. Park officials explained that, when 

preventative maintenance is deferred, the integrity of an asset is reduced—

which can lead to replacing the asset at a greater cost than repairing it. 

Park Service headquarters officials told us that they are concerned about 

this decreased capacity and have reacted to the problem by requesting 

increases in project funding, such as cyclic maintenance, over the past few 

Dollars in thousands

Park unit Other funding source type 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Acadia NP

Visitor fees $1,843 $2,011 $1,907 $2,165 $1,870

Concession fees 105 109 164 381 350

Donations 395 313 368 514 291

Other revenue 132 136 180 192 66

Grand Canyon NP

Visitor fees 16,661 14,558 13,702 14,425 13,927

Concession fees 5,750 4,091 3,591 3,337 5,787

Donations 176 254 301 287 227

Other revenue 2,766 2,850 2,581 2,731 3,216

Grand Teton NP

Visitor fees 4,602 4,755 4,840 4,626 3,475

Concession fees 0 0 1,208 1,557 930

Donations 188 125 457 402 8,744

Other revenue 107 137 165 158 163

Sequoia Kings 

Canyon NP

Visitor fees 2,151 2,395 2,458 2,474 2,154

Concession fees 1 2 0 7 150

Donations 69 131 24 29 51

Other revenue 1,174 1,451 1,394 1,331 1,266
Page 38 GAO-06-431 Operating Condition of the National Parks

years. The following examples illustrate delayed activities that occurred at 

the park units we visited.

• Shenandoah National Park reduced maintenance staffing levels paid 

from daily operations funding from 67 FTEs in 2001 to 44 FTEs in 2005, 

which decreased the park’s ability to perform routine maintenance of 

trails and scenic overlooks. This work was traditionally considered a 

recurring operational activity paid for on an annual basis through 

funding for daily operations. In 2002, as a result of limited funding for 

daily operations, the park did not have the staff or resources to do this 

work annually and instead began performing the tasks once every 2 or 3 

years. The park currently uses cyclic maintenance project funding to 

carry out this work and plans to use visitor fees to pay for this activity in 

the future. 

• At Grand Teton National Park, officials told us that the road striping and 

chip sealing process—which should be performed annually to extend 

the life of a road 10 to 15 years—can no longer be paid with funding for 

daily operations. Consequently, officials told us that they have had to 

delay the maintenance activity and rely on less frequently available 

project funds.

Rather than eliminating or not performing daily operational activities, some 

park units 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.18 

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. For example, park officials explained that 

donations at Grand Teton fluctuated from about $188,000 in 2001 to over 

$400,000 in 2004, and then increased to over $8 million in 2005 when the 

park received a substantial gift for a new visitor center from their nonprofit park partners. For the most part, funding from these sources is 

intended to supplement, rather than replace, daily operations funds. 

However, officials told us that these funds are being used to pay for 

18Tables 18 and 19 in appendix III show nominal and inflation-adjusted funding for other 

authorized funding sources for the 12 park units we visited.
Page 39 GAO-06-431 Operating Condition of the National Parks

activities that were formerly paid with funding for daily operations. To 

illustrate:

• Officials at Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks told us that 60 

percent of all visitor center staffing hours in 2005 were provided by their 

cooperating association compared to approximately 10 percent in 2001. 

• At Grand Canyon National Park, the interpretive division had 

approximately $75,000 available in daily operations funding in 2001 to 

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

approximately 99 percent of the division’s funds were spent on 

personnel, and the park relied on their cooperating association to pay 

for non-personnel costs. 

• In 2003, Yellowstone National Park constructed The Heritage Center 

with line item construction appropriations to house 5.3 million artifacts 

of natural and cultural significance. In 2001, the park requested but did 

not receive $807,000 in its park’s daily operations funds to pay for the 

center’s operating costs. While the park absorbed an estimated utility 

cost of $250,000 per year, they relied on their non-profit partners—the 

Yellowstone Foundation and the Yellowstone Cooperative 

Association—to help staff, furnish, and support museum and archive 

acquisitions. 

• Badlands National Park officials stated that approximately 65 percent of 

visitor contacts in 2004 were provided by employees of the park’s 

nonprofit partner—the Badlands Natural History Association—

compared to 45 percent in 2001. 

• At Grand Teton National Park and Gettysburg National Military Park, 

park partners are paying for the construction of a new visitor center and 

are creating endowments to operate the new facilities for a set number 

of years. 

• In 2005, Grand Teton National Park turned over operations of five 

campgrounds to concessionaires. Park officials reported that by 

transferring these campgrounds, they reduced personnel and 

maintenance costs associated with operating the campgrounds. 

However, officials stated that a reduction in park-funded seasonal 

custodians has meant that fewer staff are available to clean restrooms 

and pick up litter. Officials said there was a noticeable increase in litter 

in the park in 2005. 
Page 40 GAO-06-431 Operating Condition of the National Parks

• Acadia National Park’s partner, The Friends of Acadia, has supplied 

support in the form of funding and volunteer hours to maintain the 

park’s trail system. Other parks, including Grand Teton National Park 

and Yellowstone National Park, are considering similar options to 

maintain their trail systems because funding for daily operations is no 

longer available to cover all operational needs. 

Officials at several park units expressed concern about using funding from 

other authorized sources to address shortfalls—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 for programs that require a long-term 

funding commitment could be problematic. For example, until 2004 the 

Natural Resources Division at Badlands National Park used visitor fees to 

pay for natural resource programs (e.g., bighorn sheep restoration and nonnative plant control). However, to meet deferred maintenance spending 

goals, the park could no longer submit projects for approval to use visitor 

fee revenue to support natural resource programs. Officials at several park 

units also told us that, as they increasingly rely on such sources, more of 

their time must be spent cultivating relationships and applying for grants, 

rather than performing their regular duties.

The Park Service Has 

Undertaken Three 

Management Initiatives 

to Address Fiscal 

Performance and 

Accountability of Park 

Units

The Park Service identified three management initiatives that it 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 independently and they are at various 

stages of development and implementation. In addition, the Department 

noted in its comments to us that there are other efforts such as the Office of 

Management and Budget’s analysis under the Program Assessment Rating 

Tool (PART) that contribute to park unit and departmental efforts to 

achieve more effective programs and efficient operations. Table 9 

summarizes each of the three initiatives that we reviewed and their stages 

of implementation. 
Page 41 GAO-06-431 Operating Condition of the National Parks

Table 9: Park Service Management Initiatives to Address Park Units’ Fiscal Performance and Accountability

Source: GAO analysis of Park Service data.

Business Plan Initiative 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.19 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. The BPI began in 1997 as a result of a partnership between the Park 

Service and the National Parks Conservation Association. Their goals were 

to ensure that superintendents of park units had the knowledge and data to 

develop cost-reducing strategies and make a rational case for funding 

proposals. 

Management initiative Description Development and implementation

Business Plan Initiative 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 park units participate in a BPI every year 

• As of January 2006, 25 percent of all park units have 

participated 

Core Operations Analysis 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. 

• 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

19The 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. 
Page 42 GAO-06-431 Operating Condition of the National Parks

Yellowstone National Park completed the first business plan in 1997.20 

Since then, about 25 percent of all park units have participated in the 

process. Most of the participation has come from smaller park units—those 

with a budget for daily operations under $2 million per year. The Park 

Service selects about 12 park units per year to participate in the BPI 

process, but their participation is voluntary. Park units are selected based 

on a number of factors including (1) geographic diversity, (2) unit types 

(e.g., national park, national historic site, national recreation area, national 

monument), (3) whether the park units have sufficient staffing and funding 

resources to conduct the BPI process, and (4) whether the timing for the 

park unit to conduct a BPI is appropriate. For instance, in some cases, park 

units selected for the BPI are subsequently unable to participate because 

they are undergoing major management initiatives or changes (e.g., 

preparing a general management plan or changing park superintendents); a 

park unit may also hold an event that represents an anomaly and may skew 

the financial condition of the park unit . For example, the Canaveral 

National Seashore was scheduled to complete the BPI process in fiscal year 

2005 but did not due to damage to some of the park unit’s assets caused by 

hurricanes in 2004.

All 12 of the park units we visited have completed a business plan.21 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 unit partners (such as 

cooperating associations) to communicate the results. A Park Service 

official stated, however, that the Park Service is still working to refine how 

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

Core Operations Analysis The COA was developed in 2004 to help park unit managers evaluate their 

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

associated funding levels, and make fully informed decisions on staffing 

20In 1996, Yellowstone National Park made a decision to close the Norris Campground and a 

nearby museum to decrease costs. Following complaints from visitors, Congress asked 

Yellowstone to account for the savings, which proved a difficult task. 

21Park Service officials said that two out of the twelve park units we visited (Grand Canyon 

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

their own. 
Page 43 GAO-06-431 Operating Condition of the National Parks

and funding. The COA is part of a broader Park Service-wide effort to 

integrate management tools to improve park efficiency. Park Service 

headquarters and 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.

The BCP model relies heavily on fixed costs, however the Park Service has 

not developed a servicewide standard definition of fixed costs so individual 

park units may calculate fixed costs differently. For example, fixed costs at 

some of the park units we visited included the costs of both personnel and 

utilities, whereas at other park units it only included personnel costs. As 

such, fixed costs used in the BCP model vary among park units. Although 

the COA is in the development stage, the Park Service plans to have all 

units complete an analysis by the end of fiscal year 2011. To achieve this 

goal, the Park Service will select 50 parks per year to participate.

Three of the 12 park units we visited have completed (or are in the process 

of completing) a COA, and 3 will begin the COA in fiscal year 2006. The 

remaining 6 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 Scorecard 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, 
Page 44 GAO-06-431 Operating Condition of the National Parks

recreational, and resource-management criteria. The Park Scorecard uses 

data from Park Service-wide databases already used by all park units. Park 

Service headquarters uses over 30 separate indicators as measures of the 

condition of park units. Examples of these indicators include personnel 

costs as a percentage of daily operations allocations, average overtime 

costs, the ratio of volunteer hours to total Park Service hours, operational 

and maintenance costs per square foot, and annual growth in visitation, to 

name a few. The result of the analysis using these indicators is a numerical 

value that is assigned to each measure leading to an assessment of being in 

poor, fair, good, or excellent operational condition.

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 three out of the twelve parks we 

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

Yellowstone National Park). Park Service officials explained that while 

Park Scorecard figures can generate useful park unit comparisons, regional 

policies can also influence the indicators; while these numbers provide a 

good starting point for analysis, park unit staff input must be a 

consideration in determining park priorities. Park officials further 

explained that it is difficult to develop a set of common indicators that can 

be used for parks units with different characteristics, such as Yellowstone 

National Park and Carl Sandburg Home National Historic site. Park Service 

headquarters officials, with the assistance and input of park unit managers, 

plan on refining the Park Scorecard to 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. 

Conclusions From 2001 through 2004, the Park Service increased allocations for support 

programs and project funding while placing less of an emphasis on 

allocations for daily operations. In 2005, however, the agency emphasis 

shifted toward an increase in allocations for daily operations. As evidenced 

by our visits to 12 park units, this later shift appears to be going in the 

direction needed to help the park units overcome some of the difficulties 

they have recently experienced in meeting operational needs—particularly 

as they relate to maintaining visitor services and protecting resources. In 
Page 45 GAO-06-431 Operating Condition of the National Parks

responding to these trends, park unit officials found ways to reduce 

spending on their allocations for daily operations and 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 authorized sources to perform operations, using such funds has its 

drawbacks because it usually takes park units longer, with more effort 

from park employees, to obtain and use these sources. In the case of 

donations, for example, park officials spend more time grooming 

relationships with donors to obtain the funds. Visitor fees have been an 

important and significant source of funds for park units to address highpriority 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 Park Service 

officials stated that they are embarking upon three management initiatives 

to improve park performance and accountability—and to better manage 

within available resources—it is too early to assess the effectiveness of 

these initiatives.

Recommendation for 

Executive Action

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

recommending that the Secretary of the Interior direct the Park Service 

Director to follow through in revising Park Service policy to allow park 

units to use visitor fee revenues to pay the costs of permanent employees 

administering projects funded by visitor fees to the extent authorized by 

law.

Agency Comments and 

Our Response

We provided the Department of the Interior with a draft of this report for 

review and comment. The department provided written comments that are 

included in appendix V. The following represents a summary of the major 

comments made by the department and our response. Additional 

comments and our response are also provided in appendix V. With regard 

to our recommendation, the department stated that we 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. Our 

recommendation was specifically directed at using visitor fee revenues for 

paying the salaries of permanent employees who administer projects 

funded with such revenues and provides the Park Service with the 

flexibility to define how the visitor fee revenues should be applied. 
Page 46 GAO-06-431 Operating Condition of the National Parks

Accordingly, we have not modified our recommendation in response to the 

department’s comment.

The department appreciated the diligent work of the team that prepared 

the report and the large amount of data collected, but had concerns that the 

presentation of the data in the report creates a misleading impression 

concerning the state of park operations for several reasons. The 

department said our report provided an incomplete analysis of the financial 

status of the park units and left the impression that park budgets have not 

been emphasized. We disagree with this view. We conducted a detailed 

analysis of the major funding trends for park operations. For example, we 

reported the overall funding trends for operations, including 

appropriations from the ONPS account, in relation to the Park Service’s 

total budget authority. As the report indicates, this trend showed that 

appropriations to the ONPS account increased overall during our study 

time frame at a higher rate than the Park Service’s total budget authority. 

We also analyzed the trends in both allocations for daily operations and 

projects for the park service as a whole and for each of the 12 highvisitation park units we visited. Moreover, the report showed that 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 

Operation of the National Park System account, to be used for daily 

operations. Furthermore, the report discusses the impacts that these trends 

have had on operations at the 12 parks we visited. In response to the 

department’s comments, we have included more examples in the report 

showing where project funds have been used by park units. 

The department also commented that within a constrained fiscal 

environment, park operations have been a high priority for both the 

Administration and the Congress. Such an analysis would require a much 

broader review comparing the Park Service’s budget with budgets of other 

federal agencies, which was beyond the scope of our review. The 

department commented that the report draws a “false dichotomy” between 

operations and project funding. Specifically, it said that the visitor 

experience at national parks is shaped not only by direct visitor services 

activities such as ranger interpretive programs, but also by the condition of 

park facilities and the natural resources. We agree that daily operations 

allocations—which funds activities such as ranger interpretive programs—

and project allocations—which funds facility improvements—are both 

important to park operations and visitor experiences. Furthermore, we 

believe there is an important distinction between how park units can use 

daily operations allocations as opposed to allocations for projects. In fact, 
Page 47 GAO-06-431 Operating Condition of the National Parks

the Park Service itself allocates ONPS appropriations in these distinct 

categories. Daily operations allocations are used to pay for operating 

expenses such as permanent and temporary employees to perform day to 

day activities such as interpretive programs and cleaning restrooms. In 

contrast, Park Service procedures require that project-related allocations 

are to be used only for projects and not for day to day activities. The report 

recognizes this distinction by presenting these trends separately and by 

providing examples of how park units are using these two sources of 

allocations to conduct operations. 

The department also stated that the report’s use of several park anecdotes 

concerning reduced allocations for daily operations is misleading. 

Specifically, the department stated that the anecdotes within the report 

highlight only certain divisions or programs in which a park significantly 

reduced staffing in isolation from the park unit’s overall staffing, 

allocations for daily operations, and allocations for projects, as well as the 

overall employment levels at the Park Service as a whole. While the 

department noted in its comments that overall the balance of seasonal and 

permanent employees remained stable in 2005 compared to 2001, we found 

that for most of the 12 high-visitation park units we visited, that ratio of 

seasonals to permanent employees increased. We believe that these park 

specific FTE trends are better indicators of an individual park unit’s ability 

to maintain services at the park units than servicewide FTE trends. 

Analysis of activities at 12 specific park units was one of our report 

objectives and we continue to believe that the specific park examples adds 

to the report by illuminating the issues identified at the 12 park units that 

we visited—namely that officials at the park units reported that their daily 

operations allocations have not kept pace with increasing personnel costs, 

rising utility costs, and increased responsibilities. We provided examples 

of the tradeoffs park managers made to manage within their available 

resources that illustrate what park managers consistently told us about 

their ability to maintain park operations such as visitor service levels. In 

addition, we provided overall FTE trends for the park units we visited, 

including those FTEs paid with allocations for daily operations and those 

paid with other authorized sources. These trends show that most of the 

park units are increasingly relying on sources other than daily operations 

allocations to maintain FTE levels. 

In addition, the department said that the report relies on the use of budget 

and financial data but does not examine performance information, the 

trends in accomplishments, or efforts to improve service delivery over the 

time period of our study. Specifically, it mentioned the Park Service’s and 
Page 48 GAO-06-431 Operating Condition of the National Parks

the administration’s measurement of performance and related cost 

information, the analysis of allocations for daily operations through the 

PART process, and efforts in management excellence. It said that all of 

these efforts, including Park Service-specific tools such as the Core 

Operations Analysis are yielding results in achieving more effective 

programs and more efficient operations. In addition, the department states 

that the Park Service has adopted new ways of doing business including 

centralizing some services and systems under the department. Specifically, 

the comments describe a department-wide effort to purchase information 

technology hardware and software and other consumables, as well as Park 

Service efforts to limit travel, provide more efficient training, and use 

volunteers. We added additional information to the report to reflect these 

efforts. As recognized by the department, the report provides information 

on the major management initiatives that the Park Service has undertaken, 

such as COA, BPI, and the Park Scorecard, which are designed to assist 

managers to develop fully informed decisions which direct park resources 

toward functions that are essential to achieving mission goals and also 

serve as a part of management planning efforts. 

With regard to the department’s comment regarding accomplishments, we 

point out that for the most part, the initiatives underway were in their early 

stages of development and it was too soon to determine results. We did 

however, identify several examples of how park managers at the parks we 

visited reported that they are increasingly relying on volunteers to perform 

activities that were previously funded through allocations for daily 

operations and their efforts to limit travel and training, among other 

expenses, to reduce impacts on visitor services.

Finally, the department commented that, although there is not a perfect 

inflation adjustment index available to accurately determine an index of 

Park Service operating costs, the specific price index we used for deflating 

Park Service funding and operating costs—Gross Domestic Product (GDP) 

Price Index for Government Consumption Expenditures and Gross 

Investment (federal nondefense sector)—measures changes in the value of 

government output using the cost of inputs such as compensation of 

employees. The department said that it believes it might be more 

appropriate to use the GDP (Chained) Price Index because it is based upon 

costs of goods and services in the marketplace and it therefore considers 

productivity and other management enhancements; the department also 

said that this broader price index is not a perfect index either. The 

department added that using the broader index would provide significantly 

different results; that is, the inflation-adjusted trends in funding for daily 
Page 49 GAO-06-431 Operating Condition of the National Parks

operations would generally be more positive. We agree that there is not a 

perfect index available to accurately determine an index of Park Service 

operating costs, and we agree that using a broader index would yield 

different results. Nonetheless, we believe that using the GDP Price Index 

for Government Consumption Expenditures and Gross Investment (federal 

nondefense sector) better represents the real quantity of services that the 

agency’s budget provides over time. In general, when removing the effects 

of price changes, it is preferable to use a specific price index that matches 

the composition of the nominal dollar amounts under consideration. As we 

noted in the report, this price index reflects changes in the value of 

government output, as measured by the cost of inputs such as 

compensation of employees and purchases of goods and services. Input 

costs are used in constructing the index because most government output 

is not sold in the market place. For the Park Service, most of the operating 

costs consist of employee compensation. As a result, the specific price 

index we used assigns greater weight to changes in federal workers’ 

compensation than does the more general GDP (Chained) Price Index. 

While the GDP (Chained) Price Index reflects productivity improvements 

in the overall economy, it is partly based on input costs and a large portion 

of the basket of goods it represents reflects personal consumption, 

including food, clothing, and housing, which are less relevant for assessing 

real trends in the Park Service’s operating costs. 

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of 

this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the 

report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the Secretary 

of the Interior and other interested parties. We will also make copies 

available to others upon request. In addition, the report will be available at 

no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
Page 50 GAO-06-431 Operating Condition of the National Parks

If you or your staff have questions about this report, please contact me at 

(202) 512-3841 or nazzaror@gao.gov. Contact points for our offices of 

Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page 

of this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix VI.

Robin Nazzaro

Director, Natural Resources 

and Environment
Page 51 GAO-06-431 Operating Condition of the National Parks

Appendix I

Scope and Methodology AAppenednxidexiIs

This appendix presents the methods we used to gather information on 

National Park Service (Park Service) funding trends, their impacts on 

selected park units, and management initiatives under way to address fiscal 

performance and accountability. 

To identify funding trends for Park Service operations and visitor fees from 

fiscal years 2001 through 2005, we obtained and analyzed appropriations 

legislation, including appropriations for the Operation of the National Park 

System account (consisting of funding for daily operations, projects, and 

other support programs), and visitor fees. We analyzed the data in both 

nominal (actual) and real (adjusted for inflation) terms. To remove the 

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

Product (GDP) Price Index for Government Consumption Expenditures 

and Gross Investment (federal nondefense sector), with 2001 as the base 

year. The price index reflects changes in the value of government output, 

measured by the cost of inputs, including compensation of employees and 

purchases of goods and services. Consistent with the proportion of the 

Park Service’s operating expenditures on personnel, this price index is 

more heavily weighted by changes in federal workers’ compensation than 

the overall GDP price index. We gathered funding data from the Park 

Service Budget Office on allocations from the ONPS account for daily 

operations, projects, and other support programs. In addition to obtaining 

data on allocations for daily operations on a servicewide level, we also 

gathered data on the allocations for daily operations for individual park 

units to determine how many have received operating increases or 

decreases, and how many have remained relatively constant.1

 We also 

obtained data on recreation visits from the Park Service’s Public Use 

Statistics Office for park units to analyze allocations for daily operations in 

relation to visitation rates.2

 We also interviewed agency officials at Park 

Service Headquarters, the Pacific West Region, the Intermountain Region, 

and individual park units in addition to those listed below, including Mount 

Rainier National Park, Olympic National Park, Point Reyes National 

1

The Park Service currently has 390 park units. Some of these units are managed together 

and have combined budgets. We eliminated ten units from our analysis because these units 

did not receive funding for daily operations each year during our 5-fiscal-year time frame. 

2

The Park Service defines a recreation visit as the entry of a person onto lands or waters 

administered by the Park Service for recreational purposes excluding government 

personnel, through traffic (commuters), trades-persons and persons residing within park 

unit boundaries. Twenty-two of the remaining 380 park units do not report recreation 

visitation statistics for the 5 fiscal years in our analysis. Consequently, we analyzed 358 park 

units for visitation and daily operations funding trends. 
Appendix I

Scope and Methodology

Page 52 GAO-06-431 Operating Condition of the National Parks

Seashore, and the San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park. We 

assessed the reliability of the data by reviewing the methods of data 

collection for relevant Park Service databases. We determined that the data 

were sufficiently reliable for the uses in this report. 

To determine the funding trends for certain individual park units and how 

the trends affected their ability to provide services to visitors, we collected 

and analyzed data and reviewed operational impacts at the nonprobability 

sample3

 of 12 park units visited; we also interviewed park unit officials 

about their funding trends, operational impacts, and policy requirements. 

The 12 park units represent a cross-section of high-visitation parks (greater 

than 500,000 visits per year) with potentially a large number of visitor 

services, regional diversity, and a range of allocations for daily operations. 

In addition, based on preliminary figures, we sought a cross-section of 

parks that had sustained varying levels of growth in their allocations for 

daily operations. Table 10 lists the 12 parks we visited, their primary 

features, and their location. 

3

Results from a nonprobablility sample cannot be used to make inferences about a 

population, because in a nonprobability sample some elements of the population being 

studied have no chance—or an unknown chance—of being selected as part of the sample. 
Appendix I

Scope and Methodology

Page 53 GAO-06-431 Operating Condition of the National Parks

Table 10: Park Service Units that GAO Visited

Legend

NP = National Park

NMP = National Military Park

NMem = National Memorial

Source: GAO.

For each of the 12 park units, we collected data on funding trends, and park 

operations including visitor services. We collected park data on budget 

formulation, budget allocation, expenditures, and staffing trends. We sent 

uniform data requests to the 12 park units, provided uniform guidance and 

interactively worked with park officials to compile the data.4

 We also 

obtained information on operations such as (1) visitor and resource 

protection (e.g. law enforcement rangers), (2) facilities operation and 

maintenance (e.g. opening a campground or a visitor center and 

maintaining a building or trail), (3) resource management (e.g. monitoring 

the condition of threatened species or water quality), (4) interpretation and 

Park unit Primary features Region and location

Acadia NP Mountains, woodlands, lakes and ponds, 

and ocean shoreline, historic roads

Northeast Region, Maine

Badlands NP Buttes, pinnacles and spires, mixed grass 

prairie, wildlife

Midwest Region, South Dakota

Bryce Canyon NP Limestone amphitheaters, canyons and 

spires

Intermountain Region, Utah

Gettysburg NMP Civil war battlefield Northeast Region, Pennsylvania

Grand Canyon NP Canyons, river, geologic features Intermountain Region, Arizona 

Grand Teton NP Mountains, lakes, wildlife Intermountain Region, Wyoming

Mt. Rushmore NMem Granite memorial Midwest Region, South Dakota

Sequoia and Kings Canyon NP Mountains, canyons, giant sequoias, rivers Pacific West Region, California

Shenandoah NP Mountains, valleys, historic drive, wildlife Northeast Region, Virginia

Yellowstone NP Thermal features, wildlife, lakes, rivers, 

mountains

Intermountain Region, Wyoming, Montana, 

Idaho

Yosemite NP Waterfalls, mountains, wildlife, giant 

sequoias

Pacific West Region, California

Zion NP Canyons, cliffs, river, wildlife Intermountain Region, Utah

4

We provided the park units with standard data requests and standard instructions on how 

to compile the data. We followed up with the park units to determine what assumptions 

were made during data collection and worked with park officials to try to ensure that the 

parks units made the same assumptions. 
Appendix I

Scope and Methodology

Page 54 GAO-06-431 Operating Condition of the National Parks

education (e.g. interpretive rangers to provide educational programs), and 

(5) park administration and support (e.g. updating computer systems or 

attending training). Each of these operational areas has some role in 

providing visitor services. We assessed the reliability of the data by 

reviewing the methods of data collection for relevant Park Service 

databases. We determined that the data are sufficiently reliable for the 

purposes of this report. 

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 including the Business Plan Initiative, the Core Operations 

Analysis, and the Park Scorecard. For the Business Plan initiative, we 

interviewed park service officials at headquarters and individual park units 

on the content of the analysis, procedures, and final plans. For the Core 

Operations Analysis, we interviewed park officials in the Intermountain 

Region and at individual park units that are in the process of performing 

the analysis including Grand Canyon National Park, and Yellowstone 

National Park. For the Park Scorecard, we reviewed documentation and 

interviewed Park Service Headquarters officials on the development and 

implementation of the initiative. 

We conducted our work from January 2005 to March 2006 in accordance 

with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Page 55 GAO-06-431 Operating Condition of the National Parks

Appendix II

Operation of the National Park System 

Account and Visitor Fee Revenue, Fiscal Years 

2001 through 2005 ApendxiI

Tables 11 and 12 show trends in appropriations in both nominal and 

inflation-adjusted terms for the Operation of the National Park System 

Account, including allocations for daily operations and support programs. 

In addition, the tables show the trends for visitor fees collected by the Park 

Service from fiscal years 2001 through 2005. 

Table 11: Operation of the National Park System Account and Visitor Fee Revenue, in Nominal Dollars, Fiscal Years 2001 

through 2005 

Source: GAO analysis of National Park Service data.

Dollars in thousands

Fiscal years

Operation of the National Park System 

Account 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Average 

annual 

change (%)

Daily operations allocations

Park units $903,149 $940,063 $961,665 $968,095 $1,028,649 3.31

National trail system 4,758 5,108 5,049 5,458 5,925 5.64

Other field offices and affiliated areas 7,607 9,854 10,071 10,502 12,732 13.74

Total allocations for daily operations $915,514 $955,025 $976,785 $984,055 $1,047,306 3.42

Projects and other support programs

Support programs

Cyclic Maintenancea $34,534 $32,302 $51,866 $65,083 $62,842 16.15

Repair and Rehabilitation 58,453 72,640 84,353 94,423 95,100 12.94

Central offices 119,379 130,710 130,306 136,916 139,116 3.90

Field resource centers 3,954 4,185 4,229 4,250 4,147 1.20

Other support programs 8,655 10,855 10,847 3,044 3,050 -22.95

Subtotal support programs $224,975 $250,692 $281,601 $303,716 $304,255 7.84

Servicewide programs

Training programs $8,701 $12,232 $14,153 $13,893 $12,532 9.55

Cooperative programs 8,145 10,146 15,044 18,220 10,796 7.30

Information technology programs 0 0 0 797 5,120 n/a

Other servicewide programs 136,330 152,791 169,216 185,996 189,792 7.90

Subtotal servicewide programs $153,176 $175,169 $198,413 $218,906 $213,240 8.62

Subtotal external administrative costs $99,408 $105,312 $107,532 $112,951 $123,935 5.67

Total projects and other support programs $477,559 $531,173 $587,546 $635,573 $641,430 7.65

Total for Operation of the National Bank 

System account $1,393,073 $1,486,198 $1,564,331 $1,619,628 $1,688,736 4.93

Visitor fee revenueb $140,413 $140,997 $140,403 $148,952 $146,805 1.12
Appendix II

Operation of the National Park System 

Account and Visitor Fee Revenue, Fiscal 

Years 2001 through 2005

Page 56 GAO-06-431 Operating Condition of the National Parks

a

Cyclic Maintenance allocations include both Regular Cyclic Maintenance and Cyclic Maintenance for 

Historic Properties program.

b

Visitor fee revenue include revenue collected from the Recreational Fee Program and the National 

Parks Passport Program. 

Table 12: Operation of the National Park System Account and Visitor Fee Revenue, in Inflation-Adjusted Dollars, Fiscal Years 

2001 through 2005 

Source: GAO analysis of National Park Service data.

Note: Inflation adjusted figures are in 2001 dollars.

a

Cyclic Maintenance allocations include both Regular Cyclic Maintenance and Cyclic Maintenance for Historic 

Properties allocations.

b

Visitor fee revenue include revenue collected from the Recreational Fee Program and the National Parks Passport 

Program receipts.

Dollars in thousands

Fiscal years

Operation of the National Park System Account 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Average annual 

change (%)

Daily Operations Allocations

Park units $903,149 $910,032 $906,376 $875,312 $892,924 -0.28

National trail system 4,758 4,945 4,759 4,935 5,143 1.97

Other field offices and affiliated areas 7,607 9,539 9,492 9,495 11,052 9.79

Total $915,514 $924,516 $920,627 $889,742 $909,120 -0.18

Projects and other support programs

Support programs

Cyclic Maintenancea $34,534 $31,270 $48,884 $58,845 $54,550 12.11

Repair and Rehabilitation 58,453 70,319 79,503 85,373 82,552 9.01

Central offices 119,379 126,534 122,814 123,794 120,760 0.29

Field resource centers 3,954 4,051 3,986 3,843 3,600 -2.32

Other support programs 8,655 10,508 10,223 2,752 2,648 -25.63

Subtotal support programs $224,975 $242,683 $265,411 $274,608 $264,110 4.09

Servicewide programs

Training programs $8,701 $11,841 $13,339 $12,561 $10,878 5.74

Cooperative programs 8,145 9,822 14,179 16,474 9,372 3.57

Information technology programs 0 0 0 721 4,444 n/a 

Other servicewidepPrograms 136,330 147,910 159,487 168,170 160,410 4.15

Subtotal servicewide programs $153,176 $169,573 $187,006 $197,926 $185,104 4.85

Subtotal external administrative costs $99,408 $101,948 $101,350 $102,126 $107,582 2.00

Total projects and other support programs $477,559 $514,204 $553,766 $574,659 $556,797 3.91

Total for Operation of the National Park System 

account $1,393,073 $1,438,720 $1,474,393 $1,464,401 $1,465,917 1.28

Visitor fee revenueb $140,413 $136,493 $132,331 $134,676 $127,435 -2.40
Page 57 GAO-06-431 Operating Condition of the National Parks

Appendix III

Summary of Funding and Personnel Trends 

for 12 Selected Park Units ApendxiI

The following tables summarize the data collected from 12 selected park 

units including 2001 through 2005 total park unit labor expenditures; 

personnel levels by funding source; employee and labor cost per retirement 

system (CSRS and FERS); and funding levels by other funding source 

types.

Table 13: Total Personnel Expenditures at 12 Selected Park Units, in Nominal Dollars, Fiscal Years 2001 through 2005

Legend

NP = National Park

NMP = National Military Park

NMem = National Memorial

Source: GAO analysis of National Park Service data.

a

Personnel costs include salaries and benefits for permanent employees and salaries for seasonal 

employees. 

Dollars in thousands

Total personnel expendituresa

Park unit 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Average annual 

change (%)

Acadia NP $3,524 $4,278 $4,796 $5,060 $5,313 10.8

Badlands NP 2,273 2,417 2,453 2,635 2,598 3.4

Bryce Canyon NP 2,204 2,165 2,028 2,101 2,306 1.1

Gettysburg NMP 4,460 4,593 4,537 4,574 4,772 1.7

Grand Canyon NP 13,409 13,413 14,226 14,286 14,529 2.0

Grand Teton NP 6,509 6,566 6,669 7,762 7,746 4.4

Mount Rushmore 

NMem 2,014 1,906 2,263 2,601 2,939 9.9

Sequoia and Kings 

Canyon NP 9,164 10,011 10,216 10,361 10,600 3.7

Shenandoah NP 8,578 8,889 9,047 8,865 8,774 0.6

Yellowstone NP 17,587 19,011 20,113 21,069 22,071 5.8

Yosemite NP 17,602 19,858 20,616 20,248 20,444 3.8

Zion NP 4,268 4,648 4,866 4,862 5,094 4.5
Appendix III

Summary of Funding and Personnel Trends 

for 12 Selected Park Units

Page 58 GAO-06-431 Operating Condition of the National Parks

Table 14: Total Personnel Expenditures at 12 Selected Park Units, in Inflation-Adjusted Dollars, Fiscal Years 2001 through 2005 

Legend

NP = National Park

NMP = National Military Park

NMem = National Memorial

Source: GAO analysis of National Park Service data.

a

Personnel costs include salaries and benefits for permanent employees and salaries for seasonal 

employees. 

Dollars in thousands

Total personnel expendituresa

Park unit 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Average 

annual 

change (%)

Acadia NP $3,524 $4,141 $4,520 $4,576 $4,613 7.0

Badlands NP 2,273 2,340 2,312 2,383 2,256 -0.2

Bryce Canyon NP 2,204 2,096 1,911 1,900 2,002 -2.4

Gettysburg NMP 4,460 4,446 4,276 4,137 4,143 -1.8

Grand Canyon NP 13,409 12,983 13,407 12,919 12,614 -1.5

Grand Teton NP 6,509 6,356 6,285 7,019 6,724 0.8

Mount Rushmore NMem 2,014 1,845 2,133 2,352 2,552 6.1

Sequoia and Kings 

Canyon NP 9,164 9,691 9,628 9,369 9,202 0.1

Shenandoah NP 8,578 8,605 8,526 8,017 7,617 -2.9

Yellowstone NP 17,587 18,403 18,957 19,053 19,161 2.2

Yosemite NP 17,601 19,223 19,430 18,310 17,748 0.2

Zion NP 4,268 4,500 4,586 4,397 4,422 0.9
Appendix III

Summary of Funding and Personnel Trends 

for 12 Selected Park Units

Page 59 GAO-06-431 Operating Condition of the National Parks

This page intentionally left blank
Appendix III

Summary of Funding and Personnel Trends 

for 12 Selected Park Units

Page 60 GAO-06-431 Operating Condition of the National Parks

Table 15: Personnel (Full Time Equivalent) by Funding Source at 12 Selected Park 

Units, Fiscal Years 2001 through 2005 

2001

Park unit Employee type

Daily 

operations Other

Acadia NP Total 69 44

Permanent 51 16

Seasonal 18 28

Badlands NP Total 48 16

Permanent 39 9

Seasonal 8 7

Bryce Canyon NP Total 40 18

Permanent 36 6

Seasonal 4 12

Gettysburg NMP Total 84 5

Permanent 75 2

Seasonal 9 3

Grand Canyon NP Total 231 183

Permanent 205 119

Seasonal 25 64

Grand Teton NP Total 132 26

Permanent 95 10

Seasonal 37 17

Mount Rushmore NMem Total 42 3

Permanent 32 1

Seasonal 9 2

Sequoia and Kings Canyon 

NP Total 201 128

Permanent 155 49

Seasonal 46 79
Appendix III

Summary of Funding and Personnel Trends 

for 12 Selected Park Units

Page 61 GAO-06-431 Operating Condition of the National Parks

2002 2003 2004 2005

Daily

operations Other

Daily 

operations Other

Daily

operations Other

Daily 

operations Other

80 43 83 45 82 48 83 44

56 14 59 15 62 14 64 12

24 29 24 30 20 34 19 32

50 24 46 23 45 24 41 26

43 6 41 7 42 7 36 6

7 18 5 16 4 17 5 20

44 13 33 23 34 19 35 16

37 5 29 4 28 5 30 5

7 8 4 19 5 14 5 11

80 9 74 9 69 15 69 11

71 2 66 2 66 2 64 2

9 6 8 7 3 13 5 9

269 178 243 208 230 219 227 193

209 123 210 126 203 131 203 109

60 54 32 83 27 88 25 85

132 71 119 24 132 100 121 72

97 30 86 2 99 44 93 26

35 41 33 22 33 57 28 46

36 11 40 9 39 17 42 18

30 2 33 2 36 4 40 3

7 9 7 7 4 13 2 15

208 131 201 133 196 137 188 135

156 45 153 47 150 50 144 52

53 86 48 86 47 87 45 84
Appendix III

Summary of Funding and Personnel Trends 

for 12 Selected Park Units

Page 62 GAO-06-431 Operating Condition of the National Parks

(Continued From Previous Page)

2001

Park unit Employee type

Daily 

operations Other

Shenandoah NP Total 180 51

Permanent 141 27

Seasonal 39 24

Yellowstone NP Total 338 219

Permanent 253 99

Seasonal 85 120

Yosemite NP Total 361 206

Permanent 318 105

Seasonal 43 101

Zion NP Total 83 76

Permanent 69 32

Seasonal 13 44
Appendix III

Summary of Funding and Personnel Trends 

for 12 Selected Park Units

Page 63 GAO-06-431 Operating Condition of the National Parks

Legend

NP = National Park

NMP = National Military Park

NMem = National Memorial

Source: GAO analysis of National Park Service data from 12 selected park units.

Note: We provided each park with uniform instructions for completing our data request. However, each 

park is unique and some parks had to make assumptions and estimates to produce their data, 

particularly when source data for a specific data request from GAO could not be retrieved directly from 

a database. For example, AFSIII did not provide a breakdown of FTE by permanent and seasonal for 

ONPS costs versus all other funds for all 5 years. In addition, some parks had to make assumptions 

about which FTEs should or should not be included in their answers to GAO. A particular issue was 

that due to the fire season, fire personnel (FTE) were shared among some parks, making the 

calculations difficult. GAO did some follow up work to better understand the decisions that individual 

parks made with regard to reporting FTEs.

2002 2003 2004 2005

Daily 

operations Other

Daily 

operations Other

Daily 

operations Other

Daily

operations Other

171 47 181 27 150 52 133 51

145 23 147 15 131 33 123 31

26 24 34 12 19 19 10 20

350 225 338 242 336 251 351 228

258 110 259 109 263 117 257 110

92 114 79 133 73 133 94 119

367 206 348 238 340 236 317 250

316 82 310 105 298 113 286 119

50 124 37 132 42 123 31 130

87 73 87 76 83 77 90 86

75 30 76 32 67 35 73 42

11 43 11 45 16 42 17 44
Appendix III

Summary of Funding and Personnel Trends 

for 12 Selected Park Units

Page 64 GAO-06-431 Operating Condition of the National Parks

Table 16: Employee Numbers and Nominal Personnel Costs Per Retirement System 

at 12 Selected Park Units, Fiscal Years 2001 through 2005 

Dollars in thousands

2001 2002

Park unit CSRS FERS Total CSRS FERS Total

Acadia NP

Employees 20 44 64 21 51 72

Salaries $975 $1,349 $2,324 $1,130 $1,573 $2,702

Benefits 175 411 587 205 504 709

Total personnel cost $1,151 $1,760 $2,911 $1,334 $2,077 $3,411

Badlands NP

Employees 7 43 50 7 44 51

Salaries $382 $1,213 $1,595 $369 $1,368 $1,737

Benefits 69 374 443 68 431 499

Total personnel cost $451 $1,587 $2,038 $437 $1,800 $2,236

Bryce Canyon NP

Employees 5 35 40 6 38 44

Salaries $318 $1,441 $1,760 $220 $1,267 $1,487

Benefits 54 389 444 38 400 438

Total personnel cost $373 $1,831 $2,204 $258 $1,667 $1,925

Gettysburg NMP

Employees 30 47 77 32 46 78

Salaries $1,544 $1,966 $3,510 $1,659 $2,004 $3,663

Benefits 298 553 851 308 576 884

Total personnel cost $1,842 $2,519 $4,361 $1,967 $2,581 $4,548

Grand Canyon NP

Employees 59 307 366 51 341 392

Salaries $2,965 $10,279 $13,245 $2,744 $11,807 $14,551

Benefits 484 2,892 3,377 459 3,395 3,854

Total personnel cost $3,450 $13,172 $16,621 $3,203 $15,201 $18,405
Appendix III

Summary of Funding and Personnel Trends 

for 12 Selected Park Units

Page 65 GAO-06-431 Operating Condition of the National Parks

2003 2004 2005

CSRS FERS Total CSRS FERS Total CSRS FERS Total

21 60 81 19 56 75 21 56 77

$1,070 $1,933 $3,002 $1,165 $2,218 $3,383 $1,260 $2,284 $3,544

200 625 826 220 748 967 215 836 1,051

$1,270 $2,558 $3,828 $1,385 $2,965 $4,350 $1,475 $3,120 $4,595

6 47 53 6 47 53 7 39 46

$370 $1,429 $1,798 $441 $1,439 $1,880 $414 $1,416 $1,830

64 476 540 75 502 577 71 488 559

$434 $1,904 $2,338 $516 $1,941 $2,457 $485 $1,904 $2,389

3 30 33 3 31 34 4 32 36

$207 $1,220 $1,427 $195 $1,247 $1,442 $258 $1,367 $1,624

34 415 449 28 407 435 41 471 512

$240 $1,636 $1,876 $223 $1,654 $1,877 $299 $1,838 $2,136

32 40 73 28 45 72 28 43 71

$1,799 $1,871 $3,670 $1,601 $2,160 $3,761 $1,563 $2,057 $3,621

326 540 865 293 625 918 313 636 949

$2,124 $2,411 $4,535 $1,894 $2,785 $4,679 $1,876 $2,694 $4,570

51 331 382 50 315 365 58 303 361

$2,744 $12,910 $15,654 $3,052 $13,565 $16,618 $3,329 $13,156 $16,485

459 3,785 4,244 555 4,028 4,583 645 4,053 4,698

$3,203 $16,695 $19,898 $3,607 $17,594 $21,201 $3,973 $17,210 $21,183
Appendix III

Summary of Funding and Personnel Trends 

for 12 Selected Park Units

Page 66 GAO-06-431 Operating Condition of the National Parks

(Continued From Previous Page)

Dollars in thousands

2001 2002

Park unit CSRS FERS Total CSRS FERS Total

Grand Teton NP

Employees 30 89 119 26 90 116

Salaries $1,632 $1,999 $3,632 $1,349 $2,909 $4,258

Benefits 306 613 919 260 926 1,185

Total personnel cost $1,938 $2,612 $4,550 $1,609 $3,835 $5,444

Mount Rushmore 

NMem

Employees 8 38 46 7 37 44

Salaries $209 $991 $1,201 $283 $1,087 $1,369

Benefits 43 348 391 45 393 438

Total personnel cost $253 $1,339 $1,592 $328 $1,479 $1,807

Sequoia and Kings 

Canyon NP

Employees 33 158 191 33 165 198

Salary $1,581 $4,449 $6,030 $1,712 $5,001 $6,713

Benefit 275 1,293 1,569 329 1,506 1,835

Total personnel cost $1,857 $5,742 $7,599 $2,042 $6,507 $8,549

Shenandoah NP

Employees 62 117 179 57 141 198

Salaries $2,669 $3,704 $6,373 $2,730 $3,768 $6,498

Benefits 531 1,201 1,732 559 1,243 1,802

Total personnel cost $3,200 $4,905 $8,105 $3,289 $5,011 $8,299

Yellowstone NP

Employees 55 185 239 53 195 247

Salaries $3,082 $7,625 $10,707 $3,194 $8,402 $11,596

Benefits 511 2,473 2,984 561 2,798 3,359

Total personnel cost $3,593 $10,099 $13,692 $3,755 $11,200 $14,955
Appendix III

Summary of Funding and Personnel Trends 

for 12 Selected Park Units

Page 67 GAO-06-431 Operating Condition of the National Parks

2003 2004 2005

CSRS FERS Total CSRS FERS Total CSRS FERS Total

24 83 107 20 101 121 17 106 123

$1,282 $3,094 $4,376 $1,072 $4,019 $5,091 $889 $4,196 $5,084

233 993 1,227 180 1,305 1,484 163 1,461 1,624

$1,516 $4,087 $5,603 $1,251 $5,324 $6,575 $1,051 $5,657 $6,708

6 46 52 5 52 57 2 55 57

$268 $1,401 $1,669 $264 $1,727 $1,991 $60 $2,133 $2,193

46 451 497 37 613 649 10 694 703

$314 $1,852 $2,165 $301 $2,340 $2,640 $70 $2,827 $2,897

29 162 191 25 162 187 23 163 186

$1,646 $5,207 $6,853 $1,528 $5,608 $7,136 $1,242 $5,752 $6,994

312 1,660 1,972 291 1,813 2,103 223 1,911 2,134

$1,957 $6,867 $8,824 $1,818 $7,421 $9,239 $1,466 $7,663 $9,128

53 136 189 44 123 167 43 110 153

$2,538 $3,913 $6,452 $2,288 $4,132 $6,420 $2,216 $4,122 $6,337

496 1,335 1,831 467 1,445 1,912 466 1,484 1,950

$3,034 $5,249 $8,282 $2,756 $5,577 $8,332 $2,681 $5,606 $8,287

51 208 259 45 209 255 38 214 252

$3,180 $9,482 $12,663 $3,002 $10,076 $13,078 $2,766 $10,928 $13,694

534 3,221 3,756 497 3,496 3,993 453 3,910 4,363

$3,715 $12,704 $16,419 $3,499 $13,571 $17,071 $3,219 $14,837 $18,057
Appendix III

Summary of Funding and Personnel Trends 

for 12 Selected Park Units

Page 68 GAO-06-431 Operating Condition of the National Parks

(Continued From Previous Page)

Dollars in thousands

2001 2002

Park unit CSRS FERS Total CSRS FERS Total

Yosemite NP

Employees 109 336 445 105 349 454

Salaries $5,668 $7,344 $13,012 $5,223 $7,691 $12,914

Benefits 1,114 2,288 3,403 1,043 2,489 3,532

Total personnel cost $6,783 $9,632 $16,415 $6,266 $10,180 $16,446

Zion NP

Employees 15 62 77 15 64 79

Salaries $739 $2,579 $3,318 $775 $2,887 $3,661

Benefits 125 824 949 132 856 987

Total personnel cost $864 $3,404 $4,268 $906 $3,742 $4,648
Appendix III

Summary of Funding and Personnel Trends 

for 12 Selected Park Units

Page 69 GAO-06-431 Operating Condition of the National Parks

Legend

NP = National Park

NMP = National Military Park

NMem = National Memorial

CSRS = Civil Service Retirement System

FERS = Federal Employee Retirement System

Source: GAO analysis of National Park Service data from 12 selected park units.

2003 2004 2005

CSRS FERS Total CSRS FERS Total CSRS FERS Total

95 351 446 89 351 439 64 368 439

$5,245 $8,627 $13,872 $4,366 $9,213 $13,579 $4,029 $9,607 $13,637

1,016 2,810 3,826 806 3,112 3,918 741 3,339 4,080

$6,262 $11,436 $17,698 $5,172 $12,325 $17,497 $4,770 $12,947 $17,717

12 67 79 11 67 78 11 67 78

$699 $3,140 $3,839 $678 $3,141 $3,820 $871 $3,078 $3,949

115 912 1,027 109 933 1,042 158 987 1,145

$814 $4,052 $4,866 $788 $4,074 $4,862 $1,029 $4,065 $5,094
Appendix III

Summary of Funding and Personnel Trends 

for 12 Selected Park Units

Page 70 GAO-06-431 Operating Condition of the National Parks

Table 17: Employee Numbers and Inflation-Adjusted Personnel Costs Per 

Retirement System at 12 Selected Park Units, Fiscal Years 2001 through 2005

Dollars in thousands

2001 2002

Park unit CSRS FERS Total CSRS FERS Total

Acadia NP

Employees 20 44 64 21 51 72

Salaries $975 $1,349 $2,324 $1,093 $1,523 $2,616

Benefits 175 411 587 198 488 686

Total personnel cost $1,151 $1,760 $2,911 $1,292 $2,011 $3,302

Badlands NP

Employees 7 43 50 7 44 51

Salaries $382 $1,213 $1,595 $357 $1,324 $1,682

Benefits 69 374 443 65 418 483

Total personnel cost $451 $1,587 $2,038 $423 $1,742 $2,165

Bryce Canyon NP

Employees 5 35 40 6 38 44

Salaries $318 $1,441 $1,760 $213 $1,226 $1,439

Benefits 54 389 444 37 387 424

Total personnel cost $373 $1,831 $2,204 $250 $1,613 $1,863

Gettysburg NMP

Employees 30 47 77 32 46 78

Salaries $1,544 $1,966 $3,510 $1,606 $1,940 $3,546

Benefits 298 553 851 298 558 856

Total personnel cost $1,842 $2,519 $4,361 $1,904 $2,498 $4,402

Grand Canyon NP

Employees 59 307 366 51 341 392

Salaries $2,965 $10,279 $13,245 $2,656 $11,429 $14,085

Benefits 484 2,892 3,377 444 3,286 3,730

Total personnel cost $3,450 $13,172 $16,621 $3,101 $14,715 $17,816
Appendix III

Summary of Funding and Personnel Trends 

for 12 Selected Park Units

Page 71 GAO-06-431 Operating Condition of the National Parks

2003 2004 2005

CSRS FERS Total CSRS FERS Total CSRS FERS Total

21 60 81 19 56 75 21 56 77

$1,008 $1,821 $2,830 $1,054 $2,005 $3,059 $1,094 $1,983 $3,077

189 589 778 199 676 875 187 726 913

$1,197 $2,411 $3,608 $1,252 $2,681 $3,934 $1,280 $2,709 $3,989

6 7 53 6 47 53 7 39 46

$348 $1,346 $1,695 $399 $1,301 $1,700 $360 $1,229 $1,589

61 448 509 68 454 522 61 424 485

$409 $1,795 $2,204 $466 $1,755 $2,222 $421 $1,653 $2,074

3 30 33 3 31 34 4 32 36

$195 $1,150 $1,345 $176 $1,128 $1,304 $224 $1,187 $1,410

32 391 423 25 368 394 36 409 444

$226 $1,541 $1,768 $202 $1,496 $1,697 $259 $1,595 $1,855

32 40 73 28 45 72 28 43 71

$1,695 $1,764 $3,459 $1,448 $1,953 $3,401 $1,357 $1,786 $3,143

307 509 816 265 565 830 272 553 824

$2,002 $2,272 $4,274 $1,713 $2,518 $4,231 $1,629 $2,338 $3,967

51 331 382 50 315 365 58 303 361

$2,586 $12,167 $14,754 $2,760 $12,267 $15,027 $2,890 $11,422 $14,311

433 3,567 4,000 502 3,643 4,145 560 3,519 4,078

$3,019 $15,735 $18,753 $3,262 $15,910 $19,172 $3,449 $14,940 $18,390
Appendix III

Summary of Funding and Personnel Trends 

for 12 Selected Park Units

Page 72 GAO-06-431 Operating Condition of the National Parks

(Continued From Previous Page)

Dollars in thousands

2001 2002

Park unit CSRS FERS Total CSRS FERS Total

Grand Teton NP

Employees 30 89 119 26 90 116

Salaries $1,632 $1,999 $3,632 $1,306 $2,816 $4,122

Benefits 306 613 919 251 896 1,147

Total personnel cost $1,938 $2,612 $4,550 $1,558 $3,712 $5,270

Mount Rushmore NMem

Employees 8 38 46 7 37 44

Salaries $209 $991 $1,201 $274 $1,052 $1,325

Benefits 43 348 391 44 380 424

Total personnel cost $253 $1,339 $1,592 $317 $1,432 $1,749

Sequoia and Kings 

Canyon NP

Employees 33 158 191 33 165 198

Salaries $1,581 $4,449 $6,030 $1,658 $4,841 $6,498

Benefits 275 1,293 1,569 319 1,458 1,777

Total personnel cost $1,857 $5,742 $7,599 $1,976 $6,299 $8,275

Shenandoah NP

Employees 62 117 179 57 141 198

Salaries $2,669 $3,704 $6,373 $2,643 $3,647 $6,290

Benefits 531 1,201 1,732 541 1,203 1,744

Total personnel cost $3,200 $4,905 $8,105 $3,184 $4,850 $8,034

Yellowstone NP

Employees 55 185 239 53 195 247

Salaries $3,082 $7,625 $10,707 $3,092 $8,133 $11,225

Benefits 511 2,473 2,984 543 2,709 3,252

Total personnel cost $3,593 $10,099 $13,692 $3,635 $10,842 $14,477
Appendix III

Summary of Funding and Personnel Trends 

for 12 Selected Park Units

Page 73 GAO-06-431 Operating Condition of the National Parks

2003 2004 2005

CSRS FERS Total CSRS FERS Total CSRS FERS Total

24 83 107 20 101 121 17 106 123

$1,209 $2,916 $4,125 $969 $3,634 $4,604 $772 $3,643 $4,414

24 83 107 162 1,180 1,342 141 1,268 1,410

$1,209 $2,916 $4,125 $1,132 $4,814 $5,946 $913 $4,911 $5,824

6 46 52 5 52 57 2 55 57

$252 $1,320 $1,573 $239 $1,562 $1,801 $52 $1,852 $1,904

43 425 468 33 554 587 8 602 611

$296 $1,745 $2,041 $272 $2,116 $2,388 $61 $2,454 $2,515

29 162 191 25 162 187 23 163 186

$1,551 $4,907 $6,459 $1,382 $5,071 $6,453 $1,078 $4,994 $6,072

294 1,565 1,858 263 1,639 1,902 194 1,659 1,853

$1,845 $6,472 $8,317 $1,644 $6,711 $8,355 $1,272 $6,652 $7,925

53 136 189 44 123 167 43 110 153

$2,392 $3,688 $6,080 $2,069 $3,736 $5,806 $1,923 $3,578 $5,502

467 1,259 1,726 423 1,307 1,729 404 1,288 1,693

$2,859 $4,947 $7,806 $2,492 $5,043 $7,535 $2,328 $4,867 $7,194

51 208 259 45 209 255 38 214 252

$2,997 $8,937 $11,934 $2,715 $9,111 $11,826 $2,402 $9,487 $11,888

504 3,036 3,540 450 3,161 3,611 393 3,394 3,788

$3,501 $11,973 $15,474 $3,165 $12,273 $15,437 $2,795 $12,881 $15,676
Appendix III

Summary of Funding and Personnel Trends 

for 12 Selected Park Units

Page 74 GAO-06-431 Operating Condition of the National Parks

(Continued From Previous Page)

Dollars in thousands

2001 2002

Park unit CSRS FERS Total CSRS FERS Total

Yosemite NP

Employees 109 336 445 105 349 454

Salaries $5,668 $7,344 $13,012 $5,056 $7,445 $12,501

Benefits 1,114 2,288 3,403 1,010 2,409 3,419

Total personnel cost $6,783 $9,632 $16,415 $6,066 $9,854 $15,920

Zion NP

Employees 15 62 77 15 64 79

Salaries $739 $2,579 $3,318 $750 $2,794 $3,544

Benefits 125 824 949 127 828 956

Total personnel cost $864 $3,404 $4,268 $877 $3,623 $4,500
Appendix III

Summary of Funding and Personnel Trends 

for 12 Selected Park Units

Page 75 GAO-06-431 Operating Condition of the National Parks

Legend

NP = National Park 

NMP = National Military Park

NMem = National Memorial 

CSRS = Civil Service Retirement System

FERS = Federal Employee Retirement System

Source: GAO analysis of National Park Service data from 12 selected park units.

2003 2004 2005

CSRS FERS Total CSRS FERS Total CSRS FERS Total

95 351 446 89 351 439 64 368 439

$4,944 $8,131 $13,075 $3,948 $8,331 $12,279 $3,498 $8,341 $11,839

958 2,648 3,606 729 2,814 3,543 643 2,899 3,542

$5,901 $10,779 $16,680 $4,677 $11,145 $15,823 $4,141 $11,240 $15,381

12 67 79 11 67 78 11 67 78

$659 $2,959 $3,618 $614 $2,841 $3,454 $756 $2,673 $3,429

108 860 968 99 843 942 137 857 994

$767 $3,819 $4,586 $712 $3,684 $4,397 $893 $3,529 $4,422
Appendix III

Summary of Funding and Personnel Trends 

for 12 Selected Park Units

Page 76 GAO-06-431 Operating Condition of the National Parks

Table 18: Other Authorized Funding Source Amounts for 12 Selected Park Units, in Nominal Dollars, Fiscal Years 2001 through 

2005 

Dollars in thousands

Park unit

Other authorized funding 

source type 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Acadia NP

Visitor fees $1,843 $2,011 $1,907 $2,165 $1,870

Concession fees 105 109 164 381 350

Donations 395 313 368 514 291

Other revenue 132 136 180 192 66

Badlands NP

Visitor fees 1,166 1,278 1,304 1,291 1,277

Concession fees 22 0 0 0 0

Donations 42 3 8 9 3

Other revenue 2 1 1 2 3

Bryce Canyon NP

Visitor fees 1,538 1,563 1,285 1,415 1,359

Concession fees 0 0 0 0 2

Donations 100 8 21 4 104

Other revenue 1,062 1,106 1,084 1,105 1,097

Gettysburg NMP

Visitor fees 132 120 0 0 0

Concession fees 0 0 0 0 0

Donations 239 214 169 463 236

Other revenue 137 155 155 182 200

Grand Canyon NP

Visitor fees 16,661 14,558 13,702 14,425 13,927

Concession Fees 5,750 4,091 3,591 3,337 5,787

Donations 176 254 301 287 227

Other revenue 2,766 2,850 2,581 2,731 3,216

Grand Teton NP

Visitor fees 4,602 4,755 4,840 4,626 3,475

Concession fees 0 0 1,208 1,557 930

Donations 188 125 457 402 8,744

Other revenue 107 137 165 158 163
Appendix III

Summary of Funding and Personnel Trends 

for 12 Selected Park Units

Page 77 GAO-06-431 Operating Condition of the National Parks

Legend

NP = National Park

NMP = National Military Park

NMem = National Memorial

Source: GAO analysis of National Park Service data from 12 selected park units.

Mount Rushmore 

NMem

Visitor fees $0 $3 $3 $4 $8

Concession fees 0 361 238 843 648

Donations 66 197 261 236 274

Other revenue 184 183 170 176 173

Shenandoah NP

Visitor fees 3,051 3,105 2,695 2,828 2,777

Concession fees 185 166 133 189 210

Donations 8 64 41 8 39

Other revenue 7 5 3 7 7

Sequoia and Kings 

Canyon NP

Visitor fees 2,151 2,395 2,458 2,474 2,154

Concession fees 1 2 0 7 150

Donations 69 131 24 29 51

Other revenue 1,174 1,451 1,394 1,331 1,266

Yellowstone NP

Visitor fees 5,027 5,185 4,667 4,180 4,053

Concession fees 547 521 829 267 297

Donations 207 445 650 1,578 2,200

Other revenue 5,529 5,584 6,416 5,823 5,817

Yosemite NP

Visitor fees 15,330 14,559 14,263 15,521 14,246

Concession fees 134 154 1,576 969 1,001

Donations 848 777 974 1,940 1,601

Other revenue 7,692 9,177 8,529 10,776 10,012

Zion NP

Visitor fees 4,542 3,022 2,921 3,355 3,902

Concession fees 4 4 3 6 11

Donations 0 14 0 0 1

Other revenue 379 475 499 559 719

(Continued From Previous Page)

Dollars in thousands

Park unit

Other authorized funding 

source type 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Appendix III

Summary of Funding and Personnel Trends 

for 12 Selected Park Units

Page 78 GAO-06-431 Operating Condition of the National Parks

Note: The other revenue category includes authorized revenue collected from various other 

miscellaneous sources. Examples of other revenue include rent collected through employee housing, 

transportation fees, cell tower permits, boat permits, and outfitter permits.
Appendix III

Summary of Funding and Personnel Trends 

for 12 Selected Park Units

Page 79 GAO-06-431 Operating Condition of the National Parks

Table 19: Other Authorized Funding Source Amounts for 12 Selected Park Units, in Inflation-Adjusted Dollars, Fiscal Years 2001 

through 2005

Dollars in thousands

Park unit

Other authorized 

funding

source type 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Acadia NP

Visitor Fees $1,843 $1,947 $1,798 $1,958 $1,623

Concession Fees 105 106 154 345 304

Donations 395 303 346 465 252

Other Revenue 132 131 170 173 57

Badlands NP

Visitor Fees 1,166 1,237 1,229 1,168 1,108

Concession Fees 22 0 0 0 0

Donations 42 3 7 9 2

Other Revenue 2 1 1 2 3

Bryce Canyon NP

Visitor Fees 1,538 1,513 1,211 1,280 1,179

Concession Fees 0 0 0 0 2

Donations 100 8 19 4 91

Other Revenue 1,062 1,071 1,021 999 952

Gettysburg NMP

Visitor Fees 132 116 0 0 0

Concession Fees 0 0 0 0 0

Donations 239 208 159 419 205

Other Revenue 137 150 146 165 174

Grand Canyon NP

Visitor Fees 16,661 14,092 12,914 13,045 12,091

Concession Fees 5,750 3,960 3,385 3,018 5,024

Donations 176 246 284 255 197

Other Revenue 2,766 2,759 2,432 2,469 2,792

Grand Teton NP

Visitor Fees 4,602 4,603 4,561 4,183 3,017

Concession Fees 0 0 1,139 1,408 807

Donations 188 121 431 364 7,591

Other Revenue 107 133 156 143 141
Appendix III

Summary of Funding and Personnel Trends 

for 12 Selected Park Units

Page 80 GAO-06-431 Operating Condition of the National Parks

Legend

NP = National Park

NMP = National Military Park

NMem = National Memorial

Source: GAO analysis of National Park Service data from 12 selected park units

Mount Rushmore NMem

Visitor Fees $0 $3 $3 $3 $7

Concession Fees 0 350 224 763 562

Donations 66 190 246 213 237

Other Revenue 184 177 161 159 150

Shenandoah NP

Visitor Fees 3,051 3,005 2,540 2,557 2,411

Concession Fees 185 160 125 171 183

Donations 8 62 39 8 34

Other Revenue 7 5 3 7 6

Sequoia and Kings Canyon 

NP

Visitor Fees 2,151 2,319 2,317 2,238 1,870

Concession Fees 1 2 0 6 130

Donations 69 127 22 26 44

Other Revenue 1,174 1,404 1,314 1,204 1,099

Yellowstone NP

Visitor Fees 5,027 5,020 4,398 3,780 3,519

Concession Fees 547 504 782 242 258

Donations 207 431 613 1,427 1,910

Other Revenue 5,529 5,405 6,047 5,266 5,050

Yosemite NP

Visitor Fees 15,330 14,093 13,443 14,036 12,367

Concession Fees 134 149 1,485 876 869

Donations 848 752 918 1,755 1,390

Other Revenue 7,692 8,883 8,039 9,745 8,692

Zion NP

Visitor Fees 4,542 2,926 2,754 3,033 3,388

Concession Fees 4 4 3 5 9

Donations 0 13 0 0 1

Other Revenue 379 460 471 506 623

(Continued From Previous Page)

Dollars in thousands

Park unit

Other authorized 

funding

source type 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Appendix III

Summary of Funding and Personnel Trends 

for 12 Selected Park Units

Page 81 GAO-06-431 Operating Condition of the National Parks

Note: The other revenue category includes authorized revenue collected from various other 

miscellaneous sources. Examples include rent collected through employee housing, transportation 

fees, cell tower permits, boat permits, and outfitter permits.
Page 82 GAO-06-431 Operating Condition of the National Parks

Appendix IV

Recreation Visitation Trends for the Park 

Service and 12 Selected Park Units, Fiscal 

Years 2001 through 2005 ApendxiIV

Table 20 shows, for fiscal years 2001 through 2005, recreation visitation 

trends for the 12 selected park units we visited compared to the entire Park 

Service.

Table 20: Recreation Visitation Trends for the Park Service and 12 Selected Park Units, Fiscal Years 2001 through 2005

Source: GAO analysis of Park Service data.

Note: The Park Service defines a recreation visit as the entry of a person onto lands or waters 

administered by the Park Service for recreational purposes excluding government personnel, through 

traffic (commuters), trades-persons and persons residing within park unit boundaries.

Fiscal years

Park unit 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Average

Average 

annual 

change 

FYs 2001 - 

2005 (%)

Acadia NP 2,504,708 2,550,589 2,433,494 2,219,891 2,103,398 2,362,416 -4.3

Badlands NP 956,268 906,869 872,968 921,755 924,354 916,443 -0.8

Bryce Canyon NP 1,076,895 899,221 883,170 1,006,471 1,005,957 974,343 -1.7

Gettysburg NMP 1,779,610 1,829,794 1,753,412 1,756,451 1,716,467 1,767,147 -0.9

Grand Canyon NP 4,219,726 3,936,828 4,102,541 4,334,614 4,367,932 4,192,328 0.9

Grand Teton NP 2,531,844 2,606,497 2,466,543 2,287,662 2,459,508 2,470,411 -0.7

Mt Rushmore 

NMem 1,862,674 2,159,718 2,212,178 2,045,798 2,052,967 2,066,667 2.5

Sequoia and Kings 

Canyon NP 1,419,075 1,418,519 1,552,258 1,531,947 1,556,547 1,495,669 2.3

Shenandoah NP 1,514,739 1,511,020 1,127,958 1,290,812 1,141,102 1,317,126 -6.8

Yellowstone NP 2,769,775 2,969,876 2,995,640 2,900,971 2,828,536 2,892,960 0.5

Yosemite NP 3,453,345 3,305,636 3,380,038 3,356,028 3,212,295 3,341,468 -1.8

Zion NP 2,269,328 2,510,630 2,451,977 2,684,977 2,587,781 2,500,939 3.3

Subtotal, 12 

selected park 

units 26,357,987 26,605,197 26,232,177 26,337,377 25,956,844 26,297,916 -0.4

Total for entire 

Park Service 284,267,032 274,202,072 265,470,541 276,363,931 271,196,534 274,300,022 -1.2
Page 83 GAO-06-431 Operating Condition of the National Parks

Appendix V

Comments from the Department of the 

Interior ApendxiV

Note: GAO comments 

supplementing those in 

the report text appear 

at the end of this 

appendix.

See comment 1.

See comment 2.

See comment 3.
Appendix V

Comments from the Department of the 

Interior

Page 84 GAO-06-431 Operating Condition of the National Parks

See comment 4.

See comment 5.

See comment 6.

See comment 6.

See comment 7.
Appendix V

Comments from the Department of the 

Interior

Page 85 GAO-06-431 Operating Condition of the National Parks

See comment 8.

See comment 9.

See comment 10.

See comment 11.

See comment 12.
Appendix V

Comments from the Department of the 

Interior

Page 86 GAO-06-431 Operating Condition of the National Parks

See comment 13.

See comment 14.

See comment 14.

See comment 15.
Appendix V

Comments from the Department of the 

Interior

Page 87 GAO-06-431 Operating Condition of the National Parks

See comment 16.

See comment 17.

See comment 18.

See comment 19.
Appendix V

Comments from the Department of the 

Interior

Page 88 GAO-06-431 Operating Condition of the National Parks

See comment 20.

See comment 21.

See comment 21.
Appendix V

Comments from the Department of the 

Interior

Page 89 GAO-06-431 Operating Condition of the National Parks
Appendix V

Comments from the Department of the 

Interior

Page 90 GAO-06-431 Operating Condition of the National Parks
Appendix V

Comments from the Department of the 

Interior

Page 91 GAO-06-431 Operating Condition of the National Parks
Appendix V

Comments from the Department of the 

Interior

Page 92 GAO-06-431 Operating Condition of the National Parks

The following are GAO’s comments on the Department of the Interior’s 

letter dated March 27, 2006

GAO Comments 1. We agree that the overall 2005 ONPS account was $1.7 billion—an 

increase of about 21 percent higher than in 2001. We reported this 

increase on an average annual basis of about 4.9 percent per year from 

2001 through 2005, which is equivalent to about 21 percent from 2001 to 

2005 in nominal terms. In addition, we added information on the 

department’s comment that the Park Service has received significant 

operating increases since 1980, particularly compared to other 

domestic agencies.

2. For the park units we visited, we provided data and analysis on the 

major funding trends for the park units, namely, allocations for daily 

operations, project related allocations, visitor fees, concessions fees 

and others. We added examples of specific project allocations to the 

park units we visited and how they were used as reported by the park 

units. 

3. On page 12 of the report, we provided information on the park service’s 

overall budget authority. In addition, we agree that the allocations for 

daily operations increased by about 14 percent from 2001 through 2005. 

However, we believe it is also important to look at the change in 

inflation-adjusted terms. We believe the information we provided in the 

report fairly describes the emphasis placed by the Congress and the 

Administration on Park Service operations over our 5-year study time 

frame. 

4. According to the Department of the Interior, the allocation for daily 

operations increased more in dollar terms than any other Park Service 

program between 2001 and 2005. However, on an average annual basis, 

the percentage increase over this period was less than for other 

programs. In addition, 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. 

5. We disagree with the assertion that our analysis presents a “false 

dichotomy between operations and project funding.” This is addressed 

more fully on pages 46 and 47.
Appendix V

Comments from the Department of the 

Interior

Page 93 GAO-06-431 Operating Condition of the National Parks

6. On page 19 of the report, we include allocations for cyclic maintenance, 

repair and rehabilitation, and the inventory and monitoring programs 

from fiscal years 2001 through 2005. We believe this reflects the Park 

Service’s continued emphasis on efforts to reduce its deferred 

maintenance backlog and the monitoring and protection of the natural 

resources in its charge. 

7. The report provides the allocation trends for existing programs such as 

the Inventory and Monitoring program, which is a large component of 

the Natural Resource Challenge. To provide additional information on 

this effort, we added information in the report on the total allocations 

from fiscal years 2001 through 2005—$62 million in nominal dollars. 

We also added examples of specific projects at park units we visited, 

some of which were funded through project allocations under the 

Natural Resource Challenge. 

8. See comment 1 above and the table attached to the department’s 

comments. 

9. Although analyzing Park Service spending per visit is an indicator, we 

believe such analysis is of limited use because it does not indicate how 

the expenditures are used. 

10. See page 47 for our response. In addition, we used examples from park 

unit divisions that we visited in an effort to illustrate specific impacts 

on park operations. As the department pointed out, Grand Teton 

National Park’s, overall FTE data indicates that seasonal employees 

increased from 54 to 73 from 2001 through 2005. However, this increase 

was mostly due to additional seasonal employees that were hired with 

other authorized funding sources—from 17 to 46. The seasonal FTEs 

paid for through daily operations allocations, in fact, decreased from 37 

to 28. Employees paid for through project-related allocations are hired 

to conduct work on specific projects, while those funded through daily 

operations allocations can be used more flexibly within a division to 

carry out operational activities such as cleaning restrooms and pickingup litter.

11. We agree that operational funding is one of several factors that 

contribute to employment levels at individual park units. Because 

management at the park unit level has discretion to manage within 

available resources, we asked park unit officials to report the level of 

FTEs funded per division, per funding source, and per employee type. 
Appendix V

Comments from the Department of the 

Interior

Page 94 GAO-06-431 Operating Condition of the National Parks

In this way, we were better able to substantiate the anecdotes we chose 

to use in the report and to determine the parks’ staffing composition. 

For example, at Grand Teton National Park, the number of permanent 

FTEs funded through daily operations allocations, from 2001 through 

2005 decreased by 2, while those funded through project allocations 

and other authorized funding sources increased by 16. 

12. See page 47 which discusses our response to this comment. 

13. We noted these additional non-park specific efforts on page 40 of the 

report. 

14. We agree that management decisions are made within a dynamic 

environment of shifting priorities and resources. The specific examples 

we provide highlight projects and activities that were accomplished, or 

were not accomplished given the resources available to individual park 

units. We agree that the Park Service has worked to accommodate the 

impact of pay increases and across-the-board reductions; however, we 

did not study the level of visitor satisfaction throughout this time frame. 

Many of the park unit officials we spoke with explained that in an effort 

to manage within available resources, certain activities that directly 

affect the visitor can no longer be provided for with daily operation 

allocations. The activities must then either be reduced, eliminated or 

paid for using other authorized funding sources. For instance, we found 

that some activities traditionally provided by a Park Service employee, 

were now being provided by volunteers.

15. See page 48, which discusses our response to this comment.

16. At the time we visited Zion National Park, it had not yet completed it’s 

COA. Since they completed their analysis, we have not had the 

opportunity to validate the department’s claim that Zion National Park 

achieved an overtime and premium pay for savings of $30,000 as a 

result of the COA. 

17. We added additional information on page 40 of the report to reflect 

these efforts. 

18. See pages 48 and 49, which discuss our response to this comment.

19. See pages 48 and 49, which discuss our response to this comment.
Appendix V

Comments from the Department of the 

Interior

Page 95 GAO-06-431 Operating Condition of the National Parks

20. We added additional information in the report to address this comment.

21. See pages 45 and 46, which discusses our response to this comment.
Page 96 GAO-06-431 Operating Condition of the National Parks

Appendix VI

GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments ApendxiVI

GAO Contact Robin Nazzaro, (202) 512-3841, nazzaror@gao.gov

Staff 

Acknowledgments

In addition to the individual named above, Roy Judy, Assistant Director, 

Thomas Armstrong, Jay Berman, Ulana Bihun, Denise Fantone, Doreen 

Feldman, Tim Guinane, Susan Irving, Richard Johnson, Hannah Laufe, 

Alison O’Neill, Claudine Pauselli, Jamie Roberts, Patrick Sigl, Paul Staley, 

and Walter Vance made key contributions to this report.
Page 97 GAO-06-431 Operating Condition of the National Parks

Related GAO Products Apendxies

Maintenance National Park Service: Efforts Underway to Address Its Maintenance 

Backlog. GAO-03-1177T. Washington, D.C.: September 27, 2003.

National Park Service: Status of Agency Efforts to Address Its 

Maintenance Backlog. GAO-03-992T. Washington, D.C.: July 8, 2003.

National Park Service: Status of Efforts to Develop Better Deferred 

Maintenance Data. GAO-02-568R. Washington, D.C.: April 12, 2002.

National Park Service: Efforts to Identify and Manage the Maintenance 

Backlog. GAO/RCED-98-143. Washington, D.C.: May 14, 1998.

National Park Service: Maintenance Backlog Issues. GAO/T-RCED-98-61. 

Washington, D.C.: February 4, 1998.

Visitor Fees Recreation Fees: Comments on the Federal Lands Recreation 

Enhancement Act, H.R. 3283. GAO-04-745T. Washington, D.C.: May 6, 2004.

Recreation Fees: Management Improvements Can Help the 

Demonstration Program Enhance Visitor Services. GAO-02-10. 

Washington, D.C.: November 26, 2001.

National Park Service: Recreational Fee Demonstration Program 

Spending Priorities. GAO/RCED-00-37R. Washington, D.C.: November 18, 

1999.

Recreation Fees: Demonstration Has Increased Revenues, but Impact on 

Park Service Backlog Is Uncertain. GAO/T-RCED-99-101. Washington, 

D.C.: March 3, 1999.

Recreation Fees: Demonstration Program Successful in Raising 

Revenues but Could Be Improved. GAO/T-RCED-99-77. Washington, D.C.: 

February 4, 1999.

Recreation Fees: Demonstration Fee Program Successful in Raising 

Revenues but Could Be Improved. GAO/RCED-99-7. Washington, D.C.:

November 20, 1998.
Related GAO Products

Page 98 GAO-06-431 Operating Condition of the National Parks

Resource Management Wildlife Management: Negotiations on a Long-Term Plan for Managing 

Yellowstone Bison Still Ongoing. GAO/RCED-00-7. Washington, D.C.:

November 30, 1999.

National Park Service: Efforts to Link Resources to Results Suggest 

Insights for Other Agencies. AIMD-98-113. Washington, D.C.: April 10, 

1998.

Wildlife Management: Issues Concerning the Management of Bison and 

Elk Herds in Yellowstone National Park. GAO/T-RCED-97-200. 

Washington, D.C.: July 10, 1997.

National Parks: Park Service Needs Better Information to Preserve and 

Protect Resources. GAO/T-RCED-97-76. Washington, D.C.: February 27, 

1997.

National Park Service: Activities Within Park Borders Have Caused 

Damage to Resources. GAO/RCED-96-202. Washington, D.C.: August 23, 

1996.

Donations National Park Foundation: Better Communication of Roles and 

Responsibilities Is Needed to Strengthen Partnership with the National 

Park Service. GAO-04-541. Washington, D.C.: May 17, 2004.

Park Service: Agency Needs to Better Manage the Increasing Role of 

Nonprofit Partners. GAO-03-585. Washington, D.C.: July 18, 2003.

Concessions Park Service: Need to Address Key Management Problems That Plague the 

Concessions Program. GAO/T-RCED-00-136. Washington, D.C.: June 15, 

2000.

Park Service: Need to Address Management Problems That Plague the 

Concessions Program. GAO/T-RCED-00-188. Washington, D.C.: May 24, 

2000.

Park Service: Need to Address Management Problems That Plague the 

Concessions Program. GAO/RCED-00-70. Washington, D.C.: March 31, 

2000.
Related GAO Products

Page 99 GAO-06-431 Operating Condition of the National Parks

National Park Service: Concession Reform Issues. GAO/T-RCED-98-122. 

Washington, D.C.: March 12, 1998.

Federal Lands: Concession Reform is Needed. GAO/T-RCED/GGD-96-223. 

Washington, D.C.: July 18, 1996.

Housing National Park Service: Concerns About the Implementation of Its 

Employee Housing Policy. GAO/T-RCED-99-119. Washington, D.C.: March 

17, 1999.

National Park Service: Employee Housing Issues. GAO/T-RCED-98-35. 

Washington, D.C.: October 29, 1997.

Other Management Issues National Park Service: Opportunities Exist to Clarify and Strengthen 

Special Uses Permit Guidance on Setting Grazing Fees and CostRecovery. GAO-06-355R. Washington, D.C.: February 9, 2006. 

National Park Service: Revenues Could Increase by Charging Allowed 

Fees for Some Special Uses Permits. GAO-05-410. Washington, D.C.: May 6, 

2005. 

National Park Service: Managed Properties in the District of 

Columbia. GAO-05-378. Washington, D.C.: April 15, 2005.

National Park Service: A More Systematic Process for Establishing 

National Heritage Areas and Actions to Improve Their Accountability 

Are Needed. GAO-04-593T. Washington, D.C.: March 30, 2004.

National Park Service: Actions Needed to Improve Travel Cost 

Management. GAO-03-354. Washington, D.C.: February 13, 2003. 

National Park Service: Opportunities to Improve the Administration of 

the Alternative Transportation Program. GAO-03-166R. Washington, D.C.:

November 15, 2002.

Park Service: Visitor Center Project Costs, Size, and Functions Vary 

Widely. GAO-01-781. Washington, D.C.: July 24, 2001.

Park Service: Agency Is Not Meeting Its Structural Fire Safety 

Responsibilities. GAO/T-RCED-00-253. Washington, D.C.: July 19, 2000.
Related GAO Products

Page 100 GAO-06-431 Operating Condition of the National Parks

National Park Service: Flood Recovery Efforts at Yosemite National Park, 

California. GAO/RCED-99-50R. Washington, D.C.: January 27, 1999.

National Park Service: Efforts to Link Resources to Results Suggest 

Insights for Other Agencies. AIMD-98-113. Washington, D.C.: April 10, 

1998.

Park Service: Managing for Results Could Strengthen 

Accountability. GAO/RCED-97-125. Washington, D.C.: April 10, 1997.

Land Management Agencies: Information on Selected Administrative 

Policies and Practices. GAO/RCED-97-40. Washington, D.C.: February 11, 

1997.

National Parks: Difficult Choices Need to Be Made About the Future of the 

Parks. GAO/RCED-95-238. Washington, D.C.: August 30, 1995.

National Park Service: Difficult Choices Need to Be Made on the Future of 

the Parks. T- GAO/RCED-95-124. Washington, D.C.: March 7, 1995.

(360537)
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.

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

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.”

Order by Mail or Phone 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

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Contact:

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

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Congressional 

Relations

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

Public Affairs 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