This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-06-1016
entitled 'Recreation Fees: Agencies Can Better Implement the Federal
Lands Recreation Act and Account for Fee Revenues' which was released
on September 22, 2006.
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:
September 2006:
Recreation Fees:
Agencies Can Better Implement the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement
Act and Account for Fee Revenues:
GAO-06- 1016:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-06-1016, a report to congressional requesters
Why GAO Did This Study:
In recent years, Congress has expressed concerns about the federal land management agencies’ ability to provide quality recreational opportunities and reduce visitor confusion over the variety of user fees. In December 2004, Congress passed the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (REA) to standardize recreation fee collection and use at federal lands and waters.
GAO was asked to determine (1) what the agencies have done to coordinate implementation of REA, (2) what agencies have done to implement REA, (3) the extent to which agencies have controls and accounting procedures for collected fees, (4) how projects and activities are selected to receive funding from fees, and (5) the extent of unobligated fund balances. To answer these objectives, GAO reviewed agency guidance, analyzed fee data, interviewed officials, visited 26 fee-collecting units, and administered a nationwide survey to 900 fee-collecting units.
What GAO Found:
The Departments of the Interior (DOI) and Agriculture (USDA) established four working groups to facilitate interagency cooperation and coordination of REA implementation. Each working group has made progress, but some issues remain unresolved. For example, the Interagency Pass working group has yet to determine the price to charge for the new pass, which is to be implemented in January 2007.
To implement REA, agencies reviewed their fee programs and made modifications to the fee programs at some of their units. For example, several of USDA’s Forest Service units dropped 437 sites from their fee program, such as picnic areas, because they did not meet REA criteria. However, not all units are in compliance with REA. Many agency officials said that while the agencies have issued some interim guidance, REA was difficult to interpret and suggested the need for more specific and detailed guidance on the fee program. In addition, DOI’s Bureau of Reclamation has not yet determined whether to implement REA. Reclamation is assessing how REA applies to its operations.
Some agencies lack adequate controls and accounting procedures for collected recreation fees and lack effective guidance for establishing such controls. On the basis of visits, some units did not have an effective means of verifying whether all collected fees are accounted for. In addition, many units have not implemented a system of routine audits to help ensure that fees are collected and used as authorized and that collected funds are safeguarded.
The various agencies participating under REA have different processes for selecting projects to be funded with recreation fee revenues. At DOI’s Bureau of Land Management and Fish and Wildlife Service and USDA’s Forest Service, most proposed projects are approved at the local unit level, usually within a few weeks. At DOI’s National Park Service, fee projects are reviewed and approved at the unit, regional, and headquarters or department level before projects are funded. According to National Park Service officials, under this process, it can sometimes take a year or more to obtain approval for a requested fee project, which delays project implementation and contributes to unobligated fee revenue balances.
Agencies have $300 million in unobligated fee revenue balances. Unit officials cited several reasons for the unobligated balances, such as the need to save for large projects. Many unit officials also said that recreation fee revenues are essential to providing services at their recreation areas that would not otherwise be funded.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO is making a number of recommendations to improve agencies’ implementation of REA, including controls for recreation fee collection. In commenting on the draft report, Interior and Agriculture identified actions under way or planned to address them.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-1016].
To view the full product, including the scope
and methodology, click on the link above.
For more information, contact Robin Nazzaro at (202) 512-3841 or nazzaror@gao.gov.
[End of Section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Working Groups Formed to Foster Interagency Cooperation and
Coordination on REA Implementation Issues Have Made Progress, but Some
Issues Remain Unresolved:
Most Agencies Have Reviewed and Begun to Modify Recreation Fee Programs
to Implement REA, but Some Units are Still Transitioning, Reclamation
Is Not Yet Participating, and Agencies Have Been Slow to Issue Final
Guidance:
Some Agencies Do Not Have Adequate Controls and Accounting Procedures
for Collected Fees and Lack Effective Guidance for Establishing a
System of Internal Controls, Including Routine Audits:
Agencies Have Different Processes for Selecting Projects to Be Funded
with Fee Revenues:
Agencies Have Millions of Dollars in Unobligated Recreation Fee
Balances to Fund Future Projects;
Some Projects Funded May Be Similar to Those Formerly Funded with Other
Appropriations:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: Fees for Recreational Uses Vary by Agency and for
Amenities Across and within Agencies Participating in REA:
Appendix III: Information on Organizational Structure, Costs, and
Membership Requirements of Recreation Resource Advisory Committees:
Appendix IV: Information on Total Fee Revenues, Obligated Funds, and
Unobligated Balances:
Appendix V: Information on Participating Agencies' 10 Units with
Largest Unobligated Fund Balances:
Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of the Interior:
GAO Comments:
Appendix VII: Comments from the Forest Service:
GAO Comments:
Appendix VIII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Primary Differences between Fee Demo and REA:
Table 2: Description of America the Beautiful--the National Parks and
Federal Recreational Lands Pass:
Table 3: Agency Fee Revenue Expenditure Guidance:
Table 4: Distribution of Recreation Fee Revenues to Central or Regional
Funds:
Table 5: Fiscal Year 2005 Recreation Fee Revenue, Obligations, and
Unobligated Balances:
Table 6: BLM, NPS, FWS Units, and FS Forests with Unobligated Balances
at End of Fiscal Year 2005 and Those with Unobligated Balances Greater
Than Revenues Collected:
Table 7: 10 Largest Unobligated Balances of Recreation Fee Revenue
Among All Units and Forests:
Table 8: Agency Reasons for Their Unobligated Balance of Recreation Fee
Revenues:
Table 9: NPS Unit Recreation Fee Projects Similar to Those Previously
Funded by General Appropriations, Such as the Construction Account:
Table 10: Estimated Response Rates by Agency and Overall:
Table 11: Description of Small, Medium, and Large Units by Agency:
Table 12: Recreation Fee Units GAO Visited:
Table 13: Number of Units Reporting Entrance Fees of Various
Categories, with the Overall Minimum and Maximum Fee Amounts:
Table 14: Standard Amenity Fees Reported by BLM and FS under REA
Authority:
Table 15: Amenities Available at BLM and FS Units Charging Standard
Amenity Fees:
Table 16: Number of Units Charging a Fee under REA for the Various
Types of Activities, Amenities, or Services Provided:
Table 17: Number of Units with a Campsite Fee and the Average and Range
of Fees Charged for Individual and Group Campsites:
Table 18: Number of Units Offering Motor Boating for a Fee or That
Charge for the Use of a Boat Launch or Other Facilities:
Table 19: Units with a Special Recreation Permit Fee under REA for the
Purpose of Accessing a Body of Water for Rafting, Canoeing, or
Kayaking:
Table 20: Type of RRAC to Be Used by BLM and FS by State and Region:
Table 21: Composition of the New RRACs:
Table 22: Fee Demo/REA Revenue and Obligations:
Table 23: Ten Largest Unobligated Balances of Recreation Fee Funds
Reported by BLM, NPS, and FWS Units and FS Headquarters for Forests:
Figures:
Figure 1: Interpretive Panel at Colonial National Historic Park:
Figure 2: Site of Trail Work at Rocky Mountain Arsenal National
Wildlife Refuge:
Figure 3: Restroom Constructed with Fee Revenue at the Big Meadows
Winter Trailhead in Sequoia National Forest:
Figure 4: Lake Directional Sign Funded with Fee Revenues at the Shasta-
Trinity National Forest:
Figure 5: Campsite at Rocky Mountain National Park:
Figure 6: Fishing Pier at Whiskeytown National Recreation Area:
Figure 7: Photo Blind at Klamath Falls National Wildlife Refuge
Complex:
Figure 8: Monument at Antietam National Battlefield:
Figure 9: Interpretive Panels at American Basin:
Abbreviations:
ASC: Albuquerque Service Center:
BLM: Bureau of Land Management:
DOI: Department of the Interior:
FACA: Federal Advisory Committee Act:
FS: Forest Service:
FWPRA: Federal Water Project Recreation Act:
FWS: Fish and Wildlife Service:
GPO: Government Printing Office:
HIRA: High Impact Recreational Area:
LWCF: Land and Water Conservation Fund:
NPS: National Park Service:
NWR: National Wildlife Refuge:
PMIS: Project Management Information System:
REA: Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act:
RFP: Request for Proposal:
RRAC: Recreation Resource Advisory Committee:
USDA: U.S. Department of Agriculture:
WASO: Washington Office (National Park Service):
September 22, 2006:
The Honorable Charles H. Taylor:
Chairman, Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies:
Committee on Appropriations:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Norm Dicks:
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies:
Committee on Appropriations:
House of Representatives:
Over the past several years, Congress has expressed concern about the
operation and maintenance of federal recreation sites and the ability
of federal land management agencies to continue providing visitors high-
quality recreational opportunities, while at the same time protecting
natural and other resources. To help address these concerns, Congress
passed legislation in 1996 authorizing an experimental initiative
called the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program (Fee Demo), under
which participating agencies were authorized to establish and collect
recreation fees at a number of sites and to use the revenues to enhance
visitor services, manage and protect resources, and reduce maintenance
backlogs, among other uses. Agencies participating in the Fee Demo
program included the Department of the Interior's (DOI) Bureau of Land
Management (BLM), Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and the National
Park Service (NPS), as well as the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
(USDA) Forest Service (FS). The Fee Demo program created two types of
recreation fees: entrance fees for basic admission to an area and user
fees for specific activities, such as camping or boat launching.
Between 1996 and 2004, Congress reauthorized the program several times.
The program was designed to allow agencies to be creative in developing
and experimenting with new fees and fee collection practices for
improving visitor services, and to alleviate visitor confusion by
coordinating multiple or overlapping recreation fees. The program
required that at least 80 percent of fee revenues be used at the sites
where they were collected, while allowing for the remaining 20 percent
to be distributed to other sites that may or may not be participating
in the demonstration program. Despite these program benefits, our
reviews of the Fee Demo program identified a number of areas needing
improvement.[Footnote 1] Specifically, we reported that opportunities
remained for the agencies to be more innovative and cooperative in
designing, setting, collecting, and coordinating fees. We also reported
that heavily visited sites might eventually have more revenue than
needed for their projects, while other sites could have unmet needs as
a result of adhering to the requirement that 80 percent of the revenues
be used at the sites where they were collected.
To address these and other issues, in December 2004, Congress passed
the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (REA), which repealed the
Fee Demo program. Under REA, five federal agencies--BLM, FWS, NPS, and
the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) in DOI, and FS in USDA--are
authorized to charge and collect recreation fees at federal lands and
waters. When Congress authorized REA, it attempted to improve upon the
demonstration program by providing fee authority for 10 years until
December 2014, standardizing the types of fees, increasing flexibility
for fee revenue expenditures, and authorizing a new national,
interagency "America the Beautiful--the National Parks and Federal
Recreational Lands Pass" designed to minimize visitor confusion over
which passes can be accepted where. REA also provides criteria for
establishing several different kinds of fees (entrance, standard
amenity, expanded amenity, and special recreation permit) and prohibits
charging of fees for certain activities and services such as outings
conducted by schools for noncommercial educational purposes.
Under REA, only NPS and FWS are authorized to collect entrance fees. An
entrance fee simply refers to a fee charged to enter lands managed by
these agencies. BLM, FS, and Reclamation are authorized to collect
standard amenity fees, which is a fee for access to a National
Conservation Area; a National Volcanic Monument; a destination visitor
or interpretive center that provides a broad range of interpretive
services, programs, and media; or use of an area that provides
significant opportunities for outdoor recreation and contains all of
the following six amenities: (1) designated developed parking; (2) a
permanent toilet facility; (3) a permanent trash receptacle; (4) an
interpretive sign, exhibit or kiosk; (5) picnic tables; and (6)
security services. In addition, each of the five agencies can collect
"expanded amenity fees," as well as fees for special recreation
permits. Expanded amenity fees may be charged for the use of a
specialized facility, equipment, or service, such as a campground, boat
launch, reservation service, or interpretive tour. REA outlines the
criteria that must be met in order to charge this fee. For example, in
order for a BLM, FS, or Reclamation unit to charge an expanded amenity
fee for use of a developed campground, the campground must include at
least a majority of nine specified amenities such as tent or trailer
spaces, drinking water, and simple devices for containing a campfire.
Each of the five agencies can also collect a special recreation permit
fee in connection with the issuance of a permit for specialized
recreation uses of federal recreational lands and waters, such as group
activities, recreation events, and motorized recreational vehicle use.
In general, REA directs the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture
to involve the public in developing recreation fees and requires BLM
and FS to establish committees, called Recreation Resource Advisory
Committees (RRACs) or use an existing Resource Advisory
Committee,[Footnote 2] to allow public input on recommendations for fee
amounts and their usage, and the establishment of new fee sites. REA
provides that recreation fee revenues are available for expenditure
without further appropriation, until expended and, in general, requires
that the collecting unit retain a minimum of 80 percent of revenues
from recreation fees.[Footnote 3] However, REA does give the agencies
some flexibility to make an annual decision to reduce the percentage
allocation to a collecting unit to as little as 60 percent if they
determine the revenues collected at a given unit exceed its reasonable
needs. The remainder of these revenues goes into a central agency
account for expenditure on an agencywide or regional basis. While we
describe agency procedures for distribution of these funds, the use of
these central funds was beyond the scope of this review. Furthermore,
the law extends the agencies' authority to collect recreation fees to
December 2014. The primary differences between the Fee Demo program and
REA authority are illustrated in table 1.
Table 1: Primary Differences between Fee Demo and REA:
Authority;
Fee Demo: Pub. L. No. 104-134, tit. III, § 315 (1996);
Pub. L. No. 104-208, tit. III, § 319 (1996);
and Pub. L. No. 107-63, tit. III, § 312(b) (2001);
REA: Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act, Pub. L. No. 108-447,
tit. VIII (2004).
Authority time frame;
Fee Demo: Operated on periodic reauthorizations from Congress;
REA: Expires 10 years from date of enactment (December 8, 2014).
Authorized agencies;
Fee Demo: DOI: NPS, BLM, FWS;
USDA: FS;
REA: DOI: NPS, BLM, FWS, Reclamation;
USDA: FS.
Types of fees;
Fee Demo: Entrance and user fees;
REA: Entrance, standard amenity, expanded amenity, special recreation
permit fees.
Fee prohibitions;
Fee Demo: No specific prohibitions;
REA: Prohibitions on charging fees for certain individuals, such as
those under 16 years of age;
at certain places such as the Flight 93 National Memorial;
and for activities such as noncommercial education programs.
Public participation;
Fee Demo: No specific requirements;
REA: Public notification requirements for new fees and fee
modifications;
Recreation Resource Advisory Committee or existing Resource Advisory
Committee input generally required on fee changes or new fee areas for
BLM and FS.
Fee revenue collections;
Fee Demo: At least 80% must be retained by collecting unit for its use;
REA: At least 60% must be retained by collecting unit for its use.
National passes;
Fee Demo: Various agency passes such as the National Parks Pass and
interagency national passes, such as the Golden Eagle, Age, and Access
Passports;
REA: One national interagency pass.
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
You asked us to provide an early assessment of REA implementation and
to help ensure that the guidelines being developed to implement the new
law are based on sound management practices. As requested, we
determined (1) what agencies have done to coordinate the implementation
of REA, including preparing for the new interagency federal lands pass;
(2) what agencies have done to implement REA fee and amenity
requirements and sufficiency of guidance for REA implementation; (3)
the extent to which the agencies have control and accounting procedures
for collected recreation fee revenues; (4) how participating agencies
prioritize and approve activities and projects funded with fee
revenues; and (5) the extent to which units have unobligated fund
balances and if recreational fees are being used to fund projects
formerly funded with other appropriations. We are also providing in
appendix II information on how recreation fees vary by type, amount,
and the level of amenities offered at units with similar recreational
opportunities across and within agencies participating in REA.
To address these objectives, we obtained and reviewed applicable laws,
regulations, agencywide policies and procedures, regional policies and
procedures, and the fees collected at selected units under the Fee Demo
program and REA in order to determine what changes have resulted since
REA implementation. We developed and administered a nationwide survey
to about 900 units[Footnote 4] collecting fees under REA, and 89
percent of the units responded. We supplemented the survey information
with records reviews, analyses of documents, and testimonial evidence
gathered during 26 unit visits and in meetings with state, regional,
and headquarters officials. Appendix I shows the 26 units we visited,
as well as a more detailed description of our objectives, scope, and
methodology. We conducted our work between June 2005 and August 2006 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Results in Brief:
The Departments of the Interior and Agriculture established four
working groups to facilitate interagency cooperation and coordination
on REA implementation issues. While each of the four working groups has
made overall progress facilitating the implementation of REA, some key
issues being addressed by two of the working groups remain unresolved,
which is impacting or has the potential of impacting progress on
implementing some REA requirements. Some unresolved issues are as
follows:
* The RRACs/Public Participation working group is focused on
establishing RRACs or utilizing existing Resource Advisory Councils
(advisory councils) as part of the REA public participation
requirements. This working group is involved in establishing state and
regional RRACs that may make recommendations to the Secretaries of the
Interior and Agriculture related to public concerns about
implementation of standard and expanded amenity fees or the
establishment of a specific recreation fee site managed by BLM or FS,
among other issues. As of April 2006, the working group had determined
the organization of the RRACs and drafted an interagency agreement
required before the RRACs could be formed. However, this interagency
agreement was finalized on September 1, 2006, and there is no time line
for implementation. As a result, no state or regional RRACs are fully
operational. Since BLM and FS interim policy generally requires units
to obtain RRAC review and recommendation for approval of new or
increased fees, the delay in forming these advisory committees--which
were originally estimated to be established with members appointed by
the end of 2005--has delayed the implementation of new fees or fee
changes in some BLM and FS units.
* The Interagency Pass working group has mainly focused on preparations
for the new interagency pass. While the working group has made progress
in preparing to implement the new pass, certain critical aspects in the
pass development time line have taken much longer than anticipated. For
example, the working group has yet to determine the price to charge for
the new pass, which is to be implemented in January 2007. According to
working group officials, they are working under a very tight time line
to implement the new pass by this deadline, but say they are committed
to implementing the pass on schedule.
The responsibilities of the other two working groups are essentially
completed. The Fee Collection/Expenditure working group focused on
developing common definitions and policy guidance to provide a
consistent basis for implementing REA and enable common reporting by
each of the agencies. This working group finalized an interagency
handbook with common definitions and guidance in March 2006. Also, the
Communications working group was formed to act as a vehicle for
communicating REA implementation issues between the authorized
agencies, Congress, and the public. According to agency officials, this
working group has been used to facilitate interagency communication to
Congress and the public, such as organizing public listening sessions
on the new pass and formation of the RRACs.
To implement REA, participating agencies have reviewed their recreation
fees under the former Fee Demo program and have begun modifying their
fee programs. Most NPS and FWS units continued charging entrance fees
as allowed under REA. Units at BLM and FS made modifications to their
fee programs to comply with REA standard amenity or expanded amenity
fee requirements. For example, FS stated that it dropped 437 sites from
its fee program, including numerous trailheads and picnic areas,
because they did not offer the required minimum amenities. In cases
where existing amenities met REA criteria, agencies continued charging
fees by converting existing user and entrance fees to the new fee
categories defined by REA. Some units, primarily within FS and BLM,
added amenities such as picnic tables or trash receptacles to bring
sites into compliance with REA. However, in survey responses some BLM
and FS units reported collecting standard amenity fees, without having
all six amenities required under REA. BLM and FS headquarters officials
said many of these survey responses were in error. Some of these units
are still transitioning toward compliance with REA, as they plan to add
the additional required amenities. Although REA included Reclamation as
a participating agency, Reclamation is still considering whether to
implement REA. It is assessing advice from the Office of the Solicitor
on issues such as its authority to charge recreation fees under other
legislation that was not repealed by REA. Although agencies reported no
major problems with the transition from Fee Demo to REA, many unit
officials said that REA was difficult to interpret, such as defining
criteria for charging standard and expanded amenity fees, and suggested
the need for more specific guidance, including detailed policies and
procedures for implementing REA and managing recreation fee programs.
Some agencies lack adequate controls and accounting procedures over
collected recreation fees and also lack effective guidance for
establishing these controls. According to federal internal control
guidance, program managers need to identify risks that could impair the
safeguarding of fee revenues at the unit level and should formulate an
approach for risk management that identifies the internal controls
necessary to mitigate those risks. However, on the basis of our unit
visits, we determined that some BLM, FWS, and FS officials did not have
sufficient guidance--or even examples of best practices--to follow for
implementing effective internal controls over cash management. For
example, some units did not have a means of determining the amount of
cash an employee collected and, therefore, could not verify that all
collected fees were accounted for. Some agencies lacked adequate
guidance to help develop an effective system of internal controls over
collected fees. Further, many units have not implemented a system of
routine audits to help ensure that fees are collected and used as
authorized and that collected funds are safeguarded. On the basis of
752 units responding to this question in our survey, only 37 percent
reported having their fee collection program examined by an auditor
since October 2000. The percentage of units having their fee collection
programs examined varies significantly by agency. For example, about 63
percent of NPS units reported having such examinations, whereas only 14
percent of FWS units, 27 percent of BLM units, and 33 percent of FS
units had examinations. According to some unit officials with whom we
spoke, they either did not believe they had access to internal or
external audit resources or they rationalized that they did not need to
implement an audit program since they had trustworthy staff. However,
without routine audits, the agencies lack an important internal control
that could allow them to promptly detect unauthorized transactions
involving recreation fee revenues and assess the design and
implementation effectiveness of controls over these assets agencywide.
The agencies have different processes for selecting projects to be
funded by recreation fee revenues. Agencies prioritize projects based
on REA criteria and related agency guidance. REA criteria allow the
agencies to obligate fee revenues on a wide variety of projects such as
repairs and maintenance, interpretive programs, and habitat
restoration. However, REA also places restrictions on expenditures,
including prohibiting the use of fees for threatened and endangered
species biological monitoring and employee bonuses. Agency priorities,
which focus the emphasis on using recreation fees to enhance the
visitor's experience, are also guided by agency needs and revised
policies under REA. The differences in the process for reviewing and
approving projects can affect the types of projects funded and time
lines for their implementation. For example, at BLM, FWS, and FS, most
proposed projects are approved at the local unit level, which according
to unit staff usually occurs within a few weeks or, in some cases,
immediately without unit manager approval. At NPS, projects are
reviewed and approved at the unit and regional levels, as well as at
the headquarters level, prior to submitting them for Departmental or
Congressional approval per a multi-level approval process that is based
on dollar amounts. According to NPS officials, under this process it
can sometimes take 1 year or more to obtain approval to fund a
requested project, and many unit and regional officials expressed
frustration about the length of this process. According to NPS
officials at the unit and regional levels, the length of time to obtain
approval for funding NPS projects has delayed project implementation
and contributed to units having unobligated fee revenue balances. In
contrast, a NPS headquarters recreation fee program manager stated that
their approval approach helps to ensure that projects funded are
consistent with REA and to assure accountability. The agencies have
used recreation fee revenues to fund or partially fund a wide variety
of maintenance, operations, and capital improvement projects. For
example, fee revenues were used for maintenance work such as trail
repairs, increased seasonal staff to help with operations such as
teaching river safety, and the installation of capital improvements
such as new restroom facilities. The collection and distribution of
central and/or regional funds also varies by agency and sometimes by
region. Generally, these central and regional funds are distributed
among the units based on project proposals or are used to cover
administrative costs of the recreation fee program.
The four agencies collecting recreation fees have accumulated
unobligated balances of nearly $300 million at the end of fiscal year
2005. These balances have accrued under REA and its predecessor, Fee
Demo, for a variety of reasons. On the basis of our survey, 114 of 270
NPS, BLM, and FWS units with unobligated balances reported that their
balances exceeded the amount of fee revenues the units collected in
fiscal year 2005. This condition also existed at 63 of 107 forests that
FS reported as having unobligated balances. An example of a unit with a
large balance is the Grand Canyon National Park. With revenues of about
$20 million in fiscal year 2005 and with previous balances accumulated
over several years, the park had an unobligated balance of almost $37
million at the end of 2005. NPS, BLM, FWS, and FS units responding to
our survey identified several reasons for unobligated balances,
including the fact that some units have inadequate staffing to
administer and implement projects, the need to carry over funds for the
next season's operations, and the need to carry over funds to complete
large projects. For example, officials with the Grand Canyon National
Park planned to use the park's $37 million unobligated balance for an
alternative transportation project that is estimated to cost
approximately $47 million. Officials from 58 percent of the four
agencies' units responding to our survey indicated they believed that,
to a moderate, great, or very great extent, recreation fee revenues are
being used to fund the types of projects formerly funded with other
general appropriations at their unit. However, many unit staff we
interviewed or who commented on our survey stated that recreation fee
revenues are essential to providing services at their recreation areas
that would not otherwise be funded. Additionally, officials from 64
percent of responding units indicated they believed that, to a
moderate, great or very great extent, they may need to replace other
general appropriations with recreation fee revenues in the future.
Interior and FS headquarters officials stated that historically, fee
revenues have not replaced appropriations and there is no reason to
expect this to change in the future. Further, Interior headquarters
officials stated that the department has organized spending of
recreation fee revenues in such a manner as to focus on supplementing
spending that would have occurred absent fee revenues.
To allow for public input on new fees or modifications to existing
fees, we are recommending that the Secretaries of the Interior and
Agriculture expedite completing the steps needed for the RRACs and
existing advisory councils to begin implementing REA. To improve (1)
agencies' REA implementation and (2) improve the accountability and
controls for recreation fee collection, we recommend that the
Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture direct their land
management agency Directors and Chief to promptly issue final REA
regulations and implementation guidance on their fee programs and
ascertain the extent to which some of their units do not have processes
and procedures for accounting for and controlling collected fees and
develop cost effective approaches for implementing reasonable internal
controls over cash management. We are also recommending the Secretary
of the Interior to direct the Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation
to expedite a decision on implementing REA so that units can begin to
collect and retain recreation fees to enhance their recreation
programs, as authorized under REA.
In commenting on a draft of this report, the Department of the Interior
generally agreed with our recommendations and provided some specific
actions planned or under way to address them. The Department of
Agriculture's Forest Service also outlined some actions to address the
recommendations. With regard to our recommendation for both agencies to
complete the interagency agreement necessary for the RRAC's and
advisory councils to implement REA, both agencies advised us that they
had signed this agreement, which was finalized on September 1, 2006. As
a result, we removed this recommendation from the report. Both agencies
also offered several suggestions for updating information in the report
and for technical clarifications; we have incorporated these
suggestions, as appropriate.
Background:
DOI's BLM, FWS, NPS, and Reclamation, and USDA's FS manage more than
638 million acres of land in the United States, including lands in
national forests, grasslands, parks, refuges, and reservoirs. These
agencies manage the federal lands for multiple uses, including
recreational activities such as camping and boating. To enhance visitor
services while protecting natural and other resources, as well as to
address concerns about the prior recreation fee program, Congress
passed REA, which authorized the collection and use of recreation fees
at federal lands and waters.
* BLM's mission is to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity
of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future
generations. BLM manages more than 260 million acres located primarily
in 12 western states. The agency manages and issues permits for
activities such as recreation, livestock grazing, timber harvesting,
and mining. Recreation fees are collected under REA at about 100 BLM
field offices.
* The mission of the FWS is to work with others to conserve, protect,
and enhance fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats for the
continuing benefit of the American people. FWS manages more than 545
national wildlife refuges and 37 large, multiple-unit wetland
management districts on more than 96 million acres of land throughout
the nation, 69 national fish hatcheries, and 46 administrative sites.
As of August 2006, recreation fees are collected under REA at 166 FWS
sites. An additional 32 national wildlife refuges only sell passes.
* The mission of NPS is to conserve the scenery, the natural and
historic objects, and the wildlife of the national park system so that
they will remain unimpaired for the enjoyment of this and future
generations. NPS manages 390 national park units covering more than 84
million acres in 49 states, the District of Columbia, American Samoa,
Guam, Puerto Rico, Saipan, and the Virgin Islands. NPS manages many of
the nation's most precious natural and cultural resources. About 190
park units collect recreation fees such as entrance, use, and pass
sales. An additional 31 units only generate revenue from the National
Parks Pass and other pass sales.
* The mission of Reclamation is to manage, develop, and protect water
and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound
manner in the interest of the American public. Reclamation manages
about 8.5 million acres of land associated with water projects in 17
western states. The agency delivers water and hydroelectric power
through the maintenance and administration of dams and reservoirs.
Currently, Reclamation has identified seven locations that meet REA
requirements for collecting standard amenity fees.
* The mission of the USDA FS is to sustain the health, diversity, and
productivity of the nation's forests and grasslands to meet the needs
of present and future generations. FS manages more than 190 million
acres throughout the country. The agency manages and issues permits for
activities such as skiing, livestock grazing, recreation, timber
harvesting, mining, and rights-of-way for road construction. Recreation
fees are collected at about 410 ranger districts in 155 national
forests.
BLM, FWS, NPS, and FS have had broad authority to collect recreation
fees for over 40 years, first under the Land and Water Conservation
Fund (LWCF) Act of 1965 and later under Fee Demo. Initially, Fee Demo
authorized only a limited number of sites to charge and retain
recreation fees--up to 100 sites per agency--but Congress later
expanded the authority to allow any number of sites to charge and
collect recreation fees. Under Fee Demo, the agencies were encouraged
to be innovative in designing and collecting fees and to coordinate
their fees with other federal, state, and local recreational sites. The
program yielded substantial benefits for recreation sites by funding
significant on-the-ground improvements. Total fee collections were
about $192 million in fiscal year 2004, with about 67 percent or $129
million collected by NPS; the four agencies collected a total of over
$1 billion in recreation fee revenues during the 8 years of the Fee
Demo program.[Footnote 5] Nevertheless, under the demonstration
program, the majority of the agencies' funds were still provided to
them through annual appropriations.
Between 1998 and 2004, GAO conducted several reviews of the Fee Demo
program, resulting in numerous reports and testimonies. During these
reviews, we found that Fee Demo was successful in raising revenues and
providing benefits to the agencies, but that improvements could be made
to better the program. GAO informed Congress of several areas that
needed to be addressed to ensure the program's success. These included:
(1) providing a more permanent source of revenue to supplement existing
appropriations by providing the agencies with a more permanent fee
authority; (2) encouraging effective coordination and cooperation among
agencies and individual fee sites to better serve visitors by making
the payment of fees more convenient and equitable, while at the same
time reducing visitor confusion about similar or multiple fees charged
at adjacent federal recreation sites; (3) providing the agencies with
greater flexibility regarding fee revenue expenditures by modifying the
requirement that at least 80 percent of fee revenues remain at the
collection site; and (4) encouraging fee innovation through pricing
structures based on extent of use or peak pricing. In 2004, Congress
passed REA, in part, as a response to the suggestions and concerns
documented in these previous reports. REA repealed several prior
authorities such as those contained in LWCF Act, Fee Demo, and the
National Parks Omnibus Management Act of 1998, which authorized
national passes including the National Parks Pass.[Footnote 6] However,
many of the fees currently charged under REA were first instituted
under the LWCF Act or during the Fee Demo program.
For fee revenues, REA provides that recreation fees collected under the
act be deposited in a special fund account and remain available for
expenditure without further appropriation action. REA allows the
revenues to be used in a variety of ways such as for repair,
maintenance, and facility enhancement; interpretation and visitor
information; law enforcement; and direct operating or capital costs
associated with the fee program. However, not more than an average of
15 percent of total recreation fee revenues may be used for
administration, overhead, and indirect costs related to the recreation
fee program. Further, REA prohibits the use of recreation fee revenues
for employee bonuses or for biological monitoring under the Endangered
Species Act.
Both visitors to federal lands and agency officials generally support
recreation fees and tout the benefits that fee revenues provide through
improved facilities and services. Some assert that the recreation fee
program will improve recreational opportunities and that it is a needed
supplement to general fund appropriations. However, concerns about the
recreation fee program continue to exist for a variety of reasons. For
example, some people are concerned that the fee program under REA does
not go far enough in simplifying fees, that federal lands will be
overdeveloped to attract fee-paying tourists, and that the law fails to
ensure that most collections will be used for the agencies' highest
priorities. Other critics continue to oppose recreation fees in
concept, in large part, on the grounds that the cost of operating and
maintaining federal lands should be covered by general fund
appropriations and that these fees constitute a barrier to public
access to federally managed lands. However, in times of budget
constraints, recreation fees may provide an important source of
additional funding needed to sustain agency operations.
Working Groups Formed to Foster Interagency Cooperation and
Coordination on REA Implementation Issues Have Made Progress, but Some
Issues Remain Unresolved:
The four technical working groups formed by DOI and USDA to facilitate
interagency cooperation and coordination on specific REA implementation
issues have made progress. However, progress has been slow in some
areas, such as resolving issues surrounding the RRACs and the new
interagency pass, possibly delaying agency implementation of these
aspects of the law. For example, the working group responsible for
forming advisory committees, such as RRACs, has missed target dates,
which has ultimately delayed the establishment of some new recreation
fees. GAO has reported in the past that agencies face barriers any time
they attempt to work collaboratively, but that there are key practices
that can be applied to help enhance and sustain agency
collaboration.[Footnote 7] For example, it is important to establish
compatible policies, procedures, and other means to operate across
agency boundaries. While one working group has finalized its
interagency handbook, one is not planning to issue any guidelines, and
two have not issued all of their interagency guidelines and agreements.
For example, the working group responsible for preparing for the new
interagency federal lands pass has not issued interagency guidelines
outlining such details as pass eligibility requirements and
distribution of costs and revenues among the agencies, which could
potentially delay implementing the new pass.
The RRACs/Public Participation Working Group is Facilitating the
Establishment of State and Regional RRACs, but Progress Has Been Slow:
The RRACs/Public Participation working group has focused on
establishing RRACs or utilizing existing advisory councils as part of
the REA public participation requirements.[Footnote 8] These committees
may make recommendations to the Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture
related to public concerns about implementation of standard and
expanded amenity fees or the establishment of a specific recreation fee
site managed by BLM or FS, among other issues. However, the development
of the RRACs has been slow, which has delayed the implementation of new
fees or fee changes at some units. According to a June 2005 interagency
presentation, it was expected that the RRACs would be established with
members appointed by the end of 2005. Despite progress toward
establishing RRACs, some tasks have taken longer than originally
estimated and, as of August 2006, no state or regional RRACs are fully
operational. Before the working group can move forward with many
aspects of establishing RRACs--including issuing a charter and
soliciting nominations for membership--or existing advisory councils
can begin reviewing fee issues, an interagency agreement on
implementing the RRAC requirements had to be signed. This interagency
agreement, which covers issues such as the specific duties of the new
RRACs and existing advisory councils, was finalized on September 1,
2006, but there is no time line for implementation, according to an
agency official. In addition, other preparatory work to implement the
new RRAC requirement has begun. For example, BLM and FS have begun
educating existing advisory councils and the public about recreation
fees and the REA public participation requirements.
Because BLM and FS generally cannot create new fees or modify existing
fees (per each agency's interim policy) without the participation of
RRACs, or existing advisory councils, the delay in establishing these
advisory committees has prevented many units from making fee decisions.
Agency officials at 26 percent of BLM and almost 38 percent of FS fee-
collecting units responding to our survey, or 171 units out of 481
total units, said that the establishment of or changes to recreation
fees at their units had been prevented or delayed to a moderate, great,
or very great extent since the passage of REA in December 2004. For
example, the Dillon Ranger District in the White River National Forest
in Colorado is currently considering modifying its fee structure but
has been delayed because the RRACs are not operational. Because adding
new fees or increasing existing fees generally results in an overall
increase in fee revenue, some units may be losing fee revenue that
could be used to further enhance visitor services without functioning
RRACs in place. Some units, however, were allowed to add or modify fees
prior to implementation of the new RRAC requirement if the fee changes
were already in progress, and public notification and participation
requirements had been met. For example, about 25 new expanded amenity
fees have been implemented at FS units since early 2006, most of which
are for cabin rentals, according to the FS Fee Program Coordinator. In
addition, in some states there are no units that currently want to add
or modify fees, so the implementation of the RRAC requirements is not
delaying fee changes at any units in those states.
The organizational structure for the RRACs and use of existing advisory
councils was approved by DOI and USDA in March 2006 via an interagency
organizational agreement that established, among other things, how the
REA RRAC requirement will be met in each state/region. In the majority
of western states, BLM and FS will use joint RRACs or committees, many
of which will be composed of existing BLM advisory councils--REA allows
existing advisory committees or fee advisory boards to perform the RRAC
duties. In addition, five new RRACs are being established nationwide.
Appendix III outlines the organizational structure and membership
requirements for the RRACs.
Finally, in addition to the specific requirement for BLM and FS to
establish RRACs or use existing advisory councils to review fee issues,
REA has several other provisions for public participation that apply to
all agencies, and these new public participation requirements have also
delayed the implementation of new fees or fee changes at some units.
DOI and USDA issued interagency guidelines on public participation that
apply to all participating agencies in September 2005. The guidelines
direct the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior to publish a Federal
Register notice for establishing each new recreation fee area 6 months
prior to its establishment, as required by REA. The guidelines also
direct the agencies to identify outreach efforts, such as public
meetings, to encourage public involvement in establishing recreation
fee areas[Footnote 9] and to annually post notices at each recreation
fee area describing the use or anticipated use of recreation fees
collected at that site during the previous year. Some of the agencies,
including NPS, BLM, and FS, have issued agency-specific guidance for
meeting REA public participation requirements. According to agency
officials, the public participation requirements have delayed fee
changes or the establishment of new fees at some units. Agency
officials at almost 17 percent of fee-collecting units within all four
agencies responding to our survey said that the public participation
process in general had delayed or prevented the establishment of or
changes to recreation fees at their unit to a moderate, great, or very
great extent since the passage of REA in December 2004.
Interagency Pass Working Group Has Made Progress Preparing for the New
Interagency Federal Lands Pass, but Some Issues Remain Unresolved:
The Interagency Pass working group has mainly focused on preparations
for the new interagency "America the Beautiful--the National Parks and
Federal Recreational Lands Pass." While the agencies have made progress
in preparing to implement the new pass, some issues remain unresolved.
For example, while the working group has generally determined how
revenues from passes sold centrally will be distributed for the first 3
to 5 years, it is unclear how these revenues will be distributed among
all participating agencies beyond this time frame. In addition, the
working group has not determined the price to charge for the new pass.
According to DOI, the most complex and time-consuming aspect of
implementing REA relates to establishing this new pass. The Interagency
Pass working group has been addressing the various issues involved with
the pass, including the price of the pass, the distribution of revenues
from the sale of the pass, and operational issues like accepting the
pass and tracking its use at recreation sites. The target date for
implementing the new pass is January 1, 2007, with passes available for
distribution by November 1, 2006. According to the working group, this
is a very tight time line that will require the contracting processes
to stay on schedule and for subsequent design, production, and shipping
deadlines to be met.
The standard version of the new pass will be available to the general
public; in addition, there will be versions of the pass available to
senior citizens, persons with disabilities, and volunteers. Table 2
provides a description of each of the versions of the new pass. The
price of the standard pass has not yet been determined. The Golden
Eagle, Age, and Access Passports, and the National Parks Pass will
continue to be sold until the new interagency passes are available and
all existing passes will be valid for the lifetime of the pass (e.g., 1
year from purchase for National Parks Pass and Golden Eagle Passport;
lifetime of the pass holder for Golden Age and Access Passports).
Table 2: Description of America the Beautiful--the National Parks and
Federal Recreational Lands Pass:
Pass name: Standard (annual) pass;
Price of pass: Not determined;
Coverage: Entrance fees and standard amenity fees;
Eligibility: General public;
Valid: 12 months from time of purchase.
Pass name: Senior lifetime pass;
Price of pass: $10.00;
Coverage: Entrance fees and standard amenity fees;
discounts on some expanded amenity fees;
Eligibility: U.S. citizens or permanent residents aged 62 or older;
Valid: Lifetime of pass holder.
Pass name: Access lifetime pass;
Price of pass: Free;
Coverage: Entrance fees and standard amenity fees;
discounts on some expanded amenity fees;
Eligibility: U.S. citizens or permanent residents who have a permanent
disability;
Valid: Lifetime of pass holder.
Pass name: Volunteer pass;
Price of pass: Free;
Coverage: Entrance fees and standard amenity fees;
Eligibility: Volunteers at recreation sites who log 500 volunteer hours
over any period of time;
Valid: 12 months from time of receipt.
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
While the price of the new standard pass has yet to be determined as of
August 2006, the pricing decision is critically important because of
the potential impact of the pass on entrance and standard amenity fee
revenues. In particular, agency officials at NPS have emphasized the
importance of pricing and marketing decisions and their potential
impacts on entrance fee revenue. To provide information to help
determine the price of the new pass, the agencies entered into a
cooperative agreement with the University of Wyoming to conduct a
pricing analysis. For the study, researchers conducted six focus groups
throughout the nation,[Footnote 10] collected benchmarking information
from a number of U.S. state parks and Canadian national parks, and
developed and implemented a random telephone survey of recreation
users. According to a NPS headquarters official, the working group is
not considering potential revenue losses due to the new interagency
pass, only what the public is willing to pay for the new pass. However,
in commenting on a draft of this report, NPS headquarters officials
informed us that revenue impacts will be considered in the pricing
decision. According to a DOI official, the price of the new pass was to
be determined in the summer of 2006. As of August 2006, the price of
the new standard (annual) pass had not yet been established.
The details of the plan for distributing revenues from the sale of new
interagency passes sold centrally, such as through the Internet or
outside vendors, beyond the first 3 to 5 years of the pass program is
still uncertain. All pass revenue from passes sold at units will remain
within the agency where the pass was sold, and it will be up to each
agency to determine how to redistribute pass revenues within the
agency. For the first 3 to 5 years of the pass program, revenues from
passes sold centrally will initially be used to cover administrative
costs of the new pass and to reimburse NPS for the almost $2.4 million
it loaned to fund development of the new pass. After administrative
costs for the new pass are covered and NPS is reimbursed, any remaining
central pass revenues will be distributed equally among all
participating agencies for at least the first 3 to 5 years of the
program, with the goal of assisting all agencies in establishing a pass
program. However, this plan may be revisited if central pass sales
significantly increase or decrease[Footnote 11] or if central pass
revenue after 3 years is not adequate to cover administrative costs of
the program or to reimburse NPS for its loan. The long-term plan for
revenue distribution beyond the initial 3 to 5 years is more uncertain
because these plan details have not been agreed upon. According to an
official from the working group, the current long-term plan is to
distribute central pass revenues to the agencies based on a formula
that takes into account pass use, where passes were purchased, and
possible additional factors. However, the details of the formula have
not been determined, and there are some potential problems with the
collection of pass-use data to be used in the formula.
While units are generally able to track the number of passes sold, it
would be difficult for many units to collect accurate data about use of
the pass. At most NPS and FWS sites, fees covered by the new
interagency pass will generally be collected at staffed entry points,
whereas at BLM and FS sites, fees covered by these new passes will
generally be collected at unstaffed and often remote locations where
fee compliance and enforcement will be irregular and infrequent. One
way to track pass usage would be to swipe a magnetic strip on the
passes at recreation site entry gates. However, even within NPS, whose
sites frequently have staffed entry points, only one-third of the sites
with entrance fees are currently capable of reading magnetic strips at
their entry gates. It would likely be difficult and expensive to
install technology to read magnetic strips at many remote and unstaffed
units, and compliance with such systems would be difficult to enforce
at sites without staffed entry booths by January 2007. According to a
member of the working group, the working group is aware of these issues
and, while it has not yet addressed them, the group plans to develop a
consistent data collection strategy that the agencies can use at
unstaffed locations to determine pass usage. Agencies will be
responsible for implementing the strategy and units will be expected to
collect data on the use of the pass after the new interagency pass is
released.
As of August 2006, the agencies are engaged in a contracting process to
acquire the goods and services necessary to implement the new
interagency pass and are planning to issue the pass by the January 2007
target date. A Request for Proposal (RFP) for the contract was
published on June 5, 2006, and, according to agency officials, it is
unknown when the contract will be awarded. The U.S. Government Printing
Office (GPO) will print the new pass and any accompanying products.
Agency officials from the Interagency Pass working group have
acknowledged that they are working within a very tight time line, but
have said that they are committed to issuing the new pass by January
2007. However, certain critical aspects in the pass development time
line have taken much longer than originally anticipated. For example,
an earlier estimated date for issuing the RFP for contracting services
was fall 2005 before it was pushed back several times and finally
published in June 2006. In addition, interagency guidelines for the new
pass[Footnote 12] that were estimated in June 2005 to be completed in
fall 2005 had not been completed as of August 2006. However, the
working group still has several months to meet their target pass
implementation date of January 2007.
One goal of the new single interagency pass is to reduce visitor
confusion over which passes can be accepted where, since the various
passes currently offered by the agencies create considerable confusion
among the visiting public. The majority of units responding to our
survey, almost 63 percent, were aware that the visiting public was
confused about the use of current national passes, regional passes, or
annual passes. The factor most frequently cited for causing visitor
confusion was where the different types of passes are accepted, with 82
percent of units responding that this factor causes confusion to a
moderate, great, or very great extent. Other factors cited by more than
two-thirds of survey respondents as causing confusion were the
differences in the benefits between passes, the recreation uses covered
by each pass, the differences in the Golden Eagle Passport versus the
National Parks Pass, the difference between federal and nonfederal
units, and understanding the differences between various passes (e.g.,
eligibility, cost, benefits, etc.) Given that there will be overlap
between the current National Parks Pass, the Golden Eagle, Age, and
Access Passports, and the new interagency pass, it will be important
for the new pass guidelines and agency-specific guidance and training
on it to address these issues and provide unit staff with materials and
information to better educate the public.
Fee Collection/Expenditure Working Group Has Issued Final Interagency
Guidance in an Attempt to More Clearly Define REA Terminology:
The Fee Collection/Expenditure working group was established to address
organizational concerns, implementation issues, and coordination among
the agencies as they relate to fee collections and expenditures. While
the agencies individually took steps after the enactment of REA to
assess their recreation fee programs and begin implementing the new
act, the working group's main task was to develop common definitions
and policy guidance to establish a basis for consistent implementation
of REA and common reporting by each of the agencies. This working group
finalized an interagency handbook with common definitions and guidance-
-the Interagency Implementation Handbook for Federal Lands Recreation
Enhancement Act--in March 2006.
The interagency handbook provided definitions for some of the terms
used in the law, such as "designated developed parking," "permanent
trash receptacle," "reasonable visitor protection," and "special
recreation permit fees" in order to clarify terms that may be
interpreted differently by the various agencies. In addition to the
definitions, the handbook provided general policy guidance regarding
certain aspects of the law--such as overall guidance on some aspects of
the new interagency pass and annual reporting of budgetary information-
-while delegating the authority to develop and implement policies on
other issues to the individual agencies. For example, the handbook
directed the agencies to develop and implement a policy for revenue
distribution decisions, including retention of recreation fee revenues
and agencywide distribution of funds. For the sections of REA that were
delegated to the individual agencies, the handbook directed the
agencies to develop written policy guidance that incorporates the
standard definitions and policy guidelines. According to a working
group official, the Fee Collection/Expenditure working group is no
longer formally meeting since developing the interagency handbook was
the group's main task, and the handbook has now been finalized.
Communications Working Group Has Been Used to Facilitate Interagency
Communication with Congress and the Public:
The Communications working group was formed to facilitate interagency
communications about REA implementation issues with Congress, the
public, and other interested third parties, such as states and
localities. The working group organized listening sessions to gain
public input on the RRACs and the new interagency pass. The agencies
have periodically briefed congressional staffers on a variety of
issues, including the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act First
Triennial Report to Congress; Fiscal Year 2006, which was released in
May 2006. According to agency officials, the working group now meets
infrequently and has not issued any joint press releases to the public
since all press releases regarding REA have thus far been issued by
individual agencies.
Most Agencies Have Reviewed and Begun to Modify Recreation Fee Programs
to Implement REA, but Some Units are Still Transitioning, Reclamation
Is Not Yet Participating, and Agencies Have Been Slow to Issue Final
Guidance:
After the passage of REA, agencies directed their units to assess and
modify their fee programs to comply with REA criteria. Although most
units have made some modifications to their programs, such as
converting fees, eliminating sites and fees, or adding amenities, some
units are still in transition and may still need to add required
amenities. Some responding units, however, reported collecting standard
amenity fees, without having all six amenities required under REA. In
commenting on a draft of this report, agency officials said many of
these survey responses were in error. Although Reclamation was included
as a participating agency under REA, it has yet to make a final
decision about whether to implement REA. Also, most BLM, FWS, NPS, and
FS units reported that some kind of guidance is available; however, the
agencies have not yet issued final guidance, and many unit officials
indicated that some aspects of the law are unclear and that they need
more specific guidance on how to add new fee sites or modify existing
fees to fully implement the law.
Agencies Assessed Existing Fee Programs and Made Changes to Comply with
REA, but Some Units Are Still in Transition, and Reclamation Is
Deciding Whether to Implement REA:
To implement REA, participating agencies reviewed their recreation fees
under the former Fee Demo program and other legal authorities and
instructed units to make necessary modifications to ensure compliance
with key REA provisions. While most units converted fees, eliminated
fees, or added amenities to comply with REA, some are still
transitioning toward taking such actions and, in some cases, are
charging fees without having all of their required amenities. One
agency, Reclamation, has assessed its recreation fees but has not
decided whether it will implement REA.
Agencies Assessed Recreation Fee Programs and Made Changes:
In 2005, all agencies assessed existing fee programs to determine
whether existing fee collecting sites met REA requirements, and some
units made modifications to comply with REA. Overall, the transition
from Fee Demo to REA was easiest for NPS and FWS, both of which charged
entrance fees under Fee Demo, were authorized to charge such fees under
REA, and continued to charge entrance fees. Therefore, the transition
for these agencies to REA did not have much impact. NPS eliminated a
day-use fee at the Exit Glacier site in Kenai Fjords National Park in
Alaska because of concerns that it would be perceived as an entrance
fee, which is prohibited under both the Alaska National Interest Lands
Conservation Act and REA.[Footnote 13] FWS eliminated an entrance fee
at Gavin's Point National Fish Hatchery in South Dakota because fish
hatcheries are not allowed to charge entrance fees under REA.[Footnote
14]
The transition from Fee Demo to REA had more of an impact on FS and BLM
since REA provided additional criteria for fee sites and prohibitions
on certain fees at these agencies. Unlike Fee Demo, REA limits the
authority of BLM and FS, authorizing these agencies to collect fees
only at locations with a certain level of infrastructure and/or
services and prohibits charging fees for parking, general access to
dispersed areas with little or no investment, and scenic overlooks,
among others. BLM and FS assessed existing fee programs and either
eliminated fees, converted fees, or added amenities in order to convert
entrance or day-use fees to standard amenity fees. BLM and FS also
assessed existing campgrounds and other developed facilities to ensure
that they had at least the minimum number of required amenities to
charge an expanded amenity fee.
BLM eliminated several fees after passage of REA, including fees for
overlooks at Imperial Sand Dunes in California, fees at undeveloped
sites at Orilla Verde Recreation Area in New Mexico, and youth fees at
several sites, including Cape Blanco Lighthouse in Oregon. For BLM, a
key change was converting existing entrance fees to standard amenity
fees where sites met the new criteria. According to a BLM headquarters
official, BLM converted entrance fees at 10 sites to standard amenity
fees. According to state coordinators, only one of these sites, located
in Arizona, did not meet standard amenity criteria and had to add an
informational kiosk. Other BLM sites converted various fees charged for
activities such as camping to expanded amenity fees. For example,
campgrounds at Fisherman's Bend Recreation Area in western Oregon had
at least the minimum amenities required by REA to convert a camping fee
to an expanded amenity fee.
FS reviewed its existing recreation fees and stated that it dropped 437
sites, such as trailheads and picnic areas, from its fee program
because they did not meet the new criteria described under REA. Under
Fee Demo, FS charged fees for entrance into large areas, sometimes
entire forests. However, REA prohibited FS from charging entrance fees
and only allowed FS to charge standard amenity fees if the sites
provide the required level of amenities. In addition to dropping fee
sites, numerous FS units added amenities to bring sites into compliance
with REA. According to one FS regional coordinator, if a developed site
was missing one or two amenities, then the unit added those amenities,
otherwise, the site was dropped from the fee program.
Concerns about FS compliance with REA criteria have been raised by
users who are critical of the use of High Impact Recreational Area
(HIRA) designations and standard amenity fee areas. While HIRAs are not
specifically mentioned in REA, FS relies on a section of REA that
authorizes standard amenity charges for the use of "an area" as
authority to designate HIRAs. The Interagency Implementation Handbook
for Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act defines a HIRA as an area
of concentrated recreation use that includes a variety of developed
sites providing a similar recreation opportunity that incur significant
expenditures for restoration, public safety, sanitation facilities,
education, maintenance, and other activities necessary to protect the
health and safety of visitors, cultural resources, and the natural
environment. The handbook also defines limitations on which areas can
be designated as a HIRA. For example, whole administrative units, such
as a national forest or a Reclamation project, cannot be declared a
HIRA. During the past few years, FS identified HIRA sites and has
proceeded to charge standard amenity fees for the use of these areas
under REA. According to the agency's officials, the HIRA designation is
a logical way of categorizing amenities supporting high levels of
recreation use, and collected fees go to maintain and clean these
provided amenities, such as restroom facilities.
Another concern about the HIRAs is that some access points into parts
of wilderness areas that are not considered part of a HIRA are only
accessible via the HIRA, so visitors must still pay the standard
amenity fee to access these parts of the national forests. In addition,
some assert that because REA prohibits charging a fee "solely for
parking" or "driving through, walking through, boating through,
horseback riding through, or hiking through…without using the
facilities and services," the standard amenity fees for HIRAs are
prohibited in some cases. For example, a visitor to an Arizona national
forest challenged FS citations issued to her for failing to display the
required day pass permit to travel into a HIRA. The visitor was cited
on two occasions because she parked within a HIRA to hike the area
without having paid for the day pass permit. On September 5, 2006, a
district court held that the REA bars the FS from collecting fees for
parking along roads or trailsides and that the FS acted "far beyond its
legislative authority" in its attempt to collect the fee. Accordingly,
the court dismissed the citations against the visitor.[Footnote 15]
According to FS officials, the agency significantly decreased the size
of many of its HIRAs to only cover areas where required standard
amenities are within reasonable access. For example, the entire Flaming
Gorge National Recreation Area in Utah and Wyoming had an entrance fee
under Fee Demo; now only 4 percent of the recreation area is subject to
fees. Another example is the Los Padres National Forest in southern
California, which reportedly decreased the size of its HIRA from almost
1.5 million acres to 71,000 acres while also removing 37 fee sites.
However, in testimony before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources, Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests, on October 26,
2005, representatives from the Arizona and Western Slope No-Fee
Coalitions charged that the BLM and FS are using the HIRA and standard
amenity concepts to circumvent the intent of Congress and charge fees
for areas that do not have the amenities required by REA. However, REA
does not provide a definition for "area" and thus the criteria used to
define an "area" are open to the agencies' discretion. For example, the
Arapaho National Recreation Area in Colorado charges a standard amenity
fee for an area it defines as an HIRA that contains 25 developed sites
including picnic areas, boat launches, campgrounds, and trailheads. Not
all six of the amenities that are required under REA are collocated at
each of the developed sites. However, since all six of the required
amenities are somewhere within the hundreds of acres of their
designated HIRA, the FS is charging a standard amenity fee for the
entire area under REA. In the October 26, 2005, Senate subcommittee
hearing, a USDA official acknowledged that FS implementation of REA is
a "work in progress" and that different local conditions and
characteristics make it difficult to develop HIRA criteria that fit all
circumstances. According to this official, FS has continued to work on
providing consistent signage and to identify areas that may not meet
the criteria for charging fees and plans to have the RRACs comment on
how the agency is applying HIRA criteria.
Some BLM and FS Units Do Not Have All Required Amenities to Charge
Standard Amenity Fees:
We also found that some BLM and FS units still do not meet REA
requirements for charging standard amenity fees. Based on the results
of our survey, of the 195 BLM and FS units that reported that they
charge a standard amenity fee, 38 reported they did not provide all six
amenities that are required for them to charge the fee. Two BLM units
and 36 FS units reported that they did not provide all six required
amenities. The amenities that the units were most frequently lacking
were a permanent trash receptacle and interpretive signs, exhibits, or
kiosks. Although these units reported in survey responses that their
unit did not have all six required amenities, BLM state-level officials
and FS headquarters officials stated they believed all of their fee-
collecting units were in compliance with REA criteria. In commenting on
a draft of this report, both BLM and FS indicated their unit officials
had likely been confused by the fee terminology in the survey question
and/or may have misunderstood the definitions of the required
amenities, rather than because these units lack amenities such as
picnic tables.
However, during interviews with agency officials, we learned that some
units charging a standard amenity fee did not have all six required
amenities, but had plans to add these amenities. For example, the
Meadow Creek site at the Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest in Colorado
lacked two of the six amenities--picnic tables and interpretative
signage--required under REA when we visited it in December 2005. The
unit has continued to charge a standard amenity fee since REA passed
because unit officials thought it would be confusing to visitors to
temporarily discontinue the fee while they worked on upgrading the area
to meet REA criteria. The unit received a $20,000 grant in 2005 from
the central fee revenue fund to add picnic tables and signage, as well
as fire rings to the area. According to a unit official, the required
amenities were added during the summer of 2006, and the Meadow Creek
site now has all of the required amenities in place.
Some FS unit staff also found the standard amenity criteria at odds
with wildlife management practices. For example, several national
forests near the Canadian border are in grizzly bear areas, so FS has
instructed the public to "pack out," or dispose of their trash outside
of camping and day-use areas, rather than install costly bear-proof
garbage cans. Now, if these forests are going to continue charging
recreation fees at these sites, REA requires FS to put trash
receptacles in the areas. In another example, picnic tables were
previously removed from Mt. Evans, in the Arapaho-Roosevelt National
Forest, because of wildlife interaction issues. However, in order to
comply with REA, FS must provide all six required amenities, including
picnic tables.
In commenting on a draft of this report, BLM headquarters officials
stated that they checked with the two units that reported having less
than six required amenities in their response to our survey. The
officials determined that the two units' reports were in error and that
the units did offer all six amenities. Similarly, the FS headquarters
staff made further inquiries of the 36 units that reported less than
the six required amenities and determined that some of the information
that the units reported on their survey response was in error. Based on
information from FS officials and our analysis, the status of those
units is as follows:
* 12 units did not have a standard amenity fee but instead had an
expanded amenity fee, which does not have the same amenity requirements
under REA.
* 11 units did have the required six amenities and did not accurately
report this in their survey response to us.
* 4 units had a standard amenity fee for a visitor or interpretive
center, which under REA may be charged without having the six required
amenities.
* 2 units had no standard amenity fee and should have reported this in
their survey response to us.
* 7 units have not yet responded to the follow up inquiries.
It should be noted, however, that the results of BLM and FS
headquarters officials' inquiries have not been verified.
Reclamation Undecided on Implementing REA:
Reclamation has not made a decision to move forward with REA
implementation. The agency officials are assessing Office of the
Solicitor advice concerning how the act applies to their operational
situation and to the alternate authority for Reclamation to charge fees
under the Federal Water Project Recreation Act (FWPRA). Reclamation had
requested advice from the solicitor's office because of their unusual
operational situation that includes the management of about 250 of
Reclamation's approximately 300 sites by partner organizations, such as
other government entities. In 2005, Reclamation conducted an assessment
to determine which of its recreation sites met REA requirements.
Reclamation identified 7 of the 50 sites it directly manages that would
qualify to charge standard amenity fees under REA, one of which was New
Melones Reservoir in California. New Melones collected about $170,000
in 2004 under LWCFA, which was repealed by REA. Reclamation is now
using FWPRA as its authority to collect recreation fees at New Melones.
Any fees collected under FWPRA are to be deposited into a Department of
the Treasury (Treasury) account, unless project specific legislation
provides otherwise. Reclamation has not indicated how many of the 50
sites they directly manage meet REA criteria for charging an expanded
amenity fee.
Although Most Units Have Received Some Guidance, Final Policy Guidance
on REA Is Still Pending for all Agencies, and Many Unit Officials Said
Some Aspects of the Law Are Unclear and More Specific Guidance Is
Needed:
After REA passed, the Interagency Implementation Handbook directed
agencies to develop written policy guidance that incorporates the
standard definitions and overarching policy guidelines established in
the handbook. Although agencies reported that they made the transition
from Fee Demo to REA without major problems, many units said that some
aspects of REA are unclear, and more specific guidance is needed. For
example, some unit officials expressed confusion about how to add new
fees or modify existing fees, while others expressed confusion about
amenity criteria.
BLM and FS issued interim guidance documents, and the NPS has issued
memos and provided training on REA implementation, while FWS has issued
no formal guidance to the field. BLM and FS issued interim recreation
fee guidelines within months after the passage of REA, and both have
since issued additional guidance on different aspects of the law. NPS
issued transitional guidelines and memos on various aspects of REA and
has provided training on REA implementation. FWS formed a working group
with representatives from headquarters and the field to work on various
implementation tasks, including drafting guidance and policy on REA.
According to an FWS official, interim guidance will be out by the end
of fiscal year 2006. Since Reclamation has not yet determined whether
the agency will implement REA, the agency has not issued any guidance
on the new law.
While most respondents to our survey indicated that some type of
guidance on the fee program is available, many unit and regional
officials indicated during interviews that additional guidance is
needed. Based on the results of our survey, most units responding
indicated that some kind of guidance is available from national
headquarters and a regional or state office, with the majority of units
indicating that the existing guidance is at least moderately useful on
authorized types of fees and passes. For example, 85 percent of BLM,
FS, FWS and NPS units reported that written guidance is available from
national headquarters. Most units also indicated that unwritten, unit-
specific guidance, staff knowledge, and experience are additional
sources of guidance that are generally available to them. However,
although the vast majority of survey respondents reported that some
kind of written guidance was available, unit officials at the state and
regional level, as well as at some of the sites we visited, emphasized
that more specific guidance is needed, including detailed policy and
procedures for implementing and managing fee programs. For example, as
BLM and FS unit staffs have implemented REA, some unit agency officials
have found REA amenity criteria and terminology ambiguous, and some
units expressed confusion about how to interpret and apply such
criteria as "reasonable security" and "permanent trash receptacle."
Other unit officials at the various agencies said they needed more
guidance on how to add new fee sites or modify existing fees. For
example, according to an FWS official, the main obstacle to
implementing fees at a refuge complex in Nevada has been a lack of
policies and procedures, as well as basic guidance, on how to implement
a fee program. According to FWS officials, such guidance should include
examples of implementation plans, information on how to set up
accounts, effective ways to share lessons learned among the seven FWS
regions, and contact information for other agency officials with fee
program experience.
Some Agencies Do Not Have Adequate Controls and Accounting Procedures
for Collected Fees and Lack Effective Guidance for Establishing a
System of Internal Controls, Including Routine Audits:
We found that some agencies' units did not have adequate controls for
safeguarding and accounting for collected fee revenues. While current
federal guidance requires managers to establish and maintain accounting
systems that incorporate effective internal controls, we determined
that some BLM, FWS, and FS units did not have sufficient guidance--
including examples of best practices--to follow for implementing
internal controls over collected fee revenues.[Footnote 16] NPS has
also been slow to issue updated guidance on accounting for and
controlling collected fee revenues. However, despite this lack of
guidance, NPS units we visited appear to have generally implemented
effective internal controls. Furthermore, routine audits are an
integral part of any system of effective internal controls over
agencies' financial assets. However, less than 37 percent of
respondents to our survey indicated their units have been examined by
auditors since October 2000. Without effective internal controls, the
units cannot provide reasonable assurance that the fee revenues
collected are properly controlled and accounted for.
Some Agencies Lack Adequate Controls on Collected Fees:
Federal internal control standards require management to identify risks
that could impair the safeguarding of agency resources, such as fee
revenues at the unit level, and suggest that management should
formulate an approach for risk management that identifies the internal
controls necessary to mitigate those risks. A good set of internal
controls should incorporate physical control over vulnerable assets--
such as cash--with other controls such as segregation of duties,
controls over information processing, accurate and timely recording of
transactions and events, and access restrictions to and accountability
for resources and records. However, cash collection is an area where
agencies are particularly vulnerable to the risk of theft. Some
locations, such as BLM's Gunnison Field Office, have such limited staff
running their recreation fee program that their program coordinator
indicated the appropriate separation of duties, not to mention using
procedures such as two staff jointly counting fee receipts, is simply
not possible.[Footnote 17] Unfortunately, this circumstance may not be
unusual, especially at smaller units where resource management staffs-
-generally with little or no accounting or business operations
experience--are tasked with implementing the fee program, including
cash handling procedures. The staffs at these units face many
challenges ranging from the development of safe and secure procedures
for gathering and transporting fee envelopes from remote campground
sites to assuring that staff with appropriate knowledge and skills are
assigned to process and account for collected fees. In addition, survey
respondents indicated a myriad of other problems such as:
* security concerns over the delivery of collected cash fees from their
unit to the bank,
* local banks not accepting agency procedures for depositing funds to a
Treasury account,
* local banks and/or post offices charging fees for issuing the money
order or cashier's check necessary to make deposits in Treasury
accounts,
* employees having to pay bank fees for money orders or cashiers checks
with their own funds and then seek reimbursement from the agency, and:
* the closest local bank sometimes being an inconvenient 30 to 60 miles
away from fee collecting locations.
According to federal internal control standards, management should
strive to remove the temptation for unethical behavior by avoiding the
receiving and handling of cash by individual staff without a reasonable
means of determining the amount of revenues the employee has received.
For example, at the Tonto National Forest Mesa Ranger District, near
Phoenix, staff members sometimes collect cash fees directly from
visitors when the automated fee machines are broken. Most of the
district's fees are collected by automated machines that are owned and
serviced by a contractor. However, one or more of the unit's automated
fee machines are often broken. To avoid a loss of revenues when the
machines are not working, the managers designate staff members as
collection officers to work at busy entry points to collect fees and
direct traffic flow. According to district management, the staff later
feed the collected fees into a working automated machine someplace else
in the district. However, the managers have not developed physical or
other compensating controls over these cash collections (easily
amounting to several hundred dollars on a busy day) that would enable
managers to verify that all of the fees collected by any given staff
member are actually fed into a working machine. In commenting on a
draft of this report, FS headquarters officials indicated that they
believe that automated fee machines should rarely be broken and they
also noted that local officials are responsible for reasonable internal
controls over cash collection.
In addition, the safety of staff involved in collecting the cash could
be jeopardized due to the risk of being targeted for robbery. In
another example, at BLM's Gunnison Field Office, in western Colorado,
one or two staff members collect the fee envelopes containing
campground fees from a remote self-service fee station and place the
envelopes into a bag for transport back to the office. At the office,
the envelopes are placed in a safe until another employee has an
opportunity to open the envelopes, count the cash, and record the fees
collected. However, the manager has not developed physical controls
over the cash collections and accounting to provide assurance that all
of the fee envelopes collected by the first staff member(s) are turned
in at the office or that all of the funds counted by the second
employee are deposited and accurately documented. Consequently, in both
of these examples, the managers were left without reasonable assurance
that the revenue each employee collected was received and accounted for
by the agency.
Some Agencies' Units Lack Adequate Guidance to Establish Accounting
Procedures and an Effective System of Internal Controls for Collected
Fee Revenues:
Most available agency guidance provides overall objectives for
establishing and maintaining an effective accounting system. For
example, the FS Manual on Accounting states that one of the overall
objectives is to "establish and maintain an accounting system that
provides: A system for internal control and accountability of funds,
property, and other assets from acquisition to disposition." However,
this guidance does not provide the detailed, "cook book" type of
instructions most unit-level fee program managers need to successfully
implement an effective system of internal controls. In contrast,
Yosemite National Park's written opening procedures provide detailed
step by step instructions as follows:
* Check the accountable stock [of passes]; verify that the numbers are
in sequence.
* Make note of any missing passes.
* Enter the first and last number of each type of pass on the shift
report.
* Date and initial the shift report.
According to several unit-level officials we interviewed, agency-level
support and training on accounting and control issues is needed to help
units develop this type of detailed procedures for their fee programs.
Some field staffs have also requested training opportunities to help
them learn how they should manage their fee programs. The lack of both
written procedures that are current and comprehensive and fee program
training are obstacles to developing successful internal controls.
Due to the numerous comments shared by agency staff about the need for
updated guidance, we included questions about this issue in our
nationwide survey of BLM, FWS, NPS, and FS units. Of those units that
reported receiving some sort of guidance related to controlling and
accounting for collected fees, over one-third (277/752) indicated the
guidance they received was less than moderately useful. When asked
about whether staff had been provided training on controlling and
accounting for collected funds, over 40 percent indicated they had not
received training on this issue. Of the survey respondents who did
receive training, over 60 percent indicated the training was less than
moderately useful. In commenting on a draft of this report, FS
acknowledged the need for revising the Forest Service Manual and
indicated it will expedite publication of the handbook and updated
procedures as soon as practicable.
Although NPS units we visited appear to have implemented reasonable
accounting procedures and effective internal controls, the agency has
been slow to issue updated guidance on accounting and controlling
collected fee revenues. NPS parks are still following NPS-22, the 1989
NPS policy for fee collection. However, technologies have changed so
much since 1989 that the old policy does not even address issues such
as electronic processing of credit card payments. The parks have been
waiting for years for a new fee collection policy to be issued, and
several unit and regional officials stated that the revised policy
guidance is needed immediately. NPS management indicated they had
developed a draft of the new policy when REA passed in late 2004,
making portions of the previous draft obsolete. NPS fee program
coordinators in the headquarters office said they recognize that units
need and want updated guidance and, although they are trying hard to
get the guidance on recreation fees out as soon as possible, could not
provide an estimated time frame for issuance.
Some units' fee coordinators, such as the coordinators at Rocky
Mountain National Park in Colorado and the Shasta Trinity National
Forest Shasta Lake Ranger District in California appear to have a good
handle on how to develop and implement sound financial and accounting
internal controls. However, many other units lacked both the technical
and professional expertise to develop sound procedures without detailed
guidance. Since many unit-level staffs have not received detailed
agency guidance that would be useful in establishing such procedures on
their own, they continue to struggle with these issues and the risks
associated with poor internal controls.
Some Agencies Do Not Have a System of Routine Audits to Account for
Collected Fee Revenues:
Many units have not implemented a system of routine audits to help
ensure that fees are collected and used as authorized and that
collected funds are safeguarded. Only 37 percent of the 752 units
responding to this question in our survey reported having their fee
collection program examined by an auditor since October 2000. The
percentage of units having their fee collection programs examined
varies significantly by agency. For example, NPS reported the highest
percentage of audits of unit-level fee programs with about 63 percent
of units (110/175) having their control and accounting procedures
examined since October 2000. According to a NPS regional fee program
coordinator, some NPS regions are aggressive about audits, such as the
Intermountain Region where one staff person is dedicated to conducting
audits. Other regions may not have dedicated resources to conduct
audits. For example, the Northeast Region has only one fee coordinator
available to conduct fee program audits, and she does not feel she is
justified in going to parks unless unit managers ask her to review how
the unit is doing operationally. In the past, the NPS headquarters fee
project coordinator reportedly proposed using a portion of the
centrally held recreation fees to fund a national audit program, but
the proposal was only partially implemented in one region. In
commenting on a draft of this report, NPS stated its intention to
reconvene a workgroup to develop a National Audit Program.
Other agencies reported having many fewer routine audits of their
programs: only 14 percent of FWS units, 27 percent of BLM units, and 33
percent of FS units reported having examinations. According to some
unit officials with whom we spoke, they either did not believe they
have access to internal or external audit resources or they
rationalized that they did not need to implement an audit program since
they had trustworthy staff. A lack of staff resources is also a factor
in the limited number of units that have had their recreation fee
programs audited during the past 5 years. Routine audits are an
important internal control that could allow agency officials to
promptly detect unauthorized transactions involving recreation fee
revenues and assess the design, implementation, and effectiveness of
controls over these assets agencywide.
One example that highlights the need for routine audits was at the
Tonto National Forest Mesa Ranger District, where officials
acknowledged that no audit had been conducted on the contractor who
maintains the automated machines and processes the fees collected
through the machines. In fact, the district officials said they had
seen no reason to request that the contractor, who owns and services
the automated fee machines, be audited. The contractor collects the
fees (cash and credit card payments) directly from the machines and
then prepares quarterly reports for the FS unit, stating the amount
collected and the amount to be remitted to FS under the contract. Over
the life of the contract, FS staff members have verified the amount of
the contractor's remittance against the reported total collected fees
to ensure the contractor submitted the correct percentage of the fees
under their contract. Unfortunately, by simply relying on this
approach, FS officials have no way of independently verifying actual
receipts because they have no access to raw data from the automated
machines.[Footnote 18] FS was simply verifying the contractor's
mathematical calculation against what the contractor had self-reported
as total fee receipts.
In commenting on a draft of this report, FS officials noted that it is
FS policy to audit collection officers at least annually, but
acknowledged they have not been meeting this goal. In order to begin
addressing FS's recognized shortfall in meeting their prescribed audit
program, they have assigned a full-time FS Albuquerque Service Center
(ASC) resource to monitor the program, nationwide. Also, according to a
FWS headquarters official, in fiscal year 2004, FWS implemented a
procedure to help target units for visitor service reviews.
Agencies Have Different Processes for Selecting Projects to Be Funded
with Fee Revenues:
While REA establishes the basic priority of using recreation fee
revenues for enhancing visitors' experience, each agency has a
different process for selecting projects to be funded with fee revenues
based on the agency's needs and revised policies under REA. These
different processes affect the types of projects the agencies fund and
their time lines for project implementation.[Footnote 19] Agencies fund
a wide variety of priority projects with fee revenues, typically
maintenance, operations, and some capital improvements. Examples of
projects and activities funded with fee revenue include campground
renovations within American Fork Canyon at the Uinta National Forest in
Utah, interpretive panels at Colonial National Historic Park in
Virginia as pictured in figure 1, interpretive staff at BLM's Red Rock
Canyon National Conservation Area in Nevada, and trail work at FWS's
Rocky Mountain Arsenal National Wildlife Refuge in Colorado as pictured
in figure 2. Some units also use recreation fee revenues to leverage
funds received from other sources, such as grants or donations.
Figure 1: Interpretive Panel at Colonial National Historic Park:
[See PDF for image] - graphic text:
Source: GAO.
Note: This panel was funded with recreation fee revenue.
[End of figure] - graphic text:
Figure 2: Site of Trail Work at Rocky Mountain Arsenal National
Wildlife Refuge:
[See PDF for image] - graphic text:
Source: GAO.
Note: The materials and a portion of the labor for trail work at this
location were funded with recreation fee revenue.
[End of figure] - graphic text:
Project Prioritization Processes Are Based on REA Criteria and Agency
Guidance:
REA established limits on the use of recreation fees to focus the
expenditures more directly on benefiting the people who visit the unit
at which they were collected. For example, REA supports the use of
recreation fees to repair, maintain, and enhance facilities related
directly to visitor enjoyment, visitor access, and visitor health and
safety but restricts the use of recreation fees for biological
monitoring under the Endangered Species Act or for employee bonuses. It
also limits the use of fee revenues to not more than an average of 15
percent of total revenues for administration, overhead, and indirect
costs related to the recreation fee program. Other sanctioned uses of
recreation fee revenues include a myriad of things ranging from
interpretive signage to law enforcement[Footnote 20] to certain limited
types of habitat restoration. Specifically, REA mandates that fee
revenues only be used for the following:
* repair, maintenance, and facility enhancement related directly to
visitor enjoyment, visitor access, and health and safety;
* interpretation, visitor information, visitor service, visitor needs
assessments, and signs;
* habitat restoration directly related to wildlife-dependent recreation
that is limited to hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, or
photography;
* law enforcement related to public use and recreation;
* direct operating or capital costs associated with the recreation fee
program; and:
* a fee management agreement or a visitor reservation service.
In addition to REA guidance, BLM, NPS, and FS have all issued at least
interim guidance on expenditure priorities for projects funded with fee
revenues. BLM guidance emphasizes that fee revenues be used to support
projects or activities related to recreation and stipulates a specific
percentage of funding be spent in this area. NPS has established
deferred maintenance projects as its first priority for recreation fee
revenues and stipulates the percentage of funding that should be spent
in support of this. FS guidance essentially repeats the priorities
established in REA. FWS has not issued any interim guidance on
expenditure priorities, but draft guidance that has not been finalized
also repeats the priorities established in REA, similar to FS guidance.
Each of the agencies' guidance also stipulates the amount of fee
revenues that can be spent for either (1) administration, overhead, and
indirect costs or (2) collections cost. Table 3 shows the guidance
developed by the agencies for how recreational fee revenues should be
spent.
Table 3: Agency Fee Revenue Expenditure Guidance:
Agency: BLM;
Fee revenue expenditure priorities: According to BLM's guidance, 85% of
fee revenues shall be used for recreation related projects or
activities. Guidance also states that fee expenditures shall be used
(1) to reduce recreation deferred maintenance, (2) for a revolving fund
focused on recreation projects authorized by legislation that provide a
demonstrable improvement to BLM public land recreation sites and
services that would otherwise take years to realize, (3) for funding
recreation enhancements through volunteer projects and Challenge Cost
Share program, and (4) for limited state and national recreation fee
program administration. No more than an average of 15% of fee revenues
can generally be used for administration, overhead, and indirect costs.
Agency: NPS;
Fee revenue expenditure priorities: The top priorities for fee revenues
are to meet NPS mission and performance goals in four areas: (1)
deferred maintenance obligation targets,[A] (2) overall condition of
the NPS constructed asset inventory, (3) cost of collection targets,
and (4) critical needs in other allowable areas. The service wide
target for the units to spend approximately 60% of their yearly revenue
on deferred maintenance is prorated to and applied by the regions. NPS
has various restrictions on what fees can be spent on, such as employee
housing and some operations. NPS guidance generally directs units to
not exceed 20% for cost of collection and does not allow any unit to
exceed 50%;
each region has an annual cost of collection target.
Agency: FS;
Fee revenue expenditure priorities: Agency guidance details what REA
allows fees to be used for. The guidance also states that cost of
collection expenditures are included in the REA "direct operation
expenses" category and caps cost of collection at 15%. The guidance
also provides suggestions for expenditures for special use permits and
guidance for regional and national fee expenditures.
Agency: FWS;
Fee revenue expenditure priorities: FWS draft guidance details what REA
allows fees to be used for. The draft guidance also states that cost of
collection expenditures are included in the REA "direct operation
expenses" category and caps cost of collection at 20%.
Sources: GAO analysis of BLM, NPS, FS, and FWS documents.
[A] NPS committed $95 million in 2006 to deferred maintenance.
Consequently, deferred maintenance is the NPS priority for fee money--
especially projects that improve the visitor experience while at the
same time reduce deferred maintenance.
[End of table]
Project Selection Processes Are Guided by Agency Needs and Revised
Policies under REA:
While REA establishes the basic priority of using recreation fee
revenues for enhancing visitors' experience, each agency has a
different process for selecting projects to be funded with fee revenues
based on the agency's needs and policies revised under REA. These
different processes can affect the types of projects agencies fund and
their time lines for project implementation. At BLM, FWS, and FS, most
proposed projects are approved at the local unit level. Unit staff
indicated that most projects funded with fee revenues are usually
approved within a couple of days to a few weeks or, in some cases,
implemented immediately without unit manager approval. At NPS, however,
projects must be reviewed and approved at the unit and regional levels,
as well as at the headquarters or department level before projects are
funded. In commenting on a draft of this report, NPS noted that its
project approval process was put in place by DOI and the Office of
Management and Budget and has been articulated in congressional
appropriations report language.
BLM, FWS, and FS project approvals generally occur at the local unit
level. The initial project suggestions are typically generated by local
unit staff members who have identified a need that could be filled with
fee revenues. In BLM and FWS units, it is generally a field office or
refuge manager that approves proposed projects. For example, at BLM's
Upper Colorado River unit, ideas for fee projects are suggested,
discussed, and agreed upon by unit staff members and the field office
Manager has final approval on all recreation fee projects. This was
also the case at FWS's Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge, where unit
staff members suggest and jointly prioritize fee projects, while the
refuge Manager has final approval. Similarly, the FS Manager of a
ranger district may decide on projects or, in some cases, the projects
are reviewed at a higher level--by the Forest Supervisor or regional
office. At some FS units, a fee board reviews and approves proposed
projects. For example, at the Shasta-Trinity National Recreation Area
within the Shasta-Trinity National Forest in California, any employee
may propose a fee project, which must be presented to the Recreation
Area's fee board for approval.
Suggestions for projects within NPS are also typically generated by
local unit staff, except this is only the first of several steps in an
often time-consuming NPS project approval process. NPS project requests
are entered into the Project Management Information System (PMIS) by
unit staff in advance of regional and NPS headquarters--the Washington
Office (WASO)--project call due dates for prioritization by the park
management team, with approval at the park level. After the units
submit their project proposals, the regional official(s) review the
project proposals/requests[Footnote 21] and generally either approve
the proposals or mark them for edits. According to one regional
official, a regional reviewer may occasionally reject a proposal if the
project does not comply with established criteria or if the requesting
unit did not meet their deferred maintenance goal; however, most
projects are forwarded to WASO for approval. In commenting on a draft
of this report, NPS headquarters informed us that on average, a Fee
Demo project remains at the region or park level for 3 years as the
data and information are edited and updated. Those projects that do not
have accurate and complete data in PMIS are delayed in the approval
process at all levels.
The project approval process at WASO was put in place by DOI and NPS to
improve accountability. This process is managed by the NPS Headquarters
Park Facilities Management Division to provide review for consistency
to established policies. According to a Facility Management Specialist
within this division, project approval depends on the dollar amount of
the project because NPS' Development Advisory Board, DOI, Congress, and
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) all approve projects over
certain dollar amounts. For example, the agency's Development Advisory
Board reviews and approves all projects over $500,000, and Congress
approves projects over $500,000 and all projects over $100,000 if the
money comes from the central fund. Meanwhile, DOI reviews all projects
over $100,000, and regional and national projects are approved at the
national level. The complexity of the approval process has required
parks and regions to be proactive in getting projects into the process
early. However, according to NPS officials, it can sometimes take 1
year or more to obtain approval to fund a project under this process.
Many agency officials at the unit and regional levels expressed
frustration about the length of time it takes to obtain approval for
funding NPS projects, and some noted that the approval process has
delayed project implementation and/or has contributed to units having
unobligated fee revenue balances. For example, one park unit official
noted in the survey that the lengthy approval process jeopardizes
projects, especially partnership projects that may be time sensitive.
However, others noted that the approval process can be expedited in
emergency situations to enable project approval within a couple of
months.
According to some unit officials, part of the reason WASO approvals
take so long is that parks' priorities for fee revenue projects do not
always match WASO priorities and, as a result, WASO may question a
project's appropriateness and delay or deny its approval, even if it is
consistent with projects allowed by law or under NPS policy. In
addition, while WASO officials sometimes contact regional officials to
question or offer suggestions on a project that has not yet been
approved, WASO will, in other cases, allow projects to remain in the
system indefinitely without approval or disapproval, according to
another agency official. NPS headquarters officials explained that the
lack of accurate and complete data in PMIS is the primary reason for
projects remaining in the system indefinitely and pointed to mistakes
by the units and regions as the cause of this problem.
According to a Facility Management Specialist, the agency is
implementing a comprehensive plan approach under REA, which should help
units and regions to better manage their projects through an advance 5-
year planning process. According to this official, the Regional
Directors can also approve projects estimated to cost under $500,000,
but she still retains the authority to review these approved projects
and related project data to ensure that projects funded are consistent
with REA and to assure accountability. NPS headquarters officials
stated that the 5-year plan of projects, which was first instituted in
fiscal year 2003, requires parks to be strategic and proactive in
submitting projects for approval, and to identify their sequential
needs for compliance, design and planning prior to project execution.
Agencies Fund a Variety of Maintenance, Operations, and Capital
Improvement Projects with Fee Revenues:
Recreational fee revenues are used by the agencies to fund a variety of
maintenance, operations, visitor services, and some capital improvement
projects. The specific types of activities or projects funded with
these fees vary by agency. For example, in fiscal year 2005, NPS spent
the majority of fees they collected under REA on various types of
maintenance work, mostly focusing on deferred maintenance. Meanwhile,
FS units spent about 40 percent of the fees collected under REA on
maintenance, which included deferred maintenance, annual maintenance,
and capital improvements. For example, recreation fee revenues at the
Sequoia National Forest in California funded capital improvements
including a new restroom (see fig. 3), paving of a parking lot, and the
installation of trash receptacles, picnic tables, and grills at the Big
Meadows Winter Trailhead, which is heavily used by snowmobile riders
and skiers in the winter. While BLM and FWS also funded some
maintenance work, they spent a large portion of their revenues on
visitor services. BLM spent about 33 percent of their fee revenues on
visitor services, such as increased seasonal staff to complete trail
work and other projects and to help monitor and teach river safety
along the Merced River. FWS also focused a lot of their resources on
providing/enhancing visitor services, almost 44 percent of the total
fees they collected under REA. For example, at Chincoteague National
Wildlife Refuge in Virginia and Maryland, REA fee revenues have funded
visitor services such as the design, development, and installation of
interpretive exhibits along four separate trails.
Figure 3: Restroom Constructed with Fee Revenue at the Big Meadows
Winter Trailhead in Sequoia National Forest:
[See PDF for image] - graphic text:
Source: GAO.
[End of figure] - graphic text:
Figure 4: Lake Directional Sign Funded with Fee Revenues at the Shasta-
Trinity National Forest:
[See PDF for image] - graphic text:
Source: GAO.
Note: The sign is on land instead of on the water because this picture
was taken during the off-season.
[End of figure] - graphic text:
Some units are quite creative with their use of recreation fee revenues
to fund fee projects. For example, agency officials at the Shasta-
Trinity National Forest in northern California use recreation fee
revenues to purchase materials to make "pack-out bags" that are given
to mountain climbers to facilitate the removal of human waste from
Mount Shasta. The bags help with resource protection since climbers are
able to remove their waste using the bags rather than leaving it on the
mountain, as was done prior to the inception of the program. Also at
the Shasta-Trinity National Forest, recreation fees funded the lake
directional signage on Shasta and Trinity Lakes pictured in figure 4.
The lakes are quite large--Shasta Lake has about 420 miles of
shoreline--so the signs improve visitor services by helping direct
boaters to various locations on the lakes. At Rocky Mountain National
Park in Colorado, recreation fee revenues have been used to fund
campsite improvements, including new tent pads, fire rings, and picnic
tables, as can be seen in figure 5. These improvements enhanced visitor
services by improving the level of amenities while also protecting
natural resources by containing visitor impacts.
Figure 5: Campsite at Rocky Mountain National Park:
[See PDF for image] - graphic text:
Source: GAO.
Note: Fee revenues were used to improve this campsite.
[End of figure] - graphic text:
Figure 6: Fishing Pier at Whiskeytown National Recreation Area:
[See PDF for image] - graphic text:
Source: GAO.
Note: Fishing pier shown is universally accessible.
[End of figure] - graphic text:
Recreation fee revenues at NPS's Whiskeytown National Recreation Area
in northern California were used to construct the universally
accessible fishing piers pictured in figure 6, which have improved
visitor services and are heavily used, according to the park
Superintendent. Many units within various agencies have used recreation
fee revenues to purchase and install improved restroom facilities, such
as the one pictured earlier in figure 3 at Sequoia National Forest.
Such restrooms improve visitor services while also enhancing resource
protection, according to Sequoia's Assistant Recreation Fee
Coordinator.
Many units, especially within BLM and FS, use fee revenue for daily
site maintenance and operations and, while these activities may not be
as visible as capital improvement projects such as new restrooms,
officials noted they still provide valuable services to visitors. For
example, at Desolation Canyon in Utah, which is managed by BLM's Price
Field Office, the main source of recreation fee revenue is rafting
permits. The revenues are then primarily used to fund ranger staff who
fulfill multiple roles including inspecting rafters' equipment and
permits, patrolling the waters, providing interpretive information to
rafters, and maintaining the launch and take-out sites along the Green
River. Another example of a unit that funds operations and maintenance
activities with fee revenues is Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge in
Virginia, where recreation fees fund restroom maintenance, including
toilet pumping and supplies. At most units, a portion of fee revenues
are also used to cover other operations, such as the cost of collecting
fees.
Finally, some units use recreation fee revenues to leverage funds
received from other sources, such as grants or donations. For example,
the Klamath Falls National Wildlife Refuge Complex on the California-
Oregon border worked with a birding group to construct the universally
accessible photo blind pictured in figure 7. The birding group provided
funds to construct the handicapped accessible pathway leading to the
blind, while FWS leveled the ground for the pathway and purchased
materials to construct the photo blind with fee revenues. Another
example is NPS's Antietam National Battlefield, where recreation fee
revenues were leveraged with other funds to restore a 106-year old
monument located at the unit, see figure 8. The total cost of the
project was $300,000--the unit's largest fee project to date--with
$255,000 of the project cost funded by recreation fee revenues and the
remaining $45,000 leveraged from other sources, including a $31,000
donation from the state of Maryland, funds from the "Adopt-a-Monument
Program," and donations from a local newspaper. Recreation fees have
been used to leverage grant funding at BLM's Gunnison Field Office in
Colorado, which received about $100,000 in grants in 2006. The
interpretive panels pictured in figure 9 at American Basin, managed by
the Gunnison Field Office, were partially funded with recreation fees.
Figure 7: Photo Blind at Klamath Falls National Wildlife Refuge
Complex:
[See PDF for image] - graphic text:
Source: GAO.
Note: This blind is universally accessible and was funded with fee
revenues.
[End of figure] - graphic text:
Figure 8: Monument at Antietam National Battlefield:
[See PDF for image] - graphic text:
Source: NPS.
Note: Restoration funds for this monument were from fee revenues and
other sources.
[End of figure] - graphic text:
Figure 9: Interpretive Panels at American Basin:
[See PDF for image] - graphic text:
Source: Source:BLM.
Note: Recreation fee revenues provided partial funding for these
panels.
[End of figure] - graphic text:
The Collection and Distribution of Central and/or Regional Funds Varies
by Agency and by Region:
The collection and distribution of central and/or regional funds varies
by agency and sometimes by region. Three of the participating agencies-
-NPS, FWS, and FS--have central or regional funds where a portion of
fee revenues are deposited, as shown in table 4. The projects and
activities funded with central or regional funds vary by agency and, in
some cases, by region, but generally the central and regional funds are
distributed among the units based on project proposals or are used to
cover the administrative costs of the recreation fee program. For
example, FWS Region 2, which has a 20 percent regional fund, uses a
portion of its regional funds to cover administrative charges and
distributes the remaining funds to refuges within the region based on
submitted project proposals. Similarly, FS Region 5 uses a large
portion of its 5 percent regional fund to cover fee program management
costs, and special project expenditures, such as the RRAC start-up
costs, and distributes a portion of the regional funds back to the
units in the form of resource and internship grants. Within FWS and FS,
the distribution of regional funds is generally determined at the
regional level. At NPS, project proposals must be reviewed and approved
at both the regional and WASO levels before central funds are
distributed to the units.
Table 4: Distribution of Recreation Fee Revenues to Central or Regional
Funds:
Agency: NPS;
Percentage of fee revenue retained on-site: 80-100%[A];
Percentage of revenue deposited into central or regional fund: 0-20%.
Agency: FWS;
Percentage of fee revenue retained on-site: 80-100[B];
Percentage of revenue deposited into central or regional fund: 0-20.
Agency: BLM;
Percentage of fee revenue retained on-site: 100;
Percentage of revenue deposited into central or regional fund: 0.
Agency: FS;
Percentage of fee revenue retained on-site: 95%[C];
Percentage of revenue deposited into central or regional fund: 5%.
Source: GAO.
[A] Park units that collect less than $500,000 per year are allowed to
retain 100% of their fee revenues on-site. Other NPS units retain 80%
of the fee revenue generated, and 20% is deposited into a central fund.
NPS retains 15% of the total National Parks Pass revenues to pay for
pass administration and overhead, with the majority of these funds used
to reimburse the National Park Foundation under their pass sales
contract. Of the remaining pass revenue, the unit that sold the pass
retains 70%, and 30% is deposited into a central fund.
[B] Units in four of the seven FWS regions--Regions 1 (including the
California-Nevada Office), 3, 6, and 7--retain 100% of fee revenue on-
site. Units in three of the seven FWS regions--Regions 2, 4, and 5--
retain 80% of fee revenue and deposit 20% into a regional fund.
[C] FS units will retain 80% of Golden Passport sales until revenue
distribution for the new interagency pass is determined.
[End of table]
Agencies Have Millions of Dollars in Unobligated Recreation Fee
Balances to Fund Future Projects; Some Projects Funded May Be Similar
to Those Formerly Funded with Other Appropriations:
The four agencies collecting recreation fees under REA have accumulated
unobligated balances of nearly $300 million dollars at the end of
fiscal year 2005. These balances have accrued for several reasons that
included their units' plans to undertake large projects requiring them
to have all required funds available before initiating the project, the
need to carry over funds for the next season's operations, and the lack
of adequate staffing to administer and implement projects in a more
timely fashion. Many agency sources believe that the recreation fees
are to supplement and not replace funds from other appropriations, such
as construction and operations. Despite this, the majority of officials
at the units we surveyed indicated they believed to a moderate, great,
or very great extent that recreation fee revenues are being used to
fund projects formerly funded with other appropriations at their unit.
In addition, the majority of agency officials told us they believe that
they may need to replace appropriations with recreation fee revenues in
the future. However, in commenting on a draft of this report, FS and
DOI noted that historically, fee revenues have not replaced
appropriations and there is no reason to expect this change in the
future.
Overall, Agencies Report Unobligated Balances Consisting of Millions of
Dollars at the End of Fiscal Year 2005:
According to the agencies' recent report to Congress,[Footnote 22] BLM,
FWS, FS, and NPS reported a total unobligated balance of $295.8 million
at the end of fiscal year 2005, or 61 percent of the $483.8 million
available for obligation (total fee revenues collected plus unobligated
balance and recoveries). In response to our survey, 75 percent of fee-
collecting units in NPS, BLM, and FWS reported unobligated balances at
the end of fiscal year 2005. Furthermore, 93 percent or 107 of 115 of
the FS's national forests reported unobligated balances.[Footnote 23]
FS headquarters reported unobligated balances at the forest level, and
the balances were not available for individual units (ranger districts)
because of changes in their accounting system. The fiscal year 2005
revenue, unobligated balance and recoveries, funds obligated, and
unobligated balances reported by the four agencies are provided in
table 5 below. A 5-year history of the agencies' recent revenue and
obligations are provided in appendix IV.
Table 5: Fiscal Year 2005 Recreation Fee Revenue, Obligations, and
Unobligated Balances:
Fee Demo/REA revenue;
BLM: $13.3;
NPS: $128.2;
FWS: $4.3;
FS: $50.2.
Unobligated balance brought forward and recoveries;
BLM: 7.7;
NPS: 240.7;
FWS: 3.7;
FS: 35.7.
Funds obligated;
BLM: 12.7;
NPS: 125.2;
FWS: 4.4;
FS: 45.6.
Unobligated balance;
BLM: $8.2;
NPS: $243.6;
FWS: $3.6;
FS: $40.3.
Source: U.S. Departments of the Interior and Agriculture. Federal Lands
Recreation Enhancement Act: First Triennial Report to Congress, Fiscal
Year 2006 (Washington, D.C.: May 2006), p.68.
[End of table]
Typically, units collecting recreation fees had an unobligated balance
of these funds in their accounts at the end of fiscal year 2005 because
not all funds collected during a fiscal year are spent during that
fiscal year. According to the NPS Facilities Management Specialist, the
majority of revenues, especially at large western park units, are
typically collected during the last 3 months of the fiscal year and,
therefore, are unlikely to be obligated that same year.
We also found that at the end of fiscal year 2005, unobligated balances
for many of the units or forests exceeded the revenues collected that
year. For example, on the basis of our survey responses, 114, or 42
percent of 270 BLM, NPS, and FWS units and 63 of 107 FS forests with
unobligated balances had balances that were greater than 100 percent of
the total fee revenue they reported for fiscal year 2005. Table 6 shows
for each of the four agencies the number of units/forests with
unobligated balances and those with unobligated balances that exceeded
the annual revenues collected by 100 percent or more.
Table 6: BLM, NPS, FWS Units, and FS Forests with Unobligated Balances
at End of Fiscal Year 2005 and Those with Unobligated Balances Greater
Than Revenues Collected:
Number of units with a fiscal year 2005 unobligated balance;
Overall: 270;
BLM: 56;
NPS: 138;
FWS: 76;
FS: 107.
Number of units in which the unobligated balance was greater than 100%
of the total fees collected in fiscal year 2005;
Overall: 114;
BLM: 26;
NPS: 64;
FWS: 24;
FS: 63.
Percentage;
Overall: 42%;
BLM: 46%;
NPS: 46%;
FWS: 32%;
FS: 58%.
Sources: GAO survey and agency data.
Note: FS data is based on numbers at forest level provided by FS
headquarters, rather than at the ranger district units included in the
GAO survey.
[End of table]
Also, on the basis of information provided by units responding to our
survey and information provided on national forests, the top 10 units
with the largest unobligated balances at the end of fiscal year 2005
were all in NPS. Table 7 lists the 10 units with the highest
unobligated balances compared with their fiscal year 2005 fee revenues.
Appendix V provides a listing of the top 10 units with the largest
unobligated balances in all four of the agencies.
Table 7: 10 Largest Unobligated Balances of Recreation Fee Revenue
Among All Units and Forests:
Unit: Jefferson National Expansion Memorial;
End of fiscal year 2005 unobligated balance: $3,019,449;
Fiscal year 2005: total fee revenue: $2,608,161;
Unobligated balance as a percentage of total revenue: 116%.
Unit: Haleakala National Park;
End of fiscal year 2005 unobligated balance: 4,172,814;
Fiscal year 2005: total fee revenue: 2,880,126;
Unobligated balance as a percentage of total revenue: 145.
Unit: Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Park;
End of fiscal year 2005 unobligated balance: 4,447,870;
Fiscal year 2005: total fee revenue: 3,163,540;
Unobligated balance as a percentage of total revenue: 141.
Unit: Golden Gate National Recreation Area/Muir Woods National
Monument;
End of fiscal year 2005 unobligated balance: 4,734,347;
Fiscal year 2005: total fee revenue: 3,288,230;
Unobligated balance as a percentage of total revenue: 144.
Unit: Lake Mead National Recreation Area;
End of fiscal year 2005 unobligated balance: 4,847,637;
Fiscal year 2005: total fee revenue: 4,101,875;
Unobligated balance as a percentage of total revenue: 118.
Unit: Mammoth Cave National Park;
End of fiscal year 2005 unobligated balance: 4,972,503;
Fiscal year 2005: total fee revenue: 3,495,605;
Unobligated balance as a percentage of total revenue: 142.
Unit: Hawaii Volcanoes National Park;
End of fiscal year 2005 unobligated balance: 5,262,769;
Fiscal year 2005: total fee revenue: 3,799,829;
Unobligated balance as a percentage of total revenue: 139.
Unit: Gateway National Recreation Area;
End of fiscal year 2005 unobligated balance: 6,641,400;
Fiscal year 2005: total fee revenue: 2,436,786;
Unobligated balance as a percentage of total revenue: 273.
Unit: Grand Canyon National Park;
End of fiscal year 2005 unobligated balance: 36,726,755;
Fiscal year 2005: total fee revenue: 20,082,719;
Unobligated balance as a percentage of total revenue: 183.
Unit: Yosemite National Park;
End of fiscal year 2005 unobligated balance: $36,730,533;
Fiscal year 2005: total fee revenue: $15,019,482;
Unobligated balance as a percentage of total revenue: 245%.
Sources: Unit responses to GAO survey and FS headquarters data.
Note: Revenues reflect gross amount before a percentage was contributed
to a central fund.
[En of Table]
REA provides a mechanism for units to reduce their unobligated
balances. As part of the new REA authority for the recreation fee
program, Congress included a provision that allows the Secretary of the
Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture to reduce the percentage
allocation of the recreation fees and site-specific pass revenues to a
unit from 80 percent to 60 percent for a fiscal year. This authority
can be exercised if the Secretary determines that the revenues
collected at the unit or area exceed the reasonable needs that may be
addressed during a fiscal year. As part of the interagency guidance
developed for the implementation of REA, the Secretaries have agreed to
delegate to the individual agencies the authority to develop and
implement policy for this provision, including identifying the metrics
and benchmarks required to determine when a unit's revenue retention
may be reduced and devising a method for distributing the remaining
funds. To date, none of the agencies have completed the process of
establishing final criteria for implementing this provision, although
it is reportedly under discussion in NPS.
Fee-Collecting Units Cite Several Reasons for Unobligated Balances:
Those recreation fee collecting units reporting an unobligated balance
cited a variety of reasons for why all available funds were not
obligated. To a moderate, great, or very great extent, units cited the
following as the most common reasons for their unobligated balances:
(1) saving funds to ensure they had sufficient funds to pay for large
projects, (2) saving funds needed for the following season's
operations, (3) lack of personnel to administer and implement projects
on a more timely basis, and (4) completing environmental compliance or
analysis. Table 8 provides a complete list of reasons cited for the
unobligated balances overall, and by each agency, and the percentage of
the units citing the reason to moderate, great, or very great extent.
Table 8: Agency Reasons for Their Unobligated Balance of Recreation Fee
Revenues:
Reason: Saving funds for large project;
Total: 61.7%;
BLM: 76.8%;
FS[A]: 55.1%;
NPS: 61.6%;
FWS: 75.0%.
Reason: Funds are needed for next season's operations;
Total: 52.4;
BLM: 69.6;
FS[A]: 58.0;
NPS: 23.2;
FWS: 72.4.
Reason: Lack of personnel to implement project;
Total: 31.1;
BLM: 30.4;
FS[A]: 30.8;
NPS: 37.7;
FWS: 21.1.
Reason: Lack of personnel to manage and oversee project;
Total: 28.0;
BLM: 28.6;
FS[A]: 26.1;
NPS: 37.7;
FWS: 17.1.
Reason: Environmental compliance or analysis to be completed;
Total: 26.6;
BLM: 28.6;
FS[A]: 26.8;
NPS: 37.7;
FWS: 3.9.
Reason: Design and engineering work to be completed;
Total: 25.8;
BLM: 30.4;
FS[A]: 21.4;
NPS: 42.8;
FWS: 7.9.
Reason: Used appropriated dollars before fee revenues;
Total: 22.2;
BLM: 39.3;
FS[A]: 24.3;
NPS: 11.6;
FWS: 21.1.
Reason: Contracting delays;
Total: 13.0;
BLM: 12.5;
FS[A]: 9.1;
NPS: 26.1;
FWS: 3.9.
Reason: Project approval process at higher levels;
Total: 11.9;
BLM: 7.1;
FS[A]: 5.8;
NPS: 32.6;
FWS: .0.
Reason: Change in unit's priorities;
Total: 10.8;
BLM: 8.9;
FS[A]: 8.7;
NPS: 18.1;
FWS: 6.6.
Reason: Other;
Total: 10.3;
BLM: 8.9;
FS[A]: 14.1;
NPS: 5.1;
FWS: 6.6.
Reason: Weather caused delays;
Total: 9.0;
BLM: 5.4;
FS[A]: 7.6;
NPS: 13.0;
FWS: 9.2.
Reason: Actual expenditures less than original estimate;
Total: 8.1;
BLM: 5.4;
FS[A]: 7.6;
NPS: 11.6;
FWS: 5.3.
Reason: Unanticipated growth of fee revenues;
Total: 6.0;
BLM: 5.4;
FS[A]: 9.1;
NPS: 2.9;
FWS: 1.3.
Reason: Lack of projects meeting agency criteria;
Total: 2.7;
BLM: 1.8;
FS[A]: .7;
NPS: 7.2;
FWS: 2.6.
Reason: Legal actions need to be resolved;
Total: 1.8%;
BLM: 0.0%;
FS[A]: 1.8%;
NPS: 2.9%;
FWS: 1.3%.
Source: Unit responses to GAO survey.
Note: Percentage citing reasons to a moderate, great, or very great
extent.
[A] Forest Service numbers include all ranger district units responding
to the question, not just those with an unobligated balance of funds.
[End of table]
The following examples highlight some of the reasons for unobligated
balances at specific units.
* Officials at Yosemite National Park, the unit with the highest
unobligated balance of about $36.7 million or 245 percent of its annual
revenue, cited the following as the primary reasons for its unobligated
balance: legal actions need to be resolved that have delayed spending
on certain projects and the lack of personnel to manage, oversee, and
implement the projects planned for these funds. Park officials said
that unobligated funds accumulated in the early years of the Fee Demo
program when obligations were lower relative to collections.
Obligations have now increased as major projects have passed the
planning and design phase. Another factor in the amount of obligations
for projects funded with recreation fees was that the same Yosemite
staff concurrently managed the 1997 flood recovery work funded by an
appropriation. The flood recovery work occupied the same Project
Managers that manage recreation fee funded projects thereby reducing
the amount of work and obligations under that program. A major part of
the fee revenues are planned for utility projects that are under way,
including replacing sewers and reconstructing other utilities, the
staff said.
* Officials at Grand Canyon National Park, with an unobligated balance
also of about $36.7 million, or 184 percent of its annual revenue,
stated that the primary reasons for its unobligated balance that has
accumulated over at least 3 years were the need to save funds for large
projects and the lead time needed to complete design and engineering
work that had delayed the actual expenditure of most funds allocated
for a particular project. Park staff reported plans to use the
unobligated balance primarily for an alternative transportation system
for park visitors, involving parking area and road construction, and
upgrading the current shuttle bus system. These improvements are
expected to cost approximately $47 million and take 9 years to complete
in phases using unobligated funds already accumulated, as well as a
portion from future fee revenues.
* Officials at BLM's Coos Bay District Office in North Bend, Oregon,
cited saving funds for large projects, needing funds for the next
season's operations, and using other appropriated dollars before fee
revenues as the primary reasons for its unobligated balance. Coos Bay's
unobligated balance was about $320,000 at the end of fiscal year 2005
or about 202 percent of the fee revenues.
* Officials at Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge in Marion,
Illinois, reported an unobligated balance of about $645,000 at the end
of fiscal year 2005, which was 184 percent of its fee revenue. Refuge
officials cited needing to save funds for a large project, completing
design and engineering work, and needing funds for the next season's
operations as the primary reasons for the unobligated balance.
* Shasta-Trinity National Forest in northern California had an
unobligated balance of about $2.8 million in fiscal year 2005, which
was 246 percent of its fee revenue and the largest reported for a
national forest. Forest staff cited the need to save these funds to
cover programs and services during the next year that were previously
funded with the fee revenue from the marina area. Under REA, the unit
is no longer authorized to keep approximately $900,000 in annual marina
revenues that the unit collected under the Fee Demo program from marina
operations.[Footnote 24] Staff indicated the unobligated balance will
be used to continue a number of marina area programs including a fish
rearing program, boat patrols, floating toilets, illegal dump cleanups,
boating safety program, and interpretive programs that began under Fee
Demo.
Agencies Use Fee Revenues to Fund All or Part of Needs Formerly Funded
with General Appropriations and View Fee Revenues as an Important
Supplement to General Appropriations:
During our site visits and in response to our survey, recreation fee-
collecting units also provided many examples in which recreation fee
revenues were used in conjunction with other general appropriated
funds, donations, or other revenues to complete projects within their
units. According to responses from units in the four agencies
responding to our survey, 58 percent of the units indicated that they
believed to a moderate, great, or very great extent that recreation fee
revenues are being used to fund projects formerly funded with other
general appropriations at their unit, such as the construction account.
The percentage of units within each agency that expressed this opinion
varied from a high of 65 percent in FS to a low of 46 percent in FWS.
In addition, about 64 percent of the units believed to a moderate,
great, or very great extent that, over the next 5 years, fee revenues
will be used to fund projects that would have been funded with other
general appropriated dollars. The portion of respondents in each agency
believing this was 74 percent in BLM, 67 percent in FS, 57 percent in
FWS, and 58 percent in NPS. In contrast to the opinions of unit level
officials, FS and DOI comments on a draft of this report noted that fee
revenues have not historically replaced appropriations and denied there
is any reason to expect this to change in the future.
We identified a number of NPS projects similar to those funded by other
general appropriations, such as items typically funded by the
construction appropriations account, which are being or have been
funded wholly or in part by recreation fee revenues. For example, the
fiscal year 2006 construction appropriation for NPS includes $11.8
million for a conversion to narrowband radios to ensure rapid response
to emergency and life-threatening situations. NPS stated in its fiscal
year 2007 budget justification that it was proposing to reduce funding
for the narrowband radio system program in order to fulfill higher
priority needs in other areas. NPS added that to minimize the delay in
achieving full conversion to narrowband radio equipment, those systems
that are to be converted after fiscal year 2005 will be funded through
construction appropriations and augmented, as necessary, by other NPS
fund sources, such as recreation fee revenues.
In response to our survey or during our site visits, many NPS units
reported completed, planned, or ongoing expenditures from recreation
fee funds for the narrowband radio upgrade, including: Yosemite
National Park, $3.4 million; Grand Canyon National Park, $3.0 million;
Lake Mead National Recreation Area, $1.0 million; Gateway National
Recreation Area, $1.7 million; Sequoia-Kings Canyon National Park, $0.9
million; Acadia National Park, $0.7 million; Olympic National Park,
$0.7 million; Channel Islands National Park, $0.7 million; Great Smokey
Mountains National Park, $0.6 million; and Glacier National Park, $0.6
million. NPS officials said the decision to fund the radio upgrade with
fee revenues was made because of concern that construction
appropriations would not be enough to fund the new system.
Many NPS units listed other projects that have been funded wholly or in
part by recreation fee revenues similar to those previously funded by
general appropriations, such as construction appropriations account.
See table 9 for a list of examples.
Table 9: NPS Unit Recreation Fee Projects Similar to Those Previously
Funded by General Appropriations, Such as the Construction Account:
Unit: Yosemite National Park;
Project: Replacement of the Valley/El Portal force main and gravity
sewers;
Category of expenditure: Deferred maintenance and capital improvement;
Recreation fees used: $10.0 million.
Unit: Yosemite National Park;
Project: Unit: Repair valley sewer collection system (Phase I);
Category of expenditure: Unit: Deferred maintenance;
Recreation fees used: Unit: 5.7 million.
Unit: Yosemite National Park;
Project: Relocate and improve utility lines for Curry Village;
Category of expenditure: Deferred maintenance;
Recreation fees used: 19.6 million.
Unit: Grand Canyon National Park;
Project: Construct a South Rim Emergency Services Building;
Category of expenditure: Capital improvement;
Recreation fees used: 3.6 million.
Unit: Grand Canyon National Park;
Project: Restore historic district buildings;
Category of expenditure: Deferred maintenance;
Recreation fees used: 16.6 million.
Unit: Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks;
Project: Rehabilitate General's Highway/Grant Tree parking lot;
Category of expenditure: Deferred maintenance;
Recreation fees used: 0.5 million.
Unit: Yellowstone National Park;
Project: Rehabilitate and upgrade Canyon Visitor Center;
Category of expenditure: Capital improvement;
Recreation fees used: 1.5 million.
Unit: Yellowstone National Park;
Project: Resurface 5 miles of roads for visitors' safety;
Category of expenditure: Deferred maintenance;
Recreation fees used: 2.1 million.
Unit: Shenandoah National Park;
Project: Complete headquarters maintenance building;
Category of expenditure: Capital improvement;
Recreation fees used: $1.2 million.
Source: Unit responses to GAO survey.
[End of table]
In addition, many of the unit staff we visited or who commented on our
survey stated that recreation fee revenues are essential to providing
services at their recreation areas that would not otherwise be funded.
The following is a sampling of such comments from units in each agency:
BLM:
* "The recreation fee program has been a great asset to the overall
recreation program. Without these dollars coming back into the system
to help augment other appropriation dollars, BLM could not continue
with current standards for existing facilities, developing new
facilities, providing proper monitoring of special recreation permits,
or to provide the public with service they need and deserve."
* "Unfortunately, our recreation fee funds collected have become the
primary source of revenue for our (unit). This was not the original
intent of the fee demo program but with shrinking budgets it has become
our main funding source."
FS:
* "In this time of declining budgets and increasing use of national
forests as the Baby Boomer generation retires, a loss of REA funds
would be devastating to our ability to provide recreation
opportunities."
* "Our unit has become very much dependent on REA funds to provide
basic care and maintenance activities of our developed facilities.
These include the high costs of solid waste disposal; toilet pumping
and disposal; and maintaining a seasonal workforce to meet standards
and guidelines for recreation management."
NPS:
* "Funding for projects via the recreation fee program has enabled the
park to make modest improvements in visitor facilities and services.
Without the recreation fee program, very little of work that has been
done would have been done."
* "Recreational fee revenues allow us to accomplish projects which
wouldn't have been accomplished with other (general) appropriated
funds. While some of the more urgent projects might have been
accomplished with other (general) appropriations, fee dollars enable us
to accomplish much more."
FWS:
* "Most public use activities and projects would not be conducted if we
did not have funds from a recreation fee program."
* "The recreation fee program has provided additional revenue to
support visitor needs and enhance the visitor experience. Without these
funds, we could not provide visitors with a high quality of visitor
service."
Conclusions:
REA was essentially designed to mitigate past problems with the
recreation fee demonstration program, such as having multiple passes
that caused visitor confusion, provide a more sustainable long-term
authority to support effective planning and management of fee programs,
encourage increased public participation, protect recreational
resources, and provide the public with quality visitor services. In
addition, REA authorized a new multiagency recreation pass to help
relieve visitor confusion associated with having to use multiple passes
to access and enjoy federal recreation sites. REA was enacted almost 2
years ago, and our early assessment of the participating agencies'
implementation of the act indicates that they are making progress.
Still, there are areas in need of management attention. Two key working
groups established to facilitate REA implementation have yet to take
important steps to carry out REA, such as completing necessary tasks to
allow RRAC requirements to be fully implemented, which will enhance
public participation requirements. Also, our analysis indicates that
some of the DOI agency and FS units are struggling with how to
interpret certain aspects of the agencies' interim guidance for
implementing the act, which has caused confusion regarding the types
and amount of fees to collect. Furthermore, unit officials are in need
of guidance on facilitating public participation and how to ensure
projects funded with REA fees are connected to the visitor experience.
Unless actions are taken to issue final regulations and implementation
guidance for the fee program, including detailed policy and procedure
guidance, many unit officials will continue to struggle with how to
effectively and consistently implement the recreation fee program.
Measures the agencies have in place to control and account for
collected fee revenues is another area that needs attention. While the
results of our analysis cannot be projected to all fee-collecting
sites, we noted weaknesses in the controls over fee collections at some
BLM, FWS, and FS sites that warrant attention because they not only
affect the accounting for the collected revenues, but they may also
affect the safety of the individuals involved in the collection
efforts. Although millions of dollars are collected annually through
REA, some agencies have not provided adequate guidance or conducted
routine audits needed by the units to ensure that they develop and
maintain proper controls over their fee revenues and provide reasonable
physical protection for their staff.
Despite the fact that Congress intended all five federal land
management agencies to implement REA, Reclamation has not determined
whether it will implement the act. Unlike the other participating
agencies, Reclamation operates most of its recreation sites through
partnerships that collect fees to support the costs of administering
the recreation programs they provide. Reclamation has determined that
its recreation areas that are managed by nonfederal partners will not
be participating in REA, and thus will not accept the new multiagency
pass. Further, the federal managing partners will be allowed to decide
on their own how REA impacts the recreation areas located on
Reclamation lands that they manage. Reclamation has not yet decided
what actions to take with regard to those units managed by Reclamation
that it identified as meeting REA criterion for charging recreation
fees.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To allow for public input on new fees or modifications to existing
fees, we recommend that the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture
expedite completing the steps needed for the RRACs and existing
advisory councils to begin implementing REA.
In order to improve agencies' implementation of the Federal Lands
Recreation Enhancement Act and improve the accountability and controls
for recreation fee collection, we recommend that the Secretary of the
Interior direct the:
* Director, National Park Service; Director, Bureau of Land Management;
and Director, Fish and Wildlife Service to promptly issue final
regulations and implementation guidance on the fee program, including
detailed policy and procedure guidance; and:
* Director, Bureau of Land Management and Director, Fish and Wildlife
Services to ascertain the extent to which their units do not have
effective processes and procedures for accounting for and controlling
collected fees and develop guidance for implementing appropriate and
effective internal controls over cash management. This guidance for
implementing such controls should identify and encourage the use of
best practices, such as routine audits.
We recommend that the Secretary of the Interior direct the Commissioner
of the Bureau of Reclamation to expedite its decision on implementation
of REA.
In order to improve the Forest Service's implementation of the Federal
Lands Recreation Enhancement Act and improve the accountability and
controls for collected recreation fees, we recommend that the Secretary
of Agriculture direct the Chief of the Forest Service to take the
following two actions:
* promptly issue final regulations and implementing guidance on the fee
program, including detailed policy and procedure guidance; and:
* ascertain the extent to which its units do not have effective
processes and procedures for accounting for and controlling collected
fees and develop guidance for implementing appropriate and effective
internal controls over cash management. This guidance for implementing
such controls should identify and encourage the use of best practices,
such as routine audits.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided the Departments of the Interior and Agriculture with a
draft of this report for review and comment. Their written comments are
provided in appendixes VI and VII, respectively. DOI generally agreed
with our findings and recommendations. It said that our recommendations
further REA implementation efforts and it was dedicated to addressing
them promptly. Specifically, with regard to issuing final regulations
and implementation guidance for the new interagency pass, the
department said that, while guidelines had not been formally completed,
most of the policy decisions composing the guidelines have been taken
and discussed in congressional testimony. Although this may be the
case, the results of our survey and site visits indicated that those
who are to implement REA in each of DOI's agencies are in need of
clarifying guidance, particularly with regard to adding new fee sites
or modify existing fees to fully implement the act, which will also
help to ensure consistency in applying the requirements of REA.
We also recommended that DOI direct that BLM and FWS ascertain the
extent to which their units have effective processes and procedures for
accounting for and controlling collected fees and develop effective
guidance and internal controls over cash management, such as routine
audits. Although this recommendation was not directed at the Park
Service, the department's comments state that the Park Service has the
intention to recommitting to a National Audit Program. It said that
such a program has been delayed due to other program priorities and
lack of staff resources. However, it said that the Park Service has a
working group that is being reconvened to restart the process of
developing a National Audit Program and that, once additional resources
are in place, it will be possible to implement a more standardized
program. On the basis of our visits to eight sites, we observed
practices for controlling and accounting for fee revenues that appeared
to be working well at these locations in the Park Service. However, we
are encouraged by the additional actions that the Park Service plans to
take to improve their processes in this area and any lessons learned
from this effort may also benefit BLM and FWS.
With regard to our recommendation that the department direct
Reclamation to expedite its decision on implementing REA, the
department provided comments from the bureau that said that the bureau
had only identified seven sites that currently meet the statutory
criteria for charging standard amenity fees under REA. Given this fact
and the likely costs of implementing REA for the agency, it said that
there is a strong possibility that Reclamation would require all
recreation sites meeting the criteria to participate in REA. However,
as recognized in our report, Reclamation should decide this issue soon
so that its units can begin taking the needed steps to implement REA.
The Department of Agriculture did not specifically state its agreement
or disagreement with our recommendations. However, it outlined actions
it has planned or under way to address them. Specifically, it
acknowledged the Forest Service's need to revise several policies that
relate to REA and collections in general. It said that the Forest
Service had already initiated policy revisions for its manuals and
handbooks, which it plans to produce by September 2007. It also said
that the Forest Service is in the process of revising its policies on
billings and cash collections, which it will expedite for publication
as soon as practicable.
Both DOI and the Department of Agriculture provided other comments for
updating information in the report or for providing technical
clarifications that we have incorporated, as appropriate.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents
of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 2 days
from the report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report
to the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Agriculture, 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 nazzaror@gao.gov. Contact points for our
Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on
the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are
listed in appendix VIII.
Signed by:
Robin M. Nazzaro:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Based on the congressional request letter of May 2005 and subsequent
discussions with your staffs, we agreed to determine (1) what agencies
have done to coordinate the implementation of the Federal Lands
Recreation Enhancement Act (REA), including preparing for the new
interagency federal lands pass; (2) what agencies have done to
implement the REA fee and amenity requirements and sufficiency of
guidance for REA implementation; (3) the extent to which the agencies
have control and accounting procedures for collected recreation fee
revenues; (4) how participating agencies prioritize and approve
activities and projects funded with fee revenues; and (5) the extent to
which units have unobligated fund balances and if recreational fees are
being used to fund projects formerly funded with other appropriations.
In addition, we are providing information on how recreation fees vary
by type, amount, and level of amenities offered at units with similar
recreational opportunities across and within agencies participating in
REA.
To address the objectives, we obtained and reviewed applicable laws;
regulations; agencywide policies and procedures; regional policies and
procedures; and the fees collected at selected units under the Fee
Demonstration Program and REA in order to determine what changes have
resulted since the implementation of REA. We developed and administered
a nationwide survey to agency officials responsible for fee programs
under REA. We supplemented the survey information with records reviews,
analyses of documents, and testimonial evidence gathered during unit
visits and in meetings with state, regional, and headquarters
officials.
To obtain information on all of our objectives related to the
implementation of REA, the collection and expenditure of recreation fee
revenues, we designed and administered a national survey of units
collecting these fees. We worked to develop the survey instrument with
social science survey specialists to administer to staff at National
Park Service (NPS) units, Forest Service (FS) ranger districts, Bureau
of Land Management (BLM) field offices, and Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS) refuges. Because this was not a sample survey, there are no
sampling errors. However, the practical difficulties of conducting any
survey may introduce errors, commonly referred to as nonsampling
errors. For example, differences in how a particular question is
interpreted, in the sources of information that are available to
respondents, or how the data are entered into a database can introduce
unwanted variability into the survey results. We took steps in the
development of the surveys, the data collection, and data analysis to
minimize these nonsampling errors. For example, prior to administering
the survey, we pretested the content and format of the surveys with
several site officials at each agency to determine whether (1) the
survey questions were clear, (2) the terms used were precise, (3)
respondents were able to provide the information we were seeking, and
(4) the questions were unbiased. In addition, we provided a draft of
the survey to the national fee program coordinators at the four
agencies and met with them to obtain comments and corrections to the
wording and structure of the questions in the survey. We made changes
to the content and format of the final questions based on pretest
results. We verified some financial information from a random sample of
25 non-FS units by asking these respondents to check their answers
originally provided to four questions and verify the reported dollar
amounts or provide corrections. Our analysis showed that a significant
number of units reported they had made errors in providing the original
survey data; however, total dollars reported after correction did not
differ significantly from the dollars reported originally. The revised
sum of the total fees collected differed from the original by less than
plus or minus 2 percent and for unobligated balances, less than plus or
minus 4 percent. We also checked a sample of cases to ensure the
accuracy of data entry and made corrections as needed. We performed
computer analyses to identify inconsistencies in responses and other
indications of error. We contacted survey respondents, as needed, to
correct errors and verify responses. In addition, a second independent
analyst verified that the computer programs used to analyze the data
were written correctly. It is our opinion that the data we present is
valid and reliable for the purposes of this report.
To identify the current fee-collecting units to complete the survey, we
asked the national fee program coordinators at NPS, FS, BLM, and FWS to
provide a full list of these units including phone numbers and e-mail
addresses. The survey was designed to be distributed as a locked MS
Word document attached to a transmittal e-mail, allowing the document
to be saved on unit computers, altered with answers, and returned via
attachment to e-mail messages. Respondents were instructed to complete
one survey per unit to reflect all recreation fee activities managed as
a single unit. Based on phone calls from respondents and returned
surveys, we determined some surveys included responses for more than
one unit on the list provided by the agency. In other cases, surveys
were returned for units that were not on the list. In either case, we
contacted the unit to determine the status of the unit. If we found
that the management of a fee program extended across the boundaries of
more than one unit, and its fee collection and spending were combined,
with funds commingled and project priorities jointly determined, then
we accepted a single survey for more than one unit. Because some units
were combined, and because others indicated that they were not
collecting fees, contrary to the lists provided by agency headquarters,
the number of units in the universe for this survey declined. Table 10
provides the estimated response rates by agency and overall.
Table 10: Estimated Response Rates by Agency and Overall:
Agency: BLM;
Number of units identified: 128;
Number of units returning surveys: 104;
Number of fee collecting units returning surveys: 88;
Response rates: 81.3%.
Agency: FS;
Number of units identified: 467;
Number of units returning surveys: 408;
Number of fee collecting units returning surveys: 393;
Response rates: 87.4.
Agency: NPS;
Number of units identified: 197;
Number of units returning surveys: 192;
Number of fee collecting units returning surveys: 174;
Response rates: 97.5.
Agency: FWS;
Number of units identified: 112;
Number of units returning surveys: 103;
Number of fee collecting units returning surveys: 97;
Response rates: 92.0.
Agency: Total;
Number of units identified: 904;
Number of units returning surveys: 807;
Number of fee collecting units returning surveys: 752;
Response rates: 89.3%.
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
The number of units identified, 904, reflects the total number of units
remaining in the universe after adjustments, when units reported that
they had been administratively merged with another unit or, in a few
cases, when they were not included on the list provided by the
agencies. The units identified by the agencies included units that
indicated that they did not collect fees under REA. These respondents
were not intended to have been included in the universe and, therefore,
were dropped from the analysis of responses. Once the surveys were
received, logged in, and printed, they were checked for completeness
and logic, and the responses were then coded into a database for
summarization and analysis.
To assess the accounting and control procedures in place at various fee-
collecting units, we conducted unit visits to a sample of unit
locations where we collected documents, observed accounting and control
practices, and interviewed staff. Information that we gathered during
our site visits and during our interviews represents only the
conditions present in the units at the time of our review. We cannot
comment on any changes that may have occurred after our fieldwork was
completed. Furthermore, our fieldwork focused on in-depth analysis of
only a few selected units. Based on our interviews, we cannot
generalize our findings beyond the units and officials we contacted.
As of 2005, four of the five agencies were actually collecting
recreation fees under REA--the same four that had previously been
authorized to collect fees under the Fee Demo program. The amounts of
recreation fee collections varied substantially among the four
agencies. For example, NPS's top fee-collecting unit, Grand Canyon
National Park, collected $15,773,239 in Fee Demo revenue in fiscal year
2003, while FWS's top fee-collecting unit, Chincoteague National
Wildlife Refuge, collected $658,497 in the same fiscal year, and there
were only seven units within the entire FWS agency that collected over
$100,000 in recreation fee revenue. Therefore, in order to ensure that
we visited fee units of varying sizes within each of the four agencies,
we created different small, medium, and large fee categories for each
agency. These categories were identified by sorting the fee-collecting
units within each agency from highest to lowest in fee revenue for
fiscal year 2003.[Footnote 25] After sorting the data by fee revenue,
we analyzed the data to see where natural breaks for small, medium, and
large units fell, in order to determine the categories for each agency.
The resulting categories are shown in table 11.
Table 11: Description of Small, Medium, and Large Units by Agency:
Agency: NPS;
Small unit: under $250,000;
Medium unit: $250,000-$1 million;
Large unit: over $1 million.
Agency: FS;
Small unit: under $100,000;
Medium unit: $100,000-$500,000;
Large unit: over $500,000.
Agency: BLM;
Small unit: under $50,000;
Medium unit: $50,000-$100,000;
Large unit: over $100,000.
Agency: FWS;
Small unit: under $20,000;
Medium unit: $20,000-$50,000;
Large unit: over $50,000.
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
Our original plan was to visit at least three large units, two medium
units, and one small unit within each agency. In addition, to address
congressional concerns about large unobligated carryover balances, we
planned to visit at least two more units with very large carryover
balances. We also recognized the importance of visiting units in
several different geographic areas to document possible differences in
the implementation of the fee programs within different states or
regions. We completed this original methodological plan with one
exception; we only visited two large FWS units. However, given the
relatively small size of even the largest of FWS' fee-collecting units,
we believe that our review had already sufficiently covered their
program. Table 12 identifies the recreation fee units we visited.
Table 12: Recreation Fee Units GAO Visited:
Agency and unit: BLM: Folsom Field Office;
State: California.
Agency and unit: BLM: Grand Junction Field Office;
State: Colorado.
Agency and unit: BLM: Gunnison Field Office;
State: Colorado.
Agency and unit: BLM: Kremmling Field Office (includes Upper Colorado
River);
State: Colorado.
Agency and unit: BLM: Price Field Office (includes Desolation Canyon);
State: Utah.
Agency and unit: BLM: Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area;
State: Nevada.
Agency and unit: Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge;
State: Virginia.
Agency and unit: FWS: Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge;
State: Maryland.
Agency and unit: FWS: Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge;
State: Virginia (also partially in Maryland).
Agency and unit: FWS: Klamath Basin National Wildlife Refuge Complex;
State: California (also partially in Oregon.
Agency and unit: FWS: Rocky Mountain Arsenal National Wildlife Refuge;
State: Colorado.
Agency and unit: NPS: Antietam National Battlefield;
State: Maryland.
Agency and unit: NPS: Colonial National Historic Park;
State: Virginia.
Agency and unit: NPS: Grand Canyon National Park[A] ;
State: Arizona.
Agency and unit: NPS: Lake Mead National Recreation Area;
State: Nevada.
Agency and unit: NPS: Rocky Mountain National Park;
State: Colorado.
Agency and unit: NPS: Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks;
State: California.
Agency and unit: NPS: Whiskeytown National Recreation Area;
State: California.
Agency and unit: NPS: Yosemite National Park[A];
State: California.
Agency and unit: FS: Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests, Sulphur
Ranger District (includes Arapaho National Recreation Area);
State: Colorado.
Agency and unit: FS: Sequoia National Forest, Hume Lake Ranger
District;
State: California.
Agency and unit: FS: Shasta-Trinity National Forest, Shasta Lake, and
Mount Shasta Ranger Districts (includes Shasta-Trinity National
Recreation Area);
State: California.
Agency and unit: FS: Tonto National Forest, Mesa Ranger District
(includes Salt and Verde Rivers National Recreation Complex);
State: Arizona.
Agency and unit: FS: Uinta National Forest, Pleasant Grove Ranger
District (includes American Fork Canyon);
State: Utah.
Agency and unit: FS: George Washington and Jefferson National Forests,
Glenwood-Pedlar Ranger District;
State: Virginia.
Agency and unit: FS: White River National Forest, Dillon Ranger
District (includes Green Mountain Reservoir and Cataract Lake);
State: Colorado.
Source: GAO.
[A] Units visited due to identified large carryover balances.
[End of table]
Finally, we spoke with headquarters officials at all five agencies to
obtain their views on the implementation of REA, their plans for future
monitoring and assessment activities, the status of the new interagency
federal lands pass, and their opinions on the future impact of REA fees
on their agency's appropriations.
We conducted our work between June 2005 and August 2006 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Fees for Recreational Uses Vary by Agency and for
Amenities Across and within Agencies Participating in REA:
This appendix provides information on how the fees charged and the
amenities provided for use of recreational units across the country
vary by the activity offered, the provisions of the Federal Lands
Recreation Enhancement Act (REA) and the agency offering them. For
example, under REA, units of the National Park Service (NPS) and the
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) are authorized to charge entrance fees
for accessing the lands they manage. REA does not specify minimum
amenity requirements for entrance fees. The Bureau of Land Management
(BLM) and Forest Service (FS) units, on the other hand, are authorized
to charge standard amenity fees, not entrance fees. Unlike entrance
fees, REA specifies the minimum amenities required at recreation sites
to charge this fee.
NPS and FWS Entrance Fees:
Of the 271 NPS and FWS units responding to our survey, 168, or 62
percent had entrance fees. Of the 168 units with entrance fees, 137, or
82 percent were NPS, and 31, or 18 percent, were FWS units. In NPS, the
entrance fees ranged from a low of $1 per person to a high of $300 per
bus or group, while FWS units reported an average fee ranging from a
low of $1 per person to a high of $50 per bus. The entrance fees are
typically charged per visit, on per vehicle, per person, per group, or
commercial vehicle bases, as well as on an annual basis. Table 13 shows
the number of units that reported charging an entrance fee and the
minimum and maximum fees charged for the various entrance
categories.[Footnote 26]
Table 13: Number of Units Reporting Entrance Fees of Various
Categories, with the Overall Minimum and Maximum Fee Amounts:
NPS: Category: Private vehicle;
NPS: Number of units that charge this fee: 71;
NPS: Minimum fee: $1;
NPS: Maximum fee: $25;
FWS: Number of units that charge this fee: 26;
FWS: Minimum fee: $2;
FWS: Maximum fee: $12.
NPS: Category: Per person;
NPS: Number of units that charge this fee: 133;
NPS: Minimum fee: 0;
NPS: Maximum fee: 15;
FWS: Number of units that charge this fee: 15;
FWS: Minimum fee: 1;
FWS: Maximum fee: 25.
NPS: Category: Motorcycle;
NPS: Number of units that charge this fee: 60;
NPS: Minimum fee: 3;
NPS: Maximum fee: 20;
FWS: Number of units that charge this fee: 22;
FWS: Minimum fee: 2;
FWS: Maximum fee: 12.
NPS: Category: Bicycle;
NPS: Number of units that charge this fee: 61;
NPS: Minimum fee: 3;
NPS: Maximum fee: 20;
FWS: Number of units that charge this fee: 16;
FWS: Minimum fee: 1;
FWS: Maximum fee: 12.
NPS: Category: Commercial bus;
NPS: Number of units that charge this fee: 74;
NPS: Minimum fee: 3;
NPS: Maximum fee: 300;
FWS: Number of units that charge this fee: 19;
FWS: Minimum fee: 3;
FWS: Maximum fee: 50.
NPS: Category: Group rate;
NPS: Number of units that charge this fee: 14;
NPS: Minimum fee: 4;
NPS: Maximum fee: 300;
FWS: Number of units that charge this fee: 4;
FWS: Minimum fee: 15;
FWS: Maximum fee: 30.
NPS: Category: Unit-specific annual entrance pass;
NPS: Number of units that charge this fee: 103;
NPS: Minimum fee: $10;
NPS: Maximum fee: $45;
FWS: Number of units that charge this fee: 28;
FWS: Minimum fee: $10;
FWS: Maximum fee: $30.
Source: GAO survey results.
[End of table]
BLM and FS Standard Amenity Fees:
Standard amenity fees were authorized by REA to be charged for federal
recreational lands and waters under the jurisdiction of BLM,
Reclamation, or FS. As mentioned earlier in this report, Reclamation
has not implemented REA and, therefore, is not included in these
results. The law sets criteria for the establishment of standard
amenity fees: the area where charged must have significant outdoor
recreation, a substantial federal investment, allow efficient
collection of fees, and must have the following amenities: designated
developed parking, a permanent toilet facility, a permanent trash
receptacle, interpretive sign, exhibit or kiosk, picnic tables, and
security services. Of the 472 survey responses from BLM and FS units,
38 of 85 (45 percent) BLM units and 157 of 387 (41 percent) of FS units
reported having standard amenity fees. BLM's units responding to the
survey had standard amenity fees ranging from a low of $1 to a high of
$10 for each person and from $2 to $10 per vehicle. FS's units reported
standard amenity fees ranging from a low of $0.50 per person to a high
of $7.50 per person and per vehicle standard amenity fees that ranged
from $1 to $50.[Footnote 27] Table 14 outlines the number and types of
standard amenity fees charged and the range of fees of each category
reported.
Table 14: Standard Amenity Fees Reported by BLM and FS under REA
Authority:
BLM: Category: Per person;
BLM: Number that charge fee: 9;
BLM: Minimum fee: $1;
BLM: Maximum fee: $10;
FS: Number that charge fee: 22;
FS: Minimum fee: $0.50;
FS: Maximum fee: $7.50.
BLM: Category: Per vehicle;
BLM: Number that charge fee: 26;
BLM: Minimum fee: $2;
BLM: Maximum fee: $10;
FS: Number that charge fee: 126;
FS: Minimum fee: $1;
FS: Maximum fee: $50.
Source: GAO survey results.
[End of table]
Many Units Offer More Amenities Than What Is Required Under REA:
Our survey identified 195 BLM and FS units that reported charging a
standard amenity fee for recreation use in their units. In addition to
the six amenities required under REA to charge a standard amenity fee,
many of the units reported providing various other amenities for the
visiting public. Table 15 shows the various amenities provided at the
195 BLM and FS units, for either the minimum or maximum (if any)
standard amenity fee, including the amenities required under REA for
the unit to charge a standard amenity fee.
Table 15: Amenities Available at BLM and FS Units Charging Standard
Amenity Fees:
Features and amenities: Permanent toilet facility[A];
Number of BLM units: 37;
Number of FS units: 152;
Total: 189.
Features and amenities: Picnic shelter;
Number of BLM units: 21;
Number of FS units: 60;
Total: 81.
Features and amenities: Picnic tables[A];
Number of BLM units: 37;
Number of FS units: 143;
Total: 180.
Features and amenities: Drinking water;
Number of BLM units: 29;
Number of FS units: 103;
Total: 132.
Features and amenities: Fire ring or grill;
Number of BLM units: 32;
Number of FS units: 119;
Total: 151.
Features and amenities: Permanent trash receptacle[A];
Number of BLM units: 36;
Number of FS units: 139;
Total: 175.
Features and amenities: Reasonable visitor protection (security)[A];
Number of BLM units: 35;
Number of FS units: 146;
Total: 181.
Features and amenities: Designated developed parking[A];
Number of BLM units: 34;
Number of FS units: 152;
Total: 186.
Features and amenities: Access roads;
Number of BLM units: 37;
Number of FS units: 144;
Total: 181.
Features and amenities: Interpretive sign, exhibit, or kiosk[A];
Number of BLM units: 35;
Number of FS units: 139;
Total: 174.
Features and amenities: Museum or visitor center;
Number of BLM units: 13;
Number of FS units: 29;
Total: 42.
Features and amenities: Interpretive staff;
Number of BLM units: 13;
Number of FS units: 34;
Total: 47.
Features and amenities: Self-service fee collection;
Number of BLM units: 33;
Number of FS units: 130;
Total: 163.
Features and amenities: Collection of fee by staff and/or attendant;
Number of BLM units: 21;
Number of FS units: 65;
Total: 86.
Features and amenities: Boat dock or pier;
Number of BLM units: 12;
Number of FS units: 32;
Total: 44.
Features and amenities: Boat launch;
Number of BLM units: 15;
Number of FS units: 51;
Total: 66.
Features and amenities: Fish cleaning station;
Number of BLM units: 7;
Number of FS units: 5;
Total: 12.
Features and amenities: Shower/bathhouse;
Number of BLM units: 8;
Number of FS units: 22;
Total: 30.
Source: GAO survey results.
[A] Designates an amenity required for a standard amenity fee by Sec.
803 (f) (4) (D) of REA.
[End of table]
Our survey also identified that 52 of the 195 units that charge
standard amenity fees had more than one standard amenity fee. For
example, one recreation site at a unit could offer such amenities as
attendant fee collection in addition to the amenities required by REA
and charge a fee of $3 per person. Another recreation site at the same
unit could offer these same amenities but charge a higher fee amounting
to $5 per person because it also offers additional amenities such as
picnic shelters and drinking water. Of the 52 units with more than one
standard amenity fee, the five most common additional amenities offered
for the higher fee were picnic shelters, drinking water, shower or bath
house, fire ring or grill, and a permanent trash receptacle. It should
not be implied that the higher fees are solely due to these added
amenities. However, according to our survey results, the units
responding indicated that the level of amenities offered was one of the
most influential factors in determining the type and amounts of fees
charged. Other factors that had a significant influence on these fees
were professional judgment, fees at comparable sites, and agency
policy.
Fees Charged for Similar Activities Vary:
We also collected information on the various types of activities,
amenities, or services for which units charge a fee, other than
entrance fees. These could be standard or expanded amenity fees and
special recreation permit fees authorized by REA. The most common
activities, amenities, or services for which a fee is charged are
camping, outfitter or guides, day use, Christmas tree cutting, and
cabin rentals. Table 16 shows the number of units charging a fee under
REA for the various types of activities, amenities, or services
provided.
Table 16: Number of Units Charging a Fee under REA for the Various
Types of Activities, Amenities, or Services Provided:
Activity, amenity, or service: Day use, individual or family (e.g., for
general use of a recreation area);
Number of units charging fee: Total: 147;
Number of units charging fee: BLM: 30;
Number of units charging fee: FS: 105;
Number of units charging fee: NPS: 9;
Number of units charging fee: FWS: 3.
Activity, amenity, or service: Group day-use site (e.g., picnic site or
pavilion);
Number of units charging fee: Total: 145;
Number of units charging fee: BLM: 21;
Number of units charging fee: FS: 102;
Number of units charging fee: NPS: 19;
Number of units charging fee: FWS: 3.
Activity, amenity, or service: High Impact Recreation Area (FS only);
Number of units charging fee: Total: 56;
Number of units charging fee: BLM: 0;
Number of units charging fee: FS: 56;
Number of units charging fee: NPS: 0;
Number of units charging fee: FWS: 0.
Activity, amenity, or service: Scenic drive;
Number of units charging fee: Total: 3;
Number of units charging fee: BLM: 0;
Number of units charging fee: FS: 1;
Number of units charging fee: NPS: 0;
Number of units charging fee: FWS: 2.
Activity, amenity, or service: Boat launch or lake use (with a boat);
Number of units charging fee: Total: 71;
Number of units charging fee: BLM: 12;
Number of units charging fee: FS: 46;
Number of units charging fee: NPS: 10;
Number of units charging fee: FWS: 3.
Activity, amenity, or service: Boat docking, marinas, other slips;
Number of units charging fee: Total: 11;
Number of units charging fee: BLM: 4;
Number of units charging fee: FS: 4;
Number of units charging fee: NPS: 1;
Number of units charging fee: FWS: 2.
Activity, amenity, or service: Fishing;
Number of units charging fee: Total: 27;
Number of units charging fee: BLM: 3;
Number of units charging fee: FS: 14;
Number of units charging fee: NPS: 1;
Number of units charging fee: FWS: 9.
Activity, amenity, or service: Rafting, canoeing, or kayaking;
Number of units charging fee: Total: 35;
Number of units charging fee: BLM: 13;
Number of units charging fee: FS: 16;
Number of units charging fee: NPS: 4;
Number of units charging fee: FWS: 2.
Activity, amenity, or service: Cave tours;
Number of units charging fee: Total: 7;
Number of units charging fee: BLM: 0;
Number of units charging fee: FS: 1;
Number of units charging fee: NPS: 6;
Number of units charging fee: FWS: 0.
Activity, amenity, or service: Visitor center, museum, or historic
site;
Number of units charging fee: Total: 19;
Number of units charging fee: BLM: 3;
Number of units charging fee: FS: 12;
Number of units charging fee: NPS: 4;
Number of units charging fee: FWS: 0.
Activity, amenity, or service: Interpretive tour or program (aside from
cave tours);
Number of units charging fee: Total: 37;
Number of units charging fee: BLM: 5;
Number of units charging fee: FS: 12;
Number of units charging fee: NPS: 18;
Number of units charging fee: FWS: 2.
Activity, amenity, or service: Rock climbing;
Number of units charging fee: Total: 9;
Number of units charging fee: BLM: 4;
Number of units charging fee: FS: 5;
Number of units charging fee: NPS: 0;
Number of units charging fee: FWS: 0.
Activity, amenity, or service: Hiking or trailhead access, including
day-use backcountry permits;
Number of units charging fee: Total: 44;
Number of units charging fee: BLM: 4;
Number of units charging fee: FS: 37;
Number of units charging fee: NPS: 3;
Number of units charging fee: FWS: 0.
Activity, amenity, or service: Camping at established campgrounds;
Number of units charging fee: Total: 385;
Number of units charging fee: BLM: 61;
Number of units charging fee: FS: 259;
Number of units charging fee: NPS: 63;
Number of units charging fee: FWS: 2.
Activity, amenity, or service: Backcountry overnight use or camping;
Number of units charging fee: Total: 47;
Number of units charging fee: BLM: 8;
Number of units charging fee: FS: 22;
Number of units charging fee: NPS: 17;
Number of units charging fee: FWS: 0.
Activity, amenity, or service: Cross-country skiing;
Number of units charging fee: Total: 7;
Number of units charging fee: BLM: 0;
Number of units charging fee: FS: 7;
Number of units charging fee: NPS: 0;
Number of units charging fee: FWS: 0.
Activity, amenity, or service: Off-road or off-highway or all-terrain
vehicle;
Number of units charging fee: Total: 54;
Number of units charging fee: BLM: 8;
Number of units charging fee: FS: 42;
Number of units charging fee: NPS: 1;
Number of units charging fee: FWS: 3.
Activity, amenity, or service: Snowmobile use;
Number of units charging fee: Total: 5;
Number of units charging fee: BLM: 0;
Number of units charging fee: FS: 5;
Number of units charging fee: NPS: 0;
Number of units charging fee: FWS: 0.
Activity, amenity, or service: Hunting;
Number of units charging fee: Total: 65;
Number of units charging fee: BLM: 2;
Number of units charging fee: FS: 3;
Number of units charging fee: NPS: 3;
Number of units charging fee: FWS: 57.
Activity, amenity, or service: Christmas tree cutting;
Number of units charging fee: Total: 145;
Number of units charging fee: BLM: 21;
Number of units charging fee: FS: 124;
Number of units charging fee: NPS: 0;
Number of units charging fee: FWS: 0.
Activity, amenity, or service: Cabin rentals;
Number of units charging fee: Total: 126;
Number of units charging fee: BLM: 4;
Number of units charging fee: FS: 117;
Number of units charging fee: NPS: 3;
Number of units charging fee: FWS: 2.
Activity, amenity, or service: RV dump service;
Number of units charging fee: Total: 50;
Number of units charging fee: BLM: 14;
Number of units charging fee: FS: 27;
Number of units charging fee: NPS: 9;
Number of units charging fee: FWS: 0.
Activity, amenity, or service: Parking;
Number of units charging fee: Total: 46;
Number of units charging fee: BLM: 13;
Number of units charging fee: FS: 28;
Number of units charging fee: NPS: 5;
Number of units charging fee: FWS: 0.
Activity, amenity, or service: Shuttle bus;
Number of units charging fee: Total: 8;
Number of units charging fee: BLM: 1;
Number of units charging fee: FS: 4;
Number of units charging fee: NPS: 3;
Number of units charging fee: FWS: 0.
Activity, amenity, or service: Outfitter or guide activities;
Number of units charging fee: Total: 314;
Number of units charging fee: BLM: 65;
Number of units charging fee: FS: 237;
Number of units charging fee: NPS: 5;
Number of units charging fee: FWS: 7.
Activity, amenity, or service: Other;
Number of units charging fee: Total: 81;
Number of units charging fee: BLM: 10;
Number of units charging fee: FS: 54;
Number of units charging fee: NPS: 6;
Number of units charging fee: FWS: 11.
Source: GAO survey results.
[End of table]
To determine the extent to which similar fees are charged for similar
activities or services, we asked units for further details on the
specific fees charged for a few of the common activities or services at
recreation units: camping, motor boating, and access to a body of water
for rafting, canoeing, or kayaking. Specifically, we asked the units to
identify a minimum and maximum fee for the activity or service, as well
as the amenities provided for the fee charged. To illustrate, a
campsite at a unit may charge $5 per night per individual for camping
and for that fee provide only a site to put up a tent, whereas another
campsite at this unit may charge $10 per night per individual and
provide a site, shower facilities, drinking water, and electrical
service. Our analysis of responses from NPS, BLM, FS, and FWS units
indicated that there was a wide range of fees charged for these common
activities or services, and a variety of amenities were available at
the locations where these fees were charged.
Campsite Fees and Amenities:
Units may have more than one campsite available for recreation and
charge fees for their use. Our survey asked each unit to identify the
fees and amenities for their lowest priced campsite and for their
highest priced campsite. The fees charged for a campsite in BLM, FS,
FWS, and NPS units ranged from a low of $2 in BLM and FS to a high of
$225 in FS.[Footnote 28] This range includes both individual and group
campsites. Table 17 shows the number of units offering camping for a
fee, their median fees, and range of fees charged for the lowest and
highest priced campsites.
Table 17: Number of Units with a Campsite Fee and the Average and Range
of Fees Charged for Individual and Group Campsites:
Agency: BLM;
Lower priced campsite: Number of units: 63;
Lower priced campsite: Median: $6;
Lower priced campsite: Low: $2;
Lower priced campsite: High: $18;
Higher priced campsite: Number of units: 63;
Higher priced campsite: Median: $8;
Higher priced campsite: Low: $4;
Higher priced campsite: High: $90.
Agency: FS;
Lower priced campsite: Number of units: 278;
Lower priced campsite: Median: 7;
Lower priced campsite: Low: 2;
Lower priced campsite: High: 50;
Higher priced campsite: Number of units: 278;
Higher priced campsite: Median: 10;
Higher priced campsite: Low: 3;
Higher priced campsite: High: 225.
Agency: NPS;
Lower priced campsite: Number of units: 69;
Lower priced campsite: Median: 10;
Lower priced campsite: Low: 3;
Lower priced campsite: High: 25;
Higher priced campsite: Number of units: 69;
Higher priced campsite: Median: 15;
Higher priced campsite: Low: 3;
Higher priced campsite: High: 64.
Agency: FWS;
Lower priced campsite: Number of units: 2;
Lower priced campsite: Median: $7;
Lower priced campsite: Low: $5;
Lower priced campsite: High: $8;
Higher priced campsite: Number of units: 2;
Higher priced campsite: Median: $8;
Higher priced campsite: Low: $5;
Higher priced campsite: High: $10.
Source: GAO survey results.
Note: The reported "higher priced campsite" fee amounts for BLM, FS,
and NPS units within the "high" column are fees for group campsites.
[End of table]
Camping for a fee is offered in 55 percent of the units responding to
our survey. FS had the greatest percentage of units offering camping
for a fee, 71 percent of units responding. FWS had the lowest, with
only 2 percent of the units responding offering camping for a fee.
We asked units to identify which amenities were provided at the
campsites with the minimum and maximum fees within that unit. Overall,
an average of 10.7 amenities was offered at the minimum fee campsites,
and an average of 12.1 amenities was offered at the maximum fee
campsites. The amenities most often available for the maximum fee
sites, and not the minimum fee sites, are drinking water, availability
of reservation system, electrical hookups, water hookups, and sanitary
dump stations. Within the individual agencies, the difference in number
of amenities between minimum fee camping sites versus maximum fee
camping sites was on average within two amenities or fewer.
Motor Boating Fees and Amenities:
Our analysis of responses from NPS, BLM, FS, and FWS units on the
minimum and maximum fees for motor boating charged in the unit also
focused on amenities available for these fees. Boating for a fee is
offered in 10 percent of the units overall with FS having the largest
number of units with motor boating for a fee available, 52 units, or 13
percent of FS units responding. FWS has the lowest number of units with
boating fees, with only 4, or 4 percent of units reporting a motor
boating fee. The results of our survey on the extent of motor boating
fees are given in table 18.
Table 18: Number of Units Offering Motor Boating for a Fee or That
Charge for the Use of a Boat Launch or Other Facilities:
Motor boating fee;
Total: Units: 72;
Total: Percentage: 9.6%;
BLM: Units: 6;
BLM: Percentage: 6.8%;
FS: Units: 52;
FS: Percentage: 13.2%;
NPS: Units: 10;
NPS: Percentage: 5.7%;
FWS: Units: 4;
FWS: Percentage: 4.1%.
No fee;
Total: Units: 672;
Total: Percentage: 89.2%;
BLM: Units: 82;
BLM: Percentage: 93.2%;
FS: Units: 337;
FS: Percentage: 85.8%;
NPS: Units: 163;
NPS: Percentage: 93.7%;
FWS: Units: 90;
FWS: Percentage: 92.8%.
Source: GAO survey results.
[End of table]
Motor boating fees at units in the four agencies surveyed are charged
on a number of bases: per person, per boat, or other bases, such as a
per trip charge. A total of 5 FS and FWS units reported charging motor
boating fees on a per person basis, with the minimum and maximum fees
per person starting at $1 and ranging up to $4. A total of 41 units in
all four agencies reported charging on a per boat basis, with the
minimum fees starting at $1 per boat and ranging up to a maximum of
$40. Fees charged on various other bases, such as per trip, were
reported in 30 units, with the fees starting at $0.50 and ranging up to
a maximum of $300.[Footnote 29] Survey responses showed that only 9 of
the 72 units with a fee for motor boating and related activities had a
maximum fee in addition to the minimum fee listed for these activities.
We asked the units with a motor boating fee to identify which common
amenities were provided for boating with the minimum and maximum fees
within that unit. Overall, an average of 11.5 amenities was offered at
the minimum fee areas, and an average of 11.9 amenities was offered at
the maximum fee areas, virtually the same when considering all the
units.
Special Recreation Permit Fees for Rafting, Canoeing or Kayaking, and
Amenities:
The third type of fee we asked survey respondents about was special
recreation permit fees for access to a body of water for rafting,
canoeing, or kayaking. A total of 45 units reported this type of fee,
with the greatest number in FS and BLM, and few reported by NPS or FWS.
Table 19 provides a breakdown of the agency units reporting on our
survey a special recreation permit fee for these activities.
Table 19: Units with a Special Recreation Permit Fee under REA for the
Purpose of Accessing a Body of Water for Rafting, Canoeing, or
Kayaking:
Special recreation permit fee for rafting, canoeing or kayaking;
Total: Units: 45;
Total: Percentage: 6.0%;
BLM: Units: 17;
BLM: Percentage: 19.3%;
FS: Units: 21;
FS: Percentage: 5.3%;
NPS: Units: 5;
NPS: Percentage: 2.9%;
FWS: Units: 2;
FWS: Percentage: 2.1%.
No fee;
Total: Units: 705;
Total: Percentage: 93.6%;
BLM: Units: 71;
BLM: Percentage: 80.7%;
FS: Units: 370;
FS: Percentage: 94.1%;
NPS: Units: 169;
NPS: Percentage: 97.1%;
FWS: Units: 95;
FWS: Percentage: 97.9%.
Source: GAO survey results.
[End of table]
These special recreation permit fees for rafting, canoeing, or kayaking
at units in the four agencies surveyed are charged on a number of
bases: per person per day, per group per day, per boat per day, per
trip, or other bases. A total of 12 BLM, FS, and FWS units reported
charging per person per day fees for this activity, with the fees per
person starting at $1 and ranging up to a maximum of $6. A total of 9
units in BLM and FS reported charging on a per person per trip basis,
with the fee starting at $3 and ranging up to a maximum of
$404.[Footnote 30] Fees were charged on various other bases, such as
per group per day, or per boat per day, with the fees starting at $1
and ranging up to a maximum of $90. Our survey showed that only 10 of
the 45 units with special recreation permit fees for rafting, canoeing,
or kayaking had a maximum fee in addition to the minimum fee listed for
these activities.
We asked the units with a special recreation permit fee for rafting,
canoeing, or kayaking to identify which common amenities were provided
for boating with the minimum and maximum fees within that unit.
Overall, an average of 9 amenities was offered at the minimum fee
areas, and an average of 9.3 amenities was offered at the maximum fee
areas, virtually the same when considering all the units.
[End of section]
Appendix III: Information on Organizational Structure, Costs, and
Membership Requirements of Recreation Resource Advisory Committees:
This appendix provides information on the organizational structure,
costs, and membership requirements of Recreation Resource Advisory
Committees (RRAC). In March 2006, the Department of the Interior (DOI)
and the Department of Agriculture (USDA) approved the organizational
structure for the RRACs and existing advisory councils via an
interagency organizational agreement. Table 20 outlines the nature and
type of RRACs and advisory councils that Bureau of Land Management
(BLM) and Forest Service (FS) have agreed to use in each state and/or
region.[Footnote 31] In the majority of western states, BLM and FS will
use joint RRACs or committees, many of which will be composed of
existing BLM advisory councils since the Federal Lands Recreation
Enhancement Act (REA) allows existing advisory committees or fee
advisory boards to perform the RRAC duties. In addition, five new RRACs
are being established nationwide. Two of the new RRACs are being formed
in the eastern United States and will primarily address FS fees since
BLM has minimal land and only one fee-collecting unit in the
East.[Footnote 32] Of the two new eastern RRACs, one will cover all of
FS Southern Region (Region 8),[Footnote 33] and one will cover all of
FS Eastern Region[Footnote 34] (Region 9). The remaining three new
RRACs are being formed in the western states: one joint RRAC covering
all of California, one joint RRAC covering Washington and Oregon, and
one joint RRAC covering Colorado.
Table 20: Type of RRAC to Be Used by BLM and FS by State and Region:
State/region: Alaska;
RRAC type: No RRAC[A].
State/region: Arizona;
RRAC type: Existing BLM advisory council[B] to act as joint BLM/FS
RRAC.
State/region: California;
RRAC type: New joint BLM/FS RRAC.
State/region: Colorado;
RRAC type: New joint BLM/FS RRAC.
State/region: Idaho;
RRAC type: Existing BLM advisory councils to act as joint BLM/FS RRAC.
State/region: Kansas;
RRAC type: New Colorado RRAC to act as joint BLM/ FS RRAC[C D].
State/region: Montana/Dakotas;
RRAC type: Existing BLM advisory councils to act as joint BLM/FS
RRAC[E].
State/region: Nebraska;
RRAC type: No RRAC[A].
State/region: Nevada;
RRAC type: Existing BLM advisory councils to act as joint BLM/FS RRAC.
State/region: New Mexico[F];
RRAC type: Existing BLM advisory council to act as joint BLM/FS RRAC.
State/region: Oregon/ Washington;
RRAC type: New joint BLM/FS RRAC.
State/region: Utah;
RRAC type: Existing BLM advisory council to act as joint BLM/FS RRAC.
State/region: Wyoming;
RRAC type: No RRAC[A].
State/region: Region 8 (Southern Region)[G];
RRAC type: New joint BLM/ FS RRAC[H].
State/region: Region 9 (Eastern Region)[I];
RRAC type: New joint BLM/FS RRAC[C J].
Source: GAO.
[A] The governors of Alaska, Nebraska, and Wyoming decided that a RRAC
was not necessary in their respective states;
therefore, these states will not have a RRAC or utilize existing
advisory councils regarding recreation fee issues.
[B] While some states have just one advisory council, others have
multiple advisory councils.
[C] BLM does not have land and/or fee-collecting units in Kansas and
the Eastern Region.
[D] There is only one fee-collecting unit in Kansas--a national
grassland--which will be managed with the new joint BLM/FS RRAC for the
purpose of determining fees.
[E] The Black Hills National Forest in South Dakota will use its
existing forest facility advisory board as its RRAC.
[F] Western Texas and Oklahoma grasslands that are managed out of the
Cibola National Forest will use BLM's existing New Mexico advisory
council.
[G] FS's Region 8 (Southern Region) covers Alabama, Arkansas, Florida,
Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma,
Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia.
[H] The one BLM fee-collecting unit in the eastern states is a horse
boarding stable that has a multiyear management contract. This unit
will be covered by the new Southern RRAC.
[I] FS's Region 9 (Eastern Region) covers Connecticut, Delaware,
Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.
[J] While BLM does not currently have any fee-collecting units in the
Eastern Region, the new Eastern Region RRAC will also consider BLM's
fee issues if BLM has fee-collecting units in that region in the
future.
[End of table]
The March 2006 interagency organizational agreement states that BLM is
responsible for the direct costs of its advisory councils, while FS
will be responsible for the direct costs of the new RRACs. FS estimates
that it will cost about $90,000 to $120,000 per year to fund each new
RRAC--based on travel costs for the RRACs to meet twice per year, FS
staff time, and the assumption that each RRAC will have one to five
subcommittees--and all funding for the RRACs will come from the FS's 5
percent regional funds, according to a FS headquarters official.
However, implementing the RRACs may cost more the first year since the
members of the RRACs may need to meet more frequently than twice per
year during the initial establishment of the RRACs. BLM is allocating
$3,000 per state per year in base funds starting in fiscal year 2007 to
implement the RRAC requirements where existing advisory councils are
used, according to a BLM headquarters official.
The new RRACs will be composed of 11 members. In appointing members to
the RRACs, the Secretary is to provide for a broad and balanced
representation of the recreation community; table 21 outlines the
requirements for the composition of the RRACs. Nominations for the new
RRACs will be solicited during a 30-day nomination period established
in a Federal Register notice that will be published once the
interagency agreement is finalized.[Footnote 35] The Secretary of
Agriculture will make formal appointments to the RRACs once the
nominations are received and evaluated by FS. According to agency
officials, it is unknown how long the appointment process will take but
it is hoped that nominees will be appointed within 90 days of issuance
of the interagency agreement, which occurred on September 1, 2006.
Table 21: Composition of the New RRACs:
11 total members from the following three categories:.
Five members who represent recreation users in the following
categories:
* winter motorized recreation (e.g., snowmobiling),;
* winter nonmotorized recreation (e.g., snowshoeing),;
* summer motorized recreation (e.g., off-highway vehicles),;
* summer nonmotorized recreation (e.g., backpacking), and;
* hunting and fishing;
Three members who represent the following interest groups:
* motorized outfitters and guides,;
* nonmotorized outfitters and guides, and;
* local environmental groups;
Three members who represent the following:
* a state tourism official to represent the state,;
* a person who represents affected Indian tribes, and;
* a person who represents affected local government interests.
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
The RRACs and existing advisory councils may form subcommittees to
allow for local representation and to provide additional advice and
recommendations to the RRAC or existing advisory council. DOI and USDA
will be providing advice on subcommittee membership; however, final
determination on whether subcommittees are utilized and their
membership will be the determination of the existing advisory councils
and not the agencies involved.
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Information on Total Fee Revenues, Obligated Funds, and
Unobligated Balances:
This appendix provides information on the fee revenue and obligations
collected under the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program (Fee Demo)
and the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (REA) as reported by
the agencies to Congress. Table 22 shows the fee revenue, the funds
obligated, and unobligated balances for fiscal years 2001 through 2005
for the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Land Management, Fish
and Wildlife Service, the National Park Service, and Department of
Agriculture's Forest Service.
Table 22: Fee Demo/REA Revenue and Obligations:
Agency/account: National Park Service: Fee Demo/REA revenue;
2001: $126.2;
2002: $125.7;
2003: $123.5;
2004: $128.6;
2005: $128.2.
Agency/account: National Park Service: Unobligated balance brought
forward and recoveries;
2001: 232.0;
2002: 243.7;
2003: 269.7;
2004: 251.5;
2005: 240.7.
Agency/account: National Park Service: Funds obligated;
2001: 116.4;
2002: 101.9;
2003: 142.3;
2004: 141.1;
2005: 125.2.
Agency/account: National Park Service: Unobligated balance;
2001: 241.7;
2002: 267.5;
2003: 250.9;
2004: 239.1;
2005: 243.6.
Agency/account: Fish and Wildlife Service: Fee Demo/REA revenue;
2001: 3.7;
2002: 3.6;
2003: 3.8;
2004: 3.9;
2005: 4.3.
Agency/account: Fish and Wildlife Service: Unobligated balance brought
forward and recoveries;
2001: 3.4;
2002: 3.6;
2003: 3.9;
2004: 4.0;
2005: 3.7.
Agency/account: Fish and Wildlife Service: Funds obligated;
2001: 3.6;
2002: 3.4;
2003: 3.7;
2004: 4.3;
2005: 4.4.
Agency/account: Fish and Wildlife Service: Unobligated balance;
2001: 3.5;
2002: 3.8;
2003: 4.0;
2004: 3.5;
2005: 3.6.
Agency/account: Bureau of Land Management: Fee Demo/REA revenue;
2001: 7.6;
2002: 8.7;
2003: 10.3;
2004: 13.3;
2005: 13.3.
Agency/account: Bureau of Land Management: Unobligated balance brought
forward and recoveries;
2001: 4.8;
2002: 5.6;
2003: 5.4;
2004: 0.2;
2005: 7.7.
Agency/account: Bureau of Land Management: Funds obligated;
2001: 6.9;
2002: 9.1;
2003: 9.0;
2004: 12.6;
2005: 12.7.
Agency/account: Bureau of Land Management: Unobligated balance;
2001: 5.5;
2002: 5.2;
2003: 6.5;
2004: 0.8;
2005: 8.2.
Agency/account: Forest Service: Fee Demo/REA revenue;
2001: 35.3;
2002: 37.7;
2003: 39.3;
2004: 46.8;
2005: 50.2.
Agency/account: Forest Service: Unobligated balance brought forward and
recoveries;
2001: 20.9;
2002: 26.9;
2003: 22.0;
2004: 25.4;
2005: 35.7.
Agency/account: Forest Service: Funds obligated;
2001: 29.3;
2002: 45.3;
2003: 35.1;
2004: 44.0;
2005: 45.6.
Agency/account: Forest Service: Unobligated balance;
2001: 26.9;
2002: 19.3;
2003: 26.2;
2004: 28.2;
2005: 40.3.
Totals, all four agencies: Fee Demo/REA revenue;
2001: 172.8;
2002: 175.7;
2003: 176.9;
2004: 192.5;
2005: 196.0.
Totals, all four agencies: Unobligated balance brought forward and
recoveries;
2001: 261.0;
2002: 279.8;
2003: 300.9;
2004: 281.1;
2005: 287.8.
Total funds available;
2001: $433.6;
2002: $455.4;
2003: $477.8;
2004: $480.1;
2005: $483.8.
Total funds available; Funds obligated;
2001: 156.2;
2002: 159.7;
2003:190.1;
2004: 202.0;
2005: 187.9.
Total funds available; Funds obligated as a percentage of total funds
available;
2001: 36.0%;
2002: 35.1%;
2003: 39.8%;
2004: 41.9%;
2005: 38.8%.
Total funds available; Unobligated balance;
2001: $277.6;
2002: $295.8;
2003: $287.6;
2004: $271.6;
2005: $295.8.
Sources: U.S. Departments of the Interior and Agriculture, Federal
Lands Recreation Enhancement Act: First Triennial Report to Congress,
Fiscal Year 2006 (Washington, D.C.: May 2006), p.68.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix V: Information on Participating Agencies' 10 Units with
Largest Unobligated Fund Balances:
This appendix provides information on the unobligated balances for
recreation fee funds collected under the Recreational Fee Demonstration
Program (Fee Demo) and the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act
(REA). Table 23 shows the 10 units with the largest unobligated fund
balances of recreation fees for Bureau of Land Management (BLM),
National Park Service (NPS), Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and
Forest Service (FS).
Table 23: Ten Largest Unobligated Balances of Recreation Fee Funds
Reported by BLM, NPS, and FWS Units and FS Headquarters for Forests:
Agency/unit: BLM: Shoshone Field Office;
Fiscal year 2005 end of year unobligated balance: BLM: $175,000;
Fiscal year 2005 total revenue: BLM: $214,000;
Unobligated balance as a percentage of total revenue: BLM: 82%.
Agency/unit: BLM: Cedar City Field Office;
Fiscal year 2005 end of year unobligated balance: BLM: 199,000;
Fiscal year 2005 total revenue: BLM: 176,000;
Unobligated balance as a percentage of total revenue: BLM: 113.
Agency/unit: BLM: Monticello Field Office;
Fiscal year 2005 end of year unobligated balance: BLM: 219,000;
Fiscal year 2005 total revenue: BLM: 259,330;
Unobligated balance as a percentage of total revenue: BLM: 84.
Agency/unit: BLM: Deschutes Resource Areas;
Fiscal year 2005 end of year unobligated balance: BLM: 226,000;
Fiscal year 2005 total revenue: BLM: 694,600;
Unobligated balance as a percentage of total revenue: BLM: 33.
Agency/unit: BLM: Cottonwood Field Office;
Fiscal year 2005 end of year unobligated balance: BLM: 233,544;
Fiscal year 2005 total revenue: BLM: 121,395;
Unobligated balance as a percentage of total revenue: BLM: 192.
Agency/unit: BLM: Las Cruces District Office;
Fiscal year 2005 end of year unobligated balance: BLM: 243,071;
Fiscal year 2005 total revenue: BLM: 59,000;
Unobligated balance as a percentage of total revenue: BLM: 412.
Agency/unit: BLM: Umpqua Resource Areas;
Fiscal year 2005 end of year unobligated balance: BLM: 260,069;
Fiscal year 2005 total revenue: BLM: 123,205;
Unobligated balance as a percentage of total revenue: BLM: 211.
Agency/unit: BLM: Coos Bay District Office;
Fiscal year 2005 end of year unobligated balance: BLM: 320,321;
Fiscal year 2005 total revenue: BLM: 158,691;
Unobligated balance as a percentage of total revenue: BLM: 202.
Agency/unit: BLM: Winnemucca Field Office;
Fiscal year 2005 end of year unobligated balance: BLM: 490,000;
Fiscal year 2005 total revenue: BLM: 749,784;
Unobligated balance as a percentage of total revenue: BLM: 65.
Agency/unit: BLM: El Centro Field Office;
Fiscal year 2005 end of year unobligated balance: BLM: 675,000;
Fiscal year 2005 total revenue: BLM: 2,897,000;
Unobligated balance as a percentage of total revenue: BLM: 23.
Agency/unit: NPS: Jefferson National Expansion Memorial;
Fiscal year 2005 end of year unobligated balance: BLM: 3,019,449;
Fiscal year 2005 total revenue: BLM: 2,608,161;
Unobligated balance as a percentage of total revenue: BLM: 116.
Agency/unit: NPS: Haleakala National Park;
Fiscal year 2005 end of year unobligated balance: BLM: 4,172,814;
Fiscal year 2005 total revenue: BLM: 2,880,126;
Unobligated balance as a percentage of total revenue: BLM: 145.
Agency/unit: NPS: Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Park;
Fiscal year 2005 end of year unobligated balance: BLM: 4,447,870;
Fiscal year 2005 total revenue: BLM: 3,163,540;
Unobligated balance as a percentage of total revenue: BLM: 141.
Agency/unit: NPS: Golden Gate National Recreation Area/Muir Woods
National Monument;
Fiscal year 2005 end of year unobligated balance: BLM: 4,734,347;
Fiscal year 2005 total revenue: BLM: 3,288,230;
Unobligated balance as a percentage of total revenue: BLM: 144.
Agency/unit: NPS: Lake Mead National Recreation Area;
Fiscal year 2005 end of year unobligated balance: BLM: 4,847,637;
Fiscal year 2005 total revenue: BLM: 4,101,875;
Unobligated balance as a percentage of total revenue: BLM: 118.
Agency/unit: NPS: Mammoth Cave National Park;
Fiscal year 2005 end of year unobligated balance: BLM: 4,972,503;
Fiscal year 2005 total revenue: BLM: 3,495,605;
Unobligated balance as a percentage of total revenue: BLM: 142.
Agency/unit: NPS: Hawaii Volcanoes National Park;
Fiscal year 2005 end of year unobligated balance: BLM: 5,262,769;
Fiscal year 2005 total revenue: BLM: 3,799,829;
Unobligated balance as a percentage of total revenue: BLM: 139.
Agency/unit: NPS: Gateway National Recreation Area;
Fiscal year 2005 end of year unobligated balance: BLM: 6,641,400;
Fiscal year 2005 total revenue: BLM: 2,436,786;
Unobligated balance as a percentage of total revenue: BLM: 273.
Agency/unit: NPS: Grand Canyon National Park;
Fiscal year 2005 end of year unobligated balance: BLM: 36,726,755;
Fiscal year 2005 total revenue: BLM: 20,082,719;
Unobligated balance as a percentage of total revenue: BLM: 183.
Agency/unit: NPS: Yosemite National Park;
Fiscal year 2005 end of year unobligated balance: BLM: 36,730,533;
Fiscal year 2005 total revenue: BLM: 15,019,482;
Unobligated balance as a percentage of total revenue: BLM: 245.
Agency/unit: FWS: Felsenthal National Wildlife Refuge (NWR);
Fiscal year 2005 end of year unobligated balance: BLM: 43,431;
Fiscal year 2005 total revenue: BLM: 30,872;
Unobligated balance as a percentage of total revenue: BLM: 141.
Agency/unit: FWS: Kodiak NWR;
Fiscal year 2005 end of year unobligated balance: BLM: 47,646;
Fiscal year 2005 total revenue: BLM: 12,030;
Unobligated balance as a percentage of total revenue: BLM: 396.
Agency/unit: FWS: Klamath Basin NWR Complex;
Fiscal year 2005 end of year unobligated balance: BLM: 53,253;
Fiscal year 2005 total revenue: BLM: 57,288;
Unobligated balance as a percentage of total revenue: BLM: 93.
Agency/unit: FWS: Nisqually NWR;
Fiscal year 2005 end of year unobligated balance: BLM: 63,544;
Fiscal year 2005 total revenue: BLM: 43,022;
Unobligated balance as a percentage of total revenue: BLM: 148.
Agency/unit: FWS: Piedmont NWR;
Fiscal year 2005 end of year unobligated balance: BLM: 70,056;
Fiscal year 2005 total revenue: BLM: 65,102;
Unobligated balance as a percentage of total revenue: BLM: 108.
Agency/unit: FWS: North Mississippi NWR Complex;
Fiscal year 2005 end of year unobligated balance: BLM: 75,907;
Fiscal year 2005 total revenue: BLM: [A];
Unobligated balance as a percentage of total revenue: BLM: [Empty].
Agency/unit: FWS: J. N. Ding Darling NWR;
Fiscal year 2005 end of year unobligated balance: BLM: 80,000;
Fiscal year 2005 total revenue: BLM: 297,743;
Unobligated balance as a percentage of total revenue: BLM: 27.
Agency/unit: FWS: Chincoteague NWR;
Fiscal year 2005 end of year unobligated balance: BLM: 120,000;
Fiscal year 2005 total revenue: BLM: 712,000;
Unobligated balance as a percentage of total revenue: BLM: 17.
Agency/unit: FWS: Kilauea Point NWR;
Fiscal year 2005 end of year unobligated balance: BLM: 247,834;
Fiscal year 2005 total revenue: BLM: 474,692;
Unobligated balance as a percentage of total revenue: BLM: 52.
Agency/unit: FWS: Crab Orchard NWR;
Fiscal year 2005 end of year unobligated balance: BLM: 644,868;
Fiscal year 2005 total revenue: BLM: 349,996;
Unobligated balance as a percentage of total revenue: BLM: 184.
Agency/unit: FS[B]: Mississippi National Forests;
Fiscal year 2005 end of year unobligated balance: BLM: 652,660;
Fiscal year 2005 total revenue: BLM: 256,215;
Unobligated balance as a percentage of total revenue: BLM: 255.
Agency/unit: FS[B]: George Washington-Jefferson National Forests;
Fiscal year 2005 end of year unobligated balance: BLM: 734,375;
Fiscal year 2005 total revenue: BLM: 719,855;
Unobligated balance as a percentage of total revenue: BLM: 102.
Agency/unit: FS[B]: Cherokee National Forest;
Fiscal year 2005 end of year unobligated balance: BLM: 791,891;
Fiscal year 2005 total revenue: BLM: 645,596;
Unobligated balance as a percentage of total revenue: BLM: 123.
Agency/unit: FS[B]: Salmon and Challis National Forests;
Fiscal year 2005 end of year unobligated balance: BLM: 844,523;
Fiscal year 2005 total revenue: BLM: 713,703;
Unobligated balance as a percentage of total revenue: BLM: 118.
Agency/unit: FS[B]: Ouachita National Forest;
Fiscal year 2005 end of year unobligated balance: BLM: 897,116;
Fiscal year 2005 total revenue: BLM: 234,864;
Unobligated balance as a percentage of total revenue: BLM: 382.
Agency/unit: FS[B]: North Carolina National Forests;
Fiscal year 2005 end of year unobligated balance: BLM: 948,046;
Fiscal year 2005 total revenue: BLM: 913,094;
Unobligated balance as a percentage of total revenue: BLM: 104.
Agency/unit: FS[B]: Superior National Forest;
Fiscal year 2005 end of year unobligated balance: BLM: 1,084,595;
Fiscal year 2005 total revenue: BLM: 495,739;
Unobligated balance as a percentage of total revenue: BLM: 219.
Agency/unit: FS[B]: Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forests;
Fiscal year 2005 end of year unobligated balance: BLM: 1,322,172;
Fiscal year 2005 total revenue: BLM: 691,148;
Unobligated balance as a percentage of total revenue: BLM: 191.
Agency/unit: FS[B]: Angeles National Forest;
Fiscal year 2005 end of year unobligated balance: BLM: 1,823,616;
Fiscal year 2005 total revenue: BLM: 637,199;
Unobligated balance as a percentage of total revenue: BLM: 286.
Agency/unit: FS[B]: Shasta-Trinity National Forest;
Fiscal year 2005 end of year unobligated balance: BLM: $2,769,806;
Fiscal year 2005 total revenue: BLM: $1,126,791;
Unobligated balance as a percentage of total revenue: BLM: 246%.
Sources: GAO survey and FS data.
[A] Number not reported on survey.
[B] FS unobligated balances and total revenue reported at the forest
level rather than the unit level. In commenting on a draft of this
report, FS officials noted that the national forests listed in this
table are generally spending the same amount that they collect in one
year.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of the Interior:
United States Department of the Interior:
Office Of The Assistant Secretary Policy, Management And Budget
Washington, DC 20240 :
SEP 12 2006:
Ms. Robin M. Nazzaro:
Director, Natural Resources And Environment:
Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Ms. Nazzaro:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) draft report "Recreation Fees: Agencies Can
Better Implement the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act and
Account for Fee Revenues" (GAO-06-1016).
The Department of the Interior (DOI) generally agrees with the GAO's
findings and recommendations. We also believe, however, that the report
could more explicitly recognize the challenges inherent in implementing
the complex, interdepartmental Recreation Fee Program and the credible
work that the various DOI agencies have completed toward implementation
of the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (REA).
The DOI welcomed enactment of REA, which has brought more certainty and
consistency to our Recreation Fee Program, and we are diligently
working toward its full implementation. We welcome the recommendations
in the report. The recommendations further REA implementation efforts
and DOI is dedicated to addressing the GAO's recommendations promptly.
Thank you again for the opportunity to work with your team during its
review of implementation of REA. If you have any questions, please
contact Andrea Nygren, BLM Audit Liaison Officer, Division of
Evaluations and Management Services, WO-830, on 202-452-5153.
Additional specific comments from the BLM, NPS, FWS, Bureau of
Reclamation, and the Office of Policy Analysis are enclosed.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
R. Thomas Weimer:
Assistant Secretary:
Enclosure:
Comments on GAO draft report on Recreation Fees (GAO-06-1016):
NPS Comments:
Overview Page, "What GAO Found," Paragraph 4, Line 5: Change to read:
"At Interior's National Park Service, fee projects obligation rates
would benefit from a streamlined approval process and the ability to
support project management needs such as compliance, contracting and
planning with fee revenues."
Page 10, Line 24 (reference to the pass workgroup delays in determining
eligibility requirements): On Page 23 in the chart at the bottom of the
page, it states the eligibility requirements of the new passes. They
have been established.
Page 13, Line 6 should read: "Threatened and endangered species
biological monitoring."
Page 13, Line 14 should read: ". as well as at the headquarters level
prior to submitting them to Departmental or Congressional approval per
a multi-level approval process that is based on dollar amounts."
Page 13, Lines 15 -17: Delete "According to NPS officials under this
process it can sometimes take one year or more to obtain approval to
fund a requested project."
Page 13, Line 15: Change to read: "Many unit and regional officials
expressed frustration about the length of this process."
Page 14, Line 2 (reference to the $300 million accumulated unobligated
balance): It is not clearly stated that this unobligated balance is a
legacy of the Fee Demo Program.
Page 16, Line 14: Change to read "An additional 31 units only generate
revenue from the National Park Pass and other pass sales."
Page 18, Lines 11-17 (reference to the REA expenditure categories): The
listing is not comprehensive. It would be valuable to use the language
from the law because it lists the full range of expenditure types and
adds new emphasis on projects that have a direct connection to
visitors.
Page 23, Line 2, (reference to the public sale of pass as mid-December
2006): The date for sale of the new pass to the public is now planned
for January 1, 2007.
Page 24, Lines 8-10 (reference to an NPS Headquarters Official stating
that revenue loss was not being considered in pricing decision): This
comment needs to be removed since revenue impacts will be a
consideration in the pricing decision.
Page 24, Lines 14-16 (reference to ambiguity about interagency revenue
distribution formulas): On the same page, it outlines the agreed upon
revenue share strategy, both short and long-term. (There may be some
questions about data collection capabilities, but the revenue share
formula appears to be identified.)
Page 24, Footnote 11 (reference to pass sales): This sentence needs to
refer to National Park Pass sales.
Page 26, Lines 24-25 (reference to interagency pass guidelines): The
interagency workgroup is in the process of developing a complete
Standard Operating Procedures for field personnel to aid in ordering,
issuing, accounting for and reporting on pass program operational
aspects. An interagency pass advisory group has been established and
will be meeting in September to finalize procedures. These procedures
will then be able to be incorporated into each agency's overall fee
policy guidance.
Page 28, Lines 24-28 (reference to fee rate guidance): The NPS has an
established annual and review process. The established process was used
to secure high level DOI approval to implement fee rate changes during
the first year of the REA authority.
Page 35, Line 17 (reference to NPS guidance): The NPS guidance should
be termed transitional rather than interim. With a large number of
policy documents and processes in place, the communication was to
identify incremental adjustments needed to immediately align with REA.
Page 36, Line 27 and Page 40, Lines 9-21 (reference to NPS being slow
to issue updated guidance on accounting for and controlling collected
fee revenue): The report indicates that the NPS does have effective
internal controls in place. (See response to recommendation for
background information, most importantly, the steps that the NPS is
taking to address this issue.)
Page 41, Line 19 (reference to not implementing a National Audit
Program): The NPS would like to express its intention to recommitting
to a National Audit Program. Perhaps the wording could be changed to
say "but the proposal has only been partially implemented through the
ongoing development of automated program review capabilities in the
Comprehensive Plan software application and by providing regions with
funds to hire staff to perform audits such as in the Intermountain
Region or to clean-up data in software systems to prepare for automated
audits as in the Midwest Region. A full blown National Audit Program
has been delayed due to other program priorities and lack of staff
resources. There is a new NPS workgroup made up of regional and
Washington Fee 'Managers that are reconvening to restart the process of
developing a National Audit Program." As demonstrated by the
Intermountain Region, once additional resources are in place, it will
be possible to implement a more standardized National Audit Program.
Page 44, Line 17 (reference to prioritization): The NPS, as a result of
prior GAO audits and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance,
has a 2-step prioritization process embedded in the Project Management
Information System (PMIS). For each project, a park answers questions
which determine a high, medium or low band of importance to the NPS
mission. Then the park gives each project, regardless of fund source, a
numerical priority to demonstrate the importance of the project to that
specific park. Facility projects complete the DOI criteria (also
embedded in PMIS) which gives a numerical rank with the highest rank to
health and safety deferred maintenance. While the primary focus of
Recreation Fee revenues is deferred maintenance, the project must
demonstrate its relative importance through the Servicewide banding,
park priority and DOI criteria.
Page 45, chart NPS (reference to the deferred maintenance target): The
NPS has had an annual Servicewide deferred maintenance obligation
target since FY 2002. Each year, that target has been prorated to the
regions based on revenues and unobligated balances. The regions
determine the amount each park contributes to the regional deferred
maintenance target. The 60 percent is a suggested average, not an
absolute, applied by the regions.
Page 45, Lines 15 - 19 (reference to approval process): Recently, GAO
was provided with additional documentation that supports the following
changes in wording: "At NPS, under Fee Demo, an elaborate project
approval process with reporting requirements was put in place by DOI,
OMB and articulated in the appropriations report language. To meet the
requirements of this process, the NPS utilized PMIS to have parks
identify and approve the project, the region review and approve, and
Washington Office (WASO) review, approve and move the project through
one of six approval variations identified by project cost. All project
approvals and changes were to be reported in the quarterly reports
which required complete high quality PMIS data no matter what the
approval level. To deal with this lengthy approval process, parks were
told to input projects in anticipation of revenues and starting in FY
2003, to input projects to build a 5-year plan. The NPS is negotiating
a streamlined approval process that incorporates the 5-year plan as the
cornerstone and differentiates the approval level needed for lower cost
and routine projects versus complex projects over $500,000."
Page 46, Lines 21-24 (reference regional review): Criteria have been
established and implemented at all levels, but have not been
consistently applied by all levels. It is not an arbitrary decision by
WASO to reject ineffective reviews by regional staff, but requires
additional review at WASO. WASO's review has been successful in
assuring projects receive upper level approvals based on programmatic
criterion and policy. Of the 10,000 projects moved forward in the
approval process only 6 projects have been rejected outside of the NPS.
An analysis of auto-generated dates in PMIS shows that on average a Fee
Demo project remains at the region or park level for 3 years as the
data and information are edited or updated. Projects that do not have
accurate and complete data in PMIS are delayed in the approval process
at all levels.
Page 46, Line 26 (reference to the Fee Demo approval process): The
approval process was negotiated by DOI, OMB, and the NPS and included
by Congress as appropriations report language.
Page 46, Line 27 - Page 47 Line 15: Change to read "This process is
managed by the NPS Headquarters Park Facilities Management Division
because of the division's resources and expertise in project management
and computerized management systems. The process is owned by all levels
of the organization. The WASO approval responsibility is not an
arbitrary process, but provides review for consistency to established
policies, which should be applied at all levels of the organization.
The established approval process depends on the dollar amount of the
project and the type of work performed. Projects over $500,000 require
additional internal review by the Development Advisory Board (DAB) and
Director's approval prior to being transmitted through DOI and OMB to
Congress for approval. Projects under $500,000 can take one of five
different approval routes depending on type of work and dollar amount.
The complexity of the approval process has required parks and regions
to be proactive in getting projects into the process early. In the
past, parks have been frustrated by the length of time it takes for
approval; however, in recent years that problem has been limited by
giving guidance to input projects based on future revenues and
instituting a Comprehensive Plan. This 5-year plan of projects requires
parks to be strategic and proactive in submitting projects for
approval, and to identify their sequential needs for compliance, design
and planning prior to project execution. The Comprehensive Plans were
instituted in FY 2003 and have helped the parks to see their revenue
and project portfolio in one place and plan accordingly. Projects over
$500,000 inherently require more then a year for approval. These
projects are approved to spend 11 percent of the total project cost to
prepare pre-design in order to go to DAB prior to seeking Congressional
approval. Fee project approval is part of the larger NPS Servicewide
Comprehensive Call (SCC) and runs on a one-year cycle where parks
request approval for projects in future years, regions approve and
formulate to future years and WASO approves the future year plan. In
emergency situations, the approval process and the software can
function to move projects rapidly through the system."
Page 47, Line 17 (See comment above for Page 44, Line 17): Change to
similar language. A park's priorities should be reflected in the three
Servicewide methods used to establish when a project is high priority.
Prioritization is not based on the NPS mission and the specific park's
mission; therefore, a park's priority should not be in conflict with
Servicewide or WASO priority.
Page 47, Line 21: Please delete the reference to WASO official calling
directly to parks. The standard practice is to contact the region to
work with the park. The exception would be when a park contacts WASO
directly, in which case the region and park are simultaneously
responded to. Documentation of the communication flow during project
review was recently provided to GAO.
Page 47, Line 22 (WASO allowing projects to remain in system
indefinitely): Lack of accurate and complete data in PMIS is the
primary reason for projects remaining in the system indefinitely. This
is generally a result of parks not following the guidance on how data
fields are to be completed for that year's SCC. An example would be an
incorrect requested funding year. Regions may not correctly formulate
the project to the years covered by the call or may not have identified
the correct fund source.
Page 47, Lines 27 - 30 (reference to Comprehensive Plan Review): Under
the new approval process, projects on a park's Comprehensive Plan under
$500,000 will be spot checked for compliance with REA and NPS policy.
Projects over $500,000 will require review for complete and accurate
data since it will be transmitted to Congress for approval as part of
the Greenbook.
Page 53, Footnote 1: The NPS charge to parks grossing less than
$500,000 retaining 100 percent of their revenue resulted in the
majority of the parks are now 100 percent (143) and the minority is 80
percent.
BLM Comments:
Page 10, line 15: The draft report states that "BLM and FS units
generally have to obtain RRAC review and recommendation for approval of
new or increased fee". This statement inaccurately suggests this is a
requirement of REA. REA requires RRACs to be created or it allows the
use of existing advisory groups to perform the duties of RRACs. REA
states that these groups then may make recommendations on agency fee
proposals. Interim BLM policy (Instruction Memorandum No. 2006-102) -
not law - delays fee increases and the establishment of new fee areas
until the RRACs are established and operational. (Similar issue on Page
20, line 21.)
Page 11, line 23; page 28, line 21; page 29; line 5; and table on page
34: The draft report states that ".some BLM and FS units collect
standard amenity fees, without having all six amenities required under
REA." The table on page 34 states that 2 BLM sites do not have the 6
REA-required standard amenities. The BLM requests that the GAO
investigate the site information further and that the report be
corrected accordingly.
Page 19, line 28 and page 20, line 5: The draft report states that RRAC
progress has been "slow". Slow is a relative term and should be
revised. A point of comparison would be creation of BLM's existing
Resource Advisory Councils (RACs), which took approximately two years
to implement.
Page 20, footnote number 8: FACA defines DFO as "Designated Federal
Officer," not "official," as stated in the draft report.
Page 37, footnote 17: This important footnote regarding fee collection
changes that took place at the BLM Gunnison Field Office after the GAO
visit should be moved to the main text of the report at line 18.
(Precedence for this placement occurs on page 33, line 22, where a post-
GAO visit change is documented in the main text of the report.)
Page 74, line 18: The draft report states that BLM ".standard amenity
fees ranged from a low of $1 to a high of $95 for each person." The $95
fee must be an error. The BLM standard amenity fees typically range
from $3 to $10. It is possible that the fee mentioned is for a Special
Recreation Permit for a group, commercial or competitive event.
Page 79, Table 18: The draft report states that the BLM has a $90
campsite. The BLM does not have the benefit of the survey data, but
assumes this is a group site. The BLM recommends that the report
clarify whether these are individual or group campsites.
Page 82, text and Table 21: Text and table should be corrected to state
that no RRAC will be created in Alaska and a new RRAC will be created
in Colorado (rather than using the existing BLM RACs in Colorado).
Page 84, lines 15-18: The sentence on these lines confuses the
potential role of an RRAC or RAC subcommittee, and states that a
subcommittee may "act as the RRAC". A subcommittee may be formed to
provide advice to the RRAC or RAC. Only RRACs or RACs may provide
formal REA fee recommendations to either the BLM or the FS.
FWS Comments:
Page 16, at the top of the page, the partial paragraph will be more
accurate if it includes more current site numbers. It should include
national fish hatcheries and administrative sites since the REA allows
them to collect expanded amenity recreation fees and since some sell
national passes. Correct numbers are 545 national wildlife refuges, 37
wetland management districts, 69 national fish hatcheries, and 46
administrative sites. In the last sentence of the same paragraph on
line 4, please replace the words "national wildlife refuges" with
"sites" since hatcheries, administrative sites, and wetland management
district offices are selling passes in addition to some refuges.
Page 29, on line 21, should state "not allowed to charge entrance fees
under REA." Please add the word "entrance" since hatcheries may charge
other types of fees.
Page 38, on line 9, please add the following to the list of problems
with cash management: "banks no longer allow sites to convert cash to
cashier's checks without having an account at the bank."
Page 52, on line 28, should state "regional fund, uses a portion of its
regional funds to cover administrative charges and. . ." The amount of
administrative charges changes annually, so replacing "half' with "a
portion" is more accurate.
Reclamation Comments:
Page 15, first paragraph, last sentence (lines 7 through 10): The
report recommends that Reclamation expedite its decision as to whether
to implement the REA so that units can decide whether to collect and
retain recreation fees to enhance recreation programs. It would be
incorrect to state that if Reclamation decides to participate in REA
that each of its sites will be given the latitude to decide if it will
participate. Given the fact that Reclamation has identified only seven
recreation sites that currently meet the statutory criteria to be able
to charge a standard amenity fee under the REA, and the likely costs of
implementing REA for the agency, there is also the strong possibility
that Reclamation would require all recreation sites managed by
Reclamation that meet the criteria to participate.
Also, the head of this agency is the "Commissioner" of the Bureau of
Reclamation, not the "Director"of the Bureau of Reclamation.
Page 16, second bullet (lines 22 and 23): Reclamation requests that the
last sentence be removed from the bullet. As it is currently worded,
the inclusion of the last sentence concerning Reclamation's managing
recreation partners is misleading because it implies that Reclamation
can only collect recreation fees at the seven sites it directly manages
that meet the REA criteria and at sites managed by its managing
recreation partners. In fact, Reclamation collects recreation fees at
other sites that it directly manages and do not meet the REA criteria.
Reclamation is able to do so based on its standing recreation
authority: the Federal Water Project Recreation Act.
Secondly, Reclamation has two sets of managing recreation partners --
Federal and non-Federal. The Federal managing partners will decide on
their own how REA impacts the recreation areas located on Reclamation
lands that they manage (e.g., Lake Mead National Recreation Area). The
non-Federal recreation managing partners will not be collecting fees
based on REA or otherwise participating in REA. This distinction is not
made clear in what is included in this bullet. Rather, the implication
is that all the managing partner organizations are collecting fees and
because this entire report concerns REA, a reader might assume those
fees will be REA fees, if Reclamation decides to participate. Finally,
the last sentence as written states that Reclamation manages land and
our partner organizations collect fees. Where Reclamation has managing
recreation partners, they manage the recreation facilities, including
the associated land. We believe it will be easier to simply delete the
last sentence, since it adds little to the REA discussion, rather than
to try to clarify these points.
Page 29, first paragraph, last sentence (lines 6 and 7): Please change
"need to" to "will." We do not believe Reclamation has a "need to"
implement REA; rather, the question is whether Reclamation will
implement REA.
Page 64, last paragraph, third sentence (lines 25 through 27):
Reclamation's managers are clear as to how REA applies to Reclamation's
operations and if all Reclamation units will be required to accept the
new pass. Reclamation has determined that its recreation areas that are
managed by non-Federal partners will not be participating in REA, and
thus will not accept the new pass. That leaves seven recreation sites
that currently meet the statutory criteria required to charge a
standard amenity fee under the REA. This does not include those
recreation areas that are managed by Reclamation's Federal recreation
partners.
Page 65, first set of bullets, last bullet (lines 20 and 21): Again, we
would like to note that the head of this agency is the Commissioner of
the Bureau of Reclamation, not the "Director of the Bureau of
Reclamation" as stated in the report.
Other DOI Comments:
Page 10, line 20; page 19, lines 21-25: While the Guidelines have not
been formally completed, most of the policy decisions that compose the
guidelines have been taken and discussed in congressional testimony.
The third sentence on page 11 of the draft report should be adjusted to
be consistent with language in the first paragraph on page 27. ("This
working group issued an interagency handbook with common definitions
and guidance --the 'Interagency Implementation Handbook for Federal
Lands Recreation Enhancement Act'--in March 2006."). The document that
the working group produced is a handbook, not an agreement. This
comment also applies to page 19 where an "interagency agreement" is
again mentioned; it should be referred to as an "interagency handbook."
Page 14, lines 16-19 and lines 21-24: The draft report states, "Fifty-
eight percent of the four agencies' units responding to our survey
indicated that they believed that to a moderate, great, or very great
extent that recreation fee revenues are being used to fund the types of
projects formerly funded with other general appropriations at their
unit . Additionally, 64 percent of units responding to our survey
believed to a moderate, great or very great extent that they may need
to replace other general appropriations with recreation fee revenues in
the future." We suggest that these statements be dropped from the
report. While these statement may accurately describe the survey
findings, evaluating their validity and interpreting them it is highly
problematic for the following reasons: 1) the responses represent
"beliefs" not actual empirical information about the budgetary
situation at field locations and the survey did not investigate the
basis for these "beliefs;" 2) the field personnel at these locations
have little or no direct knowledge about the magnitude of any future
budget resources that might or might not be available, thus their
responses are pure speculation; 3) it is inappropriate to combine
responses over the "moderate," "great," and "very great" range, it is
unclear how individual respondents interpreted the various categories,
it is unclear whether the interpretations were consistent across
respondents, and it is unclear how respondents viewed the different
(i.e. "distance") between the categories. The survey did not
investigate any of these issues so the responses obtained are highly
questionable in terms of their meaning.
Statements such as those on lines 16-19 and 21-24 should not be
included in the report unless they have an empirical basis; otherwise
they are simply speculation. Historically, fee revenues have not
replaced appropriations and there is no reason to expect this to change
in the future.
The Department has organized spending of recreation fee revenues in
such a manner as to focus on supplementing spending that would have
occurred absent fee revenues. Budget data indicates that for all of the
Interior bureaus funding for repair and rehab projects has increased
substantially since 1998. For NPS funding for repair and rehab
increased from $32.6 million in 1998 to $95.1 million in 2005. For FWS,
funding for deferred maintenance projects increased from $21.8 million
in 1998 to $53.3 in 2005. Funding for BLM deferred maintenance projects
increased from $3.5 million in 1998 to $41.3 in 2005. These very
substantial increases indicate that fee revenues have not supplanted
appropriated funding. The Department has also gone to significant
lengths to ensure that recreation fee revenues are not used for annual
operating costs and to fund FTEs, as well as to ensure that fee
revenues are not simply absorbed into base funding.
Page 15, line 3: The text refers to "final regulations." It is not
clear what regulations are being referred to.
Page 18, line 23, line 27: The text should be explicit about who "some
people" and who "other critics" are.
Page 19, line 11: The text states that progress has been "slow." Slow
is a relative term, especially in the context of implementing an
interdepartmental program; the text needs to recognize this. One point
of comparison might be the establishment of the National Park Pass,
which took a number of years.
Page 20: Delays in implementing new fees or increasing fees are not
necessarily bad and do not necessarily result in lower levels of
visitor services.
Pages 24-25: After the first five years, it has been determined that
the revenues from central sales will be distributed among the agencies
based on a formula that accounts for pass use. There is sufficient time
to develop this formula, since it does not need to be in place for a
number of years. There are no problems obtaining the necessary
information. Different agencies may choose to use different techniques
or approaches to collect pass use data. Use of these techniques will
provide data that are sufficiently accurate. The last sentence in the
first paragraph on page 25 (lines 5-6) is misleading. Due to
differences in infrastructure and fee collection methods the agencies
will likely utilize different approaches to collecting pass use data.
However, this does not constitute a "potential problem," as stated in
the report.
Page 24, lines 8-10: One component of the study involved obtaining
information on individuals' willingness to pay for the new pass.
However, the analysis explicitly involves evaluating how the price of
the pass might impact both pass revenues and revenues from daily entry
and standard amenity fees.
Page 25, line 30: The GPO has a monopoly on government printing. The
agencies were required to use GPO to print the passes.
The following are GAO's comments on the Department of Interior's letter
dated September 12, 2006.
GAO Comments:
1. We disagree with NPS's comment concerning distribution of the new
pass revenues. The NPS noted in its comments that "the revenue share
formula appears to be identified." However, the details of the formula
have not yet been determined. The working group has only determined
that the revenue will be distributed based on a formula that takes into
account pass use and other factors. Therefore, the long-term revenue
distribution strategy is unclear.
2. We stand by our description of NPS' efforts to update its guidance
on accounting and controlling collected fee revenues as "slow." NPS'
current guidance on this subject was last published in 1989, which it
recognizes as needing to be revised. In addition, the NPS' statement
that our report language indicates "NPS does have effective internal
controls in place," is incorrect. We specifically state that NPS units
we visited, which are only 8 of 390, appear to have implemented
reasonable accounting procedures and effective internal controls. Thus,
we cannot attribute this condition to the entire universe of NPS units.
3. BLM provided additional detail on the results of their inquiries to
units that responded to our survey that they did not offer all six
amenities required to charge standard amenity fees under REA. We have
summarized this information on pages 27 and 28 of the report. In
essence, BLM officials imply from the results of their inquiries that
their units did offer all six amenities required under REA. This new
information would have to be verified to attest to its accuracy.
4. We agree that "slow" is a relative term but believe that it is used
appropriately in the context of the information presented in the
paragraph pertaining to the development of the RRACs. The information
in the paragraph notes that, according to a June 2005 interagency
presentation, the RRACs were expected to be established with members
appointed by the end of 2005. Since none of the members for any of the
RRACs have been appointed, we feel comfortable in referring to this
RRAC development as "slow."
5. One of REA's goals was to reduce visitor confusion. We believe that
Reclamation's approach to allowing each managing partner to make its
own determination of how REA impacts each unit, to include the decision
of whether or not to accept the new pass, will create an inconsistent
and more confusing system of fees for the visitors.
6. We disagree with DOI's contention that evaluating the validity and
interpreting the responses of units to our survey is problematic, since
we have simply reported the survey results. The results we reported are
based on two opinion survey questions that we asked both FS and DOI
field-level officials to respond to. The first question asked if the
unit officials believed recreation fee revenues are being used to fund
the types of projects formerly funded with appropriations at their
unit. The second question sought the officials' opinions about the
extent to which they believe that recreation fee revenue will be used
to fund the types of projects over the next 5 years at their units that
would have been funded with appropriated dollars. We recognize that
individual units do not have agencywide perspectives on these issues.
Also, including these survey results in our report is not intended to
forecast the future, but rather to share the perspective of the survey
respondents responsible for the on-the-ground implementation of this
program. No GAO conclusions or recommendations were based on these
stated perceptions.
7. The concerns noted in the background are general concerns that are
frequently cited by critics of the fee program. Implementing both Fee
Demo and the recreation fee program under REA has been controversial
and many people and groups, such as the Western Slope No-Fee Coalition
and the Arizona No-Fee Coalition, have spoken out against recreation
fees.
8. Same as comment 4.
9. Since the working group has not determined a formula and how pass
use or other factors will be considered in such a formula, it is still
not clear how revenues will be distributed beyond the first 3 to 5
years of the pass program. Therefore, the long-term revenue
distribution strategy is unclear. The potential problems with
collecting pass use data are outlined in this report. Accurate pass-use
data will be difficult to collect at remote locations and many units
within the agencies do not have the infrastructure in place to collect
pass-use data. This may lead units to have inaccurate pass-use data or
data largely based on estimates. Since pass use revenue distribution
will be tied to the pass-use data, units and/or agencies may benefit
from submitting inflated pass-use estimates. All of these issues are
potential problems with the collection of pass-use data.
[End of section]
Appendix VII: Comments from the Forest Service:
USDA United States Department of Agriculture:
Forest Service:
Washington Office:
1400 Independence Avenue, SW:
Washington, DC 20250
File Code: 2300:
Date: SEP 0 7 2006:
Ms. Robin Nazzaro:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, NW:
Washington, DC 20548548:
Dear Ms. Nazzaro:
Thank you for providing the U.S. Department of Agriculture the
opportunity to review and comment on the draft U.S. Government
Accountability Office report entitled "Recreation Fees: Agencies Can
Better Implement the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act and
Account for Fee Revenues (GAO-06-1016)."
Specific comments are listed in the enclosure. If you have any further
questions, please contact our agency's External Audit Liaison, Clarice
Wesley, at 703-605-4799.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Dale N. Bosworth:
Chief:
Enclosure:
Forest Service Comments on Draft Report GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees:
Agencies Can Better Implement the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement
Act (REA) and Account for Fee Revenues:
August 30, 2006:
General Comments: The Forest Service (FS) appreciates the efforts of
the Government Accountability Office (GAO) staff to visit several
Forest Service recreation fee sites and learn how it administers the
complex recreation fee program. We acknowledge that the FS needs to
revise several policies that relate to REA and collections in general.
The FS has already initiated policy revision for the Forest Service
Manuals and Handbooks that relate to these issues. The Agency plans on
producing revised policy within a year.
After reviewing the actions taken to ensure a successful REA
implementation, we are certain that GAO recognizes and acknowledges the
interagency work teams' challenges and accomplishments over the past
year. Implementing the REA provisions with four other agencies has been
a demanding, but ultimately rewarding experience. Five agencies, with
different budget processes, policies, histories, and missions, working
together to create interagency policy and agreements regarding fees has
been a beneficial process. Collaborating to provide a seamless
recreation experience for the American public has fostered greater
communication among recreation and policy staffs within the Departments
of Agriculture and the Interior from which the visitors to public lands
will benefit.
Specific comments on the draft report follow.
Main Body of Report:
Page 10, lines 15-16: The report reads, "Since B LM and FS units
generally have to obtain RRAC review and recommendation for approval of
new or increased fees.". To clarify, REA states that Recreation RACs
"may" make a recommendation regarding recreation fee sites, not "have
to" make a recommendation as is implied in this statement. Although the
FS has set internal policy that limits new recreation fee site and fee
changes until Recreation RACs are in place to review those proposals,
this is not a REA requirement.
Page 11, lines 23-24: The FS has completed additional follow-up on the
survey results where units indicated that they were out of compliance
with REA by charging a standard amenity fee although the site did not
meet the level of amenities required in REA. Further investigation
shows that out of the 37 FS units that reported they were out of
compliance, 31 units expressed confusion over the survey and their
responses for several reasons including: 1) they do not charge any
standard amenity fees at all, 2) they were confused and described
expanded amenity fee sites, 3) there was misunderstanding over the
definitions of the amenities. The FS is still investigating the
remaining six units that reported they were out of compliance with
standard amenity fee criteria.
The comment above is applicable to three other places in the GAO draft
report.
* Page 28, lines 21-22:
* Page 33, lines 2-11:
* Page 34, Table 3:
Page 14, lines 16-19; lines 21-24: These comments are highly
speculative and are based on survey respondents projecting their
beliefs into the future with no empirical data to back their
assertions. In the case of the FS, GAO surveyed a select group of field
level personnel that have little or no direct knowledge about the
magnitude of any future budget resources that might or might not be
available, thus their responses are pure speculation. Historically, fee
revenues have not replaced appropriations (GAO-03-47, page 30) and
there is no reason to expect this change in the future.
The comment above is applicable to two other places in the GAO draft
report.
* Pages 53, lines 30-33 and Page 54, lines 1-2:
* Page 60, lines 8-17:
Page 14, lines 27-30: The FS, in coordination with the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM), has been diligently working toward establishing
Recreation RACs since REA was enacted. Throughout this process, the
agencies have sought to ensure that we have the best possible framework
for establishment. In fact, the agencies agreed to further engage the
public by conducting listening session across the country in June 2005
and 2006. Input from those listening sessions only made the framework
stronger. The Interagency Agreement was signed by Deputy Secretary of
the Interior, Lynn Scarlett, on August 3 l, 2006, and Under Secretary
of Agriculture, Mark Rey, on September 1, 2006.
The comment above is applicable to two other places in the draft GAO
report.
* Page 20, lines 5-19:
* Page 63, lines 28-31:
Page 15, lines 1-3: We agree that the FS must issue final regulations
and implementation guidance on recreation fee programs. The FS is
revising Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2300, Chapter 2330 - Publicly
Managed Recreation Opportunities which includes direction and guidance
on recreation fees. Since manual revision includes all aspects of
publicly managed recreation opportunities, it is likely that the final
revision will be issued in a year.
Page 15, lines 4-7: The FS is in the process of revising the collection
agent and cash handling policies in Forest Service Manual (FSM) 6530 -
Billings and Collections and Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 6509.14 -
Collection Officer Handbook. Because of major agency changes in
accounting procedures, finalizing these revisions has been delayed. The
FS will expedite publication of the handbook and updated procedures as
soon as practicable.
The comment above is applicable to Page 40, lines 1-7.
Page 20, line 1: Please change sentence starting, "These committees are
to make recommendations." to "These committees may make
recommendations.".
Page 20, line 5: Slow is a relative term. Delaying the implementation
of new fees or fee changes is not necessarily a bad thing. The FS
decided that it would delay any major changes to the recreation fee
program until we can have Recreation RACs review proposals for new or
changed fees.
Page 22, lines 21-23: The FS has determined that the new pass
guidelines completion is on-time considering when the new passes will
actually be available and when the field staff would need the
guidelines (Fall 2006). Issuing guidelines earlier than Fall 2006 would
be premature and confusing to field staff.
Page 36, lines 6-9: The Forest Service interim implementation
guidelines for REA have definitions of the standard amenity fee
amenities, including permanent trash receptacle and reasonable
security.
Page 38, lines 10-26: It should be rare that a cash machine is broken,
else there is a possible breach of contract and remedial action should
be taken. In the rare condition that the cash machine is broken, asking
managers who have been properly appointed Collection Officers to
collect receipts and to have them deposited into a working machine is
an acceptable temporary action. Local line officers are responsible for
annual Collection Officer audits, including unannounced cash counts per
policy found in FSH 6509.11 k, 3042a. Local line officers are also
responsible for reasonable internal controls over cash collections,
which in the case of the Tonto NF might include the use of number
envelops, visitor counts matched to daily collections and the use of
the USDA OIG Hotline if theft were suspected. The OIG Hotline may also
be used by customers if they suspect unusual cash handling.
Forest Service has Law Enforcement Officers whose mission includes
protection of high risk assets and at-risk personnel.
Page 41, lines 21-23: It is Forest Service policy, FSH 6509.1 1k,
31.11, that Collection Officers are to be audited at least annually. It
is the responsibility of Regional Foresters and Forest Supervisors to
execute the audit program at the local level. Senior Forest Service
management is aware of a shortfall in the prescribed audit program and
has assigned a full-time Albuquerque Service Center resource to monitor
the program, nation-wide.
Page 52, line31: It is more accurate to say that Region 5's 5percent
fund covers fee program management costs and visitor services (fee
envelope purchases, etc.) rather than "administrative" costs.
Conclusions:
Page 63, lines 28-31: The FS, in coordination with the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM), has been diligently working toward establishing
Recreation RACs since REA was enacted. Throughout this process, the
agencies have sought to ensure that we have the best possible framework
for establishment. In fact, the agencies agreed to further engage the
public by conducting listening session across the country in June 2005
and 2006. Input from those listening sessions only made the framework
stronger. The Interagency Agreement was signed by Deputy Secretary of
the Interior, Lynn Scarlett, on August 31, 2006, and Under Secretary of
Agriculture, Mark Rey, on September 1, 2006.
Page 64, lines 1-9: The FS recognizes that there is confusion among
employees regarding REA. The FS is developing better communication
tools for field staff implementing the Act.
Page 64, lines 11-16: Forest Service policy is to perform an audit on
all active Collection Officers at least annually. This is the
responsibility of the local line officer, using guidance found in the
FSH 6509.11 k, chapter 30 and FSH 6509.14 (Collection Officer
Handbook). Senior Forest Service management is aware of a shortfall in
the prescribed audit program and has assigned a full-time resource to
monitor the program, nation-wide.
Forest Service is very concern about employee safety and makes law
enforcement resources available in high risk situations.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Page 65, lines 2-5: The FS, in coordination with the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM), has been diligently working toward establishing
Recreation RACs since REA was enacted. Throughout this process, the
agencies have sought to ensure that we have the best possible framework
for establishment. In fact, the agencies agreed to further engage the
public by conducting listening session across the country in June 2005
and 2006. Input from those listening sessions only made the framework
stronger. The Interagency Agreement was signed by Deputy Secretary of
the Interior, Lynn Scarlett, on August 3 and Under Secretary of
Agriculture, Mark Rey, on September 1, 2006.
Page 65, lines 28-29: The recreation staff is in the process of
revising Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2300, Chapter 2330 - Publicly
Managed Recreation Opportunities. Revision of the FSM 2300, Chapter
2330 will likely take 1 year.
Page 65, lines 30-31: The FS is in the process of revising the
collection agent and cash handling policies in Forest Service Manual
(FSM) 6530 - Billing and Collections and Forest Service Handbook (FSH)
6509.14 -Collection Officer Handbook. Because of major agency changes
in accounting procedures, finalizing these revisions has been delayed.
The FS will expedite the publication of the handbook and updated
procedures as soon as practicable.
Appendix II:
Page 75, line 1 and Table 15: The "$50 Maximum fee per vehicle" charge
as described in the text and Table 15 for the FS is for a commercial
vehicle and not an individual or private vehicle. We suggest GAO review
the survey results to verify that is correct and identify in the text
and table whether these charges are for individual, private vehicles or
whether the responses given reflect commercial vehicle charges.
Page 79, Table 18: Although the text identifies that the prices in
Table 18 are for group and individual campsite charges, we suggest GAO
further clarify this distinction in Table 18's title as well.
Page 81, line 14: The sentence states that the FS (identified in
Footnote 30) charges "$898" as a maximum special recreation permit fee
for whitewater rafting of the Kern River in the Sequoia National
Forest. The Sequoia National Forest retains the commercial permit fees
(special use permits for outfitting and guiding) for the Kern River.
Thus, it is likely that this $898 maximum fee reflects a commercial
special recreation pen-nit (special use) fee and not an individual
special recreation permit fee. The only location along the Kern River
where the FS charges an individual special recreation permit fee is
along the section of the river that is jointly managed with the BLM. An
individual, non-commercial special recreation permit fee for this
section of the river is $2/person.
Appendix III:
Page 82, lines 14-21: The Departments of Agriculture and the Interior
have made changes to the Recreation RAC framework as follows: a) in
consultation with the Governor of Alaska, the Alaska Region will not be
forming a Recreation RAC, b) the State of Colorado will not be
consulting existing BLM Resource Advisory Councils. Instead, the FS
will charter a new, joint FS and BLM Recreation RAC for the State of
Colorado, and c) the National Grasslands located in Kansas will consult
with the new Colorado Recreation RAC when it is formed. Please edit the
text and tables in Appendix III to reflect these new changes.
Page 84, lines 15-18: This language describing subcommittees is
confusing and suggests that subcommittees serve or act as a chartered
Recreation RAC. Subcommittees are not advisory committees and should be
referred to as providing additional advice and recommendations to their
parent committee, the Recreation RAC.
Appendix V:
Page 88, Table 24: It is important to note that if you look at the
annual obligations for the listed national forests (not a part of the
table), generally, these national forests are spending the same amount
that they collect in one year.
The following are GAO's comments on the Department of Agriculture's
Forest Service letter dated September 7, 2006.
GAO Comments:
1. FS provided additional detail on the results of their inquiries to
units that responded to our survey that they did not offer all six
amenities required to charge standard amenity fees under REA. We have
summarized this information on pages 27 and 28 of the report. In
essence, FS officials imply from the results of their inquiries that
many of these unit officials were not aware of the type of fees they
were charging or the amenities offered for the fees charged under the
REA authority when they replied to our survey. This new information
would have to be verified to attest to its accuracy.
2. The GAO survey was sent to 467 FS Ranger District officials directly
responsible for implementation of the fee program, under REA. The
results we reported are based on two opinion survey questions that we
asked both FS and DOI field-level officials to respond to. The first
question asked if the unit officials believed recreation fee revenues
are being used to fund the types of projects formerly funded with
appropriations at their unit. The second question sought the officials'
opinions about the extent to which they believe that recreation fee
revenue will be used to fund the types of projects over the next 5
years at their units that would have been funded with appropriated
dollars. We recognize that individual units do not have agencywide
perspectives on these issues. Also, the inclusion of these survey
results in our report is not intended as a forecast of the future but
rather as a way to share the perspective of the survey respondents
responsible for the on-the-ground implementation of this program. No
GAO conclusions or recommendations were based on these stated
perceptions. In addition, we have added the FS statement that,
historically, fee revenues have not replaced appropriations, and there
is no reason to expect this to change in the future in order to also
share the agency's official perspective on this issue.
3. We agree that "slow" is a relative term but believe that it is used
appropriately in the context of the information presented in the
paragraph pertaining to the development of the RRACs. The information
in the paragraph notes that according to a June 2005 interagency
presentation, the RRACs were expected to be established with members
appointed by the end of 2005. Since none of the members for any of the
RRACs have been appointed, we feel comfortable in referring to this
RRAC development as "slow."
4. We recognize that the FS interim implementation guidelines for REA
have definitions of the standard amenities;
however, these guidelines have not prevented confusion about amenity
criteria. In their comments on a draft of this report (bottom of page
104), the FS contends 31 of their unit officials erroneously reported
they were out of compliance with REA's standard amenity requirements
because they were either confused over the difference between standard
and expanded amenities, or, because "there was misunderstanding over
the definitions of the amenities." Such results further highlight the
need for more specific FS guidance on implementing and managing the fee
program.
5. We believe that for department-level management to have assurance
that collected fees are controlled effectively and accounted for
properly, detailed department-or bureau-level guidance on procedures
are an important tool for local managers and imperative for those who
have little or no formal accounting training or background.
[End of section]
Appendix VIII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Robin Nazzaro (202) 512-3841or nazzaror@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the individual named above, Roy Judy, Assistant
Director; Carolyn Boyce; Elizabeth Curda; John Delicath; Denise
Fantone; Doreen Feldman; Timothy Guinane; Anne Hobson; Susan Irving;
Stanley Kostyla; Diane Lund; Robert Martin; Matt Michaels; Angie
Nichols-Friedman; Lesley Rinner; John Scott; Jack Warner; and Amy
Webbink made key contributions to this report.
(360596):
FOOTNOTES
[1] GAO, Recreation Fees: Management Improvements Can Help the
Demonstration Program Enhance Visitor Services, GAO-02-10 (Washington,
D. C.: Nov. 26, 2001). GAO, Recreation Fees: Information on Forest
Service Management of Revenue from the Fee Demonstration Program, GAO-
03-470 (Washington, D. C.: Apr. 25, 2003).
[2] BLM generally refers to Resource Advisory Committees as Resource
Advisory Councils.
[3] Recreation fees collected under REA are deposited in the Recreation
Enhancement Fee account.
[4] A unit is defined as a BLM field office, a FWS national wildlife
refuge, a unit of the national park system (e.g., a national park,
national historic site, or national monument), or a FS ranger district.
[5] Dollars in this report are unadjusted for inflation.
[6] Existing passes purchased prior to the establishment of the new
interagency pass will remain valid until expired, lost, or stolen.
[7] GAO, Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance
and Sustain Collaboration among Federal Agencies, GAO-06-15
(Washington, D.C.: Oct. 21, 2005).
[8] The establishment of the RRACs is guided by the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (FACA), as well as REA. Under FACA, there are specific
requirements for organizing and managing such committees, such as
assigning of a Designated Federal Officer to each committee, achieving
balanced membership on the committees, and requiring open public
meetings.
[9] The public involvement opportunities must also include "sharing
plans" developed by the agencies when deciding to establish any new
recreation fee areas. These plans will generally contain (1) a
description of the new recreation fee areas; (2) a financial analysis,
including projected development, operating, and maintenance costs, as
well as projected income for the fee area; (3) an analysis of existing
private and public facilities or services in the vicinity of the fee
area that may compete with it; and (4) a description of how the
cooperating agencies will inform the public as to how the fees
collected at the area will be spent.
[10] Focus groups were held in Richmond, VA; Boston, MA; Salt Lake
City, UT; Fresno, CA; Portland, OR; and Madison, WI.
[11] In 2004 and 2005, more than 85 percent of National Parks Passes
were sold at fee sites, approximately 5 percent were sold through the
Internet, less than 1 percent were sold through the current
contractor's contact center, and approximately 8 percent were sold
through third-party sales.
[12] The interagency guidelines will address the price of the pass, the
benefits provided, eligibility requirements, marketing and design, the
issuance of passes to volunteers, and the distribution of costs and
revenues.
[13] REA prohibits charging an entrance fee at an area or unit covered
by section 203 of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act,
with the exception of Denali National Park and Preserve. Section 203
prohibits charging fees for entrance to any unit of the national park
system located in Alaska. 16 U.S.C. 410hh-2.
[14] REA allows FWS to collect entrance fees only at units of the
National Wildlife Refuge System. Since Gavin's Point National Fish
Hatchery is a unit of the National Fish Hatchery System and not a unit
of the National Wildlife Refuge System, collection of entrance fees at
that unit is not allowed under REA.
[15] United States v. Wallace, 2066 WL 2563468 (D. Ariz. Sept. 5,
2006).
[16] GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government,
GAO/AIMD-99-21.3.2 (Washington, D.C.: November 1999) and GAO, Internal
Control Management and Evaluation Tool, GAO-01-1008G (Washington, D.C.:
August 2001).
[17] According to a BLM official, since our visit in March 2006, the
officials at the Gunnison Field Office have made changes to their fee
collection procedures, including utilizing two employees for fee
collections and processing.
[18] Since our visit to this unit in March 2006, Tonto officials have
sought assistance from the FS Albuquerque Service Center (ASC) to audit
this contract. ASC officials indicated they have requested copies of
the automated machine data from the contractor, but the contractor has
refused to provide the data because of proprietary issues.
[19] We discussed project selection processes and time lines with
agency officials at specific units, state/regional offices, and
headquarters but did not collect data to confirm their statements.
[20] Use of these funds for law enforcement is acceptable as long as
the enforcement activity is related to public use and recreation.
[21] The regional reviewers rank the projects in PMIS based on certain
criteria and generally aim to target deferred maintenance activities,
facilities, visitor enjoyment, and interpretive projects.
[22] U.S. Departments of the Interior and Agriculture, Federal Lands
Recreation Enhancement Act: First Triennial Report to Congress, Fiscal
Year 2006 (Washington, D.C.: May 2006).
[23] The 115 national forests collecting recreation fees include many
that consist of two or more forests merged into one administrative
unit.
[24] Throughout Fee Demo, the Shasta-Trinity National Forest collected
resort and marina special use permit fees under the Term Permit Act but
were able to use Fee Demo as a second authority to retain the resort
and marina revenues on-site. However, the unit no longer has the
authority to retain the revenues because there is a limitation in REA
that states that amounts collected under any other law may not be
disbursed under REA. The unit does not use REA to collect the funds
because the marina permits are issued for 20 years, and the authority
to carry out REA terminates in 10 years after REA was enacted.
[25] We used revenue data from the Recreational Fee Demonstration
Program (Progress Report to Congress for Fiscal Year 2003), because
this was the most recent report that had been published that included
fee revenue data broken down by individual unit for all four agencies.
[26] Data in this appendix represent fees in effect at the time the
respondents completed the survey (February to May 2006).
[27] A $50 standard amenity fee is charged to reserve one day use of
the Jack's Creek or Holy Ghost Large Group Areas in the Pecos-Las Vegas
Ranger District of the Sante Fe National Forest.
[28] A group campsite fee of up to $225 was reported for the Hot
Springs Campground in the Emmett Ranger District in the Boise National
Forest.
[29] An example of such a motor boating fee is the $300 that the Midway
Atoll National Wildlife Refuge charges ships over 65 feet in length for
harbor entrance.
[30] This maximum special recreation permit fee was estimated for an
outfitter to provide whitewater rafting of the Kern River in the
Sequoia National Forest. Under the permit, a two day trip costing $898
per person, for a maximum of 15 people, results in a fee of 3% of the
total outfitter trip revenue, or $404.
[31] Hawaii is not included in the RRAC interagency organizational
agreement.
[32] The one BLM fee-collecting unit in the eastern states is a horse
boarding stable that has a multiyear management contract. This unit
will be covered by the new Southern Region RRAC.
[33] FS's Southern Region covers Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia,
Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Puerto
Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia.
[34] FS's Eastern Region covers Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois,
Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota,
Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania,
Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.
[35] Under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, anyone can nominate
individuals to serve on the RRAC. REA allows state Governors and
designated county officials to submit nominations. Members of the RRACs
will serve in staggered terms of 2 to 3 years.
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: