Recreation Fees: Agencies Can Better Implement the Federal Lands 
Recreation Enhancement Act and Account for Fee Revenues 	 
(22-SEP-06, GAO-06-1016).					 
                                                                 
In recent years, Congress has expressed concerns about the	 
federal land management agencies' ability to provide quality	 
recreational opportunities and reduce visitor confusion over the 
variety of user fees. In December 2004, Congress passed the	 
Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (REA) to standardize	 
recreation fee collection and use at federal lands and waters.	 
GAO was asked to determine (1) what the agencies have done to	 
coordinate implementation of REA, (2) what agencies have done to 
implement REA, (3) the extent to which agencies have controls and
accounting procedures for collected fees, (4) how projects and	 
activities are selected to receive funding from fees, and (5) the
extent of unobligated fund balances. To answer these objectives, 
GAO reviewed agency guidance, analyzed fee data, interviewed	 
officials, visited 26 fee-collecting units, and administered a	 
nationwide survey to 900 fee-collecting units.			 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-06-1016					        
    ACCNO:   A61325						        
  TITLE:     Recreation Fees: Agencies Can Better Implement the       
Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act and Account for Fee	 
Revenues							 
     DATE:   09/22/2006 
  SUBJECT:   Funds management					 
	     Interagency relations				 
	     Internal controls					 
	     Land management					 
	     National parks					 
	     National recreation areas				 
	     Program evaluation 				 
	     Program management 				 
	     Public lands					 
	     Strategic planning 				 
	     User fees						 
	     NPS Recreational Fee Demonstration 		 
	     Program						 
                                                                 

******************************************************************
** 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-06-1016

                 United States Government Accountability Office

Report to Congressional Requesters

GAO

September 2006

RECREATION FEES

 Agencies Can Better Implement the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act and
                            Account for Fee Revenues

                                       a

RECREATION FEES

Agencies Can Better Implement the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act
and Account for Fee Revenues

  What GAO Found

The Departments of the Interior (DOI) and Agriculture (USDA) established
four working groups to facilitate interagency cooperation and coordination
of REA implementation. Each working group has made progress, but some
issues remain unresolved. For example, the Interagency Pass working group
has yet to determine the price to charge for the new pass, which is to be
implemented in January 2007.

To implement REA, agencies reviewed their fee programs and made
modifications to the fee programs at some of their units. For example,
several of USDA's Forest Service units dropped 437 sites from their fee
program, such as picnic areas, because they did not meet REA criteria.
However, not all units are in compliance with REA. Many agency officials
said that while the agencies have issued some interim guidance, REA was
difficult to interpret and suggested the need for more specific and
detailed guidance on the fee program. In addition, DOI's Bureau of
Reclamation has not yet determined whether to implement REA. Reclamation
is assessing how REA applies to its operations.

Some agencies lack adequate controls and accounting procedures for
collected recreation fees and lack effective guidance for establishing
such controls. On the basis of visits, some units did not have an
effective means of verifying whether all collected fees are accounted for.
In addition, many units have not implemented a system of routine audits to
help ensure that fees are collected and used as authorized and that
collected funds are safeguarded.

The various agencies participating under REA have different processes for
selecting projects to be funded with recreation fee revenues. At DOI's
Bureau of Land Management and Fish and Wildlife Service and USDA's Forest
Service, most proposed projects are approved at the local unit level,
usually within a few weeks. At DOI's National Park Service, fee projects
are reviewed and approved at the unit, regional, and headquarters or
department level before projects are funded. According to National Park
Service officials, under this process, it can sometimes take a year or
more to obtain approval for a requested fee project, which delays project
implementation and contributes to unobligated fee revenue balances.

Agencies have $300 million in unobligated fee revenue balances. Unit
officials cited several reasons for the unobligated balances, such as the
need to save for large projects. Many unit officials also said that
recreation fee revenues are essential to providing services at their
recreation areas that would not otherwise be funded.

                 United States Government Accountability Office

                                    Contents

Letter                                                                   1 
                            Results in Brief                                5 
                            Background                                     10 
                            Working Groups Formed to Foster Interagency   
                            Cooperation and                               
                            Coordination on REA Implementation Issues     
                            Have Made                                     
                            Progress, but Some Issues Remain Unresolved    14 
                            Most Agencies Have Reviewed and Begun to      
                            Modify Recreation Fee                         
                            Programs to Implement REA, but Some Units are 
                            Still                                         
                                    Transitioning, Reclamation Is Not Yet 
                                              Participating, and Agencies 
                            Have Been Slow to Issue Final Guidance         22 
                            Some Agencies Do Not Have Adequate Controls   
                            and Accounting                                
                            Procedures for Collected Fees and Lack        
                            Effective Guidance for                        
                            Establishing a System of Internal Controls,   
                            Including Routine                             
                            Audits                                         30 
                            Agencies Have Different Processes for         
                            Selecting Projects to Be                      
                            Funded with Fee Revenues                       36 
                            Agencies Have Millions of Dollars in          
                            Unobligated Recreation Fee                    
                                   Balances to Fund Future Projects; Some 
                                                   Projects Funded May Be 
                            Similar to Those Formerly Funded with Other    52 
                            Appropriations                                
                            Conclusions                                    61 
                            Recommendations for Executive Action           63 
                            Agency Comments and Our Evaluation             64 
Appendixes                                                             
                Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology             67 
               Appendix II: Fees for Recreational Uses Vary by Agency and 
                            for Amenities                                 
                            Across and within Agencies Participating in    73 
                            REA                                           
              Appendix III: Information on Organizational Structure,      
                            Costs, and                                    
                            Membership Requirements of Recreation         
                            Resource Advisory                             
                            Committees                                     82 
              Appendix IV:  Information on Total Fee Revenues, Obligated  
                            Funds, and                                    
                            Unobligated Balances                           86 
                Appendix V: Information on Participating Agencies' 10     
                            Units with Largest                            
                            Unobligated Fund Balances                      88 
              Appendix VI:  Comments from the Department of the Interior   90 
                            GAO Comments                                  100 

                                     Tables

                                    Contents

Appendix VII:  Comments from the Forest Service                        103 
                  GAO Comments                                            109 
Appendix VIII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments                   111 
                  Table 1:  Primary Differences between Fee Demo and REA    4 
                  Table 2:  Description of America the Beautiful-the      
                            National Parks                                
                            and Federal Recreational Lands Pass            18 
                  Table 3:  Agency Fee Revenue Expenditure Guidance        40 
                  Table 4:  Distribution of Recreation Fee Revenues to    
                            Central or                                    
                            Regional Funds                                 52 
                  Table 5:  Fiscal Year 2005 Recreation Fee Revenue,      
                            Obligations, and                              
                            Unobligated Balances                           53 
                  Table 6:  BLM, NPS, FWS Units, and FS Forests with      
                            Unobligated                                   
                    Balances at End of Fiscal Year 2005 and Those with    
                   Unobligated Balances Greater Than Revenues Collected  
                                                                           54 
                  Table 7:  10 Largest Unobligated Balances of Recreation 
                            Fee                                           
                            Revenue Among All Units and Forests            55 
                  Table 8:  Agency Reasons for Their Unobligated Balance  
                            of                                            
                            Recreation Fee Revenues                        56 
                  Table 9:  NPS Unit Recreation Fee Projects Similar to   
                            Those                                         
                     Previously Funded by General Appropriations, Such as 
                                                                      the 
                  Construction Account                                     60 
                  Table 10: Estimated Response Rates by Agency and         69 
                  Overall                                                 
                  Table 11: Description of Small, Medium, and Large Units 
                  by                                                     
                  Agency                                                   70 
                  Table 12: Recreation Fee Units GAO Visited               71 
                  Table 13: Number of Units Reporting Entrance Fees of    
                  Various                                                 
                     Categories, with the Overall Minimum and Maximum Fee 
                  Amounts                                                  74 
                  Table 14: Standard Amenity Fees Reported by BLM and FS  
                  under                                                   
                  REA Authority                                            75 
                  Table 15: Amenities Available at BLM and FS Units       
                  Charging                                                
                  Standard Amenity Fees                                    75 
                  Table 16: Number of Units Charging a Fee under REA for  
                  the Various                                             
                   Types of Activities, Amenities, or Services Provided    77 
                  Table 17: Number of Units with a Campsite Fee and the   
                  Average and                                             
                      Range of Fees Charged for Individual and Group      
                  Campsites                                                78 
                  Table 18: Number of Units Offering Motor Boating for a  
                  Fee or That                                             
                  Charge for the Use of a Boat Launch or Other Facilities  79 

Contents

Table 19: Units with a Special Recreation Permit Fee under REA for

the Purpose of Accessing a Body of Water for Rafting,

Canoeing, or Kayaking 80 Table 20: Type of RRAC to Be Used by BLM and FS
by State and

Region 83 Table 21: Composition of the New RRACs 85 Table 22: Fee Demo/REA
Revenue and Obligations 86 Table 23: Ten Largest Unobligated Balances of
Recreation Fee

Funds Reported by BLM, NPS, and FWS Units and FS

Headquarters for Forests 88

Figure 1:

Figures

Figure 2: Figure 3: Figure 4: Figure 5: Figure 6: Figure 7: Figure 8:
Figure 9:

Interpretive Panel at Colonial National Historic Park 37 Site of Trail
Work at Rocky Mountain Arsenal National Wildlife Refuge 38 Restroom
Constructed with Fee Revenue at the Big Meadows Winter Trailhead in
Sequoia National Forest 44 Lake Directional Sign Funded with Fee Revenues
at the Shasta-Trinity National Forest 45 Campsite at Rocky Mountain
National Park 46 Fishing Pier at Whiskeytown National Recreation Area 47
Photo Blind at Klamath Falls National Wildlife Refuge Complex 49 Monument
at Antietam National Battlefield 50 Interpretive Panels at American Basin
51

Contents

                                 Abbreviations

ASC                  Albuquerque Service Center                            
BLM                  Bureau of Land Management                             
DOI                  Department of the Interior                            
FACA                 Federal Advisory Committee Act                        
FS                   Forest Service                                        
FWPRA                Federal Water Project Recreation Act                  
FWS                  Fish and Wildlife Service                             
GPO                  Government Printing Office                            
HIRA                 High Impact Recreational Area                         
LWCF                 Land and Water Conservation Fund                      
NPS                  National Park Service                                 
NWR                  National Wildlife Refuge                              
PMIS                 Project Management Information System                 
REA                  Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act              
RFP                  Request for Proposal                                  
RRAC                 Recreation Resource Advisory Committee                
USDA                 U.S. Department of Agriculture                        
WASO                 Washington Office (National Park Service)             

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

September 22, 2006

The Honorable Charles H. Taylor Chairman, Subcommittee on Interior,

Environment, and Related Agencies Committee on Appropriations House of
Representatives

The Honorable Norm Dicks Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Interior,

Environment, and Related Agencies Committee on Appropriations House of
Representatives

Over the past several years, Congress has expressed concern about the
operation and maintenance of federal recreation sites and the ability of
federal land management agencies to continue providing visitors
highquality recreational opportunities, while at the same time protecting
natural and other resources. To help address these concerns, Congress
passed legislation in 1996 authorizing an experimental initiative called
the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program (Fee Demo), under which
participating agencies were authorized to establish and collect recreation
fees at a number of sites and to use the revenues to enhance visitor
services, manage and protect resources, and reduce maintenance backlogs,
among other uses. Agencies participating in the Fee Demo program included
the Department of the Interior's (DOI) Bureau of Land Management (BLM),
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and the National Park Service (NPS), as
well as the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Forest Service (FS).
The Fee Demo program created two types of recreation fees: entrance fees
for basic admission to an area and user fees for specific activities, such
as camping or boat launching. Between 1996 and 2004, Congress reauthorized
the program several times. The program was designed to allow agencies to
be creative in developing and experimenting with new fees and fee
collection practices for improving visitor services, and to alleviate
visitor confusion by coordinating multiple or overlapping recreation fees.
The program required that at least 80 percent of fee revenues be used at
the sites where they were collected, while allowing for the remaining 20
percent to be distributed to other sites that may or may not be
participating in the demonstration program. Despite these program
benefits, our reviews of the Fee Demo program identified a number of areas
needing improvement.1 Specifically, we reported that opportunities
remained for the agencies to be more innovative and cooperative in
designing, setting, collecting, and coordinating fees. We also reported
that heavily visited sites might eventually have more revenue than needed
for their projects, while other sites could have unmet needs as a result
of adhering to the requirement that 80 percent of the revenues be used at
the sites where they were collected.

To address these and other issues, in December 2004, Congress passed the
Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (REA), which repealed the Fee
Demo program. Under REA, five federal agencies-BLM, FWS, NPS, and the
Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) in DOI, and FS in USDA- are authorized
to charge and collect recreation fees at federal lands and waters. When
Congress authorized REA, it attempted to improve upon the demonstration
program by providing fee authority for 10 years until December 2014,
standardizing the types of fees, increasing flexibility for fee revenue
expenditures, and authorizing a new national, interagency "America the
Beautiful-the National Parks and Federal Recreational Lands Pass" designed
to minimize visitor confusion over which passes can be accepted where. REA
also provides criteria for establishing several different kinds of fees
(entrance, standard amenity, expanded amenity, and special recreation
permit) and prohibits charging of fees for certain activities and services
such as outings conducted by schools for noncommercial educational
purposes.

Under REA, only NPS and FWS are authorized to collect entrance fees. An
entrance fee simply refers to a fee charged to enter lands managed by
these agencies. BLM, FS, and Reclamation are authorized to collect
standard amenity fees, which is a fee for access to a National
Conservation Area; a National Volcanic Monument; a destination visitor or
interpretive center that provides a broad range of interpretive services,
programs, and media; or use of an area that provides significant
opportunities for outdoor recreation and contains all of the following six
amenities: (1) designated developed parking; (2) a permanent toilet
facility; (3) a permanent trash receptacle; (4) an interpretive sign,
exhibit or kiosk; (5) picnic tables; and

(6) security services. In addition, each of the five agencies can collect

1GAO, Recreation Fees: Management Improvements Can Help the Demonstration
Program Enhance Visitor Services, GAO-02-10 (Washington, D. C.: Nov. 26,
2001). GAO, Recreation Fees: Information on Forest Service Management of
Revenue from the Fee Demonstration Program, GAO-03-470 (Washington, D. C.:
Apr. 25, 2003).

Page 2 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

"expanded amenity fees," as well as fees for special recreation permits.
Expanded amenity fees may be charged for the use of a specialized
facility, equipment, or service, such as a campground, boat launch,
reservation service, or interpretive tour. REA outlines the criteria that
must be met in order to charge this fee. For example, in order for a BLM,
FS, or Reclamation unit to charge an expanded amenity fee for use of a
developed campground, the campground must include at least a majority of
nine specified amenities such as tent or trailer spaces, drinking water,
and simple devices for containing a campfire. Each of the five agencies
can also collect a special recreation permit fee in connection with the
issuance of a permit for specialized recreation uses of federal
recreational lands and waters, such as group activities, recreation
events, and motorized recreational vehicle use.

In general, REA directs the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture to
involve the public in developing recreation fees and requires BLM and FS
to establish committees, called Recreation Resource Advisory Committees
(RRACs) or use an existing Resource Advisory Committee,2 to allow public
input on recommendations for fee amounts and their usage, and the
establishment of new fee sites. REA provides that recreation fee revenues
are available for expenditure without further appropriation, until
expended and, in general, requires that the collecting unit retain a
minimum of 80 percent of revenues from recreation fees.3 However, REA does
give the agencies some flexibility to make an annual decision to reduce
the percentage allocation to a collecting unit to as little as 60 percent
if they determine the revenues collected at a given unit exceed its
reasonable needs. The remainder of these revenues goes into a central
agency account for expenditure on an agencywide or regional basis. While
we describe agency procedures for distribution of these funds, the use of
these central funds was beyond the scope of this review. Furthermore, the
law extends the agencies' authority to collect recreation fees to December
2014. The primary differences between the Fee Demo program and REA
authority are illustrated in table 1.

2BLM generally refers to Resource Advisory Committees as Resource Advisory
Councils.

3Recreation fees collected under REA are deposited in the Recreation
Enhancement Fee account.

Page 3 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

Table 1: Primary Differences between Fee Demo and REA

                        Fee Demo                      REA                     
Authority               Pub. L. No. 104-134, tit.  Federal Lands           
                           III, S: 315 (1996); Pub.   Recreation Enhancement  
                           L. No. 104-208, tit. III,  Act, Pub. L. No.        
                           S: 319 (1996); and Pub. L. 108-447, tit. VIII      
                           No. 107-63, tit. III, S:   (2004)                  
                           312(b) (2001)              
Authority time frame    Operated on periodic       Expires 10 years from   
                           reauthorizations from      date of enactment       
                           Congress.                  (December 8, 2014).     
Authorized agencies     DOI: NPS, BLM, FWS USDA:   DOI: NPS, BLM, FWS,     
                           FS                         Reclamation USDA: FS    
Types of fees           Entrance and user fees.    Entrance, standard      
                                                      amenity, expanded       
                                                      amenity, special        
                                                      recreation permit fees. 
Fee prohibitions        No specific prohibitions.  Prohibitions on         
                                                      charging fees for       
                                                      certain individuals,    
                                                      such as those under 16  
                                                      years of age; at        
                                                      certain places such as  
                                                      the Flight 93 National  
                                                      Memorial; and for       
                                                      activities such as      
                                                      noncommercial education 
                                                      programs.               
Public participation    No specific requirements.  Public notification     
                                                      requirements for new    
                                                      fees and fee            
                                                      modifications;          
                                                      Recreation Resource     
                                                      Advisory Committee or   
                                                      existing Resource       
                                                      Advisory Committee      
                                                      input generally         
                                                      required on fee changes 
                                                      or new fee areas for    
                                                      BLM and FS.             
Fee revenue collections At least 80% must be       At least 60% must be    
                           retained by collecting     retained by collecting  
                           unit for its use.          unit for its use.       
National passes         Various agency passes such One national            
                           as the National Parks Pass interagency pass.       
                           and interagency national   
                           passes, such as the Golden 
                           Eagle, Age, and Access     
                           Passports.                 

Source: GAO.

You asked us to provide an early assessment of REA implementation and to
help ensure that the guidelines being developed to implement the new law
are based on sound management practices. As requested, we determined

(1) what agencies have done to coordinate the implementation of REA,
including preparing for the new interagency federal lands pass; (2) what
agencies have done to implement REA fee and amenity requirements and
sufficiency of guidance for REA implementation; (3) the extent to which
the agencies have control and accounting procedures for collected
recreation fee revenues; (4) how participating agencies prioritize and
approve activities and projects funded with fee revenues; and (5) the
extent to which units have unobligated fund balances and if recreational
fees are being used to fund projects formerly funded with other
appropriations. We are also providing in appendix II information on how
recreation fees vary
by type, amount, and the level of amenities offered at units with similar
recreational opportunities across and within agencies participating in
REA.

To address these objectives, we obtained and reviewed applicable laws,
regulations, agencywide policies and procedures, regional policies and
procedures, and the fees collected at selected units under the Fee Demo
program and REA in order to determine what changes have resulted since REA
implementation. We developed and administered a nationwide survey to about
900 units4 collecting fees under REA, and 89 percent of the units
responded. We supplemented the survey information with records reviews,
analyses of documents, and testimonial evidence gathered during 26 unit
visits and in meetings with state, regional, and headquarters officials.
Appendix I shows the 26 units we visited, as well as a more detailed
description of our objectives, scope, and methodology. We conducted our
work between June 2005 and August 2006 in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards.


                                Results in Brief

The Departments of the Interior and Agriculture established four working
groups to facilitate interagency cooperation and coordination on REA
implementation issues. While each of the four working groups has made
overall progress facilitating the implementation of REA, some key issues
being addressed by two of the working groups remain unresolved, which is
impacting or has the potential of impacting progress on implementing some
REA requirements. Some unresolved issues are as follows:

o  The RRACs/Public Participation working group is focused on establishing
RRACs or utilizing existing Resource Advisory Councils (advisory councils)
as part of the REA public participation requirements. This working group
is involved in establishing state and regional RRACs that may make
recommendations to the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture related
to public concerns about implementation of standard and expanded amenity
fees or the establishment of a specific recreation fee site managed by BLM
or FS, among other issues. As of April 2006, the working group had
determined the organization of the RRACs and drafted an interagency
agreement required before the RRACs could be formed. However, this
interagency

4A unit is defined as a BLM field office, a FWS national wildlife refuge,
a unit of the national park system (e.g., a national park, national
historic site, or national monument), or a FS ranger district.

Page 5 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

agreement was finalized on September 1, 2006, and there is no time line
for implementation. As a result, no state or regional RRACs are fully
operational. Since BLM and FS interim policy generally requires units to
obtain RRAC review and recommendation for approval of new or increased
fees, the delay in forming these advisory committees-which were originally
estimated to be established with members appointed by the end of 2005-has
delayed the implementation of new fees or fee changes in some BLM and FS
units.

o  The Interagency Pass working group has mainly focused on preparations
for the new interagency pass. While the working group has made progress in
preparing to implement the new pass, certain critical aspects in the pass
development time line have taken much longer than anticipated. For
example, the working group has yet to determine the price to charge for
the new pass, which is to be implemented in January 2007. According to
working group officials, they are working under a very tight time line to
implement the new pass by this deadline, but say they are committed to
implementing the pass on schedule.

The responsibilities of the other two working groups are essentially
completed. The Fee Collection/Expenditure working group focused on
developing common definitions and policy guidance to provide a consistent
basis for implementing REA and enable common reporting by each of the
agencies. This working group finalized an interagency handbook with common
definitions and guidance in March 2006. Also, the Communications working
group was formed to act as a vehicle for communicating REA implementation
issues between the authorized agencies, Congress, and the public.
According to agency officials, this working group has been used to
facilitate interagency communication to Congress and the public, such as
organizing public listening sessions on the new pass and formation of the
RRACs.

To implement REA, participating agencies have reviewed their recreation
fees under the former Fee Demo program and have begun modifying their fee
programs. Most NPS and FWS units continued charging entrance fees as
allowed under REA. Units at BLM and FS made modifications to their fee
programs to comply with REA standard amenity or expanded amenity fee
requirements. For example, FS stated that it dropped 437 sites from its
fee program, including numerous trailheads and picnic areas, because they
did not offer the required minimum amenities. In cases where existing
amenities met REA criteria, agencies continued charging fees by converting
existing user and entrance fees to the new fee categories defined by REA.
Some units, primarily within FS and BLM, added amenities such as picnic
tables or trash receptacles to bring sites into compliance with REA.
However, in survey responses some BLM and FS units reported collecting
standard amenity fees, without having all six amenities required under
REA. BLM and FS headquarters officials said many of these survey responses
were in error. Some of these units are still transitioning toward
compliance with REA, as they plan to add the additional required
amenities. Although REA included Reclamation as a participating agency,
Reclamation is still considering whether to implement REA. It is assessing
advice from the Office of the Solicitor on issues such as its authority to
charge recreation fees under other legislation that was not repealed by
REA. Although agencies reported no major problems with the transition from
Fee Demo to REA, many unit officials said that REA was difficult to
interpret, such as defining criteria for charging standard and expanded
amenity fees, and suggested the need for more specific guidance, including
detailed policies and procedures for implementing REA and managing
recreation fee programs.

Some agencies lack adequate controls and accounting procedures over
collected recreation fees and also lack effective guidance for
establishing these controls. According to federal internal control
guidance, program managers need to identify risks that could impair the
safeguarding of fee revenues at the unit level and should formulate an
approach for risk management that identifies the internal controls
necessary to mitigate those risks. However, on the basis of our unit
visits, we determined that some BLM, FWS, and FS officials did not have
sufficient guidance-or even examples of best practices-to follow for
implementing effective internal controls over cash management. For
example, some units did not have a means of determining the amount of cash
an employee collected and, therefore, could not verify that all collected
fees were accounted for. Some agencies lacked adequate guidance to help
develop an effective system of internal controls over collected fees.
Further, many units have not implemented a system of routine audits to
help ensure that fees are collected and used as authorized and that
collected funds are safeguarded. On the basis of 752 units responding to
this question in our survey, only 37 percent reported having their fee
collection program examined by an auditor since October 2000. The
percentage of units having their fee collection programs examined varies
significantly by agency. For example, about 63 percent of NPS units
reported having such examinations, whereas only 14 percent of FWS units,
27 percent of BLM units, and 33 percent of FS units had examinations.
According to some unit officials with whom we spoke, they either did not
believe they had access to internal or external audit resources or they
rationalized that they did not need to implement an audit program since
they had trustworthy staff. However, without routine audits, the agencies
lack an important internal control that could allow them to promptly
detect unauthorized transactions involving recreation fee revenues and
assess the design and implementation effectiveness of controls over these
assets agencywide.

The agencies have different processes for selecting projects to be funded
by recreation fee revenues. Agencies prioritize projects based on REA
criteria and related agency guidance. REA criteria allow the agencies to
obligate fee revenues on a wide variety of projects such as repairs and
maintenance, interpretive programs, and habitat restoration. However, REA
also places restrictions on expenditures, including prohibiting the use of
fees for threatened and endangered species biological monitoring and
employee bonuses. Agency priorities, which focus the emphasis on using
recreation fees to enhance the visitor's experience, are also guided by
agency needs and revised policies under REA. The differences in the
process for reviewing and approving projects can affect the types of
projects funded and time lines for their implementation. For example, at
BLM, FWS, and FS, most proposed projects are approved at the local unit
level, which according to unit staff usually occurs within a few weeks or,
in some cases, immediately without unit manager approval. At NPS, projects
are reviewed and approved at the unit and regional levels, as well as at
the headquarters level, prior to submitting them for Departmental or
Congressional approval per a multi-level approval process that is based on
dollar amounts. According to NPS officials, under this process it can
sometimes take 1 year or more to obtain approval to fund a requested
project, and many unit and regional officials expressed frustration about
the length of this process. According to NPS officials at the unit and
regional levels, the length of time to obtain approval for funding NPS
projects has delayed project implementation and contributed to units
having unobligated fee revenue balances. In contrast, a NPS headquarters
recreation fee program manager stated that their approval approach helps
to ensure that projects funded are consistent with REA and to assure
accountability. The agencies have used recreation fee revenues to fund or
partially fund a wide variety of maintenance, operations, and capital
improvement projects. For example, fee revenues were used for maintenance
work such as trail repairs, increased seasonal staff to help with
operations such as teaching river safety, and the installation of capital
improvements such as new restroom facilities. The collection and
distribution of central and/or regional funds also varies by agency and
sometimes by region. Generally, these central and regional funds are
distributed among the units based on project proposals or are used to
cover administrative costs of the recreation fee program.

The four agencies collecting recreation fees have accumulated unobligated
balances of nearly $300 million at the end of fiscal year 2005. These
balances have accrued under REA and its predecessor, Fee Demo, for a
variety of reasons. On the basis of our survey, 114 of 270 NPS, BLM, and
FWS units with unobligated balances reported that their balances exceeded
the amount of fee revenues the units collected in fiscal year 2005. This
condition also existed at 63 of 107 forests that FS reported as having
unobligated balances. An example of a unit with a large balance is the
Grand Canyon National Park. With revenues of about $20 million in fiscal
year 2005 and with previous balances accumulated over several years, the
park had an unobligated balance of almost $37 million at the end of 2005.
NPS, BLM, FWS, and FS units responding to our survey identified several
reasons for unobligated balances, including the fact that some units have
inadequate staffing to administer and implement projects, the need to
carry over funds for the next season's operations, and the need to carry
over funds to complete large projects. For example, officials with the
Grand Canyon National Park planned to use the park's $37 million
unobligated balance for an alternative transportation project that is
estimated to cost approximately $47 million. Officials from 58 percent of
the four agencies' units responding to our survey indicated they believed
that, to a moderate, great, or very great extent, recreation fee revenues
are being used to fund the types of projects formerly funded with other
general appropriations at their unit. However, many unit staff we
interviewed or who commented on our survey stated that recreation fee
revenues are essential to providing services at their recreation areas
that would not otherwise be funded. Additionally, officials from 64
percent of responding units indicated they believed that, to a moderate,
great or very great extent, they may need to replace other general
appropriations with recreation fee revenues in the future. Interior and FS
headquarters officials stated that historically, fee revenues have not
replaced appropriations and there is no reason to expect this to change in
the future. Further, Interior headquarters officials stated that the
department has organized spending of recreation fee revenues in such a
manner as to focus on supplementing spending that would have occurred
absent fee revenues.

To allow for public input on new fees or modifications to existing fees,
we are recommending that the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture
expedite completing the steps needed for the RRACs and existing advisory
councils to begin implementing REA. To improve (1) agencies' REA
implementation and (2) improve the accountability and controls for
recreation fee collection, we recommend that the Secretaries of the
Interior and Agriculture direct their land management agency Directors and
Chief to promptly issue final REA regulations and implementation guidance
on their fee programs and ascertain the extent to which some of their
units do not have processes and procedures for accounting for and
controlling collected fees and develop cost effective approaches for
implementing reasonable internal controls over cash management. We are
also recommending the Secretary of the Interior to direct the Commissioner
of the Bureau of Reclamation to expedite a decision on implementing REA so
that units can begin to collect and retain recreation fees to enhance
their recreation programs, as authorized under REA.

In commenting on a draft of this report, the Department of the Interior
generally agreed with our recommendations and provided some specific
actions planned or under way to address them. The Department of
Agriculture's Forest Service also outlined some actions to address the
recommendations. With regard to our recommendation for both agencies to
complete the interagency agreement necessary for the RRAC's and advisory
councils to implement REA, both agencies advised us that they had signed
this agreement, which was finalized on September 1, 2006. As a result, we
removed this recommendation from the report. Both agencies also offered
several suggestions for updating information in the report and for
technical clarifications; we have incorporated these suggestions, as
appropriate.

  Background

DOI's BLM, FWS, NPS, and Reclamation, and USDA's FS manage more than
638 million acres of land in the United States, including lands in
national forests, grasslands, parks, refuges, and reservoirs. These
agencies manage the federal lands for multiple uses, including
recreational activities such as camping and boating. To enhance visitor
services while protecting natural and other resources, as well as to
address concerns about the prior recreation fee program, Congress passed
REA, which authorized the collection and use of recreation fees at federal
lands and waters.

o  BLM's mission is to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of
the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future
generations. BLM manages more than 260 million acres located primarily in
12 western states. The agency manages and issues permits for activities
such as recreation, livestock grazing, timber harvesting, and mining.
Recreation fees are collected under REA at about 100 BLM
field offices.

     o The mission of the FWS is to work with others to conserve, protect,
       and enhance fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats for the
       continuing benefit of the American people. FWS manages more than 545
       national wildlife refuges and 37 large, multiple-unit wetland
       management districts on more than 96 million acres of land throughout
       the nation, 69 national fish hatcheries, and 46 administrative sites.
       As of August 2006, recreation fees are collected under REA at 166 FWS
       sites. An additional 32 national wildlife refuges only sell passes.
     o The mission of NPS is to conserve the scenery, the natural and
       historic objects, and the wildlife of the national park system so that
       they will remain unimpaired for the enjoyment of this and future
       generations. NPS manages 390 national park units covering more than 84
       million acres in 49 states, the District of Columbia, American Samoa,
       Guam, Puerto Rico, Saipan, and the Virgin Islands. NPS manages many of
       the nation's most precious natural and cultural resources. About 190
       park units collect recreation fees such as entrance, use, and pass
       sales. An additional 31 units only generate revenue from the National
       Parks Pass and other pass sales.
     o The mission of Reclamation is to manage, develop, and protect water
       and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound
       manner in the interest of the American public. Reclamation manages
       about 8.5 million acres of land associated with water projects in 17
       western states. The agency delivers water and hydroelectric power
       through the maintenance and administration of dams and reservoirs.
       Currently, Reclamation has identified seven locations that meet REA
       requirements for collecting standard amenity fees.
     o The mission of the USDA FS is to sustain the health, diversity, and
       productivity of the nation's forests and grasslands to meet the needs
       of present and future generations. FS manages more than 190 million
       acres throughout the country. The agency manages and issues permits
       for activities such as skiing, livestock grazing, recreation, timber
       harvesting, mining, and rights-of-way for road construction.
       Recreation fees are collected at about 410 ranger districts in 155
       national forests.

BLM, FWS, NPS, and FS have had broad authority to collect recreation fees
for over 40 years, first under the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)
Act of 1965 and later under Fee Demo. Initially, Fee Demo authorized only
a limited number of sites to charge and retain recreation fees-up to 100
sites per agency-but Congress later expanded the authority to allow any
number of sites to charge and collect recreation fees. Under Fee Demo, the
agencies were encouraged to be innovative in designing and collecting fees
and to coordinate their fees with other federal, state, and local
recreational sites. The program yielded substantial benefits for
recreation sites by funding significant on-the-ground improvements. Total
fee collections were about $192 million in fiscal year 2004, with about 67
percent or $129 million collected by NPS; the four agencies collected a
total of over $1 billion in recreation fee revenues during the 8 years of
the Fee Demo program.5 Nevertheless, under the demonstration program, the
majority of the agencies' funds were still provided to them through annual
appropriations.

Between 1998 and 2004, GAO conducted several reviews of the Fee Demo
program, resulting in numerous reports and testimonies. During these
reviews, we found that Fee Demo was successful in raising revenues and
providing benefits to the agencies, but that improvements could be made to
better the program. GAO informed Congress of several areas that needed to
be addressed to ensure the program's success. These included: (1)
providing a more permanent source of revenue to supplement existing
appropriations by providing the agencies with a more permanent fee
authority; (2) encouraging effective coordination and cooperation among
agencies and individual fee sites to better serve visitors by making the
payment of fees more convenient and equitable, while at the same time
reducing visitor confusion about similar or multiple fees charged at
adjacent federal recreation sites; (3) providing the agencies with greater
flexibility regarding fee revenue expenditures by modifying the
requirement that at least 80 percent of fee revenues remain at the
collection site; and (4) encouraging fee innovation through pricing
structures based on extent of use or peak pricing. In 2004, Congress
passed REA, in part, as a response to the suggestions and concerns
documented in these previous reports. REA repealed several prior
authorities such as those contained in LWCF Act, Fee Demo, and the
National Parks Omnibus Management Act of 1998, which authorized national
passes including the National Parks Pass.6

5Dollars in this report are unadjusted for inflation.

6Existing passes purchased prior to the establishment of the new
interagency pass will remain valid until expired, lost, or stolen.

Page 12 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

However, many of the fees currently charged under REA were first
instituted under the LWCF Act or during the Fee Demo program.

For fee revenues, REA provides that recreation fees collected under the
act be deposited in a special fund account and remain available for
expenditure without further appropriation action. REA allows the revenues
to be used in a variety of ways such as for repair, maintenance, and
facility enhancement; interpretation and visitor information; law
enforcement; and direct operating or capital costs associated with the fee
program. However, not more than an average of 15 percent of total
recreation fee revenues may be used for administration, overhead, and
indirect costs related to the recreation fee program. Further, REA
prohibits the use of recreation fee revenues for employee bonuses or for
biological monitoring under the Endangered Species Act.

Both visitors to federal lands and agency officials generally support
recreation fees and tout the benefits that fee revenues provide through
improved facilities and services. Some assert that the recreation fee
program will improve recreational opportunities and that it is a needed
supplement to general fund appropriations. However, concerns about the
recreation fee program continue to exist for a variety of reasons. For
example, some people are concerned that the fee program under REA does not
go far enough in simplifying fees, that federal lands will be
overdeveloped to attract fee-paying tourists, and that the law fails to
ensure that most collections will be used for the agencies' highest
priorities. Other critics continue to oppose recreation fees in concept,
in large part, on the grounds that the cost of operating and maintaining
federal lands should be covered by general fund appropriations and that
these fees constitute a barrier to public access to federally managed
lands. However, in times of budget constraints, recreation fees may
provide an important source of additional funding needed to sustain agency
operations.

  Working Groups Formed to Foster Interagency Cooperation and Coordination on
  REA Implementation Issues Have Made Progress, but Some Issues Remain
  Unresolved

The four technical working groups formed by DOI and USDA to facilitate
interagency cooperation and coordination on specific REA implementation
issues have made progress. However, progress has been slow in some areas,
such as resolving issues surrounding the RRACs and the new interagency
pass, possibly delaying agency implementation of these aspects of the law.
For example, the working group responsible for forming advisory
committees, such as RRACs, has missed target dates, which has ultimately
delayed the establishment of some new recreation fees. GAO has reported in
the past that agencies face barriers any time they attempt to work
collaboratively, but that there are key practices that can be applied to
help enhance and sustain agency collaboration.7 For example, it is
important to establish compatible policies, procedures, and other means to
operate across agency boundaries. While one working group has finalized
its interagency handbook, one is not planning to issue any guidelines, and
two have not issued all of their interagency guidelines and agreements.
For example, the working group responsible for preparing for the new
interagency federal lands pass has not issued interagency guidelines
outlining such details as pass eligibility requirements and distribution
of costs and revenues among the agencies, which could potentially delay
implementing the new pass.

    The RRACs/Public Participation Working Group is Facilitating the
    Establishment of State and Regional RRACs, but Progress Has Been Slow

The RRACs/Public Participation working group has focused on establishing
RRACs or utilizing existing advisory councils as part of the REA public
participation requirements.8 These committees may make recommendations to
the Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture related to public concerns
about implementation of standard and expanded amenity fees or the
establishment of a specific recreation fee site managed by BLM or FS,
among other issues. However, the development of the RRACs has been slow,
which has delayed the implementation of new fees or fee changes at some
units. According to a June 2005 interagency presentation, it was expected
that the RRACs would be established with members appointed by the end of
2005. Despite progress toward establishing RRACs,

7GAO, Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance and
Sustain Collaboration among Federal Agencies, GAO-06-15 (Washington, D.C.:
Oct. 21, 2005).

8The establishment of the RRACs is guided by the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (FACA), as well as REA. Under FACA, there are specific
requirements for organizing and managing such committees, such as
assigning of a Designated Federal Officer to each committee, achieving
balanced membership on the committees, and requiring open public meetings.

Page 14 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

some tasks have taken longer than originally estimated and, as of August
2006, no state or regional RRACs are fully operational. Before the working
group can move forward with many aspects of establishing RRACs- including
issuing a charter and soliciting nominations for membership-or existing
advisory councils can begin reviewing fee issues, an interagency agreement
on implementing the RRAC requirements had to be signed. This interagency
agreement, which covers issues such as the specific duties of the new
RRACs and existing advisory councils, was finalized on September 1, 2006,
but there is no time line for implementation, according to an agency
official. In addition, other preparatory work to implement the new RRAC
requirement has begun. For example, BLM and FS have begun educating
existing advisory councils and the public about recreation fees and the
REA public participation requirements.

Because BLM and FS generally cannot create new fees or modify existing
fees (per each agency's interim policy) without the participation of
RRACs, or existing advisory councils, the delay in establishing these
advisory committees has prevented many units from making fee decisions.
Agency officials at 26 percent of BLM and almost 38 percent of FS
fee-collecting units responding to our survey, or 171 units out of 481
total units, said that the establishment of or changes to recreation fees
at their units had been prevented or delayed to a moderate, great, or very
great extent since the passage of REA in December 2004. For example, the
Dillon Ranger District in the White River National Forest in Colorado is
currently considering modifying its fee structure but has been delayed
because the RRACs are not operational. Because adding new fees or
increasing existing fees generally results in an overall increase in fee
revenue, some units may be losing fee revenue that could be used to
further enhance visitor services without functioning RRACs in place. Some
units, however, were allowed to add or modify fees prior to implementation
of the new RRAC requirement if the fee changes were already in progress,
and public notification and participation requirements had been met. For
example, about 25 new expanded amenity fees have been implemented at FS
units since early 2006, most of which are for cabin rentals, according to
the FS Fee Program Coordinator. In addition, in some states there are no
units that currently want to add or modify fees, so the implementation of
the RRAC requirements is not delaying fee changes at any units in those
states.

The organizational structure for the RRACs and use of existing advisory
councils was approved by DOI and USDA in March 2006 via an interagency
organizational agreement that established, among other things, how the REA
RRAC requirement will be met in each state/region. In the majority of
western states, BLM and FS will use joint RRACs or committees, many of
which will be composed of existing BLM advisory councils-REA allows
existing advisory committees or fee advisory boards to perform the RRAC
duties. In addition, five new RRACs are being established nationwide.
Appendix III outlines the organizational structure and membership
requirements for the RRACs.

Finally, in addition to the specific requirement for BLM and FS to
establish RRACs or use existing advisory councils to review fee issues,
REA has several other provisions for public participation that apply to
all agencies, and these new public participation requirements have also
delayed the implementation of new fees or fee changes at some units. DOI
and USDA issued interagency guidelines on public participation that apply
to all participating agencies in September 2005. The guidelines direct the
Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior to publish a Federal Register
notice for establishing each new recreation fee area 6 months prior to its
establishment, as required by REA. The guidelines also direct the agencies
to identify outreach efforts, such as public meetings, to encourage public
involvement in establishing recreation fee areas9 and to annually post
notices at each recreation fee area describing the use or anticipated use
of recreation fees collected at that site during the previous year. Some
of the agencies, including NPS, BLM, and FS, have issued agency-specific
guidance for meeting REA public participation requirements. According to
agency officials, the public participation requirements have delayed fee
changes or the establishment of new fees at some units. Agency officials
at almost 17 percent of fee-collecting units within all four agencies
responding to our survey said that the public participation process in
general had delayed or prevented the establishment of or changes to
recreation fees at their unit to a moderate, great, or very great extent
since the passage of REA in December 2004.

9The public involvement opportunities must also include "sharing plans"
developed by the agencies when deciding to establish any new recreation
fee areas. These plans will generally contain (1) a description of the new
recreation fee areas; (2) a financial analysis, including projected
development, operating, and maintenance costs, as well as projected income
for the fee area; (3) an analysis of existing private and public
facilities or services in the vicinity of the fee area that may compete
with it; and (4) a description of how the cooperating agencies will inform
the public as to how the fees collected at the area will be spent.

    Interagency Pass Working Group Has Made Progress Preparing for the New
    Interagency Federal Lands Pass, but Some Issues Remain Unresolved

The Interagency Pass working group has mainly focused on preparations for
the new interagency "America the Beautiful-the National Parks and Federal
Recreational Lands Pass." While the agencies have made progress in
preparing to implement the new pass, some issues remain unresolved. For
example, while the working group has generally determined how revenues
from passes sold centrally will be distributed for the first 3 to 5 years,
it is unclear how these revenues will be distributed among all
participating agencies beyond this time frame. In addition, the working
group has not determined the price to charge for the new pass. According
to DOI, the most complex and time-consuming aspect of implementing REA
relates to establishing this new pass. The Interagency Pass working group
has been addressing the various issues involved with the pass, including
the price of the pass, the distribution of revenues from the sale of the
pass, and operational issues like accepting the pass and tracking its use
at recreation sites. The target date for implementing the new pass is
January 1, 2007, with passes available for distribution by November 1,
2006. According to the working group, this is a very tight time line that
will require the contracting processes to stay on schedule and for
subsequent design, production, and shipping deadlines to be met.

The standard version of the new pass will be available to the general
public; in addition, there will be versions of the pass available to
senior citizens, persons with disabilities, and volunteers. Table 2
provides a description of each of the versions of the new pass. The price
of the standard pass has not yet been determined. The Golden Eagle, Age,
and Access Passports, and the National Parks Pass will continue to be sold
until the new interagency passes are available and all existing passes
will be valid for the lifetime of the pass (e.g., 1 year from purchase for
National Parks Pass and Golden Eagle Passport; lifetime of the pass holder
for Golden Age and Access Passports).

  Table 2: Description of America the Beautiful-the National Parks and Federal
                            Recreational Lands Pass

Pass name      Price of pass  Coverage      Eligibility       Valid        
Standard       Not determined Entrance fees General public    12 months    
(annual) pass                 and standard                    from time of 
                                 amenity fees                    purchase     
Senior         $10.00         Entrance fees U.S. citizens or  Lifetime of  
lifetime pass                 and standard  permanent         pass holder  
                                 amenity fees; residents aged 62 
                                 discounts on  or older          
                                 some expanded                   
                                 amenity fees                    
Access         Free           Entrance fees U.S. citizens or  Lifetime of  
lifetime pass                 and standard  permanent         pass holder  
                                 amenity fees; residents who     
                                 discounts on  have a permanent  
                                 some expanded disability        
                                 amenity fees                    
Volunteer pass Free           Entrance fees Volunteers at     12 months    
                                 and standard  recreation sites  from time of 
                                 amenity fees  who log 500       receipt      
                                               volunteer hours   
                                               over any period   
                                               of time           

Source: GAO.

While the price of the new standard pass has yet to be determined as of
August 2006, the pricing decision is critically important because of the
potential impact of the pass on entrance and standard amenity fee
revenues. In particular, agency officials at NPS have emphasized the
importance of pricing and marketing decisions and their potential impacts
on entrance fee revenue. To provide information to help determine the
price of the new pass, the agencies entered into a cooperative agreement
with the University of Wyoming to conduct a pricing analysis. For the
study, researchers conducted six focus groups throughout the nation,10
collected benchmarking information from a number of U.S. state parks and
Canadian national parks, and developed and implemented a random telephone
survey of recreation users. According to a NPS headquarters official, the
working group is not considering potential revenue losses due to the new
interagency pass, only what the public is willing to pay for the new pass.
However, in commenting on a draft of this report, NPS headquarters
officials informed us that revenue impacts will be considered in the
pricing decision. According to a DOI official, the price of the new pass
was to be determined in the summer of 2006. As of August 2006, the price
of the new standard (annual) pass had not yet been established.

10Focus groups were held in Richmond, VA; Boston, MA; Salt Lake City, UT;
Fresno, CA; Portland, OR; and Madison, WI.

Page 18 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

The details of the plan for distributing revenues from the sale of new
interagency passes sold centrally, such as through the Internet or outside
vendors, beyond the first 3 to 5 years of the pass program is still
uncertain. All pass revenue from passes sold at units will remain within
the agency where the pass was sold, and it will be up to each agency to
determine how to redistribute pass revenues within the agency. For the
first 3 to 5 years of the pass program, revenues from passes sold
centrally will initially be used to cover administrative costs of the new
pass and to reimburse NPS for the almost $2.4 million it loaned to fund
development of the new pass. After administrative costs for the new pass
are covered and NPS is reimbursed, any remaining central pass revenues
will be distributed equally among all participating agencies for at least
the first 3 to 5 years of the program, with the goal of assisting all
agencies in establishing a pass program. However, this plan may be
revisited if central pass sales significantly increase or decrease11 or if
central pass revenue after 3 years is not adequate to cover administrative
costs of the program or to reimburse NPS for its loan. The long-term plan
for revenue distribution beyond the initial 3 to 5 years is more uncertain
because these plan details have not been agreed upon. According to an
official from the working group, the current long-term plan is to
distribute central pass revenues to the agencies based on a formula that
takes into account pass use, where passes were purchased, and possible
additional factors. However, the details of the formula have not been
determined, and there are some potential problems with the collection of
pass-use data to be used in the formula.

While units are generally able to track the number of passes sold, it
would be difficult for many units to collect accurate data about use of
the pass. At most NPS and FWS sites, fees covered by the new interagency
pass will generally be collected at staffed entry points, whereas at BLM
and FS sites, fees covered by these new passes will generally be collected
at unstaffed and often remote locations where fee compliance and
enforcement will be irregular and infrequent. One way to track pass usage
would be to swipe a magnetic strip on the passes at recreation site entry
gates. However, even within NPS, whose sites frequently have staffed entry
points, only one-third of the sites with entrance fees are currently
capable of reading magnetic strips at their entry gates. It would likely
be difficult and expensive to

11In 2004 and 2005, more than 85 percent of National Parks Passes were
sold at fee sites, approximately 5 percent were sold through the Internet,
less than 1 percent were sold through the current contractor's contact
center, and approximately 8 percent were sold through third-party sales.

Page 19 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

install technology to read magnetic strips at many remote and unstaffed
units, and compliance with such systems would be difficult to enforce at
sites without staffed entry booths by January 2007. According to a member
of the working group, the working group is aware of these issues and,
while it has not yet addressed them, the group plans to develop a
consistent data collection strategy that the agencies can use at unstaffed
locations to determine pass usage. Agencies will be responsible for
implementing the strategy and units will be expected to collect data on
the use of the pass after the new interagency pass is released.

As of August 2006, the agencies are engaged in a contracting process to
acquire the goods and services necessary to implement the new interagency
pass and are planning to issue the pass by the January 2007 target date. A
Request for Proposal (RFP) for the contract was published on June 5, 2006,
and, according to agency officials, it is unknown when the contract will
be awarded. The U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO) will print the new
pass and any accompanying products. Agency officials from the Interagency
Pass working group have acknowledged that they are working within a very
tight time line, but have said that they are committed to issuing the new
pass by January 2007. However, certain critical aspects in the pass
development time line have taken much longer than originally anticipated.
For example, an earlier estimated date for issuing the RFP for contracting
services was fall 2005 before it was pushed back several times and finally
published in June 2006. In addition, interagency guidelines for the new
pass12 that were estimated in June 2005 to be completed in fall 2005 had
not been completed as of August 2006. However, the working group still has
several months to meet their target pass implementation date of January
2007.

One goal of the new single interagency pass is to reduce visitor confusion
over which passes can be accepted where, since the various passes
currently offered by the agencies create considerable confusion among the
visiting public. The majority of units responding to our survey, almost 63
percent, were aware that the visiting public was confused about the use of
current national passes, regional passes, or annual passes. The factor
most frequently cited for causing visitor confusion was where the
different types of passes are accepted, with 82 percent of units
responding that this factor

12The interagency guidelines will address the price of the pass, the
benefits provided, eligibility requirements, marketing and design, the
issuance of passes to volunteers, and the distribution of costs and
revenues.

Page 20 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

    Fee Collection/Expenditure Working Group Has Issued Final Interagency
    Guidance in an Attempt to More Clearly Define REA Terminology

causes confusion to a moderate, great, or very great extent. Other factors
cited by more than two-thirds of survey respondents as causing confusion
were the differences in the benefits between passes, the recreation uses
covered by each pass, the differences in the Golden Eagle Passport versus
the National Parks Pass, the difference between federal and nonfederal
units, and understanding the differences between various passes (e.g.,
eligibility, cost, benefits, etc.). Given that there will be overlap
between the current National Parks Pass, the Golden Eagle, Age, and Access
Passports, and the new interagency pass, it will be important for the new
pass guidelines and agency-specific guidance and training on it to address
these issues and provide unit staff with materials and information to
better educate the public.

The Fee Collection/Expenditure working group was established to address
organizational concerns, implementation issues, and coordination among the
agencies as they relate to fee collections and expenditures. While the
agencies individually took steps after the enactment of REA to assess
their recreation fee programs and begin implementing the new act, the
working group's main task was to develop common definitions and policy
guidance to establish a basis for consistent implementation of REA and
common reporting by each of the agencies. This working group finalized an
interagency handbook with common definitions and guidance-the 
Interagency Implementation Handbook for Federal Lands Recreation
Enhancement Act-in March 2006.

The interagency handbook provided definitions for some of the terms used
in the law, such as "designated developed parking," "permanent trash
receptacle," "reasonable visitor protection," and "special recreation
permit fees" in order to clarify terms that may be interpreted differently
by the various agencies. In addition to the definitions, the handbook
provided general policy guidance regarding certain aspects of the law-such
as overall guidance on some aspects of the new interagency pass and annual
reporting of budgetary information-while delegating the authority to
develop and implement policies on other issues to the individual agencies.
For example, the handbook directed the agencies to develop and implement a
policy for revenue distribution decisions, including retention of
recreation fee revenues and agencywide distribution of funds. For the
sections of REA that were delegated to the individual agencies, the
handbook directed the agencies to develop written policy guidance that
incorporates the standard definitions and policy guidelines. According to
a working group official, the Fee Collection/Expenditure working group is
no
longer formally meeting since developing the interagency handbook was the
group's main task, and the handbook has now been finalized.

    Communications Working Group Has Been Used to Facilitate Interagency
    Communication with Congress and the Public

The Communications working group was formed to facilitate interagency
communications about REA implementation issues with Congress, the public,
and other interested third parties, such as states and localities. The
working group organized listening sessions to gain public input on the
RRACs and the new interagency pass. The agencies have periodically briefed
congressional staffers on a variety of issues, including the Federal Lands
Recreation Enhancement Act First Triennial Report to Congress; Fiscal Year
2006, which was released in May 2006. According to agency officials, the
working group now meets infrequently and has not issued any joint press
releases to the public since all press releases regarding REA have thus
far been issued by individual agencies.

  Most Agencies Have Reviewed and Begun to Modify Recreation Fee Programs to
  Implement REA, but Some Units are Still Transitioning, Reclamation Is Not Yet
  Participating, and Agencies Have Been Slow to Issue Final Guidance

After the passage of REA, agencies directed their units to assess and
modify their fee programs to comply with REA criteria. Although most units
have made some modifications to their programs, such as converting fees,
eliminating sites and fees, or adding amenities, some units are still in
transition and may still need to add required amenities. Some responding
units, however, reported collecting standard amenity fees, without having
all six amenities required under REA. In commenting on a draft of this
report, agency officials said many of these survey responses were in
error. Although Reclamation was included as a participating agency under
REA, it has yet to make a final decision about whether to implement REA.
Also, most BLM, FWS, NPS, and FS units reported that some kind of guidance
is available; however, the agencies have not yet issued final guidance,
and many unit officials indicated that some aspects of the law are unclear
and that they need more specific guidance on how to add new fee sites or
modify existing fees to fully implement the law.

    Agencies Assessed Existing Fee Programs and Made Changes to Comply with REA,
    but Some Units Are Still in Transition, and Reclamation Is Deciding Whether
    to Implement REA

To implement REA, participating agencies reviewed their recreation fees
under the former Fee Demo program and other legal authorities and
instructed units to make necessary modifications to ensure compliance with
key REA provisions. While most units converted fees, eliminated fees, or
added amenities to comply with REA, some are still transitioning toward
taking such actions and, in some cases, are charging fees without having
all of their required amenities. One agency, Reclamation, has assessed its
recreation fees but has not decided whether it will implement REA.

Agencies Assessed Recreation Fee Programs and Made Changes

In 2005, all agencies assessed existing fee programs to determine whether
existing fee collecting sites met REA requirements, and some units made
modifications to comply with REA. Overall, the transition from Fee Demo to
REA was easiest for NPS and FWS, both of which charged entrance fees under
Fee Demo, were authorized to charge such fees under REA, and continued to
charge entrance fees. Therefore, the transition for these agencies to REA
did not have much impact. NPS eliminated a day-use fee at the Exit Glacier
site in Kenai Fjords National Park in Alaska because of concerns that it
would be perceived as an entrance fee, which is prohibited under both the
Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act and REA.13 FWS eliminated
an entrance fee at Gavin's Point National Fish Hatchery in South Dakota
because fish hatcheries are not allowed to charge entrance fees under
REA.14

The transition from Fee Demo to REA had more of an impact on FS and BLM
since REA provided additional criteria for fee sites and prohibitions on
certain fees at these agencies. Unlike Fee Demo, REA limits the authority
of BLM and FS, authorizing these agencies to collect fees only at
locations with a certain level of infrastructure and/or services and
prohibits charging fees for parking, general access to dispersed areas
with little or no investment, and scenic overlooks, among others. BLM and
FS assessed existing fee programs and either eliminated fees, converted
fees, or added amenities in order to convert entrance or day-use fees to
standard amenity

13REA prohibits charging an entrance fee at an area or unit covered by
section 203 of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, with
the exception of Denali National Park and Preserve. Section 203 prohibits
charging fees for entrance to any unit of the national park system located
in Alaska. 16 U.S.C. 410hh-2.

14REA allows FWS to collect entrance fees only at units of the National
Wildlife Refuge System. Since Gavin's Point National Fish Hatchery is a
unit of the National Fish Hatchery System and not a unit of the National
Wildlife Refuge System, collection of entrance fees at that unit is not
allowed under REA.

fees. BLM and FS also assessed existing campgrounds and other developed
facilities to ensure that they had at least the minimum number of required
amenities to charge an expanded amenity fee.

BLM eliminated several fees after passage of REA, including fees for
overlooks at Imperial Sand Dunes in California, fees at undeveloped sites
at Orilla Verde Recreation Area in New Mexico, and youth fees at several
sites, including Cape Blanco Lighthouse in Oregon. For BLM, a key change
was converting existing entrance fees to standard amenity fees where sites
met the new criteria. According to a BLM headquarters official, BLM
converted entrance fees at 10 sites to standard amenity fees. According to
state coordinators, only one of these sites, located in Arizona, did not
meet standard amenity criteria and had to add an informational kiosk.
Other BLM sites converted various fees charged for activities such as
camping to expanded amenity fees. For example, campgrounds at Fisherman's
Bend Recreation Area in western Oregon had at least the minimum amenities
required by REA to convert a camping fee to an expanded amenity fee.

FS reviewed its existing recreation fees and stated that it dropped 437
sites, such as trailheads and picnic areas, from its fee program because
they did not meet the new criteria described under REA. Under Fee Demo, FS
charged fees for entrance into large areas, sometimes entire forests.
However, REA prohibited FS from charging entrance fees and only allowed FS
to charge standard amenity fees if the sites provide the required level of
amenities. In addition to dropping fee sites, numerous FS units added
amenities to bring sites into compliance with REA. According to one FS
regional coordinator, if a developed site was missing one or two
amenities, then the unit added those amenities, otherwise, the site was
dropped from the fee program.

Concerns about FS compliance with REA criteria have been raised by users
who are critical of the use of High Impact Recreational Area (HIRA)
designations and standard amenity fee areas. While HIRAs are not
specifically mentioned in REA, FS relies on a section of REA that
authorizes standard amenity charges for the use of "an area" as authority
to designate HIRAs. The Interagency Implementation Handbook for Federal
Lands Recreation Enhancement Act defines a HIRA as an area of concentrated
recreation use that includes a variety of developed sites providing a
similar recreation opportunity that incur significant expenditures for
restoration, public safety, sanitation facilities, education, maintenance,
and other activities necessary to protect the health and safety of
visitors, cultural resources, and the natural environment. The handbook
also defines limitations on which areas can be designated as a HIRA. For
example, whole administrative units, such as a national forest or a
Reclamation project, cannot be declared a HIRA. During the past few years,
FS identified HIRA sites and has proceeded to charge standard amenity fees
for the use of these areas under REA. According to the agency's officials,
the HIRA designation is a logical way of categorizing amenities supporting
high levels of recreation use, and collected fees go to maintain and clean
these provided amenities, such as restroom facilities.

Another concern about the HIRAs is that some access points into parts of
wilderness areas that are not considered part of a HIRA are only
accessible via the HIRA, so visitors must still pay the standard amenity
fee to access these parts of the national forests. In addition, some
assert that because REA prohibits charging a fee "solely for parking" or
"driving through, walking through, boating through, horseback riding
through, or hiking through...without using the facilities and services,"
the standard amenity fees for HIRAs are prohibited in some cases. For
example, a visitor to an Arizona national forest challenged FS citations
issued to her for failing to display the required day pass permit to
travel into a HIRA. The visitor was cited on two occasions because she
parked within a HIRA to hike the area without having paid for the day pass
permit. On September 5, 2006, a district court held that the REA bars the
FS from collecting fees for parking along roads or trailsides and that the
FS acted "far beyond its legislative authority" in its attempt to collect
the fee. Accordingly, the court dismissed the citations against the
visitor.15

According to FS officials, the agency significantly decreased the size of
many of its HIRAs to only cover areas where required standard amenities
are within reasonable access. For example, the entire Flaming Gorge
National Recreation Area in Utah and Wyoming had an entrance fee under Fee
Demo; now only 4 percent of the recreation area is subject to fees.
Another example is the Los Padres National Forest in southern California,
which reportedly decreased the size of its HIRA from almost 1.5 million
acres to 71,000 acres while also removing 37 fee sites. However, in
testimony before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests, on October 26, 2005,
representatives from the Arizona and Western Slope No-Fee Coalitions
charged that the BLM and FS are using the HIRA and standard amenity
concepts to circumvent the intent of Congress and charge fees for areas

15United States v. Wallace, 2066 WL 2563468 (D. Ariz. Sept. 5, 2006).

that do not have the amenities required by REA. However, REA does not
provide a definition for "area" and thus the criteria used to define an
"area" are open to the agencies' discretion. For example, the Arapaho
National Recreation Area in Colorado charges a standard amenity fee for an
area it defines as an HIRA that contains 25 developed sites including
picnic areas, boat launches, campgrounds, and trailheads. Not all six of
the amenities that are required under REA are collocated at each of the
developed sites. However, since all six of the required amenities are
somewhere within the hundreds of acres of their designated HIRA, the FS is
charging a standard amenity fee for the entire area under REA. In the
October 26, 2005, Senate subcommittee hearing, a USDA official
acknowledged that FS implementation of REA is a "work in progress" and
that different local conditions and characteristics make it difficult to
develop HIRA criteria that fit all circumstances. According to this
official, FS has continued to work on providing consistent signage and to
identify areas that may not meet the criteria for charging fees and plans
to have the RRACs comment on how the agency is applying HIRA criteria.

  Some BLM and FS Units Do Not Have All Required Amenities to Charge Standard
                                  Amenity Fees

We also found that some BLM and FS units still do not meet REA
requirements for charging standard amenity fees. Based on the results of
our survey, of the 195 BLM and FS units that reported that they charge a
standard amenity fee, 38 reported they did not provide all six amenities
that are required for them to charge the fee. Two BLM units and 36 FS
units reported that they did not provide all six required amenities. The
amenities that the units were most frequently lacking were a permanent
trash receptacle and interpretive signs, exhibits, or kiosks. Although
these units reported in survey responses that their unit did not have all
six required amenities, BLM state-level officials and FS headquarters
officials stated they believed all of their fee-collecting units were in
compliance with REA criteria. In commenting on a draft of this report,
both BLM and FS indicated their unit officials had likely been confused by
the fee terminology in the survey question and/or may have misunderstood
the definitions of the required amenities, rather than because these units
lack amenities such as picnic tables.

However, during interviews with agency officials, we learned that some
units charging a standard amenity fee did not have all six required
amenities, but had plans to add these amenities. For example, the Meadow
Creek site at the Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest in Colorado lacked two
of the six amenities-picnic tables and interpretative signage- required
under REA when we visited it in December 2005. The unit has continued to
charge a standard amenity fee since REA passed because unit officials
thought it would be confusing to visitors to temporarily discontinue the
fee while they worked on upgrading the area to meet REA criteria. The unit
received a $20,000 grant in 2005 from the central fee revenue fund to add
picnic tables and signage, as well as fire rings to the area. According to
a unit official, the required amenities were added during the summer of
2006, and the Meadow Creek site now has all of the required amenities in
place.

Some FS unit staff also found the standard amenity criteria at odds with
wildlife management practices. For example, several national forests near
the Canadian border are in grizzly bear areas, so FS has instructed the
public to "pack out," or dispose of their trash outside of camping and
dayuse areas, rather than install costly bear-proof garbage cans. Now, if
these forests are going to continue charging recreation fees at these
sites, REA requires FS to put trash receptacles in the areas. In another
example, picnic tables were previously removed from Mt. Evans, in the
Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest, because of wildlife interaction issues.
However, in order to comply with REA, FS must provide all six required
amenities, including picnic tables.

In commenting on a draft of this report, BLM headquarters officials stated
that they checked with the two units that reported having less than six
required amenities in their response to our survey. The officials
determined that the two units' reports were in error and that the units
did offer all six amenities. Similarly, the FS headquarters staff made
further inquiries of the 36 units that reported less than the six required
amenities and determined that some of the information that the units
reported on their survey response was in error. Based on information from
FS officials and our analysis, the status of those units is as follows:

     o 12 units did not have a standard amenity fee but instead had an
       expanded amenity fee, which does not have the same amenity
       requirements under REA.
     o 11 units did have the required six amenities and did not accurately
       report this in their survey response to us.
     o 4 units had a standard amenity fee for a visitor or interpretive
       center, which under REA may be charged without having the six required
       amenities.

     o 2 units had no standard amenity fee and should have reported this in
       their survey response to us.
     o 7 units have not yet responded to the follow up inquiries.

It should be noted, however, that the results of BLM and FS headquarters
officials' inquiries have not been verified.

Reclamation Undecided on Implementing REA

Reclamation has not made a decision to move forward with REA
implementation. The agency officials are assessing Office of the Solicitor
advice concerning how the act applies to their operational situation and
to the alternate authority for Reclamation to charge fees under the
Federal Water Project Recreation Act (FWPRA). Reclamation had requested
advice from the solicitor's office because of their unusual operational
situation that includes the management of about 250 of Reclamation's
approximately 300 sites by partner organizations, such as other government
entities. In 2005, Reclamation conducted an assessment to determine which
of its recreation sites met REA requirements. Reclamation identified 7 of
the 50 sites it directly manages that would qualify to charge standard
amenity fees under REA, one of which was New Melones Reservoir in
California. New Melones collected about $170,000 in 2004 under LWCFA,
which was repealed by REA. Reclamation is now using FWPRA as its authority
to collect recreation fees at New Melones. Any fees collected under FWPRA
are to be deposited into a Department of the Treasury (Treasury) account,
unless project specific legislation provides otherwise. Reclamation has
not indicated how many of the 50 sites they directly manage meet REA
criteria for charging an expanded amenity fee.

    Although Most Units Have Received Some Guidance, Final Policy Guidance on
    REA Is Still Pending for all Agencies, and Many Unit Officials Said Some
    Aspects of the Law Are Unclear and More Specific Guidance Is Needed

After REA passed, the Interagency Implementation Handbook directed
agencies to develop written policy guidance that incorporates the standard
definitions and overarching policy guidelines established in the handbook.
Although agencies reported that they made the transition from Fee Demo to
REA without major problems, many units said that some aspects of REA are
unclear, and more specific guidance is needed. For example, some unit
officials expressed confusion about how to add new fees or modify existing
fees, while others expressed confusion about amenity criteria.

BLM and FS issued interim guidance documents, and the NPS has issued memos
and provided training on REA implementation, while FWS has issued no
formal guidance to the field. BLM and FS issued interim recreation fee
guidelines within months after the passage of REA, and both have since
issued additional guidance on different aspects of the law. NPS issued
transitional guidelines and memos on various aspects of REA and has
provided training on REA implementation. FWS formed a working group with
representatives from headquarters and the field to work on various
implementation tasks, including drafting guidance and policy on REA.
According to an FWS official, interim guidance will be out by the end of
fiscal year 2006. Since Reclamation has not yet determined whether the
agency will implement REA, the agency has not issued any guidance on the
new law.

While most respondents to our survey indicated that some type of guidance
on the fee program is available, many unit and regional officials
indicated during interviews that additional guidance is needed. Based on
the results of our survey, most units responding indicated that some kind
of guidance is available from national headquarters and a regional or
state office, with the majority of units indicating that the existing
guidance is at least moderately useful on authorized types of fees and
passes. For example, 85 percent of BLM, FS, FWS and NPS units reported
that written guidance is available from national headquarters. Most units
also indicated that unwritten, unit-specific guidance, staff knowledge,
and experience are additional sources of guidance that are generally
available to them. However, although the vast majority of survey
respondents reported that some kind of written guidance was available,
unit officials at the state and regional level, as well as at some of the
sites we visited, emphasized that more specific guidance is needed,
including detailed policy and procedures for implementing and managing fee
programs. For example, as BLM and FS unit staffs have implemented REA,
some unit agency officials have found REA amenity criteria and terminology
ambiguous, and some units expressed confusion about how to interpret and
apply such criteria as "reasonable security" and "permanent trash
receptacle." Other unit officials at the various agencies said they needed
more guidance on how to add new fee sites or modify existing fees. For
example, according to an FWS official, the main obstacle to implementing
fees at a refuge complex in Nevada has been a lack of policies and
procedures, as well as basic guidance, on how to implement a fee program.
According to FWS officials, such guidance should include examples of
implementation plans, information on how to set up accounts, effective
ways to share lessons learned among the seven FWS regions, and contact
information for other agency officials with fee program experience.

  Some Agencies Do Not Have Adequate Controls and Accounting Procedures for
  Collected Fees and Lack Effective Guidance for Establishing a System of
  Internal Controls, Including Routine Audits

We found that some agencies' units did not have adequate controls for
safeguarding and accounting for collected fee revenues. While current
federal guidance requires managers to establish and maintain accounting
systems that incorporate effective internal controls, we determined that
some BLM, FWS, and FS units did not have sufficient guidance-including
examples of best practices-to follow for implementing internal controls
over collected fee revenues.16 NPS has also been slow to issue updated
guidance on accounting for and controlling collected fee revenues.
However, despite this lack of guidance, NPS units we visited appear to
have generally implemented effective internal controls. Furthermore,
routine audits are an integral part of any system of effective internal
controls over agencies' financial assets. However, less than 37 percent of
respondents to our survey indicated their units have been examined by
auditors since October 2000. Without effective internal controls, the
units cannot provide reasonable assurance that the fee revenues collected
are properly controlled and accounted for.

    Some Agencies Lack Adequate Controls on Collected Fees

Federal internal control standards require management to identify risks
that could impair the safeguarding of agency resources, such as fee
revenues at the unit level, and suggest that management should formulate
an approach for risk management that identifies the internal controls
necessary to mitigate those risks. A good set of internal controls should
incorporate physical control over vulnerable assets-such as cash-with
other controls such as segregation of duties, controls over information
processing, accurate and timely recording of transactions and events, and
access restrictions to and accountability for resources and records.
However, cash collection is an area where agencies are particularly
vulnerable to the risk of theft. Some locations, such as BLM's Gunnison
Field Office, have such limited staff running their recreation fee program
that their program coordinator indicated the appropriate separation of
duties, not to mention using procedures such as two staff jointly counting
fee receipts, is simply not possible.17 Unfortunately, this circumstance
may

16GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government,
GAO/AIMD-99-21.3.2 (Washington, D.C.: November 1999) and GAO, Internal
Control Management and Evaluation Tool, GAO-01-1008G (Washington, D.C.:
August 2001).

17According to a BLM official, since our visit in March 2006, the
officials at the Gunnison Field Office have made changes to their fee
collection procedures, including utilizing two employees for fee
collections and processing.

Page 30 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

not be unusual, especially at smaller units where resource management
staffs-generally with little or no accounting or business operations
experience-are tasked with implementing the fee program, including cash
handling procedures. The staffs at these units face many challenges
ranging from the development of safe and secure procedures for gathering
and transporting fee envelopes from remote campground sites to assuring
that staff with appropriate knowledge and skills are assigned to process
and account for collected fees. In addition, survey respondents indicated
a myriad of other problems such as

     o security concerns over the delivery of collected cash fees from their
       unit to the bank,
     o local banks not accepting agency procedures for depositing funds to a
       Treasury account,
     o local banks and/or post offices charging fees for issuing the money
       order or cashier's check necessary to make deposits in Treasury
       accounts,
     o employees having to pay bank fees for money orders or cashiers checks
       with their own funds and then seek reimbursement from the agency, and
     o the closest local bank sometimes being an inconvenient 30 to 60 miles
       away from fee collecting locations.

According to federal internal control standards, management should strive
to remove the temptation for unethical behavior by avoiding the receiving
and handling of cash by individual staff without a reasonable means of
determining the amount of revenues the employee has received. For example,
at the Tonto National Forest Mesa Ranger District, near Phoenix, staff
members sometimes collect cash fees directly from visitors when the
automated fee machines are broken. Most of the district's fees are
collected by automated machines that are owned and serviced by a
contractor. However, one or more of the unit's automated fee machines are
often broken. To avoid a loss of revenues when the machines are not
working, the managers designate staff members as collection officers to
work at busy entry points to collect fees and direct traffic flow.
According to district management, the staff later feed the collected fees
into a working automated machine someplace else in the district. However,
the managers have not developed physical or other compensating controls
over these cash collections (easily amounting to several hundred dollars
on a busy

day) that would enable managers to verify that all of the fees collected
by any given staff member are actually fed into a working machine. In
commenting on a draft of this report, FS headquarters officials indicated
that they believe that automated fee machines should rarely be broken and
they also noted that local officials are responsible for reasonable
internal controls over cash collection.

In addition, the safety of staff involved in collecting the cash could be
jeopardized due to the risk of being targeted for robbery. In another
example, at BLM's Gunnison Field Office, in western Colorado, one or two
staff members collect the fee envelopes containing campground fees from a
remote self-service fee station and place the envelopes into a bag for
transport back to the office. At the office, the envelopes are placed in a
safe until another employee has an opportunity to open the envelopes,
count the cash, and record the fees collected. However, the manager has
not developed physical controls over the cash collections and accounting
to provide assurance that all of the fee envelopes collected by the first
staff member(s) are turned in at the office or that all of the funds
counted by the second employee are deposited and accurately documented.
Consequently, in both of these examples, the managers were left without
reasonable assurance that the revenue each employee collected was received
and accounted for by the agency.

    Some Agencies' Units Lack Adequate Guidance to Establish Accounting
    Procedures and an Effective System of Internal Controls for Collected Fee
    Revenues

Most available agency guidance provides overall objectives for
establishing and maintaining an effective accounting system. For example,
the FS Manual on Accounting states that one of the overall objectives is
to "establish and maintain an accounting system that provides: A system
for internal control and accountability of funds, property, and other
assets from acquisition to disposition." However, this guidance does not
provide the detailed, "cook book" type of instructions most unit-level fee
program managers need to successfully implement an effective system of
internal controls. In contrast, Yosemite National Park's written opening
procedures provide detailed step by step instructions as follows:

     o Check the accountable stock [of passes]; verify that the numbers are
       in sequence.
     o Make note of any missing passes.
     o Enter the first and last number of each type of pass on the shift
       report.
     o Date and initial the shift report.

According to several unit-level officials we interviewed, agency-level
support and training on accounting and control issues is needed to help
units develop this type of detailed procedures for their fee programs.
Some field staffs have also requested training opportunities to help them
learn how they should manage their fee programs. The lack of both written
procedures that are current and comprehensive and fee program training are
obstacles to developing successful internal controls.

Due to the numerous comments shared by agency staff about the need for
updated guidance, we included questions about this issue in our nationwide
survey of BLM, FWS, NPS, and FS units. Of those units that reported
receiving some sort of guidance related to controlling and accounting for
collected fees, over one-third (277/752) indicated the guidance they
received was less than moderately useful. When asked about whether staff
had been provided training on controlling and accounting for collected
funds, over 40 percent indicated they had not received training on this
issue. Of the survey respondents who did receive training, over 60 percent
indicated the training was less than moderately useful. In commenting on a
draft of this report, FS acknowledged the need for revising the Forest
Service Manual and indicated it will expedite publication of the handbook
and updated procedures as soon as practicable.

Although NPS units we visited appear to have implemented reasonable
accounting procedures and effective internal controls, the agency has been
slow to issue updated guidance on accounting and controlling collected fee
revenues. NPS parks are still following NPS-22, the 1989 NPS policy for
fee collection. However, technologies have changed so much since 1989 that
the old policy does not even address issues such as electronic processing
of credit card payments. The parks have been waiting for years for a new
fee collection policy to be issued, and several unit and regional
officials stated that the revised policy guidance is needed immediately.
NPS management indicated they had developed a draft of the new policy when
REA passed in late 2004, making portions of the previous draft obsolete.
NPS fee program coordinators in the headquarters office said they
recognize that units need and want updated guidance and, although they are
trying hard to get the guidance on recreation fees out as soon as
possible, could not provide an estimated time frame for issuance.

Some units' fee coordinators, such as the coordinators at Rocky Mountain
National Park in Colorado and the Shasta Trinity National Forest Shasta
Lake Ranger District in California appear to have a good handle on how to
develop and implement sound financial and accounting internal controls.
However, many other units lacked both the technical and professional
expertise to develop sound procedures without detailed guidance. Since
many unit-level staffs have not received detailed agency guidance that
would be useful in establishing such procedures on their own, they
continue to struggle with these issues and the risks associated with poor
internal controls.

    Some Agencies Do Not Have a System of Routine Audits to Account for
    Collected Fee Revenues

Many units have not implemented a system of routine audits to help ensure
that fees are collected and used as authorized and that collected funds
are safeguarded. Only 37 percent of the 752 units responding to this
question in our survey reported having their fee collection program
examined by an auditor since October 2000. The percentage of units having
their fee collection programs examined varies significantly by agency. For
example, NPS reported the highest percentage of audits of unit-level fee
programs with about 63 percent of units (110/175) having their control and
accounting procedures examined since October 2000. According to a NPS
regional fee program coordinator, some NPS regions are aggressive about
audits, such as the Intermountain Region where one staff person is
dedicated to conducting audits. Other regions may not have dedicated
resources to conduct audits. For example, the Northeast Region has only
one fee coordinator available to conduct fee program audits, and she does
not feel she is justified in going to parks unless unit managers ask her
to review how the unit is doing operationally. In the past, the NPS
headquarters fee project coordinator reportedly proposed using a portion
of the centrally held recreation fees to fund a national audit program,
but the proposal was only partially implemented in one region. In
commenting on a draft of this report, NPS stated its intention to
reconvene a workgroup to develop a National Audit Program.

Other agencies reported having many fewer routine audits of their
programs: only 14 percent of FWS units, 27 percent of BLM units, and 33
percent of FS units reported having examinations. According to some unit
officials with whom we spoke, they either did not believe they have access
to internal or external audit resources or they rationalized that they did
not need to implement an audit program since they had trustworthy staff. A
lack of staff resources is also a factor in the limited number of units
that have had their recreation fee programs audited during the past 5
years.

Routine audits are an important internal control that could allow agency
officials to promptly detect unauthorized transactions involving
recreation fee revenues and assess the design, implementation, and
effectiveness of controls over these assets agencywide.

One example that highlights the need for routine audits was at the Tonto
National Forest Mesa Ranger District, where officials acknowledged that no
audit had been conducted on the contractor who maintains the automated
machines and processes the fees collected through the machines. In fact,
the district officials said they had seen no reason to request that the
contractor, who owns and services the automated fee machines, be audited.
The contractor collects the fees (cash and credit card payments) directly
from the machines and then prepares quarterly reports for the FS unit,
stating the amount collected and the amount to be remitted to FS under the
contract. Over the life of the contract, FS staff members have verified
the amount of the contractor's remittance against the reported total
collected fees to ensure the contractor submitted the correct percentage
of the fees under their contract. Unfortunately, by simply relying on this
approach, FS officials have no way of independently verifying actual
receipts because they have no access to raw data from the automated
machines.18 FS was simply verifying the contractor's mathematical
calculation against what the contractor had self-reported as total fee
receipts.

In commenting on a draft of this report, FS officials noted that it is FS
policy to audit collection officers at least annually, but acknowledged
they have not been meeting this goal. In order to begin addressing FS's
recognized shortfall in meeting their prescribed audit program, they have
assigned a full-time FS Albuquerque Service Center (ASC) resource to
monitor the program, nationwide. Also, according to a FWS headquarters
official, in fiscal year 2004, FWS implemented a procedure to help target
units for visitor service reviews.

18Since our visit to this unit in March 2006, Tonto officials have sought
assistance from the FS Albuquerque Service Center (ASC) to audit this
contract. ASC officials indicated they have requested copies of the
automated machine data from the contractor, but the contractor has refused
to provide the data because of proprietary issues.

Page 35 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

  Agencies Have Different Processes for Selecting Projects to Be Funded with Fee
  Revenues

While REA establishes the basic priority of using recreation fee revenues
for enhancing visitors' experience, each agency has a different process
for selecting projects to be funded with fee revenues based on the
agency's needs and revised policies under REA. These different processes
affect the types of projects the agencies fund and their time lines for
project implementation.19 Agencies fund a wide variety of priority
projects with fee revenues, typically maintenance, operations, and some
capital improvements. Examples of projects and activities funded with fee
revenue include campground renovations within American Fork Canyon at the
Uinta National Forest in Utah, interpretive panels at Colonial National
Historic Park in Virginia as pictured in figure 1, interpretive staff at
BLM's Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area in Nevada, and trail work
at FWS's Rocky Mountain Arsenal National Wildlife Refuge in Colorado as
pictured in figure 2. Some units also use recreation fee revenues to
leverage funds received from other sources, such as grants or donations.

19We discussed project selection processes and time lines with agency
officials at specific units, state/regional offices, and headquarters but
did not collect data to confirm their statements.

Page 36 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

        Figure 1: Interpretive Panel at Colonial National Historic Park

Source: GAO.

Note: This panel was funded with recreation fee revenue.

Figure 2: Site of Trail Work at Rocky Mountain Arsenal National Wildlife Refuge

Source: GAO.

Note: The materials and a portion of the labor for trail work at this
location were funded with recreation fee revenue.

    Project Prioritization Processes Are Based on REA Criteria and Agency
    Guidance

REA established limits on the use of recreation fees to focus the
expenditures more directly on benefiting the people who visit the unit at
which they were collected. For example, REA supports the use of recreation
fees to repair, maintain, and enhance facilities related directly to
visitor enjoyment, visitor access, and visitor health and safety but
restricts the use of recreation fees for biological monitoring under the
Endangered Species Act or for employee bonuses. It also limits the use of
fee revenues to not more than an average of 15 percent of total revenues
for administration, overhead, and indirect costs related to the recreation
fee program. Other sanctioned uses of recreation fee revenues include a
myriad of things ranging from interpretive signage to law enforcement20 to
certain limited types of habitat restoration. Specifically, REA mandates
that fee revenues only be used for the following:

     o repair, maintenance, and facility enhancement related directly to
       visitor enjoyment, visitor access, and health and safety;
     o interpretation, visitor information, visitor service, visitor needs
       assessments, and signs;
     o habitat restoration directly related to wildlife-dependent recreation
       that is limited to hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, or
       photography;
     o law enforcement related to public use and recreation;
     o direct operating or capital costs associated with the recreation fee
       program; and
     o a fee management agreement or a visitor reservation service.

In addition to REA guidance, BLM, NPS, and FS have all issued at least
interim guidance on expenditure priorities for projects funded with fee
revenues. BLM guidance emphasizes that fee revenues be used to support
projects or activities related to recreation and stipulates a specific
percentage of funding be spent in this area. NPS has established deferred
maintenance projects as its first priority for recreation fee revenues and
stipulates the percentage of funding that should be spent in support of
this. FS guidance essentially repeats the priorities established in REA.
FWS has not issued any interim guidance on expenditure priorities, but
draft guidance that has not been finalized also repeats the priorities
established in REA, similar to FS guidance. Each of the agencies' guidance
also stipulates the amount of fee revenues that can be spent for either
(1) administration, overhead, and indirect costs or (2) collections cost.
Table 3 shows the guidance developed by the agencies for how recreational
fee revenues should be spent.

20Use of these funds for law enforcement is acceptable as long as the
enforcement activity is related to public use and recreation.

Page 39 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

Table 3: Agency Fee Revenue Expenditure Guidance

Agency Fee revenue expenditure priorities                                  
BLM    According to BLM's guidance, 85% of fee revenues shall be used for  
          recreation related projects or activities. Guidance also states     
          that fee expenditures shall be used (1) to reduce recreation        
          deferred maintenance, (2) for a revolving fund focused on           
          recreation projects authorized by legislation that provide a        
          demonstrable improvement to BLM public land recreation sites and    
          services that would otherwise take years to realize, (3) for        
          funding recreation enhancements through volunteer projects and      
          Challenge Cost Share program, and (4) for limited state and         
          national recreation fee program administration. No more than an     
          average of 15% of fee revenues can generally be used for            
          administration, overhead, and indirect costs.                       
NPS    The top priorities for fee revenues are to meet NPS mission and     
          performance goals in four areas: (1) deferred maintenance           
          obligation targets, a (2) overall condition of the NPS constructed  
          asset inventory, (3) cost of collection targets, and (4) critical   
          needs in other allowable areas. The service wide target for the     
          units to spend approximately 60% of their yearly revenue on         
          deferred maintenance is prorated to and applied by the regions. NPS 
          has various restrictions on what fees can be spent on, such as      
          employee housing and some operations. NPS guidance generally        
          directs units to not exceed 20% for cost of collection and does not 
          allow any unit to exceed 50%; each region has an annual cost of     
          collection target.                                                  
FS     Agency guidance details what REA allows fees to be used for. The    
          guidance also states that cost of collection expenditures are       
          included in the REA "direct operation expenses" category and caps   
          cost of collection at 15%. The guidance also provides suggestions   
          for expenditures for special use permits and guidance for regional  
          and national fee expenditures.                                      
FWS    FWS draft guidance details what REA allows fees to be used for. The 
          draft guidance also states that cost of collection expenditures are 
          included in the REA "direct operation expenses" category and caps   
          cost of collection at 20%.                                          

Sources: GAO analysis of BLM, NPS, FS, and FWS documents.

aNPS committed $95 million in 2006 to deferred maintenance. Consequently,
deferred maintenance is the NPS priority for fee money-especially projects
that improve the visitor experience while at the same time reduce deferred
maintenance.

    Project Selection Processes Are Guided by Agency Needs and Revised Policies
    under REA

While REA establishes the basic priority of using recreation fee revenues
for enhancing visitors' experience, each agency has a different process
for selecting projects to be funded with fee revenues based on the
agency's needs and policies revised under REA. These different processes
can affect the types of projects agencies fund and their time lines for
project implementation. At BLM, FWS, and FS, most proposed projects are
approved at the local unit level. Unit staff indicated that most projects
funded with fee revenues are usually approved within a couple of days to a
few weeks or, in some cases, implemented immediately without unit manager
approval. At NPS, however, projects must be reviewed and approved at the
unit and regional levels, as well as at the headquarters or department
level before projects are funded. In commenting on a draft of this report,
NPS noted that its project approval process was put in place by DOI and
the Office of Management and Budget and has been articulated in
congressional appropriations report language.

BLM, FWS, and FS project approvals generally occur at the local unit
level. The initial project suggestions are typically generated by local
unit staff members who have identified a need that could be filled with
fee revenues. In BLM and FWS units, it is generally a field office or
refuge manager that approves proposed projects. For example, at BLM's
Upper Colorado River unit, ideas for fee projects are suggested,
discussed, and agreed upon by unit staff members and the field office
Manager has final approval on all recreation fee projects. This was also
the case at FWS's Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge, where unit staff
members suggest and jointly prioritize fee projects, while the refuge
Manager has final approval. Similarly, the FS Manager of a ranger district
may decide on projects or, in some cases, the projects are reviewed at a
higher level-by the Forest Supervisor or regional office. At some FS
units, a fee board reviews and approves proposed projects. For example, at
the Shasta-Trinity National Recreation Area within the Shasta-Trinity
National Forest in California, any employee may propose a fee project,
which must be presented to the Recreation Area's fee board for approval.

Suggestions for projects within NPS are also typically generated by local
unit staff, except this is only the first of several steps in an often
timeconsuming NPS project approval process. NPS project requests are
entered into the Project Management Information System (PMIS) by unit
staff in advance of regional and NPS headquarters-the Washington Office
(WASO)-project call due dates for prioritization by the park management
team, with approval at the park level. After the units submit their
project proposals, the regional official(s) review the project
proposals/requests21 and generally either approve the proposals or mark
them for edits. According to one regional official, a regional reviewer
may occasionally reject a proposal if the project does not comply with
established criteria or if the requesting unit did not meet their deferred
maintenance goal; however, most projects are forwarded to WASO for
approval. In commenting on a draft of this report, NPS headquarters
informed us that on average, a Fee Demo project remains at the region or
park level for 3 years as the data and information are edited and updated.
Those projects that do not have accurate and complete data in PMIS are
delayed in the approval process at all levels.

21The regional reviewers rank the projects in PMIS based on certain
criteria and generally aim to target deferred maintenance activities,
facilities, visitor enjoyment, and interpretive projects.

Page 41 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

The project approval process at WASO was put in place by DOI and NPS to
improve accountability. This process is managed by the NPS Headquarters
Park Facilities Management Division to provide review for consistency to
established policies. According to a Facility Management Specialist within
this division, project approval depends on the dollar amount of the
project because NPS' Development Advisory Board, DOI, Congress, and the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) all approve projects over certain
dollar amounts. For example, the agency's Development Advisory Board
reviews and approves all projects over $500,000, and Congress approves
projects over $500,000 and all projects over $100,000 if the money comes
from the central fund. Meanwhile, DOI reviews all projects over $100,000,
and regional and national projects are approved at the national level. The
complexity of the approval process has required parks and regions to be
proactive in getting projects into the process early. However, according
to NPS officials, it can sometimes take 1 year or more to obtain approval
to fund a project under this process. Many agency officials at the unit
and regional levels expressed frustration about the length of time it
takes to obtain approval for funding NPS projects, and some noted that the
approval process has delayed project implementation and/or has contributed
to units having unobligated fee revenue balances. For example, one park
unit official noted in the survey that the lengthy approval process
jeopardizes projects, especially partnership projects that may be time
sensitive. However, others noted that the approval process can be
expedited in emergency situations to enable project approval within a
couple of months.

According to some unit officials, part of the reason WASO approvals take
so long is that parks' priorities for fee revenue projects do not always
match WASO priorities and, as a result, WASO may question a project's
appropriateness and delay or deny its approval, even if it is consistent
with projects allowed by law or under NPS policy. In addition, while WASO
officials sometimes contact regional officials to question or offer
suggestions on a project that has not yet been approved, WASO will, in
other cases, allow projects to remain in the system indefinitely without
approval or disapproval, according to another agency official. NPS
headquarters officials explained that the lack of accurate and complete
data in PMIS is the primary reason for projects remaining in the system
indefinitely and pointed to mistakes by the units and regions as the cause
of this problem.

According to a Facility Management Specialist, the agency is implementing
a comprehensive plan approach under REA, which should help units and

regions to better manage their projects through an advance 5-year planning
process. According to this official, the Regional Directors can also
approve projects estimated to cost under $500,000, but she still retains
the authority to review these approved projects and related project data
to ensure that projects funded are consistent with REA and to assure
accountability. NPS headquarters officials stated that the 5-year plan of
projects, which was first instituted in fiscal year 2003, requires parks
to be strategic and proactive in submitting projects for approval, and to
identify their sequential needs for compliance, design and planning prior
to project execution.

    Agencies Fund a Variety of Maintenance, Operations, and Capital Improvement
    Projects with Fee Revenues

Recreational fee revenues are used by the agencies to fund a variety of
maintenance, operations, visitor services, and some capital improvement
projects. The specific types of activities or projects funded with these
fees vary by agency. For example, in fiscal year 2005, NPS spent the
majority of fees they collected under REA on various types of maintenance
work, mostly focusing on deferred maintenance. Meanwhile, FS units spent
about 40 percent of the fees collected under REA on maintenance, which
included deferred maintenance, annual maintenance, and capital
improvements. For example, recreation fee revenues at the Sequoia National
Forest in California funded capital improvements including a new restroom
(see fig. 3), paving of a parking lot, and the installation of trash
receptacles, picnic tables, and grills at the Big Meadows Winter
Trailhead, which is heavily used by snowmobile riders and skiers in the
winter. While BLM and FWS also funded some maintenance work, they spent a
large portion of their revenues on visitor services. BLM spent about 33
percent of their fee revenues on visitor services, such as increased
seasonal staff to complete trail work and other projects and to help
monitor and teach river safety along the Merced River. FWS also focused a
lot of their resources on providing/enhancing visitor services, almost 44
percent of the total fees they collected under REA. For example, at
Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge in Virginia and Maryland, REA fee
revenues have funded visitor services such as the design, development, and
installation of interpretive exhibits along four separate trails.

Figure 3: Restroom Constructed with Fee Revenue at the Big Meadows Winter
Trailhead in Sequoia National Forest

                                  Source: GAO.

Figure 4: Lake Directional Sign Funded with Fee Revenues at the
Shasta-Trinity National Forest

Source: GAO.

Note: The sign is on land instead of on the water because this picture was
taken during the off-season.

Some units are quite creative with their use of recreation fee revenues to
fund fee projects. For example, agency officials at the Shasta-Trinity
National Forest in northern California use recreation fee revenues to
purchase materials to make "pack-out bags" that are given to mountain
climbers to facilitate the removal of human waste from Mount Shasta. The
bags help with resource protection since climbers are able to remove their
waste using the bags rather than leaving it on the mountain, as was done
prior to the inception of the program. Also at the Shasta-Trinity National
Forest, recreation fees funded the lake directional signage on Shasta and
Trinity Lakes pictured in figure 4. The lakes are quite large-Shasta Lake
has about 420 miles of shoreline-so the signs improve visitor services by
helping direct boaters to various locations on the lakes. At Rocky
Mountain National Park in Colorado, recreation fee revenues have been used
to fund campsite improvements, including new tent pads, fire rings, and
picnic tables, as can be seen in figure 5. These improvements enhanced
visitor services by improving the level of amenities while also protecting
natural resources by containing visitor impacts.

               Figure 5: Campsite at Rocky Mountain National Park

Source: GAO.

Note: Fee revenues were used to improve this campsite.

         Figure 6: Fishing Pier at Whiskeytown National Recreation Area

Source: GAO.

Note: Fishing pier shown is universally accessible.

Recreation fee revenues at NPS's Whiskeytown National Recreation Area in
northern California were used to construct the universally accessible
fishing piers pictured in figure 6, which have improved visitor services
and are heavily used, according to the park Superintendent. Many units
within various agencies have used recreation fee revenues to purchase and
install improved restroom facilities, such as the one pictured earlier in
figure 3 at Sequoia National Forest. Such restrooms improve visitor
services while also enhancing resource protection, according to Sequoia's
Assistant Recreation Fee Coordinator.

Many units, especially within BLM and FS, use fee revenue for daily site
maintenance and operations and, while these activities may not be as
visible as capital improvement projects such as new restrooms, officials
noted they still provide valuable services to visitors. For example, at
Desolation Canyon in Utah, which is managed by BLM's Price Field Office,
the main source of recreation fee revenue is rafting permits. The revenues
are then primarily used to fund ranger staff who fulfill multiple roles
including inspecting rafters' equipment and permits, patrolling the
waters, providing interpretive information to rafters, and maintaining the
launch and take-out sites along the Green River. Another example of a unit
that funds operations and maintenance activities with fee revenues is
Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge in Virginia, where recreation fees
fund restroom maintenance, including toilet pumping and supplies. At most
units, a portion of fee revenues are also used to cover other operations,
such as the cost of collecting fees.

Finally, some units use recreation fee revenues to leverage funds received
from other sources, such as grants or donations. For example, the Klamath
Falls National Wildlife Refuge Complex on the California-Oregon border
worked with a birding group to construct the universally accessible photo
blind pictured in figure 7. The birding group provided funds to construct
the handicapped accessible pathway leading to the blind, while FWS leveled
the ground for the pathway and purchased materials to construct the photo
blind with fee revenues. Another example is NPS's Antietam National
Battlefield, where recreation fee revenues were leveraged with other funds
to restore a 106-year old monument located at the unit, see figure 8. The
total cost of the project was $300,000-the unit's largest fee project to
date-with $255,000 of the project cost funded by recreation fee revenues
and the remaining $45,000 leveraged from other sources, including a
$31,000 donation from the state of Maryland, funds from the
"Adopt-a-Monument Program," and donations from a local newspaper.
Recreation fees have been used to leverage grant funding at BLM's Gunnison
Field Office in Colorado, which received about $100,000 in grants in 2006.
The interpretive panels pictured in figure 9 at American Basin, managed by
the Gunnison Field Office, were partially funded with recreation fees.

    Figure 7: Photo Blind at Klamath Falls National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Source: GAO.

Note: This blind is universally accessible and was funded with fee
revenues.

              Figure 8: Monument at Antietam National Battlefield

Source: NPS.

Note: Restoration funds for this monument were from fee revenues and other
sources.

                Figure 9: Interpretive Panels at American Basin

Source: BLM.

Note: Recreation fee revenues provided partial funding for these panels.

    The Collection and Distribution of Central and/or Regional Funds Varies by
    Agency and by Region

The collection and distribution of central and/or regional funds varies by
agency and sometimes by region. Three of the participating agencies- NPS,
FWS, and FS-have central or regional funds where a portion of fee revenues
are deposited, as shown in table 4. The projects and activities funded
with central or regional funds vary by agency and, in some cases, by
region, but generally the central and regional funds are distributed among
the units based on project proposals or are used to cover the
administrative costs of the recreation fee program. For example, FWS
Region 2, which has a 20 percent regional fund, uses a portion of its
regional funds to cover administrative charges and distributes the
remaining funds to refuges within the region based on submitted project
proposals. Similarly, FS Region 5 uses a large portion of its 5 percent
regional fund to cover fee program management costs, and special project
expenditures, such as the RRAC start-up costs, and distributes a portion
of the regional funds back to
the units in the form of resource and internship grants. Within FWS and
FS, the distribution of regional funds is generally determined at the
regional level. At NPS, project proposals must be reviewed and approved at
both the regional and WASO levels before central funds are distributed to
the units.

 Table 4: Distribution of Recreation Fee Revenues to Central or Regional Funds

                                                        Percentage of revenue
                          Percentage of fee revenue deposited into central or 
Agency                          retained on-site             regional fund 
NPS                                     80-100%a                     0-20% 
FWS                                      80-100b                      0-20 
BLM                                          100                         0 
FS                                          95%c                        5% 

Source: GAO.

aPark units that collect less than $500,000 per year are allowed to retain
100% of their fee revenues on-site. Other NPS units retain 80% of the fee
revenue generated, and 20% is deposited into a central fund. NPS retains
15% of the total National Parks Pass revenues to pay for pass
administration and overhead, with the majority of these funds used to
reimburse the National Park Foundation under their pass sales contract. Of
the remaining pass revenue, the unit that sold the pass retains 70%, and
30% is deposited into a central fund.

bUnits in four of the seven FWS regions-Regions 1 (including the
California-Nevada Office), 3, 6, and 7-retain 100% of fee revenue on-site.
Units in three of the seven FWS regions-Regions 2, 4, and 5-retain 80% of
fee revenue and deposit 20% into a regional fund.

cFS units will retain 80% of Golden Passport sales until revenue
distribution for the new interagency pass is determined.

  Agencies Have Millions of Dollars in Unobligated Recreation Fee Balances to
  Fund Future Projects; Some Projects Funded May Be Similar to Those Formerly
  Funded with Other Appropriations

The four agencies collecting recreation fees under REA have accumulated
unobligated balances of nearly $300 million dollars at the end of fiscal
year 2005. These balances have accrued for several reasons that included
their units' plans to undertake large projects requiring them to have all
required funds available before initiating the project, the need to carry
over funds for the next season's operations, and the lack of adequate
staffing to administer and implement projects in a more timely fashion.
Many agency sources believe that the recreation fees are to supplement and
not replace funds from other appropriations, such as construction and
operations. Despite this, the majority of officials at the units we
surveyed indicated they believed to a moderate, great, or very great
extent that recreation fee revenues are being used to fund projects
formerly funded with other appropriations at their unit. In addition, the
majority of agency officials told us they believe that they may need to
replace appropriations with

recreation fee revenues in the future. However, in commenting on a draft
of this report, FS and DOI noted that historically, fee revenues have not
replaced appropriations and there is no reason to expect this change in
the future.

    Overall, Agencies Report Unobligated Balances Consisting of Millions of
    Dollars at the End of Fiscal Year 2005

According to the agencies' recent report to Congress,22 BLM, FWS, FS, and
NPS reported a total unobligated balance of $295.8 million at the end of
fiscal year 2005, or 61 percent of the $483.8 million available for
obligation (total fee revenues collected plus unobligated balance and
recoveries). In response to our survey, 75 percent of fee-collecting units
in NPS, BLM, and FWS reported unobligated balances at the end of fiscal
year 2005. Furthermore, 93 percent or 107 of 115 of the FS's national
forests reported unobligated balances.23 FS headquarters reported
unobligated balances at the forest level, and the balances were not
available for individual units (ranger districts) because of changes in
their accounting system. The fiscal year 2005 revenue, unobligated balance
and recoveries, funds obligated, and unobligated balances reported by the
four agencies are provided in table 5 below. A 5-year history of the
agencies' recent revenue and obligations are provided in appendix IV.

Table 5: Fiscal Year 2005 Recreation Fee Revenue, Obligations, and
Unobligated Balances

                                        BLM     NPS          FWS           FS 
Fee Demo/REA revenue          $13.3         $128.2       $4.3        $50.2 
Unobligated balance                                               
brought forward and                                               
recoveries                           7.7    240.7         3.7         35.7 
Funds obligated                12.7         125.2         4.4         45.6 
Unobligated balance            $8.2         $243.6       $3.6        $40.3 

Source: U.S. Departments of the Interior and Agriculture. Federal Lands
Recreation Enhancement Act: First Triennial Report to Congress, Fiscal
Year 2006 (Washington, D.C.: May 2006), p.68.

22U.S. Departments of the Interior and Agriculture, Federal Lands
Recreation Enhancement Act: First Triennial Report to Congress, Fiscal
Year 2006 (Washington, D.C.: May 2006).

23The 115 national forests collecting recreation fees include many that
consist of two or more forests merged into one administrative unit.

Page 53 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

Typically, units collecting recreation fees had an unobligated balance of
these funds in their accounts at the end of fiscal year 2005 because not
all funds collected during a fiscal year are spent during that fiscal
year. According to the NPS Facilities Management Specialist, the majority
of revenues, especially at large western park units, are typically
collected during the last 3 months of the fiscal year and, therefore, are
unlikely to be obligated that same year.

We also found that at the end of fiscal year 2005, unobligated balances
for many of the units or forests exceeded the revenues collected that
year. For example, on the basis of our survey responses, 114, or 42
percent of 270 BLM, NPS, and FWS units and 63 of 107 FS forests with
unobligated balances had balances that were greater than 100 percent of
the total fee revenue they reported for fiscal year 2005. Table 6 shows
for each of the four agencies the number of units/forests with unobligated
balances and those with unobligated balances that exceeded the annual
revenues collected by 100 percent or more.

Table 6: BLM, NPS, FWS Units, and FS Forests with Unobligated Balances at
End of Fiscal Year 2005 and Those with Unobligated Balances Greater Than
Revenues Collected

                                                 Overall  BLM  NPS  FWS    FS 
Number of units with a fiscal year 2005                               
unobligated balance                               270    56 138    76  107 
Number of units in which the unobligated                              
balance was greater than 100% of the total fees                       
collected in fiscal year 2005                     114    26   64   24   63 
Percentage                                        42%  46%  46%  32%   58% 

Sources: GAO survey and agency data.

Note: FS data is based on numbers at forest level provided by FS
headquarters, rather than at the ranger district units included in the GAO
survey.

Also, on the basis of information provided by units responding to our
survey and information provided on national forests, the top 10 units with
the largest unobligated balances at the end of fiscal year 2005 were all
in NPS. Table 7 lists the 10 units with the highest unobligated balances
compared with their fiscal year 2005 fee revenues. Appendix V provides a
listing of the top 10 units with the largest unobligated balances in all
four of the agencies.

  Table 7: 10 Largest Unobligated Balances of Recreation Fee Revenue Among All
                               Units and Forests

                     End of fiscal year 2005 Fiscal year 2005     Unobligated 
                                                                 balance as a 
Unit                         unobligated  total fee revenue  percentage of 
                                  balance                       total revenue 
Jefferson National Expansion   $3,019,449        $2,608,161           116% 
Memorial                                                    
Haleakala National Park         4,172,814         2,880,126            145 
Sequoia and Kings Canyon        4,447,870         3,163,540            141 
National Park                                               
Golden Gate National                                        
Recreation Area/Muir                                        
Woods National Monument         4,734,347         3,288,230            144 
Lake Mead National              4,847,637         4,101,875            118 
Recreation Area                                             
Mammoth Cave National Park      4,972,503         3,495,605            142 
Hawaii Volcanoes National       5,262,769         3,799,829            139 
Park                                                        
Gateway National Recreation     6,641,400         2,436,786            273 
Area                                                        
Grand Canyon National Park     36,726,755        20,082,719            183 
Yosemite National Park        $36,730,533       $15,019,482           245% 

Sources: Unit responses to GAO survey and FS headquarters data.

Note: Revenues reflect gross amount before a percentage was contributed to
a central fund.

REA provides a mechanism for units to reduce their unobligated balances.
As part of the new REA authority for the recreation fee program, Congress
included a provision that allows the Secretary of the Interior or the
Secretary of Agriculture to reduce the percentage allocation of the
recreation fees and site-specific pass revenues to a unit from 80 percent
to 60 percent for a fiscal year. This authority can be exercised if the
Secretary determines that the revenues collected at the unit or area
exceed the reasonable needs that may be addressed during a fiscal year. As
part of the interagency guidance developed for the implementation of REA,
the Secretaries have agreed to delegate to the individual agencies the
authority to develop and implement policy for this provision, including
identifying the metrics and benchmarks required to determine when a unit's
revenue retention may be reduced and devising a method for distributing
the remaining funds. To date, none of the agencies have completed the
process of establishing final criteria for implementing this provision,
although it is reportedly under discussion in NPS.

    Fee-Collecting Units Cite Several Reasons for Unobligated Balances

Those recreation fee collecting units reporting an unobligated balance
cited a variety of reasons for why all available funds were not obligated.
To a moderate, great, or very great extent, units cited the following as
the most common reasons for their unobligated balances: (1) saving funds
to ensure they had sufficient funds to pay for large projects, (2) saving
funds needed

Page 55 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

for the following season's operations, (3) lack of personnel to administer
and implement projects on a more timely basis, and (4) completing
environmental compliance or analysis. Table 8 provides a complete list of
reasons cited for the unobligated balances overall, and by each agency,
and the percentage of the units citing the reason to moderate, great, or
very great extent.

Table 8: Agency Reasons for Their Unobligated Balance of Recreation Fee Revenues

Reason                                       Total  BLM   FSa   NPS    FWS 
Saving funds for large project               61.7% 76.8% 55.1% 61.6% 75.0% 
Funds are needed for next season's            52.4 69.6  58.0  23.2   72.4 
operations                                                           
Lack of personnel to implement project        31.1 30.4  30.8  37.7   21.1 
Lack of personnel to manage and oversee       28.0 28.6  26.1  37.7   17.1 
project                                                              
Environmental compliance or analysis to be    26.6 28.6  26.8  37.7    3.9 
completed                                                            
Design and engineering work to be completed   25.8 30.4  21.4  42.8    7.9 
Used appropriated dollars before fee          22.2 39.3  24.3  11.6   21.1 
revenues                                                             
Contracting delays                            13.0 12.5   9.1  26.1    3.9 
Project approval process at higher levels     11.9  7.1   5.8  32.6     .0 
Change in unit's priorities                   10.8  8.9   8.7  18.1    6.6 
Other                                         10.3  8.9  14.1    5.1   6.6 
Weather caused delays                          9.0  5.4   7.6  13.0    9.2 
Actual expenditures less than original         8.1  5.4   7.6  11.6    5.3 
estimate                                                             
Unanticipated growth of fee revenues           6.0  5.4   9.1    2.9   1.3 
Lack of projects meeting agency criteria       2.7  1.8     .7   7.2   2.6 
Legal actions need to be resolved             1.8% 0.0%  1.8%  2.9%   1.3% 

Source: Unit responses to GAO survey.

Note: Percentage citing reasons to a moderate, great, or very great
extent.

aForest Service numbers include all ranger district units responding to
the question, not just those with an unobligated balance of funds.

The following examples highlight some of the reasons for unobligated
balances at specific units.

        * Officials at Yosemite National Park, the unit with the highest
          unobligated balance of about $36.7 million or 245 percent of its
          annual revenue, cited the following as the primary reasons for its
          unobligated balance: legal actions need to be resolved that have
          delayed spending on certain projects and the lack of personnel to
          manage, oversee, and
        * implement the projects planned for these funds. Park officials said
          that unobligated funds accumulated in the early years of the Fee
          Demo program when obligations were lower relative to collections.
          Obligations have now increased as major projects have passed the
          planning and design phase. Another factor in the amount of
          obligations for projects funded with recreation fees was that the
          same Yosemite staff concurrently managed the 1997 flood recovery
          work funded by an appropriation. The flood recovery work occupied
          the same Project Managers that manage recreation fee funded
          projects thereby reducing the amount of work and obligations under
          that program. A major part of the fee revenues are planned for
          utility projects that are under way, including replacing sewers and
          reconstructing other utilities, the staff said.
     o Officials at Grand Canyon National Park, with an unobligated balance
       also of about $36.7 million, or 184 percent of its annual revenue,
       stated that the primary reasons for its unobligated balance that has
       accumulated over at least 3 years were the need to save funds for
       large projects and the lead time needed to complete design and
       engineering work that had delayed the actual expenditure of most funds
       allocated for a particular project. Park staff reported plans to use
       the unobligated balance primarily for an alternative transportation
       system for park visitors, involving parking area and road
       construction, and upgrading the current shuttle bus system. These
       improvements are expected to cost approximately $47 million and take 9
       years to complete in phases using unobligated funds already
       accumulated, as well as a portion from future fee revenues.
     o Officials at BLM's Coos Bay District Office in North Bend, Oregon,
       cited saving funds for large projects, needing funds for the next
       season's operations, and using other appropriated dollars before fee
       revenues as the primary reasons for its unobligated balance. Coos
       Bay's unobligated balance was about $320,000 at the end of fiscal year
       2005 or about 202 percent of the fee revenues.
     o Officials at Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge in Marion,
       Illinois, reported an unobligated balance of about $645,000 at the end
       of fiscal year 2005, which was 184 percent of its fee revenue. Refuge
       officials cited needing to save funds for a large project, completing
       design and engineering work, and needing funds for the next season's
       operations as the primary reasons for the unobligated balance.

o  Shasta-Trinity National Forest in northern California had an
unobligated balance of about $2.8 million in fiscal year 2005, which was
246 percent of its fee revenue and the largest reported for a national
forest. Forest staff cited the need to save these funds to cover programs
and services during the next year that were previously funded with the fee
revenue from the marina area. Under REA, the unit is no longer authorized
to keep approximately $900,000 in annual marina revenues that the unit 
collected under the Fee Demo program from marina operations.24 Staff
indicated the unobligated balance will be used to continue a number of
marina area programs including a fish rearing program, boat patrols,
floating toilets, illegal dump cleanups, boating safety program, and
interpretive programs that began under Fee Demo.

    Agencies Use Fee Revenues to Fund All or Part of Needs Formerly Funded with
    General Appropriations and View Fee Revenues as an Important Supplement to
    General Appropriations

During our site visits and in response to our survey, recreation
feecollecting units also provided many examples in which recreation fee
revenues were used in conjunction with other general appropriated funds,
donations, or other revenues to complete projects within their units.
According to responses from units in the four agencies responding to our
survey, 58 percent of the units indicated that they believed to a
moderate, great, or very great extent that recreation fee revenues are
being used to fund projects formerly funded with other general
appropriations at their unit, such as the construction account. The
percentage of units within each agency that expressed this opinion varied
from a high of 65 percent in FS to a low of 46 percent in FWS. In
addition, about 64 percent of the units believed to a moderate, great, or
very great extent that, over the next 5 years, fee revenues will be used
to fund projects that would have been funded with other general
appropriated dollars. The portion of respondents in each agency believing
this was 74 percent in BLM, 67 percent in FS, 57 percent in FWS, and 58
percent in NPS. In contrast to the opinions of unit level officials, FS
and DOI comments on a draft of this report noted that fee revenues have
not historically replaced appropriations and denied there is any reason to
expect this to change in the future.

24Throughout Fee Demo, the Shasta-Trinity National Forest collected resort
and marina special use permit fees under the Term Permit Act but were able
to use Fee Demo as a second authority to retain the resort and marina
revenues on-site. However, the unit no longer has the authority to retain
the revenues because there is a limitation in REA that states that amounts
collected under any other law may not be disbursed under REA. The unit
does not use REA to collect the funds because the marina permits are
issued for 20 years, and the authority to carry out REA terminates in 10
years after REA was enacted.

We identified a number of NPS projects similar to those funded by other
general appropriations, such as items typically funded by the construction
appropriations account, which are being or have been funded wholly or in
part by recreation fee revenues. For example, the fiscal year 2006
construction appropriation for NPS includes $11.8 million for a conversion
to narrowband radios to ensure rapid response to emergency and
lifethreatening situations. NPS stated in its fiscal year 2007 budget
justification that it was proposing to reduce funding for the narrowband
radio system program in order to fulfill higher priority needs in other
areas. NPS added that to minimize the delay in achieving full conversion
to narrowband radio equipment, those systems that are to be converted
after fiscal year 2005 will be funded through construction appropriations
and augmented, as necessary, by other NPS fund sources, such as recreation
fee revenues.

In response to our survey or during our site visits, many NPS units
reported completed, planned, or ongoing expenditures from recreation fee
funds for the narrowband radio upgrade, including: Yosemite National Park,
$3.4 million; Grand Canyon National Park, $3.0 million; Lake Mead National
Recreation Area, $1.0 million; Gateway National Recreation Area, $1.7
million; Sequoia-Kings Canyon National Park, $0.9 million; Acadia National
Park, $0.7 million; Olympic National Park, $0.7 million; Channel Islands
National Park, $0.7 million; Great Smokey Mountains National Park, $0.6
million; and Glacier National Park, $0.6 million. NPS officials said the
decision to fund the radio upgrade with fee revenues was made because of
concern that construction appropriations would not be enough to fund the
new system.

Many NPS units listed other projects that have been funded wholly or in
part by recreation fee revenues similar to those previously funded by
general appropriations, such as construction appropriations account. See
table 9 for a list of examples.

Table 9: NPS Unit Recreation Fee Projects Similar to Those Previously
Funded by General Appropriations, Such as the Construction Account

                                                              Recreation fees
Unit                Project                 Category of               used 
                                               expenditure      
Yosemite National   Replacement of the      Deferred         $10.0 million 
Park                Valley/El Portal force  maintenance and  
                       main and gravity sewers capital          
                                               improvement      
                       Repair valley sewer     Deferred           5.7 million 
                       collection system      maintenance      
                       (Phase I)                                
                       Relocate and improve    Deferred          19.6 million 
                       utility lines for Curry maintenance      
                       Village                                  
Grand Canyon          Construct a South Rim Capital            3.6 million 
National Park            Emergency Services improvement      
                       Building                                 
                       Restore historic        Deferred          16.6 million 
                       district buildings      maintenance      
Sequoia and Kings   Rehabilitate General's  Deferred           0.5 million 
Canyon              Highway/Grant Tree      maintenance      
National Parks      parking lot                              
Yellowstone         Rehabilitate and        Capital            1.5 million 
National Park       upgrade Canyon Visitor  improvement      
                       Center                                   
                       Resurface 5 miles of    Deferred           2.1 million 
                       roads for visitors'    maintenance      
                       safety                                   
Shenandoah National Complete headquarters   Capital           $1.2 million 
Park                maintenance            improvement      
                       building                                 

Source: Unit responses to GAO survey.

In addition, many of the unit staff we visited or who commented on our
survey stated that recreation fee revenues are essential to providing
services at their recreation areas that would not otherwise be funded. The
following is a sampling of such comments from units in each agency:

BLM

     o "The recreation fee program has been a great asset to the overall
       recreation program. Without these dollars coming back into the system
       to help augment other appropriation dollars, BLM could not continue
       with current standards for existing facilities, developing new
       facilities, providing proper monitoring of special recreation permits,
       or to provide the public with service they need and deserve."
     o "Unfortunately, our recreation fee funds collected have become the
       primary source of revenue for our (unit). This was not the original
       intent of the fee demo program but with shrinking budgets it has
       become our main funding source."
     o "In this time of declining budgets and increasing use of national
       forests as the Baby Boomer generation retires, a loss of REA funds
       would be devastating to our ability to provide recreation
       opportunities."
     o "Our unit has become very much dependent on REA funds to provide basic
       care and maintenance activities of our developed facilities. These
       include the high costs of solid waste disposal; toilet pumping and
       disposal; and maintaining a seasonal workforce to meet standards and
       guidelines for recreation management."

FS

NPS

     o "Funding for projects via the recreation fee program has enabled the
       park to make modest improvements in visitor facilities and services.
       Without the recreation fee program, very little of work that has been
       done would have been done."
     o "Recreational fee revenues allow us to accomplish projects which
       wouldn't have been accomplished with other (general) appropriated
       funds. While some of the more urgent projects might have been
       accomplished with other (general) appropriations, fee dollars enable
       us to accomplish much more."

FWS

     o "Most public use activities and projects would not be conducted if we
       did not have funds from a recreation fee program."
     o "The recreation fee program has provided additional revenue to support
       visitor needs and enhance the visitor experience. Without these funds,
       we could not provide visitors with a high quality of visitor service."

  Conclusions

REA was essentially designed to mitigate past problems with the recreation
fee demonstration program, such as having multiple passes that caused
visitor confusion, provide a more sustainable long-term authority to
support effective planning and management of fee programs, encourage
increased public participation, protect recreational resources, and
provide the public with quality visitor services. In addition, REA
authorized a new multiagency recreation pass to help relieve visitor
confusion associated with having to use multiple passes to access and
enjoy federal recreation sites. REA was enacted almost 2 years ago, and
our early assessment of the participating agencies' implementation of the
act indicates that they are making progress. Still, there are areas in
need of management attention. Two key working groups established to
facilitate REA implementation have yet to take important steps to carry
out REA, such as completing necessary tasks to allow RRAC requirements to
be fully implemented, which will enhance public participation
requirements. Also, our analysis indicates that some of the DOI agency and
FS units are struggling with how to interpret certain aspects of the
agencies' interim guidance for implementing the act, which has caused
confusion regarding the types and amount of fees to collect. Furthermore,
unit officials are in need of guidance on facilitating public
participation and how to ensure projects funded with REA fees are
connected to the visitor experience. Unless actions are taken to issue
final regulations and implementation guidance for the fee program,
including detailed policy and procedure guidance, many unit officials will
continue to struggle with how to effectively and consistently implement
the recreation fee program.

Measures the agencies have in place to control and account for collected
fee revenues is another area that needs attention. While the results of
our analysis cannot be projected to all fee-collecting sites, we noted
weaknesses in the controls over fee collections at some BLM, FWS, and FS
sites that warrant attention because they not only affect the accounting
for the collected revenues, but they may also affect the safety of the
individuals involved in the collection efforts. Although millions of
dollars are collected annually through REA, some agencies have not
provided adequate guidance or conducted routine audits needed by the units
to ensure that they develop and maintain proper controls over their fee
revenues and provide reasonable physical protection for their staff.

Despite the fact that Congress intended all five federal land management
agencies to implement REA, Reclamation has not determined whether it will
implement the act. Unlike the other participating agencies, Reclamation
operates most of its recreation sites through partnerships that collect
fees to support the costs of administering the recreation programs they
provide. Reclamation has determined that its recreation areas that are
managed by nonfederal partners will not be participating in REA, and thus
will not accept the new multiagency pass. Further, the federal managing
partners will be allowed to decide on their own how REA impacts the
recreation areas located on Reclamation lands that they manage.
Reclamation has not yet decided what actions to take with regard to those

units managed by Reclamation that it identified as meeting REA criterion
for charging recreation fees.

  Recommendations for Executive Action

To allow for public input on new fees or modifications to existing fees,
we recommend that the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture expedite
completing the steps needed for the RRACs and existing advisory councils
to begin implementing REA.

In order to improve agencies' implementation of the Federal Lands
Recreation Enhancement Act and improve the accountability and controls for
recreation fee collection, we recommend that the Secretary of the Interior
direct the

     o Director, National Park Service; Director, Bureau of Land Management;
       and Director, Fish and Wildlife Service to promptly issue final
       regulations and implementation guidance on the fee program, including
       detailed policy and procedure guidance; and
     o Director, Bureau of Land Management and Director, Fish and Wildlife
       Services to ascertain the extent to which their units do not have
       effective processes and procedures for accounting for and controlling
       collected fees and develop guidance for implementing appropriate and
       effective internal controls over cash management. This guidance for
       implementing such controls should identify and encourage the use of
       best practices, such as routine audits.

We recommend that the Secretary of the Interior direct the Commissioner of
the Bureau of Reclamation to expedite its decision on implementation of
REA.

In order to improve the Forest Service's implementation of the Federal
Lands Recreation Enhancement Act and improve the accountability and
controls for collected recreation fees, we recommend that the Secretary of
Agriculture direct the Chief of the Forest Service to take the following
two actions:

     o promptly issue final regulations and implementing guidance on the fee
       program, including detailed policy and procedure guidance; and
     o ascertain the extent to which its units do not have effective
       processes and procedures for accounting for and controlling collected
       fees and

develop guidance for implementing appropriate and effective internal
controls over cash management. This guidance for implementing such
controls should identify and encourage the use of best practices, such as
routine audits.

  Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

We provided the Departments of the Interior and Agriculture with a draft
of this report for review and comment. Their written comments are provided
in appendixes VI and VII, respectively. DOI generally agreed with our
findings and recommendations. It said that our recommendations further REA
implementation efforts and it was dedicated to addressing them promptly.
Specifically, with regard to issuing final regulations and implementation
guidance for the new interagency pass, the department said that, while
guidelines had not been formally completed, most of the policy decisions
composing the guidelines have been taken and discussed in congressional
testimony. Although this may be the case, the results of our survey and
site visits indicated that those who are to implement REA in each of DOI's
agencies are in need of clarifying guidance, particularly with regard to
adding new fee sites or modify existing fees to fully implement the act,
which will also help to ensure consistency in applying the requirements of
REA.

We also recommended that DOI direct that BLM and FWS ascertain the extent
to which their units have effective processes and procedures for
accounting for and controlling collected fees and develop effective
guidance and internal controls over cash management, such as routine
audits. Although this recommendation was not directed at the Park Service,
the department's comments state that the Park Service has the intention to
recommitting to a National Audit Program. It said that such a program has
been delayed due to other program priorities and lack of staff resources.
However, it said that the Park Service has a working group that is being
reconvened to restart the process of developing a National Audit Program
and that, once additional resources are in place, it will be possible to
implement a more standardized program. On the basis of our visits to eight
sites, we observed practices for controlling and accounting for fee
revenues that appeared to be working well at these locations in the Park
Service. However, we are encouraged by the additional actions that the
Park Service plans to take to improve their processes in this area and any
lessons learned from this effort may also benefit BLM and FWS.

With regard to our recommendation that the department direct Reclamation
to expedite its decision on implementing REA, the department provided
comments from the bureau that said that the bureau had only identified
seven sites that currently meet the statutory criteria for charging
standard amenity fees under REA. Given this fact and the likely costs of
implementing REA for the agency, it said that there is a strong
possibility that Reclamation would require all recreation sites meeting
the criteria to participate in REA. However, as recognized in our report,
Reclamation should decide this issue soon so that its units can begin
taking the needed steps to implement REA.

The Department of Agriculture did not specifically state its agreement or
disagreement with our recommendations. However, it outlined actions it has
planned or under way to address them. Specifically, it acknowledged the
Forest Service's need to revise several policies that relate to REA and
collections in general. It said that the Forest Service had already
initiated policy revisions for its manuals and handbooks, which it plans
to produce by September 2007. It also said that the Forest Service is in
the process of revising its policies on billings and cash collections,
which it will expedite for publication as soon as practicable.

Both DOI and the Department of Agriculture provided other comments for
updating information in the report or for providing technical
clarifications that we have incorporated, as appropriate.

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of
this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 2 days from the
report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the
Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Agriculture, and other
interested parties. We will also make copies available to others upon
request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO
Web site at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have questions about this report, please contact me
at (202) 512-3841 or [email protected]. Contact points for our Offices of
Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page
of this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix
VIII.

Robin M. Nazzaro

Director, Natural Resources and Environment

Appendix I

                       Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Based on the congressional request letter of May 2005 and subsequent
discussions with your staffs, we agreed to determine (1) what agencies
have done to coordinate the implementation of the Federal Lands Recreation
Enhancement Act (REA), including preparing for the new interagency federal
lands pass; (2) what agencies have done to implement the REA fee and
amenity requirements and sufficiency of guidance for REA implementation;
(3) the extent to which the agencies have control and accounting
procedures for collected recreation fee revenues; (4) how participating
agencies prioritize and approve activities and projects funded with fee
revenues; and (5) the extent to which units have unobligated fund balances
and if recreational fees are being used to fund projects formerly funded
with other appropriations. In addition, we are providing information on
how recreation fees vary by type, amount, and level of amenities offered
at units with similar recreational opportunities across and within
agencies participating in REA.

To address the objectives, we obtained and reviewed applicable laws;
regulations; agencywide policies and procedures; regional policies and
procedures; and the fees collected at selected units under the Fee
Demonstration Program and REA in order to determine what changes have
resulted since the implementation of REA. We developed and administered a
nationwide survey to agency officials responsible for fee programs under
REA. We supplemented the survey information with records reviews, analyses
of documents, and testimonial evidence gathered during unit visits and in
meetings with state, regional, and headquarters officials.

To obtain information on all of our objectives related to the
implementation of REA, the collection and expenditure of recreation fee
revenues, we designed and administered a national survey of units
collecting these fees. We worked to develop the survey instrument with
social science survey specialists to administer to staff at National Park
Service (NPS) units, Forest Service (FS) ranger districts, Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) field offices, and Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)
refuges. Because this was not a sample survey, there are no sampling
errors. However, the practical difficulties of conducting any survey may
introduce errors, commonly referred to as nonsampling errors. For example,
differences in how a particular question is interpreted, in the sources of
information that are available to respondents, or how the data are entered
into a database can introduce unwanted variability into the survey
results. We took steps in the development of the surveys, the data
collection, and data analysis to minimize these nonsampling errors. For
example, prior to administering the survey, we pretested the content and
format of the surveys with several

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

site officials at each agency to determine whether (1) the survey
questions were clear, (2) the terms used were precise, (3) respondents
were able to provide the information we were seeking, and (4) the
questions were unbiased. In addition, we provided a draft of the survey to
the national fee program coordinators at the four agencies and met with
them to obtain comments and corrections to the wording and structure of
the questions in the survey. We made changes to the content and format of
the final questions based on pretest results. We verified some financial
information from a random sample of 25 non-FS units by asking these
respondents to check their answers originally provided to four questions
and verify the reported dollar amounts or provide corrections. Our
analysis showed that a significant number of units reported they had made
errors in providing the original survey data; however, total dollars
reported after correction did not differ significantly from the dollars
reported originally. The revised sum of the total fees collected differed
from the original by less than plus or minus 2 percent and for unobligated
balances, less than plus or minus 4 percent. We also checked a sample of
cases to ensure the accuracy of data entry and made corrections as needed.
We performed computer analyses to identify inconsistencies in responses
and other indications of error. We contacted survey respondents, as
needed, to correct errors and verify responses. In addition, a second
independent analyst verified that the computer programs used to analyze
the data were written correctly. It is our opinion that the data we
present is valid and reliable for the purposes of this report.

To identify the current fee-collecting units to complete the survey, we
asked the national fee program coordinators at NPS, FS, BLM, and FWS to
provide a full list of these units including phone numbers and e-mail
addresses. The survey was designed to be distributed as a locked MS Word
document attached to a transmittal e-mail, allowing the document to be
saved on unit computers, altered with answers, and returned via attachment
to e-mail messages. Respondents were instructed to complete one survey per
unit to reflect all recreation fee activities managed as a single unit.
Based on phone calls from respondents and returned surveys, we determined
some surveys included responses for more than one unit on the list
provided by the agency. In other cases, surveys were returned for units
that were not on the list. In either case, we contacted the unit to
determine the status of the unit. If we found that the management of a fee
program extended across the boundaries of more than one unit, and its fee
collection and spending were combined, with funds commingled and project
priorities jointly determined, then we accepted a single survey for more
than one unit. Because some units were combined, and because

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

others indicated that they were not collecting fees, contrary to the lists
provided by agency headquarters, the number of units in the universe for
this survey declined. Table 10 provides the estimated response rates by
agency and overall.

            Table 10: Estimated Response Rates by Agency and Overall

                                                                Number of fee
                       Number of Number of units collecting units 
                           units       returning        returning    Response 
Agency             identified         surveys          surveys       rates 
BLM                       128             104               88       81.3% 
FS                        467             408              393        87.4 
NPS                       197             192              174        97.5 
FWS                       112             103               97        92.0 
Total                     904             807              752       89.3% 

Source: GAO.

The number of units identified, 904, reflects the total number of units
remaining in the universe after adjustments, when units reported that they
had been administratively merged with another unit or, in a few cases,
when they were not included on the list provided by the agencies. The
units identified by the agencies included units that indicated that they
did not collect fees under REA. These respondents were not intended to
have been included in the universe and, therefore, were dropped from the
analysis of responses. Once the surveys were received, logged in, and
printed, they were checked for completeness and logic, and the responses
were then coded into a database for summarization and analysis.

To assess the accounting and control procedures in place at various
feecollecting units, we conducted unit visits to a sample of unit
locations where we collected documents, observed accounting and control
practices, and interviewed staff. Information that we gathered during our
site visits and during our interviews represents only the conditions
present in the units at the time of our review. We cannot comment on any
changes that may have occurred after our fieldwork was completed.
Furthermore, our fieldwork focused on in-depth analysis of only a few
selected units. Based on our interviews, we cannot generalize our findings
beyond the units and officials we contacted.

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

As of 2005, four of the five agencies were actually collecting recreation
fees under REA-the same four that had previously been authorized to
collect fees under the Fee Demo program. The amounts of recreation fee
collections varied substantially among the four agencies. For example,
NPS's top fee-collecting unit, Grand Canyon National Park, collected
$15,773,239 in Fee Demo revenue in fiscal year 2003, while FWS's top
feecollecting unit, Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge, collected
$658,497 in the same fiscal year, and there were only seven units within
the entire FWS agency that collected over $100,000 in recreation fee
revenue. Therefore, in order to ensure that we visited fee units of
varying sizes within each of the four agencies, we created different
small, medium, and large fee categories for each agency. These categories
were identified by sorting the fee-collecting units within each agency
from highest to lowest in fee revenue for fiscal year 2003.1 After sorting
the data by fee revenue, we analyzed the data to see where natural breaks
for small, medium, and large units fell, in order to determine the
categories for each agency. The resulting categories are shown in table
11.

       Table 11: Description of Small, Medium, and Large Units by Agency

Agency             Small unit       Medium unit              Large unit    
NPS              under $250,000      $250,000-$1 million   over $1 million 
FS               under $100,000       $100,000-$500,000      over $500,000 
BLM               under $50,000       $50,000-$100,000       over $100,000 
FWS               under $20,000     $20,000-$50,000           over $50,000 

Source: GAO.

Our original plan was to visit at least three large units, two medium
units, and one small unit within each agency. In addition, to address
congressional concerns about large unobligated carryover balances, we
planned to visit at least two more units with very large carryover
balances. We also recognized the importance of visiting units in several
different geographic areas to document possible differences in the
implementation of the fee programs within different states or regions. We
completed this

1We used revenue data from the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program
(Progress Report to Congress for Fiscal Year 2003), because this was the
most recent report that had been published that included fee revenue data
broken down by individual unit for all four agencies.

Page 70 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and
Methodology

original methodological plan with one exception; we only visited two large
FWS units. However, given the relatively small size of even the largest of
FWS' fee-collecting units, we believe that our review had already
sufficiently covered their program. Table 12 identifies the recreation fee
units we visited.

                   Table 12: Recreation Fee Units GAO Visited

            Agency and unit                                          State    
            BLM                                                    
            Folsom Field Office                                    California 
            Grand Junction Field Office                              Colorado 
            Gunnison Field Office                                    Colorado 
            Kremmling Field Office (includes Upper Colorado River)   Colorado 
            Price Field Office (includes Desolation Canyon)           Utah    

               Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area Nevada

FWS

                   Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge Virginia

                  Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge Maryland

Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge Virginia (also partially in
Maryland)

Klamath Basin National Wildlife Refuge Complex California (also partially
in Oregon

            Rocky Mountain Arsenal National Wildlife Refuge Colorado

NPS                                                                        
Antietam National Battlefield Maryland                                     
Colonial National Historic Park Virginia                                   
Grand Canyon National Parka Arizona                                        
Lake Mead National Recreation Area Nevada                                  
Rocky Mountain National Park Colorado                                      
Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks California                         
Whiskeytown National Recreation Area California                            
Yosemite National Parka California                                         

        FS                                                              
        Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests, Sulphur Ranger Colorado 
        District (includes Arapaho National Recreation Area)            
        Sequoia National Forest, Hume Lake Ranger District California   

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

(Continued From Previous Page)                                
Agency and unit                                               State      
Shasta-Trinity National Forest, Shasta Lake, and Mount        California 
Shasta Ranger Districts (includes Shasta-Trinity National     
Recreation Area)                                              
Tonto National Forest, Mesa Ranger District (includes Salt     Arizona   
and Verde Rivers National Recreation Complex)                 
Uinta National Forest, Pleasant Grove Ranger District         Utah       
(includes American Fork Canyon)                               
George Washington and Jefferson National Forests,              Virginia  
Glenwood-Pedlar Ranger District                               
White River National Forest, Dillon Ranger District (includes   Colorado 
Green Mountain Reservoir and Cataract Lake)                   

Source: GAO.

aUnits visited due to identified large carryover balances.

Finally, we spoke with headquarters officials at all five agencies to
obtain their views on the implementation of REA, their plans for future
monitoring and assessment activities, the status of the new interagency
federal lands pass, and their opinions on the future impact of REA fees on
their agency's appropriations.

We conducted our work between June 2005 and August 2006 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards.

Appendix II

This appendix provides information on how the fees charged and the
amenities provided for use of recreational units across the country vary
by the activity offered, the provisions of the Federal Lands Recreation
Enhancement Act (REA) and the agency offering them. For example, under
REA, units of the National Park Service (NPS) and the Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS) are authorized to charge entrance fees for accessing the
lands they manage. REA does not specify minimum amenity requirements for
entrance fees. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and Forest Service (FS)
units, on the other hand, are authorized to charge standard amenity fees,
not entrance fees. Unlike entrance fees, REA specifies the minimum
amenities required at recreation sites to charge this fee.

  NPS and FWS Entrance Fees

Of the 271 NPS and FWS units responding to our survey, 168, or 62 percent
had entrance fees. Of the 168 units with entrance fees, 137, or 82 percent
were NPS, and 31, or 18 percent, were FWS units. In NPS, the entrance fees
ranged from a low of $1 per person to a high of $300 per bus or group,
while FWS units reported an average fee ranging from a low of $1 per
person to a high of $50 per bus. The entrance fees are typically charged
per visit, on per vehicle, per person, per group, or commercial vehicle
bases, as well as on an annual basis. Table 13 shows the number of units
that reported charging an entrance fee and the minimum and maximum fees
charged for the various entrance categories.1

1Data in this appendix represent fees in effect at the time the
respondents completed the survey (February to May 2006).

  NPS and FWS Entrance Fees

Page 73 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

 Appendix II Fees for Recreational Uses Vary by Agency and for Amenities Across
                    and within Agencies Participating in REA

Table 13: Number of Units Reporting Entrance Fees of Various Categories,
with the Overall Minimum and Maximum Fee Amounts

                                     NPS                     FWS
                                                   Number of 
                 Number of units                       units 
                     that charge Minimum Maximum  that charge Minimum Maximum 
Category             this fee     fee     fee     this fee     fee     fee 
Private vehicle            71      $1     $25           26      $2     $12 
Per person                133       0      15           15       1      25 
Motorcycle                 60       3      20           22       2      12 
Bicycle                    61       3      20           16       1      12 
Commercial bus             74       3     300           19       3      50 
Group rate                 14       4     300            4      15      30 
Unit-specific annual                                               
entrance                                                           
pass                      103     $10     $45              28  $10     $30 

                          Source: GAO survey results.

  BLM and FS Standard Amenity Fees

Standard amenity fees were authorized by REA to be charged for federal
recreational lands and waters under the jurisdiction of BLM, Reclamation,
or FS. As mentioned earlier in this report, Reclamation has not
implemented REA and, therefore, is not included in these results. The law
sets criteria for the establishment of standard amenity fees: the area
where charged must have significant outdoor recreation, a substantial
federal investment, allow efficient collection of fees, and must have the
following amenities: designated developed parking, a permanent toilet
facility, a permanent trash receptacle, interpretive sign, exhibit or
kiosk, picnic tables, and security services. Of the 472 survey responses
from BLM and FS units, 38 of 85 (45 percent) BLM units and 157 of 387 (41
percent) of FS units reported having standard amenity fees. BLM's units
responding to the survey had standard amenity fees ranging from a low of
$1 to a high of $10 for each person and from $2 to $10 per vehicle. FS's
units reported standard amenity fees ranging from a low of $0.50 per
person to a high of $7.50 per person and per vehicle standard amenity fees
that ranged from $1 to $50.2 Table 14 outlines the number and types of
standard amenity fees charged and the range of fees of each category
reported.

2A $50 standard amenity fee is charged to reserve one day use of the
Jack's Creek or Holy Ghost Large Group Areas in the Pecos-Las Vegas Ranger
District of the Sante Fe National Forest.

Page 74 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

 Appendix II Fees for Recreational Uses Vary by Agency and for Amenities Across
                    and within Agencies Participating in REA

Table 14: Standard Amenity Fees Reported by BLM and FS under REA Authority

                                  BLM                       FS       
                 Number that Minimum  Maximum  Number that  Minimum   Maximum 
Category       charge fee      fee      fee  charge fee       fee      fee 
Per person              9       $1      $10           22    $0.50    $7.50 
Per vehicle            26       $2      $10          126       $1      $50 

                          Source: GAO survey results.

  Many Units Offer More Amenities Than What Is Required Under REA

Our survey identified 195 BLM and FS units that reported charging a
standard amenity fee for recreation use in their units. In addition to the
six amenities required under REA to charge a standard amenity fee, many of
the units reported providing various other amenities for the visiting
public. Table 15 shows the various amenities provided at the 195 BLM and
FS units, for either the minimum or maximum (if any) standard amenity fee,
including the amenities required under REA for the unit to charge a
standard amenity fee.

      Table 15: Amenities Available at BLM and FS Units Charging Standard
                                  Amenity Fees

                                                Number of Number of   
Features and amenities                     BLM units    FS units     Total 
Permanent toilet facilitya                          37     152         189 
Picnic shelter                                      21          60      81 
Picnic tablesa                                      37     143         180 
Drinking water                                      29     103         132 
Fire ring or grill                                  32     119         151 
Permanent trash receptaclea                         36     139         175 
Reasonable visitor protection (security)a           35     146         181 
Designated developed parkinga                       34     152         186 
Access roads                                        37     144         181 
Interpretive sign, exhibit, or kioska               35     139         174 
Museum or visitor center                            13          29      42 
Interpretive staff                                  13          34      47 
Self-service fee collection                         33     130         163 
Collection of fee by staff and/or                                  
attendant                                           21          65      86 

                      Page 75 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

 Appendix II Fees for Recreational Uses Vary by Agency and for Amenities Across
                    and within Agencies Participating in REA

(Continued From Previous Page)  
                                           Number of Number of       
Features and amenities                  BLM units    FS units        Total 
Boat dock or pier                              12              32       44 
Boat launch                                    15              51       66 
Fish cleaning station                           7               5       12 
Shower/bathhouse                                8              22       30 

Source: GAO survey results.

aDesignates an amenity required for a standard amenity fee by Sec. 803 (f)
(4) (D) of REA.

Our survey also identified that 52 of the 195 units that charge standard
amenity fees had more than one standard amenity fee. For example, one
recreation site at a unit could offer such amenities as attendant fee
collection in addition to the amenities required by REA and charge a fee
of $3 per person. Another recreation site at the same unit could offer
these same amenities but charge a higher fee amounting to $5 per person
because it also offers additional amenities such as picnic shelters and
drinking water. Of the 52 units with more than one standard amenity fee,
the five most common additional amenities offered for the higher fee were
picnic shelters, drinking water, shower or bath house, fire ring or grill,
and a permanent trash receptacle. It should not be implied that the higher
fees are solely due to these added amenities. However, according to our
survey results, the units responding indicated that the level of amenities
offered was one of the most influential factors in determining the type
and amounts of fees charged. Other factors that had a significant
influence on these fees were professional judgment, fees at comparable
sites, and agency policy.

  Fees Charged for Similar Activities Vary

We also collected information on the various types of activities,
amenities, or services for which units charge a fee, other than entrance
fees. These could be standard or expanded amenity fees and special
recreation permit fees authorized by REA. The most common activities,
amenities, or services for which a fee is charged are camping, outfitter
or guides, day use, Christmas tree cutting, and cabin rentals. Table 16
shows the number of units charging a fee under REA for the various types
of activities, amenities, or services provided.

 Appendix II Fees for Recreational Uses Vary by Agency and for Amenities Across
                    and within Agencies Participating in REA

    Table 16: Number of Units Charging a Fee under REA for the Various Types
                 of Activities, Amenities, or Services Provided

                                                 Number of units charging fee
Activity, amenity, or service                        Total BLM FS  NPS FWS 
Day use, individual or family (e.g., for general use   147 30  105   9   3 
of a recreation area)                                                  
Group day-use site (e.g., picnic site or pavilion)     145 21  102  19   3 
High Impact Recreation Area (FS only)                   56  0  56    0   0 
Scenic drive                                             3  0   1    0   2 
Boat launch or lake use (with a boat)                   71 12  46   10   3 
Boat docking, marinas, other slips                      11  4   4    1   2 
Fishing                                                 27  3  14    1   9 
Rafting, canoeing, or kayaking                          35 13  16    4   2 
Cave tours                                               7  0   1    6   0 
Visitor center, museum, or historic site                19  3  12    4   0 
Interpretive tour or program (aside from cave tours)    37  5  12   18   2 
Rock climbing                                            9  4   5    0   0 
Hiking or trailhead access, including day-use           44  4  37    3   0 
backcountry permits                                                    
Camping at established campgrounds                     385 61  259  63   2 
Backcountry overnight use or camping                    47  8  22   17   0 
Cross-country skiing                                     7  0   7    0   0 
Off-road or off-highway or all-terrain vehicle          54  8  42    1   3 
Snowmobile use                                           5  0   5    0   0 
Hunting                                                 65  2   3    3  57 
Christmas tree cutting                                 145 21  124   0   0 
Cabin rentals                                          126  4  117   3   2 
RV dump service                                         50 14  27    9   0 
Parking                                                 46 13  28    5   0 
Shuttle bus                                              8  1   4    3   0 
Outfitter or guide activities                          314 65  237   5   7 
Other                                                   81 10  54    6  11 

Source: GAO survey results.

To determine the extent to which similar fees are charged for similar
activities or services, we asked units for further details on the specific
fees charged for a few of the common activities or services at recreation
units: camping, motor boating, and access to a body of water for rafting,
canoeing, or kayaking. Specifically, we asked the units to identify a
minimum and maximum fee for the activity or service, as well as the
amenities provided for the fee charged. To illustrate, a campsite at a
unit

 Appendix II Fees for Recreational Uses Vary by Agency and for Amenities Across
                    and within Agencies Participating in REA

may charge $5 per night per individual for camping and for that fee
provide only a site to put up a tent, whereas another campsite at this
unit may charge $10 per night per individual and provide a site, shower
facilities, drinking water, and electrical service. Our analysis of
responses from NPS, BLM, FS, and FWS units indicated that there was a wide
range of fees charged for these common activities or services, and a
variety of amenities were available at the locations where these fees were
charged.

                          Campsite Fees and Amenities
								 
Units may have more than one campsite available for recreation and charge
fees for their use. Our survey asked each unit to identify the fees and
amenities for their lowest priced campsite and for their highest priced
campsite. The fees charged for a campsite in BLM, FS, FWS, and NPS units
ranged from a low of $2 in BLM and FS to a high of $225 in FS.3 This range
includes both individual and group campsites. Table 17 shows the number of
units offering camping for a fee, their median fees, and range of fees
charged for the lowest and highest priced campsites.

Table 17: Number of Units with a Campsite Fee and the Average and Range of
Fees Charged for Individual and Group Campsites

              Lower priced campsite               Higher priced campsite
Agency   Number of units Median  Low  High Number of units Median Low High 
BLM                   63   $6     $2  $18               63     $8 $4   $90 
FS                   278    7       2  50              278     10  3   225 
NPS                   69   10       3  25               69     15  3    64 
FWS                    2   $7     $5   $8                2     $8 $5   $10 

Source: GAO survey results.

Note: The reported "higher priced campsite" fee amounts for BLM, FS, and
NPS units within the "high" column are fees for group campsites.

Camping for a fee is offered in 55 percent of the units responding to our
survey. FS had the greatest percentage of units offering camping for a
fee, 71 percent of units responding. FWS had the lowest, with only 2
percent of the units responding offering camping for a fee.

3A group campsite fee of up to $225 was reported for the Hot Springs
Campground in the Emmett Ranger District in the Boise National Forest.

Page 78 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

 Appendix II Fees for Recreational Uses Vary by Agency and for Amenities Across
                    and within Agencies Participating in REA

We asked units to identify which amenities were provided at the campsites
with the minimum and maximum fees within that unit. Overall, an average of
10.7 amenities was offered at the minimum fee campsites, and an average of
12.1 amenities was offered at the maximum fee campsites. The amenities
most often available for the maximum fee sites, and not the minimum fee
sites, are drinking water, availability of reservation system, electrical
hookups, water hookups, and sanitary dump stations. Within the individual
agencies, the difference in number of amenities between minimum fee
camping sites versus maximum fee camping sites was on average within two
amenities or fewer.

Motor Boating Fees and Amenities

Our analysis of responses from NPS, BLM, FS, and FWS units on the minimum
and maximum fees for motor boating charged in the unit also focused on
amenities available for these fees. Boating for a fee is offered in 10
percent of the units overall with FS having the largest number of units
with motor boating for a fee available, 52 units, or 13 percent of FS
units responding. FWS has the lowest number of units with boating fees,
with only 4, or 4 percent of units reporting a motor boating fee. The
results of our survey on the extent of motor boating fees are given in
table 18.

Table 18: Number of Units Offering Motor Boating for a Fee or That Charge
                for the Use of a Boat Launch or Other Facilities

                Total       BLM               FS              NPS              FWS
     Units Percentage Units Percentage Units Percentage Units Percentage Units Percentage
Motor                                                                    
boating  72      9.6%    6        6.8%    52     13.2%     10       5.7%    4        4.1% 
fee                                                                               
No fee   672    89.2%    82      93.2%   337     85.8%    163      93.7%    90      92.8% 

Source: GAO survey results.

Motor boating fees at units in the four agencies surveyed are charged on a
number of bases: per person, per boat, or other bases, such as a per trip
charge. A total of 5 FS and FWS units reported charging motor boating fees
on a per person basis, with the minimum and maximum fees per person
starting at $1 and ranging up to $4. A total of 41 units in all four
agencies reported charging on a per boat basis, with the minimum fees
starting at $1 per boat and ranging up to a maximum of $40. Fees charged
on various other bases, such as per trip, were reported in 30 units, with
the

 Appendix II Fees for Recreational Uses Vary by Agency and for Amenities Across
                    and within Agencies Participating in REA

fees starting at $0.50 and ranging up to a maximum of $300.4 Survey
responses showed that only 9 of the 72 units with a fee for motor boating
and related activities had a maximum fee in addition to the minimum fee
listed for these activities.

We asked the units with a motor boating fee to identify which common
amenities were provided for boating with the minimum and maximum fees
within that unit. Overall, an average of 11.5 amenities was offered at the
minimum fee areas, and an average of 11.9 amenities was offered at the
maximum fee areas, virtually the same when considering all the units.

Special Recreation Permit Fees for Rafting, Canoeing or Kayaking, and
Amenities

The third type of fee we asked survey respondents about was special
recreation permit fees for access to a body of water for rafting,
canoeing, or kayaking. A total of 45 units reported this type of fee, with
the greatest number in FS and BLM, and few reported by NPS or FWS. Table
19 provides a breakdown of the agency units reporting on our survey a
special recreation permit fee for these activities.

Table 19: Units with a Special Recreation Permit Fee under REA for the
Purpose of Accessing a Body of Water for Rafting, Canoeing, or Kayaking

                 Total       BLM               FS              NPS              FWS
      Units Percentage Units Percentage Units Percentage Units Percentage Units Percentage
Special recreation                                                        
permit fee for                                                            
rafting, canoeing                                                         
or        45      6.0%    17      19.3%    21       5.3%    5        2.9%    2        2.1% 
kayaking                                                                           
No fee    705    93.6%    71      80.7%   370      94.1%   169      97.1%    95      97.9% 

Source: GAO survey results.

These special recreation permit fees for rafting, canoeing, or kayaking at
units in the four agencies surveyed are charged on a number of bases: per
person per day, per group per day, per boat per day, per trip, or other
bases. A total of 12 BLM, FS, and FWS units reported charging per person
per day fees for this activity, with the fees per person starting at $1
and ranging up to a maximum of $6. A total of 9 units in BLM and FS
reported charging on a per person per trip basis, with the fee starting at
$3 and ranging up to a

4An example of such a motor boating fee is the $300 that the Midway Atoll
National Wildlife Refuge charges ships over 65 feet in length for harbor
entrance.

Page 80 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees Appendix II Fees for Recreational Uses
Vary by Agency and for Amenities Across and within Agencies Participating
in REA

maximum of $404.5 Fees were charged on various other bases, such as per
group per day, or per boat per day, with the fees starting at $1 and
ranging up to a maximum of $90. Our survey showed that only 10 of the 45
units with special recreation permit fees for rafting, canoeing, or
kayaking had a maximum fee in addition to the minimum fee listed for these
activities.

We asked the units with a special recreation permit fee for rafting,
canoeing, or kayaking to identify which common amenities were provided for
boating with the minimum and maximum fees within that unit. Overall, an
average of 9 amenities was offered at the minimum fee areas, and an
average of 9.3 amenities was offered at the maximum fee areas, virtually
the same when considering all the units.

5This maximum special recreation permit fee was estimated for an outfitter
to provide whitewater rafting of the Kern River in the Sequoia National
Forest. Under the permit, a two day trip costing $898 per person, for a
maximum of 15 people, results in a fee of 3% of the total outfitter trip
revenue, or $404.

Page 81 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

Appendix III

Information on Organizational Structure, Costs, and Membership Requirements of
Recreation Resource Advisory Committees

This appendix provides information on the organizational structure, costs,
and membership requirements of Recreation Resource Advisory Committees
(RRAC). In March 2006, the Department of the Interior (DOI) and the
Department of Agriculture (USDA) approved the organizational structure for
the RRACs and existing advisory councils via an interagency organizational
agreement. Table 20 outlines the nature and type of RRACs and advisory
councils that Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and Forest Service (FS) have
agreed to use in each state and/or region.1 In the majority of western
states, BLM and FS will use joint RRACs or committees, many of which will
be composed of existing BLM advisory councils since the Federal Lands
Recreation Enhancement Act (REA) allows existing advisory committees or
fee advisory boards to perform the RRAC duties. In addition, five new
RRACs are being established nationwide. Two of the new RRACs are being
formed in the eastern United States and will primarily address FS fees
since BLM has minimal land and only one fee-collecting unit in the East.2
Of the two new eastern RRACs, one will cover all of FS Southern Region
(Region 8), 3 and one will cover all of FS Eastern Region4 (Region 9). The
remaining three new RRACs are being formed in the western states: one
joint RRAC covering all of California, one joint RRAC covering Washington
and Oregon, and one joint RRAC covering Colorado.

1Hawaii is not included in the RRAC interagency organizational agreement.

2The one BLM fee-collecting unit in the eastern states is a horse boarding
stable that has a multiyear management contract. This unit will be covered
by the new Southern Region RRAC.

3FS's Southern Region covers Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia,
Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Puerto Rico,
South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia.

4FS's Eastern Region covers Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana,
Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New
Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,
Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

Appendix III Information on Organizational Structure, Costs, and
Membership Requirements of Recreation Resource Advisory Committees

      Table 20: Type of RRAC to Be Used by BLM and FS by State and Region

State/region       RRAC type                                               
Alaska             No RRACa                                                
Arizona            Existing BLM advisory councilb to act as joint BLM/FS   
                      RRAC                                                    
California         New joint BLM/FS RRAC                                   
Colorado           New joint BLM/FS RRAC                                   
Idaho              Existing BLM advisory councils to act as joint BLM/FS   
                      RRAC                                                    
Kansas             New Colorado RRAC to act as joint BLM/FS RRACc d        
Montana/Dakotas    Existing BLM advisory councils to act as joint BLM/FS   
                      RRACe                                                   
Nebraska           No RRACa                                                
Nevada             Existing BLM advisory councils to act as joint BLM/FS   
                      RRAC                                                    
New Mexicof        Existing BLM advisory council to act as joint BLM/FS    
                      RRAC                                                    
Oregon/ Washington New joint BLM/FS RRAC                                   
Utah               Existing BLM advisory council to act as joint BLM/FS    
                      RRAC                                                    
Wyoming            No RRACa                                                
Region 8 (Southern New joint BLM/FS RRACh                                  
Region)g           
Region 9 (Eastern  New joint BLM/FS RRACc j                                
Region)i           

Source: GAO.

aThe governors of Alaska, Nebraska, and Wyoming decided that a RRAC was
not necessary in their respective states; therefore, these states will not
have a RRAC or utilize existing advisory councils regarding recreation fee
issues.

bWhile some states have just one advisory council, others have multiple
advisory councils.

cBLM does not have land and/or fee-collecting units in Kansas and the
Eastern Region.

dThere is only one fee-collecting unit in Kansas-a national
grassland-which will be managed with the new joint BLM/FS RRAC for the
purpose of determining fees.

eThe Black Hills National Forest in South Dakota will use its existing
forest facility advisory board as its RRAC.

fWestern Texas and Oklahoma grasslands that are managed out of the Cibola
National Forest will use BLM's existing New Mexico advisory council.

gFS's Region 8 (Southern Region) covers Alabama, Arkansas, Florida,
Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma,
Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia.

hThe one BLM fee-collecting unit in the eastern states is a horse boarding
stable that has a multiyear management contract. This unit will be covered
by the new Southern RRAC.

i

FS's Region 9 (Eastern Region) covers Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois,
Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota,
Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode
Island, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

jWhile BLM does not currently have any fee-collecting units in the Eastern
Region, the new Eastern Region RRAC will also consider BLM's fee issues if
BLM has fee-collecting units in that region in the future.

Appendix III Information on Organizational Structure, Costs, and
Membership Requirements of Recreation Resource Advisory Committees

The March 2006 interagency organizational agreement states that BLM is
responsible for the direct costs of its advisory councils, while FS will
be responsible for the direct costs of the new RRACs. FS estimates that it
will cost about $90,000 to $120,000 per year to fund each new RRAC-based
on travel costs for the RRACs to meet twice per year, FS staff time, and
the assumption that each RRAC will have one to five subcommittees-and all
funding for the RRACs will come from the FS's 5 percent regional funds,
according to a FS headquarters official. However, implementing the RRACs
may cost more the first year since the members of the RRACs may need to
meet more frequently than twice per year during the initial establishment
of the RRACs. BLM is allocating $3,000 per state per year in base funds
starting in fiscal year 2007 to implement the RRAC requirements where
existing advisory councils are used, according to a BLM headquarters
official.

The new RRACs will be composed of 11 members. In appointing members to the
RRACs, the Secretary is to provide for a broad and balanced representation
of the recreation community; table 21 outlines the requirements for the
composition of the RRACs. Nominations for the new RRACs will be solicited
during a 30-day nomination period established in a Federal Register notice
that will be published once the interagency agreement is finalized.5 The
Secretary of Agriculture will make formal appointments to the RRACs once
the nominations are received and evaluated by FS. According to agency
officials, it is unknown how long the appointment process will take but it
is hoped that nominees will be appointed within 90 days of issuance of the
interagency agreement, which occurred on September 1, 2006.

5Under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, anyone can nominate individuals
to serve on the RRAC. REA allows state Governors and designated county
officials to submit nominations. Members of the RRACs will serve in
staggered terms of 2 to 3 years.

Page 84 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees Appendix III Information on
Organizational Structure, Costs, and Membership Requirements of Recreation
Resource Advisory Committees

                     Table 21: Composition of the New RRACs

             11 total members from the following three categories:

Five members who represent recreation users in the following categories:

     o winter motorized recreation (e.g., snowmobiling),
     o winter nonmotorized recreation (e.g., snowshoeing),
     o summer motorized recreation (e.g., off-highway vehicles),
     o summer nonmotorized recreation (e.g., backpacking), and
     o hunting and fishing.

Three members who represent the following interest groups:

     o motorized outfitters and guides,
     o nonmotorized outfitters and guides, and
     o local environmental groups.

Three members who represent the following:

     o a state tourism official to represent the state,
     o a person who represents affected Indian tribes, and
     o a person who represents affected local government interests.

Source: GAO.

The RRACs and existing advisory councils may form subcommittees to allow
for local representation and to provide additional advice and
recommendations to the RRAC or existing advisory council. DOI and USDA
will be providing advice on subcommittee membership; however, final
determination on whether subcommittees are utilized and their membership
will be the determination of the existing advisory councils and not the
agencies involved.

Appendix IV

Information on Total Fee Revenues, Obligated Funds, and Unobligated Balances

This appendix provides information on the fee revenue and obligations
collected under the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program (Fee Demo) and
the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (REA) as reported by the
agencies to Congress. Table 22 shows the fee revenue, the funds obligated,
and unobligated balances for fiscal years 2001 through 2005 for the
Department of the Interior's Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife
Service, the National Park Service, and Department of Agriculture's Forest
Service.

                 Table 22: Fee Demo/REA Revenue and Obligations

                              Dollars in millions

Funds obligated            116.42001$126.2      101.9  142.3  141.1 125.2  
Agency/account National              232.0 2002$125.7   2003   2004  2005  
Park Service Fee Demo/REA                       243.7 $123.5 $128.6 $128.2 
revenue Unobligated                                    269.7  251.5 240.7  
balance brought forward                                             
and recoveries                                                      
Unobligated balance                  241.7   267.5    250.9  239.1   243.6 

Fish and Wildlife Service                            
Fee Demo/REA revenue                     3.7   3.6             3.8 3.9 4.3 
Unobligated balance brought                          
forward and recoveries                   3.4   3.6             3.9 4.0 3.7 
Funds obligated                          3.6   3.4             3.7 4.3 4.4 
Unobligated balance                      3.5   3.8             4.0 3.5 3.6 
Bureau of Land Management                            
Fee Demo/REA revenue                     7.6   8.7          10.3 13.3 13.3 
Unobligated balance brought                          
forward and recoveries                   4.8   5.6             5.4 0.2 7.7 
Funds obligated                          6.9   9.1           9.0 12.6 12.7 
Unobligated balance                      5.5   5.2             6.5 0.8 8.2 

Forest Service                                       
Fee Demo/REA revenue                   35.3   37.7          39.3 46.8 50.2 
Unobligated balance brought                          
forward and recoveries                 20.9   26.9          22.0 25.4 35.7 
Funds obligated                        29.3   45.3          35.1 44.0 45.6 
Unobligated balance                    26.9   19.3          26.2 28.2 40.3 
Totals, all four agencies:                           
Fee Demo/REA revenue                  172.8  175.7       176.9 192.5 196.0 

Appendix IV Information on Total Fee Revenues, Obligated Funds, and
Unobligated Balances

Dollars in millions                
Agency/account                         2001    2002    2003    2004   2005 
Unobligated balance brought                                         
forward and recoveries                261.0  279.8   300.9   281.1   287.8 
Total funds available               $433.6  $455.4  $477.8  $480.1  $483.8 
Funds obligated                       156.2  159.7   190.1   202.0   187.9 
Funds obligated as a percentage of                                  
total funds available               36.0%    35.1%   39.8%   41.9%   38.8% 
Unobligated balance                 $277.6  $295.8  $287.6  $271.6  $295.8 

Sources: U.S. Departments of the Interior and Agriculture, Federal Lands
Recreation Enhancement Act: First Triennial Report to Congress, Fiscal
Year 2006 (Washington, D.C.: May 2006), p.68.

Appendix V

Information on Participating Agencies' 10 Units with Largest Unobligated Fund
Balances

This appendix provides information on the unobligated balances for
recreation fee funds collected under the Recreational Fee Demonstration
Program (Fee Demo) and the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (REA).
Table 23 shows the 10 units with the largest unobligated fund balances of
recreation fees for Bureau of Land Management (BLM), National Park Service
(NPS), Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and Forest Service (FS).

Table 23: Ten Largest Unobligated Balances of Recreation Fee Funds
Reported by BLM, NPS, and FWS Units and FS Headquarters for Forests

                                 Fiscal year 2005                 Unobligated 
                                      end of year Fiscal year    balance as a 
                                      unobligated  2005 total   percentage of 
Agency/unit                            balance    revenue    total revenue 

Shoshone Field Office BLM              $175,000 $214,000               82% 
Cedar City Field Office                 199,000 176,000                113 
Monticello Field Office                 219,000 259,330                 84 
Deschutes Resource Areas                226,000 694,600                 33 
Cottonwood Field Office                 233,544 121,395                192 
Las Cruces District Office              243,071     59,000             412 
Umpqua Resource Areas                   260,069 123,205                211 
Coos Bay District Office                320,321 158,691                202 
Winnemucca Field Office                 490,000 749,784                 65 
El Centro Field Office                  675,000 2,897,000               23 

NPS                                                                        
Jefferson National Expansion                                               
Memorial 3,019,449 2,608,161 116                                           
Haleakala National Park 4,172,814 2,880,126 145                            
Sequoia and Kings Canyon                                                   
National Park 4,447,870 3,163,540 141                                      
Golden Gate National Recreation                                            
Area/Muir Woods National                                                   
Monument 4,734,347 3,288,230 144                                           
Lake Mead National Recreation                                              
Area 4,847,637 4,101,875 118                                               
Mammoth Cave National Park 4,972,503 3,495,605 142                         
Hawaii Volcanoes National Park 5,262,769 3,799,829 139                     
Gateway National Recreation Area 6,641,400 2,436,786 273                   
Grand Canyon National Park 36,726,755 20,082,719 183                       
Page 88 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees                                        

Appendix V Information on Participating Agencies' 10 Units with Largest
Unobligated Fund Balances

(Continued From Previous Page)      
                                  Fiscal year 2005                Unobligated 
                                       end of year Fiscal year   balance as a 
                                       unobligated  2005 total  percentage of 
Agency/unit                             balance   revenue    total revenue 
Yosemite National Park               36,730,533  15,019,482            245 
FWS                                                          
Felsenthal National Wildlife Refuge                          
(NWR)                                    43,431    30,872              141 
Kodiak NWR                               47,646    12,030              396 
Klamath Basin NWR Complex                53,253    57,288               93 
Nisqually NWR                            63,544    43,022              148 
Piedmont NWR                             70,056    65,102              108 
North Mississippi NWR Complex            75,907            a 
J. N. Ding Darling NWR                   80,000   297,743               27 
Chincoteague NWR                        120,000   712,000               17 
Kilauea Point NWR                       247,834   474,692               52 
Crab Orchard NWR                        644,868   349,996              184 
FSb                                                          
Mississippi National Forests            652,660   256,215              255 
George Washington-Jefferson                                  
National Forests                        734,375   719,855              102 
Cherokee National Forest                791,891   645,596              123 
Salmon and Challis National                                  
Forests                                 844,523   713,703              118 
Ouachita National Forest                897,116   234,864              382 
North Carolina National Forests         948,046   913,094              104 
Superior National Forest              1,084,595   495,739              219 
Chattahoochee-Oconee National                                
Forests                               1,322,172   691,148              191 
Angeles National Forest               1,823,616   637,199              286 
Shasta-Trinity National Forest       $2,769,806  $1,126,791           246% 

Sources: GAO survey and FS data.

aNumber not reported on survey.

bFS unobligated balances and total revenue reported at the forest level
rather than the unit level. In commenting on a draft of this report, FS
officials noted that the national forests listed in this table are
generally spending the same amount that they collect in one year.

                                  Appendix VI

Comments from the Department of the Interior

Appendix VI Comments from the Department of the Interior

See Highlights page.

Now on pp. 6 and 18.

Now on p. 8. Now on p. 8.

Now on p. 8. Now on p. 8.

Now on p. 9. Now on p. 11. Now on p. 13.

Now on p. 17.

Now on p. 18.

Now on p. 19. See comment 1.

Appendix VI Comments from the Department of the Interior

Now o

Now on p. 19.

Now on p. 21.

Now on p. 22.

Now on p. 29.

Now on pp. 30 and 33. See comment 2.

Now on p. 34.

Now on p. 39.

Appendix VI Comments from the Department of the Interior

                                 Now on p. 40.

                                 Now on p. 40.

                                 Now on p. 41.

                                 Now on p. 42.

                                 Now on p. 42.

Appendix VI Comments from the Department of the Interior

                                 Now on p. 42.

                                 Now on p. 42.

                                 Now on p. 42.

Appendix VI Comments from the Department of the Interior

Now on p. 43.

Now on p. 52.

Now on p. 6.

Now on p. 7. See comment 3.

Now on p. 14. See comment 4.

Now on p. 14.

Now on p. 30.

Now on p. 74.

Appendix VI Comments from the Department of the Interior

                                 Now on p. 78.

                                 Now on p. 83.

                                 Now on p. 85.

                                 Now on p. 11.

                          Now on p. 23. Now on p. 31.

                                 Now on p. 51.

                                 Now on p. 10.

Appendix VI Comments from the Department of the Interior

                                 Now on p. 11.

                                 See comment 5.

                                 Now on p. 23.

                                 Now on p. 62.

                                 Now on p. 63.

Appendix VI Comments from the Department of the Interior

Now on pp. 6 and 14.

Now on p. 6.

Now on p. 9. See comment 6.

Appendix VI Comments from the Department of the Interior

Now on p. 10.

Now on p. 13. See comment 7.

Now on p. 14. See comment 8.

Now on p. 15.

Now on p. 19. See comment 9.

Now on p. 19.

Now on p. 20.

            Appendix VI Comments from the Department of the Interior

The following are GAO's comments on the Department of Interior's letter
dated September 12, 2006.

1. We disagree with NPS's comment concerning distribution of the new

  GAO Comments

pass revenues. The NPS noted in its comments that "the revenue share
formula appears to be identified." However, the details of the formula
have not yet been determined. The working group has only determined that
the revenue will be distributed based on a formula that takes into account
pass use and other factors. Therefore, the long-term revenue distribution
strategy is unclear.

1. We stand by our description of NPS' efforts to update its guidance on
       accounting and controlling collected fee revenues as "slow." NPS'
       current guidance on this subject was last published in 1989, which it
       recognizes as needing to be revised. In addition, the NPS' statement
       that our report language indicates "NPS does have effective internal
       controls in place," is incorrect. We specifically state that NPS units
       we visited, which are only 8 of 390, appear to have implemented
       reasonable accounting procedures and effective internal controls.
       Thus, we cannot attribute this condition to the entire universe of NPS
       units.
2. BLM provided additional detail on the results of their inquiries to
       units that responded to our survey that they did not offer all six
       amenities required to charge standard amenity fees under REA. We have
       summarized this information on pages 27 and 28 of the report. In
       essence, BLM officials imply from the results of their inquiries that
       their units did offer all six amenities required under REA. This new
       information would have to be verified to attest to its accuracy.
3. We agree that "slow" is a relative term but believe that it is used
       appropriately in the context of the information presented in the
       paragraph pertaining to the development of the RRACs. The information
       in the paragraph notes that, according to a June 2005 interagency
       presentation, the RRACs were expected to be established with members
       appointed by the end of 2005. Since none of the members for any of the
       RRACs have been appointed, we feel comfortable in referring to this
       RRAC development as "slow."
4. One of REA's goals was to reduce visitor confusion. We believe that
       Reclamation's approach to allowing each managing partner to make its

Appendix VI Comments from the Department of the Interior

own determination of how REA impacts each unit, to include the decision of
whether or not to accept the new pass, will create an inconsistent and
more confusing system of fees for the visitors.

1. We disagree with DOI's contention that evaluating the validity and
       interpreting the responses of units to our survey is problematic,
       since we have simply reported the survey results. The results we
       reported are based on two opinion survey questions that we asked both
       FS and DOI field-level officials to respond to. The first question
       asked if the unit officials believed recreation fee revenues are being
       used to fund the types of projects formerly funded with appropriations
       at their unit. The second question sought the officials' opinions
       about the extent to which they believe that recreation fee revenue
       will be used to fund the types of projects over the next 5 years at
       their units that would have been funded with appropriated dollars. We
       recognize that individual units do not have agencywide perspectives on
       these issues. Also, including these survey results in our report is
       not intended to forecast the future, but rather to share the
       perspective of the survey respondents responsible for the
       on-the-ground implementation of this program. No GAO conclusions or
       recommendations were based on these stated perceptions.
2. The concerns noted in the background are general concerns that are
       frequently cited by critics of the fee program. Implementing both Fee
       Demo and the recreation fee program under REA has been controversial
       and many people and groups, such as the Western Slope No-Fee Coalition
       and the Arizona No-Fee Coalition, have spoken out against recreation
       fees.
3. Same as comment 4.
4. Since the working group has not determined a formula and how pass use
       or other factors will be considered in such a formula, it is still not
       clear how revenues will be distributed beyond the first 3 to 5 years
       of the pass program. Therefore, the long-term revenue distribution
       strategy is unclear. The potential problems with collecting pass use
       data are outlined in this report. Accurate pass-use data will be
       difficult to collect at remote locations and many units within the
       agencies do not have the infrastructure in place to collect pass-use
       data. This may lead units to have inaccurate pass-use data or data
       largely based on estimates. Since pass use revenue distribution will
       be tied to the pass- use data, units and/or agencies may benefit from
       submitting inflated

Appendix VI Comments from the Department of the Interior

pass-use estimates. All of these issues are potential problems with the
collection of pass-use data.

                                  Appendix VII

                        Comments from the Forest Service

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

Appendix VII Comments from the Forest Service

Now on p. 5.

Now on p. 7. See comment 1.

Appendix VII Comments from the Forest Service

Now on p. 22. Now on p. 26. Now on p. 27.

Now on p. 9. See comment 2.

Now on p. 52. Now on p. 58.

Now on p. 9.

Now on pp. 14 and 15. Now on p. 62.

Now on p. 9.

Now on p. 10.

Now on p. 32.

Now on p. 14.

Appendix VII Comments from the Forest Service

Now on p. 14. See comment 3.

Now on p. 17.

Now on p. 28. See comment 4.

Now on p. 32. See comment 5.

Now on p. 35.

Now on p. 51.

Now on p. 62.

Appendix VII Comments from the Forest Service

Now on p. 62.

Now on p. 62.

Now on p. 63.

Now on pp. 63 and 64.

                             Now on pp. 63 and 64.

                             Now on pp. 74 and 75.

Appendix VII Comments from the Forest Service

                                 Now on p. 78.

                                 Now on p. 81.

                                 Now on p. 83.

                                 Now on p. 85.

                                 Now on p. 89.

Appendix VII Comments from the Forest Service

The following are GAO's comments on the Department of Agriculture's Forest
Service letter dated September 7, 2006.

                      Page 109 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

GAO Comments 1. FS provided additional detail on the results of their      
                   inquiries to units                                         
                   that responded to our survey that they did not offer all   
                   six amenities                                              
                   required to charge standard amenity fees under REA. We     
                   have                                                       
                   summarized this information on pages 27 and 28 of the      
                   report. In                                                 
                   essence, FS officials imply from the results of their      
                   inquiries that many                                        
                   of these unit officials were not aware of the type of fees 
                   they were                                                  
                   charging or the amenities offered for the fees charged     
                   under the REA                                              
                   authority when they replied to our survey. This new        
                   information would                                          
                   have to be verified to attest to its accuracy.             
                   The GAO survey was sent to 467 FS Ranger District          
                2. officials directly                                         
                   responsible for implementation of the fee program, under   
                   REA. The                                                   
                   results we reported are based on two opinion survey        
                   questions that we                                          
                   asked both FS and DOI field-level officials to respond to. 
                   The first                                                  
                   question asked if the unit officials believed recreation   
                   fee revenues are                                           
                   being used to fund the types of projects formerly funded   
                   with                                                       
                   appropriations at their unit. The second question sought   
                   the officials'                                             
                   opinions about the extent to which they believe that       
                   recreation fee                                             
                   revenue will be used to fund the types of projects over    
                   the next 5 years                                           
                   at their units that would have been funded with            
                   appropriated dollars.                                      
                   We recognize that individual units do not have agencywide  
                   perspectives                                               
                   on these issues. Also, the inclusion of these survey       
                   results in our report                                      
                   is not intended as a forecast of the future but rather as  
                   a way to share                                             
                   the perspective of the survey respondents responsible for  
                   the on-the-                                                
                   ground implementation of this program. No GAO conclusions  
                   or                                                         
                   recommendations were based on these stated perceptions. In 
                   addition,                                                  
                   we have added the FS statement that, historically, fee     
                   revenues have                                              
                   not replaced appropriations, and there is no reason to     
                   expect this to                                             
                   change in the future in order to also share the agency's   
                   official                                                   
                   perspective on this issue.                                 
                   We agree that "slow" is a relative term but believe that   
                3. it is used                                                 
                   appropriately in the context of the information presented  
                   in the                                                     
                   paragraph pertaining to the development of the RRACs. The  
                   information in the paragraph notes that according to a     
                   June 2005                                                  
                   interagency presentation, the RRACs were expected to be    
                   established                                                
                   with members appointed by the end of 2005. Since none of   
                   the                                                        

Appendix VII Comments from the Forest Service

members for any of the RRACs have been appointed, we feel comfortable in
referring to this RRAC development as "slow."

1. We recognize that the FS interim implementation guidelines for REA
       have definitions of the standard amenities; however, these guidelines
       have not prevented confusion about amenity criteria. In their comments
       on a draft of this report (bottom of page 104), the FS contends 31 of
       their unit officials erroneously reported they were out of compliance
       with REA's standard amenity requirements because they were either
       confused over the difference between standard and expanded amenities,
       or, because "there was misunderstanding over the definitions of the
       amenities." Such results further highlight the need for more specific
       FS guidance on implementing and managing the fee program.
2. We believe that for department-level management to have assurance that
       collected fees are controlled effectively and accounted for properly,
       detailed department- or bureau-level guidance on procedures are an
       important tool for local managers and imperative for those who have
       little or no formal accounting training or background.

Appendix VIII

                     GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Robin Nazzaro (202) 512-3841or [email protected]

  Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to the individual named above, Roy Judy, Assistant Director;
Carolyn Boyce; Elizabeth Curda; John Delicath; Denise Fantone; Doreen
Feldman; Timothy Guinane; Anne Hobson; Susan Irving; Stanley Kostyla;
Diane Lund; Robert Martin; Matt Michaels; Angie Nichols-Friedman; Lesley
Rinner; John Scott; Jack Warner; and Amy Webbink made key contributions to
this report.

  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 GAO Reports and Testimony

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 posts GAO
Reports and newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its
Web site. To
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, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs

Contact:

To Report Fraud, Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm .

  E-mail: [email protected] .

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

Congressional Relations

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. ***