National Park Service: Major Operations Funding Trends and How
Selected Park Units Responded to Those Trends for Fiscal Years
2001 through 2005 (05-APR-06, GAO-06-631T).
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.
This statement addresses (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. This statement is based on GAO's
March 2006 report, National Park Service: Major Operations
Funding Trends and How Selected Park Units Responded to Those
Trends for Fiscal Years 2001 through 2005, GAO-06-431
(Washington, D.C.: March 31, 2006).
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-06-631T
ACCNO: A50917
TITLE: National Park Service: Major Operations Funding Trends
and How Selected Park Units Responded to Those Trends for Fiscal
Years 2001 through 2005
DATE: 04/05/2006
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-06-631T
* Background
* Appropriations for the Operation of the National Park System
* Allocation Trends for Projects and Daily Operations at 12 Hi
* The Park Service Has Undertaken Three Management Initiatives
* GAO Recommendation and Agency Response
* GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
* GAO's Mission
* Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
* Order by Mail or Phone
* To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
* Congressional Relations
* Public Affairs
Statement for the Record for the Subcommittee on Interior, Environment,
and Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, House of
Representatives
United States Government Accountability Office
GAO
For Release on Delivery Expected at 10:00 a.m. EDT
Wednesday, April 5, 2006
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
Major Operations Funding Trends and How Selected Park Units Responded to
Those Trends for Fiscal Years 2001 through 2005
Statement for the Record Robin M. Nazzaro, Director Natural Resources and
Environment
GAO-06-631T
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
We are pleased to provide for the record a summary of our report on issues
surrounding the principle sources of funding for the operations of the
National Park Service (Park Service) from fiscal years 2001 through 2005,
and how the selected park units we visited responded to their allocations
of such funds. 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 sources, 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 another for specific, non-recurring
projects. Park managers use allocations for daily operations to pay for
visitor and resource protection, interpretation and education, and
facilities operations, among other things. About 80 percent or more of the
park units' daily operations allocations 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 allocations to pay temporary
employees or contractors to complete these projects.
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 the park units. They report 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. 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.
1The Park Service has aseparate appropriation account for construction,
which includes major improvements and repairs; an appropriation account
for the U.S. Park Police; and other appropriation accounts, such as
National Recreation and Preservation, Historic Preservation, and Land
Acquisition and State Assistance. However, they are not the subject of
this report.
This statement, which is based on our recent report on the operating
condition of the national parks,2 addresses (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.3 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 funding and cost data, and interviewed park
officials to determine allocation trends and their impact on operations
(including visitor services). 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.
A more detailed description of our scope and methodology is contained in
the report on which this statement is based. We performed our work from
January 2005 to March 2006 in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards.
2U.S. Government Accountability Office, National Park Service: Major
Operations Funding Trends and How Selected Park Units Responded to Those
Trends for Fiscal Years 2001 through 2005, GAO-06-431 (Washington, D.C.:
March 31, 2006).
3To remove the effects of inflation, we adjusted nominal dollars using the
Gross Domestic Product Price Index for Government Consumption Expenditures
and Gross Investment (federal nondefense sector), with 2001 as the base
year.
In summary we found that
o Overall, amounts appropriated to the Park Service in the ONPS
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 to park units for daily operations increased 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 per year,
but a slight decline of 0.3 percent per year when adjusted for
inflation. In allocating resources to park units, the Park Service
increased allocations for project-related activities at a higher
rate than for 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 per year, or about 4 percent per year in
inflation-adjusted dollars. 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.
o All of the 12 high-visitation park units that we visited
received project-related allocations between fiscal years 2001
through 2005, but for most park units their allocations for daily
operations declined in inflation-adjusted terms. Allocations of
project-related funds at the 12 high-visitation park units we
visited varied from year to year. Although allocations for daily
operations increased in nominal terms from 2001 through 2005 at
all 12 parks we visited, 8 of the 12 experienced a decline in
inflation-adjusted allocations and 4 experienced an increase in
inflation-adjusted allocations. Park managers at all 12 park units
we visited 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. For example, the Park
Service set a goal to spend the majority of its 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. 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. 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.
o In response to daily operations allocation trends, increased
costs, and new policy requirements, parks reported that they
either eliminated or reduced some services; they also relied on
other authorized funding sources and volunteers to pay for
activities 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. 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 the park units also
stated that they increasingly relied on volunteers and nonprofit
partner organizations to provide services that were traditionally
offered by park rangers, including providing information and
educational programs to visitors. In commenting on a draft of our
report, the Department of the Interior said that the report
creates a misleading impression concerning the state of park
operations, claiming 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 the
department's initiatives and efforts to achieve results.
o We identified three management initiatives that the Park
Service has undertaken to address fiscal performance and
accountability and to better manage within 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. For the most part, it is
too soon to assess the effectiveness of these initiatives.
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. These units include a diverse mix of sites-now in more than
20 different categories.4 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.
The Park Service receives its main source of funds to operate park
units through appropriations in the ONPS account. The Park Service
chooses to allocate funds to its park units in two categories-one
for daily operations, and another for specific, non-recurring
projects. Daily operations allocations for individual park units
are built on park units' allocation for the prior year. Park units
receive an increased allocation for required pay increases and may
request specific increases for new or higher levels of ongoing
operating responsibilities, such as adding additional law
enforcement rangers for increased homeland security protection. 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. Generally, 80 percent or more 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 are authorized to collect revenue from outside sources
such as visitor fees and donations-although how they are used may
be limited to specific purposes. 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.5 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. 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.
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
year 2001 through 2005. Appropriations increased in nominal terms
from about $1.4 billion in fiscal year 2001 to almost $1.7 billion
in fiscal year 2005, an average annual increase of about 4.9
percent (i.e., about $68 million per year). After adjusting these
amounts for inflation, the average annual increase was about 1.3
percent or almost $18 million per year. By contrast, the Park
Service's overall budget authority increased to about $2.7 billion
in 2005 from about $2.6 billion in 2001, an average increase of
about 1 percent per year. In inflation adjusted dollars, the total
budget authority fell by an average of about 2.5 percent per year.
Figure 1 shows the appropriations for the ONPS account from fiscal
years 2001 through 2005.
Figure 1: Appropriations for the ONPS 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 are deposited in a
separate account.
The Park Service's total allocation for daily operations for park
units increased overall in nominal dollars but declined slightly
when adjusted for inflation from fiscal year 2001 through 2005. As
illustrated in figure 2, 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 2: Overall Allocations for Daily Operations for Park Units
from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2005
Note: Overall allocations 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.
Allocations for projects and other support programs increased
overall in both nominal and inflation-adjusted dollars.6 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 3 shows
allocation trends of projects and other support programs for the
Park Service from fiscal years 2001 through 2005. Three programs
that include project funding for individual park units-Cyclic
Maintenance, Repair and Rehabilitation, and Inventory and
Monitoring-account for over half of the increase for the project
and support program allocations. As a percentage of total project
and support program funding, funding for these programs rose to 31
percent in 2005 from 23 percent in 2001. For example, Cyclic
Maintenance program funding increased from $34.5 million in 2001
to $62.8 million in 2005-an average annual increase of 16.2
percent in nominal terms or 12.1 percent when adjusted for
inflation. Increases in the Cyclic Maintenance and Repair and
Rehabilitation programs reflect an emphasis on the effort for the
Park Service to reduce its estimated $5 billion maintenance
backlog. Increases in the Inventory and Monitoring Program reflect
an emphasis on protecting natural resources primarily through an
initiative called the Natural Resource Challenge.7
Figure 3: Project and Other Support Program Allocations from
Fiscal Years 2001 through 2005
Visitor fees are also used to support park units. Overall, the
Park Service collected about $717 million in visitor fees in
addition to their annual appropriation for operations from 2001
through 2005, increasing from about $140 million to about $147
million in 2005 (an average annual increase of about 1 percent);
however, in inflation-adjusted dollars, the Park Service collected
about $670 million in visitor fees, falling from about $140
million in 2001 to about $127 million 2005 (an average annual
decline of over 2 percent). Overall, the Park Service collected an
average of about $143 million per year in nominal terms or about
$134 million per year when adjusted for inflation. Visitor fee
revenue depends on several factors, including the number of
visitors to each park unit, the number of national passes
purchased, and the amount each park charges for entry and
services.
All 12 park units we visited received allocations for projects
from fiscal years 2001 through 2005 that varied among years and
among park units. Allocations for daily operations for the 12 park
units we visited also varied. On an average annual basis, each
unit experienced an increase in daily operations allocations, but
most experienced a decline in inflation-adjusted terms. Officials
at each park believed that their daily operations allocations were
not sufficient to address increases in operating costs and new
Park Service management requirements. To manage within available
funding resources, park unit managers also reported that, to
varying degrees, they made trade-offs among the operational
activities-which in some cases resulted in reducing services in
areas such as education, visitor and resource protection, and
maintenance activities. Park officials also reported that they
increasingly relied on volunteers and other authorized funding
sources to provide operations and services that were previously
paid with allocations for daily operations from the ONPS account.
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. Appendix I shows project-related allocations and
their fluctuations from fiscal years 2001 through 2005 for the 12
parks we visited.
All twelve park units experienced an annual average increase, in
nominal terms, in allocations for daily operations; however, when
adjusted for inflation, 8 of the 12 parks we visited experienced a
decline ranging from less than 1 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.
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.8 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. As a consequence of the increases, park units had to
eliminate or defer spending in order to accommodate the increases.
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.
In addition to increasing personnel costs, officials at many of
the parks 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.
Officials at most of the parks we visited also told us that their
park 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. For example, 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 2005.9 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. Furthermore, 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.
To address differences between allocations for daily operations
and expenses, officials at the park units we visited reported that
they reduced or eliminated some services paid with daily
operations allocations-including some that directly affected
visitors and park resources. Park officials at some of the parks
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.10 However, most parks 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 back-country
patrolling. Furthermore, 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. 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.
Rather than eliminating or not performing daily operational
activities, some parks used volunteers and funding from authorized
sources such as donations from non-profit partners and
concessionaires' fees to accomplish activities that were formerly
paid with daily operations funds. Officials at several park units
said that they increasingly depend on donations from cooperating
associations to pay for training and equipment and rely on their
staff and volunteers to provide information and educational
programs to visitors that were traditionally offered by park
rangers. Funds from these sources can be significant, but they are
subject to change from year to year. Officials at several park
units expressed concern about using funding from other authorized
sources to address needs-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.
We identified three management initiatives that the Park Service
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 separately and is at various stages of development and
implementation. Table 2 in appendix II summarizes each of the
three initiatives and their stages of implementation.
Through the BPI process, park unit staff-with the help of business
interns from the Student Conservation Association-identify all
sources and uses of park funds to determine funding levels needed
to operate and manage park units.11 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. All 12 of the park units we visited
have completed a business plan.12 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 partners (such as
cooperating associations) to communicate the results. A Park
Service official stated, however, that the Park Service is still
refining these business plans to serve as a better tool for
justifying funding needs.
The COA was developed in 2004 to help park 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, 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. Three of the
twelve park units we visited have completed (or are in the process
of completing) a COA, and three will begin the COA in fiscal year
2006. The remaining six park units we visited have yet to be
selected. Park unit officials told us that the preliminary results
have helped them determine where efficiencies in operations might
accrue. A Park Service regional official told us that the core
operations process is still in its early development, noting that
preliminary results are useful but too early to determine results
to be realized by the park units.
Park Service headquarters developed the Park Scorecard beginning
in fiscal year 2004 to serve as an indicator of each park unit's
fiscal and operational condition, and managerial performance. The
scorecard is intended to provide an overarching summary of each
park unit's condition by offering a way to analyze individual park
unit needs. It also provides Park Service officials with
information needed to understand how park units compare to one
another based on broad financial, -organizational, -recreational,
-and resource-management criteria. 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 3 out
of the 12 parks we visited (Badlands National Park, Grand Teton
National Park, and Yellowstone National Park). 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.
In closing, we have found that overall, from 2001 through 2004,
the Park Service increased allocations for support programs and
project funding while placing less of an emphasis on funds for
daily operations. In fiscal year 2005, this trend shifted, and as
evidenced by our visits to 12 park units, appears to be going in
the direction needed to help the units overcome some of the
difficulties they have recently experienced in meeting operational
needs. In responding to these trends, park unit officials found
ways to reduce spending on their allocations for daily operations
and to 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
sources to perform operations, using such funds has its drawbacks
because it usually takes parks longer, with more effort from park
employees to obtain and use these sources. 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 the Park Service is embarking upon
three management initiatives that they believe will improve park
performance and accountability, and better manage within available
resources, it is too early to assess the effectiveness of these
initiatives.
To reduce some of the pressure on funding for daily operations, we
recommended that the Secretary of the Interior direct the Director
of the Park Service to revise its policy to allow park units to
use visitor fee revenue to pay the cost of permanent employees
administering projects funded by visitor fees to the extent
authorized by law. In commenting on a draft of our report, the
department generally agreed with the recommendation, but stated
that it 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. We believe our
recommendation, as written, gives the agency the flexibility
sought. The department also said that our 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, including
both seasonal and permanent employees, was stable. We believe
however, that our report provides a detailed analysis of the major
funding trends affecting Park Service operations, including those
at the 12 high-visitation park units we visited, as well as the
department's initiatives and efforts to achieve results.
This concludes our statement for the record.
For further information on this statement, please contact Robin
Nazzaro at (202) 512-3841 or [email protected] . Individuals making
contributions to this testimony included Roy Judy, Assistant
Director; Thomas Armstrong, Ulana Bihun, Denise Fantone, Doreen
Feldman, Tim Guinane, Richard Johnson, Alison O'Neill, and Patrick
Sigl.
Background
4These include (1) national parks, such as Yellowstone in Idaho, Montana,
and Wyoming; Yosemite in California; and Grand Canyon in Arizona; (2)
national historic 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.
5During the period of this review, the Park Service collected fees,
referred to as "offsetting collections," under the Recreational Fee
Demonstration Program authorized by Pub. L. No. 104-134, as amended, which
stipulated that uses for these funds include backlogged repair and
maintenance projects, interpretation, signage, habitat or facility
enhancement, resource preservation, annual operation (including fee
collection), maintenance, and law enforcement relating to public use.
Under this program at least 80 percent of the fees were retained by a park
unit and 20 percent went to a central fund managed by the Park Service.
Under current legislation (the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act,
Pub. L. No. 108-447, enacted December 8, 2004), park units are allowed to
collect and use visitor fees in a generally similar fashion.
Appropriations for the Operation of the National Park System Account Increased
Overall from Fiscal Year 2001 to 2005; When Adjusted for Inflation, the Total
Allocation for Daily Operations Declined Overall and the Total Allocation for
Projects Increased Overall
6Projects and other support programs include allocations from the ONPS
account other than allocations for daily operations. It includes overall
funding for numerous project-related sources such as Cyclic Maintenance,
Repair and Rehabilitation and other support programs such as allocations
for central offices (seven regional offices and the headquarters office),
field resource centers, and other external administrative costs such as
telecommunications and unemployment compensation payments.
7From 2001 through 2005, the Park Service allocated a total of about $62
million to Natural Resource Challenge related-programs from its ONPS
lump-sum appropriation, the majority of which was project-related funding.
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
8As reported on pages 8 and 9, appropriations for the ONPS account
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.
9In both 2001 and 2005, visitor fee spending goals for deferred
maintenance were not met. In fiscal year 2001, the amount of visitor fees
obligated for deferred maintenance was $61 million. In fiscal year 2005,
the amount was $73.1 million.
10While these reductions do not directly affect a visitor's experience,
they also may hinder the park's ability to carry out operational duties.
For example, officials at several park units explained that equipment,
such as maintenance trucks, were old and in need of replacement. For
several of the park units, certain divisions' personnel costs account for
such a large percentage of their allocation for daily operations that
reductions in other areas are not an option. At Grand Canyon National
Park, for instance, the interpretive division had approximately $75,000
available in their allocation for daily operations in 2001 to pay for
non-personnel costs such as travel and supplies. By 2005, approximately 99
percent of the division's allocation for daily operations was spent on
personnel, relying on other authorized funding sources to make up the
difference.
The Park Service Has Undertaken Three Management Initiatives to Address Fiscal
Performance and Accountability of Park Units
11The Student Conservation Association provides high school and college
students (among others) with conservation service internships and
volunteer opportunities in the National Parks, National Forests, and other
public lands.
12Park Service officials said that 2 out of the 12 parks we visited (Grand
Canyon and Yosemite National Parks) completed a BPI through contracting
external consultants on their own.
GAO Recommendation and Agency Response
GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
Appendix I: Project Allocations for 12 Selected Park Units, Fiscal Years
2001 through 2005
Table 1: 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 NP Nominal 531 365 357 433 402 2,088
Inflation-adjusted 531 353 336 391 349 1,943
Gettysburg NMP Nominal 7,551 638 753 1,296 1,324 11,562
Inflation-adjusted 7,551 618 709 1,172 1,150 11,200
Grand Canyon NP Nominal 824 1,550 1,173 2,125 1,053 6,725
Inflation-adjusted 824 1,500 1,106 1,922 914 6,266
Grand Teton NP Nominal 861 423 1,327 1,233 2,070 5,914
Inflation-adjusted 861 409 1,250 1,115 1,797 5,432
Mount Rushmore Nominal 271 118 113 146 696 1,344
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 Kings Nominal 2,038 2,859 3,364 2,927 2,760 13,948
Canyon NP
Inflation-adjusted 2,038 2,768 3,171 2,647 2,396 13,020
Yellowstone NP Nominal 43 4 9 12 3,128 3,196
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.
Appendix II: Park Service Management Initiatives to Address Park Units'
Fiscal Performance and Accountability
Table 2: Park Service Management Initiatives to Address Park Units' Fiscal
Performance and Accountability
Management Development and
initiative Description implementation
Business Plan Park managers, with the help of Park Service
Initiative (BPI) 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 First BPI was prepared
address any gaps between in 1997 by Yellowstone
available funds and park unit National Park
needs.
About 12 parks units
participate in a BPI
every year
As of January 2006, 25
percent of all park
units have participated
Core Operations A step-by-step process where park Developed in 2004
Analysis (COA) unit, regional, and headquarters
officials evaluate the park The Park Service
unit's core mission and identify intends to have all
essential park unit activities park units complete a
and associated funding needs. COA by 2011
To achieve this goal,
the Park Service will
select 50 park units
per year to participate
Park Scorecard Headquarters officials use a Park Scorecard is in
series of indicators to compare the development stage
each park unit's fiscal and
operational condition, and Used to justify park
managerial performance. units' budget increases
for daily operations in
2005
To be used to support
and evaluate park
operations in the
future
Source: GAO analysis of Park Service data.
(360696)
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this
work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material
separately.
GAO's Mission
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its
constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and
accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO
examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies;
and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help
Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's
commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of
accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost
is through GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ). Each weekday, GAO posts newly
released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To have
GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."
Order by Mail or Phone
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of
Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more
copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should
be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548
To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
512-6061
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: [email protected]
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470
Congressional Relations
Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4400 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 Washington,
D.C. 20548
Public Affairs
Paul Anderson, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4800 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington,
D.C. 20548
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-631T.
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-06-631T, a statement for the record to the Subcommittee
on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies; Committee on
Appropriations; U.S. House of Representatives
April 5 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.
This statement addresses (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. This statement is based on GAO's March 2006
report, National Park Service: Major Operations Funding Trends and How
Selected Park Units Responded to Those Trends for Fiscal Years 2001
through 2005, GAO-06-431 (Washington, D.C.: March 31, 2006).
What GAO Recommends
GAO recommends that the Department of the Interior allow park units to use
visitor fee revenues to pay the costs of permanent employees administering
projects funded by visitor fees.
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 some 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 who 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 with a business plan we visited,
officials stated that the plan, 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.
*** End of document. ***