S. HRG. 104--83 

GAO'S STUDY OF THE NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM 

JOINT HEARING 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PARKS, 

HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND RECREATION 

OF THE 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

AND THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND LANDS 

OF TilE 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES 

92-260 cc 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

ON THE 

GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFI<'ICE'S STUDY OF THE 

NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM 

MARCH 7, 1995 

Printed for the use of the 

Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and 

the House Committee on Resources 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

WASUINGTON : 1995 

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office 

Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Otlicc. Washington. DC 20402 

I SBN 0-16-047456- 6 
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

FRANK H. MURKOWSKI, Alaska, Chairman 

MARK 0. HATFIELD, Oregon J. BENNETT JOHNSTON, Louisiana 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico DALE BUMPERS, Arkansas 

DON NICKLES, Oklahoma WENDELL H. FORD, Kentucky 

LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho BILL BRADLEY, New Jersey 

BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico 

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

JON KYL, Arizona PAUL WELLSTONE, Minnesota 

ROD GRAMS, Minnesota 

JAMES M. JEFFORDS, Vermont 

CONRAD BURNS, Montana 

GREGG D. HENKES, Staff Director 

GARY G. ELLSWORTH, Chief Counsel 

BENJAMIN S. COOPER, Staff Director {or the Minority 

SUBCOMMITI'EE ON PARKS, HISTORIC PRESERVATION, AND ltECREATION 

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming, Chairman 

ROD CRAMS, Minnesota, Vice Chairman 

DON r>.'lCKLES, Oklahoma DALE BUMPERS, Arkam;as 

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming BILL BRADLEY, New Jersey 

JAMES M. JEFFORDS, Vermont DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado 

FRANK H. MUHKOWSKI and J. BENNE'IT JOJINSTON are Ex Officio Members of the 

Subcommittee 

JIM O'TOOLE, Professional Staff Member 

DAVID BROOKS, Counsel (Minority) 

(II) 
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES 

DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman 

JAMJ<:S V. HANSEN, Utah 

JIM SAXTON, New Jen;cy 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado 

JOHN T. DOOLITTE, California 

WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado 

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland 

KEN CALVERT, California 

RICHARD W. POMBO, California 

PETER G. TORKILDSf;N, Massachusetts 

J.D. HAYWORTH, Arizona 

FRANK A. CREMEANS, Ohio 

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming 

WES COOLEY, Oregon 

HEU~N CHENOWETH, Idaho 

LINDA SMITH, Washington 

GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California 

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina 

WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas 

RICHARD (DOC) HASTINGS, Washington 

JACK METCALF, Washington 

JAMES B. LONGLEY, JR., Maine 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada 

GEORGE MILLER, California 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia 

BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota 

DALE E. K.ILDEE, Michigan 

PAT WILLIAMS, Montana 

SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut 

BILL RICHARDSON, New Mexico 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

EN! F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii 

GERRY E. STUDDS, Massachusetts 

W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana 

SOLOMON P. ORITZ, Texas 

OWEN B. PICKETT, Viginia 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California 

CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto 

Rico 

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York 

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam 

SAM FARR, California 

DANIEL VAL KlSH, Chief of Staff 

DAVID DYE, Chief Counsel 

CHRISTINE KENNEDY, Chief Clerk/ Administrator 

JOHN LAWRENCE, Democratic Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITIEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND LANDS 

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, Chairman 

JOHN J . DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado 

JOHN T. DOOLJTTE, California 

WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado 

RICHARD W. POMBO, California 

PETER G. TORKILDSEN, Massachusetts 

J.D. HAYWORTH, Arizona 

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming 

WES COOLEY, Oregon 

HEU;N CHENOWETH, Idaho 

LINDA SMITH, Washington 

GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

BILL RICHARDSON, New Mexico 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia 

BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota 

DALE E. K.ILDEE, Michigan 

PAT WILLIAMS, Montana 

EN! F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

GERRY E. STUDDS, Massachusetts 

CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto 

Rico 

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York 

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam 

ALLEN f'REEMYER, Staff Director/Counsel 

STEVE HODAPP, Professional Staff 

(III) 

CONTENTS 

STATEMENTS 

Bumpers, Han. Dale, U.S. Senator from Arkansas .............................................. . Burns, Han. Conrad, U.S. Senator from Montana ............................................... . Craig, Han. Larry E., U.S. Senator from Idaho ................................................... . Cubin, Han. Barbara, U.S. Representative from Wyoming ................................. . Duffus, James lll, Director, Natural Resources Management Issues, Resources, Community, and Economic Development Division, General Accounting Office; accompanied by ClifT Fowler, Assistant Director, Natural 

Resources Management Issues; Paul Staley, Staff; Ned Woodward, Staff; 

and Cheryl Rusten, Staff .................................................................................... . Grams, Han. Rod, U.S .. Senator from Minnesota ................................................. . Hansen, Han. James, U.S. R~presentative from Utah ........................................ . Murkowski, Han. Frank H., U.S. Senator from Alaska ...................................... . Radanovich, Han. Georze P., U.S. Representative from California .................... . Richardson, Han. Bill, U.S. Representative from New Jersey ............................ . Smith, Hon. Linda, U.S. Representative from Washington ................................ . Thomas, Hon. Craig, U.S. Senator from Wyoming .............................................. . Vento, Hon. Bruce E., U.S. Representative from Minnesota .............................. . 

APPENDIX 

Page 

20 

6 

29 

10 

10 

32 

3 

4 

22 

9 

6 

1 

8 

Responses to additional questions .......................................................................... 45 

(V) 

GAO'S STUDY OF THE NATIONAL 

PARK SYSTEM 

TUESDAY, MARCH 7, 1995 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PARKS, HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND 

RECREATION OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY 

AND NATURAL RESOURCES, AND THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND LANDS OF THE HoUSE 

CoMMITTEE ON REsoURcEs, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittees met jointly, pursuant to notice, at 9:33 a.m. 

in room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Craig 

Thomas, chairman of the Senate subcommittee, and Hon. James V. Hansen, chairman of the House subcommittee, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CRAIG THOMAS, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM WYOMING 

Senator THOMAS. I'm sure Chairman Hansen and some of his 

House members will be here shortly, and when they come, we will 

give them a chance to make any comments that they choose. 

I want to first of all welcome all of you here. Thank you very 

much for coming. Mr. Chairman, nice to see you here this morning, 

the Senator from Montana. 

We will just alternate back and forth between the members of 

the House and the Senate whenever anyone's here. Let me make 

just a very brief comment and then the others would like to as 

well. 

Certainly, we look forward to your testimony. There are a number of factors which contribute, I think, to the difficulties in the illhealth of the National Park System. The rapid growth and expansion has certainly taken its toll. 

As you know, I have the pleasure of representing Wyoming and 

of course, the home of the first national park, and have had a firsthand, I think, look at the parks by having grown up right outside 

of Yellowstone, between Yellowstone and Cody, so from that standpoint-and we have the other parks as well-1 am very interested 

in it. 

Yellowstone is a good example of some of the troubles that we 

do have. The range there is overgrazed. The population of elk and 

bison are both causing problems, and some consider it to be out of 

control. Some are escaping over into Montana, and a number of 

them are getting shot as they do that. There is a $300 million backlog in highway needs there as well as other places. 

So there are some problems along the way. Good morning, Jim. 

(1) 
2 

When you add the fact that the taxpayers, of course, have paid 

over $7 million with more to come. To reintroduce wolves there at 

the same time that we have difficulties with the other services, it 

is a little tough to figure that out, and we are having some problems with that. 

As you know, I also have the pleasure of replaeing and taking 

the seat of Senator Wallop, who has been very involved with the 

Park Service andi indeed, was one of the persons that asked for the 

study that you al have done. 

He also left with me, I think about a 7-hour discourse with respect to the California desert, which goes into great detail about 

some of the problems that we will be talking about here today. 

So it does appear that the National Park Service is in need of 

some strong medicine, and I hope that through the year we will be 

able to do some of those things, much of it based on the study that 

you have and the report that you will be making today. So we are 

pleased to have you here. 

It is good to have you, Mr. Chairman, my old friend from the 

House. We thought we would just have some opening statements 

if we would like, and we will rotate back and forth, and go right 

ahead. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Thomas follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HoN. CRAIG THOMAS, U.S. SENATOR FROM WYOMING 

I would like to welcome Chairman Hansen and my good friends from the House 

Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Lands to this first joint hearing in 

recent history. I have to tell my friends that when I left the House I never thought we would all be attending the same hearing again. 

I believe a little house, or in this case, "Senate keepinl(' is in order. If Chairman 

Hansen is in agreement, what I propose to do, is start with a round of quick opening 

statements alternating between the Senate and House Members and at the same time alternatin~ between Majority and Minority Members. Then I suggest we proceed to the test1mony of the General Accounting Office and then move to questions from the respective Subcommittee Members along the identical procedures that we will use during the period of openins statements. The only exception would be that 

I would like to limit Members questiOns to a period not to exceed five minutes. We 

will go to as many rounds as necessary to accommodate any Members' desires. 

If everyone is agreed we can proceed, keeping in mind that the appearance of more powerful chairmen could result in the rearrangement of this artfully crafted 

system. 

There is one other item. I am sure some are wondering why the National Park 

Service is not testifying today. The reason they are not is because the GAO report 

is not final and will not be issued until June. I felt that it would be unfair to have 

the NPS respond to an investigation when they did not have sufficient advanced no- tice of the findings in the report. They will have an opportunity at a later date. 

I have a brief opening statement and then we can proceed to Chairman Hansen. 

While there are several factors which contribute to the current ill-health of the 

National Park System, the rapid growth and expansion of existing units has cer- tainly taken its toll. I have the pleasure of representing Wyoming and the home of 

the first National Park and have had a first-hand opportunity to witness the degradation of Yellowstone's resources. I was raised right outside the east gate of the 

park, so my concern about the Service has been around for a long time. 

The range is overgrazed, the elk population is out of control, bison are leaving the 

park and getting shot in Montana, there exists a $300 million ba<:klog in road repair 

at Yellowstone, and now we are reintroducing wolves to a system that is completely 

unnatural in order to restore the natural balance. There is something fundamentally 

wrong with this/icture. 

When you ad the fact that the taxpayer will pay a little over $7 million to re- introduce wolves in just the Park Service accounts, no one knows how many millions 

of dollars the Fish and Wildlife Service will spend for animals that would have 

shown up in Yellowstone by themselves, at no cost to the taxpayer, and without the 

assistance of the United States Government if we were just a little patient. 
3 

I also have the pleasure of holding the seat vacated by Senator Wallop, who as most of you remember, was a strong advocate of the National Park System. He 

spoke at great length to the issues involved when we keep 11dding new parks to an already over-burdened system. In fact, I inherited a seven hour unused floor statement on the Califomia Desert which goes into the problems in jP"Cater detail. It 

should come as no surprise to anyone that the floor statement m1rrors this report 

with the exception that I do not believe anyone was aware of the lack of information 

on which management decisions are made. 

It appears the National Park Service needs some strong medicine. Throwing large sums of money at the NPS is only going to exacerbate an already broken system 

until we do something about accountability. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES HANSEN, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM UTAH 

Mr. HANSEN. Well, thank you, Mr. Thomas. It is good to be with 

you again, and it is good to see you. 

I appreciate being with you today at this historic joint HouseSenate hearing on the health of the park system. Based on what 

I have learned in the few short months since taking over the House 

Parks Subcommittee, the task before us to restore the integrity of 

the park system is a daunting one, one which will require the combined efforts of all of us in Congress and the administration. 

About 1 month ago, I held a joint hearing with the House Interior Appropriations Subcommittee on National Park Service financial management. At that hearing, members from both subcommittees heard first-hand from the GAO and the Interior Inspector 

General that the National Park Service has no system to ensure 

that appropriated funds are directed to the highest priority agency 

needs, was not spending funds in the manner directed by Congress, 

and could not even balance its own books. 

The testimony today-that the Park Service cannot even assure 

Congress that it is meeting its fundamental agency mission to conserve the most important natural and cultural resources of this 

country is even a greater revelation. Further, while the ever-decreasing level of visitor services and parks is a fact well-known to 

many, the reasons for this decline in light of substantial funding 

increases remains a mystery to me. 

Mr. Chairman, based on these two reports, it appears to me that 

the National Park Service is an agency headed in the wrong direction, or more accurately, an agency without any direction. For too 

long, those of us in Congress and those in the executive branch 

charged with leading this agency have given it free rein. For the 

most part, Congress has responded to concerns about the Park 

Service largely by throwing more money and responsibilities at it. 

After all, who could argue with an agency whose mission is to protect Yellowstone and Yosemite, an agency which, according to poll 

after poll, was among the most popular in the Federal Government? 

The result today is that we no longer have a single agency, but 

368 independent kingdoms run by individual park managers. I do 

not take issue with these park superintendents, many of whom I 

have met and know to be excellent, hard-working employees trying 

to do their best for the parks. However, the approach of hoping 

that these employees will work together for the collective good of 

the entire park system has not seemed to work. 
4 

While Congress and leaders of the Department have focused on 

the brush fires in this agency, we have ignored the fuel buildup and potential for catastrophic wildfire. Intervention on a large scale 

is now essential to address the problems facing the Park Service. 

Such measures as the bill introduced by Congressman Hefley to reform the Park Service is a very high priority in my subcommittee. 

I wish to extend my appreciation to Senators Murkowski and 

Wallop for having the foresight to request this report. I believe this 

report represents a wake-up call. It is a wake-up call not just for 

those of us with policy responsibilities for the state of the park system, but a wake-up call for all Americans who care about the park 

system. The solutions needed are drastic and far-reaching, and it 

will take the combined effort of all of us to implement them. I look forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman, in that regard during the upcoming session. Thank you for allowing me this 

time. 

Senator THOMAS. Thank you very much. We are pleased this 

morning to have the chairman of the full committee, and one of the 

persons who requested this study, to be with us. 

Senator. 

STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK H. MURKOWSKI, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM ALASKA 

The CHAmMAN. Let me commend you, Senator Thomas, for your 

effort to bring this about. We are happy to have Representative 

Hansen here this morning, and I would hope that we can help communicate a message of frustration that is out there relative to the 

operation of our National Park System. 

I think it is fair to say the concern expressed by most of the 

members is that the health of the Park Service is not very good. 

We are going to hear testimony from the General Accounting Office, and I think it is high time that we take the initiative to do 

something meaningful about it. 

As I indicated, Senator Thomas, in your chairmanship of the 

Subcommittee of Parks and Historic Preservation and Recreation, 

the responsibility for addressing this is a significant one. The 

health of the Park Service, which is the topic of this hearing, I 

think really merits the attention of both our bodies, and that is 

why I am pleased to see House members here. I see there are more 

of them that have joined us. 

Over the years, the mission of the Park Service has evolved in 

many directiOns. Perhaps that is part of the problem. On the other 

hand, it is clearly a problem and a responsibility of Congress, because much of that direction has resulted from this body's initiation. Unfortunately, the expansion of the system, along with the 

increased visitation, along with the unfunded mandat es, has placed 

the National Park Service in a rather precarious position. 

However, just throwing money at the problem is not the immediate answer. The problems are more fundamental. You cannot 

throw money at a system that has little or no accountability. It is 

very difficult to find accountability in certain park decisions that 

have been made in the past. You actually can, and we have, but 

the results are less than rewarding as we look back at some of the 

mistakes that have been made. Tossing dollars into a system which 
5 

lacks information on its resource, one which has little sense of priority setting, and one where it appears everyone is in charge, is a 

predictable waste of money. 

For years, we have been told that out of all the Government 

agencies, the National Park Service was one of the best, and I have 

long suspected that this was not totally true, and I watched the 

Park Service slowly become less visitor-oriented and more prone to 

lock it up to protect the Park Service resource. 

Not many people chose to argue with that wilderness spirit, because most of the people believed the Park Service knew what it 

was doing, but as it turns out, as is often the case, it does not appear to know what it is doing. 

Being from Alaska, I have been a strong advocate of access into 

the parks of Alaska. The parks, on the other hand, have done little 

to provide-! should say, the Park Service has done little to provide 

visitor access, and give the public an opportunity to enjoy and 

recreate in these parks, because the access is so lacking, and their 

fear is that if people get in they are going to damage the parks. 

We have a half-dozen parks it takes a $5,000 bill to get into. You 

have got to be able to hire an aircraft to bring you in to afford the 

luxury of enjoying your wilderness experience, so it is a very tiny 

segment of the population that can afford that. 

It is rather interesting to note that the Anchorage Zoo, which is 

30 acres and about a 20-minute drive from your local hotel, was 

able to accommodate 160,000 visitors into its gate last year; and 

the No.1 tourist destination in Alaska, the 6Vz million acre Denali 

National Park, was only able to accommodate 241,995 visitors into 

its gates, and turned away 249,154 people. Over 51 percent of the 

total number of people that visited the number 1 tourist destination in my State were turned away because of access. You must remember the season is only approximately 90 days. 

Now, you would think that somewhere in the 6Vz million acre 

park, the Park Service could find another access route, or at least 

begin to plan another access route to accommodate visitors. Unfortunately, all you hear is, "Increased traffic and visitation will harm 

wildlife." 

I was meeting with some of the Park· Service advisory group the 

other day and the comment was made, "We did not want this to 

turn into another Yellowstone." I pretty near threw them out of my 

office. This report would indicate that not only can the National Park 

Service not tell you with any accuracy that increased traffic will be 

harmful to wildlife, they cannot even tell you if the current numbers have any effect on the resource. This is the state of their dilemma with regard to access into Denali. 

So I am personally tired, Mr. Chairman, of the excuses of the 

Park Service for denying access to parks in my State, and after 

reading this report, I am here to tell you that I am even more tired 

of it. 

I look forward to hearing from the General Accounting Office, 

and I particularly look forward to seeing how you, Chairman 

Thomas, bring the Park Service into an era of accountability. That 

era began with the election last year. I think it is unfortunate, Mr. 
6 

Chairman, that some folks do not seem to have gotten the message, but maybe it is up to us to try and reinforce that. 

I look forward to a very worthwhile effort that you have initiated, and I commend you for it. Thank you. Mr. HANsEN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to call on Mrs. Linda 

Smith from the State of Washington, a member of our committee. 

STATEMENT OF HON. LINDA SMITH, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM WASIDNGTON 

Mrs. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to make this 

brief. I am new to Congress, and have sat through one of these 

hearings on the Park Service already and listened to a financial report of the management and then listened to others that are responsible for managing this resources, so vital. 

My concern is that I have major parks in my State of Washington that have become very important to the tourism industry. We 

used to harvest timber as a crop, and now with the owl claiming 

most of that crop for their own, we have to rely on some other 

things. Tourism is it. We are finding crumbling of those parks, and 

I was told that the backlog was serious, but that that was told last 

year also, and the management was serious, the mismanagement, 

but that that has been an issue with just about every Congress 

now for the last several years. 

And so I guess what I wanted to do is come here and hear more. 

The more I hear, the more it looks like I could assi~ the park 

service-if I were in the corporate world we would assign it to another management firm. In the judicial, we would assign a receiver 

to manage the Park Service, and it appears to me that we are at 

that level. 

Maybe I am overresponding. Maybe what I have heard is not accurate, but it looks to me like we are in serious condition, and serious enough that we cannot come back next year to find out if something was done, for both the economy in my region, but also, our 

people like parks in the Northwest. We think they are valuable and 

important, and I want to find out how we are going to manage 

those better to make sure that we can honor that trust that they 

have given us. 

So with that, I just plan on doing a lot of listening, and would 

love to hear some solutions to what I think is a crucial problem, 

and I think the patient is dying if we do not do something with it. 

Senator THOMAS. Thank you. 

The Senator from Montana. 

STATEMENT OF HON. CONRAD BURNS, U.S. SENATOR FROM 

MONTANA 

Senator BURNS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 

this hearing today, and I just would ask unanimous consent that 

my statement could be entered into the record. 

Senator THOMAS. Without objection. 

Senator BURNS. I want to get to the witnesses and hear their reports. I am just going to be listening about a couple of things, I 

guess! and we are going to talk about brucellosis, and we are going 

to talk about wolves. It does not make a lot of sense to me that 
7 

we spend $12 million to reestablish wolves in Yellowstone Park 

when we have got substandard housing. 

I do not see how a boss squares that with his staff, that you can 

spend $12 million on wolves and then ask a guy to live in a shack 

that you can throw a cat through any direction. I will tell you one 

thing, I do not see how you hold any morale at all. I have never 

been very successful at that. 

I noted the statement of our full chairman, Mr. Murkowski from 

Alaska, saying that it is adrift. I do not think it is adrift. I think 

they have got an agenda. I think they have got priorities. They are 

just different from good management, and so you cannot tell me 

they do not have an agenda, because I know damn well they do. 

They know exactly what they are doing, and that is why they want 

to turn Montana into a park, and that is wh)' we are resisting, because we do not want to become one, and fall under that management. 

So thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good luck to you. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Burns follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. CONRAD BURNS, U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA 

Mr. Chairmen, I would like to thank you both for calling this hearing on the 

changes that should be required by the National Park Service. This issue is very 

important to me and the pe"ple of the state of Montana. We in Montana, have always looked with pride upon the beauty, splendor and opportunities that the National Park System has brought to our state. However, we, more than most, are also aware of the declining health of the Parks in our nation, and particularly those in 

our backyard. 

My state of Montana is a rural state which depends upon natural resources and 

agriculture for our prime sources of income. Fortunately, the tourism that the parks 

create in ··our neck of the woods, docs allow a certain amount of diversity for our 

region. Although we do appreciate the parks for what they provide our state, we are also very concerned about what they bring with them to the area. Today I would 

like to address these areas of concern as they impact on the health and well-being 

of the number one industry in Montana. 

Right now in Montana we face severe losses due to the actions and inaction of 

the Department of the Interior and the Park Service. The behavior of leaving the concerns of the neighboring public out of the process directly threatens the welfare 

and the number one industry in the state. The approach the Park Service has taken 

with respect to the introduction of Canadian Wolves into the park shows that they 

have no regard for their neighbors in the surrounding states. 

In January and February of this year, the Department of the Interior introduced 

into Yellowstone National Park a pack of 14 Canadian Gray Wolves. The U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, in conjunction with the National Park Service, has developed 

plans to expend approximately $12 million to realize the goal of establishing ten 

mated pairs of wolves in the park during the next five years. All this at the same time that the basic living arrangements for the park staff are -in the worst shape 

in years. 

In addition, the Park Service is guilty of a lack of action in dealing with a diseased herd of Bison. This inaction shows an unwillingness on the part of the Park 

Service to face and deal with the brucellosis problem occurring within their boundaries. The state of Montana has been faced with requirements imposed by several 

states to test for a disease that has been eradicated from the state, with the cost 

of millions of dollars. The lack of effective communications between the various 

branches of the Park Service creates confusion in dealing squarely with the problem 

at hand. The Washington office will admit and face the fact that there is a problem, 

while in the field they state exactly the opposite conclusion. When the livestock industry in the state is being threatened, due to the inaction of the Park Service, I 

cannot understand how they can state that there is no problem with the herd in 

the Park. 

I surely do not understand how the Park system has fallen into such disrepair. 

The gems of our Natural heritage are hopelessly drifting along. We spend too much 

money on superficial face-lifting measures with the Park Service. Before I put any-
8 

more change in my pockets, I find the hole and repair it, and this is the course of 

action that we and the Park Service need to follow. 

Mr. HANSEN. The former chairman of this subcommittee on our 

side, Mr. Vento from Minnesota. 

Bruce. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BRUCE E. VENTO, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM MINNESOTA 

Mr. VENTO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to come 

back and greet our lost colleague who has taken over the Senate 

role here. I congratulate him and look forward to a positive relationship with those interested in the mission of the Park Service. 

As most of the members here know, for the past 10 years, 

chairing the subcommittee and for almost 20 years working on the 

committee, I think I have familiarity with most of the issues. 

I would ask unanimous consent to put Mr. Richardson's statement in the record. 

I would just comment that the GAO has done I think agood job 

in its preliminary report here in terms of sampling: 12 of the 368 

parks to give us some insights. 

The problems that they point out are the same problems that 

then-chairman, subcommittee Chairman Phil Burton charged the 

Park Service to identify, which were known as threats to the park, 

and the first report which came out in 1980, which I know this is 

not referenced in your footnotes, but we then built on that and 

pointed out the same problems, same backlogs, -and the pressure, 

the increased use of the parks which has resulted, obviously, in the 

designation of sites as they become available in terms of the plans. 

The increased use around the shoulders in seasons, the increased 

pressure, the lack of dealing with some of the deteriorating infrastructure, all point, I think, to the problems and the need to sort 

of refocus maybe some of the policies and talk about what there is 

dollars to do and is not dollars to do. 

I think that the concerns, of course, such as access, and the de- bates around that, of course, are understandable, but clearly increasing numbers of people going to the parks just simply may 

compound the problem if the dollars are not there to serve the individuals, and I think we need to think about that. Many of the problems that exist are unique to parks. The problems in the Virgin Islands with tour ships visiting and the tremendous pressure on 

sanitation facilities under those circumstances are just some of the 

insights. 

Each of them have unique problems. I think that the mission of 

the Park Service needs to be defined, redefined, and identified. I 

think that we all understand the American public happily still has, 

I think, a positive attitude with regard to parks. I think it is something that they strongly support, and hopefully in terms of crafting 

policy we will continue to keep that option a viable one and a workable one. Much of the problem, I think, is in first of all the :inadequate resources, and then the misuse of some of the resources through the 

earmarking process that has gone on in Congress, I might say on 

a bipartisan basis. It has not been one group over the other. 
9 

So I think there is much to be learned from what is stated here 

by the GAO. I think we need to look at what we are doing in terms 

of housing, what we are doing in terms of concessions that serve 

these where we actually engage the private sector, what we are 

doing in terms of partnerships. 

We have obviously changed the focus of the Park Service greatly 

in the 75-plus years of its existence, and I think that as we move 

forward we are going to have to continue to do that. 

I know there are many, many debates on specific topics of park 

policy, but I think most of us recognize they are probably best left 

to the professionals, not the politicians, in terms of some of those 

policies. We provide plenty of guidance. This is an area where Congress 

has really been involved, I am sure, in many of the specifics, quite 

appropriately in the specifics of policy with regard to parks. It is 

not an area where we have neglected it. We have designated and 

identified and guided-additions, and many of the policies that were 

in the Park Service. 

I think the Park Service as a professional group does a remarkably good job, I think notwithstanding the fact that it does not fit 

the modern ac~ountability or acCOlJ!lti~~ procedures that have been 

put forth. I thmk as you 1ook at md1VIdual parks and the superintendents, the autonomy that they have had has served the system fairly well. 

Now we are in an era where there are suggestions and policies 

that want to change that. I understand that. I also think we ought 

to appreciate the task and the work that they do. Very often, I 

think they have to extrapolate and do the job on the ground, and 

I think the public would recognize, and most of us recognize they 

do a pretty good job for the dollars that are expended and the importance of the parks to the people of this country. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Richardson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. BILL RICHARDSON, U.S. REPRESENTATNE FROM 

NEW MEXICO 

Mr. Chairmen, reviews of the National Park Service and the National Park .. System by the GAO are not new. As appendix II of the GAO's testimony can attest, 

the GAO has been called upon many times by your predecessors to provide reports or testimony on these important sJJbjects. GAO interest in these matters thus should come as little surprise to anyone . However, I am surprised by the sweeping generalities of the GAO's statement. Based on a review of just 12 of the 368 national park units, they have drawn conclusions on the c01idition of the entire National Park System, the factors that lead to that 

condition, and the range of options that exist to correct these problems. I doubt there is anyone in thisroom who doesn't like our national parks, although 

it seems that there were just such witnesses at last Thursday's Resource Committee 

oversight hearing. I welcome the GAO's input. Unfortunately, there are no quick 

fixes or easy outs to whatever problems the National Park System may have. The 

National Park System is far too important and the stakes too high to believe that 

somehow we can wave a magic wand and everything will be all right. Ultimately, 

Mr. Chairmen, the National Park System will only be as good as the commitment 

of the National Park Service, the American r.ublic, and we, their elected representatives to it. It is a responsibility that we cant pass off to a commission or any other 

body. 

I appreciate having the GAO's viewpoint in this ongoing review of the National 

Park Service and the National Park System. As we move forward to address these matters, we will need input from many individuals and organizations if we are to 

craft workable, long-term policy for our national parks. 
10 

Mr. HANSEN. Mrs. Cubin from Wyoming. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA CUBIN, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM WYOMING 

Mrs. CUBIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wi11 be very brief. 

It is a particular honor for me to be at this hearing today with 

my friend Senator Thomas, whose service goes back with mine all 

the way to the State legislature. I am very proud to be here. 

I have a lot of opinions about what is going on with the park sys- . tern and the Park Service. However, before I came here, my father 

told me; nobody cares what your opinion is, everybody has one of 

their own. What people care about are facts, and so get the facts 

and then when you have those, that is the time for you to have 

something to say. 

So all I want to say is that I am glad I am here. I am here to 

learn, as a freshman Congressman from Wyoming. There are seven 

National Park System units in my State-Ye11owstone being the 

first national park, and Devil's Tower being the first national 

monument-so it is of huge interest to my State. I am here to 

learn, and I expect that I will be very active in working with the 

Park Service. 

Senator THOMAS. Thank you very much. Just as a matter of interest, we are looking forward to some hearings on the criteria for 

establishing parks. We are looking forward to them on the fees. We 

are going to deal with the area of concessions and housing, so we 

look forward to your information in helping that. 

So welcome, Mr. Duffus. Why do you not introduce your associates and then proceed as you choose. 

STATEMENT OF JAMES DUFFUS Ill, DIRECTOR, NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT ISSUES, RESOURCES, COMMUNITY, 

AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIVISION, GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE; ACCOMPANIED BY CLIFF FOWLER, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT 

ISSUES; PAUL STALEY, STAFF; NED WOODWARD, STAFF; AND 

CHERYL RUSTEN, STAFF 

Mr. DUFFUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Messrs. Chairmen and members of the subcommittees, we are 

pleased to be here today to discuss conditions in the national parks. 

Our comments are based on work that we are doing for Chairman 

Murkowski and Senator Wallop within the park system as well as 

work that we have done over the years. 

I will summarize by statement and ask that the entire statement 

be entered into the record. With me today are the team that 

worked on this assignment: Cliff Fowler to my immediate left, to 

his left Ned Woodward, and to his left Cheryl Rusten, and to my 

right Paul Staley, who is from our Seattle regional office. The objectives of our current assignment are to determine what, 

if any, degradation in the level of visitor services or condition of 

park resources is occurring, identify factors contributing to any 

degradation; and identify choices available to help deal with identified problems. 

Before getting into the results of our work I would like to briefly 

provide some background. Despite the fiscal constraints facing all 
11 

Federal agencies, the number of parks continues to expand. Thirtyone parks have been added to the system in the last 10 years, 

bringing the total number of units to 368. In addition, estimates of 

the backlog of deferred maintenance at national parks has increased substantially from about $1.9 billion in 1988 to over $4 billion today. 

Our current work has shown cause for concern about the health 

of the parks, both from the standpoint of declining visitor services 

and the condition of park resources. Of the 12 parks we visited, 11 

had recently cut back on the level of visitor services. For example, at the Padre Island National Seashore in Texas, 

last summer for the first time in 20 years, no lifeguards were on 

duty along the beach to help ensure the safety of swimmers. The 

beach is one of the primary attractions of the park. 

At Lake Mead National Recreation Area in Nevada, during the 

summer months, park law enforcement personnel are often faced 

with a backlog of up to 12 calls in responding to health and safety 

needs of visitors. 

Our work has also shown that while the condition and trend of 

many park resources is largely unknown, the condition of some cultural resources was declining. For example, Ellis Island was reopened in 1990 as the country's only museum devoted exclusively 

to immigration. While a portion of the Island's structures have 

been restored, 32 of 36 historic buildings are not available for public access, have seriously deteriorated, and about two-thirds of 

them could be lost within 5 years if they are not properly stabilized. However, the Park Service, by and large, has not collected 

the baseline data park managers need to enable them to detect 

damaging changes to the park's resources and guide the mitigation 

of those changes. 

Managers at the culturally oriented parks we visited generally 

have greater knowledge about their resources than do those at 

parks that emphasize natural resources. Although the Park Service 

began efforts several years ago to gather better information about 

the condition of the park's natural resources, progress has been 

limited, and the completion of much of the work is many years 

away. 

In the meantime, park mana~ers often make decisions about the 

parks' operations without knowmg the impact of those decisions on 

the resources. For example, at Yosemite National Park, after 70 

years of stocking nonnative fish in various lakes and waterways, 

park officials realized that indiscriminate stocking had done more 

harm than good. As a result, according to park officials, the park's 

waterways have been compromised. Nonnative fish introduced into 

the park now outnumber native rainbow trout by 4 to 1. 

According to park officials, this stocking policy, which continued 

until 1990, has also resulted in the decline of at least one federally 

protected species. 

While many factors influence the level of visitor services and condition of park resources, our work identified two factors that were 

common to most of the parks we visited: additional operating requirements and increased visitation. 

Park managers cited numerous requirements from over 20 different federal laws such as the Clean Air Act and the National En92-260 - 95 - 2 
12 

vironmental Policy Act. Park managers told us that meeting these 

requirements meant having to spread available funds across more 

park activities. Furthermore, because salaries and benefits are 

such a large portion of the parks' budgets, in some instances more 

than 80 percent, even small increases in these costs can diminish 

a park's ability to meet its need for visitor services and resource 

management. 

For example, last year at Lake Mead, less than half of the cost 

of increased compensation for park rangers was met through budget increases, leaving an additional $200,000 to be paid from the 

park's operating funds. 

Eight of the 12 parks showed increases in the number of visitors, 

which is the second factor eroding parks' operating budgets. This 

drives up costs for vjsitor-related services. 

Messrs. Chairmen, many of the problems we found during our 

current work are not new. Dealing with these problems calls for 

making difficult choices about how parks are funded and managed, 

some of which may require legislative changes. 

First, because substantial increases in appropriations are unlikely in today's tight budget environment, other sources of revenues need to be considered. For example, increasing park entrance 

fees and concession fees and allowing parks to retain more of these 

revenues and encouraging private sector partnerships could increase revenues. 

However, any increase in revenues must be accompanied by improvements in the Park Service's accountability, especially given 

the broad discretion that individual park managers have in spending operating funds. 

A second choice that would help ease the financial pressures 

would be to limit additions to, or perhaps decrease the number of 

units in the National park system. To the extent that the system 

is permitted to grow, associated infrastructure and development 

needs will also grow. 

As this growth occurs, more parks will be competing for limited 

Federal funding. In both the last and current Congress', proposals 

have been offered that would address this alternative. 

A third choice would be to reduce the level of visitor services and 

expectations to more closely match the level of services that can be 

realistically provided with available resources. 

We believe that the Park Service should make the choice to provide the public with a lower-quality experience only after developing a carefully thought out strategy and consulting with the Congress. 

Regardless of which of these choices, or combination of choices, 

are made, the Park Service needs to look for ways to stretch its 

limited resources by operating more efficiently and looking beyond 

existing jurisdictional boundaries in their search to reduce costs 

and increase efficiency. 

In summary, Messrs. Chairmen, our work reveals that the future 

of the parks is at a crossroads. While more peoplt~ are visiting 

parks, the level of visitor services is deteriorating. The Park Service, as the steward for many of the Nation's natural and cultural 

treasures, has a myriad of problems to address ranging from insuf-
13 

ficient data on the conditions of resources to an ever-increasing 

maintenance backlog. 

While the Park Service has recognized its problems and has 

taken some actions to address them, we believe that because of 

their magnitude, difficult choices must be made. Unless these 

choices are made, the Park Service's ability to preserve these treasures for the enjoyment of future generations may be in jeopardy. 

That concludes my summary statement. We will be glad to respond to any questions that you or other members of the subcommittee may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Duffus follows:l 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAMES D UFFUS III, DIRECIOR, NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT ISSUES, RESOURCES, COMMUNITY, AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPME~.-r DIVISION, GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE 

Messrs. Chairmen and members of the subcommittees, we are pleased to be here 

today to discuss conditions in the national parks. Our co=cnts arc based primarily on our work to date for the Chairman, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural 

Resources at 12 geographically dispersed sites within the national park system, including four national parks, two historic parks and one historic site, two national 

monuments, a civil war battlefield, a recreation area, and a seashore.! Our remarks 

also draw on the 28 reports and testimonies that we have issued over the last 8 

years on the Park Service's activities and programs.2 

As requested, our work focused on efforts of the National Park Service to meet 

its mission of serving visitors and managing park resources. Our specific objectives were to (1) determine what, if any, degradation in visitor services or park resources is occurring; (2) identify factors contributing to any degradation of visitor services 

or park resources; and (3) identify choices available to help deal with identified 

problems. 

In summary, Messrs. Chairmen, we found the following: 

The overall level of visitor services is deteriorating. While public satisfaction 

with the parks is very high, visitor services arc being cut back and the condition 

of many trails, campgrounds, exhibits, and other facilities is declining. Since 

1988, the Park Service estimates that the backlog of deferred maintenance has 

more than doubled to over $4 billion. In managing resources, most tarks do not 

have the data needed to determine whether the overall condition o the natural 

and cultural resources is deteriorating, improving, or staying the same. 

There are many factors that influence the level of visitor services and re- source management activities. Our work identified two factors that were com- mon to most of the parks we visited and had substantial impact on the level 

of visitor services and resource management activities. These factors were (1) 

additional operating requirements resulting primarily from over 20 federal laws 

affecting the parks and (2) increased visitation which drives up routine operating costs for many items that support visitor activities. Since substantial increases in appropriations are very unlikely in today's 

tight budget climate, difficult choices need to be made on the future of the na- ti onal parks. These choices involve: (l) generating more revenue within the 

pa rks; (2) limiting the number of parks in the system; and (3) reducing the level 

of visitor services and expectations. Regardless of which of these choices are 

made, the Park Service needs to look for ways to operate more efficiently and 

improve accountability to ensure that the limited dollars are used most effectively. 

BACKGROUND 

The National Park Service is the caretaker of many of the na tion's most precious 

natural and cultural resources. Today, more than 100 years after the first national 

park was created, the national park system has grown to include 368 units. These 

units cover over 80 million acres of land and include an increasingly diverse mix 

of sites, such as Yellowstone, Yosemite, and Grand Canyon National Parks; Inde1 App. I lists the 12 sites we visited. • App. II lists these GAO products. 
14 

pendence National Historical Park; national battlefields; national historic sites; na- tional monuments; national preserves; and national recreation an•as. The Park Service's mission has dual objectives. On one hand, the Park Service 

is to provide for the public's enjoyment of the lands that have been entrusted to its care. This objective mvolves promoting the use of the parks by providing appropriate visitor services and the infrastructure (such as roads and facilities) that support these services. On the other hand, the Park Service is to protect its lands so that ther will be unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations. Balancing 

these obJectives has long shaped the debate about how best to manage the national 

park system. The debate has also been shaped by a number of other developments. Despite the 

fiscal constraints facing all federal agencies, the number of parks continues to ex- pand-31 parks have been added to the system in the last 10 years. In addition, 

the backlog of maintenance at national parks has increased subs.tantially. In 1988, we reported that the amount of the backlog of deferred maintenance stood at about 

$1.9 billion. Currently, while agency officials acknowledge that they do not have re- liable data on this backlog, they estimate that it will cost over $4 billion. 

VISITOR SERVICES DECLINING; CONDITION OF PARK RESOURCES LAJRGELY UNKNOWN 

The natural beauty and historical settings of the parks makes visits by most people a pleasurable and often inspiring experience. Park Service surveys show that, 

in general, visitors are very pleased with their experience at national parks. Nonetheless, our findings show cause for concern about the health of the parks. 

Condition of visitor services 

Of the 12 parks included in our review, 11 had recently cut back on the level of 

visitor services. This reduction is particularly significant considering that managers 

at most of the parks told us that meeting visitors' needs gets top priority, often at 

the expense of other park activities. For example: 

At Padre Island National Seashore in Texas, last summer, for the first time 

in 20 years, no lifeguards were on duty along the beach to help ensure the safety of swimmers. The beach is one ofthe primary attractions of the park. 

At Shenandoah National Park in Virginia, interpretive programs to assist 

visitors in understanding and appreciating the natural and scenic aspects of the 

park were cut by over 80 percent from 1987 to 1993, and one of the park's most ~pular campgrounds has been closed. In addition, because of other park prior- Ities, park staff have been unable to remove numerous trees that hang precar- iously over roads and popular hiking trails, posing a hazard to visitors. 

At Bandelier National Monument in New Mexico, the park museum-one of 

the most popular stops at the park-was closed for more than a year because 

of problems caused by a leaky roof and an improperly installed security system. 

At the Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island, the extended hours of operation to 

meet visitor demand during the peak summer season have b(•en reduced by 3.5 

hours each day-a reduction of more than 25 percent. Furthermore, the duration of the season in which hours are extended was reduced from 3 months to 

2 months. 

At Lake Mead National Recreation Area in Nevada, during the summer months, park law enforcement personnel are often faced with a backlog of up 

to 12 calls in responding to health and safety needs of visitors .. 

As these examples illustrate, the cutbacks in services not only adversely affect 

visitors' convenience and enjoyment, but also reveal significant gaps in the Park 

Service's ability to meet visitors' safety needs. 

Condition of cultural and natural resources 

Knowing the condition of the resources within the national park system is key to 

the ability of the Park Service to preserve and protect its cultural and natural re- sources. The Park Service's policy directs that parks be managed on the basis of a knowledge of the resources and their conditions. However, our review indicated that, 

by and large, the condition and trend of many park resources is largely unknownparticularly for parks featuring natural resources, such as Glacier and Yosemite. 

Park Service officials at both headquarters and in the field emphasized to us that 

effective management of park resources depends heavily upon scientifically collected 

data that enables park mana~rs to detect damaging changes to the parks' re- sources and guide the mitigatiOn of those changes. Essentially, this approach involves collecting baseline data about the key park resources and monitoring their 

condition over time to detect any changes. One park official told us that without 

such information, damage to key resources could go undetected until it is obvious, 
15 

at which point mitigation may be impossible or extremely expensive. However, while 

park officials emphasized the need for this kind of information, th~y also acknowledged that information is lacking for many of the parks' resources. A 1992 study 

done for the Park Service by the National Research Council reported these same 

concerns.3 

Managers at the culturally oriented parks we visited-such as Statue of Liberty/ 

Ellis Island and Hopewell Furnace National Historic site-generally have greater 

knowledge about their resources than do those at parks that emphasize natural resources. Even at the cultural parks, however, we found instances where (1) the condition of cultural resources was declining or (2) the location and status of cultural 

resources in many portions of the park remains largely unknown. For example: 

Ellis Island was reopened in 1990 as the country's only museum devoted exclusively to immigration. While a portion of the Island's structures have been 

restored, 32 of 36 historic buildings have seriously deteriorated. According to 

park officials, about two-thirds of these buildings could be lost within 5 years 

if they are not properly stabilized. The structures are currently not available 

for public access. They include the former hospital, quarantine area, and 

morgue. In addition, although some new storage space is being built, much of 

Ellis Island's large collection of cultural artifacts is stored in deteriorating facilities. As a result, in one building, much of the collection is covered with dirt and 

debris from crumbling walls and peeling paint, and leaky roofs have damaged 

many artifacts. 

Hopewell Furnace National Historic Site is an 850-acre park in Pennsylvania 

that depicts a portion of the nation's early industrial development. The main 

features of the site are a charcoal-fueled blast furnace, an ironmaste:r's mansion, 

and auxiliary structures. Although Hopewell Furnace has been a national historical site since 1938, the Park Service has not performed an archeological survey of the site. Also, the Park Service has not developed a general management 

plan-which would outline an overall approach for protecting and managing the 

site's resources-~wen though having such a plan is a key component of effective 

resource management. 

These conditions at cultural sites raise questions about the Park Service's ability 

to meet its responsibilities to preserve and protect cultural resources. And even less 

is known about the condition of the Park Service's natural resources. For example: 

At both Yosemite and Glacier National Parks, data about many of the parks' 

natural resources has not been collected, and, as a result, the condition and 

trend of these resources is largely unknown. At Yosemite, officials told us that, 

except for reptiles and amphibians, little was known about the condition and 

trend of species inhabiting the park. Even for reptiles and amphibians, they 

said the extent of knowledge was poor because it was not based on scientific 

study but simply represented their "best guess as to the condition and trend of 

these resources. At Glacier, baseline information on park wildlife was similarly 

inadequate. 

At Padre Island National Seashore, park managers told us that they did not 

have sufficient information on the condition of four of the seven categories of 

wildlife within the park. Park officials lacked detailed data on the condition of 

marine fish, terrestrial invertebrates, reptiles/amphibians, and terrestrial mam- mals. Furthermore, except for certain species, such as endangered sea turtles 

that use portions of the park as nesting areas, officials had little knowledge 

about whether the condition of wildlife within the park was stable, improving, 

or worsening. 

The Park Service began efforts several years ago to gather better information 

about the condition of the parks' resources. However, progress has been limited, and 

the completion of much of the work is many years away. In the meantime, park 

managers often make decisions about the parks' operations without knowing the impact of these decisions on the resources. For example, at Yosemite National Park, 

after 70 years of stocking non-native fish in various lakes and waterways, park officials realized that indiscriminate stocking had done more harm than good. As a result, according to park officials, the park's waterways have been compromised. Nonnative fish introduced into the park now outnumber native rainbow trout by a 4 to 

3Science and the National Parks, National Research Council, 1992. 
16 

1 margin. According to park officials, this stocking policy, which continued until 

1990, has also resulted in a decline of at least one federally protected apeciea. 4 

MAJOR FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO THE CURRENT SITUATION 

Since 1985, the Park Service's operating budget has risen from Etbout $627 million 

to about $972 million-or by about 55 percent. After allowing for inflation, the in- crease still amounts to about 18 percent. At 11 of the 12 parks we visited, funding 

increases outpaced inflation from 1985 to 1993.11 Increases rangE•d from 5 percent 

to about 200 percent. However, despite these increases, additional demands on the 

parka are eroding the Park Service's ability to keep up with the needs for visitor 

services and resource management. 

Many factors influence the level of visitor services and resourcE• management activities. While these factors are not necessarily the same at all parks, our work identified two factors that were common to most of the parka we visikd and had a substantial impact on the level of visitor services and resource management activities. These factors were (1) additional operating requirements and (2} increased visitation. 

Additional operatingrequirements 

Many additional operating requirements are passed on to the parks through federal laws. In many cases, funds arc not made available to the parks to cover the 

entire costs of these requirements. Park managers cited numerous requirements 

from such laws as the Clean Air Act and the National Environmental Policy Act and 

from the implementing regulations of the Environmental Protection Agency and the 

Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Overall, at the 12 parka we visited, 

park managers cited over 20 diiTerent federal laws affecting the parks' operations.6 

Park managers told us that meeting these requirements meant diverting money 

from day-to-day park activities. In 1994, for example, Yosemite National Park spent 

about $100,000 to address the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's regulations and $80,000 to identify and remove hazardous waste. At Glacier National 

Park, federal requirements for lead paint abatement, asbestos removal, surface 

water treatment, waste water treatment systems, and accessibility for disabled visitors required park managers to ·divert operating funds from othe·r park activities. 

While Glacier's records do not track the total costs associated with meeting these 

requirements, park officials told us these costs were substantial and significantly 

eroded the amount of operating funds available for day-to-day park activities. Each 

park we visited had similar examples. These costs are significant since only about 

25 percent of a park's operating budget remains to meet day-to-day park needs after 

paying salaries and benefits. 

Furthermore, because salaries and benefits are such a large portion of the parks' 

budgets, even small increases in these costa can diminish a park's ability to meet 

its needs for visitor services and resource management. These cost!' include expenditures for new law enforcement certification and· training requirements for park 

rangers, increased compensation for rangers, full background checks on law enforcement personnel, cost-of-living increases, and retirement costs. For example, last year 

at Yosemite National Park the cost of doing routine background. checks for park 

rangers was about $200,000. At Lake Mead, less than half of the cost of the increased compensation for park rangers was met through budget increases, leaving an additional $200,000 to be paid from the park's operating funds. 

Increased visitation 

The second factor eroding the parks' operating budgets is the increase in visitation. Eight of the 12 parks showed increases in the number of visitors; the average 

increase was 27 percent since 1985. The four parks where decreases occurred were small historical parks where visitation averaged less than 200,000 in 1993. These 

substantial increases in visitation drive up costs for many items that directly support visitor activities, such as waste disposal, general maintenance, road and trail 

repair, employees' overtime, and utilities. For example, at Lak·~ Head National 

Recreation Area, the costs of trash disposal have more than tripled from $47,000 

in 1990 to $152,000 last year. As a result, a portion ()f the increased funding that 

the parks have received has been spent to cover the costs associated with meeting 

the needs generated by increased visitation. 

• The federally protected species was the mountain yellow-legged frog. • Because the Statue of Liberty was closed for much of 1985 and 1986, we used the period 

from 1987 to 1993 for our analysis or'that park's budget and visitation trends. 

e App. III lists these Ia ws. 
17 

CHOICES WILL BE DIFFICULT 

Messrs. Chairmen, many of the problems we have told you about today are not new. At the same time that visitor services are being cut back and parks are operating without sufficient information on many of their resources, the Park Service faces a multibillion dollar maintenance backlog and, like all federal agencies, increasingly 

tight budgets. In addition, infrastructure and development needs on the system con- tinue to grow as new units are added-31 since 1984. 

Under these circumstances, it is difficult to envision a turnaround in the short 

term. Dealing with this situation calls for making difficult choices about how parks are funded and managed, some of which may require legislative changes. Our work 

indicates that these choices, or a combination of them, need to address three areas: 

(1) the amount of revenue going to the parks, (2) the number of units in the park 

system, and (3) the extent to which current park operating standards and visitor 

expectations can or should be revised. In addition, the Park Service needs to look 

for ways to operate more efficiently and improve accountability to assure that the 

limited dollars are used most effectively. While substantial increases in appropriations are not likely in today's tight budget 

environment, other sources of revenues need to be considered. These could include 

( 1) increasing park fees, such as entrance fees, concession fees, and fees for other 

in-park services, and allowing parks to retain more of these revenues to address 

their needs, and (2) encouraging park managers to be more entrepreneurial in addressing their park's needs by entering into partnership arrangements with the private sector or other parties. However, any increase in revenues must be accom- panied by improvements in the Park Service's accountability. The need for improved 

accountability is critical in light of the broad discretion given to individual park 

managers in determining how to spend operating funds. Park Service officials indicated to us that they plan to improve accountability. 

A second choice would be to limit additions to, or perhaps decrease the number 

of units in the national park system. To the extent that the system is permitted to 

grow, associated infrastructure and development needs will also grow. As this 

growth occurs, more park units will be competing for limited federal funding. While 

certainly not an easy decision, limiting the number of parks, or perhaps even reducing the number until the parks' current conditions can be adequately addressed will 

help ease the financial pressures now facing the park system. In both the last and 

current Congress, proposals have been offered that would address this alternative. 

A third choice would be to reduce the level of visitor services, as well as visitors' 

expectations, to more closely match the level of services that can realistically be provided with available resources. The Park Service could, for example, limit operations 

to fewer hours per day or fewer days per year, limit the number of visitors, or perhaps temporarily close some facilities to public use. We believe that the Park Service should make the choice to provide the public with a lower-quality experience 

only after developing a carefully thought-out strategy and consulting with the Congress. 

Regardless of which of these choices or combination of choices are made, the Park 

Service needs to look for ways to stretch its limited resources by operating more efficiently. Toward this end, the Park Service has developed a restructuring plan to 

meet the goals of the first phase of the administration's National Performance Review. However, this restructuring plan is limited primarily to changes that can be 

accomplished within the Park Service's existing structure. The plan does not address the potential to improve operations through a collaborative approach to land 

management involving other federal land management agencies. The current fiscal 

climate demands that federal land management agencies look beyond existing jurisdictional boundaries in their search to reduce costs, increase efficiency, and improve 

service to the public. Park Service officials told us they are currently working with 

other land management agencies to improve operations and will continue to do so. 

In summary, Messrs. Chairmen, our work reveals that the future of the parks is 

at a crossroads. While more people are visiting parks, the services available to these 

visitors are deteriorating. The Park Service, as the steward for many of the nation's 

natural and cultural treasures, has a myriad of problems to address ranging from 

insufficient data on the conditions of resources to an ever-increasing maintenance 

backlog. While the Park Service has recognized its problems and has taken some actions to address them, we believe that because of their magnitude, difficult choices 

must be made. Unless these choices are made, the Park Service's ability to preserve 

these treasures for the enjoyment of future generations may be in jeopardy. 

Messrs. Chairmen, this concludes our statement. We would be glad to respond to 

any questions that you or other members of the Subcommittees may have. 
18 

[Appendix 1] 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE SITES VISITED 

Park unit 

Antietam National Battlefield ........................... .................................... . Bandelier National Monument ....................... ..................................... .. . Denali National Park and Preserve ............... ....................................... . Glacier National Park ....... .... ................................................................. . Harpers Ferry National Historical Park .......... .......................... .......... . 

Hopewell Furnace National Historic Site ............................ ................. . Lake Mead National Recreation Area .................................................. . 

Padre l!!land National Seashore ................... ........................................ . Pecos National Historic Park .. .......................... .... ... ............................. . Shenandoah National Park .......................................... ................... ...... . Statue of Liberty National Monument and Ellis Island ..................... . 

Yosemite National Park .................................................... ..................... . 

[Appendix II] 

Location 

Maryland 

New Mexico 

Alaska 

Montana 

Maryland, 

Virginia 

and West 

Virginia 

Pennsylvania 

Nevada and 

Arizona 

Texas 

New Mexico 

Virginia 

New York 

and New 

Jersey 

California 

PERTINENT GAO REPORTS AND TESTIMONIES BY SUB.JECT AREA 

PARK SERVICE MANAGEMr;r."T ISSUES 

National Park Service: Better Management and Broader Restruc.turing Efforts Are 

Needed (GAOtr-RCED-95-101, Feb. 9, 1995). 

National Park Service: Reexamination of Employee Housing Program Is Needed 

(GAO/RCED-94-284, Aug. 30, 1994). 

National Park Service: Activities Out.side Park Borders Have Caused Damage to 

Resources and Will Likely Cause More (GAO/RCED-94--59, Jan. 3, 1994). 

Department of the Interior: Transfer of the Presidio From the Army to the National 

Park Service (GAOtr-RCE0-94-64, Oct. 26, 1993). 

Department of the Interior: Transfer of the Presidio From the Army to the National 

Park Service (GAO/RCED--94-61, Oct. 26, 1993). 

National Park Service: Condition of and Need for Employee Housing (GAO/RCED93-192, Sept. 30, 1993). 

National Park Service: Sco~e and Co.~t of America's Industrial Heritage Project 

Need to Be Defined (GAO/RCED-9a-134, May 14, 1993). 

National Park Service: Status of Development at the Steamtown National Historic 

Site (GAOff-RCED-92-6, Oct. 11, 1991). 

Air Pollution: Protecting Parks and Wilderness From Nearby Pollution Sources 

(GAO/RCED-90-10, Feb. (l, 1990). 

The Maintenance Needs of the National Park Service (GAOtr-RCED--88-27, Mar. 

2:~. 1988). 

Parks and Recreation: Park · Service Managers Report Shortfalls in Maintenance 

Funding (GAO/RCED--88--91BR, Mar. 21, 1988). 

Parks and Recreation: Limited Progress Made in Documenting and Mitig(Jting 

Threats to the Parks (GAO/RCED--87--36, Feb. 9, 1987). 

CONCESSIONS lssm;s 

Federal Lands: Improvements Needed in Managing Short-Term Concessioners 

(GAO/RCED-93-177, Sept. 14, 199:3). 

Federal Land: Little Progress Made in Improving Oversight of Concessioners 

(GAOtr- RCED-93-42, May 27, 1993). 

National Parks: Issues Involved in the Sale of the Yosemite National Park Conces· 

sioner (GAO/RCED--92-232, Sept. 10, 1992). National Park Service: Policies and Practices for Determining Concessioners' 

Building Use Fees (GAOtr-RCED-92-66, May 21, 1992). 

Federal Lands: Oversight of Long-Term Concessioners (GAO/RCED-92- 128BH, 

Mar. 20, 1992). 
19 

Federal Lands: Improvements Needed in Managing Concessioners (GAO/RCED91-163, June 11, 1991). 

Recreation Conce.~sioners Operating on Federal Land.~ (GAOtr-RCED-91~16, Mar. 

21, 1991). 

OTHER MANAGEM~:NT IssUES 

Management Reform: Implementation of the National Performance Review's Recommendations (GAO/OCG-95-1, Dec. 5, 1994). 

Ecosystem Management: Additional Actions Needed to Adequately Test a Promising Approach (GAO!J'-RCED-94--308 Sept. 20, 1994). 

Ecosystem Management: Additional Actions Needed to Adequately Test a Promising Approach (GAO/HCED-94--111, Aug. 16, 1994). 

Addressing the Deficit· Budgetary Implications of Selected GAO Work (GAO/OCG94-3, Mar. 11, 1994). 

Forest Service Management: Issue.~ to Be Considered in Developing a New Stewardship Strategy (GAO!J'-RCED-94-116, Feb. 1, 1994). 

Management Reform: GAO's Comments on the National Performance Review's Recommendations (GAO/OCG-94-1, Dec. 5, 199:n 

Natural Resources Management: Issues to Be Considered by the Congress and the 

Administration (GAOtr-93-5, Feb. 2, 1993). 

Natural Resources Management Issues (GAO/OCG-93--l7TH, Dec. 1992). 

Interior Issues (GAO/OCG-S9-24TH, Nov. 1988). 

[Appendix III] 

SELECTED FEDERAL LAWS M'FECTING THE NATIONAL PARKS 

GENERAL PARK ADMINISTRATION 

Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972. 

Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, as amended. 

National Park Service General Authorities Act of 1970 (PL 91-383). 

Occ"l.lpational Safety and Health Act of 1970, as amended. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT/PROTECTION 

American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978. 

Antiquities Act of 1906. 

Archeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974 (PL 93-291). 

Archeological Resources Protection Act 1979, as amended. 

Historic Sites, Buildings and Antiquities Act of 1935. 

Native American Grave3 Proteetion and Repatriation Act. 

National Historic Preservation Act. 

NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT/PROTECTION 

Clean Air Act. 

Clean Water Act. 

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 

1980, as amended. 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. 

Mining in the Parks Act of 1976 (PL 94--429). 

National Environmental Policy Act of 19G9, as amended. 

VISITOR SERVICEs!SAFgfY 

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. 

Architectural Barriers Act of 19G8, as amended. 

Resource Conse;-vation and Recovery Act of 197G. 

Safe Drinking Water Act. 

Solid Waste Disposal Act. 

Toxic Substances Control Act. 

Senator THOMAS. Thank you very much. lNhat we will do, Mr. 

Chairman, if it is all right with you, is we will just alternate back 

and forth in asking questions. 

In the meantime, let me call on Senator Bumpers, if you have 

any statement you would like to make, sir. 
20 

STATEMENT OF HON. DALE BUMPERS, U.S. SENATOR FROM 

ARKANSAS 

Senator BUMPERS. Mr. Chairman, I have an opening statement. 

With your permission and the other members, I will ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to insert it into the record. 

Senator THOMAS. Without objection. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Bumpers follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. DALE BUMPERS, U .S. SENATOR FROM ARKANSAS 

Good morning, Mr. Chairmen. Since, this is the first hearing olf the Senate Parks 

Subcommittee in this Congress, I would like to welcome Senator Thomas both to the 

Committee and as Chairman of this subcommittee. I have served as either the 

Chairman or Ranking member of this Subcommittee since 197!1, and despite the 

sometimes considerable philosophical diiTerences with my Republican counterparts on National Park and other public land issues, I think we have always had a good 

working relationship, and I look forward to that continuing with you. Over the next 

few years, we will be dealing with a number of very important issues facing the National Park Service, and I hope that we will, in most cases, be able to work together 

to try and resolve them. 

This hearing is also notable in that it represents a rare joint hearing between the 

House and Senate authorizing Subcommittees, and I would like to welcome Congressman Jim Hansen, the new Chairman of the Subcommittee, a!l well as Bill Richardson, my counterpart Ranking Member. 

Mr. Chairmen, I think an oversight hearing on the general health of the National Par~ System is a good pl~ce t:o bcgJn_ this Congress. I have read the G!-O's prepared 

testrmony, and I don't thtnk It contams·too many surpnses. We all Will agree, I am sure, that the combination of leaner Federal budgets and the demands imposed by 

increasing visitation at parks, is placing a severe strain on the re:'lources of the National Park System. I don't think that there is any doubt that, at least in some cases, park resources are deteriorating, visitor services are having to be curtailed, 

and the waiting list to complete construction and land acquisition projects is growing longer. 

I would also agree with the GAO's observation that one of the solutions is to in- crease the revenues going to parks. I think that President Clint.on and Secretary Babbitt have done an admirable job of maintaining a strong Pa:rk Service budget 

in these difficult fiscal times, but clearly Federal appropriated dollars will not be 

sufficient, in and of themselves, to resolve the Park Service's fundi11g needs. 

That is why I think we must look at other ways to make sure that the revenue collected by parks stays in the parks, instead of being returned to the Treasury. As 

you all are aware, until two years ago, none of the fees coJiected by the Park Service were kept in the parks, being returned instead to the general fund. We are, however, starting to make inroads towards keeping more of the money at the parks level. During the previous Congress, we enacted language which allowed the Park 

Service to retain 15 percent of the total fees collected, and to sp!nd that amount, 

without further appropriation, to pay for the increased cost of collecting fees. From 

what I understand, that ability to retain . .the costs of collection has provided greater 

incentive and ability to collect more fees and increase revenues. In this regard, I anticipate that we will again consider proposah1 to increase park entrance fees. As I have said before, I am not very enthusiastic about increasing 

visitor fees, but I will support an increase so long as .the increased revenues are returned to the parks. The Energy Committee reported a bill last year that accom- plished that goal, and any bill we consider this year should do likewise. 

Secondly, we must achieve a greater return from commercial mers in our parks. 

Last year, Senator Bennett and I sponsored a bill which would make concession operations within units of the National ParkSystem open to competition, which I believe will lead (as does the Park Service) to better services for the public and a greater return to the Federal government. This year, Senator Bennett and I have 

again introduced a concession reform bill, S. 309, that is almost identical to the bill 

that passed the Senate last Congress by a vote of 90 to 9. Senator 'Thomas, we have 

written asking for a hearing on this bill at your earliest convenience, and I hope 

that we will be able to move this bill very quickly. 

Finally, I would like to make a brief observation on the GAO's other alternative, a limitation on the number of parks in the system. I know several members are anx- ious to establish something similar to a base closure commission, where an independent entity would make recommendations to close or transfer cc·rtain park units, 
21 

and Congress would either adopt or reject the package as a whole. While I don't 

think it is necessarily a bad idea to look at all park areas, I think the only way an area should be deauthorized is if Congress, on a case-by-case basis, passes a law 

to do so. Last year, this Committee reported legislation sponsored by Senator Wallop 

that would have established a commission to make recommendations to the Secretary and the Congress, but not to actually deauthorize any areas. I think a proposal such as that would be useful and workable, but I would strongly oppose any 

attempts to follow the base closure model. I do think it would be helpful, though, 

to establish some type of formal guidelines with respect to proposed new units. I can tell the new chairmen that in the closing days of the Congress, you will come under tremendous pressure from our colleagues to agree to park proposals that have 

not been adequately heard and considered. A clear and objective set of criteria to 

apply in such situations will make your jobs easier. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairmen. 

Senator THOMAS. We will try and limit our questions to 5 minutes or less and we will go around again if we need to do that. 

You mentioned a number of times accountability. Would you tell 

me what you mean and what kind of accountability and what the 

need is that you speak of. 

Mr. DUFFUS. First of al1, when we talk about accountability, we 

believe what it means in a broad sense is holding folks accountable 

for their actions. We found, though, that you cannot have accountability without sufficient data and right now, as we indicated 

today, and as I testified on February 9, that there is not sufficient 

data, both programmatic data and financial data with respect to 

the conditions and trends of the resources. 

When we talk about accountability, we are saying that we want 

to make sure that the funds that are available are being spend effectively and are accomplishing results. In order to do that, you 

have to hold someone accountable for the expenditure for those 

funds. 

Senator THOMAS. Would lack of accountability result in not being 

able to actual1y define where the money was spent or what the 

money was spent for or to have a budget and be able to show how 

the expenditures related to that budget? 

Mr. DUFFUS. Well, right now, you have a lot of autonomy at the 

park level with respect to how the operating funds are spent. As 

I indicated, about 75 percent are in the fixed category of costs and 

benefits, leaving about 25 percent for discretionary spending. 

Park managers have a lot of flexibility on how they spend those 

funds. We think they need to be accountable on how they spend 

those funds and there has to be some measurable result that comes 

from the expenditure of those funds. It is essential. 

Senator THOMAS. You mentioned in your statement that the condition and trend of many park resources is largely unknown. That 

strikes me as being pretty unusual. You are saying, I guess, that 

the actual managers of the park are not familiar with the condition 

or the trend of their resources? 

Mr. DUFFUS. Maybe I can ask Mr. Fowler to help me in this response. We found a lack of baseline data on the condition of resources and data to depict the trends of those resources, whether 

or not the resources are improving, staying the same, or deteriorat- ing. 

Mr. FOWLER. What I would add is at the 12 parks we visited, 

when you asked the park managers about the condition of re- sources, they could certainly give you answers to that. The an-
22 

swers, by and large, are based on their professional judgment, the 

professional judgment of staff devoted to resource management 

there. So, they can do that. 

The point we are trying to bring out clearly, I hope, is that the 

proper way to do it, according to resource managen:, is to develop 

an inventory of the resources you have, to develop scientific data 

that permits you to monitor the condition of that resource over 

time. 

So, you can predict change, or see change, in the status of the 

resource. It is the lack of the scientific data that is missing. They 

could certainly give you answers based on professional judgment. 

There are some resources in some parks that they know quite a 

bit about but overall, the information is lacking. 

Senator THoMAS. You mentioned and have a section on visitor 

services and I think your conclusion is they generally have deteriorated and are less than they were at some time. 

Are you talking-well, what is your analysis of th,e services provided by concessionaires? 

Mr. FOWLER. In this particular job we did not look at the quality 

of the services provided by concessionaires. 

Senator THOMAS. So, these visitor services that you talked about 

are provided by the park itself? 

Mr. FOWLER. Correct. 

Mr. DUFFUS. The types of services we are talking about would be 

the campgrounds, trails, protective services, facilities, things along 

those lines, that are provided by the park. 

Senator THOMAS. Thank you very much. My time has expired. 

Mr. HANSEN. Before we start on my side, Mr. Radanovich of California, do you have an opening statement you would like to make? 

STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, 

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA 

Mr. R.ADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, if I could just state that I am 

a new congressman from California. I have three national parks in 

my district, Yosemite, Kings and Sequoia National Parks and I am 

very interested on what goes on within concessions in those parks 

and particularly in the Yosemite National Park, and how that park 

deals with outlying communities and using satellite communities 

such as my home town of Mariposa, communities like Sonora and 

Oakhurst, as a means of solving some of the problems that are incurred within the part, for example, transportation, and some of 

the management issues, too. 

The only other thing I would like · to mention is that I have a bit 

of a concern in the fact that being affiliated with Yosemite National 

Park and knowing what its problems, their infrastructure problems, the impact of high rates of tourism in that park, at the same 

time, bringing in thousands and thousands of acres in the desert 

part of southern California and to me, it was just a very mixed 

message. 

You want to take care of what you have got first before you start 

adding parks. I think it makes a lot of sense. That is kind of where 

I am coming from on these issues. Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. 
23 

Mr. Duffus, we appreciated your testimony and the testimony 

you gave before our committee, with the Appropriations Committee 

a few weeks ago. 

I guess I keep puzzling on this idea as we look in the 1980s and 

actually the parks received a rather substantial amount of money 

and yet, we have the maintenance deferred, we have backlogs, we 

have infrastructure falling apart. 

There is a real paradox, in my mind, on one side we are having 

all these problems. We talk about the money that was put into 

parks. You kind of ask yourself the question, we put money in 

parks and nothing happened. 

We are trying on our side to come up with creative ways to take 

care of these problems, like, maybe, an increase in entrance fees, 

concessionaires, taxes. You do nGt want to use the ''T" word any 

more, but still, all those things are standing there and I am sitting 

here wondering why this paradox? 

Why, on one side we put this money in and at the other side we 

don't see any results coming out of the other end? And also, you 

see a difference in parks. 

You alluded to it in your report here. One person apparently in 

one area, he has got a problem, so he closes down campgrounds in 

Shenandoah Park, and then in somewhere else, they turn over the 

management of the campgrounds to the concessionaire, for example. 

Have you got an answer to that question at all? 

Mr. DUFFUS. Well, that is a good question. There is variation in 

what is done to deal with the problems. That is because of the autonomy that park managers have. They make the decisions whether or not they should close a camp ground or they should take the 

lifeguard off duty. 

So, that is their decision to make. There is no question that over 

the past 10 years, as we have indicated, there has been an increase 

in real terms in the Park Service's budget. At the 12 parks we went 

to, we were told consistently that there were two things that eroded parks' operating budgets and these were additional operating requirements and increases in visitation. 

Also, with respect to visitation, when park managers had to set 

priorities. The first priority, they told us, was visitor services. If 

they had to choose between meeting a visitor service and something else, the choice would be meeting the visitor service. 

But, any increase in funding calls for increased accountability. It 

is tough to say what the money went for if you don't have accountability over the expenditure of the funds. In addition, they do not 

have measurable performance standards to hold managers accountable for what was accomplished with the funds so that the funds 

are spent effectively in accomplishing something specific. 

Mr. HANSEN. If you had a measurable performance standard 

much like some business would have, where it has a lot of branch 

offices scattered all over the United States, how would you structure that? How would you make a simple, yet effective, measurable 

standard? 

Mr. DUFFUS. Well, I could provide an example. A measurable 

standard could be that in a park with a substantial backlog of deferred maintenance, you would require, perhaps over a year period, 
24 

that the backlog be reduced and park managers would have to 

show some significant reductions in the backlog. 

At the end of that year, then, you would hold them to that performance. You would see a measurable result that c:ame out of it. 

Mr. HANSEN. You do not see that now; is that right? 

Mr. DUFFUS. No, sir, we do not. Mr. HANSEN. You also alluded to operating requirements. Are 

you alluding to the idea that possibly the Federal GlVernment has 

rolled on heavier requirements to the park system, I mean, a few 

off the top of your head, the Clean Air Act, things such as that, 

rather substantial requirements. Does this also jack up the cost of 

running these parks? 

Mr. DUFFUS. Yes, it has. Maybe Mr. Fowler can respond with 

somewhat more detail, but it has been a factor. 

Mr. FOWLER. It has, but I would add to what Jim said is the 

whole issue of accountability. The bedrock of that is for the agency, 

for any agency, in this case the Park Service, is to have good, accurate, reliable data on what is going on in the park, assurances that 

the money is spent the way it was intended to be spent, that kind 

of good, solid, reliable data. It is that part of it that bothers us in our work, in our work over 

toe years, not only for this particular study, but other work has 

shown that the Park Service does not have reliable data-resource 

management is just one example. 

They do not have the scientific data on what the condition ofthe 

resource, by and large, of what the resources are out there. Without that kind of basic information, you could talk about accountability, but you can't get there without it. That gets you into the issue of how do you measure what you are 

getting for the money? How do you measure results? How do you 

measure performance? You measure that only when you have reliable, solid data. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. I see my time is up, but after 15 years 

on this committee I have come to the conclusion, I used to think 

all we need is money to go at it. I think I am coming: down harder 

on the side of the idea that we need more accountability. 

Having visited most of the Western parks, I almost think that 

that is where we need to go. Thank you. 

Senator THOMAS. Let me call on the ranking member, Senator 

Bumpers. 

Senator BUMPERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Is it Duffus? 

Mr. DUFFUS. Yes, sir. 

Senator BUMPERS. Mr. Duffus, you pointed out in your testimony 

that there was an 18 percent increase in park funding since 1985. 

Did the average park get that or was that simply diffused over all 

the new parks we have added since 1985? 

Mr. DuFFUS. I believe that went to the parks. Senator BUMPERS. What I am talking about, did the average 

park get that kind of an increase in real dollars? They could not 

have received all of it because we have added an awful lot of parks 

since 1985. 

Mr. Staley, do you know the answer? 
25 

Mr. STALEY. I can help you. a little bit, Senator. We did not look 

at all the parks. The 12 parks we looked at in this particular study, 

11 of the 12 got an increase in real terms. The increase varied, 

however, from park to park. Of the 11 that got increases, the real increase was as low as 5 

percent, as high as 200 percent. There was one park that did not 

realize an increase in real terms. 

Senator BUMPERS. Which park received a 200 percent increase? 

Mr. STALEY. That was Pecos, down in New Mexico. 

Senator BUMPERS. Pecos? 

Mr. STALEY. Right, right, and the main reason for that is--

Senator BUMPERS. Well, was that simply an increase from $1,000 

to $3,000, or what was it? 

Mr. STALEY. No, it was a 200 percent increase. 

Senator BUMPERS. Well, I know, but what were the dollars? 

Mr. STALEY. The dollars approximated, in 1993, they received $1 

million in their operating budget, so it was a substantial increase. The main reason for that was in 1990, the park was about 360 

acres and an additional 6,000 acres were added to the park as a 

result of a donation and this resulted in the increase in the operating budget, to begin the planning, to assess the resources, get the 

paperwork going, to put together a resource management plan. To date, however, they are still dealing with a draft resource 

management plan, so they have a ways to go. But that park, Pecos, 

received the largest increase over that period of time. 

Senator BUMPERS. How does the Park Service allocate increases? 

We are increasing funding for the Park Service almost by $100 million from about a $1.1 billion to $1.17 billion, or some such thing 

as that, close to a $100 million increase. 

Does the Park Service just give each park the same amount of 

increase or is it on an ad hoc basis? Is it done on a political basis, 

whoever over here has the most clout and calls the park director, 

or what? 

Does the budget contain specific increases for each park or is it 

just a lump sum item to the Park Service? 

Ms. RUSTEN. There is an across-the-board base increase for each 

park that is the same for each park and then other parks may get 

additional money for special projects or special needs. 

Senator BuMPERS. Have you been able to determine whether that 

is done on some sort of business-like basis or is that just sort of 

an ad hoc decision made by somebody over at the Park Service? 

Mr. FOWLER. I don't believe we can answer that. We did not look 

at the priority scheme that applies to that. 

Senator BUMPERS. Can you tell me how much the increase in 

park entrance fees is amounting to as a percentage of what the fees 

were before they were increased? Have you looked at that yet? 

Mr. DUFFUS. I don't believe we have looked at that. We know 

that in 1993, servicewide, there was $85 million collected in fees. 

Senator BUMPERS. Say that again, Mr. Duffus. 

Mr. DUFFUS. We cannot tell you what the increase, the percentage increase was, but for 1993, the Park Service, servicewide, collected $85 million in fees, entrance fees, user fees, concession fees 

and special permit fees. 
26 

Senator BUMPERS. Are you familiar with the Civil War Battlefield Commission's recommendations? We had the Civil War Battlefield Commission set up a few years ago and they came back with 

recommendations on the battlefields on a priority basis, one, two, 

three. Did you have occasion to look at that? 

Mr. FOWLER. We did not. 

Mr. DUFFUS. No. 

Senator BUMPERS. Did you have occasion to look at the concessions bill that Senator Bennett and I introduced? 

Mr. FOWLER. S. 208, from last year? 

Senator BUMPERS. Yes, we reported it out of this committee last 

year. As you know, somebody put a hold on it for the last few days, 

so we reintroduced essentially the same bill this year. 

Mr. FOWLER. We did not study it. We were aware of it and its 

contents. 

Senator BUMPERS. You have not looked at that? 

Mr. FowLER. We were aware of it. 

Senator BUMPERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HANSEN. Mrs. Smith. 

Mr. Smith. No questions, thank you. 

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Vento. 

Mr.VENTO. Thank you, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Duffus, I note that as an example, I don't know, management by objective for individual parks, I really wonder. But I did 

pay attention to the data base needs of the various parks. Part of 

the problem there is that the Park Service does not have the resource to do that; is that correct? 

They do not have the resources. It is not as though they have the 

dollars that they are charged to get the data base and they are not 

doing it; is that correct? 

Mr. DUFFUS. Resources are a problem, yes, sir. 

Mr. VENTO. And, of course, we have-obviously, sciience is today 

is much more involved in the sense that we are talking, in a sense, 

about ecosystem management and talking about the interrelated 

nature of the science. 

For instance, I know one of the Alaskan parks were added. One 

of the requests of the Park Service to the Department of the Interior under Cecil Andrus was to, in fact, obtain a data base, basic 

information, so that if we have incidents occur, as did occur, for instance, with the Exxon Valdez, that we would have the background 

information so we could make an assessment of what the situation 

was and what had occurred or what the impact was in terms of 

that oil and the water column. That didn't occur, did it? Did you review whether the Park Service had requested money for, in fact, doing their general management plan, doing their data base, these 12 parks. I know, you just 

dealt with 12 parks. 

Mr. FOWLER They requested money for that, yes. 

Mr. VENTO. They requested money and what happened? I mean, 

you pointed out that one park, I forget which, hadn't done their 

general management plan. Had they requested dollars for that? 

Mr. FowLER. Yes. 

Mr. VENTO. You see, what I am trying to do, I think my colleagues have to pay attention here, because the point is, it is easy 
27 

get up here and say the Park Service did not do a general management plan for its entire existence. But then, the question is, if they requested dollars to do that and 

didn't get it, then it is either one of two things, either the -Congress 

did not appropriate it or the Administration did not properly allocate the appropriation. 

So, do you know the answer to my question, Mr. Fowler? 

Mr. Fowum. In this way, they did ask for it but once it goes 

back to the Park Service it is hard to say it is part of the operating 

funds that go to the park, so ultimately it is a matter of priorities, 

and what that money is spent on. 

Mr. VENTO. If we want accountability, though, if we are saying 

we need a new accountability system, we had better know whether 

they are getting the dollars and not doing what they are asked to 

do. There is two different things here and I think we have to pay 

attention. 

You know, I noticed in this, and this is a chance where I have 

had a chance to visit Lake Mead, the Lake Mead area, and obviously, it is an explosive public use there. When I visited, the Park 

Service personnel pointed out to me they have just hordes of young 

people, hundreds of young people, that go out into park and it is 

uncontrollable and a dangerous situation in terms of what goes on 

and around the beaches in that area at night after things close 

down early in the morning, maybe even employees, drive out to 

this Lake Mead area. 

The Park Service, you point out, has a backlog of 12 calls that 

they are not answering, I forget what, the point was, that they are 

not answering the calls out there. But the point is, do you know 

what the jurisdiction was? Is their jurisdiction exclusive jurisdiction, joint jurisdiction, or is it given over? It must be joint because 

they are saying they are involved. 

Did you explore whether the Park Service ought to change the 

contract or change the jurisdiction they have around Lake Mead? 

Is th at an alternative in dealing with the backlog problem, Mr. 

Woodward? 

Mr. WOODWARD. That could be an option. I think we point out 

the need for better coordination between the Park Service and 

other Federal land management agencies, in this case, it is the 

park police, it is park rangers. 

Mr. VENTO. One of the problems, I would just point out, is that 

sometimes the State of Nevada or the county may not want to take 

on that jurisdiction because it costs money to, in fact, do that. And 

of course, the use of that is changing greatly. Lake Mead is almost 

an urban park, a tremendous number of problems. 

With regard to data base, I would also point out that the Part- nership Cooperative Act, the Park Service has actually engaged the 

universities to help develop that data base, and I think it should 

be pursued. 

Did you make any evaluation of th e Park Service partnership efforts? One of them relates to Ellis Island. Of course, we all know 

they have raised hundreds of millions of dollars to fix up the Statue of Liberty and so I am sure it comes as a surprise to my colleagues to say, "Hey, 32 or the 36 buildings on Ellis Island are not 

repaired." 
28 

But what happened? Did you check the history of that? Wasn't 

there an agreement between the Partnership for Housing and that 

did not materialize, which would have, in fact, repaired most of 

those buildings and put them into some sort complimentary use, 

Mr. Fowler? 

Mr. FOWLER. We did not check out that particular agreement. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, there was, and there were considerable efforts, 

so I think you need to understand the context. Content without 

context ends up being pretext. So, you need to unde-rstand-Reverend Burns, I see your time is next-as to what is going on. 

With regards to the yellow-legged frog in Yosemite, li think it was 

Yosemite you talked about here,that they had destroyed the native 

fish population, which I think is really very serious, but did they 

work with the Fish and Wildlife Service in terms of making judgments about whether they should introduce nonnative trout, I 

guess they are brook trout, you don't say in here, but they are either brooks or some other, not the native rainbow trout that occurs 

there. Who did the work on that? 

Mr. STALEY. I was there. 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Staley. 

Mr. STALEY. Right. A little history on that--

Mr. VENTO. Did they check out with the Fish and Wildlife Service what they were doing? You made this assertion that they did 

this. Do you know what the background was of it? Were they just 

doing this on their own? Did they have their own seientists that 

deal with it? 

Mr. STALEY. The State of California, as well as the Park Service 

were the two principal agencies that introduced the nonnative fish. 

Now, there was not any study done over those many, many years 

to determine the impact. 

Mr. VENTO. How long ago was it? How long ago was it? 

Mr. STALEY. About 70 years ago, it started, so in the 1920s. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, I just think that the genesis of it isn't something recent. I think we can all look at problems that have occurred 

with nonnative species. In fact, we have got some who wanted to 

bring Eurasian hogs into Minnesota. 

There are a lot of these interesting ideas floating around. I would 

say they are a little off the wall, but I think here is a case where 

they were trying to cooperate but I think the thing is, how do we 

correct it? 

One of the problems with the Park Service, as an example, my 

colleagues, is that they don't have a lot of scientists. They rely 

upon the Fish and Wildlife Service and others. They have fewer scientists than BLM, the Forest Service and/or Fish and Wildlife 

Service. So, have you found that-the National Biological Survey is 

an answer to part of this. 

My time has expired. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator THOMAS. We will let you finish that quote. 

Mr. VENTO. The National Biological Survey, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator THOMAS. We have been joined by the Senator from 

Idaho. Do you have a statement, Senator Craig? 
29 

STATEMENT OF HON.-LARRY E. CRAIG, U.S. SENATOR FROM 

IDAHO 

Senator CRAIG. I will be very brief because I was not here for 

your testimony. Senator BUMPERS. We put ours in the record. 

Senator BURNS. Yes, we put ours in the record, Senator. 

Senator CRAIG. Mr. Chairman, let the record show that I have 

had the privilege of knowing Dale Bumpers for nigh onto 3 years, and he puts a lot in the record.· Senator BUMPERS. You just think I do because people listen. 

Senator THOMAS. Have I lost control of the hearing? 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CRAIG. No, Mr. Chairman, you have not. You have the 

gavel. 

A couple of comments. Certainly all of us are concerned about 

the status of our parks. My hope is that during our tenure here in 

the Senate in the majorit?', that we will be able to adhere to something that the Chairman s predecessor argued loudly and that we 

are acquiring much more land than we are willing to afford to 

manage and we are spreading the Park Service tremendously thin. 

As a result, we are creating a self-fulfilling prophecy, in many instances, where the parks simply cannot handle the volumes of people. And yet, we keep adding for the political sake of an awful lot 

of members here and then not doing it, not coming up with the 

funds necessary to manage those units. 

I don't argue the integrity of the inclusions or their values. I just 

simply say we have been in the business of adding a lot longer 

than we have in financing. 

I know that the Senator from Minnesota is concerned about law 

enforcement. He has expressed that before and I, too, share th at 

concern as to the effective management. 

We are in a bit of a tug of war over whether agencies ought to 

create their own law enforcement entities and we have funded 

some, not just with parks but also with BLM and Forest Service 

and other areas, or we ought to develop increasing cooperative relationships between local units of government who tend to have the 

expertise in law enforcement. 

I err on the side of cooperative relationships with local units and 

State units. I don't like to see the forest supervisor or the local 

park ranger walking around with a six-shooter on his or her side. 

I think it begs a question that sometimes can be disastrous. 

Let me also say that as it relates to the introduction of nonnative 

species, we have a nonnative species in Idaho that is now worldacclaimed. It is known as the elk. It was nonnative to Idaho and 

it was introduced in the early 1900s. It is now that which every 

hunter and every recreationalist and every environmentalist seeks 

a peek at. 

So, sometimes, if properly managed, the introduction of 

nonnatives where natives have become extinct or tragically endangered is an acceptable proposition if done properly. I would much 

rather see that than the shutting down of a region to try to acquire 

its politically correct status under the Endangered Species Act 

which sometimes becomes dramatically antihuman. 
30 

So, I know that the Park Service walks a fine line. I do agree 

that if they don't have the expertise, they have to rely on joint relationships with other management agencies and I think they can do 

that in many instances and cut the costs if we clarify the guidelines. 

But, at the same time, I am one of those who is going to work 

very hard to assure that we have an effectively funded Park Service but I am also one who is going to probably vote consistently no 

for additions until we get that which we have properly handled. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator THOMAS. I think next we should go to questions from the 

Senator from Montana. 

Senator BURNS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am going to be very brief on this and I wanted to thank you 

for your work and everything. I am slowly coming to a conclusion 

here that the Park Service is in bad need of an accounting system. 

Is that a wrong assumption? 

Mr. DUFFUS. Well, that is not based on any work we did, but if 

you listen to what Interior's Inspector General said at the February 

9 hearing, that was exactly her conclusion, that the fiscal side of 

the Park Service was in need of repair and in need of fixing up. 

I think the Park Service has subsequently reached agreement 

with the Inspector General that they will do something about it. 

Senator BURNS. I don't know how much trouble I would get into 

if I recommended-do you think, in your opinion, it is time for an 

outside audit? 

Mr. DUFFUS. For the Park Service? 

Senator BURNS. Yes. 

Mr. DUFFUS. Well, that is a tough one because we haven't done 

the work. I note that the Secretary of the Interior has singled out 

two agencies, the Park Service and the Bureau of Indian Affairs, 

in its annual report required by The Federal Managers Financial 

Integrity Act, where it could not persuade a reasonable assurance 

of the integrity of their accounting systems. 

Senator BURNS. I appreciate your report. I will be looking forward to the final report whenever you get it all done. You didn't 

do any work in Yellowstone Park and I was kind of looking forward 

that you might have done some work up there. 

Just like I said a while ago, I think there is an agenda and until 

we get an accurate accounting of not only where the funds are 

going-it just seems like to me they are operating on a $1.5 billion 

budget and the entry fees and the commissions on concessions is 

only up around $85 million. Now that just doesn't sound right to 

me, that doesn't add up, for some reason or other. 

I just have a feeling that we have got funds that are getting 

away from us somewhere, or whatever, happening, but I will just 

look forward to your final-I am coming down on the side that I 

think we have to-there is going to have to be outside audit. I just 

don't think we are going to be able to handle this internally and 

to bring any credibility of the organization or our organization to 

the American public. 

I thank the Chairman. 

Mr. HANSEN. Mrs. Cubin? 
31 

Mrs. CUBJN. Thank you, Mr. Chainnan. I don't remember the 

cartoon character that said, "I have seen the enemy and it is us." 

Senator BURNS. Pogo. 

Mrs. CUBIN. But that is the feeling I have. 

Senator BURNS. That dates a lot of us. 

Mrs. CUBIN. The impression I get is that we have acquired more 

lands than we can afford to administer. 

According to your testimony, some park managers say that complying with Federal laws, the Clean Air Act, and some of those 

have increased their operational costs a lot. So, there again, we are 

our own worst enemy. Could you tell me how those laws have increased operational 

costs? 

Mr. DUFFUS. Yes. For example, at Yosemite, they spent $100,000 

to fix OSHA violations. I should point out that none of the park 

managers we talked to were complaining or that they didn't agree 

with the merits or the goals of these additional laws, but the fact 

is it is taking park funds and spreading them over more requirements. 

Also, at Yosemite, about $40,000 was spent on asbestos, radon 

and lead paint abatement. So, it does impact on their budget, there 

is no question about it. 

Mrs. CUBIN. Well, I think I heard you say that they thought the 

expenditures were justified; is that right? 

Mr. DUFFUS. Well, sure. I mean, I don't think they said that they 

would not be for asbestos removal nor for not improving the air 

and water quality and so forth. So, they did not disagree with the 

goals or the merits of these laws. 

Mrs. CUBIN. Well, you see, that is sort of where I am coming 

from. I think if it is part of just what needs to be done for good 

business, for good management of the parks, then I don't think it 

is an accurate statement to make that due to these laws, the expenditures have increased. 

I would think that, for example, asbestos abatement. In my own 

town we had to close a high school for a year for asbestos abatement and the next year it was decided it would have been better 

to leave it alone. 

So, I am talking about expenditures that might be excessive to 

abide by Federal laws. Were any of those discovered? 

Mr. DUFFUS. I don't know. 

Mr. FOWLER. No, no. The only point we were trying to make in 

raising that whole issue was to get at the issue of given increases 

in real tenns, in the amount of money parks are getting, what is 

happening to those real increases? 

What we found was compliance with over 20 different Federal 

laws was using up a lot of, a good portion, of the increases that 

they were experiencing. Our point was simply to say that that is 

factual, not to make any judgments about the value or the merit 

of that. 

Mrs. CUBIN. I just really would do better with a yes or no. So, 

there was not money spent that they didn't think needed to be 

spent, either to protect the public or to comply with whatever regulations they thought would be good for the environment. 

Mr. FOWLER. No. 
32 

Mrs. CUBIN. Okay. 

So, that argument kind of falls short with me, then, because if 

that is what you would have to do just for proper operation of a 

business or proper operation of a park, it just falls short with me. Has the Equal Opportunity Employment Act affected expend1-

tures in the system? 

Mr. DUFFUS. Again, the Park Service managers we talked to 

pointed out. that it is more of a process thin~, it is a focus of staff, 

having staff to work on recordkeeping, ment programs, reporting 

and so forth, that has diverted staff from day-to-day park activities. 

So, from that standpoint, they believe it has. 

Mrs. CUBIN. How about the other environmental laws they have 

had to comply with? Do they have to go through all the paperwork 

a private business has to go through? 

Mr. DUFFUS. Oh, sure. I am sure they have to. 

Mrs. CUBIN. Okay. Then, you just list for me the three main reasons, or four main reasons, that there is not enough money in the 

park system to maintain it and to make it a good system. 

Mr. DUFFUS. Well, at the 12 parks we went to there were two 

consistent factors that impacted on operating budgets and these 

were the additional operating requirements, which we were just 

talking about, and increased visitation. These were the two factors 

that the park managers at 11 of the 12 parks pointed out to us that 

were impacting on their operating budgets. 

Mrs. CUBIN. So, they did not think it was land acquisition and 

more new parks in the system and all of that because they could 

not think that, because maybe their park would be one that really 

should not belong in the park system, I guess. 

Mr. DUFFUS. I don't know if they brought that up to us, or not, 

but as we indicated in our testimony, each time you add a unit to 

the system, it has long-term impact. It is going to impact on the 

infrastructure and development needs and it is also :going to compete for Federal funding, so it does have an impact. 

Mr. STALEY. Let me add one other item here. A frequent comment we heard from the park managers was the fact that their operating budgets were not increasing commensurately with the increased costs of some of these new Federal laws, additional Federal 

laws, and even day-to-day operating expenses. 

For example, at Yosemite, the simple task of takin~~ the trash to 

the local county landfill, the fee for that increased from $25 to $50 

a ton over a 5-year period and when you are generating 35 tons 

a day of trash at Yosemite, that is almost a doubling from about 

$300,000 to $600,000 just for that simple task over a 5-year period 

and that was eating into their budget tremendously. 

Mrs. CUBIN. Thank you. 

Senator THOMAS. The Senator from Minnesota has joined us. 

Would you have a statement or questions? 

STATEMENT OF liON. ROD GRAMS, U.S. SENATOR FROM 

MINNESOTA 

Senator GRAMS. Well, I have an opening statement but I would 

just like to submit it for the record. It talks about a lot of the concerns that we have. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Grams follows:] 
33 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HoN. ROD GRAMS, U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA 

I would like to thank Chairman Thomas and Chairman Hansen for holding this 

joint hearing on a subject that is of concern to our national well-being: the Health 

of our National Parks. I also want to thank Chairman Murkowski and Chairman 

Young of their respective full committees for being with us today. 

As we all know, the National Park Service was created to provide for public access to some of America's most pristine cultural and natural resources, while at the same time protecting our public lands from possible overuse and mismanagement. 

While I commend the Park Service for trying to achieve these dual goals, I find 

the information contained in today's testimony to be quite devastating for our na- tional parks and for those who enjoy them. 

The General Accounting Office has placed justified blame on the shoulders of Congress for the current situation in our nation's parks. For instance, GAO has cited 

that additional operating retirements are passed on to the parks by as many as 20 

different federal laws without providing adequate funding. This should serve as an understanding of how ·unfunded federal mandates dangerously effect local governments and businesses, but also our own parks. Since 1984, Congress has created 31 new parks-further burdening current operations and maintenance needs. These authonzations have led to an intense competitive atmosphere that does little but hurt our existing parks and help create a 4 billion dollar maintenance backlog. I firmly believe Congress needs to continue looking 

at ideas which limit financial burdens on our parks. It's not all Congress's fault, however. Today's testimony should demonstrate how 

unaccountability and inefficiency have also helped create the current state of some of our national parks. It is Congress's role to oversee executive departments' actions 

and that is why we are here today. 

In addition to what we have heard today, I would also like to mention last 

month's testimony by Joyce Fleischman, Deputy Inspector General of the Department of the Interior, who told members of Congress that NPS could not produce auditable financial statements for the past three years. This inadequate recordkeeping, among other things, means that the Park Service cannot always bill for 

the funds that it is owed. This financial misuse does nothing but hurt our parks 

and is a travesty to our taxpayers. 

Individuals, families and businesses all have to practice fiscal responsibility. The 

National Park Service must be equally accountable to the taxpayers. I think mem· hers of these Committees should consider this, particularly when the Park Service 

wants to purchase additional land in fiscal year 1996. 

I sincerely hope today's joint hearing marks another important step towards mak- ing government more accountable to its tax_payers. In conclusion, I would again like to thank the respective Chairmen for conducting 

this hearing. I would also like to thank the General Accounting Office for appearing before us today and providin~ us with some preliminary information. I look forward 

to seeing your final report th1s summer. 

I think one of the biggest concerns that I have and I apologize 

I wasn't here for the opening statements, but just quickly, I know 

a lot of the concern is the amount of dollars that we have to maintain the parks at the level that they are now. I know in my own 

State of Minnesota, for instance, if I can find the information here, 

we have questions about the Voyageurs National Park. 

But the one question that I would like to start with is: with all 

the problems that the Park Service is facing in trying to meet its 

demands or its needs, $38 billion backlogs in land acquisition, $4 

billion short in the funds that it needs for maintenance, yet we try 

to increase the acreage of national parks, such as in Minnesota 

alone, the proposition to spend another million dollars to acquire 

another 250 acres for the Voyageurs National Park. 

Is it time that the Park Service should cut back a little bit and 

better manage the parks that it now has; or are we going to be 

faced with asking for additional dollars and as we know, the dollars are not going to be there;. or are we going to the taxpayer or 

the visitors to the park and say, "We are going to triple the cost, 

say, for you to get into the park." 
34 

There has got to be a point where we have got to be better managers, and all, for these facilities. I don't know, just 1throwing that 

out for general comments. 

Mr. DUFFUS. I would say that one of the choices we pointed out 

in our statement today was that the growth of the pm·k system can 

be limited and the bill that was introduced that was referred to as 

the HefleyNento bill would address that in terms of setting criteria 

for new additions to the system. 

As I indicated, any time that you add a new unit to the park system, it competes for limited funding and it impacts on infrastructure and development needs. So it is problematic, there is no question about it. 

Senator GRAMS. Is it time, then, to maybe scale back on these 

ambitious goals of adding more and more acreage to our park system? Some of the principal findings, some of the information we 

have is that in each park visited, the trails, campgrounds and other 

facilities were declining. Further, most parks do not have sufficient 

information to determine whether the overall condition of many 

natural and cultural resources are deteriorating, improving or remaining the same. 

It sounds like, just like in every other agency, that we are running up against the wall. It is not time to point fingers at each 

other on where there is the blame, but where are we going to 

maybe pull back and do the best job we can. 

Mr. DUFFUS. We think the time has come for some difficult 

choices to be made. As I indicated, limit the growth, or perhaps reduce the level of services to only those that can be realistically provided. 

These are not easy decisions, but we have come to t1he conclusion 

it is time to make these decisions because the situation, we do not 

think, is going to get better with the status quo. 

Senator GRAMS. Just two very quick questions here. Would you 

support, say,· this proposal from my home State of Minnesota. The 

Clinton administration has proposed to purchase more acres of 

land, including 250 acres for the controversial Voyageurs National 

Park. 

According to your testimony, I assume one of the decisions Congress might have to make is to possibly control or freeze the 

amount of land that the Park Service enrolls. Would you support 

spending another million dollars to acquire these 250 acres in a 

time when there is real budget crunches? 

Mr. DuFFUS. We have not looked at that so it would be difficult 

for me to offer a definitive answer. But again, I go back to saying 

that you need an overall plan and, you need an overall strategy 

and criteria for putting new units into the system. 

If it meets that criteria, if it is a natural resource, if it is an historic site, if it meets the criteria that is developed, then, maybe it 

should be added, but if it does not, then other decisions have to be 

made. 

Senator GRAMS. What about raising fees? I know some have 

talked about doubling, some might have to be tripling to be able 

to bring in the revenues the Park Service needs and of course, like 

anything else, if you have higher fees, you are going to have fewer 

visitors. 
35 

I know I have talked to some people who have objected to this 

because they say their taxpayers have already been taxed once to 

put money into the National Park Service and now to even go and 

use it, they are going to have to pay even more and they consider 

it unfair. 

Would you support increasing the fees, which I look at is just an~ 

other hidden tax or a tax increase? 

Mr. DUFFUS. We think that fee increases have to be looked at 

very hard. We did some work, and I will ask Ned to help me, a couple years ago on concession fees and the government was only getting about 2 percent, which amounted to-1 forget the numbers--

Mr. WooDWARD. We had previously done some work on concessions and the return governmentwide was about 2 percent and the 

Park Service was consistent with that, so there is some potential 

from concession fees. 

There may also be some opportunities for increases in other fees, 

including entrance fees and user fees within the Park Service, as 

well. 

Senator GRAMS. I think that is the most questionable, is the entrance or the user fees and where I hear the most objection. People 

say they have already been taxed once to provide for the park system and now they are even going to be asked to pay more at the 

gate to get in, not counting the concessions that they consume 

while they are there. 

Mr. WooDWARD. If I can just continue with one point on the fees, 

I think there are many parks that don't charge any entrance fees 

at all. There are some parks-for example, the Statue of Liberty, 

where if you charged $2.00 per visitor, you could cover the operating cost of the entire park. 

So, looking at it from that perspective, there are certain needs 

the parks have, and how do you address those needs. Adding fees 

to that equation is one way of potentially addressing those needs. 

Senator GRAMs. But those are fees on top of a huge budget already that the Park Service is getting? 

Mr. WoODWARD. That is correct. Those would be additional revenues to the parks. Senator GRAMS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator THOMAS. One perk of being chairman is that you get to 

interject yourself. One of the things I haveheard and I just want 

to say it before we go on, is that unless there is an incentive for 

that park mana~er to get the money, unless the money goes back 

to the park, he 1sn't going to make the effort to collect the dough. That has got to be changed, it seems to me. They don't do a very 

good job of collecting in Yellowstone because they don't get very 

much of the money, and therefore, don't divert the money to collect 

the fee. 

Mr. DUFFUS. That is correct. 

Mr. HANSEN. The gentleman from California, Mr. Radanovich. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to 

make a couple of comments. I was on the county board of supervisors in Mariposa County. We dealt with the solid waste issue at 

Yosemite National Park, and increasing the dumping fees in our 

county dump was due to solid waste legislation coming from here 

and also the State of California. So I am confirming Congress-
36 

woman Barbara·Cubin's comments about how much of this is due 

to increased regulation and taxation. 

I really have to say that I concur with Senator Craig when he 

is mentioning the inevitability at least of having to downsize the 

National Park System in order to meet the obligations that it currently has. But the only other comments I wanted to make were 

in addition to that, in ways of helping park systems run more efficiently, using Yosemite as.an example, I think that working with 

the local agencies and also privatizing some of the functions there, 

in working with local agencies I think you would agree that Yosemite National Park is probably one of the most impacted parks in the 

system, particularly with the transportation issues that ithas. 

There has been kind of an autonomous reaction to the National 

Park System or by the National Park System when it comes to utilizing satellite communities to help solve the transportation problem in that area, using the satellite communities as staging areas 

and shuttling visitors back and forth to the park. There is a real 

resistance, I think, on the part of the National Park Service, due 

simply-! do not know if it is turf protection or what, but if there 

was more attention paid to the resources of the outlying communities on the local level, I think it would help offset some of the 

costs of operating the park. 

I have got people in my district who would die for Yosemite N ationa} Park. Raising money and from private sources to help take 

care of some of those problems I think also was discouraged, to 

some degree, about 8 to 10 years ago by the National Park Service, .because I think that it was an issue of turf protection. There was 

a lot of private -money being raised for improvements inside the 

park, and I think that that is really something that :;;hould not be 

discouraged. Rather, it should be something that should be encouraged for the benefit of the park system. 

I often think that if Yosemite is going to die it is going to be worried to death by a lot of people in the park system who sit there 

and fret over the fact that we now have rainbow and brown and 

brook trout up in the High Sierras rather than the native fish -that 

used to be there 100 years ago. I mean, get over it. That is just 

something that happened. I think your resources could be better 

spent on actually solving transportation problems and different 

things like that. 

My main comments, though, are working with local agencies as 

a means of meeting some of those infrastructure and operating 

costs would not be a bad idea, and there are plenty of park system 

devotees of every park in this system that would be wi11ling to come 

up with a lot of private resources in handling some of the problems 

that are there, and I do not know whether your panel has investigated it or not, but it certainly is worth looking into out in addition to down-sizing the National Park System. 

Mr. STALEY. We did not contact any of the local communities surrounding Yosemite. But we did contact people at the Yosemite 

Fund, which is ·a prime contributor of additional funds. In fact, 

they have contributed about $3 million over the last 6 to 7 years. 

One of the key items those funds have been expended on is trail 

maintenance, which is at the short end of the totem pole in a lot 

of ways in the park's normal operating budget in that additional 
37 

monies have gone in directly to a good share of the trail maintenance. There is a lot more to be done, but that was one of the key 

areas where the monies were directed. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Well, it may be that that activity, that private 

contribution; I think was somewhat discouraged, at least 8 or 10 

years ago. It may be worth looking at. It occurs to me that that 

type of stuff was discouraged rather than encouraged. 

Mr. STALEY. We also met with the superintendent there, of 

course. He would have liked to have seen greater ability to solicit 

greater funds. That might be what you are addressing, too. But one 

of the ideas that he had that was put into practice was the personalized license plates featuring Yosemite, and through that I believe 

about $20 out of every $40 every year for those people that have 

those plates, that is an additional source of monies that goes to the 

park. 

Mr. DUFFUS. One thing that we pointed out when we talked 

about choices in the area of increasing revenues, was that there 

should be more encouragement of private sector partnerships. I 

think that gets to what you are speaking to, Mr. Radanovich. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Right. And also I would point out in defense 

of the satellite communities and the economies on the outlying 

areas, l think there was a proposal to increase the rate from $5 to 

$15 admissions, and you would destroy the local economies in raising fees. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator THOMAS. I have been impressed with what the GAO does 

in their studies, but I have always felt a little bit that we do not 

follow enough with some solutions, some remedies. We talk about 

the problem, but I am not clear, still, on this accountability. Are 

there parks who cannot produce the detail of how their funds were 

expended? 

Mr. DUFFUS. Oh, I believe they could tell you how they were 

spending their funds. No one is holding them accountable for the 

expenditure of those funds. They have a lot of autonomy and flexibility. Flexibility is not bad in itself, but they have a lot of autonomy on how they spend the funds. They have an operating budget, 

and if they decide to spend the funds to maintain a trail as opposed 

to perhaps fixing some problems in the visitor's center, whatever 

it is, they have that flexibility to do it. 

Senator THOMAS. So when you talk about accountability, you are 

not talking about a lack of being able to produce data to show 

where the money was spent, you are talking about accountability 

not spending it where somebody else thinks it ought to be spent? 

Mr. DUFFUS. Showing results. Making sure that the money that 

they have, which is limited, is producing something effective. 

Senator THOMAS. Let us then go to the performance that is expected. How does the superintendent in this particular park know 

what results are expected? 

Mr. DUFFUS. I do not believe he does at this point. That is one 

thing that the Park Service has started to look at. The Government 

Performance Results Act requires all Federal l:lgencies to go to results-oriented management, I think by 1999, and the .. Park Service 

recently told us that they have draft plans where they are going 
38 

to enter into performance contracts with their park managers 

which would produce results-oriented activities. 

Senator THOMAS. In some of the hearings we had ]ast year, you 

kind of went away with the notion that, well, we do not have anything to do with it, it is all up to the park superintendent to run 

the thing, and these guys sort of left the impression that the Park 

Service Director does not really have any control over it. I cannot 

imagine that that is the case, but there must not be an established 

criteria of what performance you expect to measure. Is that correct? 

Mr. DUFFUS. That is correct at this point in time, yes, sir. 

Mr. FowLER. That is correct. 

Senator THOMAS. So that is really the problem, is some identified 

criteria that you can measure against. You have to let the manager 

know what it is you are measuring before you can expect him to 

perform. 

Mr. DUFFUS. Absolutely. Absolutely. 

Senator THOMAS. And there is an absence of that, is that correct? 

Mr. DUFFUS. Correct. 

Senator THOMAS. Then this criteria for closing, I understand that 

you, from your studies, would agree to establishment of a criteria 

which would say this meets a criteria for a Federal park and this 

one does not? 

Mr. DUFFUS. That is right. We think that is one <:boice that is 

available and should be pursued. 

Senator THOMAS. But as a matter of fact, the 12 that you studied, you just looked at those, you did not really-look at the overall 

impact of new park qpenings on the overall park activity? 

Mr. DUFFUS. No, we did not. 

Senator THOMAS. And as a matter of fact, each of these except 

one had a real increase during this 10-year period. 

Mr. DUFFUS. That is correct. 

Senator THOMAS. You would think in most instances that an increase in use, an increase in customers if you please, would 

produce more revenue. On the other hand, you suggest to us that 

the increase in customers has caused a financial problem. What 

does that say to you? 

Mr. DUFFUS. Well, I guess it presumes that all those increased 

visitors paid a fee. I am not so sure that is the case. But again, 

the costs are perhaps rising faster than the fee collections. 

Senator THOMAS. Would it seem to make sense to you that there 

is a basic cost to maintaining the park, but that the incremental 

costs ought to be the responsibility of the visitor? 

Mr. DUFFUS. Well, yes. We did some rough calculations. Nationwide, if you look at the $85 million that was collected in fees in 

1993, each park is getting about 30 cents, and that is a very rough 

calculation. 

Senator THOMAS. 30 percent per visitor. 

Mr. DUFFUS. 30 cents per visitor. 

Senator THOMAS. 30 cents per visitor? 

Mr. DUFFUS. 30 cents, based on fee revenues of $85 million. And 

it is costing them, on the other hand, about $3.56. So there is kind 

of a mismatch there in terms of what each visitor is providing in 

terms of a fee and what it costs the park in terms of visitation. 
39 

These are very rough calculations, and it just relates to visitation 

and operating budgets. 

Senator THoMAS. Do you have a number on the cost to collect the 

fee? 

Mr. DUFFUS. No. 

Senator THoMAS. I would not be surprised if it is more than 30 

cents. 

Mr. DUFFUS. I am sure it is. We .do not have that. 

Senator THOMAS. Well, we have decisions to make, and they are 

fairly basic, and most everybody agrees to what they are. Would 

you just observe as to why we do not move more quickly in resolving it? 

Mr. DUFFUS. I do not know if I want to do that. Well, I mean, 

those are tough decisions to make. 

Senator THOMAS. Sacrifice yourself. 

Mr. DUFFUS. Yes. I do not think they are easy decisions to make, 

and it is probably going to involve a change in culture. 

Senator THOMAS. Well, what bothers me a little, and I wil1 stop, 

but agency after agency comes up and talks around and around, 

and it seems to me that it would be reasonable to expect an agency 

to come and say here is what we see the problem, here is what we 

think the answer is, here are the changes that we think ought to 

be made. Now, whether they are made or not is another matter. 

Is that not a reasonable expectation from an agency? 

Mr. DUFFUS. Yes, I think it is. 

Senator THOMAS. We do not seem to get that. Mr. STALEY. I might add .one point here. I think the Park Service 

should perhaps do a better job of telling you what the impact of not 

doing certain things is, or the impact, say, for example, of not having sufficient baseline data on the resource. What is the impact, 

what is the result, short-term, intermediate, and long-term? And 

then put in place a short-termllong~term goal to achieve sufficient 

scientific baseline data. A big step begins with little steps, so if you 

proceed in a well-thought-out timetable track to achieve that end 

result, then perhaps you could monitor the progress they have 

made. Mr. HANSEN. It seems self-evident that the regional director will 

take it upon himself to have the responsibility of a certain amount 

of parks which is given him. Now, let us say this regional director 

then sits down with the park superintendent, which I assume is 

correct, and says let us set your budget for the coming year. That 

budget is then set, and I assume the criteria is predicated on the 

needs of that particular park, some of the routine things, and 

mayb~ som~ additional things. Is that ~ correct assumi?tion, that 

a reg-.onal director sets a park budget with a park supermtendent? 

I mean, it just seems so self-evident it would have to be. Ms. RusTEN. Yes. My understanding is that each park gets an 

across-the-board base increase, the same amount to cover cost of 

inflation and operating costs. On top of that, different parks get additional funding for special projects or special needs or something 

over and beyond the base increase. 

Mr. HANSEN. Okay, but for the routi'ne stuff they all go through 

that rigmarole, I guess. So the regional director knows what that 

is and says all right, the regional director in Denver knows what 
40 

it is going to be for, say, Yellowstone or Zion, Bryce, one of those 

parks. So that is kind of a fixed figure, right? So we assume that 

we are accountable for that and everybody agrees on that. Now, on 

top of that there are some additional things because of a uniqueness about a certain park. It needs the following: Maybe the roads 

or something is bad so they have to add that. Is that eorrect? 

Ms. RUSTEN. Correct. 

Mr. HANSEN. So then we all assume that that aceountability is 

taken care of, that we know the accountability of that particular 

park, right? Okay, at the end of the year, does it change? At the 

end of the year when we actually know what they really spent, is 

there a substantial change? 

Mr. DUFFUS. On what they have spent the funds for? 

Mr. HANSEN. Yes. 

Mr. DUFFUS. Well, I am not so sure. You know, you could go on 

a case-by-case basis and you could find out what they spent the 

funds for, I am sure, but you are not holding them accountable. 

They are going to decide at the local level what priorities they need 

to spend the funds for, and where those funds should ibe spent. 

Mr. HANSEN. Well, why should it be such a big sho·ck to us if everyone agrees that there are X amount of dollars are going to be 

spent by the X-Y-Z park, and then at the end it has got to change 

because we are always bellyaching? I mean, the whole thing we 

have talked about is nobody is responsible. And so something obviously changes, or . should not Congress be saying goodness sakes, 

you said you were going to spend X amount of dollarB, but then at 

the end we get all mad and excited because apparenfly no one was 

accountable. I am just assuming that something changes along the 

line. 

Does anybody want to respond to that? I mean, why should we 

be excited if the regional director says this is what it is, and we 

all say fine? 

Mr. DUFFUS. We would want to know what was achieved with 

the expenditure of those monies and whether or not they were 

spent effectively, and whether a meaningful result was accomplished that relates to the types of problems that exist. If parks 

have a backlog, and it is a sizeable backlog, what is lbeing done to 

reduce that backlog? So if you are going to spend limited funds and 

you are going to spend it for the backlog, then let us make sure 

that some meaningful result is accomplished and they start to chip 

away at the problem that they have. 

Mr. HANSEN. Does anyone say, after the park superintendent 

uses the money and the year has passed and the money has been 

used, does anyone now say did you spend the money where you 

said you were going to a year ago when we gave you the budget? 

Does somebody come back and say all right, we said you were ~oing to get X amount of dollars to run Yellowstone,. did you use 

1t, and what you said you were going to do, did that equal at the 

end of the year when the money was spent? 

Mr. FOWLER. What we learned in our review is the t~onversations 

that take place at that level are largely more procesB-oriented exchanges between the park superintendent and the regional folks. 

Did you prepare the plans? Did you send in the paperwork on 

time? Those process kind of questions, as opposed to what did you 
41 

accomplish that you were supposed to accomplish with the money 

that you spent. 

Mr. HANsEN. I guess the frustration I have is I have been on the 

military committee for too long and I have seen these military folks 

say this is what we are going to spend the dollars for, and we all 

agree and we give them the money and we go through heck to get 

it through here and it goes, and at the end we go back and we now 

start using about the next year. If we back up and say did you really spend the money for that, we rarely find that they do. I mean, 

some guys say, well no, we really did not. 

It seems like, boy, if we can just get by Congress and get that 

over with and get you guys happy and get through these crazy 

meetings we have to go through, we will do what we damn well 

want to do. And I find the Park Service that way, and that is, of 

course, the position here. I think they are very honest when they 

say we are going to spend it and they feel it at that point. But it 

does not happen that way after the year is expended. And I really 

feel in a way it is our fault, if I may say, Mr. Thomas. In a way, 

I find that we just ignore it. We worry about the next year. We 

really ought to have an accountability for did you spend it the way 

you thought you were going to? And of course there has got to be 

some flexibility. We all realize that. But I think that is the frustration that I have at this point. 

Excuse me. I see my time is up. 

Senator THOMAS. Well, I think we are probably grinding down towards the end a bit. I guess I am satisfied that this accountability 

question which I have mentioned every time seems to be more an 

analysis of the resource. You mentioned, and I am confused whether you are talking about financial accountability or resource accountability, maybe you are talking about both, but you talk about 

accountability an awful lot. 

Mr. DUFFUS. Both. 

Senator THOMAS. So what do you suggest we do with fees? 

Mr. DUFFUS. Well, we think that fees should be looked to be increased and returned to the park to benefit the park that generated 

the increased fees. But as we said before, and I hate to bring this 

up again and perhaps create confusion, any increase in fees that 

go back to the park have to be accompanied by increased accountability over how those increased funds are spent, so that we are accomplishing results, measurable results. 

Senator THOMAS. So the two factors you talk about are that you 

think it is justifiable to raise fees, and those fees ought to stay 

where they are collected. 

Mr. DUFFUS. That is correct. 

Senator THOMAS. You know, we talked a little bit about this discretion that is used in collecting, and the fact is that when they are 

designated to collect them I think the law says they shall collect 

them. Are you familiar with that? 

Mr. DUFFUS. I beHeve that is correct, yes. Senator THOMAS. So that has to be something that we talk about. 

The concessions, you say 2 percent, 2 percent of what? 

Mr. DUFFUS. I forget the exact numbers. Do you remember, Ned? 

Mr. WooDWARD. It is 2 percent of our gross revenues, the sales. 
42 

Mr. DUFFUS. In tenns of numbers, the return to the government 

was very small in relation to what was collected. 

Senator THOMAS. What do you think is the purpose of the concessions? 

Mr. DUFFUS. Of the concession operations? 

Senator THOMAS. Whatis the prime function · there? 

Mr. DUFFUS. I think the prime function is to add to the quality 

of the visitor experience. 

Senator THOMAS. Provide service? 

Mr. DUFFUS. Yes, provide service. 

Senator THOMAS. It is not necessarily designated to be a fundraising activity? 

Mr. DUFFUS. I do not believe so, no. 

Senator THOMAS. Do you have any feeling about--well, that is 

getting off into something else. 

Mr. Chairman, do you have any questions? 

Mr. HANsEN. Not really. I just would like to say that it amazes 

me, the Forest Service, they have twice as many visitors as the 

Park Service. They spend less money for law enforcement. Maybe 

that is unfair to ask you this, but how can they pull it off? How 

can they do it with less money, and have more people come than 

the Park Service? Just a different type of thing they do? 

Mr. DUFFUS. While they have different missions, there are a lot 

of similarities and we have talked about that. This could be an example of a best management practice that the Forest Service is following that could have replication for the Park Service. 

And it is one thing that we talked about in restructuring. The 

Park Service needs to look beyond their jurisdictional boundaries 

for opportunities to achieve efficiencies. And perhaps what the Forest Service is doing has some applicability to the Park Service. 

I just don't know specifically what they are doing and how it 

could apply but it is certainly somethin~ that should be looked into. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, I appreciate that. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Senator THOMAS. Just finally, you selected, and I understand, 

seeking to reduce the scope of the study some, you selected 12. Do 

you have a feel for how representative those 12 are of the entire 

386, or whatever it is, parks? 

Mr. DUFFUS. Well, when we selected the 12, we did it based on 

discussions with the Director of the Park Service and fonner directors, as well as the National Parks Conservation Assoeiation. 

What we sought to do was to try to make these parks that we 

were going to visit as representative as possible. We included 

parks, we included battlefields, we included nationa] monuments, 

historic sites and a seashore. We also attempted to ~~et some geographic dispersion. But, the results of what we found in these 12 

parks cannot be extrapolated to the remaining units. So, what we 

attempted to do was try to get as broad a representation as possible in selecting the parks. 

Senator THOMAS. Well, we thank you very much. J[ hope, as we 

consider this, and there is a number of other issues-whenever you 

open up issues and talk about them, and that is one of the good 

things that is going on in this Congress, in my opinion, is that a 

lot of things are being opened up. 
43 

I hope that everyone will stipulate that all of us value national 

parks and the idea that you might say this park really ought to belong to a city or belong to a county or does not fit a criteria, it 

should not be presumed that person does not like parks. The fact is, what we are trying to find is a better way to 

strengthen a national park system and I hope that that is what 

happens here. 

So, the record will remain open. I suspect that later, when your 

report is completed, which I understand will be in the summer, 

July or June--

Mr. DUFFUS. That is correct. 

Senator THOMAS [continuing]. That we might want to do this 

again when other people have ·had an opportunity to read the report and then come in and share their feelings about what you 

have said. It would have been unfair to ask the Park Service to 

have been here today, or any other persons, too, because they have 

not had a chance to look at it. 

So, we thank you all for what you are doing and look forward to 

hearing from you again. Thank you. [Whereupon, at 11:13 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

APPENDIX 

RESPONSES TO .ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS 

RESPONSES OF THE GAO TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR THOMAS 

Question 1. What do you mean when you say there is a need for improved accountability? 

Answer. The Park Service has a decentralized organization that provides park superintendents with a great deal of discretion about how operating funds are spent. 

Under these circumstances, it is critical that the agency have good systems of ac- countability in order to ensure that limited budget resources are used most effectively by park managers. 

However, this is not currently the case. The Park Service does not have adequate 

data and controls to provide managers with reliable information about many key activities throughout the park system. For example, the Park Service does not know 

(1) the nature or extent of many problems associated with the resources it is man- dated to preserve and protect, (2) the effectiveness of measures taken to deal with 

the problems, or (3) the activities and programs to which the limited available re- sources can be allocated to do the most good. Until the agency is better able to en- sure that limited :park operating funds are used on the highest priority needs of the 

parks, the agency's ability to accomplish its mission efficiently and effectively will 

continue to be hampered. 

Question 2. Page 12 of your written testimony states that Park Service officials 

indicated they plan to improve accountability-did they say how? And which types 

of accountability are they improving: fiscal, resource protection, or other? 

Answer. Park Service officials indicated to us that they plan to move toward a system of performance contracts. According to these officials, the performance contracts are to be used for all agency managers, including park superintendents. They are intended to help the agency focus on what is being accomplished with the money 

being spent. Relying on performance contracts to improve accountability is an outgrowth of the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) and, if implemented properly, will help address both fiscal and programmatic accountability 

within the agency. However, performance contracts alone will not solve the accountability problems facing the agency. For performance contracts to work, performance 

must be able to be measured. A prerequisite for measuring performance is reliable 

data and effective internal controls-two things that are now lacking within the 

Park Service. 

Question 3. Who in the Park Service is accountable for ensuring that the parks are operated in an effective and efficient manner? Are those individuals held ac- countable and if so, how are they held accountable? 

Answer. In theory, accountability starts with the Director and cascades down 

through all management levels throughout the agency, including the park superintendents. However, in practice, the Park Service does not have data systems or controls in place to ensure that managers are actually held accountable. Further, 

until such systems are in place, moving to performance contracts will not get the 

job done since measuring performance depends on the availability of reliable programmatic and financial data-something the Park Service does not now have . Question 4. Was the Park Service able to explain why Hopewell Furnace National 

Historic Site, established over 50 years ago, has never had an archaeological survey 

and has no general management plan, the primary planning document for any 

park? What have management decisiOns been based on all these years? 

Answer. Officials at Hopewell Furnace said that this occurred because of limited 

funding. There was a general mana~ement plan issued in 1964, but it is out of date. 

In the meantime, management decisions have been based on the best professional 

ju<!gment of the superintendent. 

Question 5. In addition to regular operating funds, parks can be awarded special 

monies to conduct scientific research. Do you know if the Park Service has require-

(45) 
46 

ments for parks to report how they spent such funds and to decide how the results 

will be used to better manage resources? 

Answer. Park managers are required to issue annual reports·that discuss how 

they spent these "speCial" monies. However, these reports do not discuss how the -money was used to accomplish specific goals or objectives. Furthe:r, we know of no requirements governing how the results of research conducted using such monies are to be used. 

Question 6. In your written suggestions for dealing with probiems noted in the 

study you state, "the Park Service needs to look for ways to stretch its limited re- sources by operating more efficiently." Does your use of the word "stretch" indicate 

you feel there are places-in the Park Service budget where there is room to give? 

Answer. Yes, potentially. As the Park Service continues with its restructuring effort, it needs to look for every opportunity to save money by identifying ways to improve the efficiency of its operat10ns through collaboration with o•ther federal land 

management agencies. Following this strategy could result in id•mtifying ways to 

work with other agencies to refocus, combine or eliminate missions, programs, ac- tivities or field loc&tions. To the extent this occurs, the resources now available to 

the Park Service would be "stretched" and more could be accomplished at current 

funding levels. 

Question 7. As you may know, the Park Service Restructuring Plan calls for ~P:DU!lB of parks or "clusters" to share the expertise of scientists and other specialIsts. From your study results, do you think that such an arrangement will improve 

accountability for resource stewardship or allow each park to blame the others in 

the cluster for the fact that their research didn't get done? 

Answer. It is difficult to say what the impact of "clusters" wiii bo~. Moving to clusters will not necessarily improve or impede accountability. The key to how this part 

of the Park Service's restructuring plan Will impact accountability is how it is imple- mented ... On one hand, moving scientific and other specialized skills closer to the 

parks could help resource management at the park -level by having scientific expertise more accessible. On the other hand, there will be competition for this expertise 

among parks. Accordingly, it is critical that the Park Service develop a plan that 

clearly delineates how com{>etin~ park priorities will be addressed. 

Question 8. In light of GAO s recent study on Park Service ao:countability and 

management, do you think that the agency's new emphasis on dec·~ntralized leadership __ will improve care for-park resources or comprormse them? 

Answer. It depends on what, if any, system 1s put in place to ensure that park resource needs get addressed. An increased emphasis on--decentrE<lization needs to 

be accompanied b,Y improvements in the agency's ability to hold managers accountable for their dec1sions. If improved accountability is built into the Park Services's 

reorganization, further decentralization ma,Y not have any effect on the agency's care for park resources. However, without rmproved accountability, further decentralization could be a step backwards as far as the quality of the agency's resource stewardship is concerned. 

Question 9. What has been the overall inflation-adjusted percentage change in the 

Park Service's operating appropriations between 1985 and 1993? 

Answer. The Park Service's operating appropriations increased hy 18 percent (inflation-adjusted) from 1985 to 1993. 

Question 10. For the park units visited by GAO, what was the :inflation-adjusted 

percentage change in park operating appropriations between 1985 nnd 1993? 

Answer. In real terms, the budgets mcreased at 11 of the 12 :parks we visited. 

These increases ranged from about 5 percent at Hopewell Furnace to about 200 percent at Pecos National Historic Park. At Glacier National Park, tho~ budget declined 

about 2 percent in real terms from 1985 to 1993. 

Question 11. Given the conditions in the parks which you descri-bed in your testimony, one might assume that the parks' budgets had likely dec::reased in recent 

years, but that obviously is nofthe case, is it? 

Answer. No. 

Question 12. What is the biggest cost item in the park operatinJI budget? 

Answer. Staff salaries and benefits consume most of the parks operating budgets. 

For example, at Hopewell Furnace, 90 percent of the Park budget goes to salaries 

and benefits. At Glacier, it amounts to about 85 percent. At La:k(! Mead it's about 

76 _percent-which is also the average for the 12 parks we visited. 

Question 13. What do the parks spend the remaining funds on? 

Answer. The remaining funds are spent on all the supplies and services needed 

to ·operate and maintain a park, serve the visitors, and manage resJurces. Examples 

of these expenditures include utilities for park buildings, supplies and tools for 

maintaining the infrastructure, waste disposal fees, tests to monitor park water systems, gas for park vehicles, park brochures, and computers and oflke supplies. 
47 

Question 14. You said in your statement that park budgets have increased. Why 

haven't the parks made more progress in serving visitors and managing resources? 

Answer. Our work has shown that there are two primary reasons: additional operating requirements, and increased visitation. 

Question 15. If additional operating requirements are part of the reason, can you give some examples of these and describe how they affect parks? 

Answer. Park superintendents identified a number of increased operational re- quirements during our visits. They include such things as radon, lead paint, and asbestos abatement; removal of underground storage tanks; increased water testing 

requirements; increased costs of training and background checks for rangers; cost 

of living increases; modifying park facilities so that they are handicapped accessible; 

complying with NEPA, NHPA, and RCRA; and addressing OSHA violations, just to name a few. 

They affect parks by increasing the demands on them, thereby diverting attention 

from everyday park management, and can add costs as well. For example, park 

managers must spend more time on reporting requirements necessitated by new laws, regulations, and requirements which diverts their attention from everyday 

park responsibilities such as serving visitors and managing resources. An example 

of additional costs is background checks on park law enforcement personnel-which 

have increased service wide from about $300 to over $2,000 per check. 

Question 16. Where managers cited additional requirements such as NEPA and 

federal regulations for waste water treatment systems as draining operating funds, 

are they actually using the diverted funds to meet the requirements? Do park fiscal 

records show a clear breakdown· of how funds are really spent? 

Answer. We did not review individual park fiscal records to determine if they provide a clear breakdown of how funds are spent. 

Question 17. What kind of fees are collected in NPS units? 

Answer. The most common fees are entrance fees, user fees, concession fees and 

building use fees. 

Question 18. How much money is collected from these fees? 

Answer. In fiscal year 1993, the Park Service collected about $47 million in en- trance fees, about $20 million in user fees, and about $18 million in concession and 

building use fees. 

Question 19. On average, how much in fees does the Park Service get from each 

visit? 

Answer. Using service wide operating budget and visitation data, on average, . the 

Park Service collects about 30 cents per visit. 

Question 20. What would fees be at parks if they tried to cover their operating 

costs? 

Answer. Servicewide, the fee would be about $3.60 per visit. At the Statue of Liberty/Ellis Island, a fee of about $2 per visit would cover the park's operating costs. At Harpers Ferry it would be about $8, while at Denali it would be about $13. 

Question 21. Can you elaborate on what ideas you have about increasing park rev- enues? 

Answer. Other sources of revenue could include increasing park fees, such as en- trance fees, concession fees, and fees for other in-park services. This may also include allowing parks to retain more in-park collected revenues. In addition, park 

managers could perhaps be encouraged to use more entrepreneurial efforts or partnership arrangements with other parties to address park needs. For example, Yosemite National Park and the State of Califomia have entered into an agreement whereby the park shares in the annual revenues generated from personalized state 

license plates featuring the park. 

Question 22. Another option you suggested was to look at limiting the growth of 

the park system. Are you suggesting we need to shut down parks? 

Answer. Not necessarily. What we mean is that the Park Service is facing a difc 

ficult situation. Existin~ park units have billions of dollars in unmet needs. To the 

extent that the system IS permitted to grow, associated-infrastructure and development needs will also grow, Limiting growth or perhaps even reducing the number 

of earks is one altemative that needs to be considered. 

(luestion 23. You mentioned that another area to look at is the leveLof visitor 

services that can realistically be provided with available resources. Can you tell us more about that? 

Answer. The Park Service could, for example, limit operations to fewer hours per 

day or fewer days per year, limit the number of visitors, temporarily close some facilities or reduce services provided to visitors. Choices such as these, however, 

should be made by the Park Service only after developing a carefully thought-out 

strategy and consulting with the Congress. 
48 

Question 24. How does the Park Service document infrastructure deterioration 

and develop estimated repair costs? Between your 1988 report on Maintenance 

Needs of the National Park Service and this study, .has the service improved its 

ability to assess infrastructure conditions? 

Answer. The Park Service developed a maintenance managemE!nt system (MMS) 

to identify, document, and track infrastructure and day-to-day maintenance needs 

and costs in each park. However, we found that this system is being applied differently at each park. As a result, the information generated by this system is inconsistent and unreliable and cannot accurately reflect the overall needs of the park 

system. 

Question 25. From your observations, were visitors provided adequate opportunities to experience and enjoy the primary resources at each park in your study? 

Answer.·While visitor opportunities varied depending on the time of year, at most 

parks, visitors had numerous and diverse opportunities to experience the parks' primary resources. However, our work clearly showed that the level of service provided 

to the visitors at the parks in our review is deteriorating. Question 26. Prior to making cuts in services, did park officials predetermine how 

visitors would be affected and how many would be affected? 

Answer. Park officials did not know -the precise number of visitors that would be 

affected. However, they were knowledgeable about the impacts of most reductions on the quality of visitor services. 

Question 27. To offset the effects of curtailing services, did park officials develop 

alternative ways to meet visitor needs? For example, at Bandelier National Monument when the museum was closed for over a year due to a leaky roof, did the Park 

Service develop an alternate way for visitors to understand and appreciate the 

park's story? 

Answer. Our work focused on identifying specifically if and where visitor services were cut ·back. We did not examine the impact or effects of parks'·decisions to cur- tail services or what, if any, alternatives were considered. In the specific case of 

Bandelier, to compensate for the closed museum and fewer guided walks,. the/ark 

developed a self-guided walking tour brochure that explained park history an important sites. 

Question 28. Which one of the 12 parks studied had not recently cut back on the 

level of visitor services? Why was this park different? 

Answer. At Antietam National Battlefield, services were not cut back because 

there are not many labor-intensive visitor services to begin with. Visitors see a movie at the visitor center and may get an orientation there, and then go on a selfguided automobile tour of the park. In addition, the park has not experienced as la1~e an increase in visitation as some other parks. 

uestion 29. Your written testimony notes several situations which posed health an safety threats to visitors and/or employees. Are officials at Shenandoah National Park waiting for a precariously hangin!!: tree to fall on a visitor's car before 

they perform hazard tree removal? Will a visitor drowning at Padre Island be the 

impetus for reinstating lifeguards at the most used beaches'? 

Answer. In each instance cited, park managers indicated· that these were just one of a number of unmet health, safety, and resource management needs in·the parks. 

Further, park officials told us that difficult decisions must often be made regarding 

how to allocate limited park resources. Question 30. You note that visitor satisfaction with parks is very high. How did 

you arrive at that conclusion? 

Answer. Our statement was based on a 1994 University of Idaho study that indicated that 74 percent of visitors to national parks felt that the overall quality of 

visitor services was good or very good. The study surveyed over 18,000 visitors between 1988-1992. 

Question 31. In your statement, you refer to the need for the Park Service to scientifically collect baseline data about the condition and trend of the park's cultural 

and natural resources; why is this important? 

Answer. The Park Service is charged with preserving and proteding natural and 

cultural resources. To do this, managers must know the condition of the resources 

they have and what is happening to them over time. A systematic, scientific process 

for assessing resource condition and trend is essential for making appropriate re- source and visitor management decisions. Without scientific baseline data, problems 

may not be caught or understood until it is too late to effectively deal with them. 

Question 32. At any of the 12 parks studied did Park Service employees have com- __ prehensive and current information on the park resources under their care (e.g. 

basic inventories of natural and cultural resources)? 

Answer. Most of the parks did not have baseline information on most of the re- sources. Some parks had comprehensive and current inventories OIIi·one or two -types 
49 

of resources, such as plants or historic buildings. However, no psrk had comprehensive and current information on all of the resources entrusted to it. 

Question 33. In cases where they did not have complete information, what were the reasons? 

Answer. The main reasons given were lack of funds, lack of staff, increased operating requirements, and/or more pressing priorities (usually visitor service needs). 

Question 34. Beyond simple resource inventories, were managers at any of these 

psrks able to scientifically document the condition of the resources, such as changes over time and causes of any changes? 

Answer. Some park managers were able to do this for one or two very specific re- sources, such as a specific endangered species or water quality in a given stream. 

However, some park mangers could not do this, and no psrk.managers could do it 

for all of the resources under their care. Question 35. What is the Park Service doing about this lack of information? 

Answer. The Park Service began efforts several years ago to gather better information about the condition of its resources. For example, prototype inventory and 

monitoring psrks were desi!Pated. As noted, however, progress has been limited 

and completion of baseline mventory and monitoring information throughout the 

Park Service is years away. 

Question 36. What type of assistance has or will the National Biological Service 

provide the NPS in the area of collecting data on the park's resources? 

Answer. We spoke with National Biological Service (NBS) officials at most of the 

natural resource parks we visited. They told us that, while NBS has provided or will provide parks with assistance on how to set up inventory and monitoring procedures, it is up to the parks to do the actual data collection. 

Question 37. Where resources had been degraded, did psrks have plans to rehabilitate or replace them? Did their plans include realistic cost estimates and time 

tables? 

Answer. Several of the parks in our review had plans to rehabilitate resources. These plans were documented in "project statements" which detailed both natural 

and cultural resource repair and rehabilitation_projects and their expected costs. We 

did not review how realistic these costs were. However, many of these projects were not fully funded and were often deferred. 

Question 38. Did you encounter any recent examples where officials proceeded 

with resource rehabilitation or replacement without having a sound scientific basis 

of their action? 

Answer. No, but we did not specifically address this issue. 

Question 39. Your written testimony states that, in general, managers at culturally oriented parks in the study had greater knowledge about therr resources than did the managers at natural resource parks. Why do you think that is? 

Answer. One main reason is the nature of cultural resources. Unlike natural re- sources, most cultural resources are objects or structures and are therefore more easily observable. Question 40. How do park managers prioritize science needs at the parks? 

Answer. These priorities should be established in the park's general management 

plan or resource management plan. To the extent these plans are out of date or have not been prepared, priorities are established by the best professional judgment 

of park managers. Eight of the 12 parks we visited had current general management and resource management plans, but some of the parks that had current plans were not implementing them. 

Question 41. Are there means to ensure that a park's total complement of natural resources is documented instead of concentrating on what might be the "favorite" 

species of the resident resource specialist? 

Answer. Documenting the condition of a park's total complement of natural re- sources would likely take a greater amount of a park's budget than understanding 

the condition of any one species. Park managers are not currently held accountable 

for understanding the condition of park resources. Park Service management policy as well as resource management guidelines state that "NPS [National Park Service] 

will assemble baseline inventory data describing the natural resources under its 

stewardship and will monitor those resources at regular intervals to detect or predict changes." Therefore, park managers should be assessed on their progress in 

meeting this objective. However, this is not being done. 

Question 42. I understand that the original request for a GAO assessment on the 

Health of the Parks was considerably broader than the 12-park study discussed 

today. Can you explain why the study's focus had to be narrowed from all psrks 

in the system to just 12? 

Answer. Early in this review, we considered a questionnaire approach that would 

have given us broader coverage of the entire park system. However, it would not 
50 

allow us an in-depth understanding of the conditions in parl!:s or factors contributing to these conditions. We felt that an in-depth review of 12 park !I of different types 

and sizes would provide a better understanding of the health of the parks. Question 43. Do you feel the situations at these 12 parks are tl'llly representative 

of the National Park System as a whole? 

Answer. While not statistically projectable, this sample revealed similarities 

among a wide cross-section of parks. We attempted to try to get as broad a representation as possible in selecting the parks. The Director of the Park Service told us 

that, overall, our finding were representative of the conditions in units throughout the park system. 

Question 44. On the first page of your written testimony you state that at most 

parks, officials lack data on the overall condition of natural and cultural resouroes; on page 3 you state that agency officials do not have reliable data on deferred maintenance needs. Was there any type of data the Park Service could provide you with 

any degree of reliability? 

Answer. Regarding the type of information we needed for this review-data on the 

conditions and trends of resoui'Ces and visitor services-the Pari!: Service could not 

provide us with complete and reliable data. This review, as well as several prior reviews on a variety of Park Servicejrograms, indicated that the agency has not collected and maintained complete an reliable data on many of its key activities. 

RESPONSES OF THE GAO TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR MURKOWSKI 

Question 1. When the Pari!: Service determines carrying loads for park units, what 

scientific basis do they use and how accurate is it? 

Answer. We did not specifically address this issue. However, at least one park in 

our study-the Statue of Liberty/Ellis Island-has a carrying load of 5,000 people 

per island. This number is largely based on the square footage of the islands. If the 

maximum is reached, which occasionally occurs in the summer, the ferries stop 

bringing people to the islands. 

Question 2. Can you provide examples from park programs in Denali where the 

lack of information affects management decisions? 

Answer. Park managers have increased the size and volume of vehicular traffic on the main road corridor without an understanding of the impact this might have on the wildlife inhabiting the area. One of the key objectives in the park's 1986 general management plan was to obtain an understanding of the imp11ct of such a decision; however, this objective has not yet been completed. 

Question 3. In your written testimony you spoke about cutbacks in visitor serv- ices. What types of visitor services did you review in your study? 

Answer. We looked at the following types of visitor services: facilities, such as visitor centei'B, campgrounds, trails, roads, and bridges; personal servi,:es, such as interpretive programs (campfire talks, walks, talks); non-personal services, such as selfguided tours, exhibits, brochures); and visitor protection, such as emergency medical 

services, seai'Ch and rescue, and law enfoi'Cement. 

Question 4. Who makes the decision on what services will be cuz1;ailed or cut? 

Answer. Generally, the park superintendent makes the decision as to what serv- ices will be curtailed or cut. The proposed decision may also be discussed with Park 

Service officials at the applicable regional office. 

Question 5. Are curtailed or cut pro~ams consistent from park to park or is there some kind of Park Service-wide prionty program which would indicate what types 

of programs should be reduced? 

Answer. Curtailed or cut programs are not consistent from park to park. The 

broad discretionary power of the pari!: superintendent results in different cutbacks 

at different places. 

Question 6. In your investigation of the Health of the National Park Service, what 

in your mind was the most devastatin~ finding? 

Answer. It was that the Pari!: Sel"Vlce has such little knowledge of the condition 

or trend of the resoui'Ces for which it is responsible. 

Question 7. Do y()U agree that simply giving the Park Service more money will cure the problem? What specifically needs to be done first? 

Answer. Simply giving the Pari!: Service additional funding will not cure the problem. The Park Service needs to look for ways to operate more efficiently and improve accountability to ensure that the limited dollars are used moiit effectively. 

RESPONSES OF THE GAO TO QUESTIONS FROM REPRESENTATIVE HANSEN 

Question 1. Your testimony states that the two primary factors that have resulted 

in decreased funding to support visitor services in parks are enactment of additional 

federal mandates and increased visitation. 
51 

a. Is it also true that many of the increased costs have been driven by Administrative decisions made by the agency? For example, have the grades of park employees 

increased in recent years? What about costs for training and other administrative 

support costs? 

b. What has been the financial impact of Congress adding additional park areas for NPS to administer? 

Answer. a. Some of the increased costs have been-for example, the ranger pro- motion program and increased training requirements. However, the majority of increased costs came from the legislation we listed in our testimony. Further, for 

those that are administratively driven, they were initiated primarily to deal with 

health, safety, and liability concerns in the parks and staff upgrading and retention 

issues. 

b. Overall, the fmancial impact is that additional park units drive additional infrastructure and development needs to support visitation in the parks. To the extent 

this occurs, it puts additional financial demands on the park system as a whole. 

However, it is difficult to assess the impact of this on any one park. 

Question 2. Your testimony states that a primary reason that park operational 

costs have increased is due to the enactment of over 20 Federal laws which park 

manaEE!rs have cited. a. One law cited is the Clean Air Act. How does that law increase the cost of park 

operations? b. How has the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972 increased the cost of 

park operations? 

Answer. a. Employee time is needed to deal with local officials, industries, etc. on potential and actual pollution activities; routine testing and monitoring for compliance, record-keeping and reporting; and mitigation efforts, to the extent that problems are identified. 

b. Employee time is needed to address EEO process requirements like affirmative 

action plans and monitoring, merit promotion procedures, record keeping and re- porting requirements, and training and mitigation efforts. These activities are all 

staff intensive and require employee time. 

Question 3. Your testimony states that the operating budget of the NPS has outpaced inflation by nearly 20 percent in the last 10 years. Despite that fact, visitor 

services have been decreased in 11 of the 12 parks you visited. Could you tell me what programmatic actions the NPS has undertaken in order to ensure that its ac- tivities are more efficient and effective? 

Answer. The Park Service is planning to reorganize to put more resources into 

the field and to reduce layers of middle management. Also, it is trying to stretch 

dollars by moving to a more performance-based management system. The intent in 

doing this is to focus more management attention on what is accomplished with the 

money being spent. 

Question 4. It is clear that Congress has attempted to address the cut in visitor 

services by appropriating more funds for the agency. That simply has not worked, as visitor programs continue to be cut. Your testimony states that NPS must look 

for ways to operate more efficiently and improve accountability in order to ensure that limited dollars are used effectively. 

Let us consider just one aspect of park operations, law enforcement. In FY 1995, 

the Park Service spent $67 million on law enforcement on the 90 million acres they administer, in support of about 375 million visitors. By comparison, the Forest Service had over twice as many visitors and manages twice as many acres and spent less (only $64 million). 

Answer. Your implied question is "why does the Park Service spend so much more than the Forest Service for law enforcement?" The two agencies do have different 

missions, but there are some similarities between them. The Forest Service may be 

following a "best management practice" that the Park Service could use as well. The 

Park Service needs better collaboration with the other land management agencies 

to take advantage of what may be better management practices. 

Question 5. Could you tell us the reasons that the backlog in deferred mainte- nance has doubled or tripled in the last 10 years despite substantial funding increases? Is it due to the same reasons which have caused the increase in the operational backlog? 

Answer. Increases in visitation, operating demands, and the number of units have 

been the key reasons for the increase in deferred maintenance and the operational 

backlog. Also, as projects are deferred, the costs to complete them rises given inflation and other factors, even if no further deterioration occurs. If additional deterioration does occur, as is likely in many cases, costs rise even more. Question 6. One of the questions which comes up regardin~ the closure of park 

facilities is the so-called Washington Monument syndrome. This term was coined by 
52 

a former NPS director in the 1960's who proposed to close the Washington Monument in response to a cut in the NPS appropriation. In your te!ltimony you state 

that NPS _proposes no lifeguards for the beach at Padre Island for the first time in 

20 years. The closure of this primary attraction is proposed even though staffing for 

the park has increased substantially in the last 7 years, 35 to 53 liTE, and funding 

for the park has increased from $1.2 million to $2.1 million. When you visited the 

park were you convinced there was no alternative to closure of that. beach? 

Answer. When we visited parks, we focused on understanding the existing conditions in each park. We did not look at individual park priorities or alternatives to 

reductions in visitor services. 

Question 7. Could you tell us why there is such variation in approach to addressing any shortfalls among the parks? For example, Shenandoah National Park re- sponds to shortfalls in funding by closing its campgrounds and Yellowstone responds 

by seeking concessions to operate its campgrounds. 

Answer. Given the broad discretion that individual park managers have, it is not 

surprising that different parks have different ways of responding to problems. 

Question B. Your statement that the condition of park resoun:es is largely un- known calls into question the ability of the NPS to undertake their most basic mission of resource conservation. In FY 1995, Congress allocated $172 million to the 

NPS for the specific purpose of resource management. Is the NPS not effectively 

using those funds? 

Answer. Part of the problem is that the Park Service does not know how effectively funds are being used at the park level. 

Question 9. Last Congress, GAO delivered a report entitled: Activities Outside 

Park Boundaries Have Caused Damage to Resources and Will Likely Cause More. 

The conclusions in that report were based on a survey of park managers. Since you are now calling into question whether park managers know the condition of the re- sources in the parks they manage, does this not call into question t.he results of that 

report? 

Answer. No. In our earlier report, we developed a methodology that relied on the 

professional judgment of park managers to identify what the threats were and the 

source of those threats. We did that precisely because the parks did not have reliable data on the impact of the threat or how to deal with it. Question 10. Shouldn't the conditions of park resources be a critical factor in evaluating the performance of any park manager? Shouldn't park managers be held ac- countable for the condition of their resources? How is that possible if those conditions are unknown? 

Answer. Yes. Currently, however, factoring in the condition of :park resources in 

assessing the performance of park managers can not be done. Before assessing performance, scientifically based baseline data must be collected on the inventory and 

condition of resources. To hold managers accountable for the condition of resources, 

there must be accurate data about what is there, its condition, and its trend over 

time. 

Question 11. You state that park resource management policies at Yosemite may 

have had an adverse impact on an endangered species. Does anyone know for sure? 

Does the NPS routinely go through compliance with the Endangered Species Act 

with respect to its resource management programs? 

Answer. In this case, it was the best professional judgment of park staff. We did 

not review park-by-park compliance with the Endangered Species Act. 

Question 12. You state that only about 25% of a park's annual operating budget 

remains available to meet day-to-day needs after paying salaries tmd benefits. This 

is confusing. Aren't the workers whose salaries and benefits are included in that 

statistic engaged in performing the day-to-day work of the park? 

Answer. Yes, they are. The point we are trying to make is that, after paying salary and related benefits, a park is typically left with about 25 percent to fund things 

like supplies, fuel, utilities, permits, brochures, and other items needed to operate 

a park. 

Question 13. You state that NPS has indicated they intend to improve accountability. Did they present you with a specific outline of how they int.md to accomplish 

this improved accountability? Have you examined their approach and do you believe 

it will be effective? 

Answer. No. They have told us of their plans to improve accountability by moving 

to a system of performance contracts for employees that will help move the Park 

Service to a more results-oriented system of accountability as is. required by the 

Government Performance and Review Act. It is our understanding that they have 

prepared draft plans to move forward. However, without good data, it will be difficult to accurately measure performance. 

0 

92-260 ( 64) 

ISBN 0-16-047456-6 

90000