This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-05-410 
entitled 'National Park Service: Revenues Could Increase by Charging 
Allowed Fees for Some Special Uses Permits' which was released on June 
7, 2005. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part 
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

Report to Congressional Requesters: 

May 2005: 

National Park Service: 

Revenues Could Increase by Charging Allowed Fees for Some Special Uses 
Permits: 

[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-410]: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-05-410, a report to congressional requesters: 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

The National Park Service routinely issues permits for special park 
uses, such as special events or commercial filming and still 
photography. However, the National Football League’s use of the 
National Mall to launch its 2003 season raised questions about whether 
permitting such events was consistent with existing policies and law 
and whether all applicable fees for permitting special park uses were 
being collected. 

GAO (1) identified applicable policy guidance for issuing special uses 
permits for special events and for commercial filming and still 
photography, (2) assessed the extent to which this guidance was applied 
during fiscal year 2003, and (3) determined the extent to which the 
Park Service implemented the requirement to collect location fees for 
commercial filming and still photography. 

What GAO Found: 

The Park Service has developed policy guidance for issuing permits for 
special events and for commercial filming and still photography 
activities. This policy guidance includes general criteria about the 
terms and conditions as to when and where specific types of activities 
can take place and requires park units to recover applicable costs 
associated with administering and monitoring special park uses. 
Recovery of costs associated with filming activities is required by 
law. Recoverable costs include, for example, the time charged by a park 
ranger to visit the site of the event, such as a festival held on park 
grounds, to monitor that the terms and conditions of the permit are 
met. 

During fiscal year 2003, park units did not consistently apply Park 
Service guidance for permitting special events and for commercial 
filming and still photography, and often did not identify and recover 
costs associated with permitting such activities, thereby decreasing 
financial resources available to the parks. Of the six park units we 
visited, one did not charge fees for processing applications; one only 
recovered monitoring costs associated with some of its permits; and 
three others had not updated, for several years, hourly charges to 
reflect current higher costs for personnel time for administering and 
monitoring permitted activities. For example, National Capital Parks-
Central officials charged no administrative fees for the estimated 
1,400-plus permits issued for special events and for filming and still 
photography in fiscal year 2003. Officials said that park units had not 
updated fees because of regional policy and a high workload or because 
updating the fees was given low priority. 

The Park Service has not implemented a law enacted almost 5 years ago 
to collect location fees for commercial filming and still photography, 
resulting in significant annual forgone revenues. The agency has not 
implemented the law because of delays in reviewing the proposed 
regulations at the Department of Justice and a lack of agreement among 
the Interior agencies about the fee schedule and how it is to be 
applied. We estimated the Park Service would have collected about $1.6 
million in location fee revenues in fiscal year 2003, if the 
requirement to collect such fees had been implemented. 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO is making several recommendations on identifying and collecting 
fees for administering and monitoring special events and commercial 
filming and still photography, and on expediting the implementation of 
the requirement to collect location fees and costs for such activities. 

In commenting on the draft report, Interior neither agreed nor 
disagreed with our recommendations. 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-410. 

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
the link above. For more information, contact Robin M. Nazzaro at (202) 
512-3841 or nazzaror@gao.gov. 

[End of section]

Contents: 

Letter: 

Results in Brief: 

Background: 

The Park Service Has Specific Policy Guidance for Issuing Permits and 
Recovering Costs for Special Park Uses: 

Inconsistent Application of Special Park Uses Guidance Has Resulted in 
Some Park Units Not Fully Identifying and Recovering Costs, Thereby 
Decreasing Resources Available to the Parks: 

Delays in Implementing the Law to Collect Location Fees for Commercial 
Filming and Still Photography Have Resulted in Forgone Revenues: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments and Our Response: 

Appendixes: 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Details of the Forgone Revenue Calculations: 

Appendix III: Information on the 2003 National Football League Kickoff 
Event: 

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of the Interior: 

GAO Comments: 

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 45: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Park Units Visited and Whether the Park Units Charged 
Administrative and Monitoring Fees and Recovered Associated Costs: 

Table 2: Forest Service Established Fee Schedule for Filming: 

Table 3: Forest Service Established Fee Schedule for Still Photography: 

Table 4: Park Service Proposed Filming Location Fee Schedule: 

Table 5: Park Service Proposed Still Photography Location Fee Schedule: 

Table 6: Estimates of Forgone Revenues, Fiscal Year 2003: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Park Service Regions: 

Figure 2: A Frequently Filmed and Photographed Thermal Pool at 
Yellowstone National Park: 

Abbreviations: 

BLM: Bureau of Land Management: 

DCI: data collection instrument: 

FS: Forest Service: 

FWS: Fish and Wildlife Service: 

NFL: National Football League: 

OMB: Office of Management and Budget: 

Letter May 6, 2005: 

Congressional Requesters: 

For over 50 years, the National Park Service has permitted special park 
uses--such as special events or filming and still photography--that 
provide benefits to an individual, group, or organization beyond those 
available to the public at large. Annually, the Park Service issues 
thousands of permits for special events, such as festivals, receptions, 
and fund-raisers. In the past few years, questions have been raised by 
Members of Congress and the public about taxpayer costs, commercialism, 
and Park Service policies related to permitting these activities. One 
particular event--held in September 2003, when the Park Service granted 
the National Football League (NFL) use of the National Mall to kick off 
its season--caused controversy. Because of some complaints that there 
was extensive commercial advertising and some damage to the Mall 
grounds resulting from this event, Members of Congress and the public 
questioned whether permitting such an event was consistent with 
established policies, was an appropriate use of the Mall, and whether 
taxpayer dollars were used to support the event. The Park Service also 
issues hundreds of permits annually for commercial filming and still 
photography on park land. The Park Service is required by law to 
collect costs and location fees associated with these permits, and is 
authorized to collect costs for other permit uses. 

In this context, you asked us to (1) identify applicable Park Service 
policy guidance for issuing special uses permits for special events and 
for commercial filming and still photography, (2) assess the extent to 
which this guidance was applied during fiscal year 2003 to ensure that 
all applicable costs were identified and recovered, and (3) determine 
the extent to which the Park Service has implemented the requirement to 
collect location fees for commercial filming and still photography 
activities. 

We identified Park Service policy guidance for special uses permits and 
obtained and analyzed applicable laws, regulations, policies, and 
procedures. To evaluate the extent to which policy guidance was 
applied, we analyzed permit records and other documentation of six 
selected park units that we visited and interviewed Park Service 
headquarters, regional, and park unit officials. We selected these park 
units because, during fiscal year 2003, they had issued the greatest 
number of both special event and filming and still photography permits 
in each of the six Park Service regions within the continental U.S. To 
determine the extent to which the Park Service implemented the 
requirement to collect location fees for commercial filming and still 
photography activities, we interviewed Park Service officials. We also 
collected and assessed the reliability of Park Service data on filming 
and still photography permits from all park units for fiscal year 2003 
and estimated the forgone location fee revenues by applying the 
established fee schedule of another federal land management agency to 
the activities reported to GAO by the Park Service. The fee schedule of 
the other federal agency is based on similar criteria included in the 
legislation authorizing the Park Service to charge fees. 

A more detailed description of our scope and methodology is presented 
in appendix I, and a detailed description of our forgone revenue 
calculations and results is presented in appendix II. We performed our 
work from May 2004 through May 2005 in accordance with generally 
accepted government auditing standards. 

Results in Brief: 

The Park Service's policy guidance includes general criteria about the 
terms and conditions as to when and where specific types of activities 
can take place. For example, the policy guidance states that activities 
may be permitted if they do not injure or damage park resources, are 
not contrary to the purposes for which the park was established, and do 
not unreasonably interfere with visitation. The policy guidance also 
covers requirements for such details as safety considerations and 
printing special signage. Specifically, as it relates to signage in the 
National Capital Region, where the 2003 NFL kickoff event was held, the 
park unit Superintendent must approve the size, scale, scope, and 
location of corporate logos and other lettering to be used in 
advertisements or as sponsor recognition. With regard to the 2003 NFL 
kickoff event, the Superintendent admittedly allowed a greater quantity 
of commercial signage to be displayed than she had intended. In 2004, 
Congress passed legislation that prohibited the use of appropriated 
funds in fiscal year 2004 for special event permits on the Mall unless 
the permits prohibited commercial advertising, although the 
Superintendent was authorized to approve discrete lettering recognizing 
sponsors. Also, the Park Service, in accordance with applicable law, 
has policy guidance requiring park units to generally recover costs 
associated with managing special park uses, including special event and 
commercial filming and still photography activities. This requirement 
includes recovering costs for processing permits, monitoring permit 
activities, equipment and facility use, as well as any incidental 
damage to park resources as a result of the event. For example, 
recoverable costs include the time charged by a park ranger to visit 
the site of the event, such as a festival held on park grounds, to 
monitor that the terms and conditions of the permit are met. 

At most of the park units we visited, the parks inconsistently applied 
guidance and did not fully identify and recover costs of permitting 
special events and commercial filming and still photography during 
fiscal year 2003. Because costs recovered from permitting activities 
are used by park units for managing their permits program, failing to 
recover such costs decreases the financial resources park units have 
for administering permits and monitoring permitted activities. For 
2003, the park units we visited either did not charge or had not 
updated fees for administering or monitoring permits. According to the 
Park Service, several of the units did not update their fees because of 
a high workload at some park units and because updating fees was given 
a low priority at other park units, as the following examples 
illustrate: 

* Blue Ridge Parkway did not recover monitoring costs associated with 
some of its permits. Park Service officials with this unit did not 
charge for time spent monitoring activities for 20 of the 28 special 
event permits issued in 2003. 

* National Capital Parks-Central did not charge administrative fees for 
processing special uses permit applications because it was regional 
policy not to do so. Officials at this unit charged no administrative 
or permitting fees, even where applicable, for the estimated 1,400-plus 
permits issued for special events and for commercial filming and still 
photography in fiscal year 2003. We brought this issue to the attention 
of the Department of the Interior's Solicitor's Office and, as a 
result, it has modified its guidance and has initiated efforts to 
require the region to begin charging administrative fees to recover 
costs. 

* Blue Ridge Parkway, Golden Gate National Recreation Area, 
Independence National Historical Park, and Yellowstone National Park 
had not recently updated hourly charges to reflect current higher costs 
for personnel time to administer and monitor permitted activities. As a 
result, these park units were not fully recovering the costs associated 
with their special uses permits program, as required by policy 
guidance. 

The Park Service has also not implemented a requirement to collect 
location fees for commercial filming and still photography, resulting 
in significant annual forgone revenues. The requirement to collect 
location fees is in addition to the requirement to recover costs for 
administering and monitoring permits. While the legislation creating 
the location fee requirement was passed almost five years ago, the Park 
Service has not implemented the law because of delays in reviewing the 
proposed regulations at the Department of Justice and a lack of 
agreement among Interior's agencies about the fee schedule and how it 
is to be applied. We estimated the Park Service would have collected 
about $1.6 million in location fee revenues in fiscal year 2003 if the 
requirement had been implemented. 

We are recommending that the Secretary of the Interior direct the Park 
Service Director to ensure that the park units we visited apply 
existing guidance and maintain updated cost recovery fee schedules, 
determine the extent to which park units systemwide are not fully 
recovering costs for special events and for commercial filming and 
still photography, follow through to ensure that National Capital 
Region assesses administrative fees to recover the cost of processing 
special event and commercial filming and still photography permits, and 
take action to ensure the Park Service implements the law requiring it 
to collect location fees and costs for commercial filming and still 
photography. 

In commenting on a draft of this report, the Department of the Interior 
neither agreed nor disagreed with our recommendations. It did, however, 
offer several suggestions for technical clarifications and to clarify 
the application of policy guidance to the National Capital Region; we 
have incorporated these suggestions, as appropriate. 

Background: 

The National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 created the Park Service 
to promote and regulate the use of national parks, monuments, and 
reservations with the purpose of conserving the scenery, natural and 
historic objects, and wildlife therein and to leave them "unimpaired" 
for the enjoyment of future generations. The 1970 National Park System 
General Authorities Act, as amended in 1978, prohibits the service from 
allowing any activities that would cause derogation of the values and 
purposes for which the parks have been established. The combination of 
these two laws forms the basis of a mandate for Park Service managers 
to actively manage all park uses in a manner that protects park 
resources and values. 

Today, the Park Service comprises 388 units covering around 84 million 
acres in 49 states, the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, 
Puerto Rico, Saipan, and the Virgin Islands. Figure 1 shows a map of 
the Park Service regions. 

Figure 1: Park Service Regions: 

[See PDF for image]  

[A] Parkland within the National Capital Region amounts to about 88,000 
acres in the District of Columbia, Maryland, Virginia, and West 
Virginia. 

[End of figure]  

National Parks are home to many unique and beautiful landscapes and 
open spaces that are venues for a variety of special event activities 
such as cultural programs, festivals, wedding ceremonies, and athletic 
events, as well as commercial filming and still photography. These 
special uses generally provide a benefit to an individual, group, or 
organization rather than the public at large. In order to protect park 
resources and the public interest, a special uses permit must be 
obtained from Park Service superintendents for these activities. 
Special uses permits regulate the amount, kind, time, and place of the 
proposed activity.[Footnote 1] The Park Service issues special uses 
permits for several different types of activities, including the two 
types we reviewed (1) special events, and (2) commercial filming and 
still photography. 

Special events permits are issued for a wide range of activities, 
including sports, pageants, celebrations, historical re-enactments, 
exhibitions, parades, fairs, and festivals. Commercial filming and 
still photography permits are issued for such activities as major 
motion picture filming, commercials, and magazine photo shoots. The 
Park Service has specific statutory authority to recover costs 
associated with special uses permits and to retain the funds 
recovered.[Footnote 2] The Park Service has guidance in place to 
collect costs associated with special event permits, including costs 
for commercial filming and still photography. In addition, it has been 
required by law to collect costs and location fees associated with 
filming activities for almost five years.[Footnote 3]

The Park Service Has Specific Policy Guidance for Issuing Permits and 
Recovering Costs for Special Park Uses: 

The Park Service developed specific policy guidance for issuing permits 
and recovering costs for special park uses. This guidance includes 
detailed permitting criteria for special events and for commercial 
filming and still photography. Park Service superintendents are 
required to follow the established policy guidance, including numerous 
cost recovery requirements, when issuing permits. The cost recovery 
guidance generally requires the park units to recover costs associated 
with the permitted activity from the permittee. 

Park Unit Superintendents Are Required to Follow Specific Guidance When 
Issuing Permits for Special Events and for Commercial Filming and Still 
Photography: 

The Park Service has developed extensive policy guidance that park unit 
superintendents are to follow when issuing any Park Service special 
uses permits. In this regard, the superintendent at each park unit is 
responsible for reviewing, approving, and monitoring permitted 
activities and for assuring that such activities are consistent with 
the Park Service's purpose: "to conserve scenery, natural and historic 
objects, and wildlife, and to provide for the enjoyment of the public 
while maintaining the natural and cultural resources and values of the 
national park system unimpaired for future generations." The policy 
guidance also gives the superintendent discretion by directing that 
permits include "the terms and conditions that the superintendent deems 
necessary to protect park resources or public safety." Permits 
establish conditions for the approved activity, such as location, date, 
time, and estimated number of participants. 

Guidance on Special Events: 

Special events within park units must meet basic criteria before a 
permit is issued, and Park Service policy guidance gives 
superintendents discretion when approving permits. The basic criteria 
for issuing a permit include that (1) there is a meaningful association 
between the park area and the event and (2) the event will contribute 
to visitor understanding of the significance of the park area. However, 
the determination of what is a "meaningful association" is generally 
left to the superintendent's discretion. Some special event activities 
may be appropriate within certain park unit settings but not 
appropriate within others. For example, while the permitting of a rock 
concert in an urban park setting may be appropriate, the permitting of 
a rock concert at certain historical sites such as battlefields or 
cemeteries may not be appropriate. Also, in order to protect the park 
resources and the public's health and safety, the policy guidance for 
special events provides strict limitations on certain uses, such as 
fireworks displays and the sale of food in the parks.[Footnote 4]

Existing Park Service policies provide the superintendent with 
considerable discretion to determine the appropriateness of proposed 
advertisements. In 2003, the NFL kickoff event caused considerable 
controversy about the size, scale, scope, and location of advertising 
allowed during the event. In 2004, Congress passed legislation designed 
to strengthen and clarify commercial signage restrictions for the 
National Mall. This new legislation expressly prohibited the 
expenditure of funds in fiscal year 2004 for special uses permits on 
the National Mall unless the Park Service prohibited "the erection, 
placement, or use of structures and signs bearing commercial 
advertising."[Footnote 5] However, discrete recognition of program 
sponsors was authorized. As a result, the Park Service has drafted 
additional policy guidance, applicable to all park units, pertaining to 
the use of signage recognizing program sponsors that will restrict the 
size, scale, scope, and location of corporate logos and other 
lettering. 

Guidance on Commercial Filming and Still Photography: 

In general, the Park Service encourages filming and photography "when 
it will promote the protection and public enjoyment of park resources," 
provided that the activity meets basic criteria, such as the activity 
will not cause unacceptable impacts to park resources. More 
specifically, the policy guidance outlines when a permit is and is not 
required. For example, a permit is required if the permitted activity 
involves the use of a model, set, or prop--such as a model holding a 
product for an advertisement photograph. However, no permit is required 
for visitors using a camera or recording device for their own personal 
use within normal visitation areas and hours. Some specific exceptions 
are included in the policy guidance--for example, a permit is never 
required for press coverage of breaking news.[Footnote 6] Also, 
superintendents, at their discretion, may grant the permittee access to 
a closed area of the park or permit the activity after normal visiting 
hours. Regardless of the specific type of commercial filming or still 
photography activity, the conditions specified in the permit must be 
followed. 

Park Service Guidance Includes Requirement to Recover Costs: 

Park Service policy guidance generally requires park units to recover 
costs associated with managing special park uses, including special 
event and commercial filming and still photography activities, unless 
cost recovery is prohibited by law or otherwise exempted.[Footnote 7] 
This policy guidance is in line with federal law requiring recovery of 
costs for filming activities and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
Circular A-25, which established guidelines for federal agencies to 
assess fees for government services and for the sale or use of 
government property or resources. The OMB Circular states, "When a 
service (or privilege) provides special benefits to an identifiable 
recipient beyond those that accrue to the general public, a charge will 
be imposed (to recover the full cost to the Federal Government for 
providing the special benefit, or the market price)." The circular also 
states that "user charges will be sufficient to recover the full cost 
to the Federal Government," and it defines full cost as all direct and 
indirect costs--including personnel, physical overhead, and 
depreciation of structures and equipment--associated with providing a 
good, resource, or service. As authorized by law and under the policy 
guidance, these recovered costs are retained at the units issuing the 
permits to defray the costs of administering and monitoring the 
permits. 

The Park Service's 2001 Management Policies document, which provides 
the service's most current overall policies, states that "all costs 
incurred by the Service in writing the permit, monitoring, providing 
protection services, restoring park areas, or otherwise supporting a 
special park use will be reimbursed by the permittee." Park Service 
policy guidance further states that "appropriate fees for cost 
recovery, as well as performance bond and liability insurance 
requirements, will be imposed, consistent with applicable statutory 
authorities and regulations," and directs that "when appropriate, the 
Service will also include a fair charge for the use of the land or 
facility." Consequently, each permit should stipulate that these costs 
must be reimbursed by the permittee. Recoverable costs are those costs 
directly attributable to the use or necessary for the safe completion 
of the special park use. For example, the policy states that 
recoverable costs include the time charged by a park ranger to visit 
the site of the event, such as a festival held on park grounds, to 
monitor that the terms and conditions of the permit are met.[Footnote 
8] Additionally, the requirement includes recovering costs for 
equipment and facility use as well as restoration of any damage to park 
resources as a result of the event. 

Park Service policy guidance also outlines the conditions under which 
charges for special uses may be waived. According to the policy 
guidance, exemptions from charges for special uses may be appropriate 
when: 

* the incremental costs of collecting the charges would be an unduly 
large part of the receipts from the activity;

* the furnishing of the service without charge is an appropriate 
courtesy to a foreign government or international organization, or 
comparable fees are set on a reciprocal basis with a foreign country;

* the permittee is a state, local, or federal government agency or a 
tribal government; or: 

* the superintendent determines that the use will promote the mission 
of the Park Service or promote public safety, health, or welfare. 

Exemptions from charges are appropriate when: 

* a charge is prohibited by legislation or executive order; or: 

* the requested use involves exercise of a right pertaining to water, 
property, minerals, access, Native American religious practices, or the 
rights guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution, including 
freedom of assembly, speech, religion, and the press. 

Through their special uses permit system, Park Service superintendents 
also manage requests for public assembly for the exercise of First 
Amendment rights, including freedom of assembly, speech, religion, and 
the press. Consistent with the First Amendment, it is the Park 
Service's policy to permit groups to assemble peaceably and exercise 
freedom of speech on park lands. The number of First Amendment permit 
requests varies greatly by park unit. For example, each year hundreds 
of permit requests are submitted for First Amendment activity in 
Washington, D.C., area park units, but there are few requests for this 
type of permit at remote units such as Yellowstone National Park. For 
First Amendment permits, as with other special uses permits, the 
superintendents establish conditions for the assembly, such as site 
location, date, time, and number of participants. However, unlike other 
special events permits, superintendents are required by Park Service 
policies to issue these permits without requiring fees, cost recovery, 
bonding, or insurance. 

Inconsistent Application of Special Park Uses Guidance Has Resulted in 
Some Park Units Not Fully Identifying and Recovering Costs, Thereby 
Decreasing Resources Available to the Parks: 

At five of the six parks we visited, we found failure to adhere to the 
Park Service's policy to recover from permittees the cost to either 
administer or monitor permits for special events and for commercial 
filming and still photography activities. This inconsistent application 
of agency policy included not assessing or underassessing fees for 
reviewing and issuing permit applications, and not charging or 
undercharging for the cost of monitoring permits. As a result, parks 
did not fully identify and recover costs for permitting special events 
and for commercial filming and still photography. Consequently, in some 
parks, a portion of the financial resources spent on reviewing, 
issuing, and monitoring permits was not recovered from permittees, and 
therefore was not available to manage the park permits programs. 

Failure to Consistently Apply Guidance Means That Some Costs Are Not 
Identified and Recovered: 

Of the six park units we visited, we found that one park unit did not 
charge fees for reviewing and approving permit applications. Although 
five of the six park units charged administrative fees, three of these 
units did not recover the full costs associated with reviewing and 
approving permit applications. All six park units had established fees 
for monitoring the implementation of the permit. However, four of these 
units did not recover the full costs associated with their monitoring 
activities. Table 1 shows the park units we visited and whether they 
charged administrative or monitoring fees and recovered the associated 
costs. 

Table 1: Park Units Visited and Whether the Park Units Charged 
Administrative and Monitoring Fees and Recovered Associated Costs: 

Region: Intermountain; 
Park units visited: Yellowstone National Park; 
Administrative fee: Fee charged: yes; 
Administrative fee: Full cost recovery: yes; 
Monitoring fee: Fee charged: yes; 
Monitoring fee: Full cost recovery: no. 

Region: Midwest; 
Park units visited: Jefferson National Expansion Memorial; 
Administrative fee: Fee charged: yes; 
Administrative fee: Full cost recovery: yes; 
Monitoring fee: Fee charged: yes; 
Monitoring fee: Full cost recovery: yes. 

Region: National Capital; 
Park units visited: National Capital Parks-Central; 
Administrative fee: Fee charged: no; 
Administrative fee: Full cost recovery: no; 
Monitoring fee: Fee charged: yes[A]; 
Monitoring fee: Full cost recovery: no. 

Region: Northeast; 
Park units visited: Independence National Historical Park; 
Administrative fee: Fee charged: yes; 
Administrative fee: Full cost recovery: no; 
Monitoring fee: Fee charged: yes; 
Monitoring fee: Full cost recovery: yes. 

Region: Pacific West; 
Park units visited: Golden Gate National Recreation Area; 
Administrative fee: Fee charged: yes; 
Administrative fee: Full cost recovery: yes; 
Monitoring fee: Fee charged: yes; 
Monitoring fee: Full cost recovery: no. 

Region: Southeast; 
Park units visited: Blue Ridge Parkway; 
Administrative fee: Fee charged: yes; 
Administrative fee: Full cost recovery: no; 
Monitoring fee: Fee charged: yes; 
Monitoring fee: Full cost recovery: no. 

Source: GAO. 

Notes: Table is based on reviews of agency documents and, where 
documents were unavailable, interviews with park unit officials. 

[A] In addition to the monitoring fee, according to National Capital 
Parks-Central officials, for permits where a bond is required to cover 
potential damages to resources, the permittee is assessed a $50 flat 
fee. 

[End of table]

Administrative Fee Not Charged or Fully Recovered: 

The Park Service does not maintain centralized data on the number of 
special event and commercial filming and still photography permits 
issued each year. However, an agency official informed us that for 
fiscal year 2003, National Capital Parks-Central issued the largest 
number of these permits--estimated in excess of 1,400--of all park 
units. National Capital Parks-Central charged no administration fees 
for permitting special uses. For example, during fiscal year 2003, this 
park management unit did not assess any administrative fee for permits 
issued for special events, filming, and still photography, as required 
by Park Service policy unless prohibited by law or otherwise exempted. 
National Capital Parks-Central officials told us that since the mid- 
1990s, it has been regional policy that park units within the National 
Capital Region would not charge any administrative costs associated 
with processing permits. For example, National Capital Parks-Central 
issued permits for both the NFL kickoff event[Footnote 9] and the 
filming of the major motion picture National Treasure, both of which 
engaged Park Service personnel in numerous planning meetings, but for 
which no administrative costs were recovered. As a result of GAO 
bringing this issue to the attention of the Solicitor's Office at 
Interior, the Solicitor's Office modified its guidance and directed the 
National Capital Region to: 

re-examine its administrative cost recovery practices. As of February 
2005, according to Interior's Solicitor's Office, steps were being 
taken to require all park units in the National Capital Region to 
assess processing or application fees for all permit applications. 

Administrative fees are based on the actual costs incurred by the park 
unit involved in overseeing the permit activity and should include all 
costs to the Park Service associated with processing a permit 
application from the time the first inquiry is received until the 
permit is signed and issued.[Footnote 10] For example, officials at 
Independence National Historical Park charge a $50 nonrefundable fee 
for each permit application. In fiscal year 2003, this park unit issued 
a total of over 300 permits for special events and for commercial 
filming and still photography. According to these park officials, this 
fee has not been updated for at least 8 years and will be increased to 
$100 in late 2005 to reflect increased administrative costs.[Footnote 
11] Blue Ridge Parkway charged a $25 nonrefundable fee to cover the 
costs of initially considering permit applications and an additional 
$75 to cover additional processing costs for each approved permit. 
According to a park official, these fees had not been updated in 8 
years, but the fees have now been increased as of January 2005 to $50 
and $125, respectively, to reflect increased administrative costs. In 
fiscal year 2003, this park unit issued a total of about 40 permits for 
special events and for commercial filming and still photography. 
Officials at these park units agreed that their 2003 charges did not 
reflect increases in costs, such as for personnel, that had occurred 
during the past several years. 

In contrast, according to park officials, Golden Gate National 
Recreational Area, Jefferson National Expansion Memorial, and 
Yellowstone National Park charge administrative fees based on current 
costs. These park units periodically assess and adjust their fees to 
reflect increasing costs, such as for salary and associated benefits. 

Monitoring Fees Not Fully Recovered: 

Delicate natural resources in park units (see fig. 1) require 
monitoring to ensure resources are protected for the enjoyment of 
future generations. For example, at Yellowstone National Park, if a 
film crew consists of five or more persons, a park official assigns 
staff to monitor the crew's activities at all times to ensure 
compliance with permit conditions, safety, and that the activity does 
not interfere with the visitor experience. If the filming activity is 
at or near one of the park's thermal pools, a Park Service staff 
monitor is required as part of the permit conditions to ensure that the 
film crew does not damage this natural resource or its surroundings by 
entering a restricted area to obtain a particular photo or angle of 
view. 

Figure 2: A Frequently Filmed and Photographed Thermal Pool at 
Yellowstone National Park: 

[See PDF for image]  

[End of figure]  

According to Yellowstone's film permit coordinator, permittees 
sometimes try to push the boundaries of the permit conditions, without 
understanding the potential damage or injury that could result. The 
Yellowstone coordinator stated, however, that because of their close 
monitoring actions, there has not been any resource damage from 
permittee actions. 

At three of the six parks we visited--Blue Ridge Parkway, Yellowstone 
National Park, and Golden Gate National Recreation Area--hourly 
monitoring fees had not been updated to reflect current higher costs, 
according to park officials. As a result, staffs at these units are not 
collecting fees sufficient to cover their monitoring costs. According 
to the Blue Ridge Parkway permit coordinator, actual hourly monitoring 
costs are about $50 per hour; however, the park has charged only $30 
per hour since 1997. At Blue Ridge Parkway, not only were the 
monitoring fees below actual costs, but staff who monitored permitted 
activities did not submit documentation that would allow the park unit 
to bill and collect monitoring fees from the permittee for 20 of 28 
permitted special events. Blue Ridge Parkway officials plan to increase 
the monitoring fee to $50 per hour in 2005. 

At Yellowstone National Park, the $50 hourly monitoring fee has not 
been updated in about 10 years. The hourly monitoring fee at Golden 
Gate National Recreation Area ($65 per hour) has not been updated for 4 
years. Officials at Blue Ridge, Golden Gate, and Yellowstone explained 
they had not updated their hourly monitoring fees either because of a 
high workload at some park units or because updating fees was given a 
low priority at other park units. However, they said they plan to 
revise the fee to more accurately reflect actual costs in fiscal year 
2005. 

Officials at National Capital Parks-Central are not collecting fees 
sufficient to cover their monitoring costs. These officials require 
permittees to bear the cost of Park Service overtime to monitor 
permitted activity for those permits where a bond is required.[Footnote 
12] However, National Capital Parks-Central officials do not recover 
their costs for any permit monitoring that occurs during normal 
business hours and where no bond is required. 

In contrast, two park units, Independence National Historical Park and 
Jefferson National Expansion Memorial, charged monitoring fees based on 
current cost rates. 

Additional Park Revenues Are Available to Parks If Costs Are Collected 
from Permittees: 

As mentioned earlier, five of the six parks we visited--Blue Ridge 
Parkway, Golden Gate National Recreation Area, Yellowstone National 
Park, Independence National Historical Park, and National Capital Parks-
Central--did not fully recover applicable administrative or monitoring 
costs. Some of these parks failed to collect several thousand dollars 
or more in fiscal year 2003. For example, had National Capital Parks-
Central charged a $50 administrative fee like Independence National 
Historical Park, it would have collected at least $70,000 for the 
estimated 1,400-plus permits the park issued in fiscal year 2003 for 
special events and filming and photography. As a result, if these park 
units had implemented agency policy and the OMB directives to fully 
recover all costs, additional--and in one case, significant--revenues, 
such as those at National Capital Parks-Central, could have been 
available for managing permits programs. 

Delays in Implementing the Law to Collect Location Fees for Commercial 
Filming and Still Photography Have Resulted in Forgone Revenues: 

Delays in implementing the May 2000 legislation requiring the Secretary 
of the Interior to establish a fee schedule for commercial filming and 
still photography have resulted in significant annual forgone revenues 
for the Park Service. This law requires the agencies to establish a fee 
for the use of the land--referred to by the Park Service as a location 
fee--in addition to recovering agency costs. If the law requiring the 
Park Service's officials to collect location fees for commercial 
filming and still photography had been implemented, GAO estimates that, 
for the reported permitted activity in fiscal year 2003, the agency 
would have collected revenues of about $1.6 million (unadjusted for 
inflation).[Footnote 13] According to the Park Service's Special Uses 
Program Manager, the commercial filming and still photography permitted 
activities used by GAO to estimate forgone revenues of about $1.6 
million are representative of a typical year's worth of activities. The 
Park Service, along with three other federal land management agencies, 
is currently participating in a working group to develop regulations to 
implement the legislation and the associated location fee schedule. 

Law Requiring the Collection of Location Fees Has Not Been Implemented: 

The Commercial Filming Law, enacted in May 2000, requires the Secretary 
of the Interior and the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture to 
issue permits and establish reasonable fees for commercial filming and 
still photography activities. The law affects Interior's Bureau of Land 
Management (BLM), Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and Park Service, 
and Agriculture's Forest Service (FS). However, the law has not been 
implemented. Although BLM and FS already had established filming and 
still photography fee schedules in place prior to this law, the Park 
Service and FWS are collaborating with FS and BLM to develop a single 
fee schedule for all four agencies. 

Subsequent to the law's enactment, the Department of the Interior's 
Office of the Solicitor created a working group, in June 2000, with 
representatives from each of the four affected agencies to develop 
implementing regulations and a fee schedule. To ensure that First 
Amendment issues were adequately addressed, attorneys from the 
Solicitor's Office agreed to seek concurrence from the Department of 
Justice prior to finalizing the regulations. In October 2000, the 
Solicitor's Office submitted the proposed regulations drafted by the 
working group to Justice's Office of Legal Counsel. However, Justice's 
suggested revisions were not provided to Interior officials until 
October 2003. Since that time, representatives from each of the four 
land management agencies have worked together to finalize the 
regulations and the associated fee schedule. According to officials at 
Interior and the Park Service, the draft regulations are currently 
being circulated among the appropriate reviewing officials in each 
agency, and the agencies plan to have them published in the Federal 
Register later this year. 

In addition to drafting regulations to implement the Commercial Filming 
Law, the working group considered two different approaches when 
developing a uniform fee schedule: One approach specifies a uniform 
minimum fee schedule allowing the land management agencies to assess 
additional fees based on comparable markets, while the other approach 
does not allow for fee adjustments based on comparable markets. For 
example, the Forest Service currently uses the same fee schedule in 
five of its nine regions. In contrast, BLM's existing fee schedule for 
filming and still photography, while similar, varies by state and is 
set by BLM state offices. Although the working group has developed a 
standardized fee schedule, one of the group's challenges has been to 
reach consensus among the affected agencies on whether the use of a 
standardized fee schedule would allow individual locations to assess an 
additional fee for use of its sites. 

Proposed Location Fee Schedule Includes Charges Based on the Number of 
People and Duration of Filming: 

The Commercial Filming Law requires the Park Service to establish a 
location fee for commercial filming and still photography that provides 
a fair return for the use of the land to the United States. The law 
specifies that this fee must be based upon the following criteria: (1) 
the number of days the filming activity or similar project takes place 
on federal land under the Secretary's jurisdiction,[Footnote 14] (2) 
the size of the film crew present on federal land under the Secretary's 
jurisdiction, and (3) the amount and type of equipment present. 
Furthermore, the law allows that "other factors" may be included in 
determining an appropriate fee. The Forest Service has a fee schedule, 
developed prior to this law and implemented under other legislative 
authority, that uses similar criteria. For example, the Forest 
Service's commercial filming fee schedule ranges from a minimum of $150 
per day for crews of 1 to 10 people to $600 per day for crews of over 
60 people.[Footnote 15] These fees are then multiplied by the number of 
days the crews are on the site during all phases of filming. For 
example, applying this schedule to just one of the 320-plus filming 
permits issued by National Capital Parks-Central in fiscal year 2003 
(65 people for 2 days) would have resulted in a $1,200 return to the 
park. Once these fees are collected, they remain with the Park Service 
units and are available until expended. 

GAO Estimated Forgone Revenues of about $1.6 Million for Fiscal Year 
2003: 

Using the fee schedule that the Forest Service has in effect, we 
estimate that the Park Service would have collected location fee 
revenues of about $1.6 million in fiscal year 2003. The Park Service 
has drafted a proposed standardized location fee schedule that would 
charge higher fees than the Forest Service for larger parties, but it 
has not yet been finalized. Using the Park Service's draft fee 
schedule, we estimate forgone revenues of about $2 million in 2003 (see 
app. II). 

Conclusions: 

The Park Service is required by law to collect costs and location fees 
associated with permits for commercial filming and still photography 
and authorized to collect costs for other permitted activities. Because 
costs recovered from permitting activities are used by park units for 
managing their permit program and other park programs, failing to 
recover such costs decreases the financial resources park units have 
for processing permits and monitoring permitted activities. Unless 
steps are taken to ensure that units fully identify and collect 
administrative and management (including monitoring) costs associated 
with special event permits and with commercial filming and still 
photography permits, the Park Service will continue to deprive itself 
of funds important for managing and carrying out agency policy and 
delivering agency services. This is particularly evident in the 
National Capital Region, where only recently has consideration been 
given to charging administrative fees to recover costs. Because our 
review was limited to six park units, the extent to which other park 
units are not consistently applying existing cost recovery guidance is 
unclear. Conducting a systemwide review would help identify park units 
that are not fully recovering costs for special events and filming and 
still photography, and the measures necessary to ensure that all park 
units identify and collect all appropriate permitting fees. 

Significant revenues that would be available to the Park Service to 
help defray the costs of administering its commercial filming and still 
photography permit program are forgone because of delays in 
implementing regulations consistent with the Commercial Filming Law. By 
law, the Park Service is now required to collect location fees for 
commercial filming and still photography activities. Expediting 
implementation of the law will help ensure that the Park Service does 
not experience more forgone revenues. 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

To ensure that the Park Service fully identifies and collects 
administrative and monitoring costs associated with special event and 
with commercial filming and still photography permits, as well as 
location fees for filming activities, we recommend that the Secretary 
of the Interior direct the Park Service Director to take the following 
four actions: 

* Ensure that the park units we visited consistently apply existing 
cost recovery guidance and maintain updated cost recovery fee 
schedules. 

* Ascertain the extent to which other park units are not consistently 
applying existing cost recovery guidance, and take appropriate actions 
to ensure they are consistently applied and costs are identified and 
recovered. 

* Expedite the implementation of the law that requires the Park Service 
to collect location fees and costs for commercial filming and still 
photography, when appropriate. 

* Follow through to ensure that the National Capital Region assesses 
administrative fees to recover the costs of processing permits for 
special events and for commercial filming and still photography. 

Agency Comments and Our Response: 

We provided the Department of the Interior with a draft of this report 
for review and comment. The department provided written comments that 
are included in appendix IV. The department did not comment on our 
recommendations; however it suggested language to clarify the 
application of Park Service general policy guidance to the National 
Capital Region. Specifically, it suggested that we include language to 
clarify that the regulations governing special events within the 
National Capital Region are different from those contained in the Park 
Service's general regulations, particularly as it applied to the NFL 
kickoff event. We agree that the regulations governing such special 
events in the National Capital Region are different from the general 
regulations and have included clarifying language in the report. The 
department provided other technical clarifications that we have 
incorporated, as appropriate. 

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents 
of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days 
from the report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report 
to the Secretary of the Interior and other interested parties. We will 
also make copies available to others upon request. In addition, the 
report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at 
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you or your staff have questions about this report, please contact 
me at (202) 512-3841 or [Hyperlink, nazzaror@gao.gov]. Key contributors 
to this report are listed in appendix V. 

Signed by:  

Robin M. Nazzaro: 
Director, Natural Resources and Environment: 

List of Requesters: 

The Honorable James L. Oberstar: 
Ranking Democratic Member: 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure: 
House of Representatives: 

The Honorable Nick J. Rahall: 
Ranking Minority Member: 
Committee on Resources: 
House of Representatives: 

The Honorable Betty McCollum: 
House of Representatives: 

The Honorable Jim Moran: 
House of Representatives: 

The Honorable Eleanor Holmes Norton: 
House of Representatives: 

[End of section]

Appendixes: 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

We identified and analyzed applicable laws, regulations, policies, and 
procedures to determine Park Service policy and requirements applicable 
to the review and approval of special uses permits, including those for 
special events and commercial filming and still photography. This 
included an analysis of servicewide guidance as well as guidance 
applicable to the specific units we visited,[Footnote 16] such as units 
in the National Capital Region. We discussed the policy guidance with 
the Office of the Solicitor, Department of the Interior, and with 
officials from Park Service headquarters and each of the six park units 
visited to gain an understanding of how the guidance should be 
interpreted and applied. 

To evaluate whether policy guidance was consistently applied, we 
reviewed files and examined permitting practices at the nonprobability 
sample of six park units visited[Footnote 17] and interviewed park unit 
officials about their procedures in reviewing, approving, and 
monitoring permitted activities. We also reviewed these units' 
procedures to identify and recover costs associated with permit 
activities. 

We first searched for existing data sources describing the number of 
special event and commercial filming and still photography activities 
on park land. However, the Park Service does not maintain national or 
regional data about these activities. We also contacted sources outside 
of the Park Service--including the Sierra Club and The Motion Picture 
Association of America--to ascertain whether these sources had 
information on the number of special event and commercial filming and 
still photography permits issued by each of the park units, but these 
groups did not have such data, either. In the absence of this data, we 
used an expert referral technique to identify park units to visit. We 
asked officials from each of the Park Service's seven regional offices 
to identify, using their knowledge of regional operations, the three 
park units within their respective regions with the greatest number of 
(1) special event and (2) commercial filming and still photography 
permits. In each case, the officials produced a list in which the same 
unit had both the most special events and the most commercial filming 
and still photography permits for fiscal year 2003. We selected the top 
park unit from each of the regional offices. Park Service regional 
officials identified the following seven park units issuing the 
greatest number of permits for both special events and for commercial 
filming and still photography in fiscal year 2003: 

* Alaska Region--Denali National Park,

* Midwest Region--Jefferson National Expansion Memorial,

* Intermountain Region--Yellowstone National Park,

* Pacific West Region--Golden Gate National Recreation Area,

* Northeast Region--Independence National Historical Park,

* National Capital Region--National Capital Parks-Central, and: 

* Southeast Region--Blue Ridge Parkway. 

Because of the relatively low number of reported permits issued in the 
Park Service's Alaska Region, we limited our site visits to parks in 
the six Park Service regions within the continental United States. 

To determine the extent to which the Park Service implemented the 
Commercial Filming Law, requiring it to collect location fees for 
commercial filming and still photography activities, we analyzed the 
legislation and interviewed Park Service and Department of the Interior 
headquarters officials. We also contacted officials at the Department 
of Justice and obtained their concurrence regarding the delays and 
changes made to the draft regulations. In addition, we analyzed 
documents pertinent to Justice's review of Interior's proposed 
regulations for collecting location fees to verify reported delays in 
Justice's review of the regulations. We asked the Special Uses Program 
Manager at Park Service headquarters to assist GAO in administering a 
data collection instrument (DCI) sent to each of the Park Service's 388 
park units to obtain information on the amount of commercial filming 
and still photography activity that would have been subject to location 
fees in fiscal year 2003, if the legislation had been implemented. 

The DCI was sent to all park units to obtain information on permits 
issued for filming and still photography activities occurring in fiscal 
year 2003. We asked the park units to provide (1) a permit number for 
each permit issued, (2) the date the permit activity started, (3) the 
number of days for which the permit was authorized, (4) the number of 
people using the permit, and (5) if the park unit would have charged a 
location fee based on current Park Service policy guidance. We 
requested that the information provided by the park units in the DCI be 
sent to GAO with a copy to the Special Uses Program Manager. 

We coordinated with the Special Uses Program Manager to ensure we 
received all of the responses and printed out hard copies of the 
filming and still photography activities provided by the park units. 
Because some of the smaller parks have a management office that issues 
permits for multiple park units, some of the respondents provided 
information containing the aggregated responses. These DCI responses 
were grouped into 27 combined park unit responses representing 95 
individual park units. 

Of the 388 park units operating in 2003, we removed 17 because they 
either (1) did not own or manage property in their designation or (2) 
were not located in the United States or the District of Columbia, 
leaving us with 371 park units. Of the 371, we received responses from 
355, giving us a response rate of 96 percent. Of these 355 park units, 
95 were provided in grouped responses and the remaining 260 responses 
were from individual park units. 

We reviewed all of the filming and photography permits at four of the 
six sites visited. We reviewed these permit files to determine whether 
they contained specific required administrative information, such as 
evidence of the recovery of incurred costs. However, we did not review 
the permit files for evidence of all administrative requirements 
outlined in policy guidance because it was outside of the scope of this 
assignment. We reviewed: 

* 7 permit files at Jefferson National Expansion Memorial,

* 77 permit files at Yellowstone National Park,

* 76 permit files at Independence National Historical Park, and: 

* 15 permit files at Blue Ridge Parkway. 

The key administrative information regarding cost recovery was present 
in all of the 175 files we reviewed. 

Our file review at both of the remaining sites included an additional 
level of review. For these two sites, we reviewed the files for key 
administrative information as we did for the other four sites 
previously described. In addition, we also compared the information 
provided by the park unit on the DCI with the information contained in 
the permit file. 

* Of 152 total permits at Golden Gate National Recreation Area, we 
reviewed 10 filming and photography permits with the highest costs 
recovered. These permits were selected using the park's 318 account 
summary, which lists all fees charged and collected for filming and 
photography permits for fiscal year 2003. All key administrative cost 
recovery information was present, and all DCI information matched in 
these 10 permit files. 

* We could not identify the top 10 highest-cost filming and photography 
permits for National Capital Parks-Central based on the park's 318 
account summary for fiscal year 2003, because the account combines 
costs recovered for filming and photography permits with other special 
uses permit costs. As a result, we requested files for filming permits 
that included 25 or more people, as indicated on the returned DCI from 
National Capital Parks-Central. This resulted in a review of 29 of 678 
permit files (4 percent), which, according to National Capital Parks- 
Central staff, would generally be comparable with the permits with the 
highest costs recovered in fiscal year 2003. All key administrative 
cost recovery information was present, and all DCI information matched 
in these 29 permit files. 

The information we gathered was provided by staff at National Park 
Service units. The Park Service staff located the data by pulling paper 
files and transferring the information into the DCI. This information 
is not centralized, and it had never been gathered on a national level 
prior to our data collection for fiscal year 2003. The Special Uses 
Program Manager is responsible for ensuring that all Park Service staff 
adhere to the policy and guidance regarding issues associated with 
permit procedures, drafting policy and guidance associated with 
permitting procedures, and the coordination of the training and 
curriculum for Park Service staff on permitting policies and 
procedures. In her opinion, the information provided by the park units 
was accurate, complete, and reflective of the amount of permitted 
activity in a typical year. Based on our comparison of DCI data with 
hard copy files and our discussion with Park Service officials 
regarding the data, we determined that the data were reliable enough 
for the purposes of this report. 

Using the data we obtained from these park units, we estimated the 
forgone location fee revenues for fiscal year 2003 by applying the 
established fee schedule of the Forest Service. Both the Bureau of Land 
Management (BLM) and the Forest Service have established location fee 
schedules in place; however, the BLM fee schedule varies by state. 
Therefore, we used the Forest Service's established fee schedule for 
our calculations because it is standardized within five of its nine 
regions and based on similar criteria included in legislation 
authorizing the Park Service to charge fees. We used these data to 
estimate forgone revenue. Details of these calculations are provided in 
appendix II. 

We conducted our work from May 2004 through May 2005 in accordance with 
generally accepted government auditing standards. 

[End of section]

Appendix II: Details of the Forgone Revenue Calculations: 

To estimate the revenues the Park Service could have collected in 
location fees in fiscal year 2003, if the requirement to collect such 
fees had been implemented, we asked the Park Services' Special Uses 
Program Manager to assist GAO in administering a data collection 
instrument (DCI). The Park Services' Special Uses Program Manager sent 
the DCI to each of the Park Service's 388 park units to obtain 
information on the amount of filming and still photography activity 
that would have been subject to location fees in fiscal year 2003. In 
the DCI, we asked for information on activities specifically related to 
the number of filming and still photography permits issued, the number 
of days each permit was in effect, the number of people using the 
permit, and whether the unit would have charged a location fee based on 
current Park Service policy guidance. Park Service policy allows the 
superintendents to waive fees under certain conditions, such as if the 
permittee is a state, local, or federal government agency or a tribal 
government, or if the superintendent determines that the use will 
promote the mission of the Park Service or promote public safety, 
health, or welfare. In our calculations to estimate forgone revenues, 
we only used the permit activity reported by the park units where a 
location fee would not have been waived. We received responses from 355 
of 371 park units in our sample, giving a 96 percent response rate. 
(Seventeen units were removed from the universe. See app. I for details 
of our methodology.)

To estimate forgone revenues, we used the information collected from 
respondents, along with the Forest Service's existing fee schedule used 
in five of its nine regions for commercial filming and still 
photography activities (see tables 2 and 3). We also used the Park 
Service's draft fee schedule to provide an alternative estimate of 
forgone revenues even though its fee schedule is not yet final (see 
tables 4 and 5). Both schedules charge daily fees based on the number 
of people participating in the activity; the Forest Service's fees are 
lower for larger parties. 

To develop the forgone revenue estimates for activities in fiscal year 
2003, we multiplied the number of people using permits each day by the 
corresponding Forest Service and Park Service fees when the park unit 
would have charged fees for the permitted activities. For example, as 
shown in table 6, we estimated forgone revenues for fiscal year 2003 of 
$1,135,250 and $464,450 for commercial filming and still photography 
activity, respectively, using the Forest Service fee schedule, for a 
total of $1,599,700. By comparison, we estimated forgone revenues of 
$1,292,850 and $750,950 for commercial filming and still photography 
activity, respectively, using the Park Service proposed fee schedule, 
for a total of $2,043,800. However, this schedule has not been approved 
for use, and it is uncertain whether the amounts in the schedule would 
have been applicable in fiscal year 2003. 

Table 2: Forest Service Established Fee Schedule for Filming: 

Number of people: 1-10; 
Fee per day (dollars): $150. 

Number of people: 11-30; 
Fee per day (dollars): $200. 

Number of people: 31-60; 
Fee per day (dollars): $500. 

Number of people: More than 60; 
Fee per day (dollars): $600. 

Source: Forest Service. 

[End of table]

Table 3: Forest Service Established Fee Schedule for Still Photography: 

Number of people: 1-10; 
Fee per day (dollars): $50. 

Number of people: 11-30; 
Fee per day (dollars): $150. 

Number of people: More than 30; 
Fee per day (dollars): $250. 

Source: Forest Service. 

[End of table]

Table 4: Park Service Proposed Filming Location Fee Schedule: 

Number of people: 1-10; 
Fee per day (dollars): $150. 

Number of people: 11-30; 
Fee per day (dollars): $350. 

Number of people: 31-50; 
Fee per day (dollars): $650. 

Number of people: 51-70; 
Fee per day (dollars): $1,000. 

Number of people: Over 70; 
Fee per day (dollars): $1,500. 

Source: National Park Service. 

[End of table]

Table 5: Park Service Proposed Still Photography Location Fee Schedule: 

Number of people: 1-10; 
Fee per day (dollars): $100. 

Number of people: 11-20; 
Fee per day (dollars): $200. 

Number of people: 21-30; 
Fee per day (dollars): $300. 

Number of people: Over 30; 
Fee per day (dollars): $450. 

Source: National Park Service. 

[End of table]

Table 6: Estimates of Forgone Revenues, Fiscal Year 2003: 

Commercial filming; 
Forgone revenues: Forest Service location fee schedule: $1,135,250; 
Forgone revenues: Park Service proposed location fee schedule: 
$1,292,850. 

Still photography; 
Forgone revenues: Forest Service location fee schedule: $464,450; 
Forgone revenues: Park Service proposed location fee schedule: 
$750,950. 

Total; 
Forgone revenues: Forest Service location fee schedule: $1,599,700; 
Forgone revenues: Park Service proposed location fee schedule: 
$2,043,800. 
Source: GAO analysis of Park Service data. 

Note: Estimates are unadjusted for inflation. Analysis assumes that, in 
general, permittees would have paid the fees had the fee schedule been 
in effect. However, it is possible that some may have chosen to film at 
relatively lower-cost sites elsewhere rather than pay these location 
fees to the Park Service. 

[End of table]

[End of section]

Appendix III: Information on the 2003 National Football League Kickoff 
Event: 

In September 2003, the Park Service's National Capital Parks-Central 
staff approved a permit for the National Football League (NFL) to hold 
its annual kickoff event on the National Mall (Mall) in Washington, 
D.C. The 4-day event was promoted as a welcome home for American 
military troops. The Department of the Interior's Take Pride in America 
initiative was listed as a partner in the event. The event was attended 
by thousands of people--estimates ranged from 100,000 to 500,000--who 
participated in football-related activities and attended performances 
from a variety of entertainers. Public reaction to the event ranged 
from "joy to anger," and many questions were raised about the event and 
the Park Service's permitting process. Specifically, concerns were 
raised about the appropriateness of permitting this event on the Mall, 
the extent of commercial signage, limitations on public access, and 
whether costs to repair damages to Mall resources and property were 
recovered from the NFL. 

Park Service guidance states that special events should "contribute to 
visitor understanding of the significance of the park area." 
Consequently, critics questioned whether the Mall was an appropriate 
venue for an NFL kickoff event. The Mall is a two-mile greenway that 
stretches from the U.S. Capitol on the east side to the Lincoln 
Memorial on the west. The Mall is the setting for world-renowned 
national museums, memorials, and significant federal buildings. 
However, for many years the Mall has also been host to diverse events, 
including fund-raisers, sports tournaments, and festivals as well as 
hundreds of First Amendment activities. Park Service policy for special 
events states that it "will not permit the public staging of special 
events that are conducted primarily for the material or financial 
benefit of organizers or participants; or are commercial in nature; or 
that demand in-park advertising or publicity; or for which a separate 
public admission fee is to be charged." Critics of the NFL kickoff 
event asserted this was a commercial event that was conducted primarily 
for the financial benefit of the NFL and the event's commercial 
sponsors. 

As discussed in this report, Park Service superintendents have a great 
deal of discretion in applying the agency guidance for approving 
permits. According to Park Service officials, the NFL kickoff event was 
intended to honor members of America's armed forces and to promote 
volunteerism on public lands. According to a September 3, 2003, 
statement by the Secretary of the Interior, the NFL kickoff event was 
"a wonderful opportunity to showcase public service by volunteers" who 
put "their love of country to work to improve our national parks, 
wildlife refuges, public lands, cultural and historic sites, 
playgrounds and other recreation areas." In addition to setting up a 
Take Pride in America booth at the event to recruit volunteers for this 
program, public service announcements about Take Pride in America, 
narrated by Washington Redskins players, were broadcast during the NFL 
team's season opener. Finally, Park Service officials stated the 
product-related signs were allowed as a form of sponsor recognition for 
those companies underwriting the cost of the concert and other 
activities that were all free to the public. 

The 2003 NFL Kickoff Permit: 

On May 7, 2003, a permit application for a season-opening event on the 
Mall was submitted to the Park Service's National Capital Parks-Central 
office by an NFL representative. In the application, the event was 
described as a celebration of American treasures, heroes, places, and 
pastimes. Following receipt of the application, numerous discussions 
and planning meetings took place between Park Service and NFL 
representatives. According to Park Service officials involved in these 
meetings, the key issues addressed involved public safety and 
protection of park resources. 

Park Service permits for these types of events contain general 
conditions such as the requirement to procure liability insurance that 
lists the agency granting the permit as an insured party. In addition 
to meeting the general conditions, the NFL was also required to acquire 
certain permits from the District of Columbia through the city's 
Emergency Management Agency, which coordinates with the Metropolitan 
Police, the Fire Department, and other District agencies to assure the 
NFL provided adequate emergency medical services such as first aid 
stations and ambulances during the event. In late August 2003, National 
Capital Parks-Central formally approved the agreed-upon terms and 
conditions for the event by issuing the event permit. National Capital 
Parks-Central officials continued to meet with NFL event planners to 
reach agreement on last minute details of the event and a revised 
permit was issued on September 3, 2003. 

Due to the location of the event--the Mall--the NFL was required to 
closely coordinate all security plans through the United States Park 
Police (Park Police), which provided public safety and security for the 
event and related activities. A condition of the permit stated that the 
NFL was responsible for obtaining the necessary permissions and permits 
from the Metropolitan Police Department and from other agencies and 
departments with jurisdiction over the public lands not under the 
jurisdiction of the Park Service. In addition, the Park Police used the 
assistance of other law enforcement officers from federal, state, and 
local agencies to provide sufficient staff and personnel to handle the 
event. As required by the permit, the costs for providing law 
enforcement officers, including Park Police, were reimbursed by the 
NFL. 

During and following the event, criticism was directed at the Park 
Service over the lineup of entertainers, which included Aerosmith, 
Britney Spears, and Aretha Franklin, as well as the content of some of 
the performances. For example, some people did not consider specific 
aspects of Britney Spears' show to be appropriate family entertainment 
for an 8:00 p.m. broadcast. While Park Service policies state "the 
theme of the special event must be consistent with the mission of the 
park and appropriate to the park in which it is to be held," National 
Capital Parks-Central officials stated they do not make "content-based 
decisions on whether to permit" requested events. 

Signage: 

The NFL kickoff event was advertised as a welcome home celebration for 
American soldiers--a tribute to the military personnel serving in Iraq 
and Afghanistan--and an opportunity for people to gather and watch 
popular entertainers for no charge. But to some observers, such as the 
President of the National Coalition to Save Our Mall, it was a 
"tasteless extravaganza of electronic advertising." Following the 
event, criticisms directed at the Park Service for allowing commercial 
signage on the Mall grew. Critics claimed there were contradictions 
between the Park Service's policies and the activities that occurred 
during the event. Some critics of the event claimed that most, if not 
all, of the commercial signs should not have been displayed on the 
Mall. One author, a former national park ranger who is the director of 
a Washington, D.C.-based advocacy organization and former president of 
the Conservation and Preservation Charities of America, concurred with 
outraged critics over "the dimensions of the commercial displays that 
had no legitimate place on the National Mall in the first place"--his 
description of the giant product banners on the grounds between the 
U.S. Capitol and the Lincoln Memorial. 

According to the National Capital Parks-Central Superintendent, the 
nationally televised event was a new experience for park staff and 
resulted in many "lessons learned." Concerning the "excessive 
commercial signage" described by some critics, the current 
Superintendent, who was the Acting Superintendent at the Park in 
September 2003, took responsibility for these issues and said she had 
misunderstood the amount, type, and size of signage the NFL planned to 
use. In the event permit, she noted, Park Service had not quantified 
the number of sponsor recognition signs allowed because they had not 
foreseen the need to do so. Consequently, there were also far more 
banners and signs posted than the Park Service had anticipated. 

Congress passed legislation putting new restrictions on permits issued 
for the Mall. Public Law No. 108-108 prohibited the use of appropriated 
funds in fiscal year 2004 for special event permits on the Mall, unless 
the permit "expressly prohibits the erection, placement, or use of 
structures and signs bearing commercial advertising." The law still 
allowed for recognizing the sponsors of special events, providing "the 
size and form of the recognition shall be consistent with the special 
nature and sanctity of the Mall and any lettering or design identifying 
the sponsor shall be no larger than one-third the size of the lettering 
or design identifying the special event." As a result of this 
legislation, the Park Service has drafted policy guidance to restrict 
"the size, scale, scope and location of corporate logos and script." In 
addition, National Capital Parks-Central officials now require permit 
applicants to provide detailed lists of planned signage along with a 
scaled replica of each sign to the Park Service for approval at least 
30 days in advance of an event. 

Public Access Restrictions: 

Park Service regulations for the National Capital Region state that the 
decision to issue a special event permit must be based on a 
consideration of a number of factors, including whether the park area 
requested is reasonably suited in terms of size, accessibility, and 
nature of the event. The NFL kickoff event, although permitted, raised 
a number of access issues. For example, while the permit for the event 
stipulated that "all sidewalks, walkways, and roadways must remain 
unobstructed to allow for the reasonable use of these areas by 
pedestrians, vehicles, and other park visitors," some groups complained 
that large portions of the Mall were inaccessible for days leading up 
to the NFL event. Another condition of the permit stated "no vehicle 
shall obstruct or interfere with the Tourmobile service that utilizes 
Jefferson and Madison Drives, from 3rd to 14th Streets. However, the 
National Tour Association Web page advised tour operators and 
motorcoach drivers bound for Washington, D.C., to be aware of several 
street closures and the closure of access to the Mall at noon on 
September 4 in association with the NFL kickoff event. The Smithsonian 
Institution museums remained open during the festival, but access was 
not available from the regular Mall-side doors on the afternoon of the 
NFL kickoff event. According to Park Service officials, these streets 
were closed during the event for security reasons consistent with 
security plans for other large-scale public gatherings on the Mall. The 
Mall entrance to the Smithsonian Metro stop was also closed at noon on 
the day of the NFL event by the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit 
Authority for security reasons. In addition to addressing signage 
limitations, Public Law 108-108 also stated that "the Secretary shall 
ensure, to the maximum extent practicable, that public use of, and 
access to the Mall is not restricted."

Resource Damage Cost Recovery: 

There was significant turf and walkway damage to the Mall as a result 
of the NFL kickoff event. Prior to the event, National Capital Parks- 
Central officials required the permittee to provide irrevocable letters 
of credit totaling $250,000 to cover event-related liabilities, such as 
monitoring costs and potential resource damages as a result of the 
event. The actual cost of the event far exceeded the Park Service's 
estimated costs. According to a November 3, 2003, letter to the 
permittee, the increase in damage recovery costs occurred in part due 
to "the increase in the number and types of heavy equipment that were 
utilized during the setup and break down of the event staging and other 
facilities." The Superintendent noted that several days of heavy rain 
also contributed to the higher-than-expected amount of damage to the 
turf and walkways. However, a condition in the NFL kickoff event 
permit--which is a standard condition in special event permits-- 
specifies that the permittee is liable for damage to the resource as a 
result of the permitted activity. Consequently, after the NFL kickoff 
event, the turf and walkway damage was assessed and the permittee was 
notified of the damage along with the Park Service's estimate of repair 
costs. The NFL ultimately reimbursed the Park Service over $430,000 to 
cover both event monitoring costs and to repair resource damages 
(primarily to turf and sod). 

The NFL reimbursed the Park Police almost $700,000 to cover the cost 
for security personnel for the NFL event. Prior to the event, the NFL 
posted a letter of credit for the Park Police in the amount of 
$1,150,000. The actual expenses charged for Park Police support of 
operations relating to the NFL kickoff permit totaled $698,625. The 
inclement weather was cited by Park Police officials as a factor in 
their reduced costs, because fewer participants showed up at the event 
and fewer people stayed late. This resulted in fewer required security 
personnel than originally anticipated and with fewer actual hours of 
monitoring. 

Reimbursement was not sought from the NFL for the time both Park 
Service and Park Police officials spent in planning meetings for the 
2003 NFL kickoff event. The practice of the National Capital Region--to 
limit charges for administration of permits to cost recovery for 
overtime expenses--was based on a mid-1990s unwritten legal opinion 
from the Solicitor's Office at the Department of the Interior. National 
Capital Parks-Central officials told us they viewed time spent in event-
planning meetings and in processing the permit paperwork as a 
"budgeted" or sunk cost. In February 2005, Interior's Office of 
Solicitor revised its legal conclusion and recommendation on this 
matter and advised both Park Service and Park Police officials in the 
National Capital Region to re-examine this practice in order to come 
into better compliance with cost recovery policy guidance. 

[End of section]

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of the Interior: 

United States Department of the Interior:

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY:

Washington, DC 20240:

APR 25 2005:

Ms. Robin M. Nazzaro:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, N.W.: 
Washington, D.C. 20548:

Dear Ms. Nazzaro:

Thank you for providing the Department of the Interior the opportunity 
to review and comment on the draft U.S. Government Accountability 
Office report entitled: "National Park Service: Revenues Could Increase 
by Charging Allowed Fee for Some Special Use Permits" (GAO-05-410).

Specific comments are listed in the enclosure. If you have any further 
questions, please contact Lee Dickinson, Special Park Use Program 
Manager, at 202-513-7092.

Sincerely,

Signed by the: 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks:

Enclosure:

Enclosure:

Department of the Interior Comments on the GAO Draft Report entitled, 
"National Park Service: Revenues Could Increase by Charging Allowed Fee 
for Some Special Use Permits" (GAO-05-410):

Special Park Use Manager (WASO), Office of Solicitor, Division of Parks 
Wildlife Superintendent, Independence National Historical Park, Blue 
Ridge Parkway have reviewed the above titled draft document and offer 
the following comments for your consideration and action:

General Comments:

Comment on Monitoring Costs for Special Park Use Permits. Many times in 
the report it is stated that the National Park Service (NPS) failed to 
recover the full cost of monitoring permitted activities. While this is 
undoubtedly true in some cases, there are also cases where monitoring 
was conducted as part of routine operations. The permittee did not 
benefit from special services, since the park ranger monitored the 
permitted event, as well as other activities in the immediate area, as 
part of their routine duties. When this is the case it did not seem 
appropriate to charge cost recovery when special services were 
performed. (An example of this is the comment about Blue Ridge on page 
3.)

NPS policy guidance is quoted throughout the document without footnote 
or documentation. I question whether these quotes need an attribution 
to management Policies 2001, Resource Manual 53, or other policy and 
guidance documents. I would like to see a reference to Resource Manual 
53 somewhere in the GAO report to point readers to the location of most 
of the policy guidance. Maybe provide a web site (www.nps.gov/policy/ 
DOrders/RM53.zip).

page 7 - footnote "2" is not needed. The same information is supplied 
in the next paragraph. If the footnote is left in the definition for 
special use permits should be expanded to include all types of special 
use permits including rights-of-way, grazing, agricultural use, filming 
and photography, etc. The term should be changed to special event 
permits, making the definition more accurate.

page 11 - middle of the page. Fourth bullet - replace ";or" with a 
period.

page 14 - I'm not sure that it is clear what the term "administrative 
fee" covers, and I'm not sure that the term is used consistently 
throughout the report. I believe it is being used in this report to 
cover costs incurred by the NPS associated with the processing of a 
permit application up to the time the permitted activity starts. The 
second paragraph reads "Administrative fees are based on the actual 
cost incurred by park unit involved in overseeing the permit activity 
and should..." If one uses my definition of "administrative fee" this 
sentence is then wrong. The administrative fee does not cover the 
permitted activity. Monitoring the permitted activity and any resource 
restoration that needs to be done is included in the monitoring charge. 
In the first paragraph that discusses the National Capital Region and 
the National Football League event and the filming of National 
Treasures while it is true that costs were not recovered for processing 
the request, costs were collected for overtime associated with the 
events themselves. Would a definition section add to the report?

page 15 -16 - This is the section that uses Yellowstone as an example 
of the role of the permit monitor. While we think the description of 
the purpose of this monitor is quite good, we don't think it is 
complete enough. There are two additional reasons for the permit 
monitor: (1) To ensure the safety of both the permittee and the public 
and (2) to ensure that the permitted activity does not interfere with 
normal visitor activities.

page 19 - Section reads "Law requiring the collection of Location Fees 
has not Been Implemented"

The last line of the first paragraph is misleading. We would recommend 
that it be reworded to read:

"Authority existed prior to the passage of P.L. 106-206 for the Bureau 
Land Management (BLM) and the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to charge 
location fees for filming and photography and they continue to use 
existing location fee schedules and policy while the new regulation and 
fee schedule are developed. Prior to the passage of P.L. 106-206 the 
FWS and the NPS were barred from collecting a location fee for filming 
and photography, and require the promulgation of the new regulation to 
allow them to do so. The new regulation will apply to specific agencies 
in the Department of the Interior, (DOI) currently BLM, FWS, and NPS, 
and is drafted to allow other DOI agencies to adopt the regulation in 
the future if desired. The Department of the Interior agencies are 
working in a collaborative process with the FS to develop a fee 
schedule for all four agencies to use."

In the second paragraph I would add "....with representatives from each 
of the four affected agencies to develop regulations and a fee 
schedule." since the FS will not be affected by the regulation just the 
fee schedule.

Last line, second paragraph "According to official at DOI ... in each 
agency and they plan..." I would replace the word department with 
agency.

page 35 - The title of the organization quoted "Conservation and 
Preservation Federation of America" should be "Conservation and 
Preservation Charities of America". The director of this organization 
is quoted as describing banners on the grounds between the U.S. Capitol 
and the Lincoln Memorial. The NFL event occurred on the Mall from 3rd 
Street to 12TH Street. There were no banners past 12TH Street on the 
grounds of any of the memorials or on the Capitol grounds.

Office of the Solicitor, Division of Parks and Wildlife:

General comment: the report seems to be citing the NPS general 
regulations for special events as applicable to NCR, which is 
incorrect. The NPS general regulations for special events at 36 CFR 
2.50 provide that a permitted event should not "result in significant 
conflict with other existing uses" or "unreasonable interfere" with 
park interpretative, visitor service or other park program activities, 
or "unreasonable impair" a park's atmosphere. But the NPS regulatory 
criteria at 36 CFR 2.50 is inapplicable for NCR and are not the same as 
the NPS NCR regulatory criteria for special events found at 36 CFR 
7.96(g)(5)(vi) which states:

(vi) Special events are not permitted unless approved by the Regional 
Director. In determining whether to approve a proposed special event, 
the Regional Director shall consider and base the determination upon 
the following criteria:

(A) Whether the objectives and purposes of the proposed special event 
relate to and are within the basic mission and responsibilities of the 
National Capital Region, National Park Service.

(B) Whether the park area requested is reasonably suited in terms of 
accessibility, size, and nature of the proposed special event.

(C) Whether the proposed special event can be permitted within a 
reasonable budgetary allocation of National Park Service funds 
considering the event's public appeal, and the anticipated 
participation of the general public therein.

(D) Whether the proposed event is duplicative of events previously 
offered in National Capital Region or elsewhere in or about Washington, 
DC.

(E) Whether the activities contemplated for the proposed special event 
are in conformity with all applicable laws and regulations.

Page 1-middle of the first paragraph - "Because of some complaints that 
there was extensive commercial advertising and some damage to the 
Mall..."

Page 8/9 - footnote 5 "Park Service general regulations for most park 
units is found at 36 CFR 2.50. Other special regulations govern certain 
park units... permit processing, and permit limitations for special 
events, which for the National Capital Region are found at 36 CFR 
7.96(g)"

Page 8 - Guidance on Special Events:

Park Service policy guidance gives superintendents discretion when 
approving permits for special events within their park units, providing 
they meet basic criteria set forth under NPS regulations. For most park 
areas the basic regulatory criteria for issuing a permit for these 
events include the requirements that (1) there is a meaningful 
association between the park area and the event and (2) the event will 
contribute to the visitor:

understanding of the significance of the park area. Additional 
regulatory requirements provide that a permit may be denied (1) if the 
activities would cause injury or damage to the park resource (2) is 
contrary to the purpose for which the park was established or 
unreasonably impair the atmosphere (3) unreasonably interfere with park 
interpretive, visitor services or administration (4) substantially 
impair the operation of public use facilities or concessioners (5) 
present a clear and present danger to the public health and safety (6) 
or result in significant conflict with other existing uses. (36 CFR 
2.50 (a) (1-6). For the National Capital Region, the basic regulatory 
criteria include the requirements at 36 CFR 7.96(g)(5)(vi) that (1) 
whether the objective and purpose of the proposed special event relate 
to and are within the regions basic mission and responsibilities (2) 
whether the requested park area is reasonably suited in terms of 
accessibility, size and nature (3) whether it is within the NPS's 
reasonable budgetary allocation and (4) whether it is duplicative of 
previous offered events (5) whether it is conformity with applicable 
laws and regulations.

Page 9 - first paragraph "However, discrete recognition of program 
sponsors that was authorized was similar to National Capital Region 
policy. As a result, Park Service's National Capital Region has 
restated its earlier drafted policy guidance, all park units, ... 
sponsors which will continue to restrict size, scale, scope and 
location..."

Page 12 - first paragraph, last line - "However, unlike other special 
events permits and consistent with the First Amendment, the 
superintendent is required by Park Service policies to issue these 
permits without any requirement for fees, cost recovery, bonding or 
insurance."

Page 36 -:

Public Access Restrictions - A general comment. This section refers to 
Park Service policy guidance that directs superintendents to not allow 
special events that "unreasonably interfere" with other appropriate 
park uses. This is found in 36 CFR 2.50(a)(3). NCR special regulations 
do not have these criteria, but are based on "whether the park area 
requested is reasonably suited in terms of accessibility, size, and 
nature of the proposed special event". 36 CFR 7.96(g)(vi)(B):

Office of Congressional and Legislative Affairs, Department of the 
Interior:

Highlights page - last paragraph "The Park Service has not implements 
.... resulting in significant annual foregone revenues." The commenter 
did not agree with the use of the word "significant" but agrees that 
revenues were not collected.

Page 4 - last paragraph, first sentence ... not fully recovering costs 
for special events and for commercial filming and still photography..." 
The word commercial needs to be added.

Page 7 - paragraph that begins "special events permits are issued for 
... : The comment suggests moving the next line to the beginning of the 
paragraph so it is clear to the reader immediately.

National Capital Parks - Central:

Words in bold are suggested additions or changes.

Highlights page - second paragraph, last line "Officials said that Park 
Units had not spent the time to updated fees because of regional policy 
and the high work load..." Commenter requests the addition of the words 
"regional policy".

Abbreviations: please change NCPC to NACC:

Page 2 - Results in Brief - "With regard to the 2003 NFL Kickoff 
event... quantity of sponsor recognition to be displayed..." Commenter 
requests that -0-A:

commercial signage by changed to sponsor recognition.

Page 2/3 - last sentence - "In 2004, the Congress passed legislation... 
although were Superintendent was authorized to approve..." Commenter 
requests that Superintendents were be changed to Superintendent was.

Page 4 - first sentence - "...Department of the Interior's Solicitor's 
Office and as a result, it has modified its guidance and has initiated 
..." Please add modified its guidance.

Page 13, footnote 9 - Please add "is assessed a $50 flat fee for 
administration and monitoring."

Page 14 - first line "National Capital Parks - Central charge no 
administration fees for permitting special uses except for permits that 
require a bond."

End of the first paragraph "As a result of GAO bringing this issue to 
the attention of the DOI Solicitor's Office, the Solicitor's Office 
modified its guidance and directed the National Capital Region..."

Page 18 - footnote 11-commenter requested the wording to be changed to 
"was 15 percent of the estimated over 1,400 permits."

Page 20 last sentence of section Proposed Location Fee Schedule... 
Commenter requests that statement be revised. Of those 320 filming 
permits with 300 people for 8 days 99% of those filming permits were 
for educational tour group photographs in front of the U.S. Capitol 
which only took 30 minutes to photograph. We did not have any major 
picture/TV series film shoots which lasted more than 2 days shooting 
time on NPS property in FY 2003.

Page 21 Conclusion - "this is particularly evident in the National 
Capital Region where only recently has consideration been given to 
charging administrative fees to recover costs on permits not requiring 
a bond."

Page 33 bottom of the page "...the NFL was also required to acquire 
certain permits from the District of Columbia through the city's 
Emergency Management Agency who coordinates with the Metropolitan 
Police, DC Fire Department and other DC agencies to assure the NFL 
provided adequate..."

Page 34 third paragraph, last line "National Capital Parks - Central 
officials stated that based on NIPS regulations and court rulings they 
do not make "content based decisions on whether to permit" requested 
events.

Page 36 "According to Park Service officials, these streets were closed 
during the event for security reasons consistent with security plans 
for other large scale public gatherings on the National Mall, such as 
the annual Independence Day celebration and the recent dedication of 
the World War II Memorial."

Blue Ridge Parkway - The information related to the Blue Ridge Parkway 
is accurate but I do have one comment regarding the recovery of 
monitoring costs. While it is correct that we only recovered costs by 
billing from 8 of 28 events; there are some of the events we permitted 
in 2003 that were so low impact that park rangers checked on the event 
as a part of routine patrol and the costs were not significant enough 
or there actually were no costs to us to process billing.

Independence National Historical Park - Independence NHP plans to 
implement an increase in the permit administrative fee this year to 
fully recover costs incurred. Administrative costs will be reevaluated 
annually. 

The following are GAO's comments on the Department of the Interior's 
letter dated April 25, 2005. 

GAO Comments: 

1. We added the Special Park Uses Manager's comment about the 
appropriateness of charging cost recovery when the monitoring was 
conducted as part of routine operations, in footnote 8 on page 10. 
However, based on our review of permit documentation and discussions 
with officials at Blue Ridge Parkway, this circumstance did not exist 
at Blue Ridge Parkway. Thus, no change to the example on page 3 is 
needed. 

2. We have included the Reference Manual 53 Web site address in 
footnote 10 on page 13, so that readers can more easily seek out Park 
Service policy guidance. 

3. We agree that further definition of the term "administrative fee" is 
warranted. As a result, we added clarifying text and a footnote to page 
13 to more explicitly describe permit processing costs included in 
administrative fees. (See footnote 10.)

4. While it is true that FWS and Park Service were barred from 
collecting a location fee for filming and photography prior to the 
passage of the Commercial Filming Law, this was a regulatory 
prohibition instituted by the agency itself. The Commercial Filming Law 
effectively repealed that prohibition. 

5. Park Service regulations are cited in footnote 4 on page 8; 
consequently, including a lengthy excerpt from the regulations in the 
text is unnecessary. 

6. See GAO comment 5. 

7. We have removed the reference to the general Park Service 
regulations and modified the text on page 34 to describe the specific 
regulations associated with the National Capital Region's permitting of 
the NFL event and public access restrictions. 

8. See GAO comment 1. 

[End of section]

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Robin M. Nazzaro, (202) 512-3841: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to those named above, John Delicath, Doreen Feldman, 
Timothy Guinane, Julian Klazkin, Roy Judy, Diane Lund, Judy Pagano, 
Paul Staley, and Mary Welch made key contributions to this report. 
Darren Goode, Robert Martin, Miguel Lujan, Glenn Slocum, and John 
Warner made significant contributions related to cost accounting issues 
during this review. Kevin Bailey, Denton Herring, and Matthew Reinhart 
made important graphic or data input contributions to the report. 

(360458): 

FOOTNOTES

[1] According to National Capital Parks-Central officials, a public 
gathering permit, rather than a special park uses permit, is issued by 
their unit in response to a request for either a demonstration or a 
special event. 

[2] 16 U.S.C. §3a. 

[3] Pub. L. No. 106-206 (2000), codified at 16 U.S.C. §460l-6d. The 
Park Service refers to this as the Commercial Filming Law. 

[4] Park Service general regulations for most park units are found at 
36 C.F.R. §2.50. Other special regulations govern certain park units 
and include specific guidance on activities applicable to that 
particular unit, including some special permits. For example, the 
section specific to the National Capital Region includes subsections on 
permit requirements, permit applications, permit processing, and permit 
limitations. 36 C.F.R. §7.96(g)(2),(3),(4), and (5)(2004). 

[5] Department of Interior and Related Agencies Appropriation Act, 
2004, Pub. L. No. 108-108 §145. The appropriation act restrictions are 
limited to expenditures in fiscal year 2004. 

[6] Breaking news is an event that cannot be covered at any other time 
or location, according to Park Service guidance. 

[7] As of May 2000, this was required by law for filming activities. 
Recovery of costs in general was authorized prior to 2000. See 16 
U.S.C. §3a. 

[8] According to the Special Park Uses Program Manager, there are also 
cases where monitoring was conducted as part of routine operations and 
when this was the case, "it did not seem appropriate to charge cost 
recovery."

[9] See appendix III for additional information on the 2003 NFL kickoff 
event. 

[10] According to Park Service Reference Manual 53, these costs may 
include environmental (National Environmental Policy Act), cultural 
(National Historic Preservation Act), and other compliance and 
approval, as appropriate, as well as meetings, travel, clerical, public 
health inspection and certification, and other cost factors. 
Administrative charges should reflect an accurate calculation of the 
actual costs associated with the administrative process of decision 
and, if approved, preparation of the permit. See full text of reference 
manual at www.nps.gov/policy/DOrders/RM53.zip). 

[11] Independence National Historical Park officials stated they plan 
to re-evaluate this fee annually. 

[12] National Capital Parks-Central officials were uncertain about how 
often they required a permittee to post a bond. Of the 1,400-plus 
permits issued in fiscal year 2003, park officials estimated that 15 
percent were required to have a bond. 

[13] To develop this estimate, GAO used the criteria currently in use 
by the Forest Service, which closely resemble the criteria specified in 
the law for the Park Service to use. The analysis presumes permittees 
would have paid the fees instead of choosing to film at relatively 
lower cost sites. See appendix II. 

[14] Secretary refers to the Secretary of the Interior for the Bureau 
of Land Management, National Park Service, and Fish and Wildlife 
Service and the Secretary of Agriculture for the Forest Service. 

[15] Appendix II contains the Forest Service-established location fee 
schedule for commercial filming and still photography. 

[16] The six park units visited are Blue Ridge Parkway, Golden Gate 
National Recreation Area, Independence National Historical Park, 
Jefferson National Expansion Memorial, National Capital Parks-Central, 
and Yellowstone National Park. 

[17] Results from nonprobability samples cannot be used to make 
inferences about a population, because in a nonprobability sample, some 
elements of the population being studied have no chance or an unknown 
chance of being selected as part of the sample. 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of 
Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability 
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use 
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides 
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make 
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to 
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, 
integrity, and reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains 
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an 
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search 
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You 
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other 
graphics. 

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its 
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document 
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to 
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order 
GAO Products" heading. 

Order by Mail or Phone: 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 
Orders should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office

441 G Street NW, Room LM

Washington, D.C. 20548: 

To order by Phone: 

Voice: (202) 512-6000: 

TDD: (202) 512-2537: 

Fax: (202) 512-6061: 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Public Affairs: 

Jeff Nelligan, managing director,

NelliganJ@gao.gov

(202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office,

441 G Street NW, Room 7149

Washington, D.C. 20548: