National Park Service: Activities Within Park Borders Have Caused Damage
to Resources (Letter Report, 08/23/96, GAO/RCED-96-202).

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed internal threats to
the national parks' resources, focusing on the: (1) National Park
Service's (NPS) information on the number and types of internal threats;
(2) damage these threats have caused; (3) change in the severity of
these threats over the past decade; and (4) NPS actions to mitigate
these threats.

GAO found that: (1) because NPS does not have a national inventory of
internal threats to the park system, it is not fully equipped to meet
its mission of preserving and protecting park resources; (2) park
managers at the eight parks studied have identified 127 internal threats
to their parks' natural and cultural resources; (3) most of these
threats are due to the impact of private inholdings or commercial
development within the parks, the impact of nonnative wildlife or
plants, damage caused by illegal activities, increased visitation, and
unintended adverse effects of management actions; (4) park managers
believe the parks' most serious threats are caused by shortages in
staffing, funding, and resource knowledge; (5) 82 percent of the
internal threats have already caused more than minor damage, and
cultural or archeological resources have suffered more permanent damage
than natural resources in many parks; (6) 61 percent of internal
threats, particularly those from increased visitation and serious fires,
have worsened over the past decade, 27 percent have stayed about the
same, and 11 percent have diminished; (7) park managers lack baseline
data needed to judge trends in the severity of internal threats; and (8)
some parks are closing trails to reduce erosion, installing more rugged
equipment to reduce vandalism, revoking uncooperative operators'
permits, and posting signs to inform visitors of the damage from their
inappropriate activities.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  RCED-96-202
     TITLE:  National Park Service: Activities Within Park Borders Have 
             Caused Damage to Resources
      DATE:  08/23/96
   SUBJECT:  National parks
             Natural resources
             Land management
             National historic sites
             Conservation
             Environmental monitoring
             National recreation areas
             Historic preservation
             Crimes or offenses
             Agency missions
IDENTIFIER:  National Park System
             NPS Museum Collections Preservation and Protection Program
             NPS List of Classified Structures
             Arches National Park (UT)
             Crater Lake National Park (OR)
             Gettysburg National Military Park (PA)
             Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore (IN)
             Lake Meredith National Recreation Area (TX)
             Minute Man National Historical Park (MA)
             Olympic National Park (WA)
             Saguaro National Park (AZ)
             
******************************************************************
** 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.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO   **
** Document Distribution Center.  For further details, please   **
** send an e-mail message to:                                   **
**                                                              **
**                                            **
**                                                              **
** with the message 'info' in the body.                         **
******************************************************************


Cover
================================================================ COVER


Report to the Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on National
Parks, Forests, and Lands, House Committee on Resources

August 1996

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE - ACTIVITIES
WITHIN PARK BORDERS HAVE CAUSED
DAMAGE TO RESOURCES

GAO/RCED-96-202

Damage to National Parks' Resources

(140333)


Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV

  GAO - General Accounting Office
  NPS - National Park Service

Letter
=============================================================== LETTER


B-272312

August 23, 1996

The Honorable Bill Richardson
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on National Parks,
 Forests, and Lands
Committee on Resources
House of Representatives

Dear Mr.  Richardson: 

Conditions in the national parks are deteriorating.  In our 1995
report on the future of the park system, we documented the declining
state of services for visitors to the parks, as well as the
degradation of many natural, cultural, and historic resources in the
park system.\1 Overall, National Park Service officials estimate that
the agency needs more than $4 billion to perform needed maintenance
and properly develop the national park system. 

Among the challenges facing the national park system are threats that
have damaged or have the potential to damage the parks' natural or
cultural resources.  These threats can originate either outside of or
within park boundaries.  Threats that originate outside of a park are
termed external threats and include such things as the sound of
airplanes flying overhead or the sight of urban encroachment, both of
which can disrupt the solitude of remote parks.  Threats that
originate within a park are termed internal threats and include such
activities as heavy visitation, vandalism, looting, or the growth of
nonnative plant or animal species that degrade a park's resources. 
Preventing or mitigating these threats and their impact is at the
core of the agency's mission to preserve and protect the parks'
resources. 

The Park Service has long been concerned about the threats to the
resources under its jurisdiction.  In 1980, it completed its first
comprehensive assessment of the threats facing resources throughout
the park system and reported that significant and demonstrable damage
was occurring.  Since then, we and others have reported on the
increasing significance of threats to the parks' resources.  Most
recently, in 1994, we reported on the scope and effects of external
threats to the parks.  Among other things, we reported that the Park
Service lacked the data needed to assess the types and severity of
the external threats and the extent of the damage that such threats
were causing to the parks' resources.\2

This report responds to your request that we review internal threats
to the parks' resources.  It complements our 1994 report and
completes our review of the Park Service's management of threats.  As
you requested, to parallel our work on external threats, the report
addresses (1) the information the Park Service is developing on the
number and types of internal threats, (2) the relative severity of
the damage these threats have caused, (3) the change in the severity
of these threats over the past decade, and (4) the actions taken by
the Park Service to mitigate them. 

As agreed with your office, we limited our work to case studies of
eight units in the park system--four national parks, a historical
park, a military park, a national lakeshore, and a national
recreation area.  Although the particular units that were selected
may not be representative of the entire national park system, they
illustrate its diversity in terms of size, type, and geographic
location. 


--------------------
\1 National Parks:  Difficult Choices Need to Be Made About the
Future of the Parks (GAO/RCED-95-238, Aug.  30, 1995). 

\2 National Park Service:  Activities Outside Park Borders Have
Caused Damage to Resources and Will Likely Cause More
(GAO/RCED-94-59, Jan.  3, 1994). 


   RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1

While the Park Service does not have a national inventory of the
threats to the parks' resources, individual park units may have
resource management and other databases that contain information on
the threats.  Specific information on the number and types of threats
facing the parks is not generally consolidated in the parks or
nationally.  Without systemwide data on the threats to the parks'
resources, the agency is not fully equipped to meet its mission of
preserving and protecting these resources. 

Park managers have, however, acquired knowledge of the threats to
individual parks through their professional training and experience. 
Cultural and natural resource managers at the eight parks we studied
identified 127 internal threats that directly affected the parks'
resources.  Most of these threats fell into one of five categories: 
the impact of private inholdings or commercial development within the
parks, the impact of nonnative wildlife or plants on native species
or other resources of the parks, the damage caused by illegal
activities such as poaching, the routine wear and tear on the parks'
resources stemming from visitors' daily use of the parks, and the
unintended adverse effects of the agency's or park managers' actions
(e.g., the accumulation of undergrowth because of past decisions to
suppress naturally caused fires, which could result in a more serious
fire).  Overall, the park managers said that the most serious threats
facing the parks were shortages in three areas--staffing, funding,
and resource knowledge.  While the managers emphasized these as
threats, we classified them as indirect ones because, according to
the managers, the insufficiencies in these areas caused many of the
conditions now directly threatening the parks' resources.  This
report focuses on the conditions that directly threaten resources. 

In the eight parks we reviewed, the managers said that more than 80
percent of the 127 direct threats have already caused more than minor
damage to the parks' resources.  The relative severity of the damage
caused by various types of threats ranged from temporary to
permanent.  For example, cultural resources such as historic rock art
or other archeological resources have suffered more permanent damage
than natural resources in many areas.  While much of the damage to
cultural resources is irreversible, the damage to natural resources,
such as native vegetation or wildlife, is not as likely to be
permanent, according to the park managers. 

The majority (77 of 127) of the direct internal threats to resources,
such as the impact of increased visitation and the threat of more
serious fires, have worsened over the past decade, according to the
park managers.  About one-fourth (34) of the threats remained about
the same, and most of the rest have diminished.  The managers said,
however, that their ability to accurately judge trends in severity
was limited because they lack baseline data on the condition of the
parks' resources. 

The managers at the eight parks we studied reported that some action
has been taken to mitigate 104 of the 127 direct internal threats to
resources.  Many parks have studied the threats to develop ways to
address them.  Mitigation measures implemented have generally been
limited to such actions as closing trails to reduce erosion,
installing more rugged equipment to reduce vandalism, and posting
signs to inform visitors of the damage resulting from inappropriate
activities. 


   BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2

In the 124 years since the first national park, Yellowstone, was
created, the national park system has grown to include 369 park
units.  In all, these units cover more than 80 million acres of land,
an area larger than the state of Colorado.  The mix of park units is
highly diverse and includes more than 20 types; these range from
natural resource preserves encompassing vast tracts of wilderness to
historic sites and buildings in large urban areas.  The Park
Service's mission is twofold:  to provide for the public's enjoyment
of these parks and to protect the resources so that they will remain
unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations. 

The Park Service's 1980 survey of threats\3 found not only that the
parks' resources were being harmed but also that improvements were
needed in determining what cultural and natural resources existed in
each park, what their condition was, and how and to what extent they
were being threatened.  In response, the Park Service called for the
development of resource management plans to identify the condition of
each park's resources and the problems with managing them, including
significant threats.  Three times since 1987, we have reported that
the Park Service has made limited progress in meeting the information
and monitoring needs it had identified in 1980.\4 Our findings
included incomplete, out-of-date, or missing resource management
plans and an incomplete inventory of threats, their sources, or
mitigating actions. 

In 1994, after examining the external threats to the parks, we
recommended that the Park Service revise its resource management
planning system to identify, inventory, categorize, and assign
priorities to these threats; describe the actions that could be taken
to mitigate them; and monitor the status of the actions that had been
taken.  Such an inventory has not been implemented, according to Park
Service headquarters officials, because of funding and hiring freezes
that have prevented the completion of needed changes to the planning
system's guidelines and software.  In commenting on a draft of this
report, the Park Service said that implementing this recommendation
is no longer appropriate.  The Park Service's comments and our
evaluation are presented in the agency comments section of this
report. 


--------------------
\3 State of the Parks - 1980:  A Report to the Congress, National
Park Service, U.S.  Department of the Interior (May 1980). 

\4 In addition to the 1994 and 1995 reports cited earlier, we also
issued Parks and Recreation:  Limited Progress Made in Documenting
and Mitigating Threats to the Parks (GAO/RCED-87-36, Feb.  9, 1987). 


   INTERNAL THREATS TO PARK
   RESOURCES ARE A CONTINUING
   PROBLEM
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3

For internal, as for external threats, the Park Service has limited
systemwide information.  It does not have a national inventory of
internal threats that integrates information it already has, and many
of its individual units do not have a readily available database on
the extent and severity of the threats arising within their borders. 
However, in commenting on this report, Park Service officials told us
that headquarters has the systemwide information it needs to make
decisions and that many decisions are made at the park level, where
the superintendents decide what information is needed.  They added
that rather than developing a database of threats to resources, they
need better data on the condition of resources to allow park managers
to identify those that are the most threatened. 

According to headquarters officials, the Park Service has developed
systems focused on particular categories of resources.  Park managers
and headquarters staff use these systems to identify, track, or
assess problems, resource conditions, or threats.  An overview of
these systems follows: 

  -- The Museum Collections Preservation and Protection Program
     requires parks to complete a checklist every 4 years on the
     deficiencies in the preservation, protection, and documentation
     of their cultural and natural resource collections.  An
     automated system is being developed to collect these data.  The
     data are used to make funding decisions. 

  -- Another system for monitoring the condition of a cultural
     resource is the List of Classified Structures, which inventories
     and gives general information on historic structures in the
     parks.  Headquarters officials said that the list is not
     complete because of insufficient funding. 

  -- Headquarters rangers report that automated systems are in place
     to track illegal activities in parks, such as looting, poaching,
     and vandalism, that affect cultural and natural resources. 

  -- Headquarters officials report that the inventory and information
     on the condition of archeological resources, enthnographic
     resources, and cultural landscapes are poor at present but that
     there are plans to develop improved systems, if staffing and
     funding allow. 

Although the Park Service's guidance requires the parks to develop
resource management plans, it does not require the plans to include
specific information on the internal and external threats facing the
parks.  Such information would assist managers of the national park
system in identifying the major threats facing parks on a systemwide
basis, and it would give the managers of individual parks an
objective basis for management decisions. 


      THREATS IDENTIFIED BY
      MANAGERS AT THE EIGHT PARKS
      WE REVIEWED
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.1

At the eight parks studied,\5 the managers identified 127 internal
threats that directly affected natural and cultural resources.  Most
of these threats fell into one of five broad categories:  the impact
of private inholdings or commercial development within the parks, the
results of encroachment by nonnative wildlife or plants, the damage
caused by illegal activities, the adverse effects of normal visits to
the parks, and the unintended adverse effects of the agency's or park
managers' actions (see fig.  1).  The majority of the threats
affected natural resources, such as plants and wildlife, while the
remainder threatened cultural resources, such as artifacts, historic
sites, or historic buildings.  (See app.  I for a summary of the
threats in each category at each of the eight parks.)

   Figure 1:  127 Direct Internal
   Threats to Cultural and Natural
   Resources, by Category

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Overall, the park managers we visited said that the most serious
threats facing the parks were shortages in staffing, funding, and
resource knowledge.  The managers identified 48 additional threats in
these categories.  We classified these as indirect threats to
cultural and natural resources because, according to the managers,
the shortages in these areas were responsible for many of the
conditions that directly threaten park resources.  (See app.  II for
a list of these threats at the eight parks.) In addition, the
managers identified other threats in such categories as laws or
regulations, agency policies, and park boundaries.  After reviewing
the information about these threats provided by park managers in
documents and interviews, we decided that the threats were indirect
and should not be listed among the direct threats.  In gathering data
for each park, we also identified threats to services for visitors. 
Our analysis showed that many of these threats also appeared as
threats to cultural and natural resources.  We did not compile a list
of threats to services for visitors because this report focuses on
cultural and natural resources. 

Private inholdings and commercial development within park boundaries
accounted for the largest number of specific threats.  The managers
of seven of the eight parks we reviewed identified at least one
threat in this category.  For example, at Olympic National Park in
Washington State, the managers said that the homes situated on
inholdings along two of the park's largest lakes threatened
groundwater systems and the lake's water quality.  At Lake Meredith
National Recreation Area in Texas, the managers were concerned about
the impact of the frequent repair and production problems at about
170 active oil and gas sites (see fig.  2) and the development of
additional sites. 

   Figure 2:  Oil Site at Lake
   Meredith National Recreation
   Area

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

At the Minute Man National Historical Park, the long, linear park is
bisected by roads serving approximately 20,000 cars per day.  The
traffic affects cultural resources, such as nearby historic
structures; natural resources, such as populations of small
terrestrial vertebrates (e.g., the spotted salamander and spotted
turtle); and visitors' enjoyment of the park (see fig.  3). 

   Figure 3:  Heavy Traffic Near
   the Foundation of a Historic
   Building, at left, at Minute
   Man National Historical Park

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Encroachment by nonnative wildlife and plants--such as mountain
goats, trout introduced into parks' lakes and streams, and nonnative
grasses and other plants--accounted for the second largest number of
reported threats.  The managers at all of the parks we reviewed
identified at least one threat in this category.  At Arches National
Park in Utah, for example, the managers cited the invasion by a plant
called tamarisk in some riverbanks and natural spring areas.  In its
prime growing season, a mature tamarisk plant consumes about 200
gallons of water a day and chokes out native vegetation.  At Olympic
National Park, nonnative mountain goats introduced decades ago have
caused significant damage to the park's native vegetation.  The
goats' activity eliminated or threatened the survival of many rare
plant species, including some found nowhere else.  Controlling the
goat population reduced the damage over 5 years, as the contrast
between figures 4a and 4b shows. 

   Figure 4a:  Vegetation Trampled
   and Erosion Along Klahhane
   Switchback Trail in Olympic
   National Park, Before
   Population Control

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Source:  National Park Service.

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


   Figure 4b:  Recovery of
   Vegetation in the Same Area
   Along Klahhane Switchback Trail
   in Olympic National Park, After
   Population Control

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Source:  National Park Service.

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Illegal activities, such as poaching, constituted the third main
category of threats.  The managers at the eight parks reported that
such activities threatened resources.  For example, at Crater Lake
National Park in Oregon, the managers believe that poaching is a
serious threat to the park's wildlife.  Species known to be taken
include elk, deer, and black bear.  At both Crater Lake and Olympic
national parks, mushrooms are harvested illegally, according to the
managers.  The commercial sale of mushrooms has increased
significantly, according to a park manger.  He expressed concern that
this multimillion-dollar, largely unregulated industry could damage
forest ecosystems through extensive raking or other disruption of the
natural ground cover to harvest mushrooms.  Similar concern was
expressed about the illegal harvesting of other plant species, such
as moss and small berry shrubs called salal (see fig.  5). 

   Figure 5:  Confiscated Moss at
   Olympic National Park

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Source:  National Park Service.

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

About 30 percent of the internal threats identified by park managers
fell into two categories--the adverse effects of (1) people's visits
to the parks and (2) the Park Service's own management actions.  The
number of recreational visits to the Park Service's 369 units rose by
about 5 percent over the past 5 years to about 270 million visits in
1995.  Park managers cited the effects of visitation, such as traffic
congestion, the deterioration of vegetation off established trails,
and trail erosion.  The threats created unintentionally by the Park
Service's own management decisions at the national or the park level
included poor coordination among park operations, policies calling
for the suppression of naturally caused fires that do not threaten
human life or property, and changes in funding or funding priorities
that do not allow certain internal threats to parks' resources to be
addressed.  For example, at Gettysburg National Military Park, none
of the park's 105 historic buildings have internal fire suppression
systems or access to external hydrants because of higher-priority
funding needs. 


--------------------
\5 The eight parks and their locations:  Arches National Park, Utah;
Crater Lake National Park, Oregon; Gettysburg National Military Park,
Pennsylvania; Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, Indiana; Lake
Meredith National Recreation Area, Texas; Minute Man National
Historical Park, Massachusetts; Olympic National Park, Washington;
and Saguaro National Park, Arizona.  We were able to visit seven of
the eight parks.  A scheduled visit to Crater Lake was canceled
because of winter storms.  We used written and electronic means to
complete our data gathering. 


   THREATS HAVE DAMAGED CULTURAL
   RESOURCES MORE PERMANENTLY THAN
   NATURAL RESOURCES
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4

Park managers estimated that about 82 percent of the direct threats
they identified in the eight parks we reviewed have caused more than
minor damage to the parks' resources.  We found evidence of such
damage at each of the eight parks.  According to the managers,
permanent damage to cultural resources has occurred, for example, at
Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore in Indiana and at Arches National
Park in Utah.  Such damage has included looting at archeological
sites, bullets fired at historic rock art, the deterioration of
historic structures, and vandalism at historic cemeteries.  (See
figs.  6 and 7.) At both of these parks, the managers also cited
damage to natural resources, including damage to vegetation and
highly fragile desert soil from visitors venturing off established
trails and damage to native plants from the illegal use of off-road
vehicles. 

   Figure 6:  Historic Rock Art
   Used for Target Practice,
   Arches National Park

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Figure 7:  Deterioration of
   Rostone House, One of Five
   Historic 1933 World's Fair
   Houses, Indiana Dunes National
   Lakeshore

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

At Gettysburg National Military Park, the damage included the
deterioration of historic structures and cultural landscapes, looting
of Civil War era archeological sites, destruction of native plants,
and deterioration of park documents estimated to be about 100 years
old, which contain information on the early administrative history of
the park.  Figure 8 shows these documents, which are improperly
stored in the park historian's office. 

   Figure 8:  Deterioration of
   100-Year-Old Manuscripts,
   Gettysburg National Military
   Park

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Nearly one-fourth of the identified direct threats had caused
irreversible damage, according to park managers (see fig.  9). 
Slightly more than one-fourth of the threats had caused extensive but
repairable damage.  About half of the threats had caused less
extensive damage. 

   Figure 9:  Extent of Damage to
   Cultural and Natural Resources
   Caused by Direct Internal
   Threats

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

The damage to cultural resources was more likely to be permanent than
the damage to natural resources, according to park managers (see fig. 
10).  Over 25 percent of the threats to cultural resources had caused
irreversible damage, whereas 20 percent of the threats to natural
resources had produced permanent effects.  A Park Service manager
explained that cultural resources--such as rock art, prehistoric
sites and structures, or other historic properties--are more
susceptible to permanent damage than natural resources because they
are nonrenewable.  Natural resources, such as native wildlife, can in
some cases be reintroduced in an area where they have been destroyed. 

   Figure 10:  Severity of Damage
   to Cultural and Natural
   Resources, as Measured by
   Direct Internal Threats
   Reported at Eight Parks

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Generally, park managers said they based their judgments about the
severity of damage on observation and judgment rather than on
scientific study or research.  In most cases, scientific information
about the extent of the damage was not available.  For some types of
damage, such as the defacement of archeological sites, observation
and judgment may provide ample information to substantiate the extent
of the damage.  But observation alone does not usually provide enough
information to substantiate the damage from an internal threat. 
Scientific research will generally provide more concrete evidence
identifying the number and types of threats, the types and relative
severity of damage, and any trends in the severity of the threat. 
Scientific research also generally provides a more reliable guide for
mitigating threats.  In their comments on this report, Park Service
officials agreed, stating that there is a need for scientific
inventorying and monitoring of resource conditions to help park
managers identify the resources most threatened. 


   MANAGERS GENERALLY SAW THREATS
   INCREASING IN SEVERITY
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5

At all eight parks, internal threats are more of a problem than they
were 10 years ago, according to the park managers.  They believed
that about 61 percent of the threats had worsened during the past
decade, 27 percent were about the same, and only 11 percent had grown
less severe (see fig.  11). 

   Figure 11:  Trend in Severity
   of Direct Internal Threats at
   Eight Parks, 1985-95

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

At seven of the eight parks, the managers emphasized that one of the
trends that concerned them most was the increase in visitation.  They
said the increasing numbers of visitors, combined with the increased
concentration of visitors in certain areas of many parks, had
resulted in increased off-trail hiking, severe wear at campgrounds,
and more law enforcement problems.  At Arches National Park, for
example, where visitation has increased more than 130 percent since
1985, greater wear and tear poses particular problems for the
cryptobiotic soil.\6 This soil may take as long as 250 years to
recover after being trampled by hikers straying off established
trails, according to park managers. 

Another increasing threat noted by managers from parks having large
natural areas (such as Crater Lake, Olympic, and Lake Meredith) is
the possibility that undergrowth, which has built up under the Park
Service's protection, may cause more serious fires.  According to the
managers, the Park Service's long-standing policy of suppressing all
park fires--rather than allowing naturally occurring fires to
burn--has been the cause of this threat. 

Although the park managers believed that most threats were increasing
in severity, they acknowledged that a lack of specific information
hindered their ability to assess trends reliably.  The lack of
baseline data on resource conditions is a common and significant
problem limiting park managers' ability to document and assess
trends.  They said that such data are needed to monitor trends in
resource conditions as well as threats to those resources. 


--------------------
\6 Crytobiotic soil is found in all desert areas.  The organisms in
this soil contribute nutrients to these nutrient-poor environments. 
They also stabilize soil surfaces, protecting them from wind and
water erosion.  When the soil crusts are disturbed, these important
functions are disrupted. 


   MITIGATION HAS BEEN LIMITED
   PRIMARILY TO STUDIES
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6

Park managers said that they believed some action had been taken in
response to about 82 percent of the direct threats identified (see
fig.  12).  However, the Park Service does not monitor the parks'
progress in mitigating internal threats.  Various actions had been
taken, but many were limited to studying what might be done.  Only
two actions to mitigate an identified threat have been completed in
the eight parks, according to the managers.  However, they noted that
in many cases, steps have been taken toward mitigation, but
completing these steps was often hampered by insufficient funding and
staffing. 

   Figure 12:  Extent of Action
   Taken Against Direct Internal
   Threats at Eight Parks

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

At Arches National Park, actions ranged from taking steps to
remediate some threats to studying how to deal with others.  To
reduce erosion and other damage to sensitive soils, park managers
installed rails and ropes along some hiking trails and erected signs
along others explaining what damage would result from off-trail
walking.  Managers are also studying ways to establish a "carrying
capacity" for some of the frequently visited attractions.  This
initiative by the Park Service stemmed from visitors' comments about
the need to preserve the relative solitude at the Delicate Arch (see
fig.  13).  According to park managers, about 600 visitors each day
take the 1-1/2-mile trail to reach the arch. 

   Figure 13:  Arches National
   Park's Delicate Arch, Where
   Limits Are Being Considered on
   the Number of Visitors

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

At Lake Meredith, to reduce the impact of vandalism, park managers
are now replacing wooden picnic tables and benches with solid plastic
ones.  Although initially more expensive, the plastic ones last
longer and cost less over time because they are more resistant to
fire or other forms of vandalism.  Lake Meredith has also closed
certain areas for 9 months of the year to minimize the looting of
archeological sites.  At Saguaro National Park, the park managers
closed many trails passing through archeological sites and revoked
the permit of two horseback tour operators for refusing to keep
horses on designated trails. 


   CONCLUSIONS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7

The natural and cultural resources of our national parks are being
threatened not only by sources external to the parks but also by
activities originating within the parks' borders.  Without systemwide
data on these threats to the parks' resources, the Park Service is
not fully equipped to meet its mission of preserving and protecting
these resources.  In times of austere budgets and multibillion-dollar
needs, it is critical for the agency to have this information in
order to identify and inventory the threats and set priorities for
mitigating them so that the greatest threats can be addressed first. 

In our 1994 report on external threats to the parks' resources, we
recommended that the National Park Service revise its resource
management planning system to (1) identify the number, types, and
sources of the external threats; establish an inventory of threats;
and set priorities for mitigating the threats; (2) prepare a project
statement for each external threat describing the actions that can be
taken to mitigate it; and (3) monitor the status of actions and
revise them as needed. 

If the Park Service fully implements the spirit of our 1994
recommendations, it should improve its management of the parks'
internal threats.  We therefore encourage the Park Service to
complete this work.  Not until this effort is completed will the Park
Service be able to systematically identify, mitigate, and monitor
internal threats to the parks' resources. 


   AGENCY COMMENTS AND OUR
   EVALUATION
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :8

We provided a draft of this report to the Department of the Interior
for its review and comment.  We met with Park Service
officials--including the Associate Director for Budget and
Administration, the Deputy Associate Director for Natural Resources
Stewardship and Science, and the Chief Archeologist--to obtain their
comments.  The officials generally agreed with the factual content of
the report and provided several technical corrections to it, which
have been incorporated as appropriate.  The Park Service stated that
it would not implement the recommendations cited from our 1994
report.  However, we continue to believe that this information, or
data similar to it, is necessary on a systemwide level to meet the
Park Service's mission of preserving and protecting resources. 

Park Service officials stated that obtaining an inventory of and
information on the condition of the parks' resources was a greater
priority for the agency than tracking the number and types of threats
to the parks' resources, as our previous report recommended.  They
said that headquarters has the necessary systemwide information to
make decisions but added that better data on the condition of
resources are needed to allow the park managers to better identify
the most threatened resources.  They stated that the Park Service is
trying to develop a better inventory and monitor the condition of
resources as staffing and funding allow. 

Park Service officials also cited a number of reasons why
implementing our past recommendations to improve the resource
management planning system's information on threats is no longer
appropriate.  Their reasons included the implementation of the
Government Performance and Results Act, which requires a new
mechanism for setting priorities and evaluating progress; the Park
Service-wide budget database that is used to allocate funds to the
parks; the existing databases that provide information on resources
and workload; and the decentralization of the Park Service, which
delegates authority to the park superintendents to determine what
information is needed to manage their parks. 

We continue to believe that information on threats to resources,
gathered on a systemwide basis, would be helpful to set priorities so
that the greatest threats can be addressed first.  The Park Service's
guidelines for resource management plans emphasize the need to know
about the condition of resources as well as threats to their
preservation.  This knowledge includes the nature, severity, and
sources of the major threats to the parks' resources.  We believe
that knowing more about both internal and external threats is
necessary for any park having significant cultural and natural
resources and is important in any systemwide planning or allocation
of funds to investigate or mitigate such threats.  We agree that the
number and types of threats are not the only information needed for
decision-making and have added statements to the report to describe
the Park Service's efforts to gather data on the condition of
resources. 

In addition, the Park Service commented that a mere count and
compilation of threats to resources would not be useful.  However,
our suggestion is intended to go beyond a surface-level count and to
use the resource management plan (or other vehicle) to delineate the
types, sources, priorities, and mitigation actions needed to address
the threats on a national basis.  We believe that the Park Service's
comment that it needs a more complete resource inventory and more
complete data on resources' condition is consistent with our
suggestion. 


   SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :9

As agreed with your office, we conducted case studies of eight parks
because we had determined at Park Service headquarters that no
database of internal threats existed centrally or at individual
parks.  At each park, we interviewed the managers, asking them to
identify the types of internal threats to the park's natural and
cultural resources and indicate how well these threats were
documented.  We also asked the managers to assess the extent of the
damage caused by the threats, identify trends in the threats, and
indicate what actions were being taken to mitigate the threats. 
Whenever possible, we obtained copies of any studies or other
documentation on which their answers were based. 

Given an open-ended opportunity to identify threats, a number of
managers listed limitations on funding, staffing, and resource
knowledge among the top threats to their parks.  For example, the
park managers we visited indicated that insufficient funds for annual
personnel cost increases diminished their ability to address threats
to resources.  Although we did not minimize the importance of funding
and staffing limitations in developing this report, we did not
consider them as direct threats to the resources described in
appendix I.  These indirect threats are listed in appendix II. 

We performed our review from August 1995 through July 1996 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 


---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :9.1

We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional
committees and Members of Congress; the Secretary of the Interior;
the Director, National Park Service; and other interested parties. 
We will make copies available to others on request. 

Please call me at (202) 512-3841 if you or your staff have any
questions.  Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix
III. 

Sincerely yours,

Victor S.  Rezendes
Director, Energy, Resources,
 and Science Issues


NUMBER OF DIRECT INTERNAL THREATS
TO RESOURCES AT EIGHT PARKS
REVIEWED
=========================================================== Appendix I

On the basis of our analysis of the data, we determined that the
following threats affect cultural and natural resources directly. 
Threats in the three other categories of staffing, funding, and
resource knowledge are listed for the eight parks in appendix II. 

                                       Indian
                                            a
                    Crater  Gettysbur   Dunes      Lake    Minute            Saguar
            Arches    Lake          g  Nation  Meredith       Man                 o
            Nation  Nation   National      al  National  National   Olympic  Nation
Category/       al      al   Military  Lakesh  Recreati  Historic  National      al  Tota
threat        Park    Park       Park     ore   on Area   al Park      Park    Park     l
----------  ------  ------  ---------  ------  --------  --------  --------  ------  ----
Private
 inholding
 s/
 commercia
 l
 activitie
 s
Commercial                          1                 2                   1       2     6
 developme
 nt
Commercial                                                                        1     1
 film-
 making
 activitie
 s
Concession               2                                                2       1     5
 operations
Habitat                                               1                                 1
 destructi
 on
Noncommerc                          1       1         2         1                 2     7
 ial
 inholding
 s
Road or                  1          1       2         2         2                       8
 utility
 corridors
Traffic                             1       1                                           2
 congestion
Trash                                                 1                                 1
Cactus                                                                            1     1
 fruit
 harvest
Nonnative
 wildlife/
 plants
Exotic                   1          2                                             1     4
 diseases
Nonnative                1          2                 1                           1     5
 invertebr
 ates
Nonnative        1       1          1                 2                   1       1     7
 vertebrat
 es
Nonnative        1       1          2       1         2         1         1       1    10
 plants
Illegal
 activities
Looting          2       1          1       1         1                   1       1     8
 historic/
 prehistor
 ic
 specimens
Vandalism        2                  1       1         2                           2     8
Wildlife/        1       1          1                 1                   1       1     6
 plant/
 mineral
 poaching
Marijuana                                                       1                       1
 cultivati
 on
Effects of
 visitation
Campfires                1                                                              1
Noise                                                                     1             1
Off-trail        1       1                  2         2                   1       1     8
 soil/
 vegetatio
 n
 deteriora
 tion
Traffic                  1          1       1                                           3
 congestion
Trail            1       1          2                                             2     6
 erosion
Trash            1       1                                                              2
Wildlife                                                                          1     1
 harassment
Increase         1                                                                      1
 in
 visitatio
 n
Agency/
 park
 managemen
 t actions
Fire                                2                 1         1                       4
 suppressi
 on/
 protectio
 n
Habitat                  1                                                              1
 destructi
 on
Infrastruc       1       1          1                                             1     4
 ture
 design or
 maintenan
 ce
Hazardous                1                                                              1
 waste
Historical                          1                                                   1
 structure
 maintenan
 ce
 prioritie
 s
Below-                              1                           1                       2
 standard
 collectio
 ns
 storage
Deferred                                    1                                           1
 maintenan
 ce
Cultural                                                        1                       1
 landscape
 degradati
 on
Other
Commercial               1                                                              1
 developme
 nt
Habitat                             1       1                   1                       3
 destructi
 on
Stormwater                          1                                                   1
 erosion
Fire                                        1                                           1
 potential

 (cultural
 resources
 )
Shoreline                                   1                                           1
 erosion
Rodent                                                                            1     1
 infestati
 on
=========================================================================================
Total           12      18         24      14        20         9         9      21   127
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FREQUENCY OF RESPONSES RELATED TO
STAFFING, FUNDING, AND RESOURCE
KNOWLEDGE AT THE EIGHT PARKS
REVIEWED
========================================================== Appendix II

In addition to the direct threats to natural and cultural resources
listed in appendix I, park managers of these resources also cited the
following indirect threats that, in their opinion, significantly
affected their ability to identify, assess, and mitigate direct
threats to resources. 

                                       Indian
                                            a
                    Crater  Gettysbur   Dunes      Lake    Minute            Saguar
            Arches    Lake          g  Nation  Meredith       Man                 o
            Nation  Nation   National      al  National  National   Olympic  Nation
                al      al   Military  Lakesh  Recreati  Historic  National      al  Tota
Threat        Park    Park       Park     ore   on Area   al Park      Park    Park     l
----------  ------  ------  ---------  ------  --------  --------  --------  ------  ----
Agency or        2       1          2       2         2                   3       2    14
 park
 personnel
 issues
 (e.g.,
 number,
 allocatio
 n,
 recruitme
 nt,
 training)
Inadequate       3       3                  2                             1       5    14
 funding
 or
 shifting
 prioritie
 s
Inadequate       2       2          6       2         2         2         2       2    20
 resource
 knowledge
 (e.g.,
 inventory
 ing,
 monitorin
 g)
=========================================================================================
Total            7       6          8       6         4         2         6       9    48
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
========================================================= Appendix III

RESOURCES, COMMUNITY, AND ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT DIVISION, WASHINGTON,
D.C. 

Cliff W.  Fowler
John S.  Kalmar, Jr.
John P.  Scott

SAN FRANCISCO/SEATTLE FIELD OFFICE

Brent L.  Hutchison
Paul E.  Staley, Jr.
Stanley G.  Stenersen


*** End of document. ***