National Parks: Difficult Choices Need to Be Made About the Future of the
Parks (Chapter Report, 08/30/95, GAO/RCED-95-238).
Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the current condition
of 12 national park units, focusing on: (1) whether any deterioration in
visitor services or park resources is occurring at the 12 units; (2)
what factors contribute to the degradation of visitor services and
parks' natural and cultural resources; and (3) the National Park
Service's efforts in dealing with these problems.
GAO found that: (1) there is cause for concern about the condition of
national parks for both visitor services and resource management; (2)
the overall level of visitor services is deteriorating at most parks;
(3) services are being cut back and the condition of many trails,
campgrounds, and other facilities are declining; (4) effective resource
management is difficult because most park managers lack sufficient data
to determine the overall condition of their parks' natural and cultural
resources; (5) parks have difficulty meeting additional operating
requirements and accomodating increased visitation; and (6) the Park
Service is considering increasing the amount of financial resources
going to parks, limiting or reducing the number of units in the park
system, and reducing the level of visitor services to improve its
financial management and performance measurement systems.
--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------
REPORTNUM: RCED-95-238
TITLE: National Parks: Difficult Choices Need to Be Made About the
Future of the Parks
DATE: 08/30/95
SUBJECT: National recreation areas
National parks
National historic sites
Historic preservation
Natural resources
Federal property management
Public lands
Cost control
Facility maintenance
Maintenance costs
IDENTIFIER: Antietam National Battlefield (MD)
Bandelier National Monument (NM)
Denali National Park and Preserve (AK)
Glacier National Park (MT)
Harpers Ferry National Historical Park (WV)
Hopewell Furnace National Historic Site (PA)
Lake Mead National Recreation Area (NV)
Shenandoah National Park (VA)
Statue of Liberty National Monument (NY)
Ellis Island (NY)
Yosemite National Park (CA)
Padre Island National Seashore (TX)
Pecos National Historic Park (NM)
**************************************************************************
* This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a GAO *
* report. Delineations within the text indicating chapter titles, *
* headings, and bullets are preserved. Major divisions and subdivisions *
* of the text, such as Chapters, Sections, and Appendixes, are *
* identified by double and single lines. The numbers on the right end *
* of these lines indicate the position of each of the subsections in the *
* document outline. These numbers do NOT correspond with the page *
* numbers of the printed 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. *
* *
* A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO Document *
* Distribution Facility by calling (202) 512-6000, by faxing your *
* request to (301) 258-4066, or by writing to P.O. Box 6015, *
* Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015. We are unable to accept electronic orders *
* for printed documents at this time. *
**************************************************************************
Cover
================================================================ COVER
Report to Congressional Requesters
August 1995
NATIONAL PARKS - DIFFICULT CHOICES
NEED TO BE MADE ABOUT THE FUTURE
OF THE PARKS
GAO/RCED-95-238
Future of the Parks
(140239)
Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV
GAO - General Accounting Office
NB - National Battlefield
NHP - National Historical Park
NHS - National Historic Site
NM - National Monument
NP - National Park
NPR - National Performance Review
NRA - National Recreation Area
NS - National Seashore
PRES - Preserve
Letter
=============================================================== LETTER
B-261848
August 30, 1995
Congressional Requesters
This report responds to your request that we review the current
condition of the national parks. Specifically, the report discusses
(1) what, if any, deterioration in visitor services or park resources
is occurring at the 12 park units that GAO visited; (2) what factors
contribute to any degradation of visitor services and parks' natural
and cultural resources at the 12 park units that GAO visited; and (3)
what choices are available to help deal with identified problems.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce its
contents earlier, we will make no further distribution of this report
until 10 days after the date of this letter. At that time, we will
send copies to the Secretary of the Interior and the Director of the
National Park Service. We will make copies available to others on
request.
Please contact me at (202) 512-7756 if you or your staff have any
questions. Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix
II.
James Duffus III
Director, Natural Resources
Management Issues
List of Requesters
The Honorable Frank H. Murkowski
Chairman, Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources
United States Senate
The Honorable Ben Nighthorse Campbell
Chairman, Subcommittee on Parks,
Historic Preservation, and Recreation
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
United States Senate
The Honorable Craig Thomas
United States Senate
The Honorable James V. Hansen
Chairman, Subcommittee on National
Parks, Forests, and Lands
Committee on Resources
House of Representatives
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
============================================================ Chapter 0
PURPOSE
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:1
In recent years, concern has grown over the health of America's
national parks, which now serve more than 270 million visitors a
year. These parks contain many of the country's most significant
natural areas and historic sites. In response to several
congressional requesters, GAO reviewed the National Park Service's
efforts at meeting its dual missions of serving visitors and
protecting the natural and cultural resources entrusted to it. The
review focused on determining (1) what, if any, deterioration in
visitor services or park resources is occurring at the 12 park units
that GAO visited; (2) what factors contribute to any degradation of
visitor services and parks' natural and cultural resources; and (3)
what choices are available to help deal with identified problems.
BACKGROUND
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:2
The Department of the Interior's National Park Service manages 368
park units that together cover more than 80 million acres.
Thirty-one of those units have been added in the last 10 years. The
units are diverse in size and purpose, ranging from large natural
areas to battlefields and monuments. Balancing the dual objectives
of providing for the public's enjoyment and preserving the resources
for future generations has long shaped the debate about how best to
manage the system.
GAO's review focused on 12 park units--4 national parks, 2 historic
parks and 1 historic site, 2 monuments, 1 battlefield, 1 recreation
area, and 1 seashore. Chosen for the diversity they present in size,
type, and geographic location, these units represent a cross section
of units in the system.
RESULTS IN BRIEF
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:3
There is cause for concern about the health of national parks for
both visitor services and resource management. The overall level of
visitor services was deteriorating at most of the park units that GAO
reviewed. Services were being cut back, and the condition of many
trails, campgrounds, and other facilities was declining. Trends in
resource management were less clear because most park managers lacked
sufficient data to determine the overall condition of their parks'
natural and cultural resources. In some cases, parks lacked an
inventory of the resources under their protection.
Two factors particularly affected the level of visitor services and
the management of park resources. These were (1) additional
operating requirements placed on parks by laws and administrative
requirements and (2) increased visitation, which drives up the parks'
operating costs. These two factors seriously eroded funding
increases since the mid-1980s.
The national park system is at a crossroads. While the system
continues to grow, conditions at the parks have been declining, and
the dollar amount of the maintenance backlog has jumped from $1.9
billion in 1988 to over $4 billion today. Dealing with this
situation involves making difficult choices about how parks are
funded and managed. These choices call for efforts on the part of
the Park Service, the administration, and the Congress and center on
one or more of the following: (1) increasing the amount of financial
resources going to the parks, (2) limiting or reducing the number of
units in the park system, and (3) reducing the level of visitor
services. Additionally, the Park Service should be able to stretch
available resources by operating more efficiently and continuing to
improve its financial management and performance measurement systems.
PRINCIPAL FINDINGS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4
VISITOR SERVICES CUT BACK,
AND CONDITION OF MANY PARK
RESOURCES IS UNKNOWN
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4.1
Eleven of the 12 parks in GAO's review had cut visitor services. For
example, at Shenandoah National Park in Virginia, programs to help
visitors understand the park's natural and scenic aspects were cut by
more than 80 percent from 1987 to 1993. At Padre Island National
Seashore in Texas, no lifeguards were on duty along the beach during
the summer of 1994 for the first time in 20 years. Such cutbacks can
affect the visitors' safety and health as well as their enjoyment of
and access to a park's amenities.
In addition, at those parks with significant cultural resources, the
condition of these resources was generally declining. For example,
at Ellis Island in New York, the nation's only museum devoted
exclusively to immigration, 32 of 36 historic buildings have
seriously deteriorated, and according to park officials, about
two-thirds of these buildings could be lost within 5 years if not
stabilized. In some parks, the location and the status of cultural
resources--primarily archeological--were largely unknown. For
example, at Hopewell Furnace National Historic Site--an 850-acre park
in Pennsylvania that depicts part of the nation's early industrial
development--the Park Service has never performed a complete
archeological survey of the park to identify and inventory all its
cultural resources.
Likewise, officials at large natural parks, such as Yosemite and
Glacier, knew little about the condition of many natural resources.
At Yosemite, for example, officials knew little about the condition
of birds, fish, and such mammals as badgers, river otters, and
wolverines. The Park Service has not systematically collected
scientific data to inventory its natural resources or monitor changes
in their condition over time. As a result, the agency cannot now
determine whether the overall condition of many key natural resources
is improving, deteriorating, or remaining constant.
Park Service policy directs that park management be based on
knowledge of the parks' cultural and natural resources and their
condition. The Park Service's lack of progress in addressing this
decades-old concern is threatening its ability to preserve and
protect the resources entrusted to it.
TWO MAIN FACTORS CONTRIBUTE
TO THE CURRENT SITUATION
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4.2
Although many parks have received operating budget increases since
1985, laws, administrative rules, and other policy changes have given
parks many additional operating requirements. While not disagreeing
with the merits of these requirements, park managers said that the
requirements affected the availability of funds for visitor services
and resource management activities because parks often had not
received enough funds to cover the entire cost of compliance and
managers therefore had to use funds from existing operating budgets.
For example, in fiscal year 1994, Yosemite spent $42,000 to meet
several Occupational Safety and Health Act requirements and $80,000
to identify and remove hazardous waste. The park did not receive
additional funds to cover this $122,000 expense. Officials also
cited required cost-of-living increases and employer retirement
contributions that were not accompanied by sufficient additional
funds to pay for them. Because salaries and benefits constitute such
a large percentage of a park's budget--in most cases, over 75 percent
for the parks in GAO's review--nearly any such increase can have a
major impact.
Increased visitation was the second main factor eroding the parks'
ability to keep up with visitor and resource needs. Eight of the 12
parks that GAO reviewed experienced increased visitation since 1985;
the average increase was 26 percent. At some parks, the substantial
increase in visitation has driven up costs for such activities as
waste disposal, general maintenance and supplies, utilities, and
employee overtime. Moreover, the expanded length of the tourist
season at many parks requires providing at least minimal visitor
services for longer periods. To address this need, some parks have
cut back on the scope and amount of services available during the
peak season.
CHOICES FOR ADDRESSING PARK
CONDITIONS CENTER ON THREE
ALTERNATIVES
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4.3
If current circumstances continue, further deterioration in park
conditions is likely. Choices to deal with this situation center on
three alternatives: (1) increasing the amount of financial resources
going to the parks, (2) limiting or reducing the number of units in
the park system, and (3) reducing the level of visitor services.
One alternative to address the deteriorating conditions is to
increase the amount of financial resources available to the parks.
While increased appropriations are one source of dollars, they are
unlikely in today's tight fiscal climate. Other revenue sources are
potentially available, including increased park entrance and other
user fees, higher returns from in-park concessioners, and funds from
partnership agreements with nonfederal entities. Less than 8 percent
of the system's annual operating budget is currently generated
through such means. However, for parks to benefit from such changes,
the increased revenues would need to stay within the park system and
not be returned to the U.S. Treasury, as now occurs. Imposing or
increasing fees may also affect park visitation and use, a
consequence that would need to be considered.
A second alternative would limit or perhaps even cut back the number
of units in the national park system. As the system keeps growing,
associated infrastructure and development needs will also increase,
putting more park units in competition for the limited federal
funding available. While not an answer to all the current problems,
limiting or cutting back park units until conditions could be
adequately addressed would help ease the Park Service's financial
pressures.
A third alternative would reduce the visitor services provided by the
parks to more closely match the level of services that can be
realistically accomplished with available resources. This could
include, for example, limiting operations to fewer hours per day or
fewer days per year, limiting the number of visitors, or perhaps
temporarily closing some facilities to public use.
THE PARK SERVICE CAN BETTER
FOCUS RESOURCES
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4.4
Previous work by GAO and the Department of the Interior's Inspector
General has shown that the Park Service lacks (1) necessary financial
and program data on its operations, (2) adequate internal controls on
how its funds are spent, and (3) performance measures on what is
being accomplished with the money being spent. Currently, the Park
Service is taking corrective actions to resolve its problems with
financial data and internal controls and is in the process of
developing performance measurement systems. While these actions
alone will probably not be sufficient to meet all of the Park
Service's funding needs, they should increase efficiency so that the
Park Service can do more under current funding levels.
RECOMMENDATIONS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:5
GAO is making no recommendations in this report.
AGENCY COMMENTS AND GAO'S
EVALUATION
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:6
GAO provided a draft of this report to National Park Service
officials for their review and comment. On July 13, 1995, GAO met
with Park Service officials--including the Park Service's Director
and Associate Directors of Administration and Professional
Services--to obtain their comments. Overall, the officials agreed
with the factual content and conclusions of the report. They
suggested several technical clarifications throughout the report and
provided updated information. Changes to the report were made as
appropriate. The officials also offered several comments relating to
the alternatives to deal with the problems identified in the report.
Park Service officials said that increased appropriations was an
alternative that was not delineated in the report. GAO agrees that
it is an alternative, but an unlikely one in today's tight fiscal
climate. The report was revised to reflect this comment. Park
Service officials also commented that private capital is another
alternative. GAO agrees and believes that this point is included in
the report's discussion of more entrepreneurial management by park
managers.
Park Service officials further commented that increasing fees at
national parks would not make the system self-sufficient, although
they support the need for increased fees. They also said that there
may be some units for which fees should not be charged because of
their national significance. GAO agrees that increasing fees will
not solve all of the parks' financial problems. GAO also recognizes
that charging fees may be undesirable or infeasible for some units.
The report has been revised to reflect both points. Park Service
officials also commented on the alternative of limiting or reducing
the number of park units. They said that there is no evidence that
the addition of new units has affected the amount of resources for
existing units. GAO believes that given the current tight fiscal
climate, future growth in appropriations is unlikely; accordingly,
new units would be competing for available funds. Finally, Park
Service officials commented that the types of parks likely to be
closed would not provide much, if any, savings and that substantial
savings could only be achieved by closing some large units, which is
unlikely. The Park Service's opinion has been acknowledged in the
report.
INTRODUCTION
============================================================ Chapter 1
The Department of the Interior's National Park Service is responsible
for managing a large and diverse array of park units that include
some of the most significant natural and cultural resources in the
nation. In recent years, concern has grown that the parks'
responsibilities and popularity might be hampering the parks' ability
to serve visitors and manage resources. The national park system now
hosts about 270 million visitors a year--an increase of more than 20
percent since 1985.
BACKGROUND
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:1
The National Park Service is the caretaker of many of the nation's
most precious natural and cultural resources. Today, more than 100
years after the first national park was created, the national park
system has grown to include 368 units. These units cover over 80
million acres of land and include an increasingly diverse mix of
sites. In fact, there are now 20 different categories of park units.
These include (1) national parks, such as Yellowstone in Idaho,
Montana and Wyoming; Yosemite in California; and Grand Canyon in
Arizona; (2) national historical parks, such as Harpers Ferry in
Maryland, Virginia and West Virginia; and Valley Forge in
Pennsylvania; (3) national battlefields, such as Antietam in
Maryland; (4) national historic sites, such as Ford's Theatre in
Washington, D.C.; (5) national monuments, such as Fort Sumter in
South Carolina and the Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island in New
York; (6) national preserves, such as Yukon-Charley Rivers in Alaska;
and (7) national recreation areas, such as Lake Mead in Arizona and
Nevada and Golden Gate in California.
The Park Service's mission has dual objectives. On one hand, the
Park Service is to provide for the public's enjoyment of the
resources that have been entrusted to its care. This objective
involves promoting the use of the parks by providing appropriate
visitor services and the infrastructure (e.g., roads and facilities)
to support them. On the other hand, the Park Service is to protect
its natural and cultural resources so that they will be unimpaired
for the enjoyment of future generations. Balancing these objectives
has long shaped the debate about how best to manage the national park
system.
The debate has also been shaped by a number of other developments.
Despite the fiscal constraints facing all federal agencies, the
number of parks continues to expand--31 parks have been added to the
system in the last 10 years. In addition, the maintenance backlog at
national parks has increased substantially. In 1988, we reported
that the dollar amount of the backlog of deferred maintenance stood
at about $1.9 billion.\1 This backlog included items that ranged from
such routine activities as trimming trees, maintaining trails, and
repairing buildings to such major capital improvements as replacing
water and sewer systems and reconstructing roads. While agency
officials acknowledged that they do not have precise data on the
backlog, they estimated that it exceeded $4 billion in 1994.
--------------------
\1 See Parks and Recreation: Park Service Managers Report Shortfalls
in Maintenance Funding (GAO/RCED-88-91BR, Mar. 21, 1988).
OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND
METHODOLOGY
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:2
As agreed with the congressional requesters (see p. 2), we focused
our review on 12 park units within the national park system. We
judgmentally selected four national parks, two historic parks and one
historic site, two national monuments, a national battlefield, a
recreation area, and a national seashore. These units represent a
cross section of units within the national park system. They include
both large and small parks, natural and scenic parks, culturally and
historically significant parks, and parks from 7 of the 10 Park
Service regions in the country. However, because they are not a
random sample of all 368 park units, they may not be representative
of the system as a whole. Table 1.1 lists the 12 park units that we
visited.
Table 1.1
National Park Service Sites That GAO
Visited
Park unit Primary features Location
---------------------- ---------------------- ----------------------
Antietam NB Civil War battlefield Maryland
Bandelier NM Indian ruins and cliff New Mexico
dwellings
Denali NP and PRES Scenic park: glaciers, Alaska
mountains, and
wildlife
Glacier NP Scenic park: glaciers, Montana
mountains, and
wildlife
Harpers Ferry NHP Industry, Civil War, Maryland, Virginia,
and black history and West Virginia
themes
Hopewell Furnace NHS Industrial development Pennsylvania
site
Lake Mead NRA Water and desert Arizona and Nevada
recreation area
Padre Island NS Barrier island: Texas
recreation area and
wildlife
Pecos NHP Indian, colonial, and New Mexico
Civil War site
Shenandoah NP Scenic park: mountains Virginia
and valleys
Statue of Liberty NM Historic immigration New York
and Ellis Island site
Yosemite NP Scenic park: California
waterfalls, mountains,
and wildlife
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Legend
NB = National Battlefield
NHP = National Historical Park
NHS = National Historic Site
NM = National Monument
NP = National Park
NRA = National Recreation Area
NS = National Seashore
PRES = Preserve
For each of the 12 parks, we collected available data on the
condition and the trend of visitor services and park resources. We
obtained visitor service data on facilities (e.g., visitor centers,
campgrounds, trails, and roads); personal services (e.g.,
interpretive programs and other face-to-face programs); nonpersonal
services (e.g., self-guided tours and exhibits); and visitor
protection (e.g., emergency medical aid, search and rescue
assistance, and law enforcement). Concerning resources, we collected
condition and trend data on natural resources (e.g., native animals
and plants, air and water, exotic species, and threatened or
endangered species) and cultural resources (e.g., sites, structures,
objects or collections, and cultural landscapes). We also
interviewed officials at Park Service headquarters and regional
offices as well as at each park visited.
This report builds on our March 7, 1995, testimony before a joint
hearing of the Subcommittee on Parks, Historic Preservation, and
Recreation, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, and the
Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Lands, House Committee
on Resources.\2 It also draws on the 26 reports and testimonies that
we have issued over the last 5 years on a wide range of Park Service
activities and related programs. (For a list of related GAO
products, see the end of this report).
We conducted our review from April 1994 through July 1995 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
--------------------
\2 See National Park Service: Difficult Choices Need to Be Made on
the Future of the Parks (GAO/T-RCED-95-124, Mar. 7, 1995).
VISITOR SERVICES ARE DECLINING AND
THE CONDITION OF MANY PARK
RESOURCES IS LARGELY UNKNOWN
============================================================ Chapter 2
The natural beauty and historical settings of the national parks make
visits by most people a pleasurable and often inspiring experience.
Surveys by the Park Service and others show that, in general,
visitors are very pleased with their experience at national parks.\3
Nonetheless, we found cause for concern about the health of the park
system in terms of both visitor services and resource management.
The scope and quality of visitor services provided by the Park
Service are deteriorating, and a lack of sufficient data on the
condition of many natural and cultural resources in the parks raises
questions about whether the agency is meeting its mission of
preserving and protecting the resources under its care.
--------------------
\3 See Serving the Visitor: A Report on Customers of the National
Park Service, Cooperative Park Studies Unit, University of Idaho,
1994, and National Public Opinion Survey on the National Park System:
Executive Summary Report, National Parks and Conservation Association
(Feb. 1995).
VISITOR SERVICES ARE BEING CUT
BACK
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:1
Of the 12 parks included in our review, 11 had recently cut back the
level of visitor services. This reduction is particularly
significant considering that managers at most of the parks told us
that meeting visitors' needs gets top priority, often at the expense
of other park activities. The following are examples of the cuts in
service:
At Padre Island National Seashore in Texas, no lifeguards were on
duty along the beach during the summer of 1994 to help ensure
the safety of swimmers for the first time in 20 years, according
to a park official. The beach is one of the primary attractions
of the park and hosted an average of 1,300 visitors during
summer weekend days in 1991-92.
Figure 2.1: Conditions at
Padre Island National Seashore,
Texas
(See figure in printed
edition.)
This beach had no lifeguard
protection during the summer of
1994 for the first time in 20
years.
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Source: National Park Service.
(See figure in printed
edition.)
At Shenandoah National Park in Virginia, interpretive programs to
assist visitors in understanding and appreciating the natural
and scenic aspects of the park were cut by over 80 percent from
1987 through 1993. According to park officials, cutbacks
included not having interpreters stationed at busy overlooks and
trailheads, considerably fewer guided nature walks, and
considerably fewer evening campsite talks about the park's
wildlife and cultural resources. One popular campground of 186
campsites (about one-fourth of all campsites in the park) has
been closed because of funding limitations since 1993 and,
according to park officials, is scheduled to remain closed until
at least 1998. In addition, because of limited funding, park
staff have been unable to remove numerous trees that pose a
hazard to visitors because they hang precariously over hiking
trails.
Figure 2.2: Conditions at
Mathews Arm Campground,
Shenandoah National Park,
Virginia
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Because of funding limitations, this campground is slated to remain
closed until at least 1998.
At Bandelier National Monument in New Mexico, the main museum--one
of the most popular stops at the park--was closed for more than
a year because of problems with repairing a leaky roof and an
improperly installed security system.
At the Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island in New York, the extended
hours of operation to meet visitor demand during the peak summer
season have been reduced by 3.75 hours each day--a reduction of
about 30 percent. We were further told that the length of the
season for which hours are usually extended was reduced from 3
to 2 months.
At Lake Mead National Recreation Area in Arizona and Nevada, park
law enforcement personnel are often faced with a backlog of up
to 12 calls each in responding to the needs of visitors during
the summer months. According to park officials, enforcement
personnel respond to such problems as motor vehicle and boating
accidents, alcohol and drug incidents, and increasing gang
violence.
As these examples illustrate, the cutbacks in services not only
adversely affect visitors' convenience and enjoyment, but also the
Park Service's ability to meet basic visitor safety needs. Table 2.1
provides more details on the condition of visitor services at each of
the parks included in our review.
Table 2.1
Examples of Cutbacks in Visitor Services
at Parks That GAO Visited
Park unit Cutbacks in visitor services
---------------------------------- ----------------------------------
Antietam NB No cutbacks
Bandelier NM Although funding was not
insufficient, museum closed for
more than a year because of
problems with repairing a leaking
roof and improperly installed
security system.
Campfire talks reduced from about
six to three per week.
Denali NP and PRES Hours reduced by about 20 percent
at main visitor center in 1994.
Fewer campfire talks and park
programs.
Permanent interpretive staff
reduced from three to two.
Glacier NP Two campgrounds closed.
Harpers Ferry NHP Restored buildings and new
exhibits often closed to the
public.
Hopewell Furnace NHS Summer guided tours eliminated.
Lake Mead NRA Boat ramps blocked off to
visitors.
At times, law enforcement rangers
have a backlog of 12 calls when
responding to emergency and other
situations.
Padre Island NS In 1994, no lifeguards at popular
beach for first time in 20 years.
Pecos NHP Visitor center's hours reduced
during summer months.
Shenandoah NP Visitor center days and hours
reduced.
Popular campground to be closed
for 5 years.
Interpretive programs cut by over
80 percent from 1987 through 1993.
Statue of Liberty NM and Summer extended season cut from
Ellis Island 12 hours daily to less than 9
hours.
Ellis Island interpretive program
for children will end in 1995.
Yosemite NP Roving information vans and off-
site information stations
discontinued.
Fireside chats, overnight hikes,
nature walks reduced or
discontinued.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Legend
NB = National Battlefield
NHP = National Historical Park
NHS = National Historic Site
NM = National Monument
NP = National Park
NRA = National Recreation Area
NS = National Seashore
PRES = Preserve
Source: Park Service officials and documents at the 12 parks that
GAO visited and GAO's observation.
INFORMATION ON THE CONDITION OF
MANY PARK RESOURCES IS
INSUFFICIENT
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:2
Park Service policy directs that parks be managed on the basis of
knowledge of their natural and cultural resources and their
condition. Without sufficient scientific data depicting the
condition and trends of park resources, the Park Service cannot
adequately perform its mission of preserving and protecting its
resources. However, our review indicated that by and large, the
condition and trend of many park resources are largely unknown
because of the absence of sufficient information--particularly for
parks featuring natural resources, such as Glacier in Montana and
Yosemite in California.
The effective management of park resources depends heavily upon
scientifically collected data that enable park managers to detect
damaging changes to the parks' resources and guide the mitigation of
those changes. This approach involves collecting baseline data about
key park resources and monitoring their condition over time to detect
any changes. A park official told us that without such information,
damage to key resources could go undetected until it is obvious, at
which point, mitigation may be impossible or extremely expensive.
While park officials, as well as an official from the Department of
the Interior's National Biological Survey, emphasized the need for
this kind of information, we found that information is insufficient
or lacking for many of the parks' resources. This situation is not
new. Over the past 30 years, more than a dozen major reviews by
independent experts as well as the Park Service have concluded that
resource management must be guided by more scientific knowledge.
From the so-called "Leopold" and "Robbins" reports of 1963\4 to the
report on the 75th Anniversary Symposium on the National Park Service
(the "Vail Agenda") in 1992\5 to a Natural Research Council report of
1992,\6 concerns have been raised about the lack of scientific data
on park resources. Similar concerns have been echoed by park
advocacy groups, such as the National Parks and Conservation
Association,\7 and by two former Park Service Directors.
--------------------
\4 A.S. Leopold, S.A. Cain, C.M. Cottam, I.N. Gabrielson, and
T.L. Kimball, Wildlife Management in the National Parks, Natural
Resource Conference (1963) and W.J. Robbins, A Report by the
Advisory Committee to the National Park Service on Research, National
Research Council (1963).
\5 National Parks for the 21st Century: The Vail Agenda, a report of
the steering committee and working groups following an international
symposium commemorating the 75th anniversary of the National Park
Service (Mar. 1992).
\6 Science and the National Parks, National Research Council (1992).
\7 Investing in Park Futures: The National Park System Plan: A
Blueprint for Tomorrow, National Parks and Conservation Association
(1988).
CONDITION OF CULTURAL
RESOURCES
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:2.1
Overall, managers at the culturally oriented parks we visited, such
as the Statue of Liberty National Monument and Ellis Island in New
York and Hopewell Furnace National Historic Site in Pennsylvania,
reported that (1) the condition of cultural resources was declining
and (2) the location and status of many cultural resources--primarily
archeological--are largely unknown.
Ellis Island is an example of a park where the condition of cultural
resources is declining. It was reopened in 1990 as the country's
only museum devoted exclusively to immigration. While a few of the
island's structures have been restored, 32 of 36 significant historic
buildings have seriously deteriorated. According to park officials,
about two-thirds of these buildings could be lost within 5 years if
they are not stabilized. These structures are currently not
available for public access. They include the former hospital,
quarantine area, and morgue. In addition, although some new storage
space is being built, some of Ellis Island's large collection of
cultural artifacts is stored in deteriorating facilities. As a
result, in one building, much of the collection is covered with dirt
and debris from crumbling walls and peeling paint, and leaky roofs
have caused water damage to many artifacts.
Figure 2.3: Conditions at
Restored and Unrestored
Buildings, Ellis Island, New
York
(See figure in printed
edition.)
An example of a park where the location and status of cultural
resources--in this case, archeological--is largely unknown is
Hopewell Furnace National Historic Site. This is an 850-acre park
that depicts a portion of the nation's early industrial development.
The main features of the site are a charcoal-fueled blast furnace, an
ironmaster's mansion, and auxiliary structures. Although Hopewell
Furnace has been a national historic site since 1938, a park official
advised us that the Park Service has never performed a complete
archeological survey of the park to identify and inventory all of its
cultural resources. According to a park official, without
comprehensive inventory and monitoring information, it is unknown
whether the best management decisions about resources are being made.
Also, the park does not have a current general management plan, which
is required by the Park Service and serves as a central component of
effective resource management.\8 A general management plan provides
basic management guidance on how a park unit and its resources will
be protected, developed, and used and documents compliance with the
Park Service's management policies and regulations. Table 2.2 shows
examples of cultural resource conditions at each of the 12 parks that
we visited.
Table 2.2
Examples of Cultural Resource Conditions
at Parks GAO Visited
Park unit Conditions
------------------ --------------------------------------------------
Antietam NB Structures, collections, and landscapes in at
least
good condition.
Unknown number, location, and condition of
archeological sites.
Bandelier NM Structures and collections considered to be in
fair condition; condition of landscapes unknown.
No archeological site survey for about one-half
of park.
Seventy percent of known cultural sites affected
by severe, largely irreversible erosion.
Denali NP and PRES No comprehensive survey of cultural sites.
Most cultural resource surveys done for proposed
construction projects along main road corridor.
Known structures considered in fair condition.
Glacier NP Most known archeological sites in good or better
condition but some subject to theft and erosion.
Over 75 percent of structures in fair or poor
condition.
Collections and landscapes in generally good
condition.
Harpers Sites, structures, and collections in good
Ferry NHP condition.
Most cultural landscapes identified but some
considered in poor condition because of
encroachment and enforcement problems.
Hopewell Total number, type, and condition of sites and
Furnace NHS landscapes unknown.
No overall cultural landscape plan.
Historic furnishings deteriorating because of
mold and mildew caused by lack of a climate
control system.
Lake Mead Condition of 94 percent of nearly 1,500 sites
NRA unknown; only 1 percent of park has had an
archeological survey.
Unknown condition for about two-thirds of
structures.
Most collections (40,000+) in good condition but
stored generally off-site.
Padre Ninety percent of park has not had an
Island NS archeological survey.
Many known archeological sites covered by
shifting sands.
Pecos NHP Sites in fair condition; structures in poor
condition; collections in good condition; and
landscape condition unknown.
Over 5,000 acres added in the last 5 years--not
yet surveyed.
Shenandoah NP Many culturally significant sites and structures
destroyed; remaining structures allowed to "melt
into the landscape."
Fair condition for most collections and known
landscapes; unknown condition for over 90 percent
of identified sites.
Statue of Liberty Thirty-two of 36 historic buildings on Ellis
NM and Island are seriously deteriorated and over two-
Ellis Island thirds could
be completely lost in 5 years if not stabilized.
Many collections covered with dirt and debris
from crumbling walls and peeling paint, and leaky
roofs have caused water damage.
Yosemite NP No comprehensive parkwide assessment of cultural
resources.
Only 6 percent of park surveyed for archeological
sites; estimated total sites may be more than
double known sites.
Sixty-five percent of museum collection of 1
million items believed to be in fair or worse
condition because of inadequate protection from
fire, rodents, and climate conditions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Legend
NB = National Battlefield
NHP = National Historical Park
NHS = National Historic Site
NM = National Monument
NP= National Park
NRA = National Recreation Area
NS = National Seashore
PRES = Preserve
Source: Park Service officials and documents at the 12 parks that
GAO visited and GAO's observation.
--------------------
\8 Officials at the park told us that they had not received funding
for their general management plan. Park Service headquarters
officials told us that given congressional allocations and direction,
other general management plans had higher priority.
CONDITION OF NATURAL
RESOURCES
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:2.2
Even at the parks we visited that showcase natural resources, little
was known about natural resource conditions and trends. This
situation existed because the Park Service has not systematically
collected scientific data to inventory its natural resources or
monitored changes in their condition over time. As a result, the
agency cannot scientifically determine whether the overall condition
of many key natural resources is improving, deteriorating, or
remaining constant.
For example, at both Yosemite and Glacier National Parks, data about
many of the parks' natural resources have not been collected. As a
result, the condition and trend of these resources are largely
unknown. At Yosemite, officials told us that virtually nothing was
known about the types or numbers of species inhabiting the park,
including birds, fish, and such mammals as badgers, river otters,
wolverines, and red foxes. These officials acknowledged that the
extent of their knowledge was poor because it was not based on
scientific study. At Glacier, baseline information on park wildlife
was similarly inadequate. Park officials indicated that most
monitoring efforts were directed at four species protected under the
Endangered Species Act. They did not have data on the condition and
trend of many other species.
Another example is Padre Island National Seashore in Texas.
According to managers at this park, they did not have information on
the condition of four of the seven categories of wildlife within the
park. Specifically, they lacked detailed data on the condition of
such species as reptiles and amphibians--except for endangered sea
turtles--and such terrestrial mammals as white-tailed deer, coyotes,
and bobcats. Furthermore, except for certain species, such as
endangered sea turtles that use portions of the park as nesting
areas, park managers had little knowledge about whether the condition
of wildlife within the park was improving, declining, or remaining
constant.
Within the last decade, the Park Service has begun efforts to gather
better information about the condition of the parks' natural
resources. According to the Deputy Director of the Park Service, it
took the environmental movement of the late 1960s and early 1970s and
national attention to the resource problems in the parks during the
early 1980s for the Park Service to start seriously addressing
natural resource concerns. However, according to the Deputy
Director, progress has been limited because of insufficient funding
and competing needs and the completion of much of the work is many
years away. In the meantime, park managers often make decisions
about the parks' operations without knowing the impact of these
decisions on the resources. For example, according to a park manager
at Yosemite National Park, after 70 years of stocking nonnative fish
in various lakes and waterways for recreational purposes, park
officials realized that indiscriminate stocking had compromised the
park's waterways. Nonnative fish introduced into the park now
outnumber native rainbow trout by four to one. According to a park
official, this stocking policy, which continued until 1990, has also
resulted in a decline of at least one federally protected species.\9
Table 2.3 provides examples of the conditions of natural resources at
each of the 12 parks included in our review.
Table 2.3
Examples of Natural Resource Conditions
at Parks That GAO Visited
Park unit Conditions
---------------------------------- ----------------------------------
Antietam NB Condition of wildlife generally
unknown.
No baseline data on wildlife
distribution, threats, or
habitat.
Significant adverse impact on
landscape from some nonnative
plants.
Bandelier NM Condition of most wildlife
species rated poor or unknown.
No baseline data on most
species.
At least 10 species have become
extinct in park.
Past livestock grazing and
uncontrolled elk population have
caused widespread adverse impact
on native vegetation.
Denali NP and PRES Condition of most wildlife and
plant resources unknown.
Animal and plant studies
generally limited to main road
corridor and localized developed
areas.
Glacier NP Baseline information on wildlife
is inadequate overall and unknown
for some species.
Most monitoring directed at four
federally protected species.
Significant adverse impacts from
nonnative fish and plants.
Harpers Condition of wildlife unknown.
Ferry NHP Significant adverse impact from
insect infestation on hemlocks.
Hopewell Condition of wildlife and plant
Furnace NHS resources generally unknown.
High deer population believed to
be impacting other mammals and
birds by destroying ground cover.
Lake Mead Existing baseline inventories not
NRA comprehensive or sufficiently tied
to serve inventory needs.
Significant erosion and
vegetation loss owing to livestock
grazing, feral burros, off-road
vehicle use, and nonnative
vegetation.
Padre Unknown condition for most
Island NS resources except fisheries, birds,
and sea turtles.
Scientific surveys for birds, sea
turtles, and some marine fish.
Pecos NHP Condition of most wildlife
considered fair.
Park still gathering baseline
data on resources.
Significant adverse impacts on
vegetation from livestock grazing
and exotic plants.
Shenandoah NP Condition of mammals and
reptiles/amphibians generally
unknown; other species believed by
park officials to be in good
condition.
Unknown trend for several
threatened or endangered wildlife
and plants.
Significant tree mortality from
insect infestation.
Statue of Liberty NM and Condition of wildlife unknown.
Ellis Island Most plant species considered
nonnative but not invasive.
Yosemite NP Condition of most resources
unknown.
Unknown trend for two of four
identified threatened or
endangered species.
Last comprehensive mammal survey
done between 1914 and 1920.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Legend
NB = National Battlefield
NHP = National Historical Park
NHS = National Historic Site
NM = National Monument
NP = National Park
NRA = National Recreation Area
NS = National Seashore
PRES = Preserve
Source: Park Service officials and documents at the 12 parks that
GAO visited and GAO's observation.
--------------------
\9 The mountain yellow-legged frog.
CONCLUSIONS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:3
The National Park Service is mandated to provide for the enjoyment of
visitors to some of the nation's greatest natural and cultural
resources and, at the same time, to preserve and protect those
treasures. However, cutbacks in the scope and quality of services
provided to visitors and a lack of sufficient information about the
condition of many natural and cultural resources within national
parks are affecting the Park Service's ability to meet its mandate.
While a visit to the nation's parks is still an enjoyable and
pleasant experience for most visitors, reduced park operating hours,
less frequent or terminated interpretation programs, fewer law
enforcement personnel, and less timely attention to visitors' safety
needs is seriously diminishing the quality of this experience.
Moreover, the Park Service's lack of progress in addressing a
decades-old problem of collecting scientific data to properly
inventory park resources and monitor their condition and trend over
time is threatening its ability to preserve and protect the resources
entrusted to it.
AGENCY COMMENTS AND OUR
EVALUATION
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:4
Officials at the National Park Service generally concurred with the
information presented in this chapter. They provided some clarifying
language that we incorporated where appropriate.
MAJOR FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO THE
CURRENT SITUATION
============================================================ Chapter 3
From fiscal year 1985 through fiscal year 1993, the Park Service's
operating budget rose about 14 percent, when adjusted for inflation.
At most of the parks we visited, the funding increases over this
period outpaced inflation. Despite these increases, the Park Service
has not been able to keep up with visitor services and resource
management needs. Our work identified two factors common to most of
the parks we visited that substantially affected the level of visitor
services and resource management activities. These factors were
additional operating requirements and increased visitation.
BUDGET OVERVIEW
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:1
From fiscal year 1985 through fiscal year 1993, the Park Service's
operating budget rose from about $627 million to about $972
million--or by about 55 percent.\10 After factoring in inflation, the
increase still amounts to about 14 percent. At 10 of the 12 parks we
visited, funding increases outpaced inflation during this time
period. Increases ranged from about 2 to 200 percent. Despite these
increases, additional demands on the parks are eroding the Park
Service's ability to keep up with visitor services and resource
management needs.
To more fully understand the management of parks, it is important to
note that the majority of the operations budget--in most cases, over
75 percent for the 12 parks we visited--goes toward salary and
benefit costs. The remaining amount--usually 25 percent or
less--funds all other ongoing operating needs, such as utilities,
supplies and materials, equipment, training, and travel. Table 3.1
shows the fiscal year 1993 operations budget and the breakdown of
salary and benefits versus other costs for each of the 12 parks we
visited. In order for these data to be comparable with the 1993 data
we collected on park conditions, we used fiscal year 1993 as the
basis for our budget analysis.
Table 3.1
Information on Fiscal Year 1993
Operations Budgets for the 12 Parks That
GAO Visited
Fiscal
year
1993
operat
ions
budget Percen Dollar Percen Dollar
Park unit \a t\b s\ t\ s\
------------------------------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
Hopewell
Furnace NHS $636,0 90 $572,0 10 $64,00
00 00 0
Glacier NP 6,980, 85 5,933, 15 1,047,
000 000 000
Bandelier NM 1,412, 83 1,172, 17 240,00
000 000 0
Antietam NB 1,269, 81 1,028, 19 241,00
000 000 0
Lake Mead NRA 9,184, 76 6,980, 24 2,204,
000 000 000
Harpers
Ferry NHP 3,490, 79 2,757, 21 733,00
000 000 0
Padre
Island NS 1,909, 79 1,508, 21 401,00
000 000 0
Yosemite NP 15,430 78 12,035 22 3,395,
,000 ,000 000
Shenandoah NP 7,058, 77 5,435, 23 1,623,
000 000 000
Pecos NHP 1,014, 67 679,00 33 335,00
000 0 0
Denali NP and PRES 6,696, 60\c 4,018, 40 3,496,
000 000\ 000
Statue of Liberty NM and 8,322, 58\c 4,826, 42 2,678,
Ellis Island\ 000 000 000
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Legend
NB = National Battlefield
NHP = National Historical Park
NHS = National Historic Site
NM = National Monument
NP = National Park
NRA = National Recreation Area
NS = National Seashore
PRES = Preserve
\a Dollar figures are rounded.
\b These percentages were provided by park managers. Percentages may
include small amounts of nonoperating budget funds. Because we
calculated the salary percentages on operating funds only, the actual
percentage and dollar calculations for the remaining available funds
may be slightly different from those shown for some parks.
\c Some activities that would be carried out by park personnel are
contracted out at this park. Contracted functions are funded
primarily from the remaining funds available.
Source: National Park Service.
--------------------
\10 For the Statue of Liberty NM and Ellis Island, we used 1987
through 1993 because the Statue was closed for renovation for much of
1985 and 1986.
ADDITIONAL OPERATING
REQUIREMENTS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:2
Many additional operating requirements are passed on to the parks
through federal laws or administrative requirements. In many cases,
funds are not made available to the parks to cover the entire cost of
complying with these requirements. Park managers cited numerous
requirements from such laws as the Occupational Safety and Health Act
and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. At the 12 parks we
visited, park managers cited many different federal laws affecting
the parks' operations. (See app. I for a listing of these laws and
their requirements.) While some of these laws were enacted over 20
years ago, the requirements to comply with them may change over time.
To the extent that this occurs, the result may lead to increased
operating requirements for parks. In addition, to the extent that
they are not fully funded, other requirements, such as changes in
employee benefits and ranger certification procedures, can
significantly affect parks' budgets and the level of visitor services
and resource management activities that the parks can undertake.
Park managers told us that meeting the requirements of numerous
federal laws frequently means diverting personnel and/or dollars from
other day-to-day park activities, such as visitor services or
resource management. For example, according to a park official, in
fiscal year 1994, Yosemite officials spent about $122,000 to address
two federal requirements--$42,000 to correct violations of the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration's regulations and
$80,000 to identify and remove hazardous waste. These costs included
both personnel and nonpersonnel expenditures. Officials at Yosemite
told us that no additional funds were provided to the park for these
expenses and that the personnel and dollars needed to meet these
requirements were therefore diverted from other planned visitor and
resource management activities.
At Glacier, federal requirements for lead paint abatement, asbestos
removal, surface and waste water treatment, and accessibility for
disabled visitors required park managers to divert staff time and
operating funds from visitor and resource management activities. For
example, to comply with provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act, we
were told by park officials at Glacier that they must test the water
in the park's systems for bacteria more frequently. Beginning in
fiscal year 1992, instead of submitting one sample for bacterial
testing each month, they were required to submit two. Additionally,
the cost of each test doubled from about $7 to $15. With 27 separate
water systems to test monthly, the cost of testing for bacteria only
(many other tests are required for other substances) has risen from
about $2,268 to $9,720 per year. The park had to absorb the $7,452
increase per year from the nonsalary portion of its operating
budget--about 1 percent of the fiscal year 1993 amount. In addition,
the Safe Drinking Water Act imposed new requirements that did not
exist before, such as chlorinating the main water system and then
dechlorinating it prior to its discharge into a river. This has
added about $10,000 to $12,000 per year to the park's water
costs--about another 1 percent of the park's nonsalary budget amount.
In addition to operating requirements placed on parks by a variety of
federal laws, park operating budgets are affected by required changes
in personnel costs, such as compensation and benefits. Because
salaries and benefits constitute such a large percentage of a park's
budget--in most cases, over 75 percent in most cases for the parks we
visited--almost any increase affecting salaries that is not fully
funded (e.g., cost-of-living raises, employer retirement
contributions, and increased compensation for certain types of
employees) will have a major impact on a park's budget. For example,
according to a headquarters official, in fiscal year 1994, the
National Park Service requested and the Congress approved an upgraded
civil service classification for rangers. The upgraded
classification resulted in increased compensation for park rangers,
beginning in the last quarter of fiscal year 1994. Although most
parks received additional funds to partially offset the increased
compensation costs in the first full year, some parks had to absorb
large amounts from their operating budgets. Lake Mead, for example,
absorbed about $200,000 in fiscal year 1995, while Shenandoah
absorbed about $50,000 out of its budget for that year. We were also
advised that unless additional funds are provided, future increased
ranger costs will be paid by the parks. Unless park managers are
willing to reduce park staffing, these additional personnel costs
that the parks must absorb are diverted from the 25 percent or less
of the annual operating budget that they have available after
salaries and benefits. In the case of Lake Mead, the $200,000
represented about 9 percent of the fiscal year 1993 nonsalary total;
for Shenandoah, the additional cost represented about 3 percent.
Finally, the parks must also absorb other increases in nonpersonnel
costs for activities that they are required to undertake. For
example, in 1991, the Department of the Interior required that its
nonseasonal law enforcement officers undergo a higher-level
background check than had previously been done to better ensure their
qualifications. As a result, the cost of each background check
jumped from under $100 to about $1,800. Since 1991, that cost has
risen to over $3,000, according to several Park Service officials.
In addition, the cost of background checks for seasonal law
enforcement employees is now about $1,800. In fiscal year 1994,
Yosemite spent about $200,000 on background checks. This represented
about 6 percent of the fiscal year 1993 operating budget available
after salaries and benefits.
While park managers did not disagree with the merits of the various
laws and other requirements with which they must comply, they believe
that when taken as a whole, operating funds available for park
activities relating to visitor and resource management are
significantly hampered by complying with these requirements.
INCREASED VISITATION
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:3
The second factor eroding the parks' ability to keep up with visitor
and resource needs is the increase in visitation. Eight of the 12
parks showed increases in the number of visitors; the average
increase was about 26 percent since 1985. The four parks where
decreases occurred were small historical parks, where visitation for
all four parks averaged less than 200,000 in 1993. In addition, in
many parks, the length of the tourist season has been expanding.
Thus, not only are more people at many parks, but the length of time
for which at least basic services must be provided is increasing.
Table 3.2 shows the changes in visitation at the 12 parks we visited.
Table 3.2
Visitation Changes at the 12 Parks That
GAO Visited, Fiscal Years 1985-93
Percent
1985 1993 change
visitati visitati increase or
Park unit on on decrease \a
------------------------------------ -------- -------- ------------
Bandelier NM 238,000 367,000 54
Yosemite NP 2,832,00 3,840,00 36
0 0
Glacier NP 1,603,00 2,142,00 34
0 0
Statue of Liberty NM and 3,093,00 4,112,00 33
Ellis Island\ 0\b 0
Lake Mead NRA 7,092,00 9,022,00 27
0 0
Denali NP and PRES 437,000 506,000 16
Padre 669,000 766,000 15
Island NS
Shenandoah NP 1,933,00 1,951,00 1
0 0
Pecos NHP 45,000 43,000 (4)
Harpers 567,000 426,000 (25)
Ferry NHP
Hopewell 154,000 109,000 (29)
Furnace NHS
Antietam NB 585,000 182,000 (69)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Legend
NB = National Battlefield
NHP= National Historical Park
NHS= National Historic Site
NM= National Monument
NP= National Park
NRA= National Recreation Area
NS = National Seashore
PRES = Preserve
\a Decrease is shown in parentheses.
\b This figure is for fiscal year 1987 because the Statue of Liberty
was closed for renovation for much of 1985 and 1986.
Source: National Park Service.
Substantial increases in visitation drive up costs for many
operations that directly support visitor activities, such as waste
disposal; general maintenance and supplies; road, trail and
campground repair; employee overtime; and utilities. Additionally,
staff are sometimes diverted from other activities to manage the
increasing crowds. For example, according to a park official at
Bandelier, because of increased visitation, comfort stations must be
cleaned more frequently and litter must also be picked up more often,
resulting in the allocation of more of the park's budget to
maintenance personnel and less to resource management activities.
Park officials at Bandelier also told us that especially on weekends,
resource management, visitor protection, and interpretive staff are
assigned to direct traffic or perform other crowd control activities.
An official at Lake Mead told us that because of increased visitation
and staffing limitations, some law enforcement rangers work 125 hours
over a 2-week period and earn $2,000 to $3,000 per month in overtime
during the summer. In total, the park officials at Lake Mead
indicated that they spend about $150,000 annually on summer overtime
for law enforcement rangers.
In addition, the expansion of the visitor season has created
increased demands on parks. At Glacier, for example, September
visitation now rivals that of historically high June, and almost 20
percent of the park's annual visitation occurs in September and
October. Officials at many of the parks we visited spoke of an
expanded visitor season. This expansion requires at least minimal
visitor services and facilities for longer periods than had
traditionally been the case. Combined with current budget and
personnel ceilings, this expansion has sometimes necessitated cutting
back on the scope and amount of services available during the peak
season (e.g., fewer interpretive programs and shorter visitor center
hours) or diverting staff from other activities to handle the longer
visitor season. For example, at Glacier, the variety of walks and
hikes offered during the peak season of fiscal year 1993 declined so
that some services could be provided in September. Even so,
officials at some of the parks told us that they are able to provide
only a limited amount of visitor services during the extended season.
Some park officials also told us that the increasing visitation
levels and seasons are a major factor in absorbing the operating
budget increases in recent years.
CONCLUSIONS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:4
The National Park Service received increased operating budgets from
fiscal year 1985 through fiscal year 1993. During this time, the
agency's operating budget, adjusted for inflation, has increased
about 14 percent. At 10 of the 12 parks we visited, funding
increases outpaced inflation. However, at the same time, new
requirements and demands that have seriously eroded the impact of
these budget increases have been placed on the parks. These include
additional operating requirements imposed on park managers by a
number of laws and administrative requirements and additional
operating demands associated with increasing levels of visitation.
Cumulatively, these factors have contributed to declining levels of
visitor services and resource management activities and have limited
the parks' ability to stem this decline. As a result, many park
needs are not being met.
AGENCY COMMENTS AND OUR
EVALUATION
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:5
National Park Service officials provided no comment on this chapter
of the report.
CHOICES FOR ADDRESSING PARK
CONDITIONS WILL BE DIFFICULT
============================================================ Chapter 4
Many of the problems facing the National Park Service are not new.
At the same time that visitor services are being cut back and parks
are operating without sufficient information on the condition of many
of their resources, the Park Service faces a multibillion-dollar
maintenance backlog and, like all federal agencies, tight budgets.
In addition, infrastructure and development needs for the park system
continue to grow as new units are added--31 since 1985. Under these
circumstances, an improvement in the short term is unlikely. Dealing
with this situation calls for the Park Service, the administration,
and the Congress to make difficult choices involving how the parks
are funded and managed. However, regardless of which, if any, of
these choices are made, the Park Service should seek to stretch
available resources wherever possible by operating more efficiently,
continuing to improve its financial management and performance
measurement systems, and broadening the scope of its current
restructuring plans.
CHOICES FOR ADDRESSING PARK
CONDITIONS CENTER ON THREE
ALTERNATIVES
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 4:1
The choices available to deal with the conditions within the national
park system center on three alternatives: (1) increasing the amount
of financial resources for the parks, (2) limiting or reducing the
number of units in the park system, and (3) reducing the level of
visitor services. The alternatives can be considered individually or
in combination.
THE AMOUNT OF FINANCIAL
RESOURCES FOR THE PARKS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 4:1.1
If the national park system is to maintain its size and traditional
level of visitor services, additional financial resources will be
necessary. Today, the annual operating budget for the national park
system is over $1.1 billion. Of this amount, less than 8 percent is
derived from revenues generated by entrance and other in-park fees.
The Park Service estimates that during fiscal year 1995, it will
receive about 33 cents in fees, on average, from each park visit. In
comparison, it will cost the Park Service about $4.12 for each park
visit.\11 One way to increase financial resources to the parks is for
the Congress to increase the Park Service's annual appropriations.
However, given today's tight fiscal climate, it is unlikely that
substantially increased federal appropriations will be available to
fill the gap between park revenues and park operating expenses. To
fill the gap, additional sources of revenues would have to be found.
Sources of increased revenues to the parks could include (1)
increasing park fees, (2) receiving better returns from in-park
concessioners, and (3) encouraging park managers to be more
entrepreneurial by providing them with authority to enter into
partnership agreements with nonfederal entities. These alternatives
are not new; the Park Service has initiated and/or supported similar
proposals in the past.
Increased park fees would come primarily from two sources-- entrance
admissions and fees for camping, backcountry, and other in-park
activities. Regarding park entrance fees, 186 of the 368 park units
charge entrance fees. Of those, fewer than 10 percent charge the
maximum allowable admission rate of $3 per person or $5 per
vehicle.\12 Table 4.1 shows the fee status and fees charged at the 12
parks included in our study.
Table 4.1
Noncommercial Single-visit Entrance Fees
Allowed and Charged at the 12 Parks That
GAO Visited
Fee
allowed? Per-
Unit \a Vehicle person
---------------------------------------- -------- -------- --------
Antietam NB Yes None $2.00
Bandelier NM Yes $5.00 3.00
Denali NP and PRES Yes 5.00 3.00
Glacier NP Yes 5.00 3.00
Harpers Ferry NHP Yes 5.00 3.00
Hopewell Furnace NHS Yes None 2.00
Lake Mead NRA Yes None None
Padre Island NS Yes 4.00 2.00
Pecos NHP Yes None 2.00
Shenandoah NP Yes 5.00 3.00
Statue of Liberty NM and Ellis Island No Not Not
applicab applicab
le le
Yosemite NP Yes 5.00 3.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Legend
NB = National Battlefield
NHP= National Historical Park
NHS= National Historic Site
NM= National Monument
NP= National Park
NRA= National Recreation Area
NS = National Seashore
PRES = Preserve
\a The maximum fee allowed at these parks is $5.00 per vehicle or
$3.00 per person. Visitors pay one or the other, not both. Some
parks may have a maximum family fee.
Source: National Park Service.
In some cases, those park units that do not charge entrance fees are
legislatively precluded from doing so. The Statue of Liberty
National Monument and Ellis Island is one such example. On the basis
of the number of visitors to the Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island
in 1993, imposing an entrance fee of about $2 per visitor would allow
the park to cover its operating costs.\13 Using the same formula, we
found that considerably higher fees would be required at other parks.
For example, on the basis of 1993 visitation levels at Pecos National
Historical Park, a fee of about $23 per visit would be required to
fully fund operating costs.
In addition to entrance fees, charging fees for an array of other
in-park activities also presents opportunities to increase park
revenues. Many in-park activities, such as fishing, backcountry
hiking and camping, climbing, and commercial filmmaking, place
special demands on park resources. These activities put pressure on
the park's human and physical resources, as well as infrastructure,
beyond that created by visitors who merely go to the parks to look at
the resources. Yet, additional costs associated with these
activities are only partially passed on to the users of these
services or not at all. For example, according to park officials,
neither Harpers Ferry nor Antietam charges fees for issuing
commercial filming permits, although they do recover any actual costs
incurred because of the filming. (Harpers Ferry recovers costs only
if the filming takes more than 2 days). In Glacier and Shenandoah
National Parks, which have a substantial amount of backcountry
camping, no fees are charged for the required permits. In 1994,
Shenandoah issued over 8,300 permits for more than 23,000 people.
Currently, throughout the national park system, fees cover only about
5 percent of the costs of providing in-park activities.\14
Imposing fees where none exist and/or increasing fees at those park
units that now have them may affect visitation. However, a recently
published 1995 survey indicated that most people--79 percent--would
not mind paying increased fees if the fees stayed within the park
system.\15 At the same time, while increasing the amount of fees
going to the parks will not solve all of the parks' financial
problems, it could help stem the deteriorating conditions identified
in this report and would shift some of the cost burden from general
taxpayers to the beneficiaries of the services. While entrance fees
may not be desirable or feasible at some units, to the extent that
fees are permitted or increased, the revenues would need to stay
within the park system and not be returned to the U.S. Treasury, as
now occurs.\16 In this regard, the Department of the Interior
proposed in 1994 to increase park entrance fees for fiscal year 1995.
However, the proposed legislation was not enacted. Interior has made
a similar proposal in fiscal year 1995 that calls for the majority of
the revenue generated from increased fees to be retained in the
national park system.
Better returns from concessioners' contracts throughout the national
park system would also expand the revenue base available to parks.
Similar to entrance and user fees, increased revenues from
concessioners' contracts, if returned to the parks, could be used to
help fund the parks' operations. However, like entrance fees, for
the parks to benefit from increased concession fees, these fees must
remain in the Park Service and not be returned to the U.S. Treasury,
as now occurs.
Historically, the Park Service has not viewed concessioners'
contracts as business assets but as customer service obligations.
Accordingly, the agency has not approached concessions management
with the objective of realizing a fair return for the taxpayer.
Instead, the return to the government has averaged under 3 percent of
gross concession revenues. Current and past administrations have
acknowledged that these returns are too low.
Another way to expand the revenue base for operating and maintaining
the national park system is to encourage more entrepreneurial
approaches by park managers by providing them with more flexibility
to enter into partnership agreements with the private sector and
other parties. As pointed out in the administration's report on the
National Performance Review (NPR), private donations, even more than
park fees and concessioners' contracts, represent a source of
untapped revenue for the Park Service.\17 Although more than 200
nonprofit groups and many corporations give money to the parks, the
Park Service is hindered in its dealings with them. Currently, park
managers have no authority to directly solicit funds and may not
enter into cooperative agreements with nonfederal partners unless
specifically authorized by law. Donations can currently be made
directly to the Park Service or through the National Park Foundation,
which was established by the Congress in 1976 to solicit, accept, and
administer donations for the benefit of the Park Service. At the
park level, some Park Service officials believe that if provided with
broader authority to enter into partnerships with nonfederal
organizations and to solicit donations, the Park Service could be
more entrepreneurial in its efforts to close the gap between its
current funding sources and park needs.
--------------------
\11 The amount "about 33 cents" was derived by adding estimated
recreation, entrance, and user fees for fiscal year 1995 and dividing
the total by the estimated number of fiscal year 1995 visits. The
$4.12 amount was derived by dividing the estimated fiscal year 1995
operating budget by the fiscal year 1995 estimated visits.
\12 Yellowstone, Grand Canyon, and Grand Teton National Parks are
permitted to charge higher rates by law.
\13 This figure was derived by dividing the park's fiscal year 1993
operating budget by the number of fiscal year 1993 visitors. It is
subject to fluctuation as budget and visitation numbers change
annually. Additionally, the calculation includes all visitors, such
as babies and senior citizens, for whom the fee structure might be
different. The calculation is used to provide a rough estimate of
cost per visit.
\14 See Accompanying Report of the National Performance Review:
Department of the Interior (1993), p. 18.
\15 National Public Opinion Survey on the National Park System:
Executive Summary Report, National Parks and Conservation Association
(Feb. 1995).
\16 According to Park Service officials, fees charged for special
uses, such as filming, stay in the park where they were collected.
These fees are a small part of any park's budget. In addition, up to
15 percent of entrance and user fees are allocated back to
fee-collecting parks for fee-collection activities. The remaining 85
percent are deposited into a special treasury account and allocated
back to all parks using a predetermined formula. The allocation is
part of their base budget.
\17 See Accompanying Report of the National Performance Review:
Department of Interior (1993), p. 19.
LIMIT THE NUMBER OF PARK
UNITS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 4:1.2
In lieu of, or in conjunction with, permitting an increased flow of
revenues to the parks, another alternative that could be
considered--assuming stable funding levels--is limiting or perhaps
even cutting back on the number of units in the national park system.
To the extent that the system is permitted to grow, associated
infrastructure and development needs will also grow. As this occurs,
more park units will be competing for the limited federal funding
that is available. One way to help ease the financial pressures now
facing the national park system until current park conditions can be
adequately addressed is to limit the number of parks added to the
system, perhaps by implementing a more rigorous review and approval
process or by better defining what types of units should be included.
Another way to ease financial pressures is to reduce the number of
units currently in the system, taking into account the costs,
benefits, and savings that would be achieved by specific decisions.
In commenting on this report, Park Service officials stated that
substantial cost savings could only be achieved by closing some of
the largest park units, which is unlikely.
REDUCTIONS IN VISITOR
SERVICES
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 4:1.3
Another alternative, in the absence of increased financial support,
would be to reduce the level of visitor services provided by the
parks to more closely match the level of services that can be
realistically accomplished with available resources. This could
include, for example, limiting operations to fewer hours per day or
fewer days per year, limiting the number of visitors, or perhaps
temporarily closing some facilities to public use.
THE PARK SERVICE'S MANAGEMENT
CAN BETTER FOCUS PARK RESOURCES
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 4:2
Regardless of which, if any, of the choices mentioned above are made,
the Park Service should seek to stretch available resources by
operating more efficiently, continuing to improve financial
management and performance measurement systems, and broadening the
scope of its current restructuring plans. While these actions alone
will probably not be sufficient to meet all of the Park Service's
funding needs, they should result in increased efficiencies so that
the Park Service can do more under current funding levels.
As we reported earlier this year, our work, as well as that of
Interior's Inspector General, has shown that the Park Service lacks
(1) necessary financial and program data on its operations, (2)
adequate internal controls on how its funds are spent, and (3)
performance measures on what is being accomplished with the money
being spent.\18 Accurate data and adequate financial controls are
prerequisites for developing reliable management reports and measures
of performance that could help the agency operate more efficiently.
Accurate data, effective controls, and useful measures of performance
would lower the agency's costs by permitting managers to focus on
results.
The Park Service has reached agreement with the Department of the
Interior's Inspector General on how to address the concerns relating
to necessary financial data and adequate internal controls. The Park
Service is currently implementing an accounting system improvement
project plan agreed to by the Inspector General. Additionally, the
Park Service is in the process of developing reliable performance
measures.
With proper implementation of these management tools, the Park
Service will be able to know (1) whether funds are being used for
their intended purpose, (2) the nature and the extent of the problems
associated with the resources it is mandated to protect and preserve,
(3) the effectiveness of measures taken to deal with the problems,
and (4) the activities and programs for which limited resources can
be allocated to do the most good. The need for improved systems of
performance management is particularly critical in light of the
highly decentralized nature of the Park Service, where individual
park managers have broad discretion to determine how to spend
operating funds. Moreover, if the Park Service receives a broader
revenue base by increasing fees, getting a higher return on
concessioners' contracts, and/or permitting park managers more
flexibility to solicit funds by entering into partnerships with
nonfederal entities, the need for better systems of performance
management is even greater.
Another way the Park Service can stretch its resources is to broaden
the scope of its current plan for restructuring the agency. To
respond to the streamlining objectives of the administration's NPR
initiative, the Park Service has prepared and is currently
implementing a restructuring plan. Essentially, the restructuring
involves relocating some headquarters personnel to field units and
decentralizing certain functions while at the same time protecting
on-the-ground employees who deliver services directly to the public.
This plan is to be implemented over the next 4 fiscal years.
As we testified in February 1995, we believe that the current plan
should achieve some improvements; however, we are concerned that it
does not go far enough because it only addresses gains to be derived
from sharing resources within the Park Service. In our view, the
current fiscal climate demands that the Park Service work with other
federal land management agencies\19 to reduce costs, increase
efficiency, and improve service to the public by collocating or
combining activities wherever possible. The Park Service has begun
to do this with several agencies--federal, state, and local--and
needs to continue to look beyond its own organizational boundaries
and work closely with the Congress and other federal land management
agencies to develop a coordinated interagency strategy to link Park
Service reforms to reforms being proposed by other federal agencies.
The ultimate goal of this strategy would be to coordinate and
integrate the functions, systems, activities and programs of the Park
Service with those of the other federal land management agencies so
that they operate as a unit at the local level.
Moreover, as its restructuring plan proceeds, the Park Service is now
being asked to respond to the second phase of the NPR initiative.
This second phase, announced in January 1995, is asking the Park
Service to identify functions and programs that it could terminate,
privatize, or devolve to state or local governments. To the extent
that these determinations result in relieving the Park Service of
functions or programs not essential to its mission, costs should be
reduced.
--------------------
\18 See National Park Service: Better Data and Controls and Broader
Restructuring Efforts Are Needed (GAO/T-RCED-95-101, Feb. 9, 1995).
\19 Other land management agencies include the Bureau of Land
Management, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, within the Department of the Interior; the U.S.
Forest Service, within the Department of Agriculture; and the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, within the Department of Defense.
CONCLUSIONS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 4:3
The national park system is at a crossroads. While more people are
visiting parks, the scope and quality of the services available to
these visitors are deteriorating. In addition, the National Park
Service, as the steward for many of the nation's natural and cultural
treasures, has a myriad of problems to address, ranging from
insufficient data on the conditions of resources to an
ever-increasing, multibillion-dollar maintenance backlog. While the
Park Service has recognized these problems and has taken some actions
to address them, the magnitude of the problems calls for difficult
choices to be made by the Park Service, the administration, and the
Congress. Choosing among the various alternatives for funding and
managing the parks will be difficult. However, unless choices are
made, further cutbacks in visitor services will have to occur, and
the Park Service's ability to preserve and protect national treasures
for the enjoyment of future generations may be in jeopardy.
Regardless of which, if any, of these choices or combination of
choices is made, the Park Service needs to continue to look for ways
to stretch its resources by operating more efficiently and improving
its financial management and performance measurement systems.
AGENCY COMMENTS AND OUR
EVALUATION
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 4:4
National Park Service officials provided both technical
clarifications and substantive comments on this chapter. The report
was revised to reflect their comments. Substantively, Park Service
officials stated that increased appropriations is an alternative for
dealing with the parks' lack of adequate financial resources but that
our report implied it was not. We agree that increased
appropriations is a choice. However, we think it is an unlikely one
in today's tight fiscal climate and have revised the report
accordingly. In addition, Park Service officials mentioned that
private capital is another alternative to increase revenues. We
agree; private capital is already addressed as part of our discussion
of possible ways to increase the flow of revenues to the parks.
Specifically, we note that donations and partnerships with private
entities could help close the funding gap in the parks.
Park Service officials also commented that increasing fees at the
national parks would not make the system self-sufficient, although
they support the need for increased fees. They also said that there
may be some units, such as Independence Hall, which should not charge
fees because of their national significance. We agree that
increasing fees is not going to fix all of the problems in the parks
and have revised the report to reflect that point. We believe,
however, that it is an alternative that can provide more revenue to
parks. We also recognize that charging fees may be undesirable or
infeasible at some units and have revised the report accordingly.
Park Service officials further commented on our discussion of
limiting and/or reducing the number of park units. They said that
there is no evidence that the addition of new units has taken away
from resources for existing units. We believe that given the current
tight fiscal climate, future growth in appropriations is unlikely;
accordingly, new units would be competing for available funds. The
officials also said that closing units could be costly and that the
size of units likely to be closed may not provide substantial cost
savings. We agree that net cost-savings should be considered in any
closure decisions and have revised the report to reflect this. Park
Service officials also said that to achieve any substantial cost
savings, large units would have to be closed, which is unlikely.
This comment has been reflected in the report.
Finally, Park Service officials identified efforts that they felt
needed to be acknowledged in the report. We agree and have revised
the report to acknowledge Park Service's efforts in the areas of (1)
developing various fee legislation proposals, (2) working in
partnership with other agencies, and (3) addressing prior findings of
the Inspector General relating to financial management and internal
control issues.
SELECTED FEDERAL LAWS AFFECTING
THE NATIONAL PARKS
=========================================================== Appendix I
Law Park requirements
--------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------
American Indian Religious Freedom Act Requires that access to and use of park
of 1978 lands and resources not unduly
interfere with Native Americans' use of
historically traditional places or
sacred sites within a park. Parks must
identify sacred resources in
consultation with relevant populations.
Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 Requires that people with disabilities
have equal access to employment,
services, programs, and facilities at
parks. Parks must complete annual
evaluations using disabled consumers or
knowledgeable experts.
Antiquities Act of 1906 Requires permits for examination or
excavation of historic or prehistoric
ruins.
Archeological and Historic Preservation Authorizes spending of up to 1 percent
Act of 1974 of project costs for mitigation of
impacts to cultural resource sites and
properties.
Archeological Resources Protection Act Requires the development of plans for
of 1979 surveying lands to identify and
evaluate archeological resources, the
establishment of public education
programs, and the preservation and
custody of excavated materials,
records, and data.
Architectural Barriers Act of 1968 Requires that facilities and programs
be made accessible to persons with
disabilities.
Clean Air Act of 1970 (as amended) Requires the preservation, protection,
and enhancement of air quality. Parks
must comply with states' air quality
implementation plans; establish
monitoring and/or research programs;
provide responses to permit
applications; and provide for a section
on air quality in park management
documents.
Clean Water Act of 1977 Requires control and abatement of water
pollution, including monitoring
effluent discharge, obtaining required
permits, and monitoring water quality.
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Provides funding and enforcement for
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 cleaning hazardous waste sites and
spills. Applies to air, surface,
groundwater, and soil.
Endangered Species Act of 1973 Provides for the conservation of
threatened and endangered species of
fish, wildlife, and plants. Parks must
maintain an inventory of endangered or
threatened species, consider impacts of
projects or programs on such species,
and consult with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service about activities that
could affect listed species. Parks must
implement tasks to recover listed
species, monitor their status, and
report such expenditures annually to
the Congress.
Equal Employment Opportunity Act of Defines responsibilities for
1972 nondiscrimination and affirmative
action.
Historic Sites, Buildings, and Authorizes the Park Service to conduct
Antiquities Act of 1935 historical research; restore,
reconstruct, rehabilitate, preserve,
and maintain historical properties; and
establish museums.
Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of Provides source of funds for
1965 acquisition of lands or interest in
land so that resources are protected
and preserved.
Mining in the Parks Act of 1976 Regulates the development of federal
mining claims to prevent adverse
impacts to park resources. Parks must
monitor and report on landmarks
threatened by surface mining.
National Environmental Policy Act of Requires parks to review all proposed
1969 actions to determine potential impact
on the human environment. Actions can
require environmental assessments or
full environmental impact statements.
Public participation and review may be
required.
National Historic Preservation Act of Establishes a national policy of
1966 historic preservation. Parks must
identify resources, evaluate their
significance, assess the impact of any
proposed actions, and mitigate adverse
affects.
National Park Service General Provides for additional improvement to
Authorities Act of 1970 and authorization for the
administration of the national park
system. Provides the general authority
for many of the activities undertaken
in parks, such as law enforcement.
Native American Graves Protection and Requires protection for Native American
Repatriation Act of 1990 burial areas and return of items to
affiliated tribes. Parks must summarize
funerary, sacred, and cultural objects
and prepare detailed inventories of
human remains and associated funerary
objects. Parks must consult with
relevant Native Americans in preparing
documents.
Occupational Safety and Health Act of Defines safety and occupational health
1970 policies, programs, and standards for
parks.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Governs the disposal of hazardous and/
of 1976 or solid waste and establishes
guidelines for collecting,
transporting, separating, recovering,
and disposing of such waste.
Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 Assures safe drinking water supplied by
public water systems. Parks must
provide water within established
quality standards and provide testing
to assure compliance.
Solid Waste Disposal Act (as amended) Regulates the disposal of solid or
hazardous waste, including requirements
for permits and reporting.
Toxic Substances Control Act Requires testing of chemical substances
that may present an unreasonable high
risk to human health or the
environment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Descriptions and requirements of laws provided by the Park
Service.
MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
========================================================== Appendix II
RESOURCES, COMMUNITY, AND ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT DIVISION, WASHINGTON,
D.C.
Cliff W. Fowler
H. Cheryl Rusten
Ned H. Woodward
DENVER REGIONAL OFFICE
William S. Lowrey
SEATTLE REGIONAL OFFICE
Brent L. Hutchison
Sterling J. Leibenguth
Paul E. Staley, Jr.
Stanley G. Stenersen
RELATED GAO PRODUCTS
============================================================ Chapter 1
PARK SERVICE MANAGEMENT
ISSUES
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:0.1
National Park Service: Difficult Choices Need to Be Made on the
Future of the Parks (GAO/T-RCED-95-124, Mar. 7, 1995).
National Park Service: Better Management and Broader Restructuring
Efforts Are Needed (GAO/T-RCED-95-101, Feb. 9, 1995).
National Park Service: Reexamination of Employee Housing Program Is
Needed (GAO/RCED-94-284, Aug. 30, 1994).
National Park Service: Activities Outside Park Borders Have Caused
Damage to Resources and Will Likely Cause More (GAO/RCED-94-59, Jan.
3, 1994).
Department of the Interior: Transfer of the Presidio From the Army
to the National Park Service (GAO/T-RCED-94-64, Oct. 26, 1993).
Department of the Interior: Transfer of the Presidio From the Army
to the National Park Service (GAO/RCED-94-61, Oct. 26, 1993).
National Park Service: Condition of and Need for Employee Housing
(GAO/RCED-93-192, Sept. 30, 1993).
National Park Service: Scope and Cost of America's Industrial
Heritage Project Need to Be Defined (GAO/RCED-93-134, May 14, 1993).
National Park Service: Status of Development at the Steamtown
National Historic Site (GAO/T-RCED-92-6, Oct. 11, 1991).
Air Pollution: Protecting Parks and Wilderness From Nearby Pollution
Sources (GAO/RCED-90-10, Feb. 7, 1990).
CONCESSIONER ISSUES
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:0.2
Federal Lands: Views on Reform of Recreation Concessioners
(GAO/T-RCED-95-250, July 25, 1995).
Federal Lands: Improvements Needed in Managing Short-Term
Concessioners (GAO/RCED-93-177, Sept. 14, 1993).
Federal Land: Little Progress Made in Improving Oversight of
Concessioners (GAO/T-RCED-93-42, May 27, 1993).
National Parks: Issues Involved in the Sale of the Yosemite National
Park Concessioner (GAO/RCED-92-232, Sept. 10, 1992).
National Park Service: Policies and Practices for Determining
Concessioners' Building Use Fees (GAO/T-RCED-92-66, May 21, 1992).
Federal Lands: Oversight of Long-Term Concessioners
(GAO/RCED-92-128BR, Mar. 20, 1992).
Federal Lands: Improvements Needed in Managing Concessioners
(GAO/RCED-91-163, June 11, 1991).
Recreation Concessioners Operating on Federal Lands
(GAO/T-RCED-91-16, Mar. 21, 1991).
OTHER MANAGEMENT ISSUES
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:0.3
Management Reform: Implementation of the National Performance
Review's Recommendations (GAO/OCG-95-1, Dec. 5, 1994).
Ecosystem Management: Additional Actions Needed to Adequately Test a
Promising Approach (GAO/T-RCED-94-308, Sept. 20, 1994).
Ecosystem Management: Additional Actions Needed to Adequately Test a
Promising Approach (GAO/RCED-94-111, Aug. 16, 1994).
Addressing the Deficit: Budgetary Implications of Selected GAO Work
(GAO/OCG-94-3, Mar. 11, 1994).
Forest Service Management: Issues to Be Considered in Developing a
New Stewardship Strategy (GAO/T-RCED-94-116, Feb. 1, 1994).
Management Reform: GAO's Comments on the National Performance
Review's Recommendations (GAO/OCG-94-1, Dec. 5, 1993).
Natural Resources Management: Issues to Be Considered by the
Congress and the Administration (GAO/T-RCED-93-5, Feb. 2, 1993).
Natural Resources Management Issues (GAO/OCG-93-17TR, Dec. 1992).