National Park Service: Revenues Could Increase by Charging	 
Allowed Fees for Some Special Uses Permits (06-MAY-05,		 
GAO-05-410).							 
                                                                 
The National Park Service routinely issues permits for special	 
park uses, such as special events or commercial filming and still
photography. However, the National Football League's use of the  
National Mall to launch its 2003 season raised questions about	 
whether permitting such events was consistent with existing	 
policies and law and whether all applicable fees for permitting  
special park uses were being collected. GAO (1) identified	 
applicable policy guidance for issuing special uses permits for  
special events and for commercial filming and still photography, 
(2) assessed the extent to which this guidance was applied during
fiscal year 2003, and (3) determined the extent to which the Park
Service implemented the requirement to collect location fees for 
commercial filming and still photography.			 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-05-410 					        
    ACCNO:   A23577						        
  TITLE:     National Park Service: Revenues Could Increase by	      
Charging Allowed Fees for Some Special Uses Permits		 
     DATE:   05/06/2005 
  SUBJECT:   Administrative costs				 
	     National parks					 
	     National recreation areas				 
	     Photography					 
	     Recreation areas					 
	     User fees						 
	     Fiscal policies					 
	     Policy evaluation					 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-05-410

                 United States Government Accountability Office

                     GAO Report to Congressional Requesters

May 2005

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

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

                                       a

GAO-05-410

[IMG]

May 2005

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

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

  What GAO Found

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

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

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

                 United States Government Accountability Office

Contents

  Letter

Results in Brief
Background
The Park Service Has Specific Policy Guidance for Issuing Permits

and Recovering Costs for Special Park Uses

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

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

Conclusions
Recommendations for Executive Action
Agency Comments and Our Response

1 2 4

7

11

16 18 19 20

Appendixes                                                              
                Appendix I:             Scope and Methodology              23 
               Appendix II:  Details of the Forgone Revenue Calculations   28 
                              Information on the 2003 National Football    
              Appendix III:                 League Kickoff                 
                                                Event                      31 
              Appendix IV:   Comments from the Department of the Interior  37 
                                             GAO Comments                  44 
                Appendix V:     GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments      45 

Tables Table 1:

Table 2: Table 3:

Table 4: Table 5:

Table 6:

Park Units Visited and Whether the Park Units Charged
Administrative and Monitoring Fees and Recovered
Associated Costs 12
Forest Service Established Fee Schedule for Filming 29
Forest Service Established Fee Schedule for Still
Photography 29
Park Service Proposed Filming Location Fee Schedule 29
Park Service Proposed Still Photography Location Fee
Schedule 30
Estimates of Forgone Revenues, Fiscal Year 2003 30

                                    Contents

Figures Figure 1: Park Service Regions 5 Figure 2: A Frequently Filmed and
Photographed Thermal Pool at Yellowstone National Park 14

Abbreviations

BLM Bureau of Land Management
DCI data collection instrument
FS Forest Service
FWS Fish and Wildlife Service
NFL National Football League
OMB Office of Management and Budget

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. However, 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.

A

United States Government Accountability Office Washington, D.C. 20548

May 6, 2005

Congressional Requesters

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

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

We identified Park Service policy guidance for special uses permits and
obtained and analyzed applicable laws, regulations, policies, and
procedures. To evaluate the extent to which policy guidance was applied,
we analyzed permit records and other documentation of six selected park
units that we visited and interviewed Park Service headquarters, regional,
and park unit officials. We selected these park units because, during
fiscal year 2003, they had issued the greatest number of both special
event and filming and still photography permits in each of the six Park
Service regions within the continental U.S. To determine the extent to
which the

Park Service implemented the requirement to collect location fees for
commercial filming and still photography activities, we interviewed Park
Service officials. We also collected and assessed the reliability of Park
Service data on filming and still photography permits from all park units
for fiscal year 2003 and estimated the forgone location fee revenues by
applying the established fee schedule of another federal land management
agency to the activities reported to GAO by the Park Service. The fee
schedule of the other federal agency is based on similar criteria included
in the legislation authorizing the Park Service to charge fees.

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

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

festival held on park grounds, to monitor that the terms and conditions of
the permit are met.

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

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

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

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

The Park Service has also not implemented a requirement to collect
location fees for commercial filming and still photography, resulting in
significant annual forgone revenues. The requirement to collect location
fees is in addition to the requirement to recover costs for administering
and

monitoring permits. While the legislation creating the location fee
requirement was passed almost five years ago, the Park Service has not
implemented the law because of delays in reviewing the proposed
regulations at the Department of Justice and a lack of agreement among
Interior's agencies about the fee schedule and how it is to be applied. We
estimated the Park Service would have collected about $1.6 million in
location fee revenues in fiscal year 2003 if the requirement had been
implemented.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

216 U.S.C. S:3a.

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

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

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

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

Guidance on Special Events

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

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

guidance for special events provides strict limitations on certain uses,
such as fireworks displays and the sale of food in the parks.4

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

Guidance on Commercial In general, the Park Service encourages filming and
photography "when it

Filming and Still Photography
will promote the protection and public enjoyment of park resources,"
provided that the activity meets basic criteria, such as the activity will
not cause unacceptable impacts to park resources. More specifically, the
policy guidance outlines when a permit is and is not required. For
example, a permit is required if the permitted activity involves the use
of a model, set, or prop-such as a model holding a product for an
advertisement photograph. However, no permit is required for visitors
using a camera or recording device for their own personal use within
normal visitation areas and hours. Some specific exceptions are included
in the policy guidance- for example, a permit is never required for press
coverage of breaking news.6 Also, superintendents, at their discretion,
may grant the permittee

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

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

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

access to a closed area of the park or permit the activity after normal
visiting hours. Regardless of the specific type of commercial filming or
still photography activity, the conditions specified in the permit must be
followed.

Park Service Guidance Includes Requirement to Recover Costs

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

The Park Service's 2001 Management Policies document, which provides the
service's most current overall policies, states that "all costs incurred
by the Service in writing the permit, monitoring, providing protection
services, restoring park areas, or otherwise supporting a special park use
will be reimbursed by the permittee." Park Service policy guidance further
states that "appropriate fees for cost recovery, as well as performance
bond and liability insurance requirements, will be imposed, consistent
with applicable statutory authorities and regulations," and directs that
"when appropriate, the Service will also include a fair charge for the use
of the land or facility." Consequently, each permit should stipulate that
these costs must be reimbursed by the permittee. Recoverable costs are
those costs directly attributable to the use or necessary for the safe
completion of

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

the special park use. For example, the policy states that recoverable
costs include the time charged by a park ranger to visit the site of the
event, such as a festival held on park grounds, to monitor that the terms
and conditions of the permit are met.8 Additionally, the requirement
includes recovering costs for equipment and facility use as well as
restoration of any damage to park resources as a result of the event.

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

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

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

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

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

Exemptions from charges are appropriate when

o  a charge is prohibited by legislation or executive order; or

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

Through their special uses permit system, Park Service superintendents
also manage requests for public assembly for the exercise of First
Amendment rights, including freedom of assembly, speech, religion, and the
press. Consistent with the First Amendment, it is the Park Service's

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                                            Administrative fee Monitoring fee 
                                            Fee Full cost       Fee Full cost 
        Region        Park units visited    charged recovery          charged 
                                                                     recovery 
    Intermountain    Yellowstone National        yes yes           yes no     
                             Park                              
       Midwest      Jefferson National           yes yes          yes yes     
                    Expansion Memorial                         
National Capital    National Capital           no no           yesa no     
                         Parks-Central                         
      Northeast     Independence National         yes no          yes yes     
                    Historical Park                            
     Pacific West   Golden Gate National         yes yes           yes no     
                    Recreation Area                            
      Southeast       Blue Ridge Parkway          yes no           yes no     

Source: GAO.

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

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

Administrative Fee Not Charged The Park Service does not maintain
centralized data on the number of

or Fully Recovered
special event and commercial filming and still photography permits issued
each year. However, an agency official informed us that for fiscal year
2003, National Capital Parks-Central issued the largest number of these
permits-estimated in excess of 1,400-of all park units. National Capital
Parks-Central charged no administration fees for permitting special uses.
For example, during fiscal year 2003, this park management unit did not
assess any administrative fee for permits issued for special events,
filming, and still photography, as required by Park Service policy unless
prohibited by law or otherwise exempted. National Capital Parks-Central
officials told us that since the mid-1990s, it has been regional policy
that park units within the National Capital Region would not charge any
administrative costs associated with processing permits. For example,
National Capital Parks-Central issued permits for both the NFL kickoff
event9 and the filming of the major motion picture National Treasure, both
of which engaged Park Service personnel in numerous planning meetings, but
for which no administrative costs were recovered. As a result of GAO
bringing this issue to the attention of the Solicitor's Office at
Interior, the Solicitor's Office modified its guidance and directed the
National Capital Region to

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

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

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

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

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

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

Monitoring Fees Not Fully Delicate natural resources in park units (see
fig. 1) require monitoring to Recovered ensure resources are protected for
the enjoyment of future generations.

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

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

Source: GAO.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Law Requiring the Collection of Location Fees Has Not Been Implemented

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

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

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

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

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

GAO Estimated Forgone Using the fee schedule that the Forest Service has
in effect, we estimate Revenues of about $1.6 that the Park Service would
have collected location fee revenues of about Million for Fiscal Year 2003
$1.6 million in fiscal year 2003. The Park Service has drafted a proposed

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

Conclusions
The Park Service is required by law to collect costs and location fees
associated with permits for commercial filming and still photography and
authorized to collect costs for other permitted activities. Because costs
recovered from permitting activities are used by park units for managing

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

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

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

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

Recommendations for Executive Action

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

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

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

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

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

Agency Comments and Our Response

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

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

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

Robin M. Nazzaro Director, Natural Resources and Environment

List of Requesters

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

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

The Honorable Betty McCollum House of Representatives

The Honorable Jim Moran House of Representatives

The Honorable Eleanor Holmes Norton House of Representatives

Appendix I

Scope and Methodology	

We identified and analyzed applicable laws, regulations, policies, and
procedures to determine Park Service policy and requirements applicable to
the review and approval of special uses permits, including those for
special events and commercial filming and still photography. This included
an analysis of servicewide guidance as well as guidance applicable to the
specific units we visited,1 such as units in the National Capital Region.
We discussed the policy guidance with the Office of the Solicitor,
Department of the Interior, and with officials from Park Service
headquarters and each of the six park units visited to gain an
understanding of how the guidance should be interpreted and applied.

To evaluate whether policy guidance was consistently applied, we reviewed
files and examined permitting practices at the nonprobability sample of
six park units visited2 and interviewed park unit officials about their
procedures in reviewing, approving, and monitoring permitted activities.
We also reviewed these units' procedures to identify and recover costs
associated with permit activities.

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

1The six park units visited are Blue Ridge Parkway, Golden Gate National
Recreation Area, Independence National Historical Park, Jefferson National
Expansion Memorial, National Capital Parks-Central, and Yellowstone
National Park.

2Results from nonprobability samples cannot be used to make inferences
about a population, because in a nonprobability sample, some elements of
the population being studied have no chance or an unknown chance of being
selected as part of the sample.

Appendix I Scope and Methodology

fiscal year 2003. We selected the top park unit from each of the regional
offices. Park Service regional officials identified the following seven
park units issuing the greatest number of permits for both special events
and for commercial filming and still photography in fiscal year 2003:

o  Alaska Region-Denali National Park,

o  Midwest Region-Jefferson National Expansion Memorial,

o  Intermountain Region-Yellowstone National Park,

o  Pacific West Region-Golden Gate National Recreation Area,

o  Northeast Region-Independence National Historical Park,

o  National Capital Region-National Capital Parks-Central, and

o  Southeast Region-Blue Ridge Parkway.

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

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

The DCI was sent to all park units to obtain information on permits issued
for filming and still photography activities occurring in fiscal year
2003. We asked the park units to provide (1) a permit number for each
permit issued,

Appendix I Scope and Methodology

(2) the date the permit activity started, (3) the number of days for which
the permit was authorized, (4) the number of people using the permit, and
(5) if the park unit would have charged a location fee based on current
Park Service policy guidance. We requested that the information provided
by the park units in the DCI be sent to GAO with a copy to the Special
Uses Program Manager.

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

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

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

o  7 permit files at Jefferson National Expansion Memorial,

o  77 permit files at Yellowstone National Park,

o  76 permit files at Independence National Historical Park, and

o  15 permit files at Blue Ridge Parkway.

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

Appendix I Scope and Methodology

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

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

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

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

Appendix I Scope and Methodology

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

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

Appendix II

                  Details of the Forgone Revenue Calculations	

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

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

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

Appendix II
Details of the Forgone Revenue Calculations

uncertain whether the amounts in the schedule would have been applicable
in fiscal year 2003.

Table 2: Forest Service Established Fee Schedule for Filming

                     Number of people Fee per day (dollars)

                                    1-10 150

                                   11-30 200

                                   31-60 500

                                More than 60 600

Source: Forest Service.

Table 3: Forest Service Established Fee Schedule for Still Photography

                     Number of people Fee per day (dollars)

1-10

                                   11-30 150

                                More than 30 250

Source: Forest Service.

Table 4: Park Service Proposed Filming Location Fee Schedule

                     Number of people Fee per day (dollars)

                                    1-10 150

                                   11-30 350

31-50 650 51-70 1,000 Over 70 1,500

Source: National Park Service.

Appendix II
Details of the Forgone Revenue Calculations

Table 5: Park Service Proposed Still Photography Location Fee Schedule

                     Number of people Fee per day (dollars)

                                    1-10 100

                                   11-20 200

                                   21-30 300

                                  Over 30 450

                         Source: National Park Service.

            Table 6: Estimates of Forgone Revenues, Fiscal Year 2003

Forgone revenues

Forest Service location Park Service proposed fee schedule location fee
schedule

                    Commercial filming $1,135,250 $1,292,850

                       Still photography 464,450 750,950

                          Total $1,599,700 $2,043,800

Source: GAO analysis of Park Service data.

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

Appendix III

Information on the 2003 National Football League Kickoff Event

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

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

As discussed in this report, Park Service superintendents have a great
deal of discretion in applying the agency guidance for approving permits.
According to Park Service officials, the NFL kickoff event was intended to
honor members of America's armed forces and to promote volunteerism on
public lands. According to a September 3, 2003, statement by the Secretary
of the Interior, the NFL kickoff event was "a wonderful opportunity to
showcase public service by volunteers" who put "their love of country to
work to improve our national parks, wildlife refuges, public lands,
cultural and historic sites, playgrounds and other recreation areas." In
addition to

  Appendix III Information on the 2003 National Football League Kickoff Event

setting up a Take Pride in America booth at the event to recruit
volunteers for this program, public service announcements about Take Pride
in America, narrated by Washington Redskins players, were broadcast during
the NFL team's season opener. Finally, Park Service officials stated the
product-related signs were allowed as a form of sponsor recognition for
those companies underwriting the cost of the concert and other activities
that were all free to the public.

The 2003 NFL Kickoff Permit

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

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

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

  Appendix III Information on the 2003 National Football League Kickoff Event

permit, the costs for providing law enforcement officers, including Park
Police, were reimbursed by the NFL.

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

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

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

  Appendix III Information on the 2003 National Football League Kickoff Event

also far more banners and signs posted than the Park Service had
anticipated.

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

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

  Appendix III Information on the 2003 National Football League Kickoff Event

Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority for security reasons. In
addition to addressing signage limitations, Public Law 108-108 also stated
that "the Secretary shall ensure, to the maximum extent practicable, that
public use of, and access to the Mall is not restricted."

Resource Damage Cost Recovery

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

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

Reimbursement was not sought from the NFL for the time both Park Service
and Park Police officials spent in planning meetings for the 2003 NFL
kickoff event. The practice of the National Capital Region-to limit
charges for administration of permits to cost recovery for overtime
expenses-was based on a mid-1990s unwritten legal opinion from the

Appendix III Information on the 2003 National Football League Kickoff
Event

Solicitor's Office at the Department of the Interior. National Capital
Parks-Central officials told us they viewed time spent in event-planning
meetings and in processing the permit paperwork as a "budgeted" or sunk
cost. In February 2005, Interior's Office of Solicitor revised its legal
conclusion and recommendation on this matter and advised both Park Service
and Park Police officials in the National Capital Region to re-examine
this practice in order to come into better compliance with cost recovery
policy guidance.

Appendix IV

Comments from the Department of the Interior

Note: GAO comments supplementing those in the report text appear at the
end of this appendix.

Appendix IV
Comments from the Department of the
Interior

See comment 1.

See comment 2.

Now on p. 13. See comment 3.

Appendix IV
Comments from the Department of the
Interior

                                 Now on p. 14.

                                 Now on p. 17.

                                 See comment 4.

                                 Now on p. 33.

Appendix IV
Comments from the Department of the
Interior

See comment 5.

Now on p. 8; footnote 4.

Now on p.7.

See comment 6.

Appendix IV
Comments from the Department of the
Interior

Now on p. 8.

                                 Now on p. 11.

                                 Now on p. 34.

                                 See comment 7.

Appendix IV
Comments from the Department of the
Interior

Now on p. 6.

Now on p. 2.

Now on p. 3.

Now on p 12; footnote is now superscript a.

Now on p. 12.

Now footnote 12, p. 15. Now on p. 18.

Appendix IV
Comments from the Department of the
Interior

Now on p. 19.

Now on p. 32.

Now on p. 33.

Now on p. 34.

See comment 8.

See footnote 11, p. 13.

                                  Appendix IV
                      Comments from the Department of the
                                    Interior

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

GAO Comments 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

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

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

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

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

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

See GAO comment 5.

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

See GAO comment 1.

Appendix V

                     GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contact Robin M. Nazzaro, (202) 512-3841

Staff Acknowledgments

(360458)

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

GAO's Mission	The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation
and 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 The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO
documents at no cost

is through GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO postsGAO
Reports and newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its
Web site. To Testimony have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products
every afternoon, go to

www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."

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, Contact:
Waste, and Abuse in Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: [email protected] Programs Automated answering system: (800)
424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Congressional	Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [email protected] (202)
512-4400 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125

Relations Washington, D.C. 20548

Public Affairs	Paul Anderson, Managing Director, [email protected] (202)
512-4800 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548
*** End of document. ***