National Park Service: Major Operations Funding Trends and How Selected Park Units Responded to Those Trends for Fiscal Years 2001 Through 2005
Published: 2006-03-31T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: In recent years, some reports prepared by advocacy groups have raised issues concerning the adequacy of the Park Service's financial resources needed to effectively operate the park units. GAO was asked to identify (1) funding trends for Park Service operations and visitor fees for fiscal years 2001-2005; (2) specific funding trends for 12 selected high visitation park units and how, if at all, the funding trends have affected operations; and (3) recent management initiatives the Park Service has undertaken to address fiscal performance and accountability of park units.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Overall, amounts appropriated to the National Park Service (Park Service) in the Operation of the National Park System account increased from 2001 to 2005. In inflation-adjusted terms, amounts allocated by the Park Service to park units from this appropriation for daily operations declined while project-related allocations increased. Project-related allocations increased primarily in (1) cyclic maintenance and repair and rehabilitation programs to reflect an emphasis on reducing the estimated $5 billion maintenance backlog and (2) the inventory and monitoring program to protect natural resources through the Natural Resource Challenge initiative. Also, on an average annual basis, visitor fees collected increased about 1 percent, a 2 percent decline when adjusted for inflation. All park units we visited received project-related allocations but most of the park units experienced declines in inflation-adjusted terms in their allocations for daily operations. Each of the 12 park units reported their daily operations allocations were not sufficient to address increases in operating costs, such as salaries and new Park Service requirements. In response, officials reported that they either eliminated or reduced services, or relied on other authorized sources to pay operating expenses that have historically been paid with allocations for daily operations. Also, implementing important Park Service policies, without additional allocations, has placed additional demands on the park units and reduced their flexibility. For example, the Park Service has directed its park units to spend most of their visitor fees on deferred maintenance projects. While the Park Service may use visitor fees to pay salaries for permanent staff that administer projects funded with these fees, it has a policy prohibiting such use. To alleviate the pressure on daily operations allocations, we believe it would be appropriate to use visitor fees to pay the salaries of employees working on visitor fee-funded projects. Interior believes that while employment levels at individual park units may have fluctuated for many reasons, employment servicewide was stable, including both seasonal and permanent employees. GAO identified three initiatives--Business Plan, Core Operations Analysis, and Park Scorecard--to address park units' fiscal performance and operational condition. Of the park units we visited with a business plan, officials stated that the plans, among other things, have helped them better identify future budget needs. Due to its early development stage, only a few park units have participated in the Core Operations Analysis; for those we visited who have, officials said that they are better able to determine where operational efficiencies might accrue. Park Service headquarters used the Scorecard to validate and approve increases in funding for daily operations for fiscal year 2005.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The National Park Service (Park Service) manages 390 park units covering  over 84 million acres that provide recreational and educational  opportunities—and numerous other benefits—to millions of visitors each  year. From 2001 to 2005, park units averaged a total of about 274 million  recreation visits per year. Visitors come to the park units to experience  such features as grand waterfalls, mountain vistas, canyons and gorges,  giant redwood trees, wildlife, historical landmarks such as Revolutionary  and Civil War battlefields, Native American dwellings and artifacts, and  memorials honoring veterans. Within its mandate to conserve park  resources and to provide for their enjoyment in a manner that leaves them  unimpaired for future generations, the Park Service provides a variety of  visitor services such as interpretative education films, guided tours, and  information centers where visitors can learn about the unique features of  the park units.
Congress provides funding for the Park Service through a number of  appropriations accounts; the largest is the Operation of the National Park  System (ONPS), which funds the management, operations, and  maintenance of park areas and facilities and the general administration of  the Park Service. Congress has made additional funding available by  permitting the Park Service to charge and retain recreation fees, referred to  in this report as “visitor fees.” The Park Service also has, among other  things, authority to charge and retain concessions fees and to accept  donations and voluntary services. As with any federal program, the Park  Service is expected to manage within whatever level of funding is provided  and to allocate resources to its park units in a way that is both efficient and  effective in delivering services. The Park Service has chosen to allocate  funds to its park units in two categories—for daily operations, and for  specific, non-recurring projects. Park managers use funding for daily  operations to pay for visitor and resource protection, interpretation and  education, and facilities operations, among other things. About eighty  percent or more of the park units’ daily operations funds pay for salaries  and benefits for staff to carry out these mission components, while the  remainder is used for overhead expenses such as utilities, supplies, and  training. The project-related portion provides funds for non-recurring  projects such as replacing roofs on park facilities or rehabilitating  campgrounds. Park managers generally use these project funds to pay  temporary employees or contractors to complete these projects.
In addition to providing the funding for daily operations and projects, the  Congress has enacted legislation authorizing park units to collect visitor  fees to provide additional funds to use for specified park operations. Visitor  fees have been used, for example, to construct roadside exhibits and to  rehabilitate boat launch facilities. The Park Service has recently set a goal  to spend the majority of its visitor fees on reducing its estimated $5 billion  deferred maintenance backlog. The Congress also authorizes the Park  Service to receive revenues from other sources to assist it in performing its  mission. These can include fees from concessionaires under contract to  perform services at park units, such as operating a lodge, and cash or non- monetary donations from non-profit organizations or individuals, among  others.
In recent years, concerns over the deteriorating condition of the national  parks have received increasing attention. Some reports prepared by  advocacy groups cite a lack of sufficient staff and financial resources  necessary to effectively operate park units. They report problems such as  dwindling visitor services, crumbling buildings, and threatened resources  at many park units including the Everglades, Gettysburg, Great Smoky  Mountains, Olympic, Yellowstone, and others. Some of these reports argue  that the purchasing power of the park units’ funding has been weakened  due to inflation and required employee pay and benefit increases that were  not accounted for in their daily operations funding. Some contend that  other funds, such as donations, are being used to fund operational activities  that they believe should be paid with funding for daily operations.
However, the Department of the Interior stated that the Park Service’s  operating funds have increased significantly from 1980 through 2005,  particularly when compared to other domestic federal agencies.
To gain a better understanding of funding issues and their effects on the  park units, you asked us to identify (1) funding trends for Park Service  operations and visitor fees for fiscal years 2001 through 2005; (2) specific  funding trends for several high-visitation park units and how, if at all, these  funding trends have affected operations, including the park units’ ability to  provide services, for fiscal years 2001 through 2005; and (3) recent  management initiatives the Park Service has undertaken to address the  fiscal performance and accountability of park units.
To identify funding trends for Park Service operations and visitor fees from  fiscal years 2001 through 2005, we obtained and analyzed appropriations  legislation, data on the Park Service’s allocation of funds from the ONPS  Account, and data on visitor fees. We analyzed the data in both nominal  (actual) and real (adjusted for inflation) terms. A “nominal dollar” is the  value of a dollar in the prices of the current year, or for purposes of this  analysis, the year in which a dollar is appropriated. A “real dollar” is a  dollar that has been adjusted to remove the effects of inflation by dividing  the nominal dollar by a price index. Appropriations are made in nominal, or  current-year, dollars. The purpose of showing dollars in inflation-adjusted  terms is to permit comparisons of purchasing power. To determine funding  trends for selected individual park units and how these trends affected the  park units’ ability to provide services to visitors, we selected 12 park units  based on visitation, regional diversity, and preliminary data on allocations  for daily operations. We visited the 12 park units, gathered and analyzed  nominal and real funding and cost data and interviewed park officials to  determine allocation trends and their impact on operations (including  visitor services). Our analysis represents our findings at these 12 parks  units and the results may or may not be representative of the individual  experiences of other park units or the experience of the National Park  System as a whole. To identify recent management initiatives the Park  Service has under way to address fiscal performance and accountability for  fiscal years 2001 to 2005, we gathered and reviewed documentation on  several management initiatives and interviewed Park Service headquarters,  regional office, and individual park unit officials. We assessed the reliability  of the data by reviewing the methods of data collection for relevant Park  Service databases. We also sent uniform data requests to the 12 park units,  provided uniform guidance, and interactively worked with park officials to  compile the data. We determined that the data are sufficiently reliable for  the purposes of this report. A more detailed description of our scope and  methodology is presented in appendix I. We performed our work from  January 2005 to March 2006 in accordance with generally accepted  government auditing standards.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: The Park Service is the caretaker of many of the nation’s most precious  natural and cultural resources. Today, more than 130 years after the first  national park was created, the National Park System has grown to include  390 units covering over 84 million acres in 49 states, the District of  Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, Saipan, and the Virgin  Islands. The Park Service manages its responsibilities through  headquarters, seven regional offices, and its individual park units. These  units include a diverse mix of sites—now in more than 20 different  categories. These include (1) national parks, such as Yellowstone in Idaho,  Montana, and Wyoming; Yosemite in California; and Grand Canyon in  Arizona; (2) national historical parks, such as Harper’s Ferry in Maryland,  Virginia, and West Virginia; and Valley Forge in Pennsylvania; (3) national  battlefields, such as Antietam in Maryland; (4) national historic sites such  as Ford’s Theatre in Washington, D.C.; and Carl Sandburg’s home in North  Carolina; (5) national monuments, such as Fort Sumter in South Carolina;  and the Statue of Liberty in New York and New Jersey; (6) national  preserves, such as Yukon-Charley Rivers in Alaska; and (7) national  recreation areas, such as Lake Mead in Arizona and Nevada. Some of these  park units, such as Yellowstone, cover millions of acres and employ  hundreds of employees. Other units, such as Ford’s Theatre which  encompasses two historic structures, are small and have few employees.
The Park Service’s mission is to preserve unimpaired the natural and  cultural resources of the National Park System for the enjoyment of this  and future generations. Its objectives include providing for the use of the  park units by supplying appropriate visitor services and infrastructure (e.g.,  roads and facilities) to support these services. In addition, the Park Service  protects its natural and cultural resources (e.g., preserving wildlife habitat  and Native American sites) so that they will be unimpaired for the  enjoyment of future generations. Due to the complexity of its mission, large  land area, and the number and diversity of its park units, the Park Service  faces many challenges—including a deteriorating infrastructure (due in  part to an estimated $5 billion maintenance backlog), threats to preserving  natural and cultural resources, and challenges to maintaining visitor  services. Moreover, despite fiscal constraints facing all federal agencies,  the number of park units continues to expand—12 units, mostly small  units, have been authorized since fiscal year 2001.
The Park Service receives its main source of funds to operate park units  through appropriations from the ONPS account. The Park Service chooses  to allocate funds to its park units in two categories—allocations for daily  operations, and allocations for specific, non-recurring projects. Daily  operations allocation levels for individual park units are built on park units’  allocation level for the prior year. Park units receive an increased  allocation for required pay increases and request specific increases for new  or higher levels of ongoing operating responsibilities, such as adding  additional law enforcement rangers for increased homeland security  protection. Park Service headquarters takes the initiative in requesting the  funding for all required employee pay increases on a service wide basis.  However, for park-specific increases, once funding is appropriated, park  units compete against one another through their regional office and  headquarters for the available funds.
As is true for other government operations, the cost of operating park units  will increase each year due to required pay increases, the rising costs of  benefits for federal employees, and rising overhead expenses such as  utilities. The Park Service may provide additional allocations for daily  operations to cover all or part of these cost increases. If the continuation of  operations at the previous year’s level would require more funds than are  available, park units must adjust either by identifying efficiencies within  the park unit, use other authorized funding sources such as fees or  donations to fund the activity, or reduce services. Upon receiving their  allocations for daily operations each year, park unit managers exercise a  great deal of discretion in setting operational priorities. Typically, these  decisions involve trade-offs among four categories of spending: (1) visitor  services (e.g., opening a campground or adding law enforcement staff), (2)  resource management (e.g., monitoring the condition of threatened species  or water quality), (3) maintenance needs (e.g., repairing a trail), and (4)  park administration and support (e.g., updating computer systems or  attending training). Generally, about 80 percent of each park unit’s  allocation for daily operations is used to pay the salaries and benefits of  permanent employees (personnel costs). Park units use the remainder of  their allocations for daily operations for overhead expenses such as  utilities, supplies, and training, among other things.
In addition to daily operations funding, the Park Service also allocates  project-related funding to park units for specific purposes to support its  mission. For example, activities completed with Cyclic Maintenance and  Repair and Rehabilitation funds include re-roofing or re-painting buildings,  overhauling engines, refinishing hardwood floors, replacing sewer lines,  repairing building foundations, and rehabilitating campgrounds and trails.  Park units compete for project allocations by submitting requests to their  respective regional office and headquarters. Regional and headquarters  officials determine which projects to fund. While an individual park unit  may receive funding for several projects in one year, it may receive none  the next.
Park units may also receive revenue from outside sources such as visitor  fees and donations—although there are often limitations on how these  revenues may be used. Since 1996, the Congress has provided the park  units with authority to collect fees from visitors and retain these funds for  use on projects to enhance recreation and visitor enjoyment, among other  things.  Since 2002, the Park Service has required park units to spend the  majority of their visitor fees on deferred maintenance projects, such as  road or building repair. The Park Service also receives revenue from  concessionaires under contract to perform services at park units—such as  operating a lodge—and cash or non-monetary donations from non-profit  organizations or individuals, among others. For example, as we reported in  July 2003, about 200 cooperating associations and “friends groups” helped  support 347 park units, contributing over $200 million from 1997 to 2001.  These funds may vary from year to year and, in the case of donations, may  be accompanied by stipulations on how the funds may be used.
Figure 1 illustrates the principal funding sources used by park units to  perform operations.
section_title: Appropriations for the Operation of the National Park System Account Increased Overall from Fiscal Years 2001 to 2005; the Total Allocation for Daily Operations Declined Overall and the Total Allocation for Projects Increased Overall When Adjusted For Inflation
paragraphs: Total appropriations for the ONPS account increased overall in both  nominal and inflation-adjusted dollars from fiscal year 2001 through 2005.  However, the agency allocated funds such that, in inflation-adjusted terms,  the total allocation for daily operations from these appropriations fell  slightly overall, while the total allocation for projects increased overall.  About 56 percent of the individual park units and about 74 percent of the  more highly visited parks experienced an overall decline in their allocation  for daily operations when adjusted for inflation during this period. The  agency allocated funding for projects at a higher rate than for daily  operations.
subsections: section_title: Appropriations for the Operation of the National Park System Account Increased Overall from Fiscal Years 2001 to 2005
paragraphs: As shown in figure 2, overall appropriations for the ONPS account— including the amounts the Park Service allocated for daily operations and  projects—rose in both nominal and inflation-adjusted dollars overall from  fiscal years 2001 through 2005. Nominal dollars increased from about $1.4  billion in fiscal year 2001 to almost $1.7 billion in fiscal year 2005, an  average annual increase of about 4.9 percent (i.e., about $68 million per  year). After adjusting these amounts for inflation, the average annual  increase was about 1.3 percent or almost $18 million per year. By contrast,  the Park Service’s overall budget authority increased to about $2.7 billion in  2005 from about $2.6 billion in 2001, an average increase of about 1 percent  per year. In inflation adjusted dollars, the total budget authority fell by an  average of about 2.5 percent per year.
With the increases in appropriations for the ONPS account, the Park  Service increased allocations for projects and other support programs such  as the Repair and Rehabilitation, Cyclic Maintenance, and Inventory and  Monitoring programs, among others. The overall allocation for daily  operations, on the other hand, declined slightly on average when adjusted  for inflation.
section_title: Overall Allocations for Daily Operations for Park Units Declined Slightly When Adjusted For Inflation
paragraphs: The Park Service’s total allocation for daily operations for park units  increased overall in nominal dollars but the total allocation fell slightly  when adjusted for inflation from fiscal years 2001 through 2005. As  illustrated in figure 3, overall allocations for daily operations for park units  rose from about $903 million in fiscal year 2001 to almost $1.03 billion in  fiscal year 2005—an average annual increase of about $30 million, or about  3 percent. After adjusting for inflation, the allocation for daily operations  fell slightly from about $903 million in 2001 to about $893 million in 2005— an average annual decline of about $2.5 million, or 0.3 percent. The fiscal  year 2005 appropriation for the ONPS account included an additional $37.5  million over the amounts proposed by the House and Senate for the ONPS  account, to be used for daily operations. The conference report  accompanying the appropriation stated that the additional amount was to  be used for (1) a service-wide increase of $25 million and (2) $12.5 million  for visitor services programs at specific park units.
section_title: Daily Operations Allocations for Many Park Units Declined after Adjusting for Inflation
paragraphs: Of the 380 park units that received funding for daily operations for the  entire period of our review, 212 (or about 56 percent), saw an average  annual decline in inflation-adjusted terms of about 2 percent. The declines  ranged from less than 0.1 percent at the Mary McLeod Bethune Council  House National Historic Site to about 5.2 percent at Petroglyph National  Monument. The remaining 168 park units’ daily operations funding trends  were either flat or increasing from 2001 through 2005, with the largest  increase being about 39 percent at Rosie the Riveter/WWII Home Front  National Historic Park. Figure 4 shows the number of park units and their  respective average annual percent changes in daily operations allocations  from 2001 through 2005.
The park units for which figure 4 shows declines in inflation-adjusted  dollars allocated for daily operations include most of the park units with  large allocations for daily operations. These 212 park units represented  about 69 percent of the total allocation for daily operations for all park  units in fiscal year 2001 and about 64 percent in fiscal year 2005.  Conversely, the 168 park units for which figure 4 shows increases in  inflation-adjusted terms in allocations for daily operations represented  about 31 percent of the total allocations for daily operations for all units in  fiscal year 2001 and about 36 percent in fiscal year 2005.
section_title: Most of the Highly Visited Park Units Saw a Decline in Allocations for Daily Operations after Adjusting for Inflation
paragraphs: About seventy-four percent of the 83 most highly visited park units—over  one million recreation visits per year—showed an average annual decline  in inflation-adjusted terms in daily operations allocations from fiscal years  2001 through 2005. For example, allocations for daily operations at Lake  Meade National Recreation Area (includes Parashant National Monument),  Hawaii Volcanoes National Park, and Olympic National Park fell in real  terms by about 4 percent, 3 percent, and 2 percent, respectively. In  contrast, about 47 percent of the park units with less than 200,000  recreation visits per year saw declines in real terms of the allocations for  daily operations. Table 1 shows the number and percentage of park units  receiving average annual percentage increases and declines in inflation  adjusted allocations for daily operations by categories of average annual  recreation visits.
section_title: Allocations for Projects and Other Support Programs Increased Overall Even after Adjusting for Inflation
paragraphs: Allocations for projects and other support programs increased overall in  both nominal and inflation-adjusted dollars. As figure 5 illustrates, these  allocations rose from about $478 million in 2001 to about $641 million in  2005—an average annual increase of about 7.7 percent, or about $36.5  million. When adjusted for inflation, the increase was 3.9 percent, or about  $18.7 million per year. Figure 5 shows allocation trends of projects and  other support programs for the Park Service from fiscal years 2001 through  2005.
Three programs that include project funding for individual park units— Cyclic Maintenance, Repair and Rehabilitation, and Inventory and  Monitoring—account for over half of the increase for the project and  support program allocations. As a percentage of total project and support  program funding, funding for these programs rose to 31 percent in 2005  from 23 percent in 2001. For example, cyclic maintenance program funding  increased from $34.5 million in 2001 to $62.8 million in 2005—an average  annual increase of 16.2 percent in nominal terms or 12.1 percent when  adjusted for inflation. Increases in the Cyclic Maintenance and Repair and  Rehabilitation programs reflect an emphasis on the effort for the Park  Service to reduce its estimated $5 billion maintenance backlog. Increases  in the Inventory and Monitoring Program reflect an emphasis on protecting  natural resources primarily through an initiative called the Natural  Resource Challenge. Table 2 shows funding for these three programs from  fiscal years 2001 through 2005.
Allocations for other support programs had smaller increases or declined.  For example, allocations for central offices—seven regional offices and the  headquarters office—increased by less than 1 percent on an average annual  basis when adjusted for inflation.
Between fiscal years 2001 and 2005, the share of the ONPS account  allocated to daily operations fell slightly, indicating a slight change in  emphasis toward project-related programs for park units. In fiscal year  2001, about 65 percent of the Park Service’s appropriations from the ONPS  account were allocated for daily operations. By 2004, the allocation for  daily operations had fallen to about 60 percent, increasing slightly to about  62 percent for fiscal year 2005. Figure 6 shows the trend for the ratio of  daily operations allocations to overall funding for operations for fiscal  years 2001 through 2005.
section_title: Visitor Fees Also Used to Support Park Units
paragraphs: As shown in figure 7, total visitor fees collected by the Park Service  increased from about $140 million in 2001 to about $147 million in 2005 (an  average annual increase of about 1 percent); however, in inflation-adjusted  dollars, the fees fell to about $127 million in 2005 (an average annual  decline of over 2 percent). Overall, the Park Service collected about $717  million in visitor fees in addition to their annual appropriation for  operations from 2001 through 2005—an average of about $143 million per  year. When adjusted for inflation, these visitor fees total about $670  million—an average of about $134 million per year. Visitor fee revenue  depends on several factors, including the number of visitors to each park  unit, the number of national passes purchased, and the amount each park  charges for entry and services.
section_title: Allocation Trends for Projects and Daily Operations at 12 High- Visitation Park Units Varied, but All 12 Parks Reported Reduced Services and an Increasing Reliance on Other Authorized Sources to Supplement Daily Operations Allocations
paragraphs: All 12 park units we visited received allocations for projects from fiscal  years 2001 through 2005 that varied among years and among park units.  Allocations for daily operations for the 12 park units we visited also varied.  On an average annual basis, each unit experienced an increase in daily  operations allocations, but most experienced a decline in inflation-adjusted  terms. Officials at each park believed that their daily operations allocations  were not sufficient to address increases in operating costs and new Park  Service management requirements. To manage within available funding  resources, park unit managers also reported that, to varying degrees, they  made trade-offs among the operational activities—which in some cases  resulted in reducing services in areas such as education, visitor and  resource protection, and maintenance activities. Park officials also  reported that they increasingly relied on volunteers and other authorized  funding sources to provide operations and services that were previously  paid with allocations for daily operations from the ONPS account.
subsections: section_title: All 12 Park Units Received Allocations For Projects
paragraphs: Each of the 12 park units received allocations for projects from 2001  through 2005. Park units use project-related allocations for such things as  rehabilitating structures, roads, and trails and inventorying and monitoring  natural resources. The allocations for projects at the 12 park units totaled  $76.8 million from 2001 through 2005. Allocations varied from park to park  and year to year because these allocations support non-recurring projects  for which park units are required to compete and obtain approval from  Park Service headquarters or regional offices. For example, at Grand  Canyon National Park, allocations for projects between 2001 and 2005  totaled $6.7 million. However during that time the amount fluctuated from  $824,000 in 2001 to $1.9 million in 2004 and $914,000 in 2005. Table 3 shows  project-related allocations and their fluctuations from fiscal years 2001  through 2005 for the 12 park units we visited.
The following examples illustrate projects that have been completed using  these funds:  Grand Canyon National Park received a total of $6.7 million in project  allocations. Projects included $494,000 to repair and rehabilitate the  North Bass trail; $175,000 to rehabilitate the Mather Amphitheater,  which hosts evening ranger programs; and $31,000 to survey the  declining northern leopard frog population.
Grand Teton National Park received a total of $4.4 million in project  allocations. Projects included $40,600 to perform cyclic maintenance on  three historic log cabins; $280,000 for bison demographic disease  surveillance; and $313,800 to rehabilitate a water sewer line.
Acadia National Park received a total of $3.6 million in project  allocations. In 2002, the park obtained $17,800 through the Natural  Resource Preservation Program to work with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife  Service and others to determine baseline information about the ecology  and to assess the population status of wintering purple sandpipers.
Gettysburg National Military Park received a total of $11.6 million in  project allocations. Projects included $444,000 to replace failing septic  systems in the park; $129,000 to replace water lines in historic  structures; $385,000 to repair observation towers; and $92,000 to repair  historic fences on Little Roundtop—a highly-visited civil war battle site.
Yellowstone National Park received a total of $3.2 million in project  allocations. Projects included $170,000 to repair thermal area walkways,  and $290,000 to rehabilitate roads in the Madison area of the park.
As with allocations for projects from fiscal years 2001 through 2005,  allocations for daily operations for the 12 park units we visited also varied.
section_title: Allocations for Daily Operations at Most Park Units Declined When Adjusted For Inflation
paragraphs: All 12 park units experienced an annual average increase in allocations for  daily operations, however when adjusted for inflation, 8 of the 12 parks we  visited experienced a decline ranging from less than one percent to  approximately 3 percent. For example, Yosemite National Park’s daily  operations allocations increased from $22,583,000 in 2001 to $22,714,000 in  2005, less than an average of 1 percent per year. However, when adjusted  for inflation, the park’s allocation for daily operations fell by about 3  percent per year. Daily operations allocations at the remaining four parks  increased after adjusting for inflation, ranging from less than 1 percent to  about 7 percent. For example, Acadia National Park’s daily operations  allocations increased from $4,279,000 in fiscal year 2001 to $6,498,000 in  fiscal year 2005, an average annual increase of about 11 percent in nominal  terms and about 7 percent when adjusted for inflation. Park officials  explained that although the daily operations allocation substantially  increased over this period, most of the increase was for new or additional  operations. To illustrate, in 2002, Acadia acquired the former Schoodic  Naval Base. The increases in allocations for daily operations were to  accommodate this added responsibility rather than for maintaining  operations that were in existence prior to the acquisition. In addition, park  officials at Mount Rushmore National Memorial reported that most of their  increases for daily operations were to increase law enforcement staff to  address new homeland security measures following the September 11,  2001, attacks. Tables 4 and 5 show allocations for daily operations and  average annual increases or declines for the 12 park units we visited, from  fiscal years 2001 through 2005.
section_title: Increases in Operating Costs and New Park Service Management Requirements May Affect Daily Operations
paragraphs: Despite increases in inflation-adjusted allocations for daily operations at 4  of the 12 park units visited, officials at all 12 park units explained that this  funding did not increase commensurately with increases in operating costs  and new management requirements.  Park unit officials explained that  these factors have reduced their flexibility in addressing other park  priorities.
subsections: section_title: Operating Cost Increases
paragraphs: Park unit officials reported that required salary increases exceeded the  allocation for daily operations, and rising utility costs have reduced their  flexibility in managing daily operations allocations. Park Service  headquarters officials reported that from 2001 through 2005, the Park  Service paid personnel cost increases enacted by the Congress. For  example, from fiscal years 2001 through 2005, Congress enacted salary  increases of about 4 percent per year for federal employees. Park Service  officials reported that the Park Service covered these salary increases with  appropriations provided in the ONPS account. The Park Service allocated  amounts to cover about half of the required increases and park units had to  reduce spending to compensate for the difference. The consequence of the  increases was that park units had to eliminate or defer spending in order to  accommodate the increases. For example, officials at Gettysburg National  Military Park stated that they achieved personnel cost savings by taking a  number of actions to reduce spending, including refraining from filling— and delaying filling—several permanent and seasonal vacancies. Park  officials said they estimate the personnel cost savings from 2002 through  2005 was about $1,434,781, in inflation-adjusted terms. Total personnel  expenditures at the park unit declined from $4,460,000 in 2001 to $4,143,000  in 2005—an average annual decline of about 2 percent, in inflation-adjusted  terms. In contrast, at Mount Rushmore National Memorial, total personnel  expenditures increased from $2,014,000 in 2001 to $2,552,000 in 2005—or  an average of about 6 percent per year. Officials said that the increase was  due to required salary increases for permanent staff and expenditures on  new personnel hired for homeland security measures. As shown in table 6,  expenditures for personnel from 2001 through 2005 increased for seven  park units, and declined for the other five units, after adjusting for inflation.
Personnel costs (salaries and benefits) comprised an average of 74 to 89  percent of the total operating expenses at these 12 park units; therefore  officials said that it is difficult to offset increases in personnel costs  without reducing personnel. Officials at several park units told us that  since 2001, they have refrained from filling vacant positions or have filled  them with lower-graded or seasonal employees. For example, in an effort to  continue to perform activities that directly impact visitors—such as  cleaning restrooms and answering visitor questions—officials at Sequoia  and Kings Canyon National Parks stated that they left several high-graded  positions unfilled in order to hire a lower graded workforce to perform  these basic operational duties. Officials at most park units also told us that  when positions were left vacant, the responsibilities of the remaining staff  generally increased in order to fulfill park obligations.
Park Service budget officials told us that they expect personnel costs to  continue to grow faster than any increases in allocations for personnel in  fiscal years 2006 and 2007. As a result, they said that in some cases the  parks may choose to hire seasonal employees or contract out more duties  than fill vacant positions. Table 7 shows the average annual percentage of  daily operations funding that the 12 park units we visited spent on  personnel costs.
In addition, Park Service budget officials said that park units’ personnel  costs have also increased because they pay more of the costs of benefits for  employees under the newer Federal Employee Retirement System (FERS)  than they do for employees under the older Civil Service Retirement  System (CSRS). As a result, the officials said that total compensation  (salary and benefits) is higher for a FERS employee at the same salary level  as a CSRS employee. Unlike CSRS, for example, FERS requires federal  agencies to match up to 5 percent of employees’ contributions to their  retirement account. In addition, as CSRS employees retire and are replaced  by FERS employees, the officials said that the Park Service’s personnel  costs will increase, when all else remains the same.
At the park units we visited, benefits paid to FERS employees rose at a  faster rate and were generally higher on average than those for CSRS  employees. At almost all the park units, average total compensation for a CSRS employee exceeded that for a FERS employee. For instance, at  Shenandoah National Park, average benefits for a FERS employee  increased at an annual rate of about 3 percent from 2001 through 2005  compared with about 2 percent per year for a CSRS employee (adjusted for  inflation). In 2005, the average FERS total compensation was $44,242,  including $11,713 for benefits, compared to an average CSRS total of about  $54,134, including $9,401 for benefits. Tables 16 and 17 in appendix III show  nominal and inflation-adjusted personnel costs per retirement system at  the 12 park units we visited.
In addition to increasing personnel costs, officials at many of the park units  we visited explained that rising utility costs caused parks to reduce  spending in other areas. For example, at Grand Teton National Park, park  officials told us that to operate the same number of facilities and assets,  costs for fuel, electricity, and solid waste removal increased from $435,010  in 2003 to $633,201 in 2005—an increase of 46 percent, when adjusted for  inflation. Officials told us that, as a result, their utility budget for fiscal year  2005 was spent by June 2005—three months early. In August, the park  accepted the transfer requests of two division chiefs and used the salaries  from these vacancies to pay for utility costs for the remaining portion of the  year.
Officials at some parks attributed increased utility costs to new  construction that was generally not accompanied with a corresponding  increase to their allocation for daily operations. In 2003, Yellowstone  National Park constructed The Heritage Center with line item construction  appropriations to house 5.3 million artifacts of natural and cultural  significance. In 2001, the park officials requested but did not receive an  additional $250,000 that they estimated was required to pay for the center’s  costs for power, water, sewer, and information technology. A Park Service  headquarters official told us that while there is a need to replace old  facilities with new construction, it is unlikely—given the overall fiscal  demands on the federal government—that park units will receive  corresponding increases in funding for daily operations necessary to  operate new facilities.
section_title: New Park Responsibilities Affected Management Flexibility
paragraphs: Officials at most of the park units we visited also told us that their units  generally did not receive additional allocations for administering new Park  Service policies directed at reducing its maintenance backlog,  implementing a new asset management strategy, or maintaining specified  levels of law enforcement personnel (referred to as its no-net-loss policy)  which has reduced their flexibility in addressing other park priorities.  While officials stated that these policies were important, implementing  them without additional allocations reduced their management flexibility.  Over the years, the estimates of the amount of the agency’s deferred  maintenance backlog have varied widely—sometimes by billions of dollars.  Since 1998, we have issued several reports on the agency’s efforts to reduce  its backlog. Since 2001, the Park Service has placed a high priority on  reducing its currently estimated $5 billion maintenance backlog. In  response, the Park Service, among other things, set a goal to spend the  majority of its visitor fees on deferred maintenance projects—$75 million  in 2002 increasing to $95 million in 2005. Officials at several park units  report that they have used daily operations allocations to absorb the cost of  salaries for permanent staff needed to oversee the increasing number of  visitor fee-funded projects. Park officials reported that the additional  administrative and supervisory tasks associated with these projects add to  the workload of an already-reduced permanent staff. For example, at  Acadia National Park, officials told us that although visitor fee-funded  projects have benefited the park, supervisors have reduced the extent to  which they supervise their existing daily operating staff in order to manage  temporary staff working on visitor fee-funded projects.
While the Park Service may use visitor fees to pay salaries for permanent  staff that manage and administer projects funded with visitor fees, it has a  policy prohibiting such use. Instead, these salaries are paid using  allocations for daily operations which reduce the amount of the allocation  available for visitor services and other activities and limit the park units’  ability to maintain these services and activities. Park Service headquarters  officials recognize the strain that its policy has had on allocations for daily  operations. Park Service headquarters officials said that its policy was first  established under the original Recreational Fee Demonstration Program  and provided several reasons for doing so. First, it did not want park units  to use the revenue to hire more permanent staff than the park units needed.  In addition, the Park Service wanted the revenue to be used for projects  that provided visible results, such as rehabilitating a visitor facility, rather  than on salaries for permanent employees. It also did not want to use  visitor fee revenue to hire permanent staff because the recreational fee  demonstration authority was temporary, therefore forcing park units to  find another funding source to pay permanent employee salaries if the  authority was discontinued. However, due to the strain this policy has had  on allocations for daily operations combined with the recent passage of the  Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act, which provides longer-term  authority (10 years) for collecting visitor fees, Park Service headquarters  officials stated that they are considering changing this policy. To alleviate  the pressure on funds for daily operations, we believe it would be  appropriate for the Park Service to follow through with revising this policy.
In an effort to better manage its maintenance backlog and improve asset  management, the Park Service implemented a new asset management  initiative in 1998. As a part of this initiative, park units are required to  complete condition assessments and maintain this data in the Facility  Maintenance Software System (FMSS), a system-wide, integrated software  management tool to track parks’ assets, their condition, and the costs  needed to keep each asset in a good operating condition. Overall, park  managers viewed this new system as a worthwhile endeavor. However,  park officials explained that their units were not provided additional funds  needed to implement this new responsibility. As a result, most of the parks  used existing staff to inventory assets and enter the data into the software  system at the expense of their primary duties. According to officials at  many of the park units we visited, staff no longer had sufficient time to  perform primary duties and responsibilities, such as regularly scheduled  preventative maintenance or bathroom cleaning. The effect of  implementing FMSS was particularly problematic for park units whose  maintenance divisions were already operating with a reduced staff. For  example, Badlands National Park, which has lost seven maintenance  division employees since 2001, used the equivalent of two full time  employees and two seasonal employees to enter data and work on other  duties related to FMSS. Because the park had to use existing staff to  comply with new asset-management requirements, regularly scheduled  activities such as painting buildings and other structures were deferred,  thus adding to its maintenance backlog.
Another new Park Service policy impacting park units relates to its law  enforcement personnel. In response to studies that described the level of  law enforcement personnel as approaching a level for which basic resource  and visitor protection may be in jeopardy, the Park Service, in 2002,  implemented a no-net-loss policy for law enforcement personnel.  Accordingly, Park Service headquarters directed the park units to not fall  below 2002 law enforcement employee levels. Thus, unlike other divisions,  when law enforcement positions become vacant, officials are required to  fill the vacancy or request a waiver of the policy. For those park units that  have adhered to the policy, officials told us that they have had to forgo  hiring what they consider other priority vacant positions in other divisions  in order to comply with the no-net-loss policy. Officials at other park units  have been unable to maintain 2002 levels, either because they were unable  to afford to re-hire vacant positions or because other vacant positions were  deemed by park management to also be a priority.
section_title: Park Units Have Taken Various Actions to Address Trends in Allocations for Daily Operations
paragraphs: In response to allocations for daily operations trends, increased costs, and  new policy requirements, park officials at the 12 park units we visited said  that activities funded with daily operations have been reduced or  eliminated, delayed until other authorized funding sources became  available, or performed with the use of other authorized funding sources.  Park managers reported that because they have to manage within available  funding resources, they make trade-offs among the operational activities  such as education, visitor and resource protection, and maintenance  activities. The extent and type of such responses vary among the park  units.
section_title: Park Units Reduced or Eliminated Some Services
paragraphs: To address differences between allocations for daily operations and  expenses, officials at the park units we visited reported that they reduced  or eliminated some services paid with daily operations allocations— including some that directly affected visitors and park resources. Park  officials at some of the park units we visited told us that before reducing  services that directly affect the visitor; they first reduced spending for  training, equipment, travel, and supplies paid from daily operations allocations. However, most park units reported that they did reduce  services that directly affect the visitor including reducing visitor center  hours, educational programs, basic custodial duties, and law enforcement  operations, such as backcountry patrolling. To illustrate:  Shenandoah National Park reduced the number of days the Loft  Mountain Visitor Contact Station operated in 2004 and then closed it  entirely in 2005. This station offered the only interpretive services at the  south end of the park; thus, visitors entering the park at the south end  have to drive 50 miles to reach another contact station. In addition,  because the park was not able to afford to fill vacancies in 2002, the  park had to close all ranger programs at Mathews Arm campground in  the north district (which contains 179 campsites) beginning in 2003. A  park official said that as of the beginning of 2006, there continues to be  no ranger programs offered at the Mathews Arm campground.
Grand Teton National Park reduced the interpretive division’s staffing  level that was paid out of daily operations funding, from 17 FTEs in 2001  to 12 FTEs in 2005. Because fewer staff were available, the park reduced  the operating hours of the Colter Bay Visitor Center by one hour per day  and reduced the number of times they offer the Tour of the Indians Art  Museum and the Teton Highlights programs.
At Bryce Canyon National Park, law enforcement officials told us that,  since 2001, in order to maintain patrols in high-visitor-use areas, they  reduced backcountry patrolling. As a result, the park has very little  backcountry resource protection capability. For example, while park  officials are aware of poaching in the park, they told us that they do not  have the capability to prevent or investigate this illegal activity.
Acadia National Park closed all seven restrooms along roads and  trailheads in the park’s popular winter-use areas during the 2004-2005  winter season. Park officials told us that they chose to close the  restrooms in the winter in order to have sufficient resources to keep  them open in the summer.
Grand Canyon National Park reduced interpretive programs available to  visitors from 35 in 2001 to 23 in 2005.
Zion National Park reduced cleaning of a heavily used restroom facility  at a popular visitor destination from twice per day to once per day in  2004. Maintenance officials told us that, after reducing the cleaning  frequency, they received several complaints about the condition of the  facilities.
At Gettysburg National Military Park, the Maintenance Division has lost  one of its key preservation specialist positions responsible for the  technical repair and restoration of cannon carriages. According to park  officials, the lack of daily operations funds to hire a replacement has  impaired the park's cannon carriage restoration project as the first  attempt to restore carriages dating from the 1890s. The inability to fill  this position has limited the restoration effort, requiring the storage of  previously stripped and primed carriages in inadequate storage areas  throughout the park. Most carriages will require efforts to reverse the  rust damage while in storage. As a result, the estimated completion of  the project increased to 15 years from 10 years. The personnel costs  required for this extended time period plus the need to re-work the  previously readied carriages is estimated to increase the overall costs of  the project by approximately $260,000.
At Yellowstone National Park, the permanent law enforcement staffing  level that was paid from daily operations funding was reduced from 51  FTEs in 2001 to 45 FTEs in 2005. Park officials told us that this resulted  in fewer back-and front- country patrols, and a reliance on less  experienced and less trained personnel to perform these duties.
At Yosemite National Park, park officials told us that, as a result of  reduced funding levels, four vacant dispatcher positions can not be  replaced—threatening the park’s ability to provide 911 services 7 days  per week and 24 hours per day. In order to fill the key deputy chief  ranger and fire chief vacancies, park officials have had to forgo re-filling  several law and non-law enforcement positions. As a result, remaining  staff worked overtime to perform the added responsibilities. With  expected retirements, officials said that a critical branch chief position  will be unfilled, as will several patrol positions and positions to staff the  jail. However, the Department of the Interior stated that Yosemite  National Park is working with Lassen Volcanic National Park and  Whiskeytown-Shasta-Trinity National Recreation Area to provide joint  services and that Yosemite is in full 911 compliance.
Law enforcement officials at Acadia National Park and Grand Canyon  National Park explained that after accounting for personnel costs, little  is left to pay for equipment and supplies. For example, officials at  Acadia National Park told us that they are unable to replace emergency  response equipment, such as vehicles and boats. The park’s law  enforcement division lost two patrol cars in the last three years and has  been unable to replace the vehicles. Officials at the park told us that to  be able to afford to replace one vehicle, they would have to forgo hiring  a seasonal ranger—a position that park officials say they must maintain  for the safety of park visitors and resources. At Grand Canyon National  Park, 1.4 percent of the law enforcement division‘s funding for daily  operations is available for law enforcement supplies and training.  Officials at this park told us that this amount is not sufficient to pay for  supplies such as first-aid provisions, ammunition, and bullet-proof vests.
section_title: Park Units Used Other Authorized Funding Sources to Support Park Service Operations
paragraphs: When funds allocated for daily operations were not sufficient to pay for  activities that were previously paid with this source, the park units we  visited reported that they deferred activities or relied on other authorized  funding sources such as allocations for projects, visitor fees, donations  from cooperating associations and friends groups, and concessions fees.  Table 8 shows funding from other authorized sources at four of the 12 park  units we visited. Tables 18 and 19 in appendix III show funding from other  authorized sources for all 12 of the park units we visited.
From 2001 to 2005, some parks delayed performing certain preventative  maintenance activities formerly paid with allocations for daily operations  until other authorized funding sources, such as project funds (including  funds for cyclic maintenance, repair and rehabilitation, and visitor fees)  could be found and approved. Park officials explained that, when  preventative maintenance is deferred, the integrity of an asset is reduced— which can lead to replacing the asset at a greater cost than repairing it.  Park Service headquarters officials told us that they are concerned about  this decreased capacity and have reacted to the problem by requesting  increases in project funding, such as cyclic maintenance, over the past few  years. The following examples illustrate delayed activities that occurred at  the park units we visited.
Shenandoah National Park reduced maintenance staffing levels paid  from daily operations funding from 67 FTEs in 2001 to 44 FTEs in 2005,  which decreased the park’s ability to perform routine maintenance of  trails and scenic overlooks. This work was traditionally considered a  recurring operational activity paid for on an annual basis through  funding for daily operations. In 2002, as a result of limited funding for  daily operations, the park did not have the staff or resources to do this  work annually and instead began performing the tasks once every 2 or 3  years. The park currently uses cyclic maintenance project funding to  carry out this work and plans to use visitor fees to pay for this activity in  the future.
At Grand Teton National Park, officials told us that the road striping and  chip sealing process—which should be performed annually to extend  the life of a road 10 to 15 years—can no longer be paid with funding for  daily operations. Consequently, officials told us that they have had to  delay the maintenance activity and rely on less frequently available  project funds.
Rather than eliminating or not performing daily operational activities, some  park units used volunteers and funding from authorized sources such as  donations from non-profit partners and concessionaires’ fees to  accomplish activities that were formerly paid with daily operations funds.   Officials at several park units said that they increasingly depend on  donations from cooperating associations to pay for training and equipment  and rely on their staff and volunteers to provide information and  educational programs to visitors that were traditionally offered by park  rangers. Funds from these sources can be significant, but they are subject  to change from year to year. For example, park officials explained that  donations at Grand Teton fluctuated from about $188,000 in 2001 to over  $400,000 in 2004, and then increased to over $8 million in 2005 when the  park received a substantial gift for a new visitor center from their non- profit park partners. For the most part, funding from these sources is  intended to supplement, rather than replace, daily operations funds.  However, officials told us that these funds are being used to pay for  activities that were formerly paid with funding for daily operations. To  illustrate:  Officials at Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks told us that 60  percent of all visitor center staffing hours in 2005 were provided by their  cooperating association compared to approximately 10 percent in 2001.
At Grand Canyon National Park, the interpretive division had  approximately $75,000 available in daily operations funding in 2001 to  pay for non-personnel costs such as travel and supplies. By 2005,  approximately 99 percent of the division’s funds were spent on  personnel, and the park relied on their cooperating association to pay  for non-personnel costs.
In 2003, Yellowstone National Park constructed The Heritage Center  with line item construction appropriations to house 5.3 million artifacts  of natural and cultural significance. In 2001, the park requested but did  not receive $807,000 in its park’s daily operations funds to pay for the  center’s operating costs. While the park absorbed an estimated utility  cost of $250,000 per year, they relied on their non-profit partners—the  Yellowstone Foundation and the Yellowstone Cooperative  Association—to help staff, furnish, and support museum and archive  acquisitions.
Badlands National Park officials stated that approximately 65 percent of  visitor contacts in 2004 were provided by employees of the park’s  nonprofit partner—the Badlands Natural History Association— compared to 45 percent in 2001.
At Grand Teton National Park and Gettysburg National Military Park,  park partners are paying for the construction of a new visitor center and  are creating endowments to operate the new facilities for a set number  of years.
In 2005, Grand Teton National Park turned over operations of five  campgrounds to concessionaires. Park officials reported that by  transferring these campgrounds, they reduced personnel and  maintenance costs associated with operating the campgrounds.  However, officials stated that a reduction in park-funded seasonal  custodians has meant that fewer staff are available to clean restrooms  and pick up litter. Officials said there was a noticeable increase in litter  in the park in 2005.
Acadia National Park’s partner, The Friends of Acadia, has supplied  support in the form of funding and volunteer hours to maintain the  park’s trail system. Other parks, including Grand Teton National Park  and Yellowstone National Park, are considering similar options to  maintain their trail systems because funding for daily operations is no  longer available to cover all operational needs.
Officials at several park units expressed concern about using funding from  other authorized sources to address shortfalls—not only because the funds  can vary from year to year, but also because these partners’ stipulations on  how their donations can be used may differ from the parks’ priorities. As a  result, relying on these sources for programs that require a long-term  funding commitment could be problematic. For example, until 2004 the  Natural Resources Division at Badlands National Park used visitor fees to  pay for natural resource programs (e.g., bighorn sheep restoration and non- native plant control). However, to meet deferred maintenance spending  goals, the park could no longer submit projects for approval to use visitor  fee revenue to support natural resource programs. Officials at several park  units also told us that, as they increasingly rely on such sources, more of  their time must be spent cultivating relationships and applying for grants,  rather than performing their regular duties.
section_title: The Park Service Has Undertaken Three Management Initiatives to Address Fiscal Performance and Accountability of Park Units
paragraphs: The Park Service identified three management initiatives that it has  undertaken to address the fiscal performance and accountability of park  units and to better manage within their available resources:  the Business  Plan Initiative (BPI), the Core Operations Analysis (COA), and the Park  Scorecard. Each initiative operates independently and they are at various  stages of development and implementation. In addition, the Department  noted in its comments to us that there are other efforts such as the Office of  Management and Budget’s analysis under the Program Assessment Rating  Tool (PART) that contribute to park unit and departmental efforts to  achieve more effective programs and efficient operations. Table 9  summarizes each of the three initiatives that we reviewed and their stages  of implementation.
subsections: section_title: Business Plan Initiative
paragraphs: Through the BPI process, park unit staff—with the help of business interns  from the Student Conservation Association—identify all sources and uses  of park funds to determine funding levels needed to operate and manage  park units. Using this information, park unit managers develop a 5-year  business plan to address any gaps between available funds and park unit  operational and maintenance needs. The process used in the BPI involves 6  steps, completed over an 11-week period. Park staff and the business  interns (1) identify the park unit’s mission; (2) conduct an inventory of park  assets; (3) analyze park funding trends; (4) identify sources and uses of  park funding; (5) analyze park operations and maintenance needs; and (6)  develop a strategic business plan to address gaps between funds and park  needs. The BPI began in 1997 as a result of a partnership between the Park  Service and the National Parks Conservation Association. Their goals were  to ensure that superintendents of park units had the knowledge and data to  develop cost-reducing strategies and make a rational case for funding  proposals.
Yellowstone National Park completed the first business plan in 1997.   Since then, about 25 percent of all park units have participated in the  process. Most of the participation has come from smaller park units—those  with a budget for daily operations under $2 million per year. The Park  Service selects about 12 park units per year to participate in the BPI  process, but their participation is voluntary. Park units are selected based  on a number of factors including (1) geographic diversity, (2) unit types  (e.g., national park, national historic site, national recreation area, national  monument), (3) whether the park units have sufficient staffing and funding  resources to conduct the BPI process, and (4) whether the timing for the  park unit to conduct a BPI is appropriate. For instance, in some cases, park  units selected for the BPI are subsequently unable to participate because  they are undergoing major management initiatives or changes (e.g.,  preparing a general management plan or changing park superintendents); a  park unit may also hold an event that represents an anomaly and may skew  the financial condition of the park unit . For example, the Canaveral  National Seashore was scheduled to complete the BPI process in fiscal year  2005 but did not due to damage to some of the park unit’s assets caused by  hurricanes in 2004.
All 12 of the park units we visited have completed a business plan. Many  officials—both at the unit level and headquarters—stated that business  plans are, among other things, useful in helping them identify future budget  needs. Once completed, park managers often issue a press release to  announce its completion. Park managers may also send copies to their  legislators, local community councils, and park unit partners (such as  cooperating associations) to communicate the results. A Park Service  official stated, however, that the Park Service is still working to refine how  these business plans can serve as a better tool for justifying funding needs.
section_title: Core Operations Analysis
paragraphs: The COA was developed in 2004 to help park unit managers evaluate their  park unit’s core mission, identify essential park unit activities and  associated funding levels, and make fully informed decisions on staffing  and funding. The COA is part of a broader Park Service-wide effort to  integrate management tools to improve park efficiency. Park Service  headquarters and regional officials and park unit staffs work together in a  step-by-step process to conduct the analysis. These steps include preparing  a 5-year budget cost projection (BCP) to establish baseline financial  information and help project future park needs, defining core elements of  the park unit’s mission, identifying park priorities, reviewing and analyzing  activities and associated staff resources, and identifying efficiencies.  Budget staff for each park unit first complete a 5-year BCP that uses the  current year’s funding level for daily operations as a baseline, and estimates  future levels, increases in non-personnel costs, and fixed costs such as  salaries and benefits. The general target of the analysis is to adjust personal  services and fixed costs at or below 80 percent of the unit’s funding levels  for daily operations.
The BCP model relies heavily on fixed costs, however the Park Service has  not developed a servicewide standard definition of fixed costs so individual  park units may calculate fixed costs differently. For example, fixed costs at  some of the park units we visited included the costs of both personnel and  utilities, whereas at other park units it only included personnel costs. As  such, fixed costs used in the BCP model vary among park units. Although  the COA is in the development stage, the Park Service plans to have all  units complete an analysis by the end of fiscal year 2011. To achieve this  goal, the Park Service will select 50 parks per year to participate.
Three of the 12 park units we visited have completed (or are in the process  of completing) a COA, and 3 will begin the COA in fiscal year 2006. The  remaining 6 park units we visited have yet to be selected. Park unit officials  told us that the preliminary results have helped them determine where  efficiencies in operations might accrue. A Park Service regional official told  us that the core operations process is still in its early development, noting  that preliminary results are useful but too early to determine results to be  realized by the park units.
section_title: Park Scorecard
paragraphs: Park Service headquarters developed the Park Scorecard beginning in  fiscal year 2004 to serve as an indicator of each park unit’s fiscal and  operational condition, and managerial performance. The Scorecard is  intended to provide an overarching summary of each park unit’s condition  by offering a way to analyze individual park unit needs. It also provides  Park Service officials with information needed to understand how park  units compare to one another based on broad financial, organizational,  recreational, and resource-management criteria. The Park Scorecard uses  data from Park Service-wide databases already used by all park units. Park  Service headquarters uses over 30 separate indicators as measures of the  condition of park units. Examples of these indicators include personnel  costs as a percentage of daily operations allocations, average overtime  costs, the ratio of volunteer hours to total Park Service hours, operational  and maintenance costs per square foot, and annual growth in visitation, to  name a few. The result of the analysis using these indicators is a numerical  value that is assigned to each measure leading to an assessment of being in  poor, fair, good, or excellent operational condition.
Although the Park Scorecard is still under development, the Park Service’s  headquarters budget office used it to validate and approve requests for  increases in daily operations allocations for the highest priorities among  park units to be funded out of a total of $12.5 million that was provided in  2005 for daily operations directed at visitor service programs. The Park  Service approved requests for funding at three out of the twelve parks we  visited (Badlands National Park, Grand Teton National Park, and  Yellowstone National Park). Park Service officials explained that while  Park Scorecard figures can generate useful park unit comparisons, regional  policies can also influence the indicators; while these numbers provide a  good starting point for analysis, park unit staff input must be a  consideration in determining park priorities. Park officials further  explained that it is difficult to develop a set of common indicators that can  be used for parks units with different characteristics, such as Yellowstone  National Park and Carl Sandburg Home National Historic site. Park Service  headquarters officials, with the assistance and input of park unit managers,  plan on refining the Park Scorecard to more accurately capture all  appropriate park measurements and to identify, evaluate, and support  future budget increases for park units. The Park Service also intends for  park managers to use the Park Scorecard to facilitate discussions about  their needs and priorities.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: From 2001 through 2004, the Park Service increased allocations for support  programs and project funding while placing less of an emphasis on  allocations for daily operations.  In 2005, however, the agency emphasis  shifted toward an increase in allocations for daily operations. As evidenced  by our visits to 12 park units, this later shift appears to be going in the  direction needed to help the park units overcome some of the difficulties  they have recently experienced in meeting operational needs—particularly  as they relate to maintaining visitor services and protecting resources. In  responding to these trends, park unit officials found ways to reduce  spending on their allocations for daily operations and identify and use  authorized sources other than these allocations to minimize some impacts  on park operations and visitor services. While park units are relying more  on other authorized sources to perform operations, using such funds has its  drawbacks because it usually takes park units longer, with more effort  from park employees, to obtain and use these sources. In the case of  donations, for example, park officials spend more time grooming  relationships with donors to obtain the funds. Visitor fees have been an  important and significant source of funds for park units to address high- priority needs, such as reducing its maintenance backlog. However, Park  Service policy prohibiting the use of visitor fees to pay salaries of  permanent employees managing projects may reduce the flexibility in  managing the use of funding for daily operations. While Park Service  officials stated that they are embarking upon three management initiatives  to improve park performance and accountability—and to better manage  within available resources—it is too early to assess the effectiveness of  these initiatives.
section_title: Recommendation for Executive Action
paragraphs: To reduce some of the pressure on funding for daily operations, we are  recommending that the Secretary of the Interior direct the Park Service  Director to follow through in revising Park Service policy to allow park  units to use visitor fee revenues to pay the costs of permanent employees  administering projects funded by visitor fees to the extent authorized by  law.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Response
paragraphs: We provided the Department of the Interior with a draft of this report for  review and comment. The department provided written comments that are  included in appendix V. The following represents a summary of the major  comments made by the department and our response. Additional  comments and our response are also provided in appendix V. With regard  to our recommendation, the department stated that we should clearly state  that visitor fee revenue (and not other sources) be used to fund only a  limited number of permanent employees and be specifically defined for the  sole purpose of executing projects funded from fee revenue. Our  recommendation was specifically directed at using visitor fee revenues for  paying the salaries of permanent employees who administer projects  funded with such revenues and provides the Park Service with the  flexibility to define how the visitor fee revenues should be applied.
Accordingly, we have not modified our recommendation in response to the  department’s comment.
The department appreciated the diligent work of the team that prepared  the report and the large amount of data collected, but had concerns that the  presentation of the data in the report creates a misleading impression  concerning the state of park operations for several reasons. The  department said our report provided an incomplete analysis of the financial  status of the park units and left the impression that park budgets have not  been emphasized. We disagree with this view. We conducted a detailed  analysis of the major funding trends for park operations. For example, we  reported the overall funding trends for operations, including  appropriations from the ONPS account, in relation to the Park Service’s  total budget authority. As the report indicates, this trend showed that  appropriations to the ONPS account increased overall during our study  time frame at a higher rate than the Park Service’s total budget authority.  We also analyzed the trends in both allocations for daily operations and  projects for the park service as a whole and for each of the 12 high- visitation park units we visited. Moreover, the report showed that the fiscal  year 2005 appropriation for the ONPS account included an additional $37.5  million over the amounts proposed by the House and Senate for the  Operation of the National Park System account, to be used for daily  operations. Furthermore, the report discusses the impacts that these trends  have had on operations at the 12 parks we visited. In response to the  department’s comments, we have included more examples in the report  showing where project funds have been used by park units.
The department also commented that within a constrained fiscal  environment, park operations have been a high priority for both the  Administration and the Congress. Such an analysis would require a much  broader review comparing the Park Service’s budget with budgets of other  federal agencies, which was beyond the scope of our review. The  department commented that the report draws a “false dichotomy” between  operations and project funding. Specifically, it said that the visitor  experience at national parks is shaped not only by direct visitor services  activities such as ranger interpretive programs, but also by the condition of  park facilities and the natural resources. We agree that daily operations  allocations—which funds activities such as ranger interpretive programs— and project allocations—which funds facility improvements—are both  important to park operations and visitor experiences. Furthermore, we  believe there is an important distinction between how park units can use  daily operations allocations as opposed to allocations for projects. In fact,  the Park Service itself allocates ONPS appropriations in these distinct  categories. Daily operations allocations are used to pay for operating  expenses such as permanent and temporary employees to perform day to  day activities such as interpretive programs and cleaning restrooms. In  contrast, Park Service procedures require that project-related allocations  are to be used only for projects and not for day to day activities. The report  recognizes this distinction by presenting these trends separately and by  providing examples of how park units are using these two sources of  allocations to conduct operations.
The department also stated that the report’s use of several park anecdotes  concerning reduced allocations for daily operations is misleading.   Specifically, the department stated that the anecdotes within the report  highlight only certain divisions or programs in which a park significantly  reduced staffing in isolation from the park unit’s overall staffing,  allocations for daily operations, and allocations for projects, as well as the  overall employment levels at the Park Service as a whole.   While the  department noted in its comments that overall the balance of seasonal and  permanent employees remained stable in 2005 compared to 2001, we found  that for most of the 12 high-visitation park units we visited, that ratio of  seasonals to permanent employees increased.  We believe that these park  specific FTE trends are better indicators of an individual park unit’s ability  to maintain services at the park units than servicewide FTE trends.   Analysis of activities at 12 specific park units was one of our report  objectives and we continue to believe that the specific park examples adds  to the report by illuminating the issues identified at the 12 park units that  we visited—namely that officials at the park units reported that their daily  operations allocations have not kept pace with increasing personnel costs,  rising utility costs, and increased responsibilities.  We provided examples  of the tradeoffs park managers made to manage within their available  resources that illustrate what park managers consistently told us about  their ability to maintain park operations such as visitor service levels.  In  addition, we provided overall FTE trends for the park units we visited,  including those FTEs paid with allocations for daily operations and those  paid with other authorized sources.  These trends show that most of the  park units are increasingly relying on sources other than daily operations  allocations to maintain FTE levels.
In addition, the department said that the report relies on the use of budget  and financial data but does not examine performance information, the  trends in accomplishments, or efforts to improve service delivery over the  time period of our study. Specifically, it mentioned the Park Service’s and  the administration’s measurement of performance and related cost  information, the analysis of allocations for daily operations through the  PART process, and efforts in management excellence. It said that all of  these efforts, including Park Service-specific tools such as the Core  Operations Analysis are yielding results in achieving more effective  programs and more efficient operations. In addition, the department states  that the Park Service has adopted new ways of doing business including  centralizing some services and systems under the department. Specifically,  the comments describe a department-wide effort to purchase information  technology hardware and software and other consumables, as well as Park  Service efforts to limit travel, provide more efficient training, and use  volunteers. We added additional information to the report to reflect these  efforts. As recognized by the department, the report provides information  on the major management initiatives that the Park Service has undertaken,  such as COA, BPI, and the Park Scorecard, which are designed to assist  managers to develop fully informed decisions which direct park resources  toward functions that are essential to achieving mission goals and also  serve as a part of management planning efforts.
With regard to the department’s comment regarding accomplishments, we  point out that for the most part, the initiatives underway were in their early  stages of development and it was too soon to determine results. We did  however, identify several examples of how park managers at the parks we  visited reported that they are increasingly relying on volunteers to perform  activities that were previously funded through allocations for daily  operations and their efforts to limit travel and training, among other  expenses, to reduce impacts on visitor services.
Finally, the department commented that, although there is not a perfect  inflation adjustment index available to accurately determine an index of  Park Service operating costs, the specific price index we used for deflating  Park Service funding and operating costs—Gross Domestic Product (GDP)  Price Index for Government Consumption Expenditures and Gross  Investment (federal nondefense sector)—measures changes in the value of  government output using the cost of inputs such as compensation of  employees. The department said that it believes it might be more  appropriate to use the GDP (Chained) Price Index because it is based upon  costs of goods and services in the marketplace and it therefore considers  productivity and other management enhancements; the department also  said that this broader price index is not a perfect index either. The  department added that using the broader index would provide significantly  different results; that is, the inflation-adjusted trends in funding for daily  operations would generally be more positive. We agree that there is not a  perfect index available to accurately determine an index of Park Service  operating costs, and we agree that using a broader index would yield  different results. Nonetheless, we believe that using the GDP Price Index  for Government Consumption Expenditures and Gross Investment (federal  nondefense sector) better represents the real quantity of services that the  agency’s budget provides over time. In general, when removing the effects  of price changes, it is preferable to use a specific price index that matches  the composition of the nominal dollar amounts under consideration. As we  noted in the report, this price index reflects changes in the value of  government output, as measured by the cost of inputs such as  compensation of employees and purchases of goods and services. Input  costs are used in constructing the index because most government output  is not sold in the market place. For the Park Service, most of the operating  costs consist of employee compensation. As a result, the specific price  index we used assigns greater weight to changes in federal workers’  compensation than does the more general GDP (Chained) Price Index.  While the GDP (Chained) Price Index reflects productivity improvements  in the overall economy, it is partly based on input costs and a large portion  of the basket of goods it represents reflects personal consumption,  including  food, clothing, and housing, which are less relevant for assessing  real trends in the Park Service’s operating costs.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of  this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the  report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the Secretary  of the Interior and other interested parties. We will also make copies  available to others upon request. In addition, the report will be available at  no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have questions about this report, please contact me at  (202) 512-3841 or nazzaror@gao.gov. Contact points for our offices of  Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page  of this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix VI.
section_title: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: This appendix presents the methods we used to gather information on  National Park Service (Park Service) funding trends, their impacts on  selected park units, and management initiatives under way to address fiscal  performance and accountability.
To identify funding trends for Park Service operations and visitor fees from  fiscal years 2001 through 2005, we obtained and analyzed appropriations  legislation, including appropriations for the Operation of the National Park  System account (consisting of funding for daily operations, projects, and  other support programs), and visitor fees. We analyzed the data in both  nominal (actual) and real (adjusted for inflation) terms.  To remove the  effects of inflation, we adjusted nominal dollars using the Gross Domestic  Product (GDP) Price Index for Government Consumption Expenditures  and Gross Investment (federal nondefense sector), with 2001 as the base  year. The price index reflects changes in the value of government output,  measured by the cost of inputs, including compensation of employees and  purchases of goods and services. Consistent with the proportion of the  Park Service’s operating expenditures on personnel, this price index is  more heavily weighted by changes in federal workers’ compensation than  the overall GDP price index. We gathered funding data from the Park  Service Budget Office on allocations from the ONPS account for daily  operations, projects, and other support programs. In addition to obtaining  data on allocations for daily operations on a servicewide level, we also  gathered data on the allocations for daily operations for individual park  units to determine how many have received operating increases or  decreases, and how many have remained relatively constant. We also  obtained data on recreation visits from the Park Service’s Public Use  Statistics Office for park units to analyze allocations for daily operations in  relation to visitation rates. We also interviewed agency officials at Park  Service Headquarters, the Pacific West Region, the Intermountain Region,  and individual park units in addition to those listed below, including Mount  Rainier National Park, Olympic National Park, Point Reyes National  Seashore, and the San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park. We  assessed the reliability of the data by reviewing the methods of data  collection for relevant Park Service databases. We determined that the data  were sufficiently reliable for the uses in this report.
To determine the funding trends for certain individual park units and how  the trends affected their ability to provide services to visitors, we collected  and analyzed data and reviewed operational impacts at the nonprobability  sample of 12 park units visited; we also interviewed park unit officials  about their funding trends, operational impacts, and policy requirements.  The 12 park units represent a cross-section of high-visitation parks (greater  than 500,000 visits per year) with potentially a large number of visitor  services, regional diversity, and a range of allocations for daily operations.  In addition, based on preliminary figures, we sought a cross-section of  parks that had sustained varying levels of growth in their allocations for  daily operations. Table 10 lists the 12 parks we visited, their primary  features, and their location.
For each of the 12 park units, we collected data on funding trends, and park  operations including visitor services. We collected park data on budget  formulation, budget allocation, expenditures, and staffing trends. We sent  uniform data requests to the 12 park units, provided uniform guidance and  interactively worked with park officials to compile the data. We also  obtained information on operations such as (1) visitor and resource  protection (e.g. law enforcement rangers), (2) facilities operation and  maintenance (e.g. opening a campground or a visitor center and  maintaining a building or trail), (3) resource management (e.g. monitoring  the condition of threatened species or water quality), (4) interpretation and  education (e.g. interpretive rangers to provide educational programs), and  (5) park administration and support (e.g. updating computer systems or  attending training). Each of these operational areas has some role in  providing visitor services. We assessed the reliability of the data by  reviewing the methods of data collection for relevant Park Service  databases. We determined that the data are sufficiently reliable for the  purposes of this report.
To identify recent management initiatives the Park Service has under way  to address fiscal performance and accountability for fiscal years 2001 to  2005, we gathered and reviewed documentation on several management  initiatives including the Business Plan Initiative, the Core Operations  Analysis, and the Park Scorecard. For the Business Plan initiative, we  interviewed park service officials at headquarters and individual park units  on the content of the analysis, procedures, and final plans. For the Core  Operations Analysis, we interviewed park officials in the Intermountain  Region and at individual park units that are in the process of performing  the analysis including Grand Canyon National Park, and Yellowstone  National Park. For the Park Scorecard, we reviewed documentation and  interviewed Park Service Headquarters officials on the development and  implementation of the initiative.
We conducted our work from January 2005 to March 2006 in accordance  with generally accepted government auditing standards.
section_title: Operation of the National Park System Account and Visitor Fee Revenue, Fiscal Years 2001 through 2005
paragraphs: Tables 11 and 12 show trends in appropriations in both nominal and  inflation-adjusted terms for the Operation of the National Park System  Account, including allocations for daily operations and support programs.  In addition, the tables show the trends for visitor fees collected by the Park  Service from fiscal years 2001 through 2005.
section_title: Summary of Funding and Personnel Trends for 12 Selected Park Units
paragraphs: The following tables summarize the data collected from 12 selected park  units including 2001 through 2005 total park unit labor expenditures;  personnel levels by funding source; employee and labor cost per retirement  system (CSRS and FERS); and funding levels by other funding source  types.
section_title: Recreation Visitation Trends for the Park Service and 12 Selected Park Units, Fiscal Years 2001 through 2005
paragraphs: Table 20 shows, for fiscal years 2001 through 2005, recreation visitation  trends for the 12 selected park units we visited compared to the entire Park  Service.
section_title: Comments from the Department of the Interior
subsections: section_title: GAO Comments
paragraphs: 1. We agree that the overall 2005 ONPS account was $1.7 billion—an  increase of about 21 percent higher than in 2001.  We reported this  increase on an average annual basis of about 4.9 percent per year from  2001 through 2005, which is equivalent to about 21 percent from 2001 to  2005 in nominal terms.  In addition, we added information on the  department’s comment that the Park Service has received significant  operating increases since 1980, particularly compared to other  domestic agencies. 2. For the park units we visited, we provided data and analysis on the  major funding trends for the park units, namely, allocations for daily  operations, project related allocations, visitor fees, concessions fees  and others.  We added examples of specific project allocations to the  park units we visited and how they were used as reported by the park  units.   3. On page 12 of the report, we provided information on the park service’s  overall budget authority.  In addition, we agree that the allocations for  daily operations increased by about 14 percent from 2001 through 2005.   However, we believe it is also important to look at the change in  inflation-adjusted terms.  We believe the information we provided in the  report fairly describes the emphasis placed by the Congress and the  Administration on Park Service operations over our 5-year study time  frame.   4. According to the Department of the Interior, the allocation for daily  operations increased more in dollar terms than any other Park Service  program between 2001 and 2005.  However, on an average annual basis,  the percentage increase over this period was less than for other  programs.  In addition, after adjusting for inflation, the allocation for  daily operations fell slightly from about $903 million in 2001 to about  $893 million in 2005—an average annual decline of about $2.5 million,  or 0.3 percent.   5. We disagree with the assertion that our analysis presents a “false  dichotomy between operations and project funding.”  This is addressed  more fully on pages 46 and 47. 6. On page 19 of the report, we include allocations for cyclic maintenance,  repair and rehabilitation, and the inventory and monitoring programs  from fiscal years 2001 through 2005.  We believe this reflects the Park  Service’s continued emphasis on efforts to reduce its deferred  maintenance backlog and the monitoring and protection of the natural  resources in its charge.   7. The report provides the allocation trends for existing programs such as  the Inventory and Monitoring program, which is a large component of  the Natural Resource Challenge.  To provide additional information on  this effort, we added information in the report on the total allocations  from fiscal years 2001 through 2005—$62 million in nominal dollars.   We also added examples of specific projects at park units we visited,  some of which were funded through project allocations under the  Natural Resource Challenge.  8. See comment 1 above and the table attached to the department’s  comments.   9. Although analyzing Park Service spending per visit is an indicator, we  believe such analysis is of limited use because it does not indicate how  the expenditures are used.  10. See page 47 for our response.  In addition, we used examples from park  unit divisions that we visited in an effort to illustrate specific impacts  on park operations. As the department pointed out, Grand Teton  National Park’s, overall FTE data indicates that seasonal employees  increased from 54 to 73 from 2001 through 2005. However, this increase  was mostly due to additional seasonal employees that were hired with  other authorized funding sources—from 17 to 46.  The seasonal FTEs  paid for through daily operations allocations, in fact, decreased from 37  to 28.  Employees paid for through project-related allocations are hired  to conduct work on specific projects, while those funded through daily  operations allocations can be used more flexibly within a division to  carry out operational activities such as cleaning restrooms and picking- up litter. 11. We agree that operational funding is one of several factors that  contribute to employment levels at individual park units. Because  management at the park unit level has discretion to manage within  available resources, we asked park unit officials to report the level of  FTEs funded per division, per funding source, and per employee type.
In this way, we were better able to substantiate the anecdotes we chose  to use in the report and to determine the parks’ staffing composition.  For example, at Grand Teton National Park, the number of permanent  FTEs funded through daily operations allocations, from 2001 through  2005 decreased by 2, while those funded through project allocations  and other authorized funding sources increased by 16.  12. See page 47 which discusses our response to this comment.   13. We noted these additional non-park specific efforts on page 40 of the  report.   14. We agree that management decisions are made within a dynamic  environment of shifting priorities and resources. The specific examples  we provide highlight projects and activities that were accomplished, or  were not accomplished given the resources available to individual park  units. We agree that the Park Service has worked to accommodate the  impact of pay increases and across-the-board reductions; however, we  did not study the level of visitor satisfaction throughout this time frame.  Many of the park unit officials we spoke with explained that in an effort  to manage within available resources, certain activities that directly  affect the visitor can no longer be provided for with daily operation  allocations. The activities must then either be reduced, eliminated or  paid for using other authorized funding sources. For instance, we found  that some activities traditionally provided by a Park Service employee,  were now being provided by volunteers. 15. See page 48, which discusses our response to this comment. 16. At the time we visited Zion National Park, it had not yet completed it’s  COA.  Since they completed their analysis, we have not had the  opportunity to validate the department’s claim that Zion National Park  achieved an overtime and premium pay for savings of $30,000 as a  result of the COA.   17. We added additional information on page 40 of the report to reflect  these efforts.   18. See pages 48 and 49, which discuss our response to this comment. 19. See pages 48 and 49, which discuss our response to this comment. 20. We added additional information in the report to address this comment. 21. See pages 45 and 46, which discusses our response to this comment.
section_title: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the individual named above, Roy Judy, Assistant Director,  Thomas Armstrong, Jay Berman, Ulana Bihun, Denise Fantone, Doreen  Feldman, Tim Guinane, Susan Irving, Richard Johnson, Hannah Laufe,  Alison O’Neill, Claudine Pauselli, Jamie Roberts, Patrick Sigl, Paul Staley,  and Walter Vance made key contributions to this report.
section_title: Related GAO Products
subsections: section_title: Maintenance
paragraphs: National Park Service:  Efforts Underway to Address Its Maintenance  Backlog. GAO-03-1177T. Washington, D.C.: September 27, 2003.
National Park Service:  Status of Agency Efforts to Address Its  Maintenance Backlog. GAO-03-992T. Washington, D.C.: July 8, 2003.
National Park Service: Status of Efforts to Develop Better Deferred  Maintenance Data. GAO-02-568R. Washington, D.C.: April 12, 2002.
National Park Service:  Efforts to Identify and Manage the Maintenance  Backlog. GAO/RCED-98-143. Washington, D.C.:  May 14, 1998.
National Park Service:  Maintenance Backlog Issues. GAO/T-RCED-98-61.  Washington, D.C.:  February 4, 1998.
section_title: Visitor Fees
paragraphs: Recreation Fees: Comments on the Federal Lands Recreation  Enhancement Act, H.R. 3283. GAO-04-745T. Washington, D.C.: May 6, 2004.
Recreation Fees: Management Improvements Can Help the  Demonstration Program Enhance Visitor Services. GAO-02-10.  Washington, D.C.: November 26, 2001.
National Park Service: Recreational Fee Demonstration Program  Spending Priorities. GAO/RCED-00-37R. Washington, D.C.: November 18,  1999.
Recreation Fees: Demonstration Has Increased Revenues, but Impact on  Park Service Backlog Is Uncertain. GAO/T-RCED-99-101. Washington,  D.C.:  March 3, 1999.
Recreation Fees: Demonstration Program Successful in Raising  Revenues but Could Be Improved. GAO/T-RCED-99-77. Washington, D.C.:  February 4, 1999.
Recreation Fees: Demonstration Fee Program Successful in Raising  Revenues but Could Be Improved. GAO/RCED-99-7. Washington, D.C.:   November 20, 1998.
subsections: section_title: Resource Management
paragraphs: Wildlife Management: Negotiations on a Long-Term Plan for Managing  Yellowstone Bison Still Ongoing. GAO/RCED-00-7. Washington, D.C.:   November 30, 1999.
National Park Service: Efforts to Link Resources to Results Suggest  Insights for Other Agencies. AIMD-98-113. Washington, D.C.:  April 10,  1998.
Wildlife Management: Issues Concerning the Management of Bison and  Elk Herds in Yellowstone National Park. GAO/T-RCED-97-200.  Washington, D.C.: July 10, 1997.
National Parks: Park Service Needs Better Information to Preserve and  Protect Resources. GAO/T-RCED-97-76. Washington, D.C.: February 27,  1997.
National Park Service: Activities Within Park Borders Have Caused  Damage to Resources. GAO/RCED-96-202. Washington, D.C.: August 23,  1996.
section_title: Donations
paragraphs: National Park Foundation: Better Communication of Roles and  Responsibilities Is Needed to Strengthen Partnership with the National  Park Service. GAO-04-541. Washington, D.C.:  May 17, 2004.
Park Service: Agency Needs to Better Manage the Increasing Role of  Nonprofit Partners. GAO-03-585. Washington, D.C.: July 18, 2003.
section_title: Concessions
paragraphs: Park Service: Need to Address Key Management Problems That Plague the  Concessions Program. GAO/T-RCED-00-136. Washington, D.C.: June 15,  2000.
Park Service: Need to Address Management Problems That Plague the  Concessions Program. GAO/T-RCED-00-188. Washington, D.C.:  May 24,  2000.
Park Service: Need to Address Management Problems That Plague the  Concessions Program. GAO/RCED-00-70. Washington, D.C.: March 31,  2000.
National Park Service: Concession Reform Issues. GAO/T-RCED-98-122.  Washington, D.C.:  March 12, 1998.
Federal Lands: Concession Reform is Needed. GAO/T-RCED/GGD-96-223.  Washington, D.C.:   July 18, 1996.
section_title: Housing
paragraphs: National Park Service: Concerns About the Implementation of Its  Employee Housing Policy. GAO/T-RCED-99-119. Washington, D.C.: March  17, 1999.
National Park Service: Employee Housing Issues. GAO/T-RCED-98-35.  Washington, D.C.: October 29, 1997.
section_title: Other Management Issues
paragraphs: National Park Service: Opportunities Exist to Clarify and Strengthen  Special Uses Permit Guidance on Setting Grazing Fees and Cost- Recovery. GAO-06-355R. Washington, D.C.: February 9, 2006.
National Park Service: Revenues Could Increase by Charging Allowed  Fees for Some Special Uses Permits. GAO-05-410. Washington, D.C.: May 6,  2005.
National Park Service: Managed Properties in the District of  Columbia. GAO-05-378. Washington, D.C.: April 15, 2005.
National Park Service: A More Systematic Process for Establishing  National Heritage Areas and Actions to Improve Their Accountability  Are Needed. GAO-04-593T. Washington, D.C.: March 30, 2004.
National Park Service: Actions Needed to Improve Travel Cost  Management. GAO-03-354. Washington, D.C.: February 13, 2003.
National Park Service: Opportunities to Improve the Administration of  the Alternative Transportation Program. GAO-03-166R. Washington, D.C.:   November 15, 2002.
Park Service: Visitor Center Project Costs, Size, and Functions Vary  Widely. GAO-01-781. Washington, D.C.: July 24, 2001.
Park Service: Agency Is Not Meeting Its Structural Fire Safety  Responsibilities. GAO/T-RCED-00-253. Washington, D.C.: July 19, 2000.
National Park Service: Flood Recovery Efforts at Yosemite National Park,  California. GAO/RCED-99-50R. Washington, D.C.: January 27, 1999.
National Park Service: Efforts to Link Resources to Results Suggest  Insights for Other Agencies. AIMD-98-113. Washington, D.C.: April 10,  1998.
Park Service: Managing for Results Could Strengthen  Accountability. GAO/RCED-97-125. Washington, D.C.: April 10, 1997.
Land Management Agencies: Information on Selected Administrative  Policies and Practices. GAO/RCED-97-40. Washington, D.C.: February 11,  1997.
National Parks: Difficult Choices Need to Be Made About the Future of the  Parks. GAO/RCED-95-238. Washington, D.C.: August 30, 1995.
National Park Service: Difficult Choices Need to Be Made on the Future of  the Parks. T- GAO/RCED-95-124. Washington, D.C.: March 7, 1995.