National Park Service: Major Operations Funding Trends and How	 
Selected Park Units Responded to Those Trends for Fiscal Years	 
2001 Through 2005 (31-MAR-06, GAO-06-431).			 
                                                                 
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.					 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-06-431 					        
    ACCNO:   A50638						        
  TITLE:     National Park Service: Major Operations Funding Trends   
and How Selected Park Units Responded to Those Trends for Fiscal 
Years 2001 Through 2005 					 
     DATE:   03/31/2006 
  SUBJECT:   Appropriated funds 				 
	     Budget administration				 
	     Fees						 
	     Financial analysis 				 
	     Financial management				 
	     Funds management					 
	     Land management					 
	     National parks					 
	     Strategic planning 				 
	     User fees						 
	     Operating expenses 				 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-06-431

     

     * Contents
          * Results in Brief
          * Background
          * Appropriations for the Operation of the National Park System
            Account Increased Overall from Fiscal Years 2001 to 2005; the
            Total...
               * Appropriations for the Operation of the National Park System
                 Account Increased Overall from Fiscal Years 2001 to 2005
               * Overall Allocations for Daily Operations for Park Units
                 Declined Slightly When Adjusted For Inflation
               * Daily Operations Allocations for Many Park Units Declined
                 after Adjusting for Inflation
               * Most of the Highly Visited Park Units Saw a Decline in
                 Allocations for Daily Operations after Adjusting for
                 Inflation
               * Allocations for Projects and Other Support Programs
                 Increased Overall Even after Adjusting for Inflation
               * Visitor Fees Also Used to Support Park Units
          * Allocation Trends for Projects and Daily Operations at 12 High-
            Visitation Park Units Varied, but All 12 Parks Reported Reduced
            Services and an Increasing Reliance on Other Authorized Sources
            to Supplement Daily Operations Allocations
               * All 12 Park Units Received Allocations For Projects
               * Allocations for Daily Operations at Most Park Units Declined
                 When Adjusted For Inflation
               * Increases in Operating Costs and New Park Service Management
                 Requirements May Affect Daily Operations
                    * Operating Cost Increases
                    * New Park Responsibilities Affected Management
                      Flexibility
               * Park Units Have Taken Various Actions to Address Trends in
                 Allocations for Daily Operations
               * Park Units Reduced or Eliminated Some Services
               * Park Units Used Other Authorized Funding Sources to Support
                 Park Service Operations
          * The Park Service Has Undertaken Three Management Initiatives to
            Address Fiscal Performance and Accountability of Park Units
               * Business Plan Initiative
               * Core Operations Analysis
               * Park Scorecard
          * Conclusions
          * Recommendation for Executive Action
          * Agency Comments and Our Response
     * Scope and Methodology
     * Operation of the National Park System Account and Visitor Fee Revenue,
       Fiscal Years 2001 through 2005
     * Summary of Funding and Personnel Trends for 12 Selected Park Units
     * Recreation Visitation Trends for the Park Service and 12 Selected Park
       Units, Fiscal Years 2001 through 2005
     * Comments from the Department of the Interior
          * GAO Comments
     * GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
     * Related GAO Products
          * Maintenance
          * Visitor Fees
               * Resource Management
          * Donations
          * Concessions
          * Housing
          * Other Management Issues
     * cov1&2.pdf
          * Report to Congressional Requesters
               * March 2006
          * NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
               * Major Operations Funding Trends and How Selected Park Units
                 Responded to Those Trends for Fiscal Years 2001 through 2005

Contents

Tables

Figures

March 31, 2006Letter

The Honorable Charles Taylor Chairman, Subcommittee on Interior,
Environment,      and Related Agencies Committee on Appropriations House
of Representatives

The Honorable Norman Dicks Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Interior,
Environment,      and Related Agencies Committee on Appropriations House
of Representatives

The National Park Service (Park Service) manages 390 park units covering
over 84 million acres that provide recreational and educational
opportunities-and numerous other benefits-to millions of visitors each
year. From 2001 to 2005, park units averaged a total of about 274 million
recreation visits per year. Visitors come to the park units to experience
such features as grand waterfalls, mountain vistas, canyons and gorges,
giant redwood trees, wildlife, historical landmarks such as Revolutionary
and Civil War battlefields, Native American dwellings and artifacts, and
memorials honoring veterans. Within its mandate to conserve park resources
and to provide for their enjoyment in a manner that leaves them unimpaired
for future generations, the Park Service provides a variety of visitor
services such as interpretative education films, guided tours, and
information centers where visitors can learn about the unique features of
the park units.

Congress provides funding for the Park Service through a number of
appropriations accounts; the largest is the Operation of the National Park
System (ONPS), which funds the management, operations, and maintenance of
park areas and facilities and the general administration of the Park
Service.1 Congress has made additional funding available by permitting the
Park Service to charge and retain recreation fees, referred to in this
report as "visitor fees." The Park Service also has, among other things,
authority to charge and retain concessions fees and to accept donations
and voluntary services. As with any federal program, the Park Service is
expected to manage within whatever level of funding is provided and to
allocate resources to its park units in a way that is both efficient and
effective in delivering services. The Park Service has chosen to allocate
funds to its park units in two categories-for daily operations, and for
specific, non-recurring projects. Park managers use funding for daily
operations to pay for visitor and resource protection, interpretation and
education, and facilities operations, among other things. About eighty
percent or more of the park units' daily operations funds pay for salaries
and benefits for staff to carry out these mission components, while the
remainder is used for overhead expenses such as utilities, supplies, and
training. The project-related portion provides funds for non-recurring
projects such as replacing roofs on park facilities or rehabilitating
campgrounds. Park managers generally use these project funds to pay
temporary employees or contractors to complete these projects.

In addition to providing the funding for daily operations and projects,
the Congress has enacted legislation authorizing park units to collect
visitor fees to provide additional funds to use for specified park
operations. Visitor fees have been used, for example, to construct
roadside exhibits and to rehabilitate boat launch facilities. The Park
Service has recently set a goal to spend the majority of its visitor fees
on reducing its estimated $5 billion deferred maintenance backlog. The
Congress also authorizes the Park Service to receive revenues from other
sources to assist it in performing its mission. These can include fees
from concessionaires under contract to perform services at park units,
such as operating a lodge, and cash or non-monetary donations from
non-profit organizations or individuals, among others.

In recent years, concerns over the deteriorating condition of the national
parks have received increasing attention. Some reports prepared by
advocacy groups cite a lack of sufficient staff and financial resources
necessary to effectively operate park units. They report problems such as
dwindling visitor services, crumbling buildings, and threatened resources
at many park units including the Everglades, Gettysburg, Great Smoky
Mountains, Olympic, Yellowstone, and others. Some of these reports argue
that the purchasing power of the park units' funding has been weakened due
to inflation and required employee pay and benefit increases that were not
accounted for in their daily operations funding. Some contend that other
funds, such as donations, are being used to fund operational activities
that they believe should be paid with funding for daily operations.
However, the Department of the Interior stated that the Park Service's
operating funds have increased significantly from 1980 through 2005,
particularly when compared to other domestic federal agencies.

To gain a better understanding of funding issues and their effects on the
park units, you asked us to identify (1) funding trends for Park Service
operations and visitor fees for fiscal years 2001 through 2005; (2)
specific funding trends for several high-visitation park units and how, if
at all, these funding trends have affected operations, including the park
units' ability to provide services, for fiscal years 2001 through 2005;
and (3) recent management initiatives the Park Service has undertaken to
address the fiscal performance and accountability of park units.

To identify funding trends for Park Service operations and visitor fees
from fiscal years 2001 through 2005, we obtained and analyzed
appropriations legislation, data on the Park Service's allocation of funds
from the ONPS Account, and data on visitor fees. We analyzed the data in
both nominal (actual) and real (adjusted for inflation) terms.2 A "nominal
dollar" is the value of a dollar in the prices of the current year, or for
purposes of this analysis, the year in which a dollar is appropriated. A
"real dollar" is a dollar that has been adjusted to remove the effects of
inflation by dividing the nominal dollar by a price index. Appropriations
are made in nominal, or current-year, dollars. The purpose of showing
dollars in inflation-adjusted terms is to permit comparisons of purchasing
power. To determine funding trends for selected individual park units and
how these trends affected the park units' ability to provide services to
visitors, we selected 12 park units based on visitation, regional
diversity, and preliminary data on allocations for daily operations. We
visited the 12 park units, gathered and analyzed nominal and real funding
and cost data and interviewed park officials to determine allocation
trends and their impact on operations (including visitor services). Our
analysis represents our findings at these 12 parks units and the results
may or may not be representative of the individual experiences of other
park units or the experience of the National Park System as a whole. To
identify recent management initiatives the Park Service has under way to
address fiscal performance and accountability for fiscal years 2001 to
2005, we gathered and reviewed documentation on several management
initiatives and interviewed Park Service headquarters, regional office,
and individual park unit officials. We assessed the reliability of the
data by reviewing the methods of data collection for relevant Park Service
databases. We also sent uniform data requests to the 12 park units,
provided uniform guidance, and interactively worked with park officials to
compile the data. We determined that the data are sufficiently reliable
for the purposes of this report. A more detailed description of our scope
and methodology is presented in appendix I. We performed our work from
January 2005 to March 2006 in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards.

Results in Brief

Overall, amounts appropriated to the Park Service in the Operation of the
National Park System account increased from fiscal years 2001 through
2005. The amounts appropriated rose from about $1.4 billion in fiscal year
2001 to almost $1.7 billion in fiscal year 2005-an average annual increase
of about 5 percent, or about 1 percent when adjusted for inflation. The
Park Service makes this appropriation available to park units by
allocating amounts for daily operations and for projects. In
inflation-adjusted terms, the Park Service's allocation for daily
operations declined slightly while the project-related allocations
increased. The amount the Park Service allocated for daily operations for
park units rose from about $903 million in fiscal year 2001 to almost
$1.03 billion in fiscal year 2005-an average annual increase of about 3
percent, but a slight decline of 0.3 percent when adjusted for inflation.
The fiscal year 2005 appropriation for the Operation of the National Park
System Account included an additional $37.5 million over the amounts
proposed by the House and Senate for the Operation of the National Park
System Account, to be used for daily operations. The conference report
accompanying the appropriation stated that the additional amount was to be
used for (1) a service-wide increase of $25 million and (2) $12.5 million
for visitor services programs at specific park units. Allocations for
daily operations varied across parks. Allocations to 212 of the 380 units
fell in inflation-adjusted terms by an average of about 2 percent annually
while the other 168 remained level or increased. In allocating resources
to park units, the Park Service increased funding for project-related
activities at a higher rate than for park daily operations.
Project-related allocations increased overall in both nominal and
inflation-adjusted dollars. Total project-related allocations rose from
$478 million in 2001 to $641 million in 2005, an average annual increase
of about 8 percent, or about 4 percent in inflation-adjusted dollars.
Three programs that provide project funding for individual park
units-Cyclic Maintenance, Repair and Rehabilitation, and Inventory and
Monitoring-account for over half of the increase for the project and
support program allocations. Increases in cyclic maintenance and repair
and rehabilitation programs reflect an emphasis on the effort for the Park
Service to reduce its estimated $5 billion deferred maintenance backlog.
Increases in inventory and monitoring program reflect an emphasis to
protect natural resources primarily through an initiative called the
Natural Resource Challenge. In addition to this funding, the Park Service
collected a total of about $717 million in visitor fees from fiscal years
2001 through 2005-or about $670 million when adjusted for inflation. On an
average annual basis, visitor fees collected increased about 1 percent, a
2 percent decline in inflation-adjusted dollars.

All park units that we visited received project-related allocations
between fiscal years 2001 through 2005 but for most park units the
allocations for daily operations fell in inflation-adjusted terms.
Allocations of project-related funds at the 12 high-visitation park units
we visited varied from year-to-year. For example, at Grand Canyon National
Park allocations increased (in nominal dollars) from $824,000 in 2001 to
$1.9 million in 2004, and then declined to $914,000 in 2005. Although
funds allocated for daily operations increased from 2001 through 2005 at
all 12 park units we visited, 8 of the 12 experienced a decline, and 4
experienced an increase, in daily operations allocations when adjusted for
inflation. Park managers at all 12 reported their allocations were not
sufficient to address increases in operating costs, such as salary and
benefit increases and rising utility costs; and new Park Service
requirements directed at reducing its deferred maintenance needs,
implementing its asset management strategy, and maintaining law
enforcement levels. Officials also stated that these factors reduced their
management flexibility. As a result, park unit managers reported that, to
varying degrees, they made trade-offs among the operational activities
which, in some cases, resulted in reducing services in areas such as
education, visitor and resource protection, and maintenance activities;
managers also increasingly relied on volunteers and other authorized
funding sources to provide operations and services that were previously
paid with allocations for daily operations. In commenting on a draft of
this report, the Department of Interior said that the report creates a
misleading impression concerning the state of park operations in that (1)
record high levels of funds are being invested to staff and improve parks,
and (2) the report does not examine the results achieved with these
inputs. The department also believes that while employment levels at
individual park units may have fluctuated for many reasons, employment
servicewide was stable, including both seasonal and permanent employees.
We believe, however, that the report provides a detailed analysis of the
major funding trends affecting Park Service operations, including those at
the 12 park units we visited, as well as Interior's initiatives and
efforts to achieve results.

In an effort to reduce its estimated $5 billion maintenance backlog, the
Park Service set a goal to spend a majority of its visitor fees on
deferred maintenance projects. While the Park Service could use visitor
fees to pay salaries for permanent staff that manage and administer
projects funded with visitor fees, it has a policy prohibiting such use.
Instead, these salaries are paid using allocations for daily operations,
which reduces the amount of the allocation available for visitor services
and other activities and limits the park units' ability to maintain these
services and activities. Park Service headquarters officials recognize the
strain that its policy has had on daily operations funding. Park Service
headquarters officials said that its policy was first established under
the original visitor fee program because the authority was temporary and
it did not want park units to hire more permanent staff than were needed.
In addition, officials stated that it wanted visitor fees to go towards
projects that provided visible results rather than permanent staff.
However, given that Congress has recently provided longer-term authority
(10 years) for collecting visitor fees, headquarters officials stated that
they are considering changing this policy. To alleviate the pressure on
allocations for daily operations, we believe it would be appropriate for
the Park Service to follow through with revising this policy. In
commenting on a draft of this report, the Department of the Interior
suggested the recommendation be modified to clearly dictate that fee
revenues be used to fund only a limited number of permanent employees and
be specifically defined for the sole purpose of executing projects funded
from fee revenues. We believe that the recommendation, as written,
provides sufficient latitude for the department to define how to implement
the recommendation.

In response to daily operations allocation trends, increased costs, and
new policy requirements, parks reported that they either eliminated or
reduced services, or relied on other authorized funding sources to pay
operating expenses that have historically been paid for from the
allocations for daily operations. Because allocations for daily operations
did not increase commensurately with rising costs, officials at the park
units we visited stated that they absorbed these additional costs by
reducing spending on personnel and other expenditures. Since personnel
costs account for a large percentage of a park's daily operations budget,
officials told us they have refrained from filling vacant positions or
have filled them with lower-graded or seasonal employees. Park officials
also told us that they reduced services including, reducing visitor center
hours, educational programs, basic custodial duties, and law enforcement
operations, such as back-country patrolling. Officials at park units also
stated that they increasingly relied on volunteers and nonprofit partner
organizations to provide information and educational programs to visitors;
traditionally these activities were offered by park rangers. For example,
at Badlands National Park, officials stated that approximately 65 percent
of visitor contacts in 2004 were provided by employees of the park's
nonprofit partner-the Badlands Natural History Association-compared to 45
percent in 2001. Park unit officials explained, however, that relying on
volunteers and other authorized funding sources such as donations can be
problematic because there is no guarantee that funds and staff from these
sources will be available in the future, and partner priorities could
change from year to year.

We identified three management initiatives that the Park Service has
undertaken to address fiscal performance and accountability and to better
manage within their available resources: the Business Plan Initiative
(BPI), the Core Operations Analysis (COA), and the Park Scorecard. These
initiatives are in varying stages of development and implementation.
Specifically:

o Through the BPI process, park unit managers-with the help of outside
business interns-identify all sources and uses of park funding to
determine levels needed to operate and manage their park units. Using this
information, park unit managers develop a business plan to address any
gaps between available funds and park unit needs. The Park Service does
not require park units to participate, but about 25 percent of all park
units have participated in the process. All 12 of the park units we
visited have completed a business plan, and many officials stated that the
plans are useful, by helping them better identify future budget needs.
Park Service officials stated that they are still refining their processes
for developing these plans.

o The COA was developed in 2004 to assist park unit managers in
identifying efficiencies for carrying out their core mission. Through a
step-by-step process, park unit, regional, and headquarters officials
evaluate the park unit's core mission, and identify essential park unit
activities and associated funding levels. Although the COA is in the early
stages of development, the Park Service plans to have all units complete
an analysis by the end of fiscal year 2011. Three of the 12 park units we
visited have completed-or are in the process of completing-a COA. Park
unit officials noted that the preliminary results have helped them better
determine where efficiencies in operations might accrue, but it is too
early to determine what benefits their park units will realize from the
process.

o Park Service headquarters developed the Park Scorecard in 2004 to
provide an overarching summary of each park unit's fiscal and operational
condition and managerial performance. The Park Scorecard analyzes
individual park units by comparing them to one another based on broad
financial-, organizational-, recreational-, and resource-management
criteria. Although it is still being developed, the Park Service budget
office stated that the Park Scorecard played a role in allocating the
$12.5 million that the conference report accompanying the fiscal year 2005
ONPS Account had directed at visitor service programs. The Park Service
plans to refine the Park Scorecard to better identify, evaluate, and
support future budget increases for park units.

Background

The Park Service is the caretaker of many of the nation's most precious
natural and cultural resources. Today, more than 130 years after the first
national park was created, the National Park System has grown to include
390 units covering over 84 million acres in 49 states, the District of
Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, Saipan, and the Virgin
Islands. The Park Service manages its responsibilities through
headquarters, seven regional offices, and its individual park units. These
units include a diverse mix of sites-now in more than 20 different
categories. These include (1) national parks, such as Yellowstone in
Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming; Yosemite in California; and Grand Canyon in
Arizona; (2) national historical parks, such as Harper's Ferry in
Maryland, Virginia, and West Virginia; and Valley Forge in Pennsylvania;
(3) national battlefields, such as Antietam in Maryland; (4) national
historic sites such as Ford's Theatre in Washington, D.C.; and Carl
Sandburg's home in North Carolina; (5) national monuments, such as Fort
Sumter in South Carolina; and the Statue of Liberty in New York and New
Jersey; (6) national preserves, such as Yukon-Charley Rivers in Alaska;
and (7) national recreation areas, such as Lake Mead in Arizona and
Nevada. Some of these park units, such as Yellowstone, cover millions of
acres and employ hundreds of employees. Other units, such as Ford's
Theatre which encompasses two historic structures, are small and have few
employees.

The Park Service's mission is to preserve unimpaired the natural and
cultural resources of the National Park System for the enjoyment of this
and future generations. Its objectives include providing for the use of
the 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.3 Since 2002, the Park Service has required park units to spend the
majority of their visitor fees on deferred maintenance projects, such as
road or building repair. The Park Service also receives revenue from
concessionaires under contract to perform services at park units-such as
operating a lodge-and cash or non-monetary donations from non-profit
organizations or individuals, among others. For example, as we reported in
July 2003, about 200 cooperating associations and "friends groups" helped
support 347 park units, contributing over $200 million from 1997 to 2001.4
These funds may vary from year to year and, in the case of donations, may
be accompanied by stipulations on how the funds may be used.

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

Figure 1: Principal Operations Funding Sources for National Park Units

Note: Offsetting collections, such as the fees that park units collect and
retain, reimbursables, and the gift authority authorizing the park units
to retain donations and contributions, are a form of appropriation.

Appropriations for the Operation of the National Park System Account
Increased Overall from Fiscal Years 2001 to 2005; the Total Allocation for
Daily Operations Declined Overall and the Total Allocation for Projects
Increased Overall When Adjusted For Inflation

Total appropriations for the ONPS account increased overall in both
nominal and inflation-adjusted dollars from fiscal year 2001 through 2005.
However, the agency allocated funds such that, in inflation-adjusted
terms, the total allocation for daily operations from these appropriations
fell slightly overall, while the total allocation for projects increased
overall. About 56 percent of the individual park units and about 74
percent of the more highly visited parks experienced an overall decline in
their allocation for daily operations when adjusted for inflation during
this period. The agency allocated funding for projects at a higher rate
than for daily operations.

Appropriations for the Operation of the National Park System Account
Increased Overall from Fiscal Years 2001 to 2005

As shown in figure 2, overall appropriations for the ONPS
account-including the amounts the Park Service allocated for daily
operations and projects-rose in both nominal and inflation-adjusted
dollars overall from fiscal years 2001 through 2005. Nominal dollars
increased from about $1.4 billion in fiscal year 2001 to almost $1.7
billion in fiscal year 2005, an average annual increase of about 4.9
percent (i.e., about $68 million per year). After adjusting these amounts
for inflation, the average annual increase was about 1.3 percent or almost
$18 million per year.5 By contrast, the Park Service's overall budget
authority increased to about $2.7 billion in 2005 from about $2.6 billion
in 2001, an average increase of about 1 percent per year. In inflation
adjusted dollars, the total budget authority fell by an average of about
2.5 percent per year.

Figure 2: Appropriations for the Operation of the National Park System
Account from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2005

Note: Totals for ONPS do not include Park Service spending authority for
offsetting collections, in nominal terms, of $17 million in fiscal year
2001, $18 million in fiscal year 2002, $17 million in fiscal year 2003,
$21 million in fiscal year 2004, and $21 million in fiscal year 2005.These
offsetting collections are reimbursements from other federal or state
entities that are credited to this account. Visitor fee revenues, which
are deposited in a separate account, are included in figure 7.

With the increases in appropriations for the ONPS account, the Park
Service increased allocations for projects and other support programs such
as the Repair and Rehabilitation, Cyclic Maintenance, and Inventory and
Monitoring programs, among others. The overall allocation for daily
operations, on the other hand, declined slightly on average when adjusted
for inflation.

Overall Allocations for Daily Operations for Park Units Declined Slightly
When Adjusted For Inflation

The Park Service's total allocation for daily operations for park units
increased overall in nominal dollars but the total allocation fell
slightly when adjusted for inflation from fiscal years 2001 through 2005.
As illustrated in figure 3, overall allocations for daily operations for
park units rose from about $903 million in fiscal year 2001 to almost
$1.03 billion in fiscal year 2005-an average annual increase of about $30
million, or about 3 percent. After adjusting for inflation, the allocation
for daily operations fell slightly from about $903 million in 2001 to
about $893 million in 2005-an average annual decline of about $2.5
million, or 0.3 percent. The fiscal year 2005 appropriation for the ONPS
account included an additional $37.5 million over the amounts proposed by
the House and Senate for the ONPS account, to be used for daily
operations. The conference report accompanying the appropriation stated
that the additional amount was to be used for (1) a service-wide increase
of $25 million and (2) $12.5 million for visitor services programs at
specific park units.

Figure 3: Overall Allocations for Daily Operations for Park Units from
Fiscal Years 2001 through 2005

Note: Funding for daily operations include amounts for park units only,
and do not include allocations for the national trail system, other field
offices, and affiliated areas. Appendix II contains figures for daily
operations for these.

Daily Operations Allocations for Many Park Units Declined after Adjusting
for Inflation

Of the 380 park units that received funding for daily operations for the
entire period of our review, 212 (or about 56 percent), saw an average
annual decline in inflation-adjusted terms of about 2 percent.6 The
declines ranged from less than 0.1 percent at the Mary McLeod Bethune
Council House National Historic Site to about 5.2 percent at Petroglyph
National Monument.7 The remaining 168 park units' daily operations funding
trends were either flat or increasing from 2001 through 2005, with the
largest increase being about 39 percent at Rosie the Riveter/WWII Home
Front National Historic Park. Figure 4 shows the number of park units and
their respective average annual percent changes in daily operations
allocations from 2001 through 2005.

Figure 4: Number of Park Units for Different Average Annual Percent
Changes in Inflation-Adjusted Terms in Allocations for Daily Operations
from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2005

Note: This analysis includes 380 park units of varying sizes; therefore,
the average annual change in daily operations allocations from fiscal year
2001 to 2005 may affect park units differently.

The park units for which figure 4 shows declines in inflation-adjusted
dollars allocated for daily operations include most of the park units with
large allocations for daily operations. These 212 park units represented
about 69 percent of the total allocation for daily operations for all park
units in fiscal year 2001 and about 64 percent in fiscal year 2005.
Conversely, the 168 park units for which figure 4 shows increases in
inflation-adjusted terms in allocations for daily operations represented
about 31 percent of the total allocations for daily operations for all
units in fiscal year 2001 and about 36 percent in fiscal year 2005.

Allocations for Projects and Other Support Programs Increased Overall Even
after Adjusting for Inflation

Allocations for projects and other support programs increased overall in
both nominal and inflation-adjusted dollars.9 As figure 5 illustrates,
these allocations rose from about $478 million in 2001 to about $641
million in 2005-an average annual increase of about 7.7 percent, or about
$36.5 million. When adjusted for inflation, the increase was 3.9 percent,
or about $18.7 million per year. Figure 5 shows allocation trends of
projects and other support programs for the Park Service from fiscal years
2001 through 2005.

Figure 5: Project and Other Support Program Allocations from Fiscal Years
2001 through 2005

Three programs that include project funding for individual park
units-Cyclic Maintenance, Repair and Rehabilitation, and Inventory and
Monitoring-account for over half of the increase for the project and
support program allocations. As a percentage of total project and support
program funding, funding for these programs rose to 31 percent in 2005
from 23 percent in 2001. For example, cyclic maintenance program funding
increased from $34.5 million in 2001 to $62.8 million in 2005-an average
annual increase of 16.2 percent in nominal terms or 12.1 percent when
adjusted for inflation. Increases in the Cyclic Maintenance and Repair and
Rehabilitation programs reflect an emphasis on the effort for the Park
Service to reduce its estimated $5 billion maintenance backlog. Increases
in the Inventory and Monitoring Program reflect an emphasis on protecting
natural resources primarily through an initiative called the Natural
Resource Challenge.10 Table 2 shows funding for these three programs from
fiscal years 2001 through 2005.

Table 2: Allocations for Cyclic Maintenance, Repair and Rehabilitation,
and Inventory and Monitoring Programs from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2005

In millions                                                          
                                 2001  2002  2003  2004  2005   Average 
                                                                 annual 
                                                                 change 
                                                              (percent) 
Cyclic          Nominal            $34.5 $32.3 $51.9 $65.1     $62.8 16.2% 
Maintenancea    Inflation-adjusted  34.5  31.3  48.9  58.8      85.4  12.1 
Repair and      Nominal             58.5  72.6  84.4  94.4      95.1  12.9 
Rehabilitationb Inflation-adjusted  58.5  70.3  79.5  85.4      82.6   9.0 
Inventory and   Nominal             17.5  21.8  32.4  36.9      39.6  22.6 
Monitoring                                                           
Program         Inflation-adjusted  17.5  21.1  30.5  33.4      34.4  18.3 

Source: GAO analysis of Park Service data.

aCyclic Maintenance figures include those for both the regular Cyclic
Maintenance program and the Cyclic Maintenance for Historic Properties
program.

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

Allocations for other support programs had smaller increases or declined.
For example, allocations for central offices-seven regional offices and
the headquarters office-increased by less than 1 percent on an average
annual basis when adjusted for inflation.

Between fiscal years 2001 and 2005, the share of the ONPS account
allocated to daily operations fell slightly, indicating a slight change in
emphasis toward project-related programs for park units. In fiscal year
2001, about 65 percent of the Park Service's appropriations from the ONPS
account were allocated for daily operations. By 2004, the allocation for
daily operations had fallen to about 60 percent, increasing slightly to
about 62 percent for fiscal year 2005. Figure 6 shows the trend for the
ratio of daily operations allocations to overall funding for operations
for fiscal years 2001 through 2005.

Figure 6: Park Service Allocations for Daily Operations as a Percent of
the Operation of the National Park System Account from Fiscal Years 2001
through 2005

Visitor Fees Also Used to Support Park Units

As shown in figure 7, total visitor fees collected by the Park Service
increased from about $140 million in 2001 to about $147 million in 2005
(an average annual increase of about 1 percent); however, in
inflation-adjusted dollars, the fees fell to about $127 million in 2005
(an average annual decline of over 2 percent). Overall, the Park Service
collected about $717 million in visitor fees in addition to their annual
appropriation for operations from 2001 through 2005-an average of about
$143 million per year. When adjusted for inflation, these visitor fees
total about $670 million-an average of about $134 million per year.
Visitor fee revenue depends on several factors, including the number of
visitors to each park unit, the number of national passes purchased, and
the amount each park charges for entry and services.

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

Note: Visitor fee revenues include revenue collected from the Recreational
Fee Program and the National Parks Passport program.

Allocation Trends for Projects and Daily Operations at 12 High-Visitation
Park Units Varied, but All 12 Parks Reported Reduced Services and an
Increasing Reliance on Other Authorized Sources to Supplement Daily
Operations Allocations

All 12 park units we visited received allocations for projects from fiscal
years 2001 through 2005 that varied among years and among park units.
Allocations for daily operations for the 12 park units we visited also
varied. On an average annual basis, each unit experienced an increase in
daily operations allocations, but most experienced a decline in
inflation-adjusted terms. Officials at each park believed that their daily
operations allocations were not sufficient to address increases in
operating costs and new Park Service management requirements. To manage
within available funding resources, park unit managers also reported that,
to varying degrees, they made trade-offs among the operational
activities-which in some cases resulted in reducing services in areas such
as education, visitor and resource protection, and maintenance activities.
Park officials also reported that they increasingly relied on volunteers
and other authorized funding sources to provide operations and services
that were previously paid with allocations for daily operations from the
ONPS account.

All 12 Park Units Received Allocations For Projects

Each of the 12 park units received allocations for projects from 2001
through 2005.11 Park units use project-related allocations for such things
as rehabilitating structures, roads, and trails and inventorying and
monitoring natural resources. The allocations for projects at the 12 park
units totaled $76.8 million from 2001 through 2005. Allocations varied
from park to park and year to year because these allocations support
non-recurring projects for which park units are required to compete and
obtain approval from Park Service headquarters or regional offices. For
example, at Grand Canyon National Park, allocations for projects between
2001 and 2005 totaled $6.7 million. However during that time the amount
fluctuated from $824,000 in 2001 to $1.9 million in 2004 and $914,000 in
2005. Table 3 shows project-related allocations and their fluctuations
from fiscal years 2001 through 2005 for the 12 park units we visited.

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

                 Dollars in                                                  
                 thousands                                                   
                                           Fiscal              
                                           years               
Park unit                          2001   2002  2003   2004  2005   Total 
Acadia NP     Nominal              $385   $772  $699 $1,237  $481  $3,574 
                 Inflation-adjusted    385    747   659  1,119   417   3,327 
Badlands NP   Nominal               217    130   689    647 1,394   3,077 
                 Inflation-adjusted    217    126   649    585 1,210   2,787 
Bryce Canyon  Nominal               531    365   357    433   402   2,088 
NP                                                                        
                 Inflation-adjusted    531    353   336    391   349   1,960 
Gettysburg    Nominal             7,551    638   753  1,296 1,324  11,562 
NMP                                                                       
                 Inflation-adjusted  7,551    618   709  1,172 1,150  11,200 
Grand Canyon  Nominal               824  1,550 1,173  2,125 1,053   6,725 
NP                                                                        
                 Inflation-adjusted    824  1,500 1,106  1,922   914   6,266 
Grand Teton   Nominal               861    423 1,327  1,233 2,070   5,914 
NP                                                                        
                 Inflation-adjusted    861    409 1,250  1,115 1,797   5,432 
Mount         Nominal               271    118   113    146   696   1,344 
Rushmore NMem                                                             
                 Inflation-adjusted    271    114   107    132   604   1,228 
Shenandoah NP Nominal             1,409    781   647    862 2,393   6,092 
                 Inflation-adjusted  1,409    756   610    779 2,078   5,632 
Sequoia and   Nominal             2,038  2,859 3,364  2,927 2,760  13,948 
Kings Canyon                                                              
NP                                                                        
                 Inflation-adjusted  2,038  2,768 3,171  2,647 2,396  13,020 
Yellowstone   Nominal                43      4     9     12 3,128   3,196 
NP                                                                        
                 Inflation-adjusted     43      4     8     11 2,716   2,782 
Yosemite NP   Nominal             3,620  2,718 4,034  3,532 3,778  17,682 
                 Inflation-adjusted  3,620  2,631 3,802  3,194 3,280  16,527 
Zion NP       Nominal                 0    103   310    195 1,000   1,608 
                 Inflation-adjusted      0    100   292    176   868   1,436 

Legend

NP = National Park NMP = National Military Park NMem = National Memorial

Source: GAO analysis of Park Service data.

The following examples illustrate projects that have been completed using
these funds:

o 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.

o 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.

o 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.

o 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.

o Yellowstone National Park received a total of $3.2 million in project
allocations. Projects included $170,000 to repair thermal area walkways,
and $290,000 to rehabilitate roads in the Madison area of the park.

As with allocations for projects from fiscal years 2001 through 2005,
allocations for daily operations for the 12 park units we visited also
varied.

Allocations for Daily Operations at Most Park Units Declined When Adjusted
For Inflation

All 12 park units experienced an annual average increase in allocations
for daily operations, however when adjusted for inflation, 8 of the 12
parks we visited experienced a decline ranging from less than one percent
to approximately 3 percent. For example, Yosemite National Park's daily
operations allocations increased from $22,583,000 in 2001 to $22,714,000
in 2005, less than an average of 1 percent per year. However, when
adjusted for inflation, the park's allocation for daily operations fell by
about 3 percent per year. Daily operations allocations at the remaining
four parks increased after adjusting for inflation, ranging from less than
1 percent to about 7 percent. For example, Acadia National Park's daily
operations allocations increased from $4,279,000 in fiscal year 2001 to
$6,498,000 in fiscal year 2005, an average annual increase of about 11
percent in nominal terms and about 7 percent when adjusted for inflation.
Park officials explained that although the daily operations allocation
substantially increased over this period, most of the increase was for new
or additional operations. To illustrate, in 2002, Acadia acquired the
former Schoodic Naval Base. The increases in allocations for daily
operations were to accommodate this added responsibility rather than for
maintaining operations that were in existence prior to the acquisition. In
addition, park officials at Mount Rushmore National Memorial reported that
most of their increases for daily operations were to increase law
enforcement staff to address new homeland security measures following the
September 11, 2001, attacks. Tables 4 and 5 show allocations for daily
operations and average annual increases or declines for the 12 park units
we visited, from fiscal years 2001 through 2005.

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

Dollars in                                                
thousands                                                 
                       Daily                  
                    operations                
                    allocations               
Park unit               2001   2002   2003   2004   2005    Average annual 
                                                             change (percent) 
Acadia NP             $4,279 $5,708 $6,386 $6,349 $6,498             11.0% 
Badlands NP            2,996  3,055  3,063  3,056  3,417               3.3 
Bryce Canyon NP        2,607  2,671  2,681  2,674  2,768               1.5 
Gettysburg NMP         5,044  5,177  5,195  5,174  5,483               2.1 
Grand Canyon NP       18,199 18,594 18,916 18,567 18,921               1.0 
Grand Teton NP         8,559  8,670  9,082  9,258 10,290               4.7 
Mt. Rushmore           2,473  2,532  2,903  3,315  3,727              10.8 
NMem                                                      
Sequoia and           12,234 13,039 13,018 12,903 13,308               2.1 
Kings Canyon NP                                           
Shenandoah NP         10,253 10,488 10,535 10,169 10,406              0.40 
Yellowstone NP        25,122 27,112 27,669 28,116 29,845               4.4 
Yosemite NP           22,583 23,142 23,142 23,128 22,714              0.14 
Zion NP                5,605  5,978  6,014  6,008  6,153               2.4 

Legend

NP=National Park NMP=National Military Park NMem=National Memorial

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

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

     Dollars in    
      thousands    
                       Daily                  
                    operations                
                    allocations               
Park unit               2001   2002   2003   2004   2005    Average annual 
                                                             change (percent) 
Acadia NP             $4,279 $5,525 $6,019 $5,741 $5,041              7.2% 
Badlands NP            2,996  2,957  2,887  2,880  2,966             -0.25 
Bryce Canyon NP        2,607  2,586  2,527  2,418  2,403              -2.0 
Gettysburg NMP         5,044  5,011  4,896  4,679  4,760              -1.4 
Grand Canyon NP       18,199 17,999 17,828 16,790 16,426              -2.5 
Grand Teton NP         8,559  8,393  8,560  8,372  8,933               1.1 
Mt. Rushmore           2,473  2,451  2,736  2,998  3,236               7.0 
NMem                                                      
Sequoia and           12,234 12,622 12,269 11,668 11,553              -1.4 
Kings Canyon NP                                           
Shenandoah NP         10,253 10,152  9,929  9,196  9,034              -3.1 
Yellowstone NP        25,122 26,245 26,078 25,426 25,910              0.78 
Yosemite NP           22,583 22,402 21,811 20,915 19,719              -3.3 
Zion NP                5,605  5,787  5,668  5,433  5,342              -1.2 

Legend

NP=National Park NMP=National Military Park NMem=National Memorial

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

Increases in Operating Costs and New Park Service Management Requirements
May Affect Daily Operations

Despite increases in inflation-adjusted allocations for daily operations
at 4 of the 12 park units visited, officials at all 12 park units
explained that this funding did not increase commensurately with increases
in operating costs and new management requirements. Park unit officials
explained that these factors have reduced their flexibility in addressing
other park priorities.

Operating Cost Increases

Park unit officials reported that required salary increases exceeded the
allocation for daily operations, and rising utility costs have reduced
their flexibility in managing daily operations allocations. Park Service
headquarters officials reported that from 2001 through 2005, the Park
Service paid personnel cost increases enacted by the Congress. For
example, from fiscal years 2001 through 2005, Congress enacted salary
increases of about 4 percent per year for federal employees. Park Service
officials reported that the Park Service covered these salary increases
with appropriations provided in the ONPS account. The Park Service
allocated amounts to cover about half of the required increases and park
units had to reduce spending to compensate for the difference. The
consequence of the increases was that park units had to eliminate or defer
spending in order to accommodate the increases. For example, officials at
Gettysburg National Military Park stated that they achieved personnel cost
savings by taking a number of actions to reduce spending, including
refraining from filling-and delaying filling-several permanent and
seasonal vacancies. Park officials said they estimate the personnel cost
savings from 2002 through 2005 was about $1,434,781, in inflation-adjusted
terms. Total personnel expenditures at the park unit declined from
$4,460,000 in 2001 to $4,143,000 in 2005-an average annual decline of
about 2 percent, in inflation-adjusted terms.12 In contrast, at Mount
Rushmore National Memorial, total personnel expenditures increased from
$2,014,000 in 2001 to $2,552,000 in 2005-or an average of about 6 percent
per year. Officials said that the increase was due to required salary
increases for permanent staff and expenditures on new personnel hired for
homeland security measures. As shown in table 6, expenditures for
personnel from 2001 through 2005 increased for seven park units, and
declined for the other five units, after adjusting for inflation.

Table 6: Average Annual Change in Personnel Expenditures and Personnel
Funded with Allocations from Daily Operations from Fiscal Years 2001
through 2005 in Inflation-Adjusted Dollars

     Dollars in                                                              
     thousands                                                               
                       Personnel             Personnel 
                    expenditures (in          (FTEsa)  
                       thousands)                      
     Park units                  2001   2005   Average  2001 2005   Average 
                                                annual               annual 
                                                change               change 
                                             (percent)            (percent) 
Acadia NP                   $3,524 $4,613       7.0    69   83      4.7% 
Badlands NP                  2,273  2,256      -0.2    48   41      -3.7 
Bryce Canyon                 2,204  2,002      -2.4    40   35      -3.0 
NP                                                                       
Gettysburg NMP               4,460  4,143      -1.8    84   69      -4.7 
Grand Canyon                13,409 12,614      -1.5   231  227      -0.4 
NP                                                                       
Grand Teton NP               6,509  6,724       0.8   132  121      -2.2 
Mt. Rushmore                 2,014  2,552       6.1    42   42       0.1 
NMem                                                                     
Sequoia and                  9,164  9,202       0.1   201  188      -1.6 
Kings Canyon                                                             
NP                                                                       
Shenandoah NP                8,578  7,617      -2.9   180  133      -7.3 
Yellowstone NP              17,587 19,161       2.2   338  351       1.0 
Yosemite NP                 17,602 17,748       0.2   361  317      -3.2 
Zion NP                      4,268  4,422       9.0    83   90       2.1 

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

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

Personnel costs (salaries and benefits) comprised an average of 74 to 89
percent of the total operating expenses at these 12 park units; therefore
officials said that it is difficult to offset increases in personnel costs
without reducing personnel. Officials at several park units told us that
since 2001, they have refrained from filling vacant positions or have
filled them with lower-graded or seasonal employees. For example, in an
effort to continue to perform activities that directly impact
visitors-such as cleaning restrooms and answering visitor
questions-officials at Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks stated that
they left several high-graded positions unfilled in order to hire a lower
graded workforce to perform these basic operational duties. Officials at
most park units also told us that when positions were left vacant, the
responsibilities of the remaining staff generally increased in order to
fulfill park obligations.

Park Service budget officials told us that they expect personnel costs to
continue to grow faster than any increases in allocations for personnel in
fiscal years 2006 and 2007. As a result, they said that in some cases the
parks may choose to hire seasonal employees or contract out more duties
than fill vacant positions. Table 7 shows the average annual percentage of
daily operations funding that the 12 park units we visited spent on
personnel costs.

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

Park unit                     2001  2002  2003 2004 2005 Average 2001-2005 
Acadia NP                      84%   75%   77%  81%  84%               80% 
Badlands NP                     77    79    82   87   80                81 
Bryce NP                        86    82    78   83   85                83 
Gettysburg NP                   89    90    87   89   88                89 
Grand Canyon NP                 71    72    77   79   79                76 
Grand Teton NP                  79    77    76   85   78                79 
Mt. Rushmore NMem               83    80    81   81   82                81 
Sequoia and Kings Canyon NP     78    79    81   83   81                80 
Shenandoah NP                   85    85    86   87   85                86 
Yellowstone NP                  72    71    75   77   76                74 
Yosemite NP                     79    86    86   90   90                86 
Zion NP                         81    81    85   84   86                83 

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

In addition, Park Service budget officials said that park units' personnel
costs have also increased because they pay more of the costs of benefits
for employees under the newer Federal Employee Retirement System (FERS)
than they do for employees under the older Civil Service Retirement System
(CSRS). As a result, the officials said that total compensation (salary
and benefits) is higher for a FERS employee at the same salary level as a
CSRS employee. Unlike CSRS, for example, FERS requires federal agencies to
match up to 5 percent of employees' contributions to their retirement
account. In addition, as CSRS employees retire and are replaced by FERS
employees, the officials said that the Park Service's personnel costs will
increase, when all else remains the same.

At the park units we visited, benefits paid to FERS employees rose at a
faster rate and were generally higher on average than those for CSRS
employees. At almost all the park units, average total compensation for a

CSRS employee exceeded that for a FERS employee.13 For instance, at
Shenandoah National Park, average benefits for a FERS employee increased
at an annual rate of about 3 percent from 2001 through 2005 compared with
about 2 percent per year for a CSRS employee (adjusted for inflation). In
2005, the average FERS total compensation was $44,242, including $11,713
for benefits, compared to an average CSRS total of about $54,134,
including $9,401 for benefits. Tables 16 and 17 in appendix III show
nominal and inflation-adjusted personnel costs per retirement system at
the 12 park units we visited.

In addition to increasing personnel costs, officials at many of the park
units we visited explained that rising utility costs caused parks to
reduce spending in other areas. For example, at Grand Teton National Park,
park officials told us that to operate the same number of facilities and
assets, costs for fuel, electricity, and solid waste removal increased
from $435,010 in 2003 to $633,201 in 2005-an increase of 46 percent, when
adjusted for inflation. Officials told us that, as a result, their utility
budget for fiscal year 2005 was spent by June 2005-three months early. In
August, the park accepted the transfer requests of two division chiefs and
used the salaries from these vacancies to pay for utility costs for the
remaining portion of the year.

Officials at some parks attributed increased utility costs to new
construction that was generally not accompanied with a corresponding
increase to their allocation for daily operations. In 2003, Yellowstone
National Park constructed The Heritage Center with line item construction
appropriations to house 5.3 million artifacts of natural and cultural
significance. In 2001, the park officials requested but did not receive an
additional $250,000 that they estimated was required to pay for the
center's costs for power, water, sewer, and information technology. A Park
Service headquarters official told us that while there is a need to
replace old facilities with new construction, it is unlikely-given the
overall fiscal demands on the federal government-that park units will
receive corresponding increases in funding for daily operations necessary
to operate new facilities.

New Park Responsibilities Affected Management Flexibility

Officials at most of the park units we visited also told us that their
units generally did not receive additional allocations for administering
new Park Service policies directed at reducing its maintenance backlog,
implementing a new asset management strategy, or maintaining specified
levels of law enforcement personnel (referred to as its no-net-loss
policy) which has reduced their flexibility in addressing other park
priorities. While officials stated that these policies were important,
implementing them without additional allocations reduced their management
flexibility. Over the years, the estimates of the amount of the agency's
deferred maintenance backlog have varied widely-sometimes by billions of
dollars. Since 1998, we have issued several reports on the agency's
efforts to reduce its backlog.14 Since 2001, the Park Service has placed a
high priority on reducing its currently estimated $5 billion maintenance
backlog. In response, the Park Service, among other things, set a goal to
spend the majority of its visitor fees on deferred maintenance
projects-$75 million in 2002 increasing to $95 million in 2005.15
Officials at several park units report that they have used daily
operations allocations to absorb the cost of salaries for permanent staff
needed to oversee the increasing number of visitor fee-funded projects.
Park officials reported that the additional administrative and supervisory
tasks associated with these projects add to the workload of an
already-reduced permanent staff. For example, at Acadia National Park,
officials told us that although visitor fee-funded projects have benefited
the park, supervisors have reduced the extent to which they supervise
their existing daily operating staff in order to manage temporary staff
working on visitor fee-funded projects.

While the Park Service may use visitor fees to pay salaries for permanent
staff that manage and administer projects funded with visitor fees, it has
a policy prohibiting such use. Instead, these salaries are paid using
allocations for daily operations which reduce the amount of the allocation
available for visitor services and other activities and limit the park
units' ability to maintain these services and activities. Park Service
headquarters officials recognize the strain that its policy has had on
allocations for daily operations. Park Service headquarters officials said
that its policy was first established under the original Recreational Fee
Demonstration Program 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.

Park Units Have Taken Various Actions to Address Trends in Allocations for
Daily Operations

In response to allocations for daily operations trends, increased costs,
and new policy requirements, park officials at the 12 park units we
visited said that activities funded with daily operations have been
reduced or eliminated, delayed until other authorized funding sources
became available, or performed with the use of other authorized funding
sources. Park managers reported that because they have to manage within
available funding resources, they make trade-offs among the operational
activities such as education, visitor and resource protection, and
maintenance activities. The extent and type of such responses vary among
the park units.

Park Units Reduced or Eliminated Some Services

To address differences between allocations for daily operations and
expenses, officials at the park units we visited reported that they
reduced or eliminated some services paid with daily operations
allocations-including some that directly affected visitors and park
resources.16 Park officials at some of the park units we visited told us
that before reducing services that directly affect the visitor; they first
reduced spending for training, equipment, travel, and supplies paid from
daily operations

allocations.17 However, most park units reported that they did reduce
services that directly affect the visitor including reducing visitor
center hours, educational programs, basic custodial duties, and law
enforcement operations, such as backcountry patrolling. To illustrate:

o 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.

o 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.

o 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.

o 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.

o Grand Canyon National Park reduced interpretive programs available to
visitors from 35 in 2001 to 23 in 2005.

o 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.

o 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.

o 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.

o 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.

o Law enforcement officials at Acadia National Park and Grand Canyon
National Park explained that after accounting for personnel costs, little
is left to pay for equipment and supplies. For example, officials at
Acadia National Park told us that they are unable to replace emergency
response equipment, such as vehicles and boats. The park's law enforcement
division lost two patrol cars in the last three years and has been unable
to replace the vehicles. Officials at the park told us that to be able to
afford to replace one vehicle, they would have to forgo hiring a seasonal
ranger-a position that park officials say they must maintain for the
safety of park visitors and resources. At Grand Canyon National Park, 1.4
percent of the law enforcement division`s funding for daily operations is
available for law enforcement supplies and training. Officials at this
park told us that this amount is not sufficient to pay for supplies such
as first-aid provisions, ammunition, and bullet-proof vests.

Park Units Used Other Authorized Funding Sources to Support Park Service
Operations

When funds allocated for daily operations were not sufficient to pay for
activities that were previously paid with this source, the park units we
visited reported that they deferred activities or relied on other
authorized funding sources such as allocations for projects, visitor fees,
donations from cooperating associations and friends groups, and
concessions fees. Table 8 shows funding from other authorized sources at
four of the 12 park units we visited. Tables 18 and 19 in appendix III
show funding from other authorized sources for all 12 of the park units we
visited.

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

Dollars in      
thousands       
Park unit       Other funding source      2001   2002   2003   2004   2005 
                   type                                                
Acadia NP                                                           
                   Visitor fees            $1,843 $2,011 $1,907 $2,165 $1,870 
                   Concession fees            105    109    164    381    350 
                   Donations                  395    313    368    514    291 
                   Other revenue              132    136    180    192     66 
Grand Canyon NP Visitor fees            16,661 14,558 13,702 14,425 13,927 
                   Concession fees          5,750  4,091  3,591  3,337  5,787 
                   Donations                  176    254    301    287    227 
                   Other revenue            2,766  2,850  2,581  2,731  3,216 
Grand Teton NP  Visitor fees             4,602  4,755  4,840  4,626  3,475 
                   Concession fees              0      0  1,208  1,557    930 
                   Donations                  188    125    457    402  8,744 
                   Other revenue              107    137    165    158    163 
Sequoia Kings                                                       
Canyon NP                                                           
                   Visitor fees             2,151  2,395  2,458  2,474  2,154 
                   Concession fees              1      2      0      7    150 
                   Donations                   69    131     24     29     51 
                   Other revenue            1,174  1,451  1,394  1,331  1,266 

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

Note: The other revenue category includes authorized revenue collected
from various other miscellaneous sources. Examples of other revenue
include rent collected through employee housing, transportation fees, cell
tower permits, boat permits, and outfitter permits.

From 2001 to 2005, some parks delayed performing certain preventative
maintenance activities formerly paid with allocations for daily operations
until other authorized funding sources, such as project funds (including
funds for cyclic maintenance, repair and rehabilitation, and visitor fees)
could be found and approved. Park officials explained that, when
preventative maintenance is deferred, the integrity of an asset is
reduced-which can lead to replacing the asset at a greater cost than
repairing it. Park Service headquarters officials told us that they are
concerned about this decreased capacity and have reacted to the problem by
requesting increases in project funding, such as cyclic maintenance, over
the past few years. The following examples illustrate delayed activities
that occurred at the park units we visited.

o 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.

o At Grand Teton National Park, officials told us that the road striping
and chip sealing process-which should be performed annually to extend the
life of a road 10 to 15 years-can no longer be paid with funding for daily
operations. Consequently, officials told us that they have had to delay
the maintenance activity and rely on less frequently available project
funds.

Rather than eliminating or not performing daily operational activities,
some park units used volunteers and funding from authorized sources such
as donations from non-profit partners and concessionaires' fees to
accomplish activities that were formerly paid with daily operations
funds.18 Officials at several park units said that they increasingly
depend on donations from cooperating associations to pay for training and
equipment and rely on their staff and volunteers to provide information
and educational programs to visitors that were traditionally offered by
park rangers. Funds from these sources can be significant, but they are
subject to change from year to year. For example, park officials explained
that donations at Grand Teton fluctuated from about $188,000 in 2001 to
over $400,000 in 2004, and then increased to over $8 million in 2005 when
the park received a substantial gift for a new visitor center from their
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:

o 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.

o 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.

o 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.

o 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.

o 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.

o 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.

o 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 Has Undertaken Three Management Initiatives to Address
Fiscal Performance and Accountability of Park Units

The Park Service identified three management initiatives that it has
undertaken to address the fiscal performance and accountability of park
units and to better manage within their available resources: the Business
Plan Initiative (BPI), the Core Operations Analysis (COA), and the Park
Scorecard. Each initiative operates independently and they are at various
stages of development and implementation. In addition, the Department
noted in its comments to us that there are other efforts such as the
Office of Management and Budget's analysis under the Program Assessment
Rating Tool (PART) that contribute to park unit and departmental efforts
to achieve more effective programs and efficient operations. Table 9
summarizes each of the three initiatives that we reviewed and their stages
of implementation.

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

Management      Description                       Development and          
initiative                                        implementation           
Business Plan   Park managers, with the help of   o Park Service           
Initiative      business interns, identify all    headquarters and         
                   sources and uses of park funding  regional offices seek    
                   and operational requirements to   voluntary participation  
                   determine levels needed to        in the BPI process       
                   operate and manage their park.                             
                   From this, a plan is developed to o First BPI was prepared 
                   address any gaps between          in 1997 by Yellowstone   
                   available funds and park unit     National Park            
                   needs.                                                     
                                                     o About 12 park units    
                                                     participate in a BPI     
                                                     every year               
                                                                              
                                                     o As of January 2006, 25 
                                                     percent of all park      
                                                     units have participated  
Core Operations A step-by-step process where park o Developed in 2004      
Analysis        unit, regional, and headquarters                           
                   officials evaluate the park       o The Park Service       
                   unit's core mission and identify  intends to have all park 
                   essential park unit activities    units complete a COA by  
                   and associated funding needs.     2011                     
                                                                              
                                                     o To achieve this goal,  
                                                     the Park Service will    
                                                     select 50 park units per 
                                                     year to participate      
Park Scorecard  Headquarters officials use a      o Is in the development  
                   series of indicators to compare   stage                    
                   each park unit's fiscal and                                
                   operational condition, and        o Used to justify park   
                   managerial performance.           units' budget increases  
                                                     for daily operations in  
                                                     2005                     
                                                                              
                                                     o To be used to support  
                                                     and evaluate park        
                                                     operations in the future 

Source: GAO analysis of Park Service data.

Business Plan Initiative

Through the BPI process, park unit staff-with the help of business interns
from the Student Conservation Association-identify all sources and uses of
park funds to determine funding levels needed to operate and manage park
units.19 Using this information, park unit managers develop a 5-year
business plan to address any gaps between available funds and park unit
operational and maintenance needs. The process used in the BPI involves 6
steps, completed over an 11-week period. Park staff and the business
interns (1) identify the park unit's mission; (2) conduct an inventory of
park assets; (3) analyze park funding trends; (4) identify sources and
uses of park funding; (5) analyze park operations and maintenance needs;
and (6) develop a strategic business plan to address gaps between funds
and park needs. The BPI began in 1997 as a result of a partnership between
the Park Service and the National Parks Conservation Association. Their
goals were to ensure that superintendents of park units had the knowledge
and data to develop cost-reducing strategies and make a rational case for
funding proposals.

Yellowstone National Park completed the first business plan in 1997.20
Since then, about 25 percent of all park units have participated in the
process. Most of the participation has come from smaller park units-those
with a budget for daily operations under $2 million per year. The Park
Service selects about 12 park units per year to participate in the BPI
process, but their participation is voluntary. Park units are selected
based on a number of factors including (1) geographic diversity, (2) unit
types (e.g., national park, national historic site, national recreation
area, national monument), (3) whether the park units have sufficient
staffing and funding resources to conduct the BPI process, and (4) whether
the timing for the park unit to conduct a BPI is appropriate. For
instance, in some cases, park units selected for the BPI are subsequently
unable to participate because they are undergoing major management
initiatives or changes (e.g., preparing a general management plan or
changing park superintendents); a park unit may also hold an event that
represents an anomaly and may skew the financial condition of the park
unit . For example, the Canaveral National Seashore was scheduled to
complete the BPI process in fiscal year 2005 but did not due to damage to
some of the park unit's assets caused by hurricanes in 2004.

All 12 of the park units we visited have completed a business plan.21 Many
officials-both at the unit level and headquarters-stated that business
plans are, among other things, useful in helping them identify future
budget needs. Once completed, park managers often issue a press release to
announce its completion. Park managers may also send copies to their
legislators, local community councils, and park unit partners (such as
cooperating associations) to communicate the results.  A  Park Service
official stated, however, that the Park Service is still working to refine
how these business plans can serve as a better tool for justifying funding
needs.

Core Operations Analysis

The COA was developed in 2004 to help park unit managers evaluate their
park unit's core mission, identify essential park unit activities and
associated funding levels, and make fully informed decisions on staffing
and funding. The COA is part of a broader Park Service-wide effort to
integrate management tools to improve park efficiency. Park Service
headquarters and regional officials and park unit staffs work together in
a step-by-step process to conduct the analysis. These steps include
preparing a 5-year budget cost projection (BCP) to establish baseline
financial information and help project future park needs, defining core
elements of the park unit's mission, identifying park priorities,
reviewing and analyzing activities and associated staff resources, and
identifying efficiencies. Budget staff for each park unit first complete a
5-year BCP that uses the current year's funding level for daily operations
as a baseline, and estimates future levels, increases in non-personnel
costs, and fixed costs such as salaries and benefits. The general target
of the analysis is to adjust personal services and fixed costs at or below
80 percent of the unit's funding levels for daily operations.

The BCP model relies heavily on fixed costs, however the Park Service has
not developed a servicewide standard definition of fixed costs so
individual park units may calculate fixed costs differently. For example,
fixed costs at some of the park units we visited included the costs of
both personnel and utilities, whereas at other park units it only included
personnel costs. As such, fixed costs used in the BCP model vary among
park units. Although the COA is in the development stage, the Park Service
plans to have all units complete an analysis by the end of fiscal year
2011. To achieve this goal, the Park Service will select 50 parks per year
to participate.

Three of the 12 park units we visited have completed (or are in the
process of completing) a COA, and 3 will begin the COA in fiscal year
2006. The remaining 6 park units we visited have yet to be selected. Park
unit officials told us that the preliminary results have helped them
determine where efficiencies in operations might accrue. A Park Service
regional official told us that the core operations process is still in its
early development, noting that preliminary results are useful but too
early to determine results to be realized by the park units.

Park Scorecard

Park Service headquarters developed the Park Scorecard beginning in fiscal
year 2004 to serve as an indicator of each park unit's fiscal and
operational condition, and managerial performance. The Scorecard is
intended to provide an overarching summary of each park unit's condition
by offering a way to analyze individual park unit needs. It also provides
Park Service officials with information needed to understand how park
units compare to one another based on broad financial, organizational,
recreational, and resource-management criteria. The Park Scorecard uses
data from Park Service-wide databases already used by all park units. Park
Service headquarters uses over 30 separate indicators as measures of the
condition of park units. Examples of these indicators include personnel
costs as a percentage of daily operations allocations, average overtime
costs, the ratio of volunteer hours to total Park Service hours,
operational and maintenance costs per square foot, and annual growth in
visitation, to name a few. The result of the analysis using these
indicators is a numerical value that is assigned to each measure leading
to an assessment of being in poor, fair, good, or excellent operational
condition.

Although the Park Scorecard is still under development, the Park Service's
headquarters budget office used it to validate and approve requests for
increases in daily operations allocations for the highest priorities among
park units to be funded out of a total of $12.5 million that was provided
in 2005 for daily operations directed at visitor service programs. The
Park Service approved requests for funding at three out of the twelve
parks we visited (Badlands National Park, Grand Teton National Park, and
Yellowstone National Park). Park Service officials explained that while
Park Scorecard figures can generate useful park unit comparisons, regional
policies can also influence the indicators; while these numbers provide a
good starting point for analysis, park unit staff input must be a
consideration in determining park priorities. Park officials further
explained that it is difficult to develop a set of common indicators that
can be used for parks units with different characteristics, such as
Yellowstone National Park and Carl Sandburg Home National Historic site.
Park Service headquarters officials, with the assistance and input of park
unit managers, plan on refining the Park Scorecard to more accurately
capture all appropriate park measurements and to identify, evaluate, and
support future budget increases for park units. The Park Service also
intends for park managers to use the Park Scorecard to facilitate
discussions about their needs and priorities.

Conclusions

From 2001 through 2004, the Park Service increased allocations for support
programs and project funding while placing less of an emphasis on
allocations for daily operations. In 2005, however, the agency emphasis
shifted toward an increase in allocations for daily operations. As
evidenced by our visits to 12 park units, this later shift appears to be
going in the direction needed to help the park units overcome some of the
difficulties they have recently experienced in meeting operational
needs-particularly as they relate to maintaining visitor services and
protecting resources. In 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.

Recommendation for Executive Action

To reduce some of the pressure on funding for daily operations, we are
recommending that the Secretary of the Interior direct the Park Service
Director to follow through in revising Park Service policy to allow park
units to use visitor fee revenues to pay the costs of permanent employees
administering projects funded by visitor fees to the extent authorized by
law.

Agency Comments and Our Response

We provided the Department of the Interior with a draft of this report for
review and comment. The department provided written comments that are
included in appendix V. The following represents a summary of the major
comments made by the department and our response. Additional comments and
our response are also provided in appendix V. With regard to our
recommendation, the department stated that we should clearly state that
visitor fee revenue (and not other sources) be used to fund only a limited
number of permanent employees and be specifically defined for the sole
purpose of executing projects funded from fee revenue. Our recommendation
was specifically directed at using visitor fee revenues for paying the
salaries of permanent employees who administer projects funded with such
revenues and provides the Park Service with the flexibility to define how
the visitor fee revenues should be applied. 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 h ttp://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have questions about this report, please contact me
at (202) 512-3841 or n [email protected] . Contact points for our offices of
Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page
of this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix VI.

Robin Nazzaro Director, Natural Resources     and Environment

Scope and Methodology Appendix I

This appendix presents the methods we used to gather information on
National Park Service (Park Service) funding trends, their impacts on
selected park units, and management initiatives under way to address
fiscal performance and accountability.

To identify funding trends for Park Service operations and visitor fees
from fiscal years 2001 through 2005, we obtained and analyzed
appropriations legislation, including appropriations for the Operation of
the National Park System account (consisting of funding for daily
operations, projects, and other support programs), and visitor fees. We
analyzed the data in both nominal (actual) and real (adjusted for
inflation) terms. To remove the effects of inflation, we adjusted nominal
dollars using the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) Price Index for Government
Consumption Expenditures and Gross Investment (federal nondefense sector),
with 2001 as the base year. The price index reflects changes in the value
of government output, measured by the cost of inputs, including
compensation of employees and purchases of goods and services. Consistent
with the proportion of the Park Service's operating expenditures on
personnel, this price index is more heavily weighted by changes in federal
workers' compensation than the overall GDP price index. We gathered
funding data from the Park Service Budget Office on allocations from the
ONPS account for daily operations, projects, and other support programs.
In addition to obtaining data on allocations for daily operations on a
servicewide level, we also gathered data on the allocations for daily
operations for individual park units to determine how many have received
operating increases or decreases, and how many have remained relatively
constant.1 We also obtained data on recreation visits from the Park
Service's Public Use Statistics Office for park units to analyze
allocations for daily operations in relation to visitation rates.2 We also
interviewed agency officials at Park Service Headquarters, the Pacific
West Region, the Intermountain Region, and individual park units in
addition to those listed below, including Mount Rainier National Park,
Olympic National Park, Point Reyes National Seashore, and the San
Francisco Maritime National Historical Park. We assessed the reliability
of the data by reviewing the methods of data collection for relevant Park
Service databases. We determined that the data were sufficiently reliable
for the uses in this report.

To determine the funding trends for certain individual park units and how
the trends affected their ability to provide services to visitors, we
collected and analyzed data and reviewed operational impacts at the
nonprobability sample3 of 12 park units visited; we also interviewed park
unit officials about their funding trends, operational impacts, and policy
requirements. The 12 park units represent a cross-section of
high-visitation parks (greater than 500,000 visits per year) with
potentially a large number of visitor services, regional diversity, and a
range of allocations for daily operations. In addition, based on
preliminary figures, we sought a cross-section of parks that had sustained
varying levels of growth in their allocations for daily operations. Table
10 lists the 12 parks we visited, their primary features, and their
location.

Table 10:

Park unit         Primary features                 Region and location     
Acadia NP         Mountains, woodlands, lakes and  Northeast Region, Maine 
                     ponds, and ocean shoreline,      
                     historic roads                   
Badlands NP       Buttes, pinnacles and spires,    Midwest Region, South   
                     mixed grass prairie, wildlife    Dakota                  
Bryce Canyon NP   Limestone amphitheaters, canyons Intermountain Region,   
                     and spires                       Utah                    
Gettysburg NMP    Civil war battlefield            Northeast Region,       
                                                      Pennsylvania            
Grand Canyon NP   Canyons, river, geologic         Intermountain Region,   
                     features                         Arizona                 
Grand Teton NP    Mountains, lakes, wildlife       Intermountain Region,   
                                                      Wyoming                 
Mt. Rushmore NMem Granite memorial                 Midwest Region, South   
                                                      Dakota                  
Sequoia and Kings Mountains, canyons, giant        Pacific West Region,    
Canyon NP         sequoias, rivers                 California              
Shenandoah NP     Mountains, valleys, historic     Northeast Region,       
                     drive, wildlife                  Virginia                
Yellowstone NP    Thermal features, wildlife,      Intermountain Region,   
                     lakes, rivers, mountains         Wyoming, Montana, Idaho 
Yosemite NP       Waterfalls, mountains, wildlife, Pacific West Region,    
                     giant sequoias                   California              
Zion NP           Canyons, cliffs, river, wildlife Intermountain Region,   
                                                      Utah                    

Park Service Units that GAO Visited

Legend

NP = National Park NMP = National Military Park NMem = National Memorial

Source: GAO.

For each of the 12 park units, we collected data on funding trends, and
park operations including visitor services. We collected park data on
budget formulation, budget allocation, expenditures, and staffing trends.
We sent uniform data requests to the 12 park units, provided uniform
guidance and interactively worked with park officials to compile the
data.4 We also obtained information on operations such as (1) visitor and
resource protection (e.g. law enforcement rangers), (2) facilities
operation and maintenance (e.g. opening a campground or a visitor center
and maintaining a building or trail), (3) resource management (e.g.
monitoring the condition of threatened species or water quality), (4)
interpretation and 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.

Operation of the National Park System Account and Visitor Fee Revenue,
Fiscal Years 2001 through 2005 Appendix II

Tables 11 and 12 show trends in appropriations in both nominal and
inflation-adjusted terms for the Operation of the National Park System
Account, including allocations for daily operations and support programs.
In addition, the tables show the trends for visitor fees collected by the
Park Service from fiscal years 2001 through 2005.

Table 11: Operation of the National Park System Account and Visitor Fee
Revenue, in Nominal Dollars, Fiscal Years 2001 through 2005

     Dollars in   
     thousands    
                    Fiscal              
                    years               
Operation of         2001       2002       2003       2004       2005 Average 
the National                                                           annual 
Park System                                                            change 
Account                                                                   (%) 
Daily                                                                 
operations                                                            
allocations                                                           
Park units       $903,149   $940,063   $961,665   $968,095 $1,028,649    3.31 
National trail      4,758      5,108      5,049      5,458      5,925    5.64 
system                                                                
Other field         7,607      9,854     10,071     10,502     12,732   13.74 
offices and                                                           
affiliated                                                            
areas                                                                 
Total            $915,514   $955,025   $976,785   $984,055 $1,047,306    3.42 
allocations                                                           
for daily                                                             
operations                                                            
Projects and   
other support  
programs       
Support                                                               
programs                                                              
Cyclic            $34,534    $32,302    $51,866    $65,083    $62,842   16.15 
Maintenancea                                                          
Repair and         58,453     72,640     84,353     94,423     95,100   12.94 
Rehabilitation                                                        
Central           119,379    130,710    130,306    136,916    139,116    3.90 
offices                                                               
Field resource      3,954      4,185      4,229      4,250      4,147    1.20 
centers                                                               
Other support       8,655     10,855     10,847      3,044      3,050  -22.95 
programs                                                              
Subtotal         $224,975   $250,692   $281,601   $303,716   $304,255    7.84 
support                                                               
programs                                                              
Servicewide                                                           
programs                                                              
Training           $8,701    $12,232    $14,153    $13,893    $12,532    9.55 
programs                                                              
Cooperative         8,145     10,146     15,044     18,220     10,796    7.30 
programs                                                              
Information             0          0          0        797      5,120     n/a 
technology                                                            
programs                                                              
Other             136,330    152,791    169,216    185,996    189,792    7.90 
servicewide                                                           
programs                                                              
Subtotal         $153,176   $175,169   $198,413   $218,906   $213,240    8.62 
servicewide                                                           
programs                                                              
Subtotal          $99,408   $105,312   $107,532   $112,951   $123,935    5.67 
external                                                              
administrative                                                        
costs                                                                 
Total projects   $477,559   $531,173   $587,546   $635,573   $641,430    7.65 
and other                                                             
support                                                               
programs                                                              
Total for      $1,393,073 $1,486,198 $1,564,331 $1,619,628 $1,688,736    4.93 
Operation of                                                          
the National                                                          
Bank System                                                           
account                                                               
Visitor fee      $140,413   $140,997   $140,403   $148,952   $146,805    1.12 
revenueb                                                              

Source: GAO analysis of National Park Service data.

aCyclic Maintenance allocations include both Regular Cyclic Maintenance
and Cyclic Maintenance for Historic Properties program.

bVisitor fee revenue include revenue collected from the Recreational Fee
Program and the National Parks Passport Program.

Table 12: Operation of the National Park System Account and Visitor Fee
Revenue, in Inflation-Adjusted Dollars, Fiscal Years 2001 through 2005

Dollars in thousands 
                       Fiscal                        
                       years                         
Operation of the           2001             2002                2003                2004                 2005      Average annual 
National Park System                                                                                                             change 
Account                                                                                                                            (%)
Daily Operations                                                                                                    
Allocations                                                                                                         
Park units             $903,149             $910,032             $906,376             $875,312             $892,924               -0.28 
National trail            4,758                4,945                4,759                4,935                5,143                1.97 
system                                                                                                              
Other field offices       7,607                9,539                9,492                9,495               11,052                9.79 
and affiliated areas                                                                                                
Total                  $915,514             $924,516             $920,627             $889,742             $909,120               -0.18 
Projects and other                                                                                                  
support programs                                                                                                    
Support programs                                                                                                    
Cyclic Maintenancea     $34,534              $31,270              $48,884              $58,845              $54,550               12.11 
Repair and               58,453               70,319               79,503               85,373               82,552                9.01 
Rehabilitation                                                                                                      
Central offices         119,379              126,534              122,814              123,794              120,760                0.29 
Field resource            3,954                4,051                3,986                3,843                3,600               -2.32 
centers                                                                                                             
Other support             8,655               10,508               10,223                2,752                2,648              -25.63 
programs                                                                                                            
Subtotal support       $224,975             $242,683             $265,411             $274,608             $264,110                4.09 
programs                                                                                                            
Servicewide programs                                                                                                
Training programs        $8,701              $11,841              $13,339              $12,561              $10,878                5.74 
Cooperative programs      8,145                9,822               14,179               16,474                9,372                3.57 
Information                   0                    0                    0                  721                4,444                 n/a 
technology programs                                                                                                 
Other                   136,330              147,910              159,487              168,170              160,410                4.15 
servicewidepPrograms                                                                                                
Subtotal servicewide   $153,176             $169,573             $187,006             $197,926             $185,104                4.85 
programs                                                                                                            
Subtotal external       $99,408             $101,948             $101,350             $102,126             $107,582                2.00 
administrative costs                                                                                                
Total projects and     $477,559             $514,204             $553,766             $574,659             $556,797                3.91 
other support                                                                                                       
programs                                                                                                            
Total for Operation  $1,393,073           $1,438,720           $1,474,393           $1,464,401           $1,465,917                1.28 
of the National Park                                                                                                
System account                                                                                                      
Visitor fee revenueb   $140,413             $136,493             $132,331             $134,676             $127,435               -2.40 

Source: GAO analysis of National Park Service data.

Note: Inflation adjusted figures are in 2001 dollars. aCyclic Maintenance
allocations include both Regular Cyclic Maintenance and Cyclic Maintenance
for Historic Properties allocations. bVisitor fee revenue include revenue
collected from the Recreational Fee Program and the National Parks
Passport Program receipts.

Summary of Funding and Personnel Trends for 12 Selected Park Units Appendix
III

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

Table 13: Total Personnel Expenditures at 12 Selected Park Units, in
Nominal Dollars, Fiscal Years 2001 through 2005

     Dollars in                                                    
      thousands                                                    
                     Total personnel          
                      expendituresa           
Park unit                      2001   2002   2003   2004   2005    Average 
                                                                       annual 
                                                                   change (%) 
Acadia NP                    $3,524 $4,278 $4,796 $5,060 $5,313       10.8 
Badlands NP                   2,273  2,417  2,453  2,635  2,598        3.4 
Bryce Canyon NP               2,204  2,165  2,028  2,101  2,306        1.1 
Gettysburg NMP                4,460  4,593  4,537  4,574  4,772        1.7 
Grand Canyon NP              13,409 13,413 14,226 14,286 14,529        2.0 
Grand Teton NP                6,509  6,566  6,669  7,762  7,746        4.4 
Mount Rushmore                2,014  1,906  2,263  2,601  2,939        9.9 
NMem                                                            
Sequoia and                   9,164 10,011 10,216 10,361 10,600        3.7 
Kings Canyon NP                                                 
Shenandoah NP                 8,578  8,889  9,047  8,865  8,774        0.6 
Yellowstone NP               17,587 19,011 20,113 21,069 22,071        5.8 
Yosemite NP                  17,602 19,858 20,616 20,248 20,444        3.8 
Zion NP                       4,268  4,648  4,866  4,862  5,094        4.5 

Legend

NP = National Park NMP = National Military Park NMem = National Memorial

Source: GAO analysis of National Park Service data.

aPersonnel costs include salaries and benefits for permanent employees and
salaries for seasonal employees.

Table 14: Total Personnel Expenditures at 12 Selected Park Units, in
Inflation-Adjusted Dollars, Fiscal Years 2001 through 2005

Dollars in      
thousands       
                     Total personnel          
                      expendituresa           
Park unit                      2001   2002   2003   2004   2005    Average 
                                                                       annual 
                                                                              
                                                                   change (%) 
Acadia NP                    $3,524 $4,141 $4,520 $4,576 $4,613        7.0 
Badlands NP                   2,273  2,340  2,312  2,383  2,256       -0.2 
Bryce Canyon NP               2,204  2,096  1,911  1,900  2,002       -2.4 
Gettysburg NMP                4,460  4,446  4,276  4,137  4,143       -1.8 
Grand Canyon NP              13,409 12,983 13,407 12,919 12,614       -1.5 
Grand Teton NP                6,509  6,356  6,285  7,019  6,724        0.8 
Mount Rushmore                2,014  1,845  2,133  2,352  2,552        6.1 
NMem                                                            
Sequoia and                   9,164  9,691  9,628  9,369  9,202        0.1 
Kings Canyon NP                                                 
Shenandoah NP                 8,578  8,605  8,526  8,017  7,617       -2.9 
Yellowstone NP               17,587 18,403 18,957 19,053 19,161        2.2 
Yosemite NP                  17,601 19,223 19,430 18,310 17,748        0.2 
Zion NP                       4,268  4,500  4,586  4,397  4,422        0.9 

Legend

NP = National Park NMP = National Military Park NMem = National Memorial

Source: GAO analysis of National Park Service data.

aPersonnel costs include salaries and benefits for permanent employees and
salaries for seasonal employees.

This page intentionally left blank

Table 15: Personnel (Full Time Equivalent) by Funding Source at 12
Selected Park Units, Fiscal Years 2001 through 2005

                                                           2001        
Park unit                     Employee type        Daily operations  Other 
Acadia NP                     Total                              69     44 
                                 Permanent                          51     16 
                                 Seasonal                           18     28 
Badlands NP                   Total                              48     16 
                                 Permanent                          39      9 
                                 Seasonal                            8      7 
Bryce Canyon NP               Total                              40     18 
                                 Permanent                          36      6 
                                 Seasonal                            4     12 
Gettysburg NMP                Total                              84      5 
                                 Permanent                          75      2 
                                 Seasonal                            9      3 
Grand Canyon NP               Total                             231    183 
                                 Permanent                         205    119 
                                 Seasonal                           25     64 
Grand Teton NP                Total                             132     26 
                                 Permanent                          95     10 
                                 Seasonal                           37     17 
Mount Rushmore NMem           Total                              42      3 
                                 Permanent                          32      1 
                                 Seasonal                            9      2 
Sequoia and Kings Canyon NP   Total                             201    128 
                                 Permanent                         155     49 
                                 Seasonal                           46     79 

      2002          2003            2004      2005    
        Daily Other           Daily Other       Daily Other       Daily Other 
                         operations                                     
operations                              operations        operations 
           80    43              83    45          82    48          83    44 
           56    14              59    15          62    14          64    12 
           24    29              24    30          20    34          19    32 
           50    24              46    23          45    24          41    26 
           43     6              41     7          42     7          36     6 
            7    18               5    16           4    17           5    20 
           44    13              33    23          34    19          35    16 
           37     5              29     4          28     5          30     5 
            7     8               4    19           5    14           5    11 
           80     9              74     9          69    15          69    11 
           71     2              66     2          66     2          64     2 
            9     6               8     7           3    13           5     9 
          269   178             243   208         230   219         227   193 
          209   123             210   126         203   131         203   109 
           60    54              32    83          27    88          25    85 
          132    71             119    24         132   100         121    72 
           97    30              86     2          99    44          93    26 
           35    41              33    22          33    57          28    46 
           36    11              40     9          39    17          42    18 
           30     2              33     2          36     4          40     3 
            7     9               7     7           4    13           2    15 
          208   131             201   133         196   137         188   135 
          156    45             153    47         150    50         144    52 
           53    86              48    86          47    87          45    84 

      2002          2003            2004      2005    
        Daily Other           Daily Other       Daily Other       Daily Other 
                         operations                                     
operations                              operations        operations 
          171    47             181    27         150    52         133    51 
          145    23             147    15         131    33         123    31 
           26    24              34    12          19    19          10    20 
          350   225             338   242         336   251         351   228 
          258   110             259   109         263   117         257   110 
           92   114              79   133          73   133          94   119 
          367   206             348   238         340   236         317   250 
          316    82             310   105         298   113         286   119 
           50   124              37   132          42   123          31   130 
           87    73              87    76          83    77          90    86 
           75    30              76    32          67    35          73    42 
           11    43              11    45          16    42          17    44 

Legend

NP = National Park NMP = National Military Park NMem = National Memorial

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

Note: We provided each park with uniform instructions for completing our
data request. However, each park is unique and some parks had to make
assumptions and estimates to produce their data, particularly when source
data for a specific data request from GAO could not be retrieved directly
from a database. For example, AFSIII did not provide a breakdown of FTE by
permanent and seasonal for ONPS costs versus all other funds for all 5
years. In addition, some parks had to make assumptions about which FTEs
should or should not be included in their answers to GAO. A particular
issue was that due to the fire season, fire personnel (FTE) were shared
among some parks, making the calculations difficult. GAO did some follow
up work to better understand the decisions that individual parks made with
regard to reporting FTEs.

Table 16: Employee Numbers and Nominal Personnel Costs Per Retirement
System at 12 Selected Park Units, Fiscal Years 2001 through 2005

Dollars in thousands                                               
                            2001              2002   
Park unit                  CSRS     FERS    Total     CSRS    FERS   Total 
Acadia NP                                                          
Employees                    20       44       64       21      51      72 
Salaries                   $975   $1,349   $2,324   $1,130  $1,573  $2,702 
Benefits                    175      411      587      205     504     709 
Total personnel cost     $1,151   $1,760   $2,911   $1,334  $2,077  $3,411 
Badlands NP                                                        
Employees                     7       43       50        7      44      51 
Salaries                   $382   $1,213   $1,595     $369  $1,368  $1,737 
Benefits                     69      374      443       68     431     499 
Total personnel cost       $451   $1,587   $2,038     $437  $1,800  $2,236 
Bryce Canyon NP                                                    
Employees                     5       35       40        6      38      44 
Salaries                   $318   $1,441   $1,760     $220  $1,267  $1,487 
Benefits                     54      389      444       38     400     438 
Total personnel cost       $373   $1,831   $2,204     $258  $1,667  $1,925 
Gettysburg NMP                                                     
Employees                    30       47       77       32      46      78 
Salaries                 $1,544   $1,966   $3,510   $1,659  $2,004  $3,663 
Benefits                    298      553      851      308     576     884 
Total personnel cost     $1,842   $2,519   $4,361   $1,967  $2,581  $4,548 
Grand Canyon NP                                                    
Employees                    59      307      366       51     341     392 
Salaries                 $2,965  $10,279  $13,245   $2,744 $11,807 $14,551 
Benefits                    484    2,892    3,377      459   3,395   3,854 
Total personnel cost     $3,450  $13,172  $16,621   $3,203 $15,201 $18,405 

             2003               2004           2005   
      CSRS     FERS    Total     CSRS    FERS   Total    CSRS    FERS   Total 
        21       60       81       19      56      75      21      56      77 
    $1,070   $1,933   $3,002   $1,165  $2,218  $3,383  $1,260  $2,284  $3,544 
       200      625      826      220     748     967     215     836   1,051 
    $1,270   $2,558   $3,828   $1,385  $2,965  $4,350  $1,475  $3,120  $4,595 
         6       47       53        6      47      53       7      39      46 
      $370   $1,429   $1,798     $441  $1,439  $1,880    $414  $1,416  $1,830 
        64      476      540       75     502     577      71     488     559 
      $434   $1,904   $2,338     $516  $1,941  $2,457    $485  $1,904  $2,389 
         3       30       33        3      31      34       4      32      36 
      $207   $1,220   $1,427     $195  $1,247  $1,442    $258  $1,367  $1,624 
        34      415      449       28     407     435      41     471     512 
      $240   $1,636   $1,876     $223  $1,654  $1,877    $299  $1,838  $2,136 
        32       40       73       28      45      72      28      43      71 
    $1,799   $1,871   $3,670   $1,601  $2,160  $3,761  $1,563  $2,057  $3,621 
       326      540      865      293     625     918     313     636     949 
    $2,124   $2,411   $4,535   $1,894  $2,785  $4,679  $1,876  $2,694  $4,570 
        51      331      382       50     315     365      58     303     361 
    $2,744  $12,910  $15,654   $3,052 $13,565 $16,618  $3,329 $13,156 $16,485 
       459    3,785    4,244      555   4,028   4,583     645   4,053   4,698 
    $3,203  $16,695  $19,898   $3,607 $17,594 $21,201  $3,973 $17,210 $21,183 

Dollars in thousands                                               
                            2001             2002   
Park unit                  CSRS    FERS    Total      CSRS    FERS   Total 
Yosemite NP                                                        
Employees                   109     336      445       105     349     454 
Salaries                 $5,668  $7,344  $13,012    $5,223  $7,691 $12,914 
Benefits                  1,114   2,288    3,403     1,043   2,489   3,532 
Total personnel cost     $6,783  $9,632  $16,415    $6,266 $10,180 $16,446 
Zion NP                                                            
Employees                    15      62       77        15      64      79 
Salaries                   $739  $2,579   $3,318      $775  $2,887  $3,661 
Benefits                    125     824      949       132     856     987 
Total personnel cost       $864  $3,404   $4,268      $906  $3,742  $4,648 

(Continued From Previous Page)

Legend

NP = National Park

NMP = National Military Park

NMem = National Memorial

CSRS = Civil Service Retirement System

FERS = Federal Employee Retirement System

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

Table 17: Employee Numbers and Inflation-Adjusted Personnel Costs Per
Retirement System at 12 Selected Park Units, Fiscal Years 2001 through
2005

Dollars in thousands                                               
                                       2001                      2002 
Park unit                  CSRS     FERS    Total     CSRS    FERS   Total 
Acadia NP                                                          
Employees                    20       44       64       21      51      72 
Salaries                   $975   $1,349   $2,324   $1,093  $1,523  $2,616 
Benefits                    175      411      587      198     488     686 
Total personnel cost     $1,151   $1,760   $2,911   $1,292  $2,011  $3,302 
Badlands NP                                                        
Employees                     7       43       50        7      44      51 
Salaries                   $382   $1,213   $1,595     $357  $1,324  $1,682 
Benefits                     69      374      443       65     418     483 
Total personnel cost       $451   $1,587   $2,038     $423  $1,742  $2,165 
Bryce Canyon NP                                                    
Employees                     5       35       40        6      38      44 
Salaries                   $318   $1,441   $1,760     $213  $1,226  $1,439 
Benefits                     54      389      444       37     387     424 
Total personnel cost       $373   $1,831   $2,204     $250  $1,613  $1,863 
Gettysburg NMP                                                     
Employees                    30       47       77       32      46      78 
Salaries                 $1,544   $1,966   $3,510   $1,606  $1,940  $3,546 
Benefits                    298      553      851      298     558     856 
Total personnel cost     $1,842   $2,519   $4,361   $1,904  $2,498  $4,402 
Grand Canyon NP                                                    
Employees                    59      307      366       51     341     392 
Salaries                 $2,965  $10,279  $13,245   $2,656 $11,429 $14,085 
Benefits                    484    2,892    3,377      444   3,286   3,730 
Total personnel cost     $3,450  $13,172  $16,621   $3,101 $14,715 $17,816 

Legend

NP = National Park NMP = National Military Park NMem = National Memorial
CSRS = Civil Service Retirement System FERS = Federal Employee Retirement
System

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

Table 18: Other Authorized Funding Source Amounts for 12 Selected Park
Units, in Nominal Dollars, Fiscal Years 2001 through 2005

       Dollars in                                                      
        thousands                                                      
        Park unit       Other authorized     2001   2002   2003   2004   2005 
                       funding source type                             
Acadia NP                                                           
                       Visitor fees        $1,843 $2,011 $1,907 $2,165 $1,870 
                       Concession fees        105    109    164    381    350 
                       Donations              395    313    368    514    291 
                       Other revenue          132    136    180    192     66 
Badlands NP                                                         
                       Visitor fees         1,166  1,278  1,304  1,291  1,277 
                       Concession fees         22      0      0      0      0 
                       Donations               42      3      8      9      3 
                       Other revenue            2      1      1      2      3 
Bryce Canyon NP                                                     
                       Visitor fees         1,538  1,563  1,285  1,415  1,359 
                       Concession fees          0      0      0      0      2 
                       Donations              100      8     21      4    104 
                       Other revenue        1,062  1,106  1,084  1,105  1,097 
Gettysburg NMP                                                      
                       Visitor fees           132    120      0      0      0 
                       Concession fees          0      0      0      0      0 
                       Donations              239    214    169    463    236 
                       Other revenue          137    155    155    182    200 
Grand Canyon NP                                                     
                       Visitor fees        16,661 14,558 13,702 14,425 13,927 
                       Concession Fees      5,750  4,091  3,591  3,337  5,787 
                       Donations              176    254    301    287    227 
                       Other revenue        2,766  2,850  2,581  2,731  3,216 
Grand Teton NP                                                      
                       Visitor fees         4,602  4,755  4,840  4,626  3,475 
                       Concession fees          0      0  1,208  1,557    930 
                       Donations              188    125    457    402  8,744 
                       Other revenue          107    137    165    158    163 
Mount Rushmore NMem                                                 
                       Visitor fees            $0     $3     $3     $4     $8 
                       Concession fees          0    361    238    843    648 
                       Donations               66    197    261    236    274 
                       Other revenue          184    183    170    176    173 
Shenandoah NP                                                       
                       Visitor fees         3,051  3,105  2,695  2,828  2,777 
                       Concession fees        185    166    133    189    210 
                       Donations                8     64     41      8     39 
                       Other revenue            7      5      3      7      7 
Sequoia and Kings                                                   
Canyon NP                                                           
                       Visitor fees         2,151  2,395  2,458  2,474  2,154 
                       Concession fees          1      2      0      7    150 
                       Donations               69    131     24     29     51 
                       Other revenue        1,174  1,451  1,394  1,331  1,266 
Yellowstone NP                                                      
                       Visitor fees         5,027  5,185  4,667  4,180  4,053 
                       Concession fees        547    521    829    267    297 
                       Donations              207    445    650  1,578  2,200 
                       Other revenue        5,529  5,584  6,416  5,823  5,817 
Yosemite NP                                                         
                       Visitor fees        15,330 14,559 14,263 15,521 14,246 
                       Concession fees        134    154  1,576    969  1,001 
                       Donations              848    777    974  1,940  1,601 
                       Other revenue        7,692  9,177  8,529 10,776 10,012 
Zion NP                                                             
                       Visitor fees         4,542  3,022  2,921  3,355  3,902 
                       Concession fees          4      4      3      6     11 
                       Donations                0     14      0      0      1 
                       Other revenue          379    475    499    559    719 

Legend

NP = National Park NMP = National Military Park NMem = National Memorial

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

Note: The other revenue category includes authorized revenue collected
from various other miscellaneous sources. Examples of other revenue
include rent collected through employee housing, transportation fees, cell
tower permits, boat permits, and outfitter permits.

Table 19: Other Authorized Funding Source Amounts for 12 Selected Park
Units, in Inflation-Adjusted Dollars, Fiscal Years 2001 through 2005

    Dollars in thousands                                        
         Park unit        Other authorized   2001   2002   2003   2004   2005 
                              funding                                  
                                                                       
                            source type                                
Acadia NP                                                           
                          Visitor Fees     $1,843 $1,947 $1,798 $1,958 $1,623 
                          Concession Fees     105    106    154    345    304 
                          Donations           395    303    346    465    252 
                          Other Revenue       132    131    170    173     57 
Badlands NP                                                         
                          Visitor Fees      1,166  1,237  1,229  1,168  1,108 
                          Concession Fees      22      0      0      0      0 
                          Donations            42      3      7      9      2 
                          Other Revenue         2      1      1      2      3 
Bryce Canyon NP                                                     
                          Visitor Fees      1,538  1,513  1,211  1,280  1,179 
                          Concession Fees       0      0      0      0      2 
                          Donations           100      8     19      4     91 
                          Other Revenue     1,062  1,071  1,021    999    952 
Gettysburg NMP                                                      
                          Visitor Fees        132    116      0      0      0 
                          Concession Fees       0      0      0      0      0 
                          Donations           239    208    159    419    205 
                          Other Revenue       137    150    146    165    174 
Grand Canyon NP                                                     
                          Visitor Fees     16,661 14,092 12,914 13,045 12,091 
                          Concession Fees   5,750  3,960  3,385  3,018  5,024 
                          Donations           176    246    284    255    197 
                          Other Revenue     2,766  2,759  2,432  2,469  2,792 
Grand Teton NP                                                      
                          Visitor Fees      4,602  4,603  4,561  4,183  3,017 
                          Concession Fees       0      0  1,139  1,408    807 
                          Donations           188    121    431    364  7,591 
                          Other Revenue       107    133    156    143    141 
Mount Rushmore NMem                                                 
                          Visitor Fees         $0     $3     $3     $3     $7 
                          Concession Fees       0    350    224    763    562 
                          Donations            66    190    246    213    237 
                          Other Revenue       184    177    161    159    150 
Shenandoah NP                                                       
                          Visitor Fees      3,051  3,005  2,540  2,557  2,411 
                          Concession Fees     185    160    125    171    183 
                          Donations             8     62     39      8     34 
                          Other Revenue         7      5      3      7      6 
Sequoia and Kings                                                   
Canyon NP                                                           
                          Visitor Fees      2,151  2,319  2,317  2,238  1,870 
                          Concession Fees       1      2      0      6    130 
                          Donations            69    127     22     26     44 
                          Other Revenue     1,174  1,404  1,314  1,204  1,099 
Yellowstone NP                                                      
                          Visitor Fees      5,027  5,020  4,398  3,780  3,519 
                          Concession Fees     547    504    782    242    258 
                          Donations           207    431    613  1,427  1,910 
                          Other Revenue     5,529  5,405  6,047  5,266  5,050 
Yosemite NP                                                         
                          Visitor Fees     15,330 14,093 13,443 14,036 12,367 
                          Concession Fees     134    149  1,485    876    869 
                          Donations           848    752    918  1,755  1,390 
                          Other Revenue     7,692  8,883  8,039  9,745  8,692 
Zion NP                                                             
                          Visitor Fees      4,542  2,926  2,754  3,033  3,388 
                          Concession Fees       4      4      3      5      9 
                          Donations             0     13      0      0      1 
                          Other Revenue       379    460    471    506    623 

Legend

NP = National Park NMP = National Military Park NMem = National Memorial

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

Note: The other revenue category includes authorized revenue collected
from various other miscellaneous sources. Examples include rent collected
through employee housing, transportation fees, cell tower permits, boat
permits, and outfitter permits.

Recreation Visitation Trends for the Park Service and 12 Selected Park
Units, Fiscal Years 2001 through 2005 Appendix IV

Table 20 shows, for fiscal years 2001 through 2005, recreation visitation
trends for the 12 selected park units we visited compared to the entire
Park Service.

Table 20: Recreation Visitation Trends for the Park Service and 12
Selected Park Units, Fiscal Years 2001 through 2005

              Fiscal                
               years                
Park unit          2001        2002        2003        2004        2005     Average Average 
                                                                                     annual 
                                                                                     change 
                                                                                        FYs 
                                                                                     2001 - 
                                                                                       2005 
                                                                                        (%) 
Acadia NP     2,504,708   2,550,589   2,433,494   2,219,891   2,103,398   2,362,416    -4.3 
Badlands NP     956,268     906,869     872,968     921,755     924,354     916,443    -0.8 
Bryce         1,076,895     899,221     883,170   1,006,471   1,005,957     974,343    -1.7 
Canyon NP                                                                           
Gettysburg    1,779,610   1,829,794   1,753,412   1,756,451   1,716,467   1,767,147    -0.9 
NMP                                                                                 
Grand         4,219,726   3,936,828   4,102,541   4,334,614   4,367,932   4,192,328     0.9 
Canyon NP                                                                           
Grand Teton   2,531,844   2,606,497   2,466,543   2,287,662   2,459,508   2,470,411    -0.7 
NP                                                                                  
Mt Rushmore   1,862,674   2,159,718   2,212,178   2,045,798   2,052,967   2,066,667     2.5 
NMem                                                                                
Sequoia and   1,419,075   1,418,519   1,552,258   1,531,947   1,556,547   1,495,669     2.3 
Kings                                                                               
Canyon NP                                                                           
Shenandoah    1,514,739   1,511,020   1,127,958   1,290,812   1,141,102   1,317,126    -6.8 
NP                                                                                  
Yellowstone   2,769,775   2,969,876   2,995,640   2,900,971   2,828,536   2,892,960     0.5 
NP                                                                                  
Yosemite NP   3,453,345   3,305,636   3,380,038   3,356,028   3,212,295   3,341,468    -1.8 
Zion NP       2,269,328   2,510,630   2,451,977   2,684,977   2,587,781   2,500,939     3.3 
Subtotal,    26,357,987  26,605,197  26,232,177  26,337,377  25,956,844  26,297,916    -0.4 
12 selected                                                                         
park units                                                                          
Total for   284,267,032 274,202,072 265,470,541 276,363,931 271,196,534 274,300,022    -1.2 
entire Park                                                                         
Service                                                                             

Source: GAO analysis of Park Service data.

Note: The Park Service defines a recreation visit as the entry of a person
onto lands or waters administered by the Park Service for recreational
purposes excluding government personnel, through traffic (commuters),
trades-persons and persons residing within park unit boundaries.

Comments from the Department of the Interior Appendix V

The following are GAO's comments on the Department of the Interior's
letter dated March 27, 2006

GAO Comments

1.We agree that the overall 2005 ONPS account was $1.7 billion-an increase
of about 21 percent higher than in 2001. We reported this increase on an
average annual basis of about 4.9 percent per year from 2001 through 2005,
which is equivalent to about 21 percent from 2001 to 2005 in nominal
terms. In addition, we added information on the department's comment that
the Park Service has received significant operating increases since 1980,
particularly compared to other domestic agencies.

2.For the park units we visited, we provided data and analysis on the
major funding trends for the park units, namely, allocations for daily
operations, project related allocations, visitor fees, concessions fees
and others. We added examples of specific project allocations to the park
units we visited and how they were used as reported by the park units.

3.On page 12 of the report, we provided information on the park service's
overall budget authority. In addition, we agree that the allocations for
daily operations increased by about 14 percent from 2001 through 2005.
However, we believe it is also important to look at the change in
inflation-adjusted terms. We believe the information we provided in the
report fairly describes the emphasis placed by the Congress and the
Administration on Park Service operations over our 5-year study time
frame.

4.According to the Department of the Interior, the allocation for daily
operations increased more in dollar terms than any other Park Service
program between 2001 and 2005. However, on an average annual basis, the
percentage increase over this period was less than for other programs. In
addition, after adjusting for inflation, the allocation for daily
operations fell slightly from about $903 million in 2001 to about $893
million in 2005-an average annual decline of about $2.5 million, or 0.3
percent.

5.We disagree with the assertion that our analysis presents a "false
dichotomy between operations and project funding." This is addressed more
fully on pages 46 and 47.

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.

GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments Appendix VI

Robin Nazzaro, (202) 512-3841, [email protected]

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.

Related GAO Products

Maintenance

National Park Service: Efforts Underway to Address Its Maintenance
Backlog. GAO-03-1177T . Washington, D.C.: September 27, 2003.

National Park Service: Status of Agency Efforts to Address Its Maintenance
Backlog. GAO-03-992T . Washington, D.C.: July 8, 2003.

National Park Service: Status of Efforts to Develop Better Deferred
Maintenance Data. GAO-02-568R. Washington, D.C.: April 12, 2002.

National Park Service: Efforts to Identify and Manage the Maintenance
Backlog. GAO/RCED-98-143 . Washington, D.C.: May 14, 1998.

National Park Service: Maintenance Backlog Issues. GAO/T-RCED-98-61 .
Washington, D.C.: February 4, 1998.

Visitor Fees

Recreation Fees: Comments on the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act,
H.R. 3283. GAO-04-745T . Washington, D.C.: May 6, 2004.

Recreation Fees: Management Improvements Can Help the Demonstration
Program Enhance Visitor Services. GAO-02-10. Washington, D.C.: November
26, 2001.

National Park Service: Recreational Fee Demonstration Program Spending
Priorities. GAO/RCED-00-37R. Washington, D.C.: November 18, 1999.

Recreation Fees: Demonstration Has Increased Revenues, but Impact on Park
Service Backlog Is Uncertain. GAO/T-RCED-99-101. Washington, D.C.:  March
3, 1999.

Recreation Fees: Demonstration Program Successful in Raising Revenues but
Could Be Improved. GAO/T-RCED-99-77. Washington, D.C.: February 4, 1999.

Recreation Fees: Demonstration Fee Program Successful in Raising Revenues
but Could Be Improved. GAO/RCED-99-7. Washington, D.C.:  November 20,
1998.

Resource Management

Wildlife Management: Negotiations on a Long-Term Plan for Managing
Yellowstone Bison Still Ongoing. GAO/RCED-00-7. Washington, D.C.: 
November 30, 1999.

National Park Service: Efforts to Link Resources to Results Suggest
Insights for Other Agencies. AIMD-98-113. Washington, D.C.:  April 10,
1998.

Wildlife Management: Issues Concerning the Management of Bison and Elk
Herds in Yellowstone National Park. GAO/T-RCED-97-200. Washington, D.C.:
July 10, 1997.

National Parks: Park Service Needs Better Information to Preserve and
Protect Resources. GAO/T-RCED-97-76. Washington, D.C.: February 27, 1997.

National Park Service: Activities Within Park Borders Have Caused Damage
to Resources. GAO/RCED-96-202. Washington, D.C.: August 23, 1996.

Donations

National Park Foundation: Better Communication of Roles and
Responsibilities Is Needed to Strengthen Partnership with the National
Park Service. GAO-04-541. Washington, D.C.:  May 17, 2004.

Park Service: Agency Needs to Better Manage the Increasing Role of
Nonprofit Partners. GAO-03-585. Washington, D.C.: July 18, 2003.

Concessions

Park Service: Need to Address Key Management Problems That Plague the
Concessions Program. GAO/T-RCED-00-136. Washington, D.C.: June 15, 2000.

Park Service: Need to Address Management Problems That Plague the
Concessions Program. GAO/T-RCED-00-188. Washington, D.C.:  May 24, 2000.

Park Service: Need to Address Management Problems That Plague the
Concessions Program. GAO/RCED-00-70. Washington, D.C.: March 31, 2000.

National Park Service: Concession Reform Issues. GAO/T-RCED-98-122.
Washington, D.C.: March 12, 1998.

Federal Lands: Concession Reform is Needed. GAO/T-RCED/GGD-96-223.
Washington, D.C.:   July 18, 1996.

Housing

National Park Service: Concerns About the Implementation of Its Employee
Housing Policy. GAO/T-RCED-99-119. Washington, D.C.: March 17, 1999.

National Park Service: Employee Housing Issues. GAO/T-RCED-98-35.
Washington, D.C.: October 29, 1997.

Other Management Issues

National Park Service: Opportunities Exist to Clarify and Strengthen
Special Uses Permit Guidance on Setting Grazing Fees and
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.

(360537)

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt? GAO-06-431 .

To view the full product, including the scope

and methodology, click on the link above.

For more information, contact Robin Nazzaro at (202) 512-3841 or
[email protected].

Highlights of GAO-06-431 , a report to congressional requesters

March 2006

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

Major Operations Funding Trends and How Selected Park Units Responded to
Those Trends for Fiscal Years 2001 through 2005

In recent years, some reports prepared by advocacy groups have raised
issues concerning the adequacy of the Park Service's financial resources
needed to effectively operate the park units.

GAO was asked to identify (1) funding trends for Park Service operations
and visitor fees for fiscal years 2001-2005; (2) specific funding trends
for 12 selected high visitation park units and how, if at all, the funding
trends have affected operations; and (3) recent management initiatives the
Park Service has undertaken to address fiscal performance and
accountability of park units.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that Interior allow park units to use visitor fee revenues
to pay the costs of permanent employees administering projects funded by
visitor fees.

In commenting on the draft report, Interior suggested the recommendation
be modified to dictate that visitor fee revenue be used to fund only a
limited number of employees and to specific projects. GAO believes its
recommendation, as written, provides the latitude sought.

Interior also commented that it believes the report creates a misleading
impression of the state of park operations.

Overall, amounts appropriated to the National Park Service (Park Service)
in the Operation of the National Park System account increased from 2001
to 2005. In inflation-adjusted terms, amounts allocated by the Park
Service to park units from this appropriation for daily operations
declined while project-related allocations increased. Project-related
allocations increased primarily in (1) cyclic maintenance and repair and
rehabilitation programs to reflect an emphasis on reducing the estimated
$5 billion maintenance backlog and (2) the inventory and monitoring
program to protect natural resources through the Natural Resource
Challenge initiative. Also, on an average annual basis, visitor fees
collected increased about 1 percent, a 2 percent decline when adjusted for
inflation.

All park units we visited received project-related allocations but most of
the park units experienced declines in inflation-adjusted terms in their
allocations for daily operations. Each of the 12 park units reported their
daily operations allocations were not sufficient to address increases in
operating costs, such as salaries and new Park Service requirements. In
response, officials reported that they either eliminated or reduced
services, or relied on other authorized sources to pay operating expenses
that have historically been paid with allocations for daily operations.
Also, implementing important Park Service policies, without additional
allocations, has placed additional demands on the park units and reduced
their flexibility. For example, the Park Service has directed its park
units to spend most of their visitor fees on deferred maintenance
projects. While the Park Service may use visitor fees to pay salaries for
permanent staff that administer projects funded with these fees, it has a
policy prohibiting such use. To alleviate the pressure on daily operations
allocations, we believe it would be appropriate to use visitor fees to pay
the salaries of employees working on visitor fee-funded projects. Interior
believes that while employment levels at individual park units may have
fluctuated for many reasons, employment servicewide was stable, including
both seasonal and permanent employees.

GAO identified three initiatives--Business Plan, Core Operations Analysis,
and Park Scorecard--to address park units' fiscal performance and
operational condition. Of the park units we visited with a business plan,
officials stated that the plans, among other things, have helped them
better identify future budget needs. Due to its early development stage,
only a few park units have participated in the Core Operations Analysis;
for those we visited who have, officials said that they are better able to
determine where operational efficiencies might accrue. Park Service
headquarters used the Scorecard to validate and approve increases in
funding for daily operations for fiscal year 2005.

Report to Congressional Requesters

March 2006

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

Major Operations Funding Trends and How Selected Park Units Responded to
Those Trends for Fiscal Years 2001 through 2005
*** End of document. ***