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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. The following tables summarize the data collected from 12 selected park units including 2001 through 2005 total park unit labor expenditures; personnel levels by funding source; employee and labor cost per retirement system (CSRS and FERS); and funding levels by other funding source types. Table 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

Summary: 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. 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.