Recreation Fees: Management Improvements Can Help the		 
Demonstration Program Enhance Visitor Services (26-NOV-01,	 
GAO-02-10).							 
								 
To address concerns about the ability of federal land management 
agencies to provide high-quality recreational opportunities to	 
visitors and to protect resources, Congress authorized the	 
Recreational Fee Demonstration Program. The program focused on	 
recreational activities at four land management agencies: the	 
National Park Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the  
Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and the Forest Service. Under	 
the fee demonstration program, participating agencies were	 
authorized to establish, charge, collect, and use fees at a	 
number of sites to (1) enhance visitor services; (2) address a	 
backlog of needs for repair and maintenance; and (3) manage and  
protect resources. The agencies applied "entrance fees" for basic
admission to an area and "user fees" for specific activities such
as camping or launching a boat. Under the law, 80 percent of	 
program revenue must be used at the site where it was collected, 
and the remaining 20 percent may be distributed to other sites	 
that may or may not be participating in the demonstration	 
program. Some of the sites that GAO surveyed for this study	 
experimented with innovative fee designs and collection methods, 
such as reducing fees during off-peak seasons and allowing	 
visitors to use credit cards, but room for additional innovation 
exists, particularly in the areas of fee collection and 	 
coordination. Improvements in three areas of program management  
are needed to enhance program performance. First, the agencies	 
need to evaluate their managers' performance in administering the
fee program. Second, the agencies need to develop information on 
which fee-collection and coordination practices work best. Third,
the agencies need to resolve interagency management issues. Since
80 percent of the fees must be used at the site where they are	 
collected, higher priority needs at other sites may not be met.  
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-02-10						        
    ACCNO:   A02331						        
  TITLE:     Recreation Fees: Management Improvements Can Help the    
Demonstration Program Enhance Visitor Services			 
     DATE:   11/26/2001 
  SUBJECT:   Funds management					 
	     Interagency relations				 
	     Land management					 
	     Maintenance costs					 
	     National recreation areas				 
	     User fees						 
	     NPS Recreational Fee Demonstration 		 
	     Program						 
								 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Testimony.                                               **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-02-10
     
RECREATION FEES Management Improvements Can Help the Demonstration Program
Enhance Visitor Services Report to the Ranking Minority

Member, Subcommittee on National Parks, Historic Preservation, and
Recreation, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U. S. Senate

United States General Accounting Office

GAO

November 2001 GAO- 02- 10

Page i GAO- 02- 10 Recreation Fees Letter 1

Results in Brief 2 Background 4 More Innovation and Better Coordination Can
Improve Visitor

Services 6 Management Improvements Are Needed to Make the Program

More Effective 18 Use of Fee Demonstration Revenues May Not Always Reflect

Agencies? Highest- Priority Needs 24 Conclusions 29 Recommendations for
Executive Action 30 Agency Comments 30

Appendix I Scope and Methodology 32

Appendix II Comments From the Department of the Interior 35

Appendix III Comments From the U. S. Department of Agriculture 37

Tables

Table 1: Percentage of Fee Demonstration Sites That Used Innovative
Collection Methods for Entrance Fees 10 Table 2: Percentage of Fee
Demonstration Sites That Used

Innovative Collection Methods for User Fees 10 Table 3: Response Rate for
Fee Demonstration Program Survey 32 Table 4: Demonstration Sites GAO Visited
33

Figures

Figure 1: Fiscal Year 2000 Fee Demonstration Revenues 6 Figure 2: Percentage
of Agency Sites That Used Innovative Fee

Pricing 8 Figure 3: Automated Fee Payment Machines at BLM?s Imperial

Sand Dunes Recreation Area 13 Contents

Page ii GAO- 02- 10 Recreation Fees

Figure 4: Percentage of Agency Sites Coordinating Fees 15

Abbreviations

BLM Bureau of Land Management FWS Fish and Wildlife Service

Page 1 GAO- 02- 10 Recreation Fees

November 26, 2001 The Honorable Craig Thomas Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on National Parks,

Historic Preservation, and Recreation Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources United States Senate

Dear Senator Thomas: For many years, the Congress has expressed concern
about the ability of federal land management agencies to continue providing
high- quality recreational opportunities to visitors and to enhance the
protection of resources. To address this concern, in 1996 the Congress
authorized an experimental initiative called the Recreational Fee
Demonstration Program. The program focuses on the activities of four land
management agencies: the National Park Service, the Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS), and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) within the Department
of the Interior, and the Forest Service within the U. S. Department of
Agriculture. Under the fee demonstration program, the participating agencies
are authorized to establish, charge, collect, and use fees at a number of
sites to enhance visitor services; to address a backlog of needs for repair
and maintenance; and to manage and protect resources, among other uses. The
program applies mainly to two types of visitor fees: ?entrance fees? for
basic admission to an area and ?user fees? for specific activities such as
camping or launching a boat. Under the law, as amended, 80 percent of
program revenue must be used at the site where it was collected, and the
remaining 20 percent may be distributed by the agencies to other sites that
may or may not be participating in the demonstration program. 1 The program
is currently authorized through September 30, 2004.

To reap the full benefits of the program, the Congress called upon the
agencies to be creative in developing and experimenting with new fees and
fee collection practices, to improve service to visitors, and to alleviate
visitors? confusion by coordinating multiple or overlapping recreation fees.
In 1998, about 2 years after the program began, we reported to you that the

1 P. L. 104- 134, title III, sec. 315, as amended. The revenue is deposited
into a special Treasury account and then redistributed to the recreational
sites.

United States General Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548

Page 2 GAO- 02- 10 Recreation Fees

program was successful in many ways but that improvements were needed in a
number of areas. More specifically, opportunities remained for the agencies
to be more innovative and cooperative in designing, setting, and collecting
fees; cooperation and coordination among the agencies also needed
improvement. We further reported that under the program?s requirement to use
80 percent of revenues at the collecting site, heavily visited sites might
eventually have more revenue than needed for their projects, while sites
with fewer visitors could have unmet needs.

Now, after 3 more years of experience, as the Congress is considering
whether to make the program permanent, you asked that we review some of the
same issues we reported on in 1998 to see if conditions have changed
substantially. As agreed with your office, we determined (1) the extent to
which agencies used innovative practices to design and collect fees and
coordinated their management of the fee demonstration program; (2) what, if
any, management improvements can be made to enhance program performance; and
(3) whether revenues from the fee demonstration program are being used to
meet the agencies? highestpriority needs.

We based our analysis in part on a survey that we developed and made
accessible to managers of fee demonstration sites via the Internet. The
survey covered such issues as fee innovations, fee collection methods, and
attempts to coordinate fees with other agencies or nearby sites. In all,
managers of 346 (or 95 percent) of the 365 sites involved in the
demonstration program completed this survey. Our survey results are included
in a special publication entitled Recreational Fee Demonstration Program
Survey and is available only on the Internet at http:// www. gao. gov/ cgi-
bin/ getrpt? gao- 02- 88SP. We also based our analysis on work conducted at
the agencies' headquarters and selected sites of all four agencies and
contacted four state park systems and six interest groups involved with
natural resources or outdoor recreation. We conducted our work from November
2000 through September 2001 in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards. See appendix I for a more detailed description of our
scope and methodology.

Some of the sites that we surveyed experimented with innovative fee designs
and collection methods, such as reducing fees during off- peak seasons and
allowing visitors to use credit cards to make it easier for them to pay
fees, but room for additional innovation exists, particularly in the areas
of fee collection and coordination. For example, 70 percent of sites,
including some large national parks that host millions of visitors annually,
Results in Brief

Page 3 GAO- 02- 10 Recreation Fees

do not accept credit cards for payment of entrance fees. Furthermore, most
sites have not adopted other common retailing techniques, such as collecting
fees via toll- free numbers or through off- site vendors. Such techniques
would increase visitor convenience by providing more payment options and
improve the safety and security of the employees collecting the fees.
Similarly, about 70 percent of the sites do not coordinate their fees with
other sites. For example, some sites charge a single entrance fee that
includes activities, such as hiking or touring a historic site, whereas
others nearby charge a separate user fee for these activities. Such lack of
coordination results in fees that are not only inconsistent, but also
confusing to visitors.

Improvements in three areas of program management are needed to enhance
program performance. First, the agencies need effective ways to evaluate
their managers? performance in administering the fee program. Performance
expectations and associated performance measures, which are largely absent
in current performance evaluations, are especially necessary in view of the
fact that all four agencies give local site managers broad discretion to
implement the program. Without performance expectations and measures,
program managers cannot readily determine whether fee- collection and
coordination practices are acceptable either at a site or throughout an
agency. Second, the agencies need to develop information on which fee-
collection and coordination practices work best. This information would
become increasingly important as many more sites begin collecting fees if
the program is permanently authorized. Third, the agencies need to resolve a
number of interagency management issues. For example, agency and interagency
passes are not consistently accepted by sites, resulting in visitor
confusion and, in some cases, overlapping fees for the same or similar
activities. These issues have concerned agency managers for a number of
years but have yet to be resolved.

Revenues from the fee demonstration program may not always be used to meet
the highest- priority needs of the two agencies that generate almost all of
the fee revenue. First, the National Park Service and the Forest Service do
not maintain a centralized list of priority needs. Second, since 80 percent
of the fees must be used at the site where they were collected, sites that
collect most of the revenue use it to meet their local needs even if these
needs are minor in comparison with the needs at locations where fees are not
as plentiful. Although the on- site retention and use of most of its fee
revenue is key to public acceptance of the program, this requirement is
creating funding imbalances among the sites managed by the National Park
Service and the Forest Service. While some high- revenue sites have more
revenue than they may need to meet their priority needs,

Page 4 GAO- 02- 10 Recreation Fees

the backlog of priority needs of lower- revenue sites or sites not
participating in the fee demonstration program may not be addressed for many
years. Interior officials acknowledge this problem and believe that certain
sites with high fee revenues and with no backlog of needs or a limited
backlog could end up searching for additional projects just to spend the
money. This situation is particularly acute in the National Park Service,
where fee revenue at 14 parks has effectively increased their annual
operating budgets by 50 percent or more.

We are making recommendations in this report to improve the management of
the fee demonstration program.

We received comments from the Department of the Interior and the Department
of Agriculture on a draft of this report. Both departments generally agreed
with the findings and the recommendations in the report. Comments from the
Department of the Interior are included in appendix II, and comments from
the Department of Agriculture are included in appendix III.

Under the fee- demonstration program, up to 100 sites per agency have been
permitted to charge, collect, and establish recreation fees. 2 The National
Park Service and BLM have 100 sites each participating in the program, while
the FWS and the Forest Service have 88 sites each. 3 Because the program is
a demonstration program, the conference committee encouraged the agencies to
be innovative in designing and collecting fees and to coordinate their fees
with other federal, state, and local recreational sites. 4

Developing innovative fees and collection methods is a key objective of the
program because the Congress viewed experimentation with fees as a way to
improve customer service. Fee innovation was envisioned as charging
different types of fees beyond simply charging fees for entering a site or
using a facility or increasing fees that existed prior to the program.

2 The Congress recently expanded the fee demonstration program, eliminating
the 100 demonstration sites per agency limitation (P. L. 107- 63, sec. 312
(b)). 3 We excluded from our survey two FWS sites, two BLM sites, and seven
Forest Service sites because some sites were not collecting fees or the
sites had been consolidated as of September 30, 2000.

4 H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 105- 825, at 1194 (1998). Background

Page 5 GAO- 02- 10 Recreation Fees

For example, fee innovation includes such things as basing fees on the
length of stay or the season of the year visited. Innovative fee collection
procedures were encouraged to provide visitors with a broader variety of
payment options for recreation fees, such as using automated fee payment
machines and credit or debit cards.

Coordinating fees within and among the agencies, as well as with other
nearby recreational sites, is also an important aspect of the program.
Agencies are encouraged to work toward a seamless program by cooperating to
eliminate inconsistent, duplicative, or overlapping fees that can confuse
visitors or otherwise detract from the quality of service provided to them.

Since fiscal year 1997, the four participating agencies have collected more
than $600 million in the program. In fiscal year 2000, revenue collections
totaled $186 million, with the National Park Service collecting over 75
percent of the total (see fig. 1). 5

5 The National Park Service fee demonstration revenue includes $10.1 million
from sales of the National Parks Pass.

Page 6 GAO- 02- 10 Recreation Fees

Figure 1: Fiscal Year 2000 Fee Demonstration Revenues

Being innovative is an important goal of the fee demonstration program.
While some of the sites surveyed experimented with innovative types of fees
and fee collection methods, room for improvement exists- particularly in the
area of fee collection and coordination. Currently, many sites use
traditional collection methods and have not adopted innovative practices
that could improve the quality of service to the visiting public.
Furthermore, frequently agencies are not pursuing opportunities to
coordinate fees better among their own sites; with other agencies; or with
other nearby, nonfederal recreational sites. As a result, existing fees are
sometimes overlapping, duplicative, or confusing.

The experimental nature of the fee demonstration program furnishes agencies
with the opportunity to try different types of recreation fees. The agencies
are expected to take advantage of this opportunity by trying different types
of fees, rather than merely increasing existing entrance or user fees. Our
survey found that overall about 25 percent of sites tried More Innovation
and

Better Coordination Can Improve Visitor Services

Some Sites Experimented With Innovative Fees

Page 7 GAO- 02- 10 Recreation Fees

some form of innovative fees. The remaining sites- about 75 percent-
continued with their traditional approaches for charging entrance and user
fees.

For purposes of our analysis, we defined fee innovation as doing more than
taking a traditional approach to setting fees. Specifically, if sites made
no changes to their fees or increased fees that were already in place when
the program began, we did not consider them to be innovative. On the other
hand, if sites used nontraditional approaches like basing fees on their
visitors? length of stay or offering fee incentives for visiting during off-
peak periods, we considered the sites to be innovative. Such variable
pricing, often referred to as differential pricing, offers visitors a
greater range of recreational fee prices. It also enables agencies to manage
visitation better during peak periods, to align fees better with the costs
of providing services, and to help lessen overcrowding and the resulting
negative effect on resources.

The survey results show that 87 sites (about 25 percent of all sites
surveyed) have experimented with some type of fee innovation. 6 The
remaining 259 sites (about 75 percent) in the program have not experimented
with innovative fees. The extent of fee innovation varied considerably among
the agencies (see fig. 2).

6 Specifically, we asked questions about a site?s use of peak- period
pricing, reduced- fee prices during shoulder seasons (such as the fall or
spring or other times of the year with lower visitation), increased- fee
prices for campsites with scenic amenities, and other types of new or
experimental entrance or user fees. See http:// www. gao. gov/ cgi- bin/
getrpt? gao- 02- 88SP, questions 46A- D and 53, for further detail.

Page 8 GAO- 02- 10 Recreation Fees

Figure 2: Percentage of Agency Sites That Used Innovative Fee Pricing

The following examples illustrate the kind of fee innovations that have been
used:

 48 sites (14 percent of those surveyed) reported reducing fee prices
during off- peak or shoulder seasons, such as the fall or spring. For
example, BLM?s Upper Colorado River site, located in Colorado, has reduced
its camping fees in the spring and fall, when fewer services are available.
According to the fee manager, the site began this practice before the fee
demonstration program to more closely align fees with the level of service
provided.  35 sites (10 percent of those surveyed) reported using some
other type of

peak- period or differential pricing. For example, to help manage high
visitation levels during the three summertime holiday weekends, the Forest
Service?s Sand Lake Recreation Area in Oregon added $10 to its entrance fee
and limits the number of off- highway vehicles to 1,200 vehicles for those
weekends. These changes helped offset some of the administrative and
staffing costs associated with increased holiday weekend use and provided an
incentive to shift visits to non- holiday weekends, according to an agency
official. Before the fee demonstration program, the area charged no
additional fees, and increased operational costs during the holiday weekends
were absorbed into the site?s existing budget, according to a Forest Service
official.

Page 9 GAO- 02- 10 Recreation Fees

Each agency experimented to some extent with new or innovative entrance or
user fees. We recognize that some innovative types of fees may not be
practical or feasible at all locations. However, whether this degree of
experimentation is acceptable in terms of achieving the results expected by
agency managers cannot be determined because none of the agencies developed
performance expectations or criteria for success.

The fee demonstration program encouraged agencies to be innovative and
improve visitor service by using modern, more convenient fee collection
methods. Among the four agencies, a number of sites have used new or
innovative approaches to collecting fees to improve visitor convenience,
reduce collection costs, and improve the safety and security of employees
collecting fees. However, over 60 percent of sites surveyed reported that
there was little or only some difference in their fee collection methods for
both entrance and user fees since the program began. These data suggest that
much more can be done to offer visitors a wider variety of options for
paying recreation fees. The agencies could accomplish this goal by more
frequently adopting commonly used retail practices, such as using credit
cards, where feasible.

Our survey asked sites about their use of fee collection methods for both
entrance and user fees during the demonstration program. 7 These methods
included more traditional methods, such as collecting fees at an entrance
station or at an ?iron ranger? fee tube- a metal tube which is used as a
self- service payment station- as well as methods that could be considered
innovative and more convenient for visitors when compared to the traditional
practices used by the agencies: credit cards, automated fee payment
machines, the Internet, 800 toll- free telephone numbers, and off- site
vendor sales.

We selected these five particular ones because they are collection and
payment methods used everyday in retail, recreation, or entertainment
industries.

As tables 1 and 2 show, relatively few sites have experimented with the five
innovative collection or payment methods for entrance and user fees.

7 These methods included both fee collection and fee payment practices; e.
g., collection of fees paid by using an 800 toll- free telephone number. See
http:// www. gao. gov/ cgi- bin/ getrpt? gao- 02- 88SP for a list of the fee
collection methods. More Innovation to Update

Fee Collection Practices Would Improve Visitor Convenience

Page 10 GAO- 02- 10 Recreation Fees

In addition, significant variations existed among agencies in the use of
these methods. For example, while more than 40 percent of the Forest Service
sites collected user fees via off- site vendor sales, only 6 percent of
National Park Service sites used this method.

Table 1: Percentage of Fee Demonstration Sites That Used Innovative
Collection Methods for Entrance Fees Agency Collection or payment method a
BLM FWS National Park Service Forest Service Total

Credit card at an entrance station 9 3 48 27 30

Automated fee payment machine 0 3 12 9 8

Internet 0 0 3 0 2

800 telephone number 0 0 4 0 2

Off- site vendor sales 18 3 15 18 12

Number of sites 11 35 69 11 a Excludes sale of the FWS? Duck Stamp and the
National Park Service?s National Parks Pass.

Table 2: Percentage of Fee Demonstration Sites That Used Innovative
Collection Methods for User Fees Agency Collection or payment method a BLM
FWS National Park Service Forest Service Total

Credit card at an entrance station 8 2 30 12 14

Automated fee payment machine 1 0 19 10 8

Internet 3 0 16 20 10

800 telephone number 3 0 20 20 11

Off- site vendor sales 7 4 6 42 14

Number of sites 76 54 70 59 a Excludes sale of the FWS? Duck Stamp and the
National Park Service?s National Parks Pass.

The sites that did experiment with any of these collection practices
generally found that they increased visitor convenience, reduced agency
collection costs, and increased the safety and security of employees
collecting fees.

Using credit cards can make it easier for visitors to pay for multiple
entrance or user fees simultaneously and can increase the safety of
employees collecting fees by reducing cash handling. Nonetheless, while
credit cards are ubiquitous in retail transactions, many of the
demonstration sites have been reluctant to use them. For example, 30 percent
of the surveyed sites that charge entrance fees and 14 percent of the
surveyed sites that charge user fees accept credit cards for payment at an
entrance station. While about half (33 of 69 sites that collect entrance
fees) of the Park Service demonstration sites accept credit cards at an

Page 11 GAO- 02- 10 Recreation Fees

entrance station, a number of popular parks visited by millions annually,
such as Yosemite National Park, do not accept credit cards. In commenting on
a draft of this report, the Park Service stated that Yosemite National Park
will begin accepting credit cards by the end of 2001. An October 2000 Forest
Service review of fee demonstration sites in one of its regions questioned
why it was so difficult for the agency to establish credit card acceptance
and cited significant customer inconvenience because of this. The review
noted that credit cards would also greatly reduce cash handling and improve
employee safety. In addition, our survey results show that none of the top
five FWS revenue sites, which accounted for 42 percent of the agency?s
fiscal year 2000 total fee demonstration revenues, offer visitors the option
of using credit cards for fee payment. Overall, while officials from the
Interior agencies and the Forest Service agree that more can be done in this
area, many times it may not be feasible for a number of reasons. For
example, they said that credit cards may not be cost- effective at all sites
and that the lack of adequate infrastructure, such as on- site power or
phone lines in remote locations, prevented some sites from accepting credit
cards.

Another type of collection technique being used at some sites are automated
fee payment machines similar to the automated teller machines used by banks
and other financial institutions. With automated payment machines, visitors
can pay a variety of fees, such as entrance, campground, or boat launch fees
that can be paid with cash or credit cards, and the machines issue receipts
showing the fees were paid. At BLM?s Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area,
for example, a fee demonstration site in southern California, 17 automated
fee payment machines are used to collect $10 for a weekly pass or $30 for an
annual pass from users of off- highway vehicles (see fig. 3). Total fee
revenue at this site in fiscal year 2000 was about $400,000, according to a
BLM official. About 500,000 people use the 118, 000- acre site each year,
peaking at about 100,000 people during Thanksgiving weekend. According to a
BLM official at the site, the battery operated fee machines, which are owned
and maintained by a private contractor, are very convenient to use and
accept both cash and credit cards for fee payment. Use of the machines has
significantly reduced the number of agency staff required for fee collection
at the sites where the machines are located.

Despite the potential of automated fee machines to lower visitors? waiting
times during peak periods and the potential to reduce the agencies?
collection costs, only 8 percent of the 126 sites charging entrance fees and
8 percent of the 259 sites charging user fees employed such machines.
According to Park Service and Forest Service officials, use of automated

Page 12 GAO- 02- 10 Recreation Fees

fee- payment machines may not always lower the cost of collection. In
addition, officials from the two agencies said some sites are reluctant to
purchase these machines because of the temporary nature of the fee
demonstration program and the potential for vandalism when they are
installed in remote locations. We recognize that automated fee payment
machines may not be practical or cost effective at all demonstration sites
such as those with low visitation or remote access. However, among those
sites that have not installed automated payment machines for collecting
entrance or user fees are several that have a high volume of visitors- each
with over a million annually- including Acadia and Yellowstone National
Parks; the Forest Service?s Sawtooth National Recreation Area in Idaho and
Shasta- Trinity National Recreation Area in California; and the FWS?
Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge in Virginia.

In commenting on a draft of this report, the Park Service and the Forest
Service noted that automated fee payment machines were not installed at some
locations for various reasons. The Park Service said that such machines were
not installed because power and telephone lines may not be available and
because of the park?s desire to maintain a uniformedranger contact with
visitors when paying fees. The Forest Service cited issues, such as sites
having multiple points of entry, vandalism concerns, and the potentially
short- term nature of the program. We agree that these are important
considerations in helping decide whether to use these machines. However, in
light of the very limited use of these machines to date- even at many high-
visitation parks and forests- we believe that in the interest of improving
visitor services and convenience, the agencies need to pursue all
opportunities in this area.

Page 13 GAO- 02- 10 Recreation Fees

Figure 3: Automated Fee Payment Machines at BLM?s Imperial Sand Dunes
Recreation Area

Another little- used technique is paying entrance or user fees over the
Internet or via a toll- free telephone number. These techniques can also
increase customer convenience, encourage less cash handling at individual
sites, and lessen visitor delays during peak times. For example, camping and
hiking permits for Paria Canyon- Coyote Buttes in Arizona, one of BLM?s
demonstration sites, are sold via the Internet. Overnight camping in the
Paria Canyon area and hiking in the Coyote Buttes area are each limited to
20 people a day. Using the Internet allows visitors to obtain information on
the area, check on the availability of required camping and hiking permits
for particular dates, make reservations, fill out and submit detailed
application forms, and print out the application forms for mailing. A BLM
official responsible for managing the program said the Internet payment
method was very successful and that it accounted for about 80 percent of
total permit sales at that site. Despite the common use- and convenience- of
the Internet and a toll- free telephone number for conducting retail
transactions today, only 2 percent of all sites surveyed used them for sales
of entrance fees via the Internet, and 10 percent used

Page 14 GAO- 02- 10 Recreation Fees

the Internet for sales of user fees. Also, concerning 800 telephone number
sales, only 2 percent of sites surveyed used it for sales of entrance fees
and 11 percent used it for sales of user fees.

Finally, using off- site vendors to collect entrance or user fees can be
more convenient for the visitor and more efficient for the agency. In some
instances, paying fees at a location inside a site may not always be
convenient particularly if the site has no main entrance or has multiple
access points, such as in many Forest Service recreation sites. In such
situations, some sites have experimented with having small businesses, such
as gas stations, grocery stores, fishing tackle stores, or other groups in
the vicinity or adjacent to the site, collect entrance and user fees from
visitors. For example, about 240 vendors sell passes to visitors for
recreation in 17 national forests in Oregon and Washington State that
participate in a fee demonstration project called the Northwest Forest Pass-
a user fee for payment at developed recreation facilities and for trailhead
parking. According to a Forest Service official, use of off- site vendor
sales have reduced agency operational costs as well as improved visitor
convenience. Despite the many advantages of off- site vendor sales, less
than 15 percent of all sites use them for sales of either entrance or user
fees, although 42 percent of Forest Service sites use this method for sales
of user fees. National Park Service officials said that they do not use off-
site sales as much as the Forest Service because unlike the Forest Service,
many of their sites rely on entrance stations for fee collection.

In commenting on a draft of this report, the Park Service reported that it
is expanding vendor sales of passes. The Park Service also commented that it
has implemented other types of innovations, such as computer- based cash
register systems, electronic banking, and commercial- tour- fee vouchers. In
addition, FWS commented that the report makes the assumption that more
traditional fee collection methods equate to poorer customer service
compared with more sophisticated higher- technology methods. While we
recognize that existing fee collection methods may provide adequate customer
service at some recreation sites, at others, especially those with high
visitation, greater use of more innovative collection methods can improve
visitor convenience, reduce collection costs, and improve the safety and
security of employees collecting fees.

Page 15 GAO- 02- 10 Recreation Fees

The legislative history of the fee demonstration program emphasizes the need
for the participating agencies to work together to minimize or eliminate
confusion for visitors when overlapping or inconsistent fees are charged. In
implementing the fee demonstration program, management in each agency has
encouraged local site managers to coordinate fees to avoid such confusion.
However, in the final analysis, whether coordination occurs is largely based
on the desire and will of local site managers. The site managers responding
to our questionnaire reported that about 30 percent of their sites- 103 out
of 346- began coordinating their fees with other federal, state, or local
recreation sites after the fee demonstration program began. While
coordination of fees may not be feasible at all recreation sites, there are
many additional opportunities for addressing confusing fee situations by
identifying and eliminating overlapping or inconsistent fees. Figure 4 shows
the extent of coordination by each agency.

Figure 4: Percentage of Agency Sites Coordinating Fees

So far, the coordination that has occurred has led to some successes when
sites have worked together to better serve visitors by eliminating
overlapping and inconsistent fees. The following examples illustrate how
some sites have successfully avoided overlapping and inconsistent fees by
simplifying fees to better serve visitors. More Coordination Will

Help Eliminate Overlapping and Inconsistent Fees

Page 16 GAO- 02- 10 Recreation Fees

 Seventeen recreational sites along the Oregon coast accept the Oregon
Pacific Coast Passport, which allows unrestricted access for entrance, day
use or parking at each facility. These 17 sites are a combination of federal
and state locations and include a site from the National Park Service, a BLM
site, several Forest Service sites, and numerous state park sites. The per-
vehicle pass is offered as either an annual pass ($ 35) or a 5- day pass ($
10). This pass was initiated to reduce visitor confusion and frustration
over having to pay a fee at each different agency managing the recreational
sites along the Oregon Coast. Prior to the fee demonstration program,
visitors were required to pay entrance or other fees at each site
individually.  The Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation and four
federal

agencies- the Bureau of Reclamation, the Park Service, the Forest Service,
and BLM-- together offer the Visit Idaho Playgrounds pass. This per- vehicle
pass covers entrance, trailhead and boating fees at over 100 recreational
sites statewide and costs either $69 for an annual pass or $10 for a 5- day
pass. The pass, which became available in December 2000, covers day- use
fees but not camping and group fees. With the advent of the fee
demonstration program, the statewide pass was created to address the state?s
concerns about visitors having to pay so many separate fees.  The Park
Service?s Assateague Island National Seashore in Maryland and

the FWS? Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge in Virginia are adjacent
sites located on the same island bordering the Atlantic Ocean. Because of
their proximity and their relatively remote location, they share many of the
same visitors. To better accommodate the visitors, the managers at the sites
developed a reciprocal fee arrangement whereby each site accepts the fee
paid at the other site.

Despite these examples of successful coordination efforts, there are still
many opportunities where more coordination could improve the overall quality
of service being offered to visitors by eliminating the confusing fee
situations that still exist. For example, our survey results indicated that
30 percent of the sites responding to our questionnaire coordinated fees
with other sites. In addition, only 17 percent of the responding sites
coordinated fees with sites within their own agency. Even fewer sites
coordinated with state and local governments: 9 and 3 percent, respectively.

Limited fee coordination by the four agencies has permitted confusing fee
situations to persist, both within and among the agencies. At some sites, an
entrance fee may be charged for one activity whereas a user fee may be
charged for essentially the same activity at a nearby site. For example, in
Washington state, visitors entering either Olympic National Park or

Page 17 GAO- 02- 10 Recreation Fees

Olympic National Forest for day hiking are engaging in the same recreational
activity- obtaining general access to federal lands- but are charged
distinct entrance and user fees for the same activity. For a 1- day hike in
Olympic National Park, users pay a $10 per- vehicle entry fee (good for 1
week), whereas hikers using trailheads in Olympic National Forest are
charged a daily user fee of $5 per vehicle for trailhead parking. Also,
holders of the interagency Golden Eagle Passport- a $65 nationwide pass that
provides access to all federal recreation sites that charge entrance fees-
are able to use it to enter Olympic National Park but are not able to use it
to pay the Forest Service?s trailhead parking fee because that fee is a user
fee.

Such confusing and inconsistent fee situations also occur at sites within
the same agency. For example, visitors to some Park Service national
historic sites, such as the San Juan National Historic Site in Puerto Rico,
pay an entrance fee and have access to all amenities at the sites, such as
historic buildings. However, other Park Service historic sites, such as the
Roosevelt/ Vanderbilt Complex in New York State, charge no entrance fees but
tours of the primary residences require payment of user fees. As a result,
visitors who have purchased annual passes for entrance fees such as the
Golden Eagle Passport or the Park Service?s National Parks Pass- a $50
annual pass that provides access to all Park Service sites that charge
entrance fees- have access to the San Juan site but have to pay for the
activities at the Roosevelt/ Vanderbilt Complex.

Other examples of this confusing situation involve fees charged for a
variety of cave tours within the national park system. For self- guided cave
tours at Carlsbad Caverns National Park in New Mexico and the Oregon Caves
National Monument, either the Golden Eagle Passport or National Parks Pass
is accepted for payment. However, at Mammoth Cave National Park in Kentucky,
visitors must pay a user fee to take the self- guided cave tour, and the
national entrance passes are not accepted. Several other Park Service sites-
such as Jewel Cave and Wind Cave- also charge user fees for their cave tours
and do not accept the national entrance passes for payment. In our view,
comments made by one of the site managers in response to our questionnaire
best sum up the current entrance and user fee situation. According to the
fee manager at the Roosevelt/ Vanderbilt Complex, ?There is ongoing
confusion as to what constitutes an entrance and a use [fee]. Some sites
consider entering the grounds of the site the ?entrance? and others consider
entering the ?prime? resource or historic home, etc., the entrance. The
public at all levels are confused because the agencies apply the definitions
differently- both between and among the agencies.?

Page 18 GAO- 02- 10 Recreation Fees

In commenting on a draft of this report, the Park Service acknowledged
inconsistencies among Park Service fee demonstration sites that charge
entrance and user fees. The agency stated that it was planning to implement
recommendations from a recent consultant study that would reduce visitor
confusion by using more consistent fees.

To achieve the desired level of experimentation with different types of
fees, improve the use of more up- to- date collection methods, and to foster
more coordination among sites, management improvements are needed in three
areas: performance expectations and measures, program evaluation and
identification of best practices, and the resolution of interagency issues.
Improvements in each of these areas could enhance the effectiveness of the
program and better position the agencies for full- scale implementation of
the program if it becomes permanent.

The fee demonstration program legislation gave each of the agencies broad
authority to implement the demonstration program. All four agencies chose to
manage the program on a decentralized basis, giving local site managers
considerable discretion in the way the program is implemented. To hold site
managers, and the agencies, accountable for helping accomplish the goals of
the program, performance expectations and measures that are consistent with
program goals are critical. Having clear performance expectations and
measures would clarify what site managers are to accomplish and provide a
basis for judging performance and identifying areas needing improvement,
both on a site- by- site basis and across the program as a whole. However,
none of the agencies have developed performance expectations or measures.
Without such guidance, it is not surprising that the majority of the
demonstration sites have not experimented with new or additional types of
entrance fees; used more contemporary, convenient collection methods on a
broader scale; or more frequently coordinated fees with other recreation
sites. As a result, there is no way to determine whether the level of
innovation and coordination that has occurred at a site or throughout the
agency is acceptable.

Our findings are similar to what the four agencies reported to the Congress
in January 1998. 8 In providing a progress report on the fee demonstration

8 Recreational Fee Demonstration Program: Progress Report to Congress, U. S.
Department of the Interior and U. S. Department of Agriculture (Jan. 31,
1998). Management

Improvements Are Needed to Make the Program More Effective

Performance Expectations and Measurement Criteria Have Not Been Developed

Page 19 GAO- 02- 10 Recreation Fees

program, the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture
stated that ?. . . managers are often confused over what primary objective,
if any, should take priority, or whether they should attempt to satisfy
several objectives simultaneously.? In their January 2000 report to the
Congress, the two departments emphasized the need to measure the results of
the demonstration program. 9 The 2000 report concluded that ?the agencies
continue to wrestle with the problem of how to measure . . . accomplishments
and to communicate . . . successes in a meaningful way.? This need
continues.

None of the four agencies have implemented an effective performance
measurement system. While the Forest Service has taken some steps to address
its performance- management needs for this program by developing draft
criteria for determining successful performance, the program is already 5
years old, and the agency does not plan to implement its performance
criteria until January 2002.

Today, after almost 5 years of experience with the program, the agencies
have yet to complete systematic evaluations of the implementation of the
program to identify what types of fees and fee collection practices work
best. Performing such evaluations and developing knowledge of what the best
practices are would enable agency managers to identify the most effective
fees and collection practices to use should the program be permanently
authorized, which would improve visitor service.

The Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture, in their
January 1998 report to the Congress, cited the importance of assessing the
demonstration program. The report, among other things, identified the need
to evaluate the effectiveness of the way various agencies approach fees as
well as to determine the most effective modes to collect fees. Since the
January 1998 report, however, no formal system has been developed to
document, analyze, and exchange information on innovative fee approaches,
fee collection methods, or the extent of coordination with other recreation
sites in a consistent and systematic way. According to fee- demonstration
program managers, the agencies have shared information on best practices
through informal methods such as attendance at conferences and email
communications. In commenting on a

9 Recreational Fee Demonstration Program: Progress Report to Congress, U. S.
Department of the Interior and U. S. Department of Agriculture (Jan. 31,
2000). Systematic Program

Evaluations Have Not Been Done; Best Practices Have Not Been Identified

Page 20 GAO- 02- 10 Recreation Fees

draft of this report, the Park Service acknowledged that no formal mechanism
exists to share information, but it has several initiatives under way to
address this issue.

To its credit, the Forest Service performed evaluations of many individual
sites as well as regional programs for several years. While these
evaluations have been useful to agency managers, they have been general in
nature, varied in scope from site to site, and not consistently focused on
specific aspects of the fee demonstration program such as fee innovations,
fee- collection practices, and coordination activities. Furthermore, these
evaluations have not identified the best practices being used. Moreover, the
Forest Service has no process in place for ensuring that recommendations
made in its evaluation reports, if any, are implemented.

BLM is also beginning to make progress in evaluating its program. It began
site evaluations in March 2001 with plans to evaluate its major sites every
4 years. According to BLM officials, these evaluations will focus on the
overall management of the program. Park Service officials told us that the
agency?s regional offices and park units determine what, if any, audits of
the fee demonstration program are performed. The Park Service has performed
audits at some individual sites, generally involving cashhandling
procedures, but no overall assessment of its fee demonstration program was
completed. FWS conducted no formal systematic evaluations of its
demonstration sites or its overall program. FWS officials told us that the
high turnover in the agency?s fee demonstration program managers in
Washington, D. C., resulted in substantial staff time devoted to recruiting
and training fee managers, and as a result, no evaluation of fee programs
was performed.

In June 2000, the Senate Committee on Appropriations expressed similar
concerns about the lack of program evaluation. In its report on 2001 fiscal
year appropriations for Interior and related agencies, the Committee
directed Interior and Agriculture to conduct an assessment of the
demonstration program. 10 The assessment is to address many of the same
evaluation concerns discussed in this report, such as what criteria are used
for evaluating the success of the program, and whether sites are
coordinating to avoid multiple fee situations. The departments are now in
the process of preparing their report.

10 S. Rep. No. 106- 312, at 114 (2000).

Page 21 GAO- 02- 10 Recreation Fees

Since the demonstration program began 5 years ago, several interagency
issues emerged that affected the implementation of the program and the
quality of services provided to visitors. While the agencies have been aware
of these issues for several years, little was done to successfully resolve
them. The effective resolution of these interagency issues would require
agreement, coordination, and consistency among the four participating
agencies and two departments. However, no effective interagency mechanism is
currently in place to ensure this resolution is accomplished. These
conditions led to confusion among many visitors and have detracted from the
overall quality of service provided by the program.

Perhaps the best example of an interagency issue that needs to be addressed
is the inconsistency and confusion surrounding the acceptance and use of the
Golden Eagle Passport. This interagency pass costs $65 annually and is used
by tens of thousands of visitors each year. Purchasers of the pass have
unlimited access to federal recreational sites that charge an entrance fee.
However, many sites do not charge entrance fees to gain access to a site;
instead, they charge a user fee. For example, Yellowstone National Park,
Acadia National Park, and the Eisenhower National Historic Site charge
entrance fees. But sites like Wind Cave National Park, Steamtown National
Historic Site, and the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area charge
user fees for general access. If user fees are charged in lieu of entrance
fees, the Golden Eagle Passport is generally not accepted even though, to
the visitor with a Golden Eagle Passport, there is no practical difference.
Our survey results showed that only about 10 percent of the 346 sites that
responded to our survey accept the Golden Eagle Passport for a user fee
activity, even though many of these sites have similar recreation activities
as those charging an entrance fee. A number of site managers commented about
how confused visitors were by the Golden Eagle Passport. The following
comments are typical of these managers.

Park Service site manager: ?Visitors do not understand the difference
between a user fee and an entrance fee and are upset when their Golden
Eagles do not cover user fees. They understand paying for user fees such as
camping and boat launch user fees but not the user fee that permits access
to a site.?

Forest Service site manager: ?Sales of the Golden Eagle . . . do not provide
the visitor with sufficient information as to where these passes are valid.
Frequently, visitors become confused and angry when they attempt to use this
pass at Forest Service sites where user fees are charged.? No Effective
Mechanism

Exists to Promote Interagency Cooperation or Resolve Interagency Issues

Page 22 GAO- 02- 10 Recreation Fees

An interagency working group comprising the four agencies' fee-
demonstration coordinators recognized the problem concerning confusion over
the use of entrance versus user fees almost 4 years ago in their January
1998 report to the Congress. 11 They pointed out that ?In the absence of a
clear understanding of the difference between entrance fees and user fees,
the public may be uncertain why the Golden Eagle passport is accepted in
some situations and locations and not in others.? The report also stated
that a common definition of entrance fees is needed that can be applied
consistently across all federal recreational facilities that accept the
Golden Eagle passport. Despite these concerns, the matter remains
unresolved.

Further exacerbating the public?s confusion over payment of use or entrance
fees was the implementation of the Park Service?s single- agency National
Parks Pass in April 2000. This pass costs $50 annually and admits the
holder, spouse, children, and parents to all National Park Service sites
that charge an entrance fee. However, the Parks Pass does not admit the
cardholder to Park Service sites that charge a user fee, nor is it accepted
for admittance to other sites in the Forest Service and in the Department of
the Interior, including BLM and Fish and Wildlife Service sites. According
to a former coordinator of the Forest Service?s demonstration program, the
Parks Pass removed the Park Service?s incentive to effectively work with
other agencies to resolve the problem. However, the Park Service disagrees
with this assertion.

Another example of an interagency issue that needs to be addressed is the
need to promote greater coordination of fees among nearby or adjacent sites.
Situations in which inconsistent and overlapping fees are charged for
similar recreational activities- such as at Olympic National Park/ Olympic
National Forest in Washington- need to be resolved in a way that offers
visitors a more rational and consistent fee program.

We made a similar point in our 1998 report on the program. 12 In that
report, we stated that further coordination among the agencies participating
in

11 This interagency group meets periodically to discuss various fee
demonstration program issues such as fee innovation, interagency
coordination, and measures of accomplishments. It also prepares an annual
report to the Congress on the progress in implementing the program.

12 Recreation Fees: Demonstration Fee Program Successful in Raising Revenues
but Could Be Improved (GAO/ RCED- 99- 7, Nov. 20, 1998).

Page 23 GAO- 02- 10 Recreation Fees

the fee demonstration program could reduce confusion for visitors. We
recommended that the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture direct the
heads of the participating agencies to improve their services to visitors by
better coordinating their fee collection activities under the Recreational
Fee Demonstration Program. We also recommended that the agencies approach
such an analysis systematically, first by identifying other federal
recreation areas close to each of the demonstration sites and then, for each
situation, determining whether a coordinated approach, such as a reciprocal
fee arrangement, would better serve the visiting public. While the agencies
have taken some steps to address this concern, our survey results show that
much more could be done. These longstanding problems illustrate the need for
all four agencies to make improvements in interagency communication,
coordination, and consistency for the program to become visitor friendly.
The extent of coordination that occurs is still left to local site managers.
In our view, further fee coordination is not occurring because no effective
mechanism exists to ensure that interagency coordination occurs or to
resolve interagency issues or disputes when they arise. In commenting on a
draft of this report, the Park Service stated that it has been working with
other agencies on the acceptance of federal passes. However, there are no
specific plans or time frames to resolve this issue. BLM, in commenting on a
draft of this report, believed that there is an effective interagency
mechanism to deal with cross- agency problems. However, we question the
effectiveness of this mechanism because it has been almost 4 years since an
interagency working group recognized the confusion over federal passes and
visitors continue to be confused over the inconsistent acceptance of federal
passes.

Page 24 GAO- 02- 10 Recreation Fees

Almost 5 years into the demonstration program, an imbalance is growing in
fee revenues- high- priority needs at some lesser- visited sites go
unfunded, while more heavily visited sites will be able to address their
highest- priority needs and more. Many heavily visited sites in the fee
demonstration program in the Park Service and the Forest Service generate a
large amount of total fee revenues compared with other sites in these
agencies and other sites in the BLM and the FWS. 13 However, most of the
revenue stays in the collecting units to address local needs, and these
needs may not be the highest- priority needs facing the agency. This
situation is particularly acute in the Park Service where fee revenue at 14
parks has effectively increased annual operating budgets by 50 percent or
more. In fact, in several cases, such as at the Grand Canyon and Arches
National Parks, operating budgets doubled resulting in a large pool of funds
for addressing these parks? needs. In our 1998 Recreational Fee
Demonstration Program report, we suggested that the Congress might wish to
consider modifying the current requirement that 80 percent of fee revenue be
used in the units generating the revenues to allow for greater flexibility
in using fee revenues. 14

Many heavily visited sites in the fee demonstration program of the National
Park Service and the Forest Service generate a large amount of fee revenues
compared with other sites in these agencies and other sites in BLM and FWS.
The total revenue collected by 42 of the 100 Park Service sites in the fee
demonstration program amounted to $116 million in fiscal year 1999. 15 This
amount represented about 90 percent of all fee demonstration revenues
collected by the Park Service during that year. The 42 sites retained 80
percent of the revenue they collected, or about $92.8 million. Furthermore,
of these 42 sites, 14 retained fees that ranged from 50 percent to more than
100 percent of their fiscal year 1999 operating budgets. Three of these
sites retained fee revenue that exceeded their annual operating budgets for
that year. For example, Arches National

13 Our review in this section focused only on the National Park Service and
the Forest Service because these two agencies generated about 95 percent of
all fee demonstration revenue.

14 Recreation Fees: Demonstration Fee Program Successful in Raising Revenues
but Could Be Improved (GAO/ RCED- 99- 7, Nov. 20, 1998). 15 We used fiscal
year 1999 revenue data because they were the latest available when we began
our review. The revenue figures exclude $10.5 million in Golden Eagle
Passport sales. Use of Fee

Demonstration Revenues May Not Always Reflect Agencies? HighestPriority
Needs

Many Fee- Demonstration Sites Generate High Fee Revenues

Page 25 GAO- 02- 10 Recreation Fees

Park retained fee- demonstration revenue of $1.4 million- 156 percent of its
$911,000 fiscal year 1999 operating budget, and Grand Canyon National Park
retained fees of $19.5 million- 116 percent of its $16.8 million operating
budget for that year. In contrast, if the remaining 20 percent collected by
the 42 sites that year ($ 23.2 million) were provided to the other 342 park
units within the national park system, each unit would receive only about
$68,000 for improving visitor services and program operations.

The Forest Service also has many high- revenue sites. The total fee
demonstration revenue collected by 17 of the 81 sites in the program
amounted to $17.5 million, or 66 percent of the total amount collected by
the Forest Service during fiscal year 1999. The 17 sites include about 50
national forests in the country. The Forest Service allows sites to retain
90 to 100 percent of fee demonstration revenues collected. Assuming all
these 17 sites retained 90 percent of the fee revenue they collected and the
balance of $1.75 million was made available to the other 105 national
forests, each forest would receive only about $17,000 for improving visitor
services and program operations. In commenting on a draft of this report,
the Forest Service responded that our statement that the Forest Service has
many high- revenue sites is misleading because several of those sites are on
multiple forests and the revenue per forest is often modest as a percentage
of appropriated funds. In this regard, the Forest Service noted that it does
not have any sites in an ?over funded? situation at this time. While some
demonstration sites may have more needs than fee revenue can address, our
concern is that the agency be provided with the flexibility to address its
highest- priority needs first. As the Forest Service acknowledged in its
comments, it has not determined its highest- priority needs.

Compared to the Park Service and the Forest Service, the total fee
demonstration revenue generated by BLM and the FWS was small- $5.2 million
and $3.4 million, respectively. BLM had only 15 sites that each generated
more than $100, 000, and FWS had 6 sites that each generated more than
$100,000.

Page 26 GAO- 02- 10 Recreation Fees

Revenues from the fee demonstration program may not always be used to meet
the highest- priority needs of the two agencies that generate almost all of
the fee revenue. We had previously found this to be the case in two prior
reviews of the fee demonstration program. 16 Furthermore, officials in the
agencies participating in the fee demonstration program acknowledge that
revenue from the program is not always spent on the highest- priority
projects. This condition exists for two reasons. First, the National Park
Service and the Forest Service do not maintain a centralized list of
priority needs. As a result, the use of fee revenue is not based on an
agencywide determination of priority needs. Second, 80 percent of fees
collected must be used at the site where they were collected, and thus,
sites that collect most of the revenue use it to meet their local needs even
if these needs are minor in comparison with those at other locations where
funding is not as plentiful. In accordance with this requirement, each of
the demonstration sites within the Park Service retains 80 percent of fee
revenue collected. The Forest Service allows each site to retain 90 to 100
percent of revenue. Since these agencies are retaining 80 to 100 percent of
fee revenue at a site, agency officials consider some sites as ?cash rich,?
whereby they have high fee revenues to meet many needs while other sites
have not been able to obtain sufficient revenue to meet their priority
needs.

We reviewed the use of fee revenues at high- revenue sites, at lowerrevenue
sites, and sites not in the fee demonstration program to determine how the
revenues are being used. For example, during fiscal year 1999, Grand Canyon
National Park retained about $19. 5 million in fee demonstration revenue
that it used to fund many projects, including $4.3 million to construct,
repair, and rehabilitate restrooms parkwide and $3.6 million to rehabilitate
a park headquarters building and convert a visitor center into
administrative offices. Also, Castillo de San Marcos National Monument in
Florida retained about $1.1 million in fee revenue- almost doubling its $1.2
million operating budget in fiscal year 1999- for use in funding several
projects including $500,000 to replace deteriorated museum exhibits and
$485,000 to construct a museum storage facility. We could not determine the
extent to which these parks are using fee revenue to meet the agency?s
highest- priority needs because the agency does not maintain a centralized
list of priority needs. As a result, these parks have collected revenue to
address many needs that may not always be the

16 Recreation Fees: Demonstration Fee Program Successful in Raising Revenues
but Could Be Improved (GAO/ RCED- 99- 7, Nov. 20, 1998) and National Park
Service: Recreational Fee Demonstration Program Spending Priorities (GAO/
RCED- 00- 37R, Nov. 18, 1999). Fee Revenues May Not

Address Agencies? HighestPriority Needs

Page 27 GAO- 02- 10 Recreation Fees

highest- priority needs within the national park system. According to the
Park Service southeast regional coordinator, Castillo de San Marcos National
Monument is currently using fee revenue to meet its deferred needs; however,
in future years, given its high- fee revenue, retaining 80 percent of fee
collections would not result in the most effective use of revenue because of
higher- priority needs in lower- revenue sites and other sites not in the
fee demonstration program.

In contrast to the higher- revenue sites, some of the lower- revenue sites
and sites not in the fee demonstration program have not been able to address
their high- priority needs because of limited availability of fee
demonstration revenues. 17 For example, since fiscal year 1999, two non- fee
demonstration park units- Pipe Spring National Monument in Arizona and Fort
Union National Monument in New Mexico- have been unable to obtain a
sufficient amount of the 20- percent fee revenue to install fire suppression
systems to protect their primary historic structure and museum and valuable
curatorial collections. Pipe Spring and Fort Union had requested $179,000
and $108, 000, respectively, for these projects. According to officials in
these two park units, they have received limited fee demonstration revenue
to meet their priority needs.

Officials from the four land management agencies in the fee demonstration
program acknowledged that some sites with large fee revenues may eventually
have more revenue than they need to meet their priority needs, while other
lower- revenue sites in the program and sites not participating in the
demonstration program may have limited or no fee revenues to meet their
priority needs. For example, according to the January 1998 Interior and
Agriculture report to the Congress on the fee demonstration program, ?. . .
it is possible that some key revenue- producing sites may quickly reduce
their backlog projects and then be faced with accumulating large balances in
their fee revenue accounts, funding projects that would rank low in priority
compared to projects elsewhere in the agency, or searching for additional
projects just to spend the money.? 18 The report further states that ?This
could be a significant problem for an agency if, at the same time,

17 The Park Service allocates the portion of fee demonstration revenue not
used by collecting sites (20 percent) to lower- revenue fee demonstration
sites, park units that do not participate in the fee demonstration program,
and for servicewide initiatives. Examples of servicewide initiatives include
funding nonprofit youth groups to work on national park projects and
renewable energy efficiency technology projects.

18 Recreational Fee Demonstration Program Progress Report to Congress (Jan.
31, 1998).

Page 28 GAO- 02- 10 Recreation Fees

there remain substantial backlogs at other agency sites that either have low
visitation, or are not authorized to charge recreation fees.?

The return of most of the revenue to the collecting sites for use in
improving services and facilities is a key incentive for fee collection and
for the high level of visitor support now enjoyed by the agencies. However,
because a small percentage of sites generate a high percentage of the
agencies? total revenue, the agencies suggested, in the January 31, 2000,

Recreational Fee Demonstration Program Progress Report to Congress

that they needed increased flexibility in some situations to use more than
20 percent of the fees at sites other than where they were collected. They
pointed out that this flexibility would result in a more efficient use of
fee revenue to meet the highest- priority needs of the agencies.

In commenting on a draft of this report, the National Park Service
acknowledged that there is a need for flexibility in allocation formulas to
ensure that fee revenue funding can be made available to parks with the
greatest needs. It also stated that its revised project management system
due in November 2001 will help to ensure that the priority needs of
individual parks are identified and funded.

Furthermore, the Forest Service as well as the Interior agencies stated back
in 1998 that they would evaluate whether retaining 80 percent of fee revenue
at the collecting sites would constitute a problem in the long run as the
fee demonstration program progresses. Although the fee demonstration program
has been in effect for over 5 years, such an evaluation has not been
conducted.

In our 1998 Fee Demonstration Program report, we stated that the Congress
might wish to consider modifying the current requirement that 80 percent of
fee revenue be used in the units generating the revenues to allow for
greater flexibility in using fee revenues. If this requirement were changed,
the agencies could consider various options that could result in a more
equitable use of fee revenue, while at the same time maintaining incentives
for collecting fees. For example, the agencies could allow sites to use an
amount up to a specified maximum percentage amount of their operating budget
(e. g., up to 60 percent of their operating budget).

In commenting on a draft of this report, both the Park Service and the
Forest Service agreed that the need exists for some flexibility in using fee
revenues. However, they expressed concerns about our example of basing fee
revenue allocations on operating budgets. The Park Service stated that it
favors basing fee revenues on its proposed comprehensive

Page 29 GAO- 02- 10 Recreation Fees

approach that identifies the priority needs of parks while the Forest
Service favors retaining 60 percent or more of fee revenue at the collecting
site if the intent were to redistribute funds. Basing fee revenues on
operating budgets is only one example of providing flexibility in using fee
revenues. We recognize that several alternative approaches may result in a
more equitable means of distributing such revenues.

Essentially, the fee demonstration program is about raising revenue for the
participating sites and using it to maintain and improve the quality of
visitor services and the protection of resources at federal recreation
sites. So far, the program has successfully raised a significant amount of
revenue. However, our analysis indicates that the agencies can do more to
improve the quality of visitor services it is providing. Without greater
effort to adopt more modern and convenient fee collection practices, like
credit cards or Internet sales, visitors to many sites will continue to be
faced with limited payment options. Furthermore, unless more is done to
eliminate the inconsistent fee situations that now exist, many visitors will
continue to be confused about the fees they are being asked to pay. Until
these conditions are addressed, the overall quality of the services provided
to visitors and the overall quality of a visitor?s experience are
diminished.

Because each of the four participating agencies manage the program on a
decentralized basis, local site managers have considerable latitude in
determining how to implement the program. Under these circumstances, holding
individual site managers accountable for accomplishing the goals of the
program is imperative. To get this done, establishing performance
expectations and measures that would clarify what individual site managers
are to accomplish is critical. Yet, even though the program is now over 5
years old, this has not been done. Establishing performance expectations and
measures on a site- by- site and agencywide basis would help improve the
overall quality of visitor services by, among other things, making clear
where improved collection practices should be used and where increased
coordination should occur. Furthermore, the agencies have yet to complete
systematic evaluations of the program to identify what types of fees and fee
collection practices work best. Performing such evaluations and developing
knowledge of what the best practices are will enable agency managers to
identify the most effective fees and fee collection practices to use on a
broader scale should the program be permanently authorized. Finally,
although agency managers have been aware of a number of interagency issues
for several years, little has been done to resolve them. The most obvious
example of this involves the inconsistent application of entrance and user
fees among the agencies. Conclusions

Page 30 GAO- 02- 10 Recreation Fees

The effective resolution of these issues requires agreement, coordination,
and consistency among the four participating agencies in two departments.
However, no effective interagency mechanism is currently in place to ensure
that this is accomplished.

Concerning the revenue retention component of the demonstration program, the
current legislation provides a financial incentive to establish and operate
fee- collection programs, but it does not always provide the agencies with
enough flexibility to address high- priority needs of low revenue recreation
sites. In 1998, we suggested that the Congress might wish to consider
modifying the current requirement that 80 percent of fee revenue be used in
the units generating the revenues to allow for greater flexibility in
addressing high- priority needs. We still believe that our earlier
suggestion has merit.

In order to improve the performance and effectiveness of the program, we
recommend that the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture require the
agency head for each of the participating agencies to

 develop specific program performance expectations and measurable
performance criteria agencywide and for each participating site;  develop
and implement a process for conducting systematic evaluations of

the program to identify which fee designs, collection methods, and
coordination practices work best; and to disseminate the information to all
participating sites; and  develop an effective interagency mechanism to
oversee and coordinate the

program among the four agencies and resolve such interagency issues as
developing standard definitions of ?entrance? versus ?user? fees. If
congressional authorization is needed to accomplish this, then the agencies
should seek the necessary legislation.

We provided the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture
copies of a draft of this report for their review and comment. The
Department of the Interior, including the three Interior agencies that
participate in the fee demonstration program, and the Department of
Agriculture generally agreed with the findings and the recommendations in
the report. In addition, both departments provided us with additional
clarifying and technical comments that we incorporated into the report as
appropriate. Comments from the Department of the Interior are included in
appendix II and comments from the Department of Agriculture are included in
appendix III. Recommendations for

Executive Action Agency Comments

Page 31 GAO- 02- 10 Recreation Fees

As arranged with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days after
the date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies to the Chairman
of the Subcommittee on National Parks, Historic Preservation, and Recreation
of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources; the Secretary of
the Interior; the Secretary of Agriculture; the Director, National Park
Service; the Director, Bureau of Land Management; the Director, Fish and
Wildlife Service; the Chief of the Forest Service; the Director, Office of
Management and Budget; and other interested parties. We will make copies
available to others upon request. This report will also be available on
GAO?s home page at http:// www. gao. gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me
at (202) 512- 3841. Key contributors to this report were Lew Adams, Brian
Estes, Cliff Fowler, Frank Kovalak, Luann Moy, and Paul Staley.

Sincerely yours, Barry T. Hill Director, Natural Resources

and Environment

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology Page 32 GAO- 02- 10 Recreation Fees

To determine the extent to which the National Park Service, Forest Service,
Bureau of Land Management, and Fish and Wildlife Service used innovative
fees and fee collection practices and coordinated their approaches in
managing the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program, we developed an
automated survey instrument that we posted on GAO?s Web site. We sent email
messages to the managers at all 365 fee- demonstration program sites which
were collecting fees as of September 30, 2000, asking them to fill out the
survey to provide us with information about how they were implementing the
program at their site. 1 Table 3 shows the total number of demonstration
sites contacted and the rate of response.

Table 3: Response Rate for Fee Demonstration Program Survey Agency Total
sites in

the program Completed responses

Percentage of total sites responding to questionnaire

National Park Service 100 96 96 Bureau of Land Management 98 91 93 Fish and
Wildlife Service 86 84 98 Forest Service 81 75 93

Total 365 346 95

See http:// www. gao. gov/ cgi- bin/ getrpt? gao- 02- 88SP for the entire
questionnaire and the responses from the four agencies.

During our design of the survey, we conducted two pretests with officials
from each of the four agencies, for a total of eight pretests, to ensure
that the officials understood the questions and could easily access and
complete the questionnaire via GAO?s Web site. After each pretest, we made
the necessary revisions to the questionnaire. Once completed, the electronic
questionnaire was made available from March 9 to April 18, 2001, to all site
managers via GAO?s Web site on the Internet.

To ensure security and data integrity, we provided each manager with a
password that would allow him or her to access and complete a questionnaire.
To ensure the consistency and accuracy of our data, we conducted edits to
verify that the appropriate questions on the

1 The fee demonstration program legislation allows each of the four
participating agencies to include up to 100 sites/ projects in the program.
A site may be made up of more than one field unit. For example, the Park
Service has 100 sites in the demonstration program that are located at 137
different recreational units. Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology Page 33 GAO- 02- 10 Recreation Fees

questionnaire had been answered. Because of the time and cost involved in
doing so, we did not independently verify the data that the site managers
provided. However, we did review the questionnaire responses from six of the
sites we visited (at least one in each agency) to ensure they were
consistent with the information we obtained on the fee demonstration program
at the time of our visit.

To determine what, if any, management improvements can be made to enhance
program performance and results, we analyzed the questionnaire survey
results relating to the implementation and management of the fee
demonstration program and discussed these issues with officials at the four
agencies? headquarters offices, and regional or state offices, as well as
individual demonstration site managers.

Table 4 identifies the demonstration sites that we visited. We selected
individual sites because they were (1) in a previous fee demonstration
review and warranted follow- up, (2) identified by agency officials as
potential sites to visit, (3) experimenting with new fees or fee collection
practices, and/ or (4) geographically dispersed.

Table 4: Demonstration Sites GAO Visited Agency and site State National Park
Service:

Assateague Island National Seashore Maryland Colonial National Historical
Park Virginia Lassen Volcanic National Park California Mt. Rainier National
Park Washington Whiskeytown- Shasta- Trinity National Recreation Area
California

Forest Service:

George Washington and Jefferson National Forests Virginia Mt. St. Helens
National Volcanic Monument Washington San Bernardino National Forest
California Shasta- Trinity National Forests California

Bureau of Land Management:

Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area California Redding Field Office
California Yaquina Head Outstanding Natural Area Oregon

Fish and Wildlife Service:

Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge Virginia J. N. ?Ding? Darling National
Wildlife Refuge Florida

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology Page 34 GAO- 02- 10 Recreation Fees

At each location we obtained, reviewed, and analyzed supporting
documentation, such as laws, regulations, and reports, on the fee
demonstration sites. We also discussed recreation fee pricing and related
issues with officials of state park agencies in Colorado, Idaho, Ohio, and
Washington state and the National Association of State Park Directors.
Furthermore, to gain a better understanding of their perspectives on the fee
demonstration program, we contacted the following natural resource/
recreation interest groups: America Outdoors, American Recreation Coalition,
The Mountaineers, the National Parks Conservation Association, the National
Park Foundation, and the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Finally, to determine whether revenues from the fee demonstration program
were being used to meet the agencies? highest- priority needs, we obtained
documentation on the fee revenue collected by the demonstration sites and
the types of projects funded with fee revenues. We also discussed with
headquarters, regional, and site officials the extent to which fee revenues
were being used to meet the highest- priority needs of the sites and
agencies. We reviewed Park Service documents to identify sites where fiscal
year 1999 retained fee revenues had increased operating budgets by 50
percent or more. We compared these high- revenue sites with other sites
within the Park Service that either were not in the fee demonstration
program or had retained revenues representing less than 20 percent of their
operating budgets (lower- revenue sites). For the Forest Service, we
reviewed the 17 fee demonstration sites that generated the most fee revenue.
We limited our review of this objective to these two agencies because they
generate most of the fee demonstration revenue.

We conducted our work from November 2000 through September 2001 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Appendix II: Comments From the Department of the Interior

Page 35 GAO- 02- 10 Recreation Fees

Appendix II: Comments From the Department of the Interior

Appendix II: Comments From the Department of the Interior

Page 36 GAO- 02- 10 Recreation Fees

Appendix III: Comments From the U. S. Department of Agriculture

Page 37 GAO- 02- 10 Recreation Fees

Appendix III: Comments From the U. S. Department of Agriculture

(360006)

The General Accounting 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.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents 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 our home page and
complete the easy- to- use electronic order form found under ?To Order GAO
Products.?

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. General Accounting Office P. O. Box 37050 Washington, D. C. 20013

To order by phone: Voice: (202) 512- 6000 TDD: (301) 413- 0006 Fax: (202)
258- 4066

GAO Building Room 1100, 700 4th Street, NW (corner of 4th and G Streets, NW)
Washington, D. C. 20013

Contact: Web site: www. gao. gov/ fraudnet/ fraudnet. htm, E- mail:
fraudnet@ gao. gov, or 1- 800- 424- 5454 (automated answering system).

Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@ gao. gov (202) 512- 4800 U. S.
General Accounting Office, 441 G. Street NW, Room 7149, Washington, D. C.
20548 GAO?s Mission

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone Visit GAO?s Document Distribution Center

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs

Public Affairs
*** End of document. ***