National Parks: Difficult Choices Need to Be Made About the Future of the Parks
Released: 1995-09-13T00:00:00

Letter

Introduction

The Department of the Interior’s National Park Service is responsible for managing a large and diverse array of park units that include some of the most significant natural and cultural resources in the nation. In recent years, concern has grown that the parks’ responsibilities and popularity might be hampering the parks’ ability to serve visitors and manage resources. The national park system now hosts about 270 million visitors a year—an increase of more than 20 percent since 1985.

Background

The National Park Service is the caretaker of many of the nation’s most precious natural and cultural resources. Today, more than 100 years after the first national park was created, the national park system has grown to include 368 units. These units cover over 80 million acres of land and include an increasingly diverse mix of sites. In fact, there are now 20 different categories of park units. 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 Harpers 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.; (5) national monuments, such as Fort Sumter in South Carolina and the Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island in New York; (6) national preserves, such as Yukon-Charley Rivers in Alaska; and (7) national recreation areas, such as Lake Mead in Arizona and Nevada and Golden Gate in California.

The Park Service’s mission has dual objectives. On one hand, the Park Service is to provide for the public’s enjoyment of the resources that have been entrusted to its care. This objective involves promoting the use of the parks by providing appropriate visitor services and the infrastructure (e.g., roads and facilities) to support them. On the other hand, the Park Service is to protect its natural and cultural resources so that they will be unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations. Balancing these objectives has long shaped the debate about how best to manage the national park system.

The debate has also been shaped by a number of other developments. Despite the fiscal constraints facing all federal agencies, the number of parks continues to expand—31 parks have been added to the system in the last 10 years. In addition, the maintenance backlog at national parks has increased substantially. In 1988, we reported that the dollar amount of the backlog of deferred maintenance stood at about $1.9 billion. This backlog included items that ranged from such routine activities as trimming trees, maintaining trails, and repairing buildings to such major capital improvements as replacing water and sewer systems and reconstructing roads. While agency officials acknowledged that they do not have precise data on the backlog, they estimated that it exceeded $4 billion in 1994.

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

As agreed with the congressional requesters (see p. 2), we focused our review on 12 park units within the national park system. We judgmentally selected four national parks, two historic parks and one historic site, two national monuments, a national battlefield, a recreation area, and a national seashore. These units represent a cross section of units within the national park system. They include both large and small parks, natural and scenic parks, culturally and historically significant parks, and parks from 7 of the 10 Park Service regions in the country. However, because they are not a random sample of all 368 park units, they may not be representative of the system as a whole. Table 1.1 lists the 12 park units that we visited.

For each of the 12 parks, we collected available data on the condition and the trend of visitor services and park resources. We obtained visitor service data on facilities (e.g., visitor centers, campgrounds, trails, and roads); personal services (e.g., interpretive programs and other face-to-face programs); nonpersonal services (e.g., self-guided tours and exhibits); and visitor protection (e.g., emergency medical aid, search and rescue assistance, and law enforcement). Concerning resources, we collected condition and trend data on natural resources (e.g., native animals and plants, air and water, exotic species, and threatened or endangered species) and cultural resources (e.g., sites, structures, objects or collections, and cultural landscapes). We also interviewed officials at Park Service headquarters and regional offices as well as at each park visited.

This report builds on our March 7, 1995, testimony before a joint hearing of the Subcommittee on Parks, Historic Preservation, and Recreation, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, and the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Lands, House Committee on Resources. It also draws on the 26 reports and testimonies that we have issued over the last 5 years on a wide range of Park Service activities and related programs. (For a list of related GAO products, see the end of this report).

We conducted our review from April 1994 through July 1995 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Visitor Services Are Declining and the Condition of Many Park Resources Is Largely Unknown

The natural beauty and historical settings of the national parks make visits by most people a pleasurable and often inspiring experience. Surveys by the Park Service and others show that, in general, visitors are very pleased with their experience at national parks. Nonetheless, we found cause for concern about the health of the park system in terms of both visitor services and resource management. The scope and quality of visitor services provided by the Park Service are deteriorating, and a lack of sufficient data on the condition of many natural and cultural resources in the parks raises questions about whether the agency is meeting its mission of preserving and protecting the resources under its care.

Visitor Services Are Being Cut Back

Of the 12 parks included in our review, 11 had recently cut back the level of visitor services. This reduction is particularly significant considering that managers at most of the parks told us that meeting visitors’ needs gets top priority, often at the expense of other park activities. The following are examples of the cuts in service:

At Padre Island National Seashore in Texas, no lifeguards were on duty along the beach during the summer of 1994 to help ensure the safety of swimmers for the first time in 20 years, according to a park official. The beach is one of the primary attractions of the park and hosted an average of 1,300 visitors during summer weekend days in 1991-92.

At Shenandoah National Park in Virginia, interpretive programs to assist visitors in understanding and appreciating the natural and scenic aspects of the park were cut by over 80 percent from 1987 through 1993. According to park officials, cutbacks included not having interpreters stationed at busy overlooks and trailheads, considerably fewer guided nature walks, and considerably fewer evening campsite talks about the park’s wildlife and cultural resources. One popular campground of 186 campsites (about one-fourth of all campsites in the park) has been closed because of funding limitations since 1993 and, according to park officials, is scheduled to remain closed until at least 1998. In addition, because of limited funding, park staff have been unable to remove numerous trees that pose a hazard to visitors because they hang precariously over hiking trails.

At Bandelier National Monument in New Mexico, the main museum—one of the most popular stops at the park—was closed for more than a year because of problems with repairing a leaky roof and an improperly installed security system.

At the Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island in New York, the extended hours of operation to meet visitor demand during the peak summer season have been reduced by 3.75 hours each day—a reduction of about 30 percent. We were further told that the length of the season for which hours are usually extended was reduced from 3 to 2 months.

At Lake Mead National Recreation Area in Arizona and Nevada, park law enforcement personnel are often faced with a backlog of up to 12 calls each in responding to the needs of visitors during the summer months. According to park officials, enforcement personnel respond to such problems as motor vehicle and boating accidents, alcohol and drug incidents, and increasing gang violence.

As these examples illustrate, the cutbacks in services not only adversely affect visitors’ convenience and enjoyment, but also the Park Service’s ability to meet basic visitor safety needs. Table 2.1 provides more details on the condition of visitor services at each of the parks included in our review.

Information on the Condition of Many Park Resources Is Insufficient

Park Service policy directs that parks be managed on the basis of knowledge of their natural and cultural resources and their condition. Without sufficient scientific data depicting the condition and trends of park resources, the Park Service cannot adequately perform its mission of preserving and protecting its resources. However, our review indicated that by and large, the condition and trend of many park resources are largely unknown because of the absence of sufficient information—particularly for parks featuring natural resources, such as Glacier in Montana and Yosemite in California.

The effective management of park resources depends heavily upon scientifically collected data that enable park managers to detect damaging changes to the parks’ resources and guide the mitigation of those changes. This approach involves collecting baseline data about key park resources and monitoring their condition over time to detect any changes. A park official told us that without such information, damage to key resources could go undetected until it is obvious, at which point, mitigation may be impossible or extremely expensive.

While park officials, as well as an official from the Department of the Interior’s National Biological Survey, emphasized the need for this kind of information, we found that information is insufficient or lacking for many of the parks’ resources. This situation is not new. Over the past 30 years, more than a dozen major reviews by independent experts as well as the Park Service have concluded that resource management must be guided by more scientific knowledge. From the so-called “Leopold” and “Robbins” reports of 1963 to the report on the 75th Anniversary Symposium on the National Park Service (the “Vail Agenda”) in 1992 to a Natural Research Council report of 1992, concerns have been raised about the lack of scientific data on park resources. Similar concerns have been echoed by park advocacy groups, such as the National Parks and Conservation Association, and by two former Park Service Directors.

Condition of Cultural Resources

Overall, managers at the culturally oriented parks we visited, such as the Statue of Liberty National Monument and Ellis Island in New York and Hopewell Furnace National Historic Site in Pennsylvania, reported that (1) the condition of cultural resources was declining and (2) the location and status of many cultural resources—primarily archeological—are largely unknown.

Ellis Island is an example of a park where the condition of cultural resources is declining. It was reopened in 1990 as the country’s only museum devoted exclusively to immigration. While a few of the island’s structures have been restored, 32 of 36 significant historic buildings have seriously deteriorated. According to park officials, about two-thirds of these buildings could be lost within 5 years if they are not stabilized. These structures are currently not available for public access. They include the former hospital, quarantine area, and morgue. In addition, although some new storage space is being built, some of Ellis Island’s large collection of cultural artifacts is stored in deteriorating facilities. As a result, in one building, much of the collection is covered with dirt and debris from crumbling walls and peeling paint, and leaky roofs have caused water damage to many artifacts.

An example of a park where the location and status of cultural resources—in this case, archeological—is largely unknown is Hopewell Furnace National Historic Site. This is an 850-acre park that depicts a portion of the nation’s early industrial development. The main features of the site are a charcoal-fueled blast furnace, an ironmaster’s mansion, and auxiliary structures. Although Hopewell Furnace has been a national historic site since 1938, a park official advised us that the Park Service has never performed a complete archeological survey of the park to identify and inventory all of its cultural resources. According to a park official, without comprehensive inventory and monitoring information, it is unknown whether the best management decisions about resources are being made. Also, the park does not have a current general management plan, which is required by the Park Service and serves as a central component of effective resource management. A general management plan provides basic management guidance on how a park unit and its resources will be protected, developed, and used and documents compliance with the Park Service’s management policies and regulations. Table 2.2 shows examples of cultural resource conditions at each of the 12 parks that we visited.

Condition of Natural Resources

Even at the parks we visited that showcase natural resources, little was known about natural resource conditions and trends. This situation existed because the Park Service has not systematically collected scientific data to inventory its natural resources or monitored changes in their condition over time. As a result, the agency cannot scientifically determine whether the overall condition of many key natural resources is improving, deteriorating, or remaining constant.

For example, at both Yosemite and Glacier National Parks, data about many of the parks’ natural resources have not been collected. As a result, the condition and trend of these resources are largely unknown. At Yosemite, officials told us that virtually nothing was known about the types or numbers of species inhabiting the park, including birds, fish, and such mammals as badgers, river otters, wolverines, and red foxes. These officials acknowledged that the extent of their knowledge was poor because it was not based on scientific study. At Glacier, baseline information on park wildlife was similarly inadequate. Park officials indicated that most monitoring efforts were directed at four species protected under the Endangered Species Act. They did not have data on the condition and trend of many other species.

Another example is Padre Island National Seashore in Texas. According to managers at this park, they did not have information on the condition of four of the seven categories of wildlife within the park. Specifically, they lacked detailed data on the condition of such species as reptiles and amphibians—except for endangered sea turtles—and such terrestrial mammals as white-tailed deer, coyotes, and bobcats. Furthermore, except for certain species, such as endangered sea turtles that use portions of the park as nesting areas, park managers had little knowledge about whether the condition of wildlife within the park was improving, declining, or remaining constant.

Within the last decade, the Park Service has begun efforts to gather better information about the condition of the parks’ natural resources. According to the Deputy Director of the Park Service, it took the environmental movement of the late 1960s and early 1970s and national attention to the resource problems in the parks during the early 1980s for the Park Service to start seriously addressing natural resource concerns. However, according to the Deputy Director, progress has been limited because of insufficient funding and competing needs and the completion of much of the work is many years away. In the meantime, park managers often make decisions about the parks’ operations without knowing the impact of these decisions on the resources. For example, according to a park manager at Yosemite National Park, after 70 years of stocking nonnative fish in various lakes and waterways for recreational purposes, park officials realized that indiscriminate stocking had compromised the park’s waterways. Nonnative fish introduced into the park now outnumber native rainbow trout by four to one. According to a park official, this stocking policy, which continued until 1990, has also resulted in a decline of at least one federally protected species. Table 2.3 provides examples of the conditions of natural resources at each of the 12 parks included in our review.

Conclusions

The National Park Service is mandated to provide for the enjoyment of visitors to some of the nation’s greatest natural and cultural resources and, at the same time, to preserve and protect those treasures. However, cutbacks in the scope and quality of services provided to visitors and a lack of sufficient information about the condition of many natural and cultural resources within national parks are affecting the Park Service’s ability to meet its mandate. While a visit to the nation’s parks is still an enjoyable and pleasant experience for most visitors, reduced park operating hours, less frequent or terminated interpretation programs, fewer law enforcement personnel, and less timely attention to visitors’ safety needs is seriously diminishing the quality of this experience. Moreover, the Park Service’s lack of progress in addressing a decades-old problem of collecting scientific data to properly inventory park resources and monitor their condition and trend over time is threatening its ability to preserve and protect the resources entrusted to it.

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

Officials at the National Park Service generally concurred with the information presented in this chapter. They provided some clarifying language that we incorporated where appropriate.

Major Factors Contributing to the Current Situation

From fiscal year 1985 through fiscal year 1993, the Park Service’s operating budget rose about 14 percent, when adjusted for inflation. At most of the parks we visited, the funding increases over this period outpaced inflation. Despite these increases, the Park Service has not been able to keep up with visitor services and resource management needs. Our work identified two factors common to most of the parks we visited that substantially affected the level of visitor services and resource management activities. These factors were additional operating requirements and increased visitation.

Budget Overview

From fiscal year 1985 through fiscal year 1993, the Park Service’s operating budget rose from about $627 million to about $972 million—or by about 55 percent. After factoring in inflation, the increase still amounts to about 14 percent. At 10 of the 12 parks we visited, funding increases outpaced inflation during this time period. Increases ranged from about 2 to 200 percent. Despite these increases, additional demands on the parks are eroding the Park Service’s ability to keep up with visitor services and resource management needs.

To more fully understand the management of parks, it is important to note that the majority of the operations budget—in most cases, over 75 percent for the 12 parks we visited—goes toward salary and benefit costs. The remaining amount—usually 25 percent or less—funds all other ongoing operating needs, such as utilities, supplies and materials, equipment, training, and travel. Table 3.1 shows the fiscal year 1993 operations budget and the breakdown of salary and benefits versus other costs for each of the 12 parks we visited. In order for these data to be comparable with the 1993 data we collected on park conditions, we used fiscal year 1993 as the basis for our budget analysis.

Additional Operating Requirements

Many additional operating requirements are passed on to the parks through federal laws or administrative requirements. In many cases, funds are not made available to the parks to cover the entire cost of complying with these requirements. Park managers cited numerous requirements from such laws as the Occupational Safety and Health Act and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. At the 12 parks we visited, park managers cited many different federal laws affecting the parks’ operations. (See app. I for a listing of these laws and their requirements.) While some of these laws were enacted over 20 years ago, the requirements to comply with them may change over time. To the extent that this occurs, the result may lead to increased operating requirements for parks. In addition, to the extent that they are not fully funded, other requirements, such as changes in employee benefits and ranger certification procedures, can significantly affect parks’ budgets and the level of visitor services and resource management activities that the parks can undertake.

Park managers told us that meeting the requirements of numerous federal laws frequently means diverting personnel and/or dollars from other day-to-day park activities, such as visitor services or resource management. For example, according to a park official, in fiscal year 1994, Yosemite officials spent about $122,000 to address two federal requirements—$42,000 to correct violations of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s regulations and $80,000 to identify and remove hazardous waste. These costs included both personnel and nonpersonnel expenditures. Officials at Yosemite told us that no additional funds were provided to the park for these expenses and that the personnel and dollars needed to meet these requirements were therefore diverted from other planned visitor and resource management activities.

At Glacier, federal requirements for lead paint abatement, asbestos removal, surface and waste water treatment, and accessibility for disabled visitors required park managers to divert staff time and operating funds from visitor and resource management activities. For example, to comply with provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act, we were told by park officials at Glacier that they must test the water in the park’s systems for bacteria more frequently. Beginning in fiscal year 1992, instead of submitting one sample for bacterial testing each month, they were required to submit two. Additionally, the cost of each test doubled from about $7 to $15. With 27 separate water systems to test monthly, the cost of testing for bacteria only (many other tests are required for other substances) has risen from about $2,268 to $9,720 per year. The park had to absorb the $7,452 increase per year from the nonsalary portion of its operating budget—about 1 percent of the fiscal year 1993 amount. In addition, the Safe Drinking Water Act imposed new requirements that did not exist before, such as chlorinating the main water system and then dechlorinating it prior to its discharge into a river. This has added about $10,000 to $12,000 per year to the park’s water costs—about another 1 percent of the park’s nonsalary budget amount.

In addition to operating requirements placed on parks by a variety of federal laws, park operating budgets are affected by required changes in personnel costs, such as compensation and benefits. Because salaries and benefits constitute such a large percentage of a park’s budget—in most cases, over 75 percent in most cases for the parks we visited—almost any increase affecting salaries that is not fully funded (e.g., cost-of-living raises, employer retirement contributions, and increased compensation for certain types of employees) will have a major impact on a park’s budget. For example, according to a headquarters official, in fiscal year 1994, the National Park Service requested and the Congress approved an upgraded civil service classification for rangers. The upgraded classification resulted in increased compensation for park rangers, beginning in the last quarter of fiscal year 1994. Although most parks received additional funds to partially offset the increased compensation costs in the first full year, some parks had to absorb large amounts from their operating budgets. Lake Mead, for example, absorbed about $200,000 in fiscal year 1995, while Shenandoah absorbed about $50,000 out of its budget for that year. We were also advised that unless additional funds are provided, future increased ranger costs will be paid by the parks. Unless park managers are willing to reduce park staffing, these additional personnel costs that the parks must absorb are diverted from the 25 percent or less of the annual operating budget that they have available after salaries and benefits. In the case of Lake Mead, the $200,000 represented about 9 percent of the fiscal year 1993 nonsalary total; for Shenandoah, the additional cost represented about 3 percent.

Finally, the parks must also absorb other increases in nonpersonnel costs for activities that they are required to undertake. For example, in 1991, the Department of the Interior required that its nonseasonal law enforcement officers undergo a higher-level background check than had previously been done to better ensure their qualifications. As a result, the cost of each background check jumped from under $100 to about $1,800. Since 1991, that cost has risen to over $3,000, according to several Park Service officials. In addition, the cost of background checks for seasonal law enforcement employees is now about $1,800. In fiscal year 1994, Yosemite spent about $200,000 on background checks. This represented about 6 percent of the fiscal year 1993 operating budget available after salaries and benefits.

While park managers did not disagree with the merits of the various laws and other requirements with which they must comply, they believe that when taken as a whole, operating funds available for park activities relating to visitor and resource management are significantly hampered by complying with these requirements.

Increased Visitation

The second factor eroding the parks’ ability to keep up with visitor and resource needs is the increase in visitation. Eight of the 12 parks showed increases in the number of visitors; the average increase was about 26 percent since 1985. The four parks where decreases occurred were small historical parks, where visitation for all four parks averaged less than 200,000 in 1993. In addition, in many parks, the length of the tourist season has been expanding. Thus, not only are more people at many parks, but the length of time for which at least basic services must be provided is increasing. Table 3.2 shows the changes in visitation at the 12 parks we visited.

Substantial increases in visitation drive up costs for many operations that directly support visitor activities, such as waste disposal; general maintenance and supplies; road, trail and campground repair; employee overtime; and utilities. Additionally, staff are sometimes diverted from other activities to manage the increasing crowds. For example, according to a park official at Bandelier, because of increased visitation, comfort stations must be cleaned more frequently and litter must also be picked up more often, resulting in the allocation of more of the park’s budget to maintenance personnel and less to resource management activities. Park officials at Bandelier also told us that especially on weekends, resource management, visitor protection, and interpretive staff are assigned to direct traffic or perform other crowd control activities. An official at Lake Mead told us that because of increased visitation and staffing limitations, some law enforcement rangers work 125 hours over a 2-week period and earn $2,000 to $3,000 per month in overtime during the summer. In total, the park officials at Lake Mead indicated that they spend about $150,000 annually on summer overtime for law enforcement rangers.

In addition, the expansion of the visitor season has created increased demands on parks. At Glacier, for example, September visitation now rivals that of historically high June, and almost 20 percent of the park’s annual visitation occurs in September and October. Officials at many of the parks we visited spoke of an expanded visitor season. This expansion requires at least minimal visitor services and facilities for longer periods than had traditionally been the case. Combined with current budget and personnel ceilings, this expansion has sometimes necessitated cutting back on the scope and amount of services available during the peak season (e.g., fewer interpretive programs and shorter visitor center hours) or diverting staff from other activities to handle the longer visitor season. For example, at Glacier, the variety of walks and hikes offered during the peak season of fiscal year 1993 declined so that some services could be provided in September. Even so, officials at some of the parks told us that they are able to provide only a limited amount of visitor services during the extended season. Some park officials also told us that the increasing visitation levels and seasons are a major factor in absorbing the operating budget increases in recent years.

Conclusions

The National Park Service received increased operating budgets from fiscal year 1985 through fiscal year 1993. During this time, the agency’s operating budget, adjusted for inflation, has increased about 14 percent. At 10 of the 12 parks we visited, funding increases outpaced inflation. However, at the same time, new requirements and demands that have seriously eroded the impact of these budget increases have been placed on the parks. These include additional operating requirements imposed on park managers by a number of laws and administrative requirements and additional operating demands associated with increasing levels of visitation. Cumulatively, these factors have contributed to declining levels of visitor services and resource management activities and have limited the parks’ ability to stem this decline. As a result, many park needs are not being met.

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

National Park Service officials provided no comment on this chapter of the report.

Choices for Addressing Park Conditions Will Be Difficult

Many of the problems facing the National Park Service are not new. At the same time that visitor services are being cut back and parks are operating without sufficient information on the condition of many of their resources, the Park Service faces a multibillion-dollar maintenance backlog and, like all federal agencies, tight budgets. In addition, infrastructure and development needs for the park system continue to grow as new units are added—31 since 1985. Under these circumstances, an improvement in the short term is unlikely. Dealing with this situation calls for the Park Service, the administration, and the Congress to make difficult choices involving how the parks are funded and managed. However, regardless of which, if any, of these choices are made, the Park Service should seek to stretch available resources wherever possible by operating more efficiently, continuing to improve its financial management and performance measurement systems, and broadening the scope of its current restructuring plans.

Choices for Addressing Park Conditions Center on Three Alternatives

The choices available to deal with the conditions within the national park system center on three alternatives: (1) increasing the amount of financial resources for the parks, (2) limiting or reducing the number of units in the park system, and (3) reducing the level of visitor services. The alternatives can be considered individually or in combination.

The Amount of Financial Resources for the Parks

If the national park system is to maintain its size and traditional level of visitor services, additional financial resources will be necessary. Today, the annual operating budget for the national park system is over $1.1 billion. Of this amount, less than 8 percent is derived from revenues generated by entrance and other in-park fees. The Park Service estimates that during fiscal year 1995, it will receive about 33 cents in fees, on average, from each park visit. In comparison, it will cost the Park Service about $4.12 for each park visit. One way to increase financial resources to the parks is for the Congress to increase the Park Service’s annual appropriations. However, given today’s tight fiscal climate, it is unlikely that substantially increased federal appropriations will be available to fill the gap between park revenues and park operating expenses. To fill the gap, additional sources of revenues would have to be found. Sources of increased revenues to the parks could include (1) increasing park fees, (2) receiving better returns from in-park concessioners, and (3) encouraging park managers to be more entrepreneurial by providing them with authority to enter into partnership agreements with nonfederal entities. These alternatives are not new; the Park Service has initiated and/or supported similar proposals in the past.

Increased park fees would come primarily from two sources— entrance admissions and fees for camping, backcountry, and other in-park activities. Regarding park entrance fees, 186 of the 368 park units charge entrance fees. Of those, fewer than 10 percent charge the maximum allowable admission rate of $3 per person or $5 per vehicle. Table 4.1 shows the fee status and fees charged at the 12 parks included in our study.

In some cases, those park units that do not charge entrance fees are legislatively precluded from doing so. The Statue of Liberty National Monument and Ellis Island is one such example. On the basis of the number of visitors to the Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island in 1993, imposing an entrance fee of about $2 per visitor would allow the park to cover its operating costs. Using the same formula, we found that considerably higher fees would be required at other parks. For example, on the basis of 1993 visitation levels at Pecos National Historical Park, a fee of about $23 per visit would be required to fully fund operating costs.

In addition to entrance fees, charging fees for an array of other in-park activities also presents opportunities to increase park revenues. Many in-park activities, such as fishing, backcountry hiking and camping, climbing, and commercial filmmaking, place special demands on park resources. These activities put pressure on the park’s human and physical resources, as well as infrastructure, beyond that created by visitors who merely go to the parks to look at the resources. Yet, additional costs associated with these activities are only partially passed on to the users of these services or not at all. For example, according to park officials, neither Harpers Ferry nor Antietam charges fees for issuing commercial filming permits, although they do recover any actual costs incurred because of the filming. (Harpers Ferry recovers costs only if the filming takes more than 2 days). In Glacier and Shenandoah National Parks, which have a substantial amount of backcountry camping, no fees are charged for the required permits. In 1994, Shenandoah issued over 8,300 permits for more than 23,000 people. Currently, throughout the national park system, fees cover only about 5 percent of the costs of providing in-park activities.

Imposing fees where none exist and/or increasing fees at those park units that now have them may affect visitation. However, a recently published 1995 survey indicated that most people—79 percent—would not mind paying increased fees if the fees stayed within the park system. At the same time, while increasing the amount of fees going to the parks will not solve all of the parks’ financial problems, it could help stem the deteriorating conditions identified in this report and would shift some of the cost burden from general taxpayers to the beneficiaries of the services. While entrance fees may not be desirable or feasible at some units, to the extent that fees are permitted or increased, the revenues would need to stay within the park system and not be returned to the U.S. Treasury, as now occurs. In this regard, the Department of the Interior proposed in 1994 to increase park entrance fees for fiscal year 1995. However, the proposed legislation was not enacted. Interior has made a similar proposal in fiscal year 1995 that calls for the majority of the revenue generated from increased fees to be retained in the national park system.

Better returns from concessioners’ contracts throughout the national park system would also expand the revenue base available to parks. Similar to entrance and user fees, increased revenues from concessioners’ contracts, if returned to the parks, could be used to help fund the parks’ operations. However, like entrance fees, for the parks to benefit from increased concession fees, these fees must remain in the Park Service and not be returned to the U.S. Treasury, as now occurs.

Historically, the Park Service has not viewed concessioners’ contracts as business assets but as customer service obligations. Accordingly, the agency has not approached concessions management with the objective of realizing a fair return for the taxpayer. Instead, the return to the government has averaged under 3 percent of gross concession revenues. Current and past administrations have acknowledged that these returns are too low.

Another way to expand the revenue base for operating and maintaining the national park system is to encourage more entrepreneurial approaches by park managers by providing them with more flexibility to enter into partnership agreements with the private sector and other parties. As pointed out in the administration’s report on the National Performance Review (NPR), private donations, even more than park fees and concessioners’ contracts, represent a source of untapped revenue for the Park Service. Although more than 200 nonprofit groups and many corporations give money to the parks, the Park Service is hindered in its dealings with them. Currently, park managers have no authority to directly solicit funds and may not enter into cooperative agreements with nonfederal partners unless specifically authorized by law. Donations can currently be made directly to the Park Service or through the National Park Foundation, which was established by the Congress in 1976 to solicit, accept, and administer donations for the benefit of the Park Service. At the park level, some Park Service officials believe that if provided with broader authority to enter into partnerships with nonfederal organizations and to solicit donations, the Park Service could be more entrepreneurial in its efforts to close the gap between its current funding sources and park needs.

Limit the Number of Park Units

In lieu of, or in conjunction with, permitting an increased flow of revenues to the parks, another alternative that could be considered—assuming stable funding levels—is limiting or perhaps even cutting back on the number of units in the national park system. To the extent that the system is permitted to grow, associated infrastructure and development needs will also grow. As this occurs, more park units will be competing for the limited federal funding that is available. One way to help ease the financial pressures now facing the national park system until current park conditions can be adequately addressed is to limit the number of parks added to the system, perhaps by implementing a more rigorous review and approval process or by better defining what types of units should be included. Another way to ease financial pressures is to reduce the number of units currently in the system, taking into account the costs, benefits, and savings that would be achieved by specific decisions. In commenting on this report, Park Service officials stated that substantial cost savings could only be achieved by closing some of the largest park units, which is unlikely.

Reductions in Visitor Services

Another alternative, in the absence of increased financial support, would be to reduce the level of visitor services provided by the parks to more closely match the level of services that can be realistically accomplished with available resources. This could include, for example, limiting operations to fewer hours per day or fewer days per year, limiting the number of visitors, or perhaps temporarily closing some facilities to public use.

The Park Service’s Management Can Better Focus Park Resources

Regardless of which, if any, of the choices mentioned above are made, the Park Service should seek to stretch available resources by operating more efficiently, continuing to improve financial management and performance measurement systems, and broadening the scope of its current restructuring plans. While these actions alone will probably not be sufficient to meet all of the Park Service’s funding needs, they should result in increased efficiencies so that the Park Service can do more under current funding levels.

As we reported earlier this year, our work, as well as that of Interior’s Inspector General, has shown that the Park Service lacks (1) necessary financial and program data on its operations, (2) adequate internal controls on how its funds are spent, and (3) performance measures on what is being accomplished with the money being spent. Accurate data and adequate financial controls are prerequisites for developing reliable management reports and measures of performance that could help the agency operate more efficiently. Accurate data, effective controls, and useful measures of performance would lower the agency’s costs by permitting managers to focus on results.

The Park Service has reached agreement with the Department of the Interior’s Inspector General on how to address the concerns relating to necessary financial data and adequate internal controls. The Park Service is currently implementing an accounting system improvement project plan agreed to by the Inspector General. Additionally, the Park Service is in the process of developing reliable performance measures.

With proper implementation of these management tools, the Park Service will be able to know (1) whether funds are being used for their intended purpose, (2) the nature and the extent of the problems associated with the resources it is mandated to protect and preserve, (3) the effectiveness of measures taken to deal with the problems, and (4) the activities and programs for which limited resources can be allocated to do the most good. The need for improved systems of performance management is particularly critical in light of the highly decentralized nature of the Park Service, where individual park managers have broad discretion to determine how to spend operating funds. Moreover, if the Park Service receives a broader revenue base by increasing fees, getting a higher return on concessioners’ contracts, and/or permitting park managers more flexibility to solicit funds by entering into partnerships with nonfederal entities, the need for better systems of performance management is even greater.

Another way the Park Service can stretch its resources is to broaden the scope of its current plan for restructuring the agency. To respond to the streamlining objectives of the administration’s NPR initiative, the Park Service has prepared and is currently implementing a restructuring plan. Essentially, the restructuring involves relocating some headquarters personnel to field units and decentralizing certain functions while at the same time protecting on-the-ground employees who deliver services directly to the public. This plan is to be implemented over the next 4 fiscal years.

As we testified in February 1995, we believe that the current plan should achieve some improvements; however, we are concerned that it does not go far enough because it only addresses gains to be derived from sharing resources within the Park Service. In our view, the current fiscal climate demands that the Park Service work with other federal land management agencies to reduce costs, increase efficiency, and improve service to the public by collocating or combining activities wherever possible. The Park Service has begun to do this with several agencies—federal, state, and local—and needs to continue to look beyond its own organizational boundaries and work closely with the Congress and other federal land management agencies to develop a coordinated interagency strategy to link Park Service reforms to reforms being proposed by other federal agencies. The ultimate goal of this strategy would be to coordinate and integrate the functions, systems, activities and programs of the Park Service with those of the other federal land management agencies so that they operate as a unit at the local level.

Moreover, as its restructuring plan proceeds, the Park Service is now being asked to respond to the second phase of the NPR initiative. This second phase, announced in January 1995, is asking the Park Service to identify functions and programs that it could terminate, privatize, or devolve to state or local governments. To the extent that these determinations result in relieving the Park Service of functions or programs not essential to its mission, costs should be reduced.

Conclusions

The national park system is at a crossroads. While more people are visiting parks, the scope and quality of the services available to these visitors are deteriorating. In addition, the National Park Service, as the steward for many of the nation’s natural and cultural treasures, has a myriad of problems to address, ranging from insufficient data on the conditions of resources to an ever-increasing, multibillion-dollar maintenance backlog. While the Park Service has recognized these problems and has taken some actions to address them, the magnitude of the problems calls for difficult choices to be made by the Park Service, the administration, and the Congress. Choosing among the various alternatives for funding and managing the parks will be difficult. However, unless choices are made, further cutbacks in visitor services will have to occur, and the Park Service’s ability to preserve and protect national treasures for the enjoyment of future generations may be in jeopardy. Regardless of which, if any, of these choices or combination of choices is made, the Park Service needs to continue to look for ways to stretch its resources by operating more efficiently and improving its financial management and performance measurement systems.

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

National Park Service officials provided both technical clarifications and substantive comments on this chapter. The report was revised to reflect their comments. Substantively, Park Service officials stated that increased appropriations is an alternative for dealing with the parks’ lack of adequate financial resources but that our report implied it was not. We agree that increased appropriations is a choice. However, we think it is an unlikely one in today’s tight fiscal climate and have revised the report accordingly. In addition, Park Service officials mentioned that private capital is another alternative to increase revenues. We agree; private capital is already addressed as part of our discussion of possible ways to increase the flow of revenues to the parks. Specifically, we note that donations and partnerships with private entities could help close the funding gap in the parks.

Park Service officials also commented that increasing fees at the national parks would not make the system self-sufficient, although they support the need for increased fees. They also said that there may be some units, such as Independence Hall, which should not charge fees because of their national significance. We agree that increasing fees is not going to fix all of the problems in the parks and have revised the report to reflect that point. We believe, however, that it is an alternative that can provide more revenue to parks. We also recognize that charging fees may be undesirable or infeasible at some units and have revised the report accordingly.

Park Service officials further commented on our discussion of limiting and/or reducing the number of park units. They said that there is no evidence that the addition of new units has taken away from resources for existing units. We believe that given the current tight fiscal climate, future growth in appropriations is unlikely; accordingly, new units would be competing for available funds. The officials also said that closing units could be costly and that the size of units likely to be closed may not provide substantial cost savings. We agree that net cost-savings should be considered in any closure decisions and have revised the report to reflect this. Park Service officials also said that to achieve any substantial cost savings, large units would have to be closed, which is unlikely. This comment has been reflected in the report.

Finally, Park Service officials identified efforts that they felt needed to be acknowledged in the report. We agree and have revised the report to acknowledge Park Service’s efforts in the areas of (1) developing various fee legislation proposals, (2) working in partnership with other agencies, and (3) addressing prior findings of the Inspector General relating to financial management and internal control issues.