    Recreation Fees: Demonstration Fee Program Successful in Raising Revenues
    but Could Be Improved (Chapter Report, 11/20/98, GAO/RCED-99-7).

    Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the implementation of
    the recreational fee demonstration program by the National Park Service
    (NPS), the Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and the
    Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), focusing on the: (1) implementation of
    the program and the fee revenues generated; (2) program's expenditures;
    (3) extent to which the agencies have used innovative or coordinated
    approaches to fee collection; and (4) program's effects, if any, on
    visitation.

    GAO noted that: (1) among the four agencies, the pace and the approach
    used to implement the recreational fee demonstration program have
    differed; (2) this difference reflects the extent of the agencies'
    experiences in charging fees prior to the demonstration; (3)
    nonetheless, each agency has been successful in increasing fee revenues;
    (4) the four agencies estimated that their combined recreational fee
    revenues have nearly doubled from about $93 million in fiscal year (FY)
    1996 to an about $179 million in FY 1998; (5) of the four agencies, NPS
    is generating the most fee revenues; (6) for FY 1998, NPS estimates that
    its fee revenues will be about 85 percent of the total estimated
    revenues collected by the four agencies at demonstration sites; (7)
    about 76 percent of the funds available under the program had not been
    spent through March 1998; (8) thus far, most expenditures have been for
    repairs and maintenance and the cost of fee collection; (9) the agencies
    expect to make significant expenditures in the latter part of FY 1998
    and in FY 1999; (10) in the longer term, because some sites may have a
    much greater potential than others for raising revenues, the requirement
    that at least 80 percent of the fees be retained at the location where
    they were collected may lead to substantial inequities between sites;
    (11) some sites may reach the point where they have more revenues than
    they need for their projects, while other sites still do not have
    enough; (12) opportunities remain for the agencies to be more innovative
    and cooperative in designing, setting, and collecting fees; (13) among
    the agencies, several notable examples of innovation exist at
    demonstration sites of the Forest Service and the BLM; (14) these
    innovations have resulted in either more equitable pricing for the
    visitors, or greater convenience for visitors in how they pay fees; (15)
    while NPS has been innovative in making fees more convenient for
    visitors to pay, it has not experimented with different pricing
    structures to make fees more equitable; (16) coordination of fees among
    agencies has been erratic; (17) overall, preliminary data suggest the
    increased or new fees have had no major adverse effect on visitation to
    the fee demonstration sites; (18) with data from just 1 year, however,
    it is difficult to accurately assess the fees' impact on visitation;
    (19) the agencies' surveys indicate that visitors generally support the
    purpose of the program and the level of the fees implemented; and (20)
    each agency is planning additional visitor surveys and research in 1998
    and 1999.

    --------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

     REPORTNUM:  RCED-99-7
         TITLE:  Recreation Fees: Demonstration Fee Program Successful in
                 Raising Revenues but Could Be Improved
          DATE:  11/20/98
       SUBJECT:  National parks
                 Federal property management
                 Maintenance costs
                 National forests
                 Profits
                 National recreation areas
                 User fees
                 Prices and pricing
                 Interagency relations
                 Budget outlays

    ******************************************************************
    ** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
    ** GAO report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
    ** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved.  Major          **
    ** divisions and subdivisions of the text, such as Chapters,    **
    ** Sections, and Appendixes, are identified by double and       **
    ** single lines.  The numbers on the right end of these lines   **
    ** indicate the position of each of the subsections in the      **
    ** document outline.  These numbers do NOT correspond with the  **
    ** page numbers of the printed 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.                                         **
    **                                                              **
    ** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO   **
    ** Document Distribution Center.  For further details, please   **
    ** send an e-mail message to:                                   **
    **                                                              **
    **                                            **
    **                                                              **
    ** with the message 'info' in the body.                         **
    ******************************************************************

    Cover
    ================================================================ COVER

    Report to Congressional Requesters

    November 1998

    RECREATION FEES - DEMONSTRATION
    FEE PROGRAM SUCCESSFUL IN RAISING
    REVENUES BUT COULD BE IMPROVED

    GAO/RCED-99-7

    Recreational Fees

    (141128)

    Abbreviations
    =============================================================== ABBREV

      ATM - automated teller machine
      BLM - Bureau of Land Management
      GAO - General Accounting Office

    Letter
    =============================================================== LETTER

    B-280840

    November 20, 1998

    The Honorable Craig Thomas
    Chairman, Subcommittee on Parks,
     Historic Preservation, and Recreation
    Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
    United States Senate

    The Honorable James V.  Hansen
    Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks
     and Public Lands
    Committee on Resources
    House of Representatives

    This report responds to your request that we review the
    implementation by four agencies of the recreational fee demonstration
    program.  The four agencies are the Park Service, the Forest Service,
    the Bureau of Land Management, and the Fish and Wildlife Service.  We
    have reviewed the program, focusing on (1) the implementation of the
    program and the fee revenues generated; (2) the program's
    expenditures; (3) the extent to which the agencies have used
    innovative or coordinated approaches to fee collection; and (4) the
    program's effects, if any, on visitation.

    As arranged with your offices, unless you publicly announce its
    contents earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report
    until 10 days after the date of this letter.  At that time, we will
    send copies to the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior and to
    the heads of the Park Service, the Forest Service, the Bureau of Land
    Management, and the Fish and Wildlife Service.  We will make copies
    available to others on request.

    Please contact me at (202) 512-3841 if you or your staff have any
    questions.  Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix
    VIII.

    Barry T.  Hill
    Associate Director, Energy,
     Resources, and Science Issues

    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
    ============================================================ Chapter 0

       PURPOSE
    ---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:1

    For many years, the Congress has expressed concern about the ability
    of federal land management agencies to provide high-quality
    recreational opportunities to visitors.  These agencies include the
    Park Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Bureau of Land
    Management within the Department of the Interior and the Forest
    Service within the Department of Agriculture.  The recreational fee
    demonstration program, authorized in 1996, allows these agencies to
    test new or increased fees to help address unmet needs for visitor
    services, repairs and maintenance, and resource management.  In
    response to congressional requests, GAO reviewed the demonstration
    program, focusing on (1) the implementation of the program and the
    fee revenues generated; (2) the program's expenditures; (3) the
    extent to which the agencies have used innovative or coordinated
    approaches to fee collection; and (4) the program's effects, if any,
    on visitation.

       BACKGROUND
    ---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:2

    Prior to the fee demonstration program, each of the four land
    management agencies had collected fees from visitors for many years.
    The demonstration program legislation allows these agencies to
    experiment with new or increased fees at up to 100 demonstration
    sites per agency.  Key congressional expectations for the program
    included providing more money to address unmet needs, encouraging
    creativity in designing and collecting fees, developing partnerships
    among agencies, and improving agencies' customer service.  At least
    80 percent of the revenues is to be spent at the site collecting the
    fees; the remaining 20 percent can be spent at the discretion of each
    agency.  The program is currently authorized through fiscal year
    2001, and funds from fee revenues must be spent by the end of fiscal
    year 2004.

       RESULTS IN BRIEF
    ---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:3

    Among the four agencies, the pace and the approach used to implement
    the recreational fee demonstration program have differed.  Some of
    the agencies had more demonstration sites operational earlier than
    others.  This difference reflects the extent of the agencies'
    experiences in charging fees prior to the demonstration.
    Nonetheless, each agency has been successful in increasing fee
    revenues.  As a result of the fee demonstration program, the four
    agencies estimated that their combined recreational fee revenues have
    nearly doubled from about $93 million in fiscal year 1996--the last
    year before the demonstration program was implemented--to about $179
    million in fiscal year 1998.  Of the four agencies, the Park Service
    is generating the most fee revenues.  For fiscal year 1998, the Park
    Service estimates that its fee revenues will be about 85 percent of
    the total estimated revenues collected by the four agencies at
    demonstration sites.

    Because agencies needed to spend time developing expenditure-approval
    procedures and setting up accounting systems, among other things,
    about 76 percent of the funds available under the program had not
    been spent through March 1998.  Thus far, most expenditures have been
    for repairs and maintenance and the cost of fee collection.  The
    agencies expect to make significant expenditures in the latter part
    of fiscal year 1998 and in fiscal year 1999.  In the longer term,
    because some sites may have a much greater potential than others for
    raising revenues, the requirement that at least 80 percent of the
    fees be retained at the location where they were collected may lead
    to substantial inequities between sites.  Some sites may reach the
    point where they have more revenues than they need for their
    projects, while other sites still do not have enough.

    Opportunities remain for the agencies to be more innovative and
    cooperative in designing, setting, and collecting fees.  Among the
    agencies, several notable examples of innovation exist at
    demonstration sites of the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land
    Management.  These innovations have resulted in either more equitable
    pricing for the visitors, such as by setting fees based on the extent
    of the visitors' use of a site, or greater convenience for visitors
    in how they pay fees.  While a third agency--the Park Service--has
    been innovative in making fees more convenient for visitors to pay,
    it has not experimented with different pricing structures to make
    fees more equitable.  In addition, coordination of fees among
    agencies has been erratic.  For example, at the 15 demonstration
    sites GAO visited, it found several opportunities where better
    coordination among the agencies could have resulted in, among other
    things, better service to the visitors by removing multiple or
    duplicative fees at adjacent sites.

    Overall, preliminary data suggest the increased or new fees have had
    no major adverse effect on visitation to the fee demonstration sites.
    With data from just 1 year, however, it is difficult to accurately
    assess the fees' impact on visitation.  The agencies' surveys
    indicate that visitors generally support the purposes of the program
    and the level of the fees implemented.  Each agency is planning
    additional visitor surveys and research in 1998 and 1999.  However,
    some groups have raised concerns about gaps in the research.  For
    example, many completed visitor surveys do not address the impact of
    fees on some types of visitors, such as those with low incomes.

       PRINCIPAL FINDINGS
    ---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4

          RECREATIONAL FEE REVENUES
          HAVE INCREASED SUBSTANTIALLY
    -------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4.1

    Since obtaining the authority to begin collecting new and increased
    fees, each of the agencies has taken a different approach.  The
    agencies' approaches have largely been influenced by (1) their
    traditions and experiences in collecting fees, (2) the geographic
    characteristics of the lands they manage, and (3) a recent amendment
    to the law authorizing the demonstration program that increased
    incentives to the agencies by allowing them to retain all of the fee
    revenues collected.  As a result of these differing approaches, the
    pace of implementation among the agencies has varied.

    While their approaches have differed, the agencies have nonetheless
    been successful in increasing fee revenues.  Because of the fee
    demonstration program, the four agencies estimated that total fee
    revenues nearly doubled from about $93 million in fiscal year
    1996--the last year prior to the implementation of the demonstration
    program--to about $179 million in fiscal year 1998.  Of the $179
    million in estimated fee revenues in fiscal year 1998, about $160
    million, or 89 percent, was generated at the agencies' fee
    demonstration sites.

    Among the agencies, the Park Service has collected the most revenues
    under the program, based on estimates for fiscal year 1998,
    generating about 85 percent of the revenues collected by the four
    agencies.  The principal reason the Park Service is generating so
    much revenue is that it manages a large number of high-revenue sites.
    For example, in fiscal year 1997, the Park Service managed 28 sites
    that each generated over $1 million.  In comparison, the Forest
    Service managed two such sites, and neither the Bureau of Land
    Management nor the Fish and Wildlife Service managed any sites with
    revenues above $1 million.

          MOST FEE COLLECTIONS REMAIN
          UNSPENT
    -------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4.2

    About 76 percent of the revenues available for expenditure under the
    fee demonstration program through March 1998 had yet to be spent.
    This situation was due to a variety of reasons, including the time
    the agencies spent developing (1) financial systems and (2) internal
    processes for headquarters' oversight of expenditures.  Overall, most
    of the revenues that were expended went toward repair and
    maintenance, the cost of fee collection, and routine operations at
    the respective sites.  At the sites GAO visited, the agencies'
    expenditures appeared to be consistent with the purposes authorized
    in the legislation establishing the program.  Among the sites
    visited, the largest amount of expenditures was for the capital and
    operating costs of fee collection.  The next largest category of
    expenditures was for annual operations, such as restoring visitor
    services at Mount St.  Helens National Volcanic Monument in
    Washington State.  Other funds were expended for backlogged repairs
    and maintenance and for visitor services.

    For many sites--particularly those of the Park Service and the Forest
    Service--the increased fee revenues equals 20 percent or more of the
    sites' annual budgets.  With this infusion of revenues, some units
    with maintenance backlogs will be able to address their unmet needs
    in relatively few years, and other units with small or nonexistent
    backlogs will be able to undertake further development and
    enhancement--assuming appropriations remain stable and the program is
    extended.  But other sites, including those that are not in the
    demonstration program and those that do not generate high fee
    revenues, may not be able to address some high-priority needs.  While
    it is important to maintain incentives to collect fees, this
    imbalance in revenues may raise questions about the desirability of
    the current legislative requirement that at least 80 percent of the
    fee revenues be expended at the sites where they are collected.

          OPPORTUNITIES FOR MORE
          INNOVATION AND COORDINATION
    -------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4.3

    Some agencies have missed opportunities to develop innovative fee
    programs--which was one of the principal goals of the authorizing
    legislation.  While the agencies have been innovative in making it
    more convenient for visitors to pay fees, more can be done to
    experiment with the fee rates that visitors pay.  Among the agencies,
    GAO found several notable examples of innovation that have resulted
    in greater convenience for visitors by increasing the number of
    locations where visitors can pay fees.  These innovations include
    using machines similar to automated teller machines (ATM) outside the
    sites to sell entrance passes and using the Internet to sell hiking
    permits.  In addition, two agencies--the Forest Service and the
    Bureau of Land Management--have experimented with different pricing
    structures, such as setting fees that vary on the basis of (1) the
    extent of use or (2) whether the visit occurred during a peak period,
    such as a weekend.  Such pricing has resulted in greater equity to
    the visitors and would appear to have broader applicability in the
    other agencies as well.  However, the Park Service has done little to
    experiment with different pricing structures.

    GAO's site reviews found several instances in which the agencies have
    attempted to coordinate, resulting in multiple benefits for the
    public.  One example was at the American Fork Canyon/Alpine Loop
    Recreation Area in Utah, a joint project between the Forest Service's
    Uinta National Forest and the Park Service's Timpanogos Cave National
    Monument.  Timpanogos Cave is surrounded by the Uinta National
    Forest, and common road access enabled the agencies to charge one fee
    for entrance.  Such coordination can reduce agencies' operating
    costs, strengthen resource management activities, and provide more
    agency personnel to assist visitors.  However, other examples were
    noted in which coordination can still be improved.  For example,
    Olympic National Park and Olympic National Forest in Washington State
    share a common border, yet backcountry visitors using trails crossing
    the lands of the Park Service and the Forest Service are required to
    pay multiple fees, which has led to confusion for visitors.  GAO also
    found other instances in which agencies managing adjacent lands have
    not consolidated or eliminated multiple fees that may confuse
    visitors.

          VISITATION APPEARS LARGELY
          UNAFFECTED BY THE
          DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM
    -------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4.4

    Overall, visitation in fiscal year 1997 did not appear to be
    adversely affected by the implementation of new or increased fees,
    although visits did decline at a number of fee demonstration sites.
    For the four agencies, visitation at the demonstration sites
    increased overall by 5 percent, compared with 4 percent at the
    nondemonstration sites.  Of the 206 demonstration sites, visitation
    increased at 120 sites, declined at 84 sites, and remained unchanged
    at 2 sites.  However, with data from only 1 year, it is difficult to
    draw definitive conclusions, either about the lack of a negative
    effect on visitation at most sites or about whether fees had an
    impact at sites where visitation declined.

    The agencies' research on visitors' reactions to new or increased
    fees shows that visitors generally support the fee demonstration
    program and the amount of the entrance or user fees charged.
    Visitors especially endorsed the retention of the fees at the sites
    where they were collected so that they could be used to fund the
    sites' needs.  For example, a 1997 Park Service survey at 11 national
    park units showed that 83 percent of the respondents were either
    satisfied with the fees they paid or thought the fees were too low.
    All four agencies plan additional surveys of visitors in 1998 and
    1999.  However, some interest groups and recreation fee experts have
    identified some gaps in the research.  For example, some of the
    visitor surveys will not address the impact of fees on certain
    groups, such as those not visiting recreation sites, backcountry
    users, and low-income users.  Therefore, the impact of the fee
    demonstration program on these groups is largely unknown.

       RECOMMENDATIONS
    ---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:5

    GAO recommends that the Secretary of the Interior direct the heads of
    the Park Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service to take advantage
    of the time remaining under the fee demonstration authority to look
    for further opportunities to experiment and innovate with new and
    existing fees.  The pricing structures used by the Forest Service,
    the Bureau of Land Management, and commercial recreation providers
    such as amusement parks, golf courses, and ski areas--all of which
    set fees that vary on the basis of (1) the extent of use or (2)
    whether the visit occurred during a peak period, such as a
    weekend--could provide useful models.

    GAO also recommends that the Secretary of the Interior direct the
    heads of the Park Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the
    Bureau of Land Management and that the Secretary of Agriculture
    direct the Chief of the Forest Service to improve their service to
    visitors by better coordinating their fee-collection activities under
    the recreational fee demonstration program.  To address this issue,
    each agency should perform a review of each of its demonstration
    sites to identify other federal recreation areas nearby.  Once
    identified, these locations should be reviewed to determine whether a
    coordinated approach, such as a reciprocal fee arrangement, would
    better serve the visiting public.

       MATTERS FOR CONGRESSIONAL
       CONSIDERATION
    ---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:6

    As the Congress decides on the future of the fee demonstration
    program, it may wish to consider whether to modify the current
    requirement that at least 80 percent of all fee revenues remain in
    the units generating the revenues.  Permitting some further
    flexibility in where fee revenues can be spent, particularly the fees
    from high-revenue sites, would provide greater opportunities to
    address the highest-priority needs of the agencies.  However, any
    change to the 80-percent requirement would have to be balanced
    against the need to maintain incentives at fee-collecting units and
    to maintain the support of the visitors.

       AGENCY COMMENTS AND GAO'S
       EVALUATION
    ---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:7

    GAO provided copies of a draft of this report to the Department of
    Agriculture and the Department of the Interior for their review and
    comment.  The Department of Agriculture generally agreed with the
    findings and recommendations in the report and stated that the report
    was well done and would prove quite useful in its efforts to continue
    the effective implementation of the fee demonstration program.  The
    Forest Service raised concerns about the matter for consideration on
    the need for flexibility in the requirement that 80 percent of the
    revenues be spent at the collecting units.  GAO continues to believe
    this requirement should be considered for high-revenue sites but must
    be balanced against the need to maintain incentives for the
    fee-collecting units and to maintain the support of visitors to those
    sites.  The Department of the Interior generally agreed with the
    findings in the report and indicated that the agencies within the
    Department are aware of the issues raised in the report and will
    continue to refine their recreational fee projects to ensure the best
    possible experience for visitors.  In addition, the Department of the
    Interior noted that its agencies have struggled to find the right
    balance of innovation and simplicity in their fee structures.  While
    the Department generally agreed with the findings of the report,
    agencies within the Department raised concerns about sections of it.
    The Park Service objected to findings about innovative fees and
    doubted that the recommendation to increase innovation would be
    feasible, as it could result in increased processing time at entrance
    stations, confused visitors, and complex fee schedules and could also
    make enforcement of fees more difficult.  GAO believes, however, that
    because price structures could be used to better manage demand and
    could have potential benefits to park visitors, they warrant further
    testing.  The Fish and Wildlife Service commented that the
    opportunities for off-peak pricing are limited to those sites that
    have sufficient numbers of visitors to create crowding during peak
    periods--which creates an incentive for off-peak use.  GAO agrees
    that the opportunities to experiment may be limited to those sites
    where there is enough visitation to warrant off-peak pricing.

    More detailed discussions of the comments from individual agencies
    within the departments of Agriculture and the Interior are included
    at the end of chapters 3 and 4.  These agencies also provided
    clarifications on several technical points that have been included in
    the report as appropriate.  The full text of the comments and GAO's
    responses are included in appendix VI for the Department of the
    Interior and appendix VII for the Department of Agriculture.

    INTRODUCTION
    ============================================================ Chapter 1

    In recent years, the Congress heard and expressed concerns about the
    ability of federal land management agencies to provide high-quality
    recreational opportunities.  These concerns focused on declines in
    visitor services, extensive needs for repairs and maintenance at the
    facilities and infrastructure that support recreation, and a lack of
    information on the condition of natural and cultural resources and
    the trends affecting them.  In addressing these concerns, the
    Congress faced a dilemma:  While the needs of federal recreation
    areas and the rate of visitation to these areas were increasing, the
    funding for addressing these needs and providing visitor services was
    growing tighter.\1 As a result, the Congress was looking for means,
    other than appropriations, to provide additional resources to these
    areas.  The recreational fee demonstration program was one such
    means.

    Authorized by the Congress in 1996 as a 3-year pilot program, the
    recreational fee demonstration program allows the Park Service, the
    Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and the Fish and
    Wildlife Service to experiment with new or increased fees at up to
    100 demonstration sites per agency.\2 The program aims to bring
    additional resources to recreation lands by generating recreational
    fee revenues and spending most of the fee revenues at the sites where
    the fees are collected to increase the quality of the visitors'
    experience and to enhance the protection of the sites' resources.  In
    addition, in carrying out the program, the agencies are to (1) be
    creative and innovative in designing and testing the collection of
    fees, (2) develop partnerships with federal agencies and with state
    and local agencies, (3) provide higher levels of service to the
    public, and (4) assess the public's satisfaction with the program.
    The conference report on the program's original legislation requested
    that the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture
    each prepare a report that evaluates the demonstration program,
    including recommendations for further legislation, by March 31, 1999.
    The program is currently authorized through fiscal year 2001.  The
    agencies have until the end of fiscal year 2004 to spend money
    generated under the program.

    --------------------
    \1 The Budget Enforcement Act, as amended, imposes limits on
    discretionary spending, which includes these agencies'
    appropriations.

    \2 P.L.  104-134, title III, section 315, as amended.  The latest
    amendment, P.L.  105-277, in the Omnibus Appropriations bill for
    fiscal year 1999, approved October 21, 1998, extended the
    demonstration to September 30, 2001.  The availability of funds was
    also extended 2 years through September 30, 2004.

       BACKGROUND
    ---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:1

    Each of the four federal land management agencies included in the
    program provides a variety of recreational opportunities to the
    visiting public.  Together, these agencies manage over 630 million
    acres of land--over one-quarter of the land in the United States.  In
    1997, they received over 1.2 billion visits.  Table 1.1 provides
    information on the acreage, visitation, and lands managed by the four
    agencies.

                                   Table 1.1

                       Federal Land Management Agencies'
                                Responsibilities

                                    Visitors
    Agency                 Acreage    (1997)  Lands managed
    --------------------  --------  --------  ----------------------------
    Park Service                83       275  376 park units, from large
                           million   million   natural parks to small
                                               historic sites in 49
                                               states, the District of
                                               Columbia, American Samoa,
                                               Guam, Puerto Rico, and the
                                               Virgin Islands
    Forest Service             192       885  155 national forests and 20
                           million   million   national grasslands in 44
                                      (est.)   states and Puerto Rico
    BLM                        264        61  139 resource areas in 28
                           million   million   states
    Fish and Wildlife           92        30  503 national wildlife
     Service               million   million   refuges, 65 national fish
                                               hatcheries, and other units
                                               in all 50 states, Puerto
                                               Rico, 3 territories, and 5
                                               Pacific island possessions
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Source:  Agency data compiled by GAO.

          DETERIORATING CONDITIONS
          HAVE CREATED A NEED FOR
          ADDITIONAL FINANCIAL
          RESOURCES
    -------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:1.1

    The fee demonstration program was established to test ways to address
    deteriorating conditions at many federal recreation areas,
    particularly those managed by the Park Service, which collects the
    most fee revenues, and the Forest Service, which hosts the most
    recreational visitors.  Our prior work has detailed significant
    needs,\3 including the following:

      -- The federal land management agencies have accumulated a
         multibillion-dollar backlog of maintenance, infrastructure, and
         development needs.

      -- The quality and the scope of visitor services at federal
         recreation sites have been declining.  Some sites have closed
         facilities, while others have reduced their hours of operation
         or are providing fewer services.

      -- The condition of many key natural and cultural resources in the
         national park system is deteriorating, and the condition of many
         others is not known.

      -- Despite annual increases in federal appropriations for operating
         the national park system, the financial resources available have
         not been sufficient to stem the deterioration of the resources,
         services, and recreational opportunities managed by the agency.

    One way of addressing these needs was providing additional financial
    resources to these agencies through new or increased recreational
    fees.  But while new or increased fees could have increased the
    federal land management agencies' revenues, generally these
    additional fees did not directly benefit the agencies' field units
    until the fee demonstration program was established.\4 The Land and
    Water Conservation Act of 1965, as amended,\5

    limited the amount of revenues that could be raised through
    collecting recreational fees and required that the funds be deposited
    in a special U.S.  Treasury account.  The funds in the special
    Treasury account could only be used for certain purposes, including
    resource protection and maintenance activities, and only became
    available through congressional appropriations.\6 These amounts were
    generally treated as a part of, rather than a supplement to, the
    agencies' regular appropriations, and were included under the
    spending limits imposed by the Budget Enforcement Act.  In the
    context of the Budget Enforcement Act's limits, in order for the
    agencies to address deteriorating conditions at recreation areas
    through fee revenues, the Congress had to provide authority for the
    agencies to retain the fees.

    In 1996, the Congress authorized the fee demonstration program to
    test recreational fees as a source of additional financial resources
    for the federal land management agencies.  The Congress directed that
    at least 80 percent of the revenues collected under the program be
    spent at the units collecting the fees; the remaining 20 percent
    could be spent at the discretion of each agency.\7 By allowing the
    local units to retain such a large percentage of the fees they
    collected, the Congress created a powerful incentive for unit
    managers to emphasize fee collections.  In essence, the more revenues
    that field units could generate through fees, the more they would
    have to spend on improving conditions in the areas they managed.  In
    addition, the program's legislative history reflected the
    congressional belief that allowing the local units to retain most of
    the revenues they collected would be likely to improve the public's
    acceptance of the fees.  This belief was consistent with past studies
    of visitors to recreation areas that indicated that most visitors
    would support increases in fees if the fees remained at the local
    units.\8

    Under the legislation, the program's expenditures were to be used to
    increase the quality of visitors' experiences at public recreation
    areas and to enhance the protection of resources.  Specifically,
    authorized expenditures were to address backlogged repair and
    maintenance projects; enhancements to interpretation, signage,
    habitats, or facilities; and resource preservation, annual operations
    (including fee collections), maintenance, and law enforcement
    relating to public use.  In broad terms, these authorized
    expenditures cover the principal aspects of managing recreation areas
    on federal lands.

    The legislation also provided an opportunity for the agencies to be
    creative and innovative in developing and testing fees by giving them
    the flexibility to develop a wide variety of fee proposals, including
    some that were nontraditional as well as others that simply increased
    previously existing fees.  During the demonstration period, the
    agencies were to experiment with (1) various types of fees to
    determine what does and does not work and (2) various methods of
    collecting fees to make payment easier and more convenient for the
    visiting public.  In addition, according to the program's legislative
    history, the agencies were expected to coordinate with each other, as
    well as with state and local recreation areas, so that visitors did
    not face numerous fees from several agencies in the same geographic
    area.  Coordination among the agencies could yield better service to
    the public, thereby potentially improving the program's chances of
    success.

    --------------------
    \3 See the list of related GAO products at the end of this report.

    \4 However, the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986, 16 U.S.C.
    3911, which authorized entrance fees for Fish and Wildlife Service
    refuges, did provide that 70 percent of those fees be placed into the
    migratory bird conservation fund for nationwide acquisition of refuge
    lands and that 30 percent be retained by the refuges to offset the
    cost of collection, operation, and maintenance.

    \5 16 U.S.C.  460l-6.

    \6 Under the act, the Secretaries of Agriculture and of the Interior
    could retain up to 15 percent of fee receipts to cover the cost of
    collection.

    \7 For fiscal year 1997, the distribution of revenues applied only to
    those fee revenues that exceeded the amounts collected prior to the
    program.  For fiscal 1998, the law was amended to permit the agencies
    to retain all revenues at fee demonstration sites.

    \8 National Opinion Survey on the National Park System, National
    Parks and Conservation Association (Feb.  1995), and Parks Canada
    Revenue Strategy, Parks Canada (Nov.  1994).

          AGENCIES MAY CHARGE SEVERAL
          TYPES OF FEES
    -------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:1.2

    Federal land management agencies have traditionally charged several
    types of fees to visitors, all of which may still be charged under
    the fee demonstration program.  Most of these fees can be categorized
    generally as either entrance or user fees.

      -- Entrance fees are generally charged for short-term access to
         federal recreation sites.  Most are charged on a per-vehicle
         basis, but some are charged to individuals hiking or cycling
         into a recreation area.  The entrance fee gives the visitor
         access to the key features of the area.  For example, visitors
         pay $10 per car to enter Zion National Park in Utah; this fee
         covers everyone in the vehicle and is good for up to a week.
         Another example of an entrance fee is collected within the
         Wasatch-Cache National Forest in Utah, where visitors to the
         Mirror Lake area pay an entrance fee of either $3 per vehicle
         for a day or $6 per vehicle for a week.

      -- Annual passes allow entrance or use of a site for the next 12
         months, benefiting frequent visitors to a single recreation
         area, such as a park or forest.  For example, instead of paying
         a $10 entrance fee every time they drive into Shenandoah
         National Park in Virginia, frequent visitors can purchase an
         annual pass for $20, which will give them unlimited access to
         the park during the next year.  Similarly, in the White Mountain
         National Forest in New Hampshire, visitors can pay $20 for an
         annual pass rather than pay $5 for a daily vehicle pass.

      -- The Golden Eagle Passport provides unlimited entry for a year to
         most national parks, Fish and Wildlife Service sites where
         entrance fees are charged, and several Forest Service and BLM
         sites.  Costing $50 for the purchaser and his or her passengers
         in a privately owned vehicle, the passport can be economical
         when people are planning to visit a number of sites that charge
         entrance fees within a single year.  While the Golden Eagle
         Passport covers entrance fees, it does not cover most user
         fees;\9 hence, passport holders pay separately for activities
         such as boat launching, camping, parking, or going on an
         interpretive tour.

      -- User fees are charged for engaging in specific activities.  They
         are generally charged to individuals or groups for activities
         such as boat launching, camping, parking, or going on an
         interpretive tour.  For example, individuals pay $3 for a guided
         interpretive tour of the Frederick Douglass home at the
         Frederick Douglass National Historic Site in Washington, D.C.
         Another example of a user fee is at Paria Canyon, a BLM
         demonstration site in Utah, where visitors pay $5 per day for
         hiking or backpacking.

    Individual sites may charge several types of fees for entry and other
    activities.  For example, a demonstration site may have a $10
    entrance fee, good for 7 days, and a $20 annual pass.  In addition,
    visitors to the site may pay user fees for a variety of specific
    activities, such as backcountry hiking, camping, interpretive tours,
    or disposing of waste from a recreational vehicle.

    --------------------
    \9 Another annual pass, the Federal Duck Stamp, provides entry to all
    Fish and Wildlife Service refuges that charge entrance fees.
    Officially known as the migratory bird hunting and conservation
    stamp, it was originally authorized in 1934 as a federal permit to
    hunt waterfowl.  It costs $15 per year and can be used as a hunting
    permit as well as an entry pass.  However, by law, revenues from the
    Federal Duck Stamp are earmarked for acquiring wetlands.  Therefore,
    the Federal Duck Stamp is not currently part of the fee demonstration
    program.

       SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
    ---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:2

    Our review included fee demonstration sites in the Park Service, the
    Forest Service, BLM, and the Fish and Wildlife Service.  At each of
    these agencies, we contacted staff from headquarters and at least two
    regional offices.  In addition, we visited 15 judgmentally selected
    sites operated by the four agencies.  More of the selected sites were
    operated by the Park Service than by any other agency because the
    Park Service (1) had the most sites in the program and (2) generates
    considerably more fee revenues than any of the other agencies.  The
    15 selected sites were both large and small and were located
    throughout the country in eight different states and the District of
    Columbia.  Table 1.2 lists the sites, by agency.

                                   Table 1.2

                        Sites Visited by GAO, by Agency

    Agency/site                               Location
    ----------------------------------------  ----------------------------
    Park Service
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Assateague Island National Seashore       Maryland

    Carlsbad Caverns National Park            New Mexico

    Frederick Douglass National Historic      Washington, D.C.
    Site

    Olympic National Park                     Washington State

    Shenandoah National Park                  Virginia

    Timpanogos Cave National Monument         Utah

    Zion National Park                        Utah

    Fish and Wildlife Service
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Bosque del Apache National Wildlife       New Mexico
    Refuge

    Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge     Virginia

    Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge        Washington State

    Forest Service
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    American Fork Canyon-Alpine Loop          Utah
    Recreation Area, Uinta National Forest

    Mount St. Helens National Volcanic        Washington State
    Monument, Gifford Pinchot National
    Forest

    Roosevelt Lake, Salt and Verde Rivers     Arizona
    Recreation Complex, Tonto National
    Forest

    BLM
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Red Rock Canyon National Conservation     Nevada
    Area

    Yaquina Head Outstanding Natural Area     Oregon
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    We collected information on revenues, expenditures, and visitation
    from the headquarters offices of the four agencies and the 15 sites
    we visited.  For each agency's revenues and expenditures, we
    collected actual data for fiscal year 1997 and the agency's estimates
    for fiscal year 1998.  At each of the 15 sites, we collected more
    detailed information on revenues, such as the types of fees and the
    methods used to collect fees.  We also compared actual with planned
    expenditures and classified the expenditures, using the broad
    purposes authorized in the program's legislation.

    To determine the extent to which the agencies had adopted innovative
    or coordinated approaches to the fee program, we used the information
    we collected to accomplish our first two objectives.  Various agency
    officials, agency task forces, and officials from the industry and
    user groups we contacted provided comments and ideas on innovative or
    coordinated approaches available to the agencies--including
    identifying practices employed by the private sector.  To prepare for
    our review of the implementation of the demonstration program to
    date, we reviewed prior fee legislation, the program's authorizing
    legislation, and its legislative history.

    To determine what, if any, impact the fee demonstration program had
    on visitation, we attempted to compare data on visitation during the
    demonstration period with baseline information on visitation
    developed since 1993.  Since visitation at the Park Service's sites
    accounted for over three-fourths of total visitation among all fee
    demonstrations at the four agencies, we compared trends in visitation
    at their demonstration sites with nondemonstration sites for the
    1993-97 period.  To conduct this analysis, we obtained visitation
    data from the Park Service's Public Use Statistics Office.

    For each of the agencies, we collected anecdotal information on
    trends in visitation from officials at agency headquarters and at the
    sites we visited as well as officials from each of the affected
    industry and user groups we contacted.  We also contacted six experts
    who either had conducted surveys of visitors concerning the
    recreational fee demonstration program or had prior experience with
    recreational fees on federal lands.  These individuals were Dr.
    Deborah J.  Chavez, Research Social Scientist, Pacific Southwest
    Research Station, U.S.  Forest Service; Dr.  Sam H.  Ham, College of
    Forestry, Wildlife and Range Sciences, University of Idaho; Dr.
    David W.  Lime, Senior Research Associate, University of Minnesota,
    Department of Forest Resources; Dr.  Gary E.  Machlis, Visiting Chief
    Social Scientist, Park Service; Mr.  Jim Ridenour, Director, The
    Epply Institute for Parks and Public Lands, Department of Recreation
    and Park Administration, Indiana University, and former Director,
    National Park Service; and Dr.  Alan E.  Watson, Aldo Leopold
    Wilderness Research Institute, U.S.  Department of Agriculture and
    Department of Interior, Missoula, Montana.

    During our review, we contacted various industry and user groups that
    might be affected by the fee demonstration program.  We spoke with
    these groups to obtain their views on the agencies' management of the
    program.  We selected these groups because they (1) had participated
    in congressional hearings on the demonstration fee authority, (2) had
    been identified as affected parties by agency officials or officials
    from other industry or user groups, or (3) were widely known to be
    involved with recreation on federal lands.  Table 1.3 provides the
    names and a brief description of each group we contacted.

                                   Table 1.3

                     Industry and User Groups Contacted by
                                      GAO

    Name of group                             Description of group
    ----------------------------------------  ----------------------------
    American Recreation Coalition (ARC)       National federation of a
                                              variety of organizations,
                                              representing such
                                              recreational interests as
                                              canoeing, camping, skiing,
                                              boating, and bicycling

    America Outdoors                          Association of outfitters
                                              and guides

    National Forest Recreation Association    Trade association of private
                                              recreational providers
                                              (e.g., marinas, campgrounds,
                                              ski areas) that operate on
                                              federal lands

    National Parks Hospitality Association    Association of large
                                              concessioners that operate
                                              lodging and food service
                                              businesses, mostly in
                                              national parks

    National Parks and Conservation           National nonprofit park
    Association                               advocacy organization

    Northwest Interpretive Association        Nonprofit organization
                                              providing publications,
                                              interpretive exhibits, and
                                              educational programs to
                                              visitors in four
                                              northwestern states and
                                              California

    Outward Bound USA                         Nonprofit outfitter and
                                              guide organization operating
                                              in 25 states and escorting
                                              over 30,000 people annually
                                              onto federal recreation
                                              lands

    The Mountaineers                          Nonprofit outdoor recreation
                                              and conservation club

    Washington Trails Association             Nonprofit organization
                                              providing educational and
                                              informational programs to
                                              preserve and enhance
                                              Washington State's trail
                                              system
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    In addition to contacting these industry and user groups, we reviewed
    the testimonies of several other affected groups that participated in
    congressional hearings on the fee demonstration program.  These
    included industry groups, such as Kampgrounds of America, the Outdoor
    Recreation Coalition of America, and the National Tour Association,
    and user groups, such as the American Hiking Society, the American
    Motorcyclist Association, and the Grand Canyon Private Boaters
    Association.

    We did not independently verify the reliability of the financial or
    visitation data provided, nor did we trace the data to the systems
    from which they came.  In some cases, data were not available at
    headquarters and could be collected only at the local site.

    We conducted our review from September 1997 through November 1998 in
    accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

    FEE REVENUES HAVE SUBSTANTIALLY
    INCREASED-- PARTICULARLY IN THE
    PARK SERVICE
    ============================================================ Chapter 2

    Among the four agencies, the pace and the approach used to implement
    the recreational fee demonstration program have differed.  Some of
    the agencies had more demonstration sites operational earlier than
    others.  This difference is a result of the agencies' experiences in
    charging fees prior to the demonstration.  Nonetheless, there have
    been substantial increases in the amount of fees collected.  Each
    agency estimated that it has generated at least 70 percent more in
    fee revenues than it did prior to the demonstration program, and the
    combined estimated revenues for the four agencies have nearly doubled
    since fiscal year 1996.  According to estimates for fiscal year 1998,
    the Park Service has collected the most revenues under the program,
    generating about 85 percent of all the revenues collected at
    demonstration sites by the four agencies.

       THE PACE AND THE APPROACH USED
       TO IMPLEMENT THE FEE
       DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM HAVE
       DIFFERED
    ---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:1

    Since getting the authority to begin testing the collection of new
    and increased fees, each of the agencies has taken different
    approaches.  The agencies' approaches have largely been influenced by
    (1) their respective traditions and experiences in collecting fees,
    (2) the geographic characteristics of the lands they manage, and (3)
    a recent amendment to the law authorizing the demonstration program
    that increased incentives to the agencies.  As a result of these
    differing approaches, the pace of implementation among the agencies
    has varied.

    Fees are not new to the four agencies in the demonstration program.
    Prior to the program, each of the agencies collected fees from
    visitors at recreation areas.  However, the agencies' experiences
    with fees have differed.  For example, prior to the demonstration,
    the Park Service collected entrance fees at about one-third of its
    park units.  The Forest Service and BLM collected user fees at many
    of their more developed recreation areas--predominantly for
    camping--and the Fish and Wildlife Service charged a mix of entrance
    and user fees at about 65 of its sites.

    Not only did their past experiences with fees differ, but the
    geographical characteristics of the lands they were managing also
    were different, making fee collection easier in some areas and more
    difficult in others.  For example, many sites in the Park Service
    have only a few roads that provide access to them.  With limited
    access, collecting fees at an entrance station is very practical.  In
    contrast, many Forest Service, BLM, and Fish and Wildlife Service
    sites have multiple roads accessing areas they manage.  Multiple
    roads make it difficult for an agency to control access to an area,
    thus making it difficult to charge entrance fees.  As a result, most
    Forest Service, BLM, and Fish and Wildlife Service sites have not
    charged entrance fees but instead charged user fees for specific
    activities.

    Figures 2.1 and 2.2 further illustrate the varying characteristics of
    federal lands.  As an example, figure 2.1 shows the relatively few
    access points to Arches National Park in Utah.  This park has only
    one paved road going in and out of the park.  In comparison, figure
    2.2 shows the multiple access points that exist along the many roads
    that go through the White Mountain National Forest in New Hampshire
    and Maine.

       Figure 2.1:  Map of Arches
       National Park in Utah

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Figure 2.2:  Map of White
       Mountain National Forest in New
       Hampshire and Maine

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    Many of the traditions in collecting fees have influenced the
    agencies in both their pace of implementation and the types of fees
    they charge.  Because many sites in the Park Service previously
    charged entrance fees, the agency was quickly able to bring a large
    number of sites into the demonstration program by increasing the
    entrance fees that existed prior to the demonstration.  For the Park
    Service, of the 96 demonstration sites\1

    in the first year of the program,\2 57 of them increased existing
    entrance fees.\3

    According to officials in several of the agencies, it is generally
    easier for the agencies to increase existing fees than to implement
    new fees because (1) the fee-collection infrastructure is already in
    place and (2) the public is already accustomed to paying a fee.

    The three other agencies were collecting predominantly new fees at
    their demonstration sites during fiscal year 1997, the first year of
    the program, including all 10 of BLM's sites, 29 of 39 Forest Service
    sites, and 35 of 61 Fish and Wildlife Service sites.  Compared with
    increases in existing fees, new fees are generally more difficult to
    implement because the agencies need to (1) develop an infrastructure
    for collecting fees and (2) inform the public and gain acceptance for
    the new fees.  This infrastructure could include new facilities; new
    signs; new collection equipment, such as cash registers and safes;
    and new processes, such as implementing internal control standards
    for handling cash.  Figures 2.3 and 2.4 show examples of new
    facilities that were constructed or put in place during the
    demonstration period to collect new fees.

       Figure 2.3:  New Entrance
       Station Under Construction at
       Red Rock Canyon--a BLM
       Demonstration Site in Nevada

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Figure 2.4:  New Fee Receptacle
       and Signs Installed for New
       Self-Service Fee at Tonto
       National Forest in Arizona

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    Through the first half of fiscal year 1998--that is, as of March 31,
    1998--each of the four agencies added sites to the program.  Through
    March 1998, the four agencies had 284 sites in the program, compared
    with 206 sites through fiscal year 1997.  The Park Service added 4
    sites through March 1998 and has a total of 100 sites in the
    program--the maximum allowed by law.  Each of the other three
    agencies has added sites to the program, with the majority of new
    sites coming from BLM--the agency that had the fewest sites in fiscal
    year 1997.  For the second half of fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year
    1999, the Forest Service plans to add as many as 38 to 45 sites to
    the program.  Officials from BLM indicated they plan to add 15 to 20
    sites to the program.  The Fish and Wildlife Service has added six
    sites during the last half of fiscal year 1998 but does not plan to
    add any further sites unless the demonstration program is extended
    beyond fiscal year 1999.  Table 2.1 lists the number of fee
    demonstration sites, by agency, for fiscal year 1997 and through the
    first half of fiscal year 1998.

                                   Table 2.1

                    Fee Demonstration Sites, by Agency, for
                     Fiscal Year 1997 and Fiscal Year 1998
                             Through March 31, 1998

    Agency                             FY 1997       FY 1998         Total
    ----------------------------  ------------  ------------  ------------
    Park Service                            96             4           100
    Fish and Wildlife Service               61            10            71
    Bureau of Land Management               10            53            63
    Forest Service                          39            11            50
    ======================================================================
    Total                                  206            78           284
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Source:  Data provided by the four agencies.

    An amendment to the law authorizing the demonstration program was one
    of the factors contributing to the addition of sites to the program.
    The law originally authorized each agency to retain the fee revenues
    that exceeded the revenues generated prior to the demonstration.  As
    a result, the agencies could only retain the portion of the fee
    revenues that were in addition to existing fees.  In November 1997,
    the law was amended to permit the agencies to retain all fee revenues
    generated by demonstration sites.  This amendment created additional
    incentives for agencies to add existing fee sites to the program
    because the agency could retain all of the fee revenues generated at
    the site.

    --------------------
    \1 For several of the agencies, a "demonstration site" may be made up
    of more than one field unit.  For example, Mesa Verde National Park
    and Hovenweep National Monument are two separate units of the Park
    Service, but the agency considers them together to be one
    demonstration site.  Similarly, the Forest Service considers the fee
    program operating in four national forests in southern California to
    be one demonstration site.

    \2 We refer to fiscal year 1997 as the first year of the
    demonstration program because the overwhelming majority of sites did
    not become operational until after fiscal year 1996.  However, late
    in fiscal year 1996, four Forest Service fee demonstration sites did
    become operational and started charging fees, bringing in a total of
    about $20,000 in revenues for that year.

    \3 The Golden Eagle Passport is sold by all four of the agencies in
    the demonstration program.  However, for reporting purposes, the Park
    Service and Forest Service each consider sales of Golden Eagle
    Passports in parks and forests as a separate demonstration "site."

       RECREATIONAL FEE REVENUES HAVE
       INCREASED SUBSTANTIALLY
    ---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:2

    While the approach and pace of implementation have varied, the four
    agencies have each been successful in raising substantial new
    revenues through the fee demonstration program.  Before the program
    was authorized, each of the agencies collected fees at many
    recreation sites.  But since the implementation of the program, each
    of the agencies has estimated that it has increased its fee
    collections by more than 70 percent above fiscal year 1996
    levels--the last year before the program began.  On the basis of
    estimates for fiscal year 1998, the Park Service has brought in
    significantly more in fee revenues than the other agencies.  The
    estimated revenues of the Park Service account for about 85 percent
    of the revenues generated by the four agencies at demonstration
    sites.

    As shown in figure 2.5, as a result of the demonstration program, the
    four agencies have nearly doubled total combined fee collections
    since fiscal year 1996, according to the agencies' estimates.  In
    addition, each of the four agencies estimated that their fees
    increased under the demonstration by over 70 percent above fiscal
    year 1996 levels.  Revenues under the fee demonstration program have
    come from a mix of new fees and increases to fees that existed before
    the program was authorized.

       Figure 2.5:  Total Fee Revenues
       for the Four Agencies, Fiscal
       Years 1996-98

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    Source:  Data provided by the four agencies.

    In fiscal year 1996, the last year before the demonstration program
    was implemented, the four agencies collected a total of about $93.3
    million in fees from visitors.  In fiscal year 1997, the four
    agencies generated a total of about $144.6 million in fee revenues,
    of which about $123.8 million was attributed to fees at demonstration
    sites.  For fiscal year 1998, the agencies estimate that total fee
    revenues will increase to about $179.3 million, with about $159.8
    million in revenues from demonstration sites.  (App.  I contains
    information on each agency's gross fee revenues for fiscal years 1996
    through 1998.) Three of the four agencies have not developed formal
    estimates for fiscal year 1999.  The one agency with fiscal year 1999
    estimates--the Park Service--predicts only modest increases in
    revenues since the agency has already implemented the maximum number
    of demonstration sites authorized under the program.  However,
    officials at each of the other three agencies estimated that as more
    sites become part of the demonstration program, revenues will
    increase.

    Each agency collected fees prior to the demonstration program, and as
    sites with existing fees were converted to demonstration sites, much
    of the agencies' fee revenues have now been included in the
    demonstration.  As a result, much of the demonstration fee revenues
    collected in fiscal year 1997 and beyond come from sites where fees
    were collected prior to the demonstration.\4

    Of the four agencies, the Park Service has generated about 85 percent
    of the $159.8 million in total estimated fee demonstration revenues
    for fiscal year 1998.  The agency with the second largest revenues is
    the Forest Service, which estimated that it generated about 11
    percent of the total fee demonstration revenues.  The relative size
    of each agency's revenues compared with the total revenues of the
    four-agency program is depicted in figure 2.6.

       Figure 2.6:  Percentage of
       Total Fiscal Year 1998
       Estimated Revenues for the Fee
       Demonstration Program, by Each
       Agency

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    Source:  Data provided by the four agencies.

    The substantially higher revenues of the Park Service are mostly due
    to the agency's large number of high-revenue sites.  For fiscal year
    1997, 28 Park Service sites each generated more than $1 million in
    fee revenues, and 2 of these sites--the Grand Canyon and Yosemite
    National Parks--each generated more than $10 million.  Nearly all of
    these 28 sites attract high numbers of visitors and had histories of
    charging entrance fees prior to the demonstration program.  In
    addition to the high-revenue sites of the Park Service, the Forest
    Service has two sites with revenues above $1 million.  In contrast,
    in fiscal year 1997, the Fish and Wildlife Service and BLM did not
    have any sites with revenues above $1 million.

    --------------------
    \4 Some fees continue to be collected outside of the demonstration
    program--about half at Park Service sites that were not included in
    the 100 sites authorized under the demonstration program.

    SPENDING HAS BEEN LIMITED, BUT
    THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT
    OPPORTUNITIES FOR ADDRESSING NEEDS
    ============================================================ Chapter 3

    During the first year and a half of the recreational fee
    demonstration program, overall expenditures at individual
    demonstration sites have been limited in comparison to revenues
    collected.  So far, only about 24 percent of the revenues collected
    has been expended.  Most of the expenditures have gone toward repair
    and maintenance, the costs of collection, and routine operations at
    the respective sites.  At the sites we visited, we found that the
    agencies' expenditures appeared to be consistent with the purposes
    authorized in the legislation establishing the program.  The amount
    of collections varied considerably among the agencies and the
    individual sites within each agency, more than doubling operating
    budgets at some sites, while providing little revenue at others.  As
    a result, assuming appropriations remain stable and that the program
    is extended beyond fiscal year 1999, many sites in the program will,
    in time, have sufficient revenues to address all of their
    needs--regardless of their relative priority within the agency.  At
    the same time, other sites within an agency may not have enough to
    meet their most critical needs.  Over the long term, this condition
    raises questions about the appropriateness of the high-revenue sites
    retaining 80 percent or more of their revenues as currently required
    by law.

       THE AGENCIES HAVE USED ONLY 24
       PERCENT OF THE FUNDS AVAILABLE
    ---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:1

    The four agencies have spent about 24 percent of the revenues
    available under the fee demonstration program through March 1998.
    Under the program's original authority, not all of the revenues
    generated during fiscal year 1997 were available for expenditure.\1
    As a result, of the $123.8 million generated at demonstration sites
    in fiscal year 1997, $55 million was available to the agencies.  For
    fiscal year 1998, the Congress amended the law authorizing the
    program to permit the agencies to retain all of the fee revenues
    generated under the program.  As a result, the agencies have the full
    amount of the fee revenues generated at their demonstration sites in
    fiscal year 1998 available for expenditure.  Through the first half
    of fiscal year 1998, the four agencies had generated about $36
    million in fee revenues.  Thus, the total amount available to the
    agencies for expenditure under the demonstration program through
    March 1998 was about $91 million.

    On a national basis, the four agencies estimated that of the $91
    million available for expenditure through March 1998, about $22
    million had been spent.  Under the demonstration program's current
    authorization, the participating agencies have until the end of
    fiscal year 2004 to spend the revenues raised by the program.  Table
    3.1 provides information comparing the fee revenues available for
    expenditure with actual expenditures through March 1998 for each of
    the four agencies.

                                   Table 3.1

                     Fee Revenues Available for Expenditure
                        and Actual Expenditures for Four
                    Agencies, From October 1, 1996, Through
                                 March 31, 1998

                             (Dollars in thousands)

                                  Fee revenues
                                     available
                                           for
                                   expenditure  Expenditures    Percentage
                                    through 3/    through 3/   of revenues
    Agency                               31/98         31/98      expended
    ----------------------------  ------------  ------------  ------------
    Park Service                       $75,173       $12,806            17
    Forest Service                      12,999         7,763            60
    Fish and Wildlife Service            2,019           501            25
    BLM                                  1,021           572            56
    ======================================================================
    Total                              $91,212       $21,643            24
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Note:  We asked all four agencies to update their data through the
    end of the second quarter of fiscal 1998 to provide enough lead time
    for their assembly of the data and our analysis of it.  Some numbers
    for fiscal 1997 were also updated in the process.

    Source:  GAO's presentation of data from the four agencies.

    According to the managers in the participating agencies, the reasons
    that only 24 percent of the revenues available have been spent
    included (1) the approval of the authorizing legislation occurring in
    mid fiscal year 1996, (2) the delays in setting up accounting systems
    to track collections and return the funds to the sites, (3) the time
    needed to set up internal processes for headquarters' approval of
    site expenditure plans, (4) the time needed to plan and implement
    expenditure projects, (5) the need to use funds during fair weather
    construction seasons, and (6) the fiscal year 1997 requirement for
    expenditures to exceed the base year amount before funds could be
    spent on the collecting site.

    --------------------
    \1 As discussed in chapter 1, the original authorization required
    that the amount of recreational fees collected before the
    demonstration program--known as the base year amount--be subtracted
    from the demonstration program collections in fiscal year 1997 and
    deposited into the Treasury, to be made available through
    appropriations.

       MOST EXPENDITURES HAVE BEEN FOR
       REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE, THE
       COST OF FEE COLLECTION, AND
       OPERATIONS
    ---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:2

    The legislation authorizing the fee demonstration program permits the
    agencies to fund a broad array of activities from fee revenues,
    including the cost of fee collection,\2 health and safety items,
    interpretation and signage, habitat enhancement, facility
    enhancement, resource preservation, annual operations,\3 and law
    enforcement.  The legislative history of the program further
    emphasized that fees were to be a new source of revenues to address
    backlogged repairs and maintenance.  The law also states that at the
    discretion of agency heads, 20 percent of the fee revenues may be set
    aside for agencywide use for the same purposes.

    Of the $21.6 million in expenditures by the four participating
    agencies as of March 31, 1998, most have been for repairs and
    maintenance, the cost of collection, and operations.\4 Figure 3.1
    displays the relative size of three agencies' expenditures by the
    categories authorized by the program's legislation.

       Figure 3.1:  Combined
       Categories of Expenditure at
       the Park Service, the Forest
       Service, and the Fish and
       Wildlife Service as of March
       31, 1998

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    Notes:  Percentages do not add to 100 because of rounding.  BLM had
    no national breakdown of its expenditures as of March 31, 1998,
    available.

    Source:  GAO's presentation of the three agencies' data.

    As of March 31, 1998, the Park Service's actual expenditures were
    mainly for the costs of repairs and maintenance, the cost of fee
    collection, resource preservation, and annual operations.
    Expenditures at the Forest Service's demonstration sites were
    predominantly for annual operations, the cost of fee collection,
    repairs and maintenance, and interpretation.  At the Fish and
    Wildlife Service's sites, the cost of collection, repairs and
    maintenance, health and safety, and facility enhancement were the top
    expenditure categories.  BLM did not have a national breakdown
    available.

    At the sites we visited, we found that the agencies' expenditures
    appeared to be consistent with the purposes authorized in the
    legislation establishing the program.  The top expenditures among the
    15 sites visited were for the cost of fee collection, followed by
    annual operations and repairs and maintenance.  Agency officials said
    that cost of fee collection is among the top categories of
    expenditure because of the necessary start-up costs for the
    demonstration program.  The program's authorization allows the
    agencies to spend their revenues on the actual cost of collection
    rather than funding the activity from other sources, such as
    appropriated funds.  Since few expenditures had been made overall as
    of March 31, 1998, agency officials said the cost of collection makes
    up a disproportionately large part of the actual expenditures through
    that date.

    Each of the four agencies has developed its own approach for using
    the fees collected through the demonstration program.  Each has
    exercised a different amount of direction and oversight over its
    demonstration sites' expenditures.  As a result, the agencies'
    priorities and criteria for spending the fee revenues, their
    decisions on spending the 20 percent of the revenues not required to
    remain with the collecting sites, and their procedures for approving
    projects funded with fee revenues vary considerably.

    The following sections provide information about each agency's
    overall expenditures.  More detailed information on each agency's
    expenditures for legislatively authorized purposes at the sites we
    visited appears in appendixes II through V.

    --------------------
    \2 The cost of collection consists of (1) operating expenses, such as
    salaries and benefits, utilities, vehicles, training, security
    equipment and services, communications, maintenance of collection
    equipment and facilities, and contracted services, such as banks and
    armored cars; and (2) capital costs, such as the construction of
    fee-collection facilities.

    \3 The cost of keeping recreation facilities open.

    \4 This is based on breakdowns available from the headquarters of
    each agency, with the exception of BLM, which had no breakdown of
    $572,034 in total expenditures as of that date.

          PARK SERVICE EMPHASIZES
          REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE
          EXPENDITURES
    -------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:2.1

    The Park Service has developed the most detailed criteria for
    spending fee revenues.  After using the fees to cover the cost of
    their collection, the Park Service has given the highest priority to
    reducing its repair and maintenance backlog.  The Park Service has
    required both headquarters and regional reviews of the demonstration
    site managers' expenditure proposals.  In addition, an Interior
    Department-level work group, including Park Service representatives,
    was commissioned by the Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management,
    and Budget to review the proposals.  The Park Service's headquarters
    had intended to have regional offices approve the expenditure of fee
    demonstration funds but found, after reviewing region-approved
    projects, that some did not meet the established criteria.\5

    The Park Service is addressing its spending priorities with both the
    80 percent of the fee revenues that stay at the collecting sites and
    with the 20 percent of the funds that are put into an agencywide
    account for distribution primarily to nondemonstration sites.  The
    Park Service spent $12.8 million on projects at its demonstration
    sites through March 31, 1998.  This amounts to about 17 percent of
    its $75.2 million in fee revenues available for park use through that
    date.  Park Service officials said that the amount of funds expended
    was small because the amendment to the authorizing legislation in
    November 1997 made significantly more revenues available to the
    agencies for expenditure than they had expected to be allowed to
    spend.  Furthermore, the Park Service recreational fee program
    coordinator and the Park Service comptroller's staff reported that
    because accounts and allocation procedures took time to establish,
    the first release of funds to the collecting sites for expenditure
    came in mid fiscal year 1997.  Another factor affecting the start-up
    of the Park Service's expenditures under the demonstration has been
    the time needed for the extensive reviews of proposed projects.  On a
    national basis, the Park Service's demonstration sites' expenditures
    were in the categories displayed in figure 3.2.

       Figure 3.2:  Categories of
       Actual Expenditures by the Park
       Service's Demonstration Program
       Sites Through March 31, 1998

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    Note:  Percentages do not add to 100 because of rounding.

    Source:  Park Service headquarters' data.

    --------------------
    \5 According to the Park Service's criteria, projects should meet the
    agency's most critical needs, as determined through reliable
    inventories and assessments of conditions.  In addition, projects may
    provide services for visitors or recreational activities in areas
    where new fees have been charged.  Visitors should be able to see and
    appreciate the benefits of projects; fee revenues can be used to
    provide the infrastructure for collecting fees but cannot be used for
    existing or to hire permanent park staff (other than fee collectors),
    for administrative facilities, or for housing.

          FOREST SERVICE'S
          EXPENDITURES FOCUS ON
          OPERATIONS, COST OF
          COLLECTION, AND REPAIRS AND
          MAINTENANCE
    -------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:2.2

    The Forest Service permits demonstration sites to retain 95 percent
    of their fee collections and to use them as allowed by the program's
    authorizing legislation--with the remaining 5 percent to be spent at
    the discretion of each site's regional office.  Accordingly, the
    Forest Service has instructed their demonstration sites to use their
    fee revenues for any of the broad purposes set forth in the
    legislation.  At the same time, the agency has emphasized the need to
    use the revenues in ways that visibly benefit visitors.

    Forest Service headquarters officials said the determination of the
    program's expenditures is driven by the project managers at the
    demonstration sites.  The ranger districts and forests involved
    develop lists of projects and set priorities among them.  The fee
    demonstration sites have typically sought public input on what
    projects should be done, along with meeting other requirements.\6

    The Forest Service began to use the funds raised by the recreational
    fees at 40 demonstration sites in fiscal year 1997 to address the
    deferred maintenance backlog, visitor services, and maintenance
    enhancements.  Of the $13 million in demonstration fee revenues
    through March 31, 1998, the demonstration sites have expended $7.8
    million, or about 60 percent, according to data collected by Forest
    Service headquarters recreation staff.  Headquarters officials noted
    that in fiscal year 1997, most sites had not been able to spend all
    the revenues they collected because fee collection started in the
    middle of the fiscal year, time was needed to make the fee deposits
    available to the sites for expenditure, and time was needed to plan
    and contract for the projects to be funded with fee revenues.

    On a national basis, as of March 31, 1998, the Forest Service's
    demonstration sites have expended the greatest amount of fee revenues
    in the following categories:  operations, the cost of fee collection,
    repairs and maintenance, and interpretation and signage (see fig.
    3.3).  Details on the expenditures at the Forest Service's sites we
    visited are in appendix III.

       Figure 3.3:  Categories of
       Actual Expenditures by the
       Forest Service's Demonstration
       Program Sites Through March 31,
       1998

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    Source:  Forest Service data.

    --------------------
    \6 Each of the Forest Service's demonstration sites selected had to
    meet the following minimum requirements before implementing fees:
    completion of a local communication plan, an initial assessment of
    the community's position toward the proposed fees, and a business
    plan framework--all approved at the Washington office; identification
    of the site, county, state, and congressional district; and
    establishment of a Treasury account to receive and disburse
    collections.

          THE FISH AND WILDLIFE
          SERVICE'S EXPENDITURES
          EMPHASIZE COST OF COLLECTION
    -------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:2.3

    The Fish and Wildlife Service decided to allow its demonstration
    sites to use their fee revenues to maintain or improve recreation
    opportunities and enhance visitors' experiences.  Fish and Wildlife
    Service headquarters reviews the demonstration sites' expenditure of
    the funds after the fact, using the agency's overall criteria and
    specific guidance.\7

    The Fish and Wildlife Service has allowed its regional directors to
    determine where to use the 20 percent of the fee revenues that does
    not have to be spent at the collecting sites.  This has resulted in
    collecting sites in four of the Fish and Wildlife Service's seven
    regions being permitted to retain all of the fee revenues they
    generate.  Directors of the three other regions\8 have decided to
    require that 20 percent of the fee revenues from their demonstration
    sites be submitted to a central account for use as seed money to
    initiate fee programs at other sites, for improvements to visitor
    services, or for backlogged maintenance projects at other sites in
    the region.

    In the first year and a half of the program, the Fish and Wildlife
    Service's demonstration sites have spent about one-quarter of the fee
    revenues they generated.  Of the $2 million in fee revenues through
    March 31, 1998, the demonstration sites had expended $500,949, or 25
    percent, according to data provided by Fish and Wildlife Service
    headquarters staff.

    According to the Fish and Wildlife Service, of the $500,949 spent
    nationally on projects during the first year and a half of the
    program, 71 percent was for the cost of collection, including
    start-up costs, with the remainder spent on repairs and maintenance,
    health and safety, facility enhancement, and interpretation projects
    (see fig.  3.4).  Details on expenditures at the Fish and Wildlife
    Service sites we visited are included in appendix IV of this report.

       Figure 3.4:  Categories of
       Actual Expenditures by the Fish
       and Wildlife Service's
       Demonstration Program Sites
       Through March 31, 1998

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    Source:  Fish and Wildlife Service data.

    --------------------
    \7 The Fish and Wildlife Service's guidance states that the fees
    collected are to be used (1) to defray the cost of collection, (2)
    for the operation and maintenance of the collecting unit, and (3) for
    the operation and maintenance of all units.  The agency prohibited
    the use of fees for a site's base salaries and directed that fees are
    to be used primarily to improve the visitor's experience for which a
    fee has been paid.  Backlogged repair and maintenance projects may be
    funded, with priority given to projects related to visitor services.

    \8 These are Region 2 (Southwest), Region 4 (Southeast), and Region 5
    (Northeast).

          BREAKDOWN OF BLM
          EXPENDITURES NOT AVAILABLE
    -------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:2.4

    BLM headquarters decided to allow demonstration sites to spend funds
    for any of the purposes in the authorizing legislation and permitted
    the following uses for the demonstration funds:  operations,
    maintenance, and improvements and interpretation to enhance
    recreational opportunities and visitors' experiences.

    Site managers and their state offices decide on expenditures but are
    required to report the expenditures to the public and headquarters
    after each fiscal year.  BLM headquarters decided to allow 100
    percent of the revenues to be retained at the collecting sites,
    rather than requiring 20 percent of it to be submitted to a central
    fund for distribution.

    BLM's demonstration sites have expended $572,034, or 56 percent, of
    the $1.0 million in fee revenues they collected through March 31,
    1998, according to data provided by BLM headquarters staff.
    According to BLM headquarters staff, no breakdown by category of the
    actual expenditures as of March 31, 1998, was available for all of
    the agency's sites.  BLM's fee demonstration program has expanded
    significantly in fiscal year 1998, from 10 active sites in fiscal
    year 1997 to a total of 63 approved sites as of March 31.  Not all 53
    new sites had begun collections or expenditures as of March 31,
    however.

    Details on expenditures at the BLM sites we visited are in appendix
    V.

       EXPENDITURES MAY NOT REFLECT
       AGENCIES' GREATEST NEEDS
    ---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:3

    For many sites in the demonstration program--particularly the Park
    Service's sites--the increased fee revenues equal 20 percent or more
    of the sites' annual operating budgets.  For the purposes of this
    report, we refer to these sites as high-revenue sites.\9 At sites
    with backlogs of needs for maintenance, resource preservation and
    protection, and visitor services, this level of additional revenues
    will be sufficient to eliminate the backlogs over several
    years--assuming the program is extended and that existing
    appropriations remain stable.  And, at sites with small or no
    backlogs, the additional revenues will support further site
    development and enhancement.  However, the agencies selected
    demonstration sites not necessarily because of their extent of unmet
    needs for repairs, maintenance, or resource preservation, but rather
    because of their potential to generate fee revenues.  At sites
    outside the demonstration program or sites that do not collect much
    fee revenues, the backlog of needs may remain or further development
    of the site may not occur.  As a result, some of the agencies'
    highest-priority needs may not be addressed.  This potential for
    inequity among sites raises questions about the desirability of the
    current legislative requirement that at least 80 percent of the fee
    revenues be expended at the collecting site.

    --------------------
    \9 We used increases in revenues equal to 20 percent or more of
    sites' annual operating budgets to identify sites as high revenue
    because in prior work on the condition of recreation sites, we were
    told by site managers that small increments in their discretionary
    funds (those paying for needs other than salaries and expenses) have
    a very significant impact in addressing their critical needs.

          MANY PARK SERVICE SITES
          GENERATE HIGH REVENUES
    -------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:3.1

    Under the recreational fee demonstration program, 44 park units
    included in the Park Service's 100 demonstration sites retained fees
    that exceeded 20 percent of their annual operating budgets in fiscal
    year 1998.  Of these 44 sites, 13 retained fees exceeding 50 percent
    of their annual operating budgets, and 4 retained fees equaling or
    exceeding their operating budgets.  For example, Arches National Park
    expects to supplement its fiscal year 1998 operating budget of $0.9
    million with fees of $1.4 million--an effective increase of 160
    percent in funds available on site.  Castillo de San Marcos National
    Monument is expected to retain $1.3 million in fees, which is 110
    percent of its operating budget of $1.2 million.  Bryce Canyon
    National Park expected to retain $2.3 million in fees, which is 110
    percent of its operating budget.  Such substantial increases in the
    financial resources available to these sites should improve their
    ability to address their outstanding needs.  Table 3.2 provides data
    on the fees retained by the 44 parks.\10

                                   Table 3.2

                     The Park Service's Demonstration Sites
                    Retaining Fiscal Year 1998 Fee Revenues
                       That Exceeded 20 Percent of Their
                               Operating Budgets

                             (Dollars in thousands)

                                   Fiscal year
                                          1998
                                     estimated
                                      revenues   Fiscal year    Percentage
                                     available  1998 enacted   of revenues
                                      for park     operating      compared
    Park                                 use\a      budget\b   with budget
    ----------------------------  ------------  ------------  ------------
    Muir Woods NM\c                     $1,405          $323          435%
    Arches NP\c                          1,372           858           160
    Castillo de San Marcos NM            1,285         1,165           110
    Bryce Canyon NP                      2,339         2,133           110
    Zion NP                              4,460         4,481           100
    Grand Canyon NP                     15,444        16,212            95
    Yosemite NP                         14,518        19,169            76
    Devils Tower NM                        492           675            73
    Timpanogos Cave NM                     318           524            61
    Haleakala NP                         1,737         2,983            58
    Hawaii Volcanoes NP                  2,092         3,971            53
    Cabrillo NM                            603         1,148            53
    Carlsbad Caverns NP                  2,172         4,235            51
    Grand Teton NP                       3,596         7,343            49
    White Sands NM                         492         1,014            49
    Badlands NP                          1,021         2,198            47
    Rocky Mountain NP                    3,526         8,065            44
    Joshua Tree NP                       1,349         3,283            41
    Great Sand Dunes NM                    361           881            41
    Acadia NP                            1,537         3,772            41
    Bandelier NM                           786         1,970            40
    Petrified Forest NP                    945         2,370            40
    Little Bighorn Battlefield             272           692            39
     NM
    Glacier Bay NP and Preserve            880         2,408            37
    Black Canyon of the Gunnison           240           663            36
     NM\c
    Perry's Victory and                    216           663            33
     International Peace
     Memorial
    Jefferson National Expansion         1,860         5,722            33
     Memorial
    Shenandoah NP                        2,886         8,929            32
    Home of Franklin D.                    457         1,430            32
     Roosevelt NHS\c
    Canaveral NS                           600         1,943            31
    Mammoth Cave NP                      1,362         4,459            31
    Natural Bridges NM\c                   105           353            30
    Wupatki, Sunset Crater, and            496         1,684            30
     Walnut Canyon\c
    Padre Island NS                        633         2,369            27
    Mesa Verde NP                          998         3,769            27
    Yellowstone NP                       5,473        22,421            24
    Death Valley NP                      1,226         5,337            23
    Glacier NP                           1,910         8,486            23
    Aztec Ruins NM                         121           539            22
    Mount Rainier NP                     1,815         8,146            22
    Sequoia NP and Kings Canyon          2,322        10,458            22
     NP
    Crater Lake NP                         758         3,495            22
    Sleeping Bear Dunes NL                 564         2,722            21
    Lassen Volcanic NP                     625         3,039            21
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Legend

    NHS = National Historic Site
    NL = National Lakeshore
    NM = National Monument
    NP = National Park
    NS = National Seashore

    \a The Park Service's estimates for fiscal year 1998 are based on 80
    percent of park revenues and 50 percent of the Golden Eagle revenues
    at each park.

    \b The operating budget of the Park Service, known as ONPS, includes
    the annual amount allocated to a site for its basic operations and
    programs.

    \c This park is part of a group of jointly managed parks or a
    multiple unit demonstration project.

    Source:  Park Service data.

    Of the seven Park Service sites we visited during our review,
    four--Zion National Park, Timpanogos Cave National Monument, Carlsbad
    Caverns National Park, and Shenandoah National Park--were among those
    with fee revenues exceeding 20 percent of their operating budgets.
    Except for Timpanogos Cave, each of these sites had a list of
    backlogged repair and maintenance needs to be addressed.  Managers at
    each of the three sites told us that the additional fee revenues
    would allow them to address these needs in a relatively short time.

    For example, Zion National Park officials told us that the park
    expected to receive so much new fee revenue in fiscal year
    1998--about $4.5 million, a doubling of its operating budget--that
    they might have difficulty preparing and implementing enough projects
    to use the available funds if a major new $20 million alternative
    transportation system was not begun in the park.  Without this major
    project, they probably would not be able to spend all of the money
    available to them in ways that were consistent with the demonstration
    program's objectives, they said.  The new transportation system is
    being initiated to eliminate car traffic from the most popular area
    of the park.

    Similarly, managers at Shenandoah National Park told us that the fee
    demonstration program revenues they expect to receive will be very
    useful in addressing unmet needs.  The revenues expected in fiscal
    year 1998 of $2.9 million is equal to about 32 percent of the park's
    operating budget.  If the park continues to receive this level of fee
    revenues, the park superintendent said it should be able to eliminate
    its estimated $15 million repair and maintenance backlog in
    relatively few years.

    Unlike Zion and Shenandoah, Timpanogos Cave National Monument in Utah
    is a smaller park and does not have a backlog of repair and
    maintenance needs.  According to managers, appropriated funds have
    been sufficient to keep up with the monument's repairs and
    maintenance.  Consequently, the managers plan to use the fee revenues
    they retain--$318,000 in fiscal year 1998, or about 61 percent of the
    monument's annual operating budget--to enhance visitor services, such
    as by providing more cave tours.

    Park Service and Interior officials have recognized that certain
    sites with high fee revenues and small or nonexistent backlogs of
    needs will have difficulty spending their new revenues for projects
    that meet the demonstration program's criteria.  For example, the
    Comptroller of the Park Service said that some sites would run out of
    backlogged repair and maintenance needs to address with their fee
    revenues.  In his view, an exemption from the requirement to retain
    80 percent of the collected fees at the collecting sites and the
    authority to transfer more than 20 percent to a central fund for
    distribution to other sites would be among the options to consider.
    In addition, the Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Policy,
    Management, and Budget has testified that setting aside some of the
    fee revenues for broader agency priorities is important and has
    cautioned that permanent legislation giving collecting sites a high
    percentage of the revenues could "create undesirable inequities"
    within an agency.  Similarly, some managers at higher-revenue sites
    we visited supported more flexibility in splitting revenues between
    high-revenue sites and other locations that have little or no fee
    revenues or that have large maintenance needs or both.

    Some sites participating in the demonstration program and many
    nonparticipating sites have repair and maintenance backlogs or health
    and safety needs but little or no fee revenues to address them.
    Under the demonstration program's current 80-20 percent split of the
    revenues, the Park Service's park units will stand to receive very
    uneven shares of the program's $136 million in estimated fee revenues
    for fiscal year 1998:  Of the 100 fee-collecting sites (which
    actually includes 116 park units), the top 44 units in terms of
    revenues are expected to retain $93 million, or 68 percent of the
    total, while the remaining collecting sites are expected to retain
    $13 million, or 10 percent of the total, leaving $30 million, or 22
    percent of the total,\11 for 260 nonparticipating sites.  These sites
    include heavily visited locations like the Statue of Liberty National
    Monument in New York and some of the less visited sites such as
    Hopewell Furnace National Historic Site in Pennsylvania.

    --------------------
    \10 This analysis does not consider other funds that parks compete
    for internally, known as "soft money," from such sources as repair
    and rehabilitation funds, the line-item construction funds, and
    cyclic maintenance funds.

    \11 This amount includes the 20 percent to be distributed centrally
    and the 50 percent of the Golden Eagle revenues to be returned to the
    selling parks.

          THE FOREST SERVICE ALSO HAS
          MANY HIGH-REVENUE SITES
    -------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:3.2

    At the other three agencies, particularly the Forest Service, there
    are also many sites that have as high a level of fee revenues as that
    realized by many of the Park Service's sites.  At least 33 of the
    Forest Service's 39 demonstration sites operating in fiscal 1997 had
    fee revenues over 20 percent of their estimated operating budgets.
    Under the agency's policy, the demonstration sites are retaining 95
    percent of the fees for their own use, and the remaining 5 percent is
    spent at the discretion of the sites' regional offices.  As shown in
    table 3.3, for fiscal year 1997, of these 33 sites, 21 had fee
    revenues exceeding 50 percent of their operating budgets, and 8 of
    the sites had fee revenues equaling or exceeding their operating
    budgets.  Data for the first half of fiscal year 1998 indicate that
    an even higher number of the collecting sites will generate revenues
    amounting to 20 percent or more of their operating budgets by year
    end.

                                   Table 3.3

                    Forest Service Demonstration Sites With
                    Fiscal Year 1997 Fee Revenues Exceeding
                     20 Percent of Their Operating Budgets

                             (Dollars in thousands)

                                                                Percentage
                                                 Fiscal year     of fiscal
                                                        1997     year 1997
                                   Fiscal year     operating      revenues
    Demonstration project/          1997 gross  appropriatio      compared
    national forest/state         fee revenues           n\a   with budget
    ----------------------------  ------------  ------------  ------------
    Chadwick Off-Highway Vehicle         $46.1          $6.5          709%
     Area, Mark Twain, Missouri
    Salt and Verde Rivers              1,603.1         575.0           279
     Recreation Complex, Tonto,
     Arizona
    Sawtooth National Recreation          46.4          18.0           258
     Area, Sawtooth, Idaho
    Quake Lake Visitor Center,            32.7          16.6           197
     Gallatin, Montana
    Fish Lake Campgrounds, Fish            6.5           4.5           144
     Lake, Utah
    North Carolina National              542.9         409.6           133
     Forests, North Carolina
    Mount Evans, Arapaho-                112.6          90.0           125
     Roosevelt, Colorado
    Wenatchee, Wenatchee                  39.3          37.0           106
     Washington
    Mount St. Helens National          1,952.0       2,079.0            94
     Volcanic Monument, Gifford
     Pinchot, Washington
    Verde Valley Heritage,                14.7          16.0            92
     Coconino, Arizona
    Umpqua Heritage, Umpqua,               4.5           5.0            91
     Oregon
    Day-Use Parking Fees,                 26.9          33.0            82
     Chequamegon-Nicolet,
     Wisconsin
    South Fork Snake River,                3.9           4.5            87
     Targhee, Idaho
    Interpretive Umbrella,               106.5         125.5            85
     Multiple,\b Colorado
    Pack Creek, Tongass-                  38.0          45.0            84
     Chatham, Alaska
    Shasta-Trinity, Shasta-              140.0         169.0            83
     Trinity, California
    Newberry National Volcanic            62.3          82.7            75
     Monument, Deschutes, Oregon
    Cataract Lake Recreation              13.1          23.0            57
     Complex, White River,
     Colorado
    Ozark-St. Francis, Ozark-            711.9       1,300.0            55
     St. Francis, Arkansas
    Heather Meadows Recreation            43.6          80.0            55
     Complex, Mount Baker-
     Snoqualmie, Washington
    Enterprise Forest, Multiple,         859.0       1,624.6            53
     California\b
    Desolation-Carson Pass,              121.0         247.5            49
     Eldorado-Inyo, California
    North Umpqua Basin, Umpqua,          117.5         243.5            48
     Oregon
    Hells Canyon NRA, Salmon               3.2           6.7            48
     River, Idaho
    Trailhead Parking Permit,            433.5         918.8            47
     Multiple\b
    American Fork Canyon, Uinta,         110.9         250.0            44
     Utah
    Mirror Lake Area, Wasatch-           175.7         429.0            41
     Cache, Utah
    Mono Basin National Scenic            87.0         220.0            40
     Area, Inyo, California
    Lake Como Recreation                   9.4          25.6            37
     Complex, Bitterroot,
     Montana
    Sylvania Wilderness Area,             30.7          93.0            33
     Ottawa, Michigan
    Southeast Alaska Visitor             117.9         360.8            33
     Center, Tongass-Ketchikan,
     Alaska
    Sandia Recreation Complex,           157.0         512.8            31
     Cibola, New Mexico
    Siuslaw, Siuslaw, Oregon             321.3       1,100.0            29
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    \a Although the recreational fee demonstration sites in the Forest
    Service are part of larger national forests, the operating budgets
    used in our calculation are based on the recreation sites only and do
    not necessarily include all of the overhead of the national forest
    programs that support the sites.  This differs from the Park Service,
    where the operating budget we used covered the entire basic annual
    operation of the parks.

    \b "Multiple" refers to multiple forests or multiple states.

    Source:  Forest Service data.

    The Forest Service's high-revenue sites include the Salt and Verde
    Rivers Recreation Complex in Tonto National Forest, Arizona, where
    fee collections in fiscal year 1997 were 279 percent of the fiscal
    year 1997 operating budget.  For fiscal year 1998, the complex
    expects to collect $2.5 million, or about 435 percent of its
    operating budget, in fees.  Similarly, at Mount St.  Helens National
    Volcanic Monument in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest in
    Washington, $2 million in fees was collected in fiscal year 1997,
    which was 94 percent of the operating budget.  For fiscal year 1998,
    about 102 percent of the monument's operating budget is expected to
    be collected in fees.\12 A two- to four-fold increase in funds
    available compared with the sites' annual operating budgets amounts
    to a tremendous boost in available resources.  While absorbing this
    level of additional funding for the needs of these sites is possible,
    the extent of sites' unmet needs was not the principal factor in
    selecting them for participation in the program.  Under these
    circumstances, it is likely that other higher-priority needs within
    the agency will go unaddressed at sites within the national forest
    system that do not have a high level of revenues or that are not
    participating in the demonstration program.  Accordingly, keeping all
    of the revenues at the demonstration sites that collect substantial
    amounts of fees may not be in the best interests of the agency as a
    whole.

    --------------------
    \12 We used the fiscal year 1997 operating budget that the Forest
    Service provided to make these calculations.

          FEW OF BLM'S OR FISH AND
          WILDLIFE SERVICE'S SITES
          HAVE HIGH REVENUES
    -------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:3.3

    Data on the revenues and operating budgets for the Fish and Wildlife
    Service's and BLM's demonstration sites were more limited.  As a
    result, we did not do analyses that were comparable to those we did
    on the Park Service's and Forest Service's sites.  However, since
    visitation at the Fish and Wildlife Service's and BLM's sites is
    generally less than at park or forest sites, it is likely that these
    agencies do not have a high proportion of high-revenue sites.  Among
    the sites we visited, one of the Fish and Wildlife Service's sites
    and one of BLM's sites realized fee revenues through the
    demonstration program that were high in relation to their operating
    budgets.

    BLM has allowed its demonstration sites to retain 100 percent of the
    fee revenues they collect to address their own needs.  However, it is
    likely that only a few sites have or will generate high levels of
    revenues relative to their operating budgets, according to BLM
    headquarters staff.  We could not determine specifically how many BLM
    demonstration sites have or will generate fee revenues equal to 20
    percent or more of their operating budgets because this information
    was not available at BLM headquarters and only 10 sites were
    operational in fiscal 1997, with 53 more approved as of March 31,
    1998, that were to begin collecting fees during fiscal year 1998.

    Among all of BLM's demonstration sites, the Red Rock Canyon National
    Conservation Area that we visited in Nevada is the highest revenue
    site, according to BLM staff.  At Red Rock, the annual operating
    budget is estimated to be $1.2 million, while estimated gross
    revenues from the demonstration program for fiscal year 1998 are $0.9
    million, or 75 percent of the operating budget.  Another of BLM's
    demonstration sites with relatively high revenues is the Lower
    Deschutes Wild and Scenic River in central Oregon where boater use
    and campsite fees generated $326,088 in fiscal year 1997, which is 53
    percent of the recreation site's annual operating budget of $617,000.

    As with BLM, data on how many of the Fish and Wildlife Service's
    demonstration sites are generating fee revenues amounting to 20
    percent or more of their operating budgets were limited.  However,
    agency staff have reported few sites generating revenues that might
    amount to 20 percent or more of their operating budgets.  Of the
    three Fish and Wildlife Service sites we visited, only
    one--Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge in Virginia--had
    relatively high recreational fee revenues.  There, about $300,000 was
    expected in fee revenues in fiscal year 1998, or about 17 percent of
    the refuge's annual operating budget of $1.8 million.  If this level
    of revenue continues, and appropriations remain stable, then managers
    at the refuge thought that the entire repair and maintenance backlog
    could be addressed with the program's revenues.

       CONCLUSIONS
    ---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:4

    The fee demonstration program has created a significant new revenue
    source, particularly for the Park Service and the Forest Service,
    during a period of tight budgets.  However, at high-revenue sites,
    there is no assurance that the needs being addressed are among those
    having the highest priority within an agency--raising questions about
    the desirability of the legislative requirement that at least 80
    percent of the revenues remain at the collecting site.  Using the
    revenues created by the fee demonstration program on projects that
    may not have the highest priority is inefficient and restricts the
    agencies from maximizing the potential benefits of the program.

    While giving recreation site managers a significant financial
    incentive to establish and operate fee-collection programs, the
    current legislation may not provide the agencies with enough
    flexibility to address high-priority needs outside of high-revenue
    sites.  Factors such as the benefit to visitors, the size of a site's
    resource and infrastructure needs, the site's fee revenues, and the
    most pressing needs of the agency as a whole are important to
    consider in deciding where to spend the funds collected.  Even if the
    demonstration program is made permanent and all recreation sites are
    permitted to collect fees, inequities between sites will continue.

       MATTER FOR CONGRESSIONAL
       CONSIDERATION
    ---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:5

    As the Congress decides on the future of the fee demonstration
    program, it may wish to consider whether to modify the current
    requirement that at least 80 percent of all fee revenues remain in
    the units generating these revenues.  Permitting some further
    flexibility in where fee revenues could be spent, particularly the
    fees from high-revenue sites, would provide greater opportunities to
    address the highest-priority needs of the agencies.  However, any
    change to the 80-percent requirement would have to be balanced
    against the need to maintain incentives at fee-collecting units and
    to maintain the support of the visitors.

       AGENCY COMMENTS AND OUR
       EVALUATION
    ---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:6

    Two agencies within the Department of the Interior raised concerns
    about this chapter.  In general, the Park Service agreed with the
    findings of the report.  However, the Park Service commented on the
    abilities of some park units to address their backlogged repair and
    maintenance needs through fee revenues.  Specifically, the Park
    Service said that our portrayal of this issue paints a false picture
    as the report does not address backlogged resource management needs
    in addition to repair and maintenance needs.  We disagree with the
    Park Service's comment on this point.  We acknowledge that regardless
    of what happens to the repair and maintenance backlog, there may
    continue to be needs related to the natural and cultural resources at
    the parks we reviewed and at other sites.  However, early in its
    implementation of the demonstration program, the Park Service
    directed its demonstration sites to focus program expenditures on
    addressing backlogged repair and maintenance items.  Because of this
    Park Service emphasis, we sought to determine to what extent the new
    fee revenues would be able to address these items.  We found that
    park managers at several parks indicated that they could address
    their existing repair and maintenance backlog in a few years (5 years
    or less) through these fee revenues.  For example, managers of some
    of the parks we visited, such as Zion and Shenandoah, indicated that
    they could resolve their backlog of repair and maintenance needs in a
    few years through revenues from the demonstration program.  In our
    view, this belief that individual park units may be able to eliminate
    their repair and maintenance backlog is not consistent with the Park
    Service's past portrayal of a large repair and maintenance backlog,
    especially since the backlog, and not resource needs, is the agency's
    stated focus for new revenues.

    The Fish and Wildlife Service disagreed with what it viewed as "an
    inference in the draft report that the practice of retaining 80
    percent of the revenues at the station where fees are collected may
    not be a good practice." In fact, the 80-percent requirement is
    appropriate in some cases; however, providing the agencies with
    greater flexibility may enable them to better address their
    highest-priority needs.  The matter for congressional consideration
    on providing additional flexibility to the agencies that we have
    offered is primarily directed at high-revenue sites.  Furthermore,
    our comments on this issue are consistent with the testimony of the
    Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Policy, Management, and
    Budget who said that setting aside some of the fee revenues for
    broader agency priorities is important and cautioned that giving the
    collecting sites a high percentage of the revenues could create
    undesirable inequities within an agency.

    The Department of Agriculture's Forest Service agreed with our matter
    for congressional consideration that the 80-percent requirement be
    changed to permit greater flexibility.  They noted that the emphasis
    on this point should remain on high-revenue sites and that any change
    to the 80-percent requirement would have to be balanced against the
    need to maintain incentives at fee-collecting units and to maintain
    the support of the visitors.

    GREATER INNOVATION AND IMPROVED
    COORDINATION WILL ENHANCE PROGRAM
    EFFECTIVENESS
    ============================================================ Chapter 4

    Each of the agencies can point to a number of success stories and
    positive impacts that the fee demonstration program has had so far.
    Among the four agencies, a number of examples exist in which a new or
    innovative approach to collecting fees has resulted in greater
    convenience for the visitors and has improved efficiency for the
    agency.  In addition, several of the agencies have tried innovative
    approaches to pricing that have resulted in greater equity in fees.
    However, some agencies could do more in this area.  For example,
    while the Park Service has been innovative in looking for new ways to
    collect fees, it has been reluctant to experiment with different
    pricing approaches.  As a result, the agency has not taken full
    advantage of the opportunity presented by the demonstration program.
    Greater innovation, including more business-like practices like
    peak-period pricing, could help address visitors' and resource
    management needs.  In addition, although the Congress envisioned that
    the agencies would work with one another in implementing this
    program, the coordination and the cooperation among the agencies
    have, on the whole, been erratic.  More effective coordination and
    cooperation among the agencies would better serve visitors by making
    the payment of fees more convenient and equitable and, at the same
    time, reduce visitors' confusion about similar or multiple fees being
    charged at nearby or adjacent federal recreation sites.

       INNOVATIONS HAVE BENEFITED
       VISITORS, BUT FURTHER
       OPPORTUNITIES EXIST
    ---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 4:1

    One of the key legislative objectives of the demonstration program is
    for the agencies to be creative and innovative in implementing their
    fee programs.  The program offers an opportunity to try new things
    and to learn lessons on what worked well and what did not.  Among the
    four agencies, numerous examples can be found of innovation in
    developing new methods for collecting fees.  In addition, the Forest
    Service and BLM have also experimented with new pricing structures
    that have resulted in greater equity in fees.  However, the Park
    Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service have generally maintained
    the traditional pricing practices they used prior to the
    demonstration program.  Accordingly, the Park Service and the Fish
    and Wildlife Service can do more in this area.  Furthermore, greater
    experimentation would better meet the objective of the demonstration
    program as agencies could further their understanding of ways to make
    fees more convenient, equitable, and potentially useful as tools to
    influence visitation patterns and to protect resources.

    Examples of innovations in fee programs are differential pricing and
    vendor sales, which have been widely used by commercial recreation
    enterprises for many years.  For instance, golf courses and ski areas
    frequently charge higher prices on the weekend than they do midweek,
    and amusement parks often sell entrance passes through many vendors.
    These concepts had rarely, if ever, been part of the four agencies'
    fee programs prior to the demonstration.

          SEVERAL AGENCIES HAVE MADE
          PAYING FEES MORE CONVENIENT
          FOR VISITORS
    -------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 4:1.1

    The Park Service, the Forest Service, and BLM are trying new ways of
    collecting fees that may prove more convenient for visitors.  For
    example, the Park Service is now using automated fee-collecting
    machines at over 30 of its demonstration sites.  These machines are
    similar to automated teller machines (ATM):  Visitors can pay their
    fees with cash or credit cards, and the machine issues receipts
    showing the fees were paid.  For example, the Grand Canyon National
    Park sells entrance passes at machines located in several areas
    outside the park, including in the towns of Flagstaff and Williams,
    Arizona, which are both along frequently used routes to the park and
    more than 50 miles from the park's south entrance.  The park has
    dedicated one of the four lanes at its entrance station for visitors
    who have already purchased their entrance passes.  Thus, visitors who
    use the machines outside the park can avoid lines of cars waiting to
    pay fees at the park's entrance station.  At other demonstration
    sites within the Park Service, visitors can use automated
    fee-collection machines to pay for entrance fees, annual passes, or
    boat launch fees.

    As part of the demonstration program, the Forest Service is looking
    for ways to make paying fees more convenient for the visitor and more
    efficient for the agency.  In some instances, paying fees at a
    location inside a forest may not always be convenient for
    visitors--particularly if that location is not near where visitors
    enter the forest, according to a Forest Service headquarters
    official.  Some sites have experimented with having businesses and
    other groups outside of the forest collect entrance and user fees
    from visitors before they come into the forest.  The vendors of the
    entrance and user permits are frequently small businesses, such as
    gas stations, grocery stores, or fish and tackle stores, that are
    located near the forest.  For example, 350 vendors sell passes to
    visitors for recreation on any of four national forests in southern
    California.  By having vendors sell entrance and user permits, a
    forest can increase the number of locations where visitors can pay
    fees and can thereby make paying fees more convenient.

    At Paria Canyon-Coyote Buttes in Arizona, one of BLM's demonstration
    sites, the agency is experimenting with selling hiking and camping
    permits via the Internet.  Permits are required for overnight camping
    by up to a total of 20 persons per day in the Paria Canyon area and
    for hiking by up to a total of 20 persons per day in the Coyote
    Buttes area.  BLM, working in cooperation with Northern Arizona
    University and the Arizona Strip Interpretive Association, has
    developed a website that allows visitors to obtain information on the
    area, check on the availability of permits for future dates, make
    reservations, fill out and submit detailed application forms, or
    print out the application forms for mailing.\1 In addition, visitors
    can pay for permits over the Internet using credit cards, although
    the agency is still in the process of developing the security
    protocols that are needed to properly protect the transactions.
    Visitors can also fax credit card payments or send payments through
    the mail.

    --------------------
    \1 The website can be found at http://www.for.nau.edu/paria-permits/
    and is administered by Northern Arizona University.

          INNOVATIVE PRICING IS BEING
          TRIED BY SOME AGENCIES
    -------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 4:1.2

    Besides innovating and experimenting to make paying fees more
    convenient for visitors, two of the agencies are also experimenting
    with various pricing strategies at demonstration sites.  Pricing
    strategies being tried by the Forest Service and BLM are focused on
    charging fees that vary based on the extent of use or on whether the
    visit is made during a peak period--such as a weekend--or during an
    off-peak period.  This concept is generally referred to as
    differential pricing and has resulted in greater equity in pricing at
    the sites where it has been tried.

    For example, in Utah, Uinta National Forest and Wasatch-Cache
    National Forest have both experimented with differential pricing.  At
    American Fork Canyon/Alpine Loop Recreation Area, within the Uinta
    National Forest, the forest began charging a new entrance fee under
    the demonstration program of $3 per car for a 3-day visit and $10 for
    a 2-week visit.  Similarly, at the Mirror Lake area within the
    Wasatch-Cache National Forest, visitors pay a new entrance fee of
    either $3 per vehicle for a day or $10 per vehicle for a week.  Thus
    visitors to both the Uinta and Wasatch-Cache National Forests pay
    fees that vary with the extent of use.  Fees that vary with use are
    more equitable than a single fee for all visitors regardless of use,
    as has been the traditional practice at many federal recreation
    sites.

    The Forest Service and BLM have also experimented with charging fees
    that differ based on peak and off-peak periods.  For example, at
    Tonto National Forest in Arizona, the entrance fees vary depending on
    the day of the week.  The forest sells two annual passes for day use,
    including use of the boat launch facilities, at six lakes within the
    forest.  One pass sells for $90 per year and is valid 7 days a week.
    The other pass sells for $60 per year and is valid only Monday
    through Thursday, the forest's off-peak period.  Another example of
    peak pricing is at the Lower Deschutes Wild and Scenic River in
    Oregon, one of BLM's sites, where as part of the demonstration
    program, the agency charges a camping fee of $10 per site per day on
    weekends in the summer and a $5 per site per day fee midweek and
    during weekends in the off-season.  By charging lower fees for
    off-peak use, these agencies are using fees as a management tool to
    encourage greater use when sites have fewer visitors.  This practice
    can help to mitigate the impact of users on resources during what
    would normally be the sites' busiest periods.

          OPPORTUNITIES REMAIN FOR
          MORE INNOVATION--
          PARTICULARLY IN THE PARK
          SERVICE
    -------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 4:1.3

    While the Park Service has tried new methods for collecting fees,
    opportunities remain for the agency to further the goals of the
    demonstration program by being more innovative and experimental in
    its pricing strategies.  While the agency certainly does not need to
    retool its program or use differential pricing arrangements at each
    of its sites, the Park Service could build on what it has already
    done.  Specifically, it could look for ways, where appropriate, to
    provide greater equity in fees to give visitors incentives to use
    parks during less busy periods, thus reducing demand on park
    facilities and resources during the busiest times.

    Because of the large numbers of visitors and the large amount of fee
    revenues generated, the Park Service has an opportunity to improve
    its pricing strategies.  For the types of areas managed by the Park
    Service, entrance fees have worked well for the agency and are
    convenient for most visitors to pay.  However, visitors to units of
    the national park system having entrance fees (about one-third of the
    376 units) generally pay the same fee whether they are visiting
    during a peak period, such as a weekend in the summer, or an off-peak
    period, such as midweek during the winter, and whether they are
    staying for several hours or several days.  A more innovative fee
    system would make fees more equitable for visitors and may change
    visitation patterns somewhat to enhance economic efficiency and
    reduce overcrowding and its effects on parks' resources.

    For example, managers at several of the parks we visited, including
    Assateague Island National Seashore and Shenandoah National Park,
    discussed how during peak visitation periods, such as summer
    weekends, long lines of cars frequently form at entrance stations,
    with visitors waiting to pay the fee to enter the parks.  The lines
    are an inconvenience to the visitors and the emissions from idling
    cars could affect the sites' resources.  By experimenting with
    pricing structures that have higher fees for peak periods and lower
    fees for off-peak periods, sites might be able to shift more
    visitation away from high-use periods.  Our past work has found that
    increased visitation has eroded many parks' ability to keep up with
    visitors' and resource needs.\2 Innovative pricing structures that
    result in less crowding in popular areas would also improve the
    recreational experience of many park visitors.  Furthermore,
    according to the four agencies, reducing visitation during peak
    periods can lower the costs of operating recreation sites by reducing
    (1) the staff needed to operate a site, (2) the size of facilities,
    (3) the need for maintenance and future capital investments, and (4)
    the extent of damage to a site's resources.  As we already pointed
    out, the private sector uses such pricing strategies as a matter of
    routine--including when the private sector operates within parks.
    The private sector concessioner that operates the lodging facilities
    in Yosemite National Park in California, for example, employs peak
    pricing practices.  Lodging rates are higher during the peak summer
    months and lower during the months when the park attracts fewer
    visitors.

    Furthermore, most parks with entrance fees charge the same fee
    regardless of the extent of use.  For example, Zion and Olympic
    National Parks both charge an entrance fee of $10 per vehicle for a
    visit of up to 1 week.  This fee is the same whether visitors are
    enjoying these areas for several hours, a day, several days, or the
    full week.  This one-size-fits-all approach is convenient for the
    agency but may not be equitable or efficient because visitors staying
    longer enjoy more benefits from a site.

    At one park, the lack of an alternative to the 7-day entrance fee has
    contributed to the formation of a "black market" in entrance passes.
    According to recent media reports, some visitors to Yellowstone
    National Park are reselling their $20 1-week entrance passes--after
    staying only a few days or less at the park--to other visitors
    planning to enter the park.  Since the passes are valid for 7 days, a
    family could sell its pass to another carload of park visitors for
    perhaps half price and reduce the cost of visiting the park for both
    parties.  Even though the entrance pass is nontransferable and
    selling a pass is illegal and subject to a $100 fine, the park does
    not have an estimate of the extent of the situation.  The park has
    not experimented with an entrance fee for visits of less than 7 days,
    a pricing option that would be likely to address the illegal resale
    of passes.

    Park Service headquarters officials indicated that the agency had not
    tried differential pricing at demonstration sites because, in their
    view, it (1) would be difficult to conduct sufficient enforcement
    activities to ensure compliance, (2) would increase the costs of fee
    collection, and (3) may result in a decrease in fee revenues.  While
    we acknowledge that it may be simpler to charge only one rate to
    visitors at demonstration sites, the agencies that are currently
    using differential pricing--the Forest Service and BLM--have been
    able to address the concerns raised by the Park Service.  Given the
    potential benefits of differential pricing to both the agency and the
    visitors, an opportunity exists for the Park Service to experiment
    with such pricing at a small sample of demonstration sites.

    --------------------
    \2 See National Parks:  Difficult Choices Need to Be Made About the
    Future of the Parks (GAO/RCED-95-238, Aug.  30, 1995).

       COOPERATION AND COORDINATION
       AMONG THE AGENCIES COULD BE
       IMPROVED
    ---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 4:2

    The four agencies have implemented a number of multiple-agency fee
    demonstration projects.  Although these efforts are few in comparison
    to the more than 200 fee projects that have begun so far, they
    demonstrate that multiple agencies with somewhat varying missions can
    form successful partnerships when conditions, such as geographical
    proximity, present the opportunity.  While we found several examples
    of successful, multiple-agency fee demonstration projects, more could
    be done.  At several of the sites we visited, opportunities existed
    for improving the cooperation and coordination among the agencies
    that would increase the quality of service provided to visitors.

          SUCCESSFUL CROSS-AGENCY FEE
          PROJECTS ARE UNDER WAY
    -------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 4:2.1

    The legislative history of the fee demonstration program includes an
    emphasis on the participating agencies' working together to minimize
    or eliminate confusion for visitors where multiple fees could be
    charged by recreation sites in the same area.  There are several
    areas that are now working together to accomplish this goal.

    For example, a joint project was developed in 1997 at the American
    Fork Canyon/Alpine Loop Recreation Area in Utah between the Forest
    Service's Uinta National Forest and the Park Service's Timpanogos
    Cave National Monument.  The monument is surrounded by Forest Service
    land, and the same roads provide access to both areas.  Because of
    this configuration, the agencies generally share the same visitors
    and charge one fee for entrance to both areas.\3 The sites also have
    similar public service and resource management goals.  Fee-collection
    responsibilities are shared between the two agencies, and
    expenditures are decided upon by representatives from both agencies
    as well as from two other partners in the project--the State of Utah
    Department of Transportation and the county government.  Figure 4.1
    shows the partnership's entrance station for the area.  Since 1997,
    fee revenues from the project have paid for the rehabilitation of
    several bridges in popular picnic areas (see fig.  4.2).  Future fee
    revenues will fund the staffing and maintenance of entrance stations
    where fees are collected; the repair and maintenance of camping
    areas, trails, and parking areas; additional law enforcement
    services; and resource management projects.

       Figure 4.1:  Joint Entrance
       Station at American Fork
       Canyon, Uinta National Forest,
       Utah

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Figure 4.2:  Bridge
       Rehabilitation in Popular
       Picnic Area at American Fork
       Canyon, Utah

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    Agencies--federal and nonfederal--have worked together to improve
    visitor services and reduce visitor confusion as part of the fee
    demonstration program in other areas as well.  Examples include (1)
    the Tent Rocks area in northern New Mexico (BLM and an Indian
    reservation); (2) recreation sites along the South Fork of the Snake
    River in Idaho (the Forest Service, BLM, state agencies, and county
    governments); (3) recreation sites in the Paria Canyon-Coyote Buttes
    area in Arizona (BLM, the Arizona Strip Interpretive Association, and
    Northern Arizona University); (4) the Pack Creek bear-viewing area in
    the southeast Alaska (the Forest Service and the Alaska Department of
    Fish and Game); and (5) the proposed Oregon Coastal Access Pass (the
    Park Service, BLM, the Forest Service, and Oregon state parks).

    Through the partnership at the Tent Rocks area in north-central New
    Mexico between Albuquerque and Sante Fe, visitors get access to a
    unique geological area that BLM administers via a 3-mile access road
    across Pueblo de Cochiti, an Indian reservation.  BLM's site, known
    as the Tent Rocks Area of Critical Environmental Concern and National
    Recreation Trail, features large, tent-shaped rocks that hug steep
    canyon walls.  The area is surrounded by two Indian reservations.

    The only access road for vehicles to Tent Rocks crosses land owned by
    Pueblo de Cochiti.  In 1998, a cooperative partnership agreement gave
    visitors access to Tent Rocks, while specifying prohibited activities
    to preserve the tranquility of the pueblo community.  The agreement
    also specifies resource preservation measures to protect the Tent
    Rocks area.  Annually, Tent Rocks is visited by about 100,000 people.
    Under the terms of the agreement, BLM is responsible for collecting
    fees and shares $1 of the $5 vehicle fee with Pueblo de Cochiti.  The
    pueblo provides interpretive talks, trash pickup, and road
    maintenance.  As of July 1998, this interorganizational demonstration
    project was working satisfactorily, according to BLM officials.

    The Oregon Coastal Access Pass has been proposed for visitors to
    enter several adjacent federal and state recreation sites, each of
    which now charges a separate entrance fee.  These include the Park
    Service's Fort Clatsop National Memorial, BLM's Yaquina Head
    Outstanding Natural Area, the Forest Service's Oregon Dunes National
    Recreation Area, and the state of Oregon's Department of Parks and
    Recreation.  All of these sites currently charge separate fees,
    ranging from several dollars per person to over $10.

    For a number of years, visitors to these sites have commented on the
    lack of government coordination over the numerous entrance and user
    fees these facilities charge.  During the last 2 years,
    representatives from the federal and state agencies involved have
    held meetings to develop an Oregon Coastal Access Pass, which would
    be good for entrance and use at all participating federal and state
    sites along the Oregon coast.  According to a Forest Service
    official, two issues need to be resolved before implementing the
    pass:  (1) the estimation of the revenues from each of the facilities
    to determine the amount of anticipated revenues to be shared and (2)
    the development of and agreement on an equitable formula to share fee
    revenues among the federal and state sites.  The pass could be
    implemented in 1999, according to a Forest Service official
    participating on this project.

    --------------------
    \3 A separate user fee is charged for a guided tour of Timpanogos
    Cave.

          OPPORTUNITIES FOR MORE
          INTERAGENCY COORDINATION
          EXIST
    -------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 4:2.2

    While some progress is being made to increase coordination among
    agencies, our work shows that there are still opportunities for
    improvement that would benefit both the federal government and
    visitors.  Further coordination among the agencies participating in
    the fee demonstration program could reduce confusion for the visitors
    as well as increase the revenues available for maintenance,
    infrastructure repairs, or visitor services.  Even at the few
    participating sites we visited, we identified three areas where
    better interagency coordination would provide improved services and
    other benefits to the visiting public, while at the same time
    generating increased fee revenues.

    For example, in New Mexico, BLM administers a 263,000-acre parcel
    called El Malpais National Conservation Area.  Within the BLM
    boundaries of this site is the El Malpais National Monument created
    in 1987 and managed by the Park Service (see fig.  4.3).  Adjoining
    several sides of the agencies' lands are two Indian reservations.
    Interstate, state, and county roads cross and border the BLM and Park
    Service lands.  Presently, neither parcel has an entrance or user
    fee.

       Figure 4.3:  Map of El Malpais
       National Monument and El
       Malpais National Conservation
       Area

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    In 1997, as part of the fee demonstration program, BLM proposed a $3
    daily fee to the site.  According to a BLM official, the proposed
    demonstration site was to be managed as a joint fee demonstration
    project with the Park Service, with the fee applicable to both areas.
    According to BLM, a demonstration project would not only increase
    revenues to pay for work needed at the site but also increase the
    presence of agencies' officials at the site, which would help deter
    vandalism and other resource-related crimes.  Because it is difficult
    for visitors to distinguish between the two sites, a unified and
    coordinated approach to fee collection made good management sense and
    would avoid confusion among fee-paying visitors to the sites.

    The surrounding communities endorsed BLM's proposal, but Park Service
    officials at the site did not.  They told us that they believed that
    there would be low compliance with any fee requirements because of
    the multiple access roads to the site, that potentially delicate
    situations would arise with Native Americans using the land for
    ceremonial purposes, and that theft and vandalism would increase
    because of the proposed project's unstaffed fee-collection tubes.  A
    local BLM official, however, said that the site could generate
    significant revenues (over $100,000 annually), that fee exemption
    cards could be developed for Native Americans using the land for
    traditional purposes, and that past experience in the southwest has
    not shown extensive damage to unstaffed fee-collection devices like
    those proposed for use at this site.  As a result of the differing
    views between BLM and Park Service officials at this site, no
    coordinated approach has been developed.  However, our work at the
    site indicated that experimenting with a new fee at the location
    would be entirely consistent with the objective of the demonstration
    program.  As of August 1998, neither agency had documented its
    analysis of the situation, and BLM was considering deleting the site
    as a potential fee demonstration project.

    In the state of Washington, we found another opportunity for
    interagency coordination.  Olympic National Park and the Olympic
    National Forest share a common border for hundreds of miles and are
    both frequently used by backcountry hikers.  For backcountry use,
    hikers are subject to two separate fees at Olympic National Park--a
    $5 backcountry hiking permit and a $2 per night fee for overnight
    stays in the park.  In contrast, Olympic National Forest does not
    have an entry fee, a backcountry permit fee, or any overnight fee in
    areas that are not specifically designated as campsites.  However,
    the forest does have a trailhead parking fee of $3 per day per
    vehicle or $25 annually per vehicle.  As a result, backcountry users
    who hike trails that cross back and forth over each agency's lands
    are faced with multiple and confusing fees.  Figure 4.4 shows an
    example of a backcountry hike from Lena Creek (Olympic National
    Forest land) to Upper Lena Lake (Olympic National Park land)--14
    miles round-trip--where backcountry users would face such multiple
    fees.  Table 4.1 lists the fees involved for the hike.

       Figure 4.4:  Hiking Trails
       Using Olympic National Park and
       Olympic National Forest

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

                                   Table 4.1

                     Fees for Two Adults Taking a 3-Day, 2-
                     Night Hike From Lena Creek in Olympic
                     National Forest to Upper Lena Lake in
                             Olympic National Park

                                                                       Fee
    ----------------------------------------  ----------------------------
    Olympic National Park
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Wilderness permit                                                   $5
    Backcountry fee, $4 per night for 2                                  8
     nights

    Olympic National Forest
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Parking fee, $3 per day for 3 days                                   9
    ======================================================================
    Total                                                              $22
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    We discussed this situation with on-site managers from both agencies.
    They agreed that they should better coordinate their respective fees
    to reduce the confusion and multiplicity of fees for backcountry
    users.  However, so far, neither agency has taken the initiative to
    make this happen.  At the time of our review, no one at the
    departmental or agency headquarters level routinely got involved in
    these kinds of decisions.  Instead, the decisions were left to the
    discretion of the site managers.

    A third example of where greater coordination and cooperation would
    lead to operational efficiencies and less visitor confusion is in
    Virginia and Maryland at the Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge,
    administered by the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Assateague
    Island National Seashore, administered by the Park Service.  Although
    the sites adjoin each other on the same island (see fig.  4.5), they
    are not a joint project in the fee demonstration program--each site
    is a separate fee demonstration project.

       Figure 4.5:  Assateague Island
       National Seashore and
       Chincoteague National Wildlife
       Refuge

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    During our review, we found many similarities between these two sites
    that offer the possibility of testing a single entrance fee for both
    sites.  Both sites charge a daily entrance fee ($5 per vehicle),
    cooperate on law enforcement matters, and run a joint permit program
    for off-road vehicles.  In 1997, according to Park Service officials,
    the two agencies together issued 5,000 annual off-road vehicle
    permits at $60 each.  By agreement between the two agencies, the
    permit revenues are shared, with one-third going to the refuge and
    two-thirds going to the Park Service.  The Park Service already
    provides staff to operate and maintain a ranger station and bathing
    facilities on refuge land.

    Despite these overlapping programs and similarities, the units still
    maintain separate, nonreciprocal entrance fee programs.  This
    situation is continuing even though officials at the refuge told us
    that visitors are sometimes confused by separate agencies managing
    adjoining lands without any reciprocity of entrance fees.  For
    example, during a 7-day period in July 1998, refuge officials counted
    71 of 4,431 visitor vehicles as wishing to use their vehicle entrance
    passes for Assateague to gain admittance to Chincoteague.  Similarly,
    during the 7-day period of July 31 through August 6, 1998, Assateague
    officials counted 40 of 4,056 visitor vehicles as presenting
    Chincoteague entrance passes to gain admittance to Assateague.  In
    both instances, visitors needed explanations about the entrance fee
    policies and practices of the two sites.  Refuge and seashore
    officials have discussed this issue, but the matter remains
    unresolved.

       CONCLUSION
    ---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 4:3

    While there are many notable examples of innovation and
    experimentation in setting and collecting fees at demonstration
    sites, further opportunities remain in this area.  Innovation and
    experimentation were one of the objectives under the demonstration
    program's authority and could result in fees that are more equitable,
    efficient, and convenient and could also work toward helping the
    agencies accomplish their resource management goals.  Congressional
    interest in encouraging more interagency coordination and cooperation
    was focused not only on seeking additional revenues but also on
    developing ways to lessen the burden of multiple, similar fees being
    paid by visitors to adjoining or nearby recreation sites offering
    similar activities.  Successful experiences with interagency
    coordination and cooperation have produced noteworthy benefits to the
    agencies and to visitors.  Additional coordination and cooperation
    efforts should be tested at other locations to get a better
    understanding of the full impact and potential of the program.

       RECOMMENDATIONS
    ---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 4:4

    We recommend that the Secretary of the Interior require that the
    heads of the Park Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service take
    advantage of the remaining time under the fee demonstration authority
    to look for opportunities to experiment with peak-period pricing and
    with fees that vary with the length of stay or extent of use at
    individual sites.

    We also recommend that the Secretaries of the Interior and
    Agriculture direct the heads of the participating agencies to improve
    their services to visitors by better coordinating their
    fee-collection activities under the recreational fee demonstration
    program.  To address this issue, each agency should perform a review
    of each of its demonstration sites to identify other federal
    recreation areas that are nearby.  Once identified, each situation
    should be reviewed to determine whether a coordinated approach, such
    as a reciprocal fee arrangement, would better serve the visiting
    public.

       AGENCY COMMENTS AND OUR
       EVALUATION
    ---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 4:5

    Two agencies within the Department of the Interior commented on this
    chapter.  The Park Service raised concerns about experimenting with
    differential or peak-period pricing.  The agency said that
    experimenting with fees could result in complex fee schedules,
    increased processing times at entrance stations, confused visitors,
    and more difficult enforcement.  In addition, the agency took
    exception to the draft report's comparisons to the differential
    pricing practices used at amusement parks, golf courses, and ski
    areas, noting that the agency's purpose is different from the
    purposes of such operations.  However, we disagree that these
    concerns are reasons not to implement different pricing policies at
    some parks.  We recognize that the Park Service's current fee
    schedule has been successful but question whether the agency has
    responded sufficiently to one of the intents of the recreational fee
    demonstration program:  that agencies experiment with innovative
    pricing structures.  If done well, experimenting with differential
    pricing at Park Service demonstration sites need not result in
    complex fee schedules, delays at entrance stations, confused
    visitors, or significant increases to the cost of collection.  It is
    in this context, that we provided the examples of golf courses,
    amusement parks, and ski areas--recreation activities that routinely
    use differential pricing to which the public is already accustomed.
    In many cases, these fee systems are equitable, easily understood by
    the public, and do not cause delay or confusion.

    Furthermore, the Park Service comments on this point are not
    consistent with the January 1998 report to the Congress on the status
    of the fee demonstration program, which was jointly prepared by the
    Park Service, the Forest Service, BLM, and the Fish and Wildlife
    Service and transmitted by the Undersecretary of the Department of
    Agriculture and an Assistant Secretary of the Department of the
    Interior.  In that report, the four agencies noted that among the
    lessons learned up to that point was that differential pricing could
    be used to maximize resource protection or to minimize infrastructure
    investment.  The report states that "higher fees on weekends, summer
    months, or other [periods of] traditionally-high recreation use,
    might reduce the peak loads on resources and
    facilities .  .  .  .  Reductions in peak loads can directly reduce
    the cost to taxpayers associated with operating the recreation sites,
    providing services to these sites, and any attendant damage to the
    resource."

    The Park Service also raised concerns about the draft report's
    discussion of the potential for a joint fee demonstration site
    between the Park Service and BLM at El Malpais National Monument and
    El Malpais National Conservation Area.  (BLM did not comment on this
    point.) The Park Service said that (1) a cost-benefit analysis showed
    it was not worth collecting fees and (2) collecting fees would affect
    the use of the area by five neighboring Native American tribes.  It
    was clear from our work that there was disagreement among Park
    Service and BLM officials over whether El Malpais was a suitable site
    for inclusion in the demonstration program and that this disagreement
    continues.  The boundaries of the agencies' land make it unlikely
    that the project could succeed without a joint effort.  We disagree
    with the Park Service's concerns raised on this point and question
    their accuracy since the analysis showing that fee revenues would be
    low, referred to in the Park Service's comments, has not been
    completed.  We obtained a draft of that analysis which, according to
    Park Service staff at El Malpais National Monument, was the most
    recent analysis available as of October 15, 1998.  The draft analysis
    contains no information on anticipated costs or revenues from
    charging fees at this site.  Furthermore, we disagree with the Park
    Service's assertion that fees would affect Native American use of the
    site.  According to the Park Service regional fee demonstration
    coordinator, at park units where similar situations existed, local
    managers were able to resolve cultural issues with the Native
    Americans using the sites.

    The Fish and Wildlife Service commented that there may be
    opportunities for the agency to experiment with off-peak pricing, but
    such opportunities would be limited to those sites where there is
    sufficient visitation to create crowding and provide an incentive for
    off-peak use.  We agree.  In fact, crowded parking at one refuge was
    a big enough concern that managers were considering measures to
    better handle visitation during peak periods.

    The Fish and Wildlife Service also commented on the need for greater
    coordination among the agencies.  The agency noted that cooperative
    fees have been tried in many instances where they are appropriate and
    that some of these have resulted in moderate success.  We encourage
    the agency to continue to look for opportunities to coordinate since
    it would generally increase the level of service provided to the
    visiting public.

    The Department of Agriculture's Forest Service agreed with the
    recommendation for the agencies to look for opportunities to
    coordinate their fee programs.

    EARLY INFORMATION SUGGESTS OVERALL
    VISITATION WAS LARGELY UNAFFECTED
    BY RECREATIONAL FEES, BUT SOME
    USERS VOICED CONCERNS
    ============================================================ Chapter 5

    Data from recreational fee demonstration sites participating in 1997
    suggest that the new or increased fees have had no overall adverse
    effect on visitation, although visitation did decline at a number of
    sites.  Such data, however, are based on only 1 year's experience, so
    the full impact of fees on visitation will not be known until
    completion of the program.  Early research on visitors' opinions of
    the new fees has shown that visitors generally support the need for,
    and the amount of, new fees.  However, these conclusions are based on
    limited analysis in that only two of the four agencies--the Park
    Service and the Forest Service--have completed visitor surveys at a
    small number of sites participating in the demonstration program.
    Accordingly, the survey results may not represent visitors' opinions
    at all participating sites or represent views of nonvisitors.  Each
    participating agency planned to conduct additional visitor surveys in
    1998 and 1999 to more fully assess the impact of fees on visitation.
    However, some interest groups and recreation fee experts have
    identified some research gaps, such as potential visitors who do not
    come to recreation sites or who do go to sites but drive off because
    of the new or increased fees and fail to participate in the survey.
    A number of interest groups we contacted were generally supportive of
    the program.  However, some had concerns about the program and how it
    was being implemented.

       PRELIMINARY DATA SUGGEST NO
       MAJOR ADVERSE EFFECT ON
       VISITATION FROM NEW
       RECREATIONAL FEES
    ---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 5:1

    Although data for more years will be needed to fully assess the
    effect of increased recreational fees on visitation, 1997 data from
    the 206 sites participating in the demonstration program
    preliminarily suggest that the increased fees have had no major
    adverse effect on visitation.  Except for BLM, each agency reported
    that, overall, visitation increased from 1996 to 1997 at its sites,
    even though some individual sites experienced declines in visitation,
    especially when new fees were charged.

          OVERALL VISITATION
          INCREASED, BUT FEE LEVELS
          ARE ONLY ONE FACTOR
    -------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 5:1.1

    Data from 1997 are the first available to assess the impact of the
    fee demonstration program on visitation, since the four agencies
    spent 1996 designing the program and selecting the sites.  Overall,
    of the 206 demonstration sites operated by the four agencies,
    visitation during 1997 increased by 4.6 percent from 1996.
    Visitation increased at three agencies' sites, with the Park Service
    sites showing the largest increase, while BLM reported an overall
    decline in visitation of 10.4 percent (see table 5.1).  Among the 206
    sites, visitation increased at 120 sites, decreased at 84 sites, and
    was unchanged at 2 sites (see table 5.2).

                                   Table 5.1

                         Visitation at Recreational Fee
                          Demonstration Sites, 1996-97

                             (Millions of visitors)

                                              1996        1997
                                        visitation  visitation
                                        before fee   after fee
                             Number of  demonstrat  demonstrat  Percentage
                                 sites         ion         ion      change
    ----------------------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------
    Park Service                    96       141.1       149.0       +5.6%
    Fish and Wildlife               61         9.4         9.5        +1.1
     Service
    Forest Service\a                39        34.5        35.2        +2.0
    BLM                             10         1.2         1.0       -10.4
    ======================================================================
    Total                          206       186.2       194.7       +4.6%
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    \a Visitation data for the Forest Service are estimates.

    Source:  Data provided by the four agencies.

                                   Table 5.2

                     Changes in Visitation at Recreational
                        Fee Demonstration Sites, 1996-97

                                                         Sites
                                 Sites       Sites       where
                                 where       where  visitation
                            visitation  visitation         was
                             increased   decreased   unchanged       Total
    ----------------------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------
    Park Service                    50          45           1          96
    Fish and Wildlife               43          17           1          61
     Service
    Forest Service                  25          14           0          39
    BLM                              2           8           0          10
    ======================================================================
    Total                          120          84           2         206
    Percentage of total            58%         41%          1%
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Source:  Data provided by the four agencies.

    Because these data represent only the change in 1 year and many
    factors besides fees can affect visitation levels, several agency
    officials told us that the 1996 to 1997 visitation changes provide
    only a preliminary indicator of the impact of increasing or imposing
    fees at the demonstration sites.\1 In addition, visitation can be
    affected by a variety of factors, such as weather patterns, the
    overall state of the economy, gasoline prices, currency exchange
    rates, and historical celebrations.  Accordingly, changes in fee
    levels or instituting new fees, by themselves, do not fully account
    for changes in visitation levels.  Nonetheless, on the basis of the
    data currently available, a report by the four participating agencies
    to the Congress states, "Visitation to the fee demonstration sites
    does not appear to have been significantly affected, either
    positively or negatively, by the new fees."\2

    --------------------
    \1 Because there may be substantial differences between the sites
    participating in the demonstration program and other sites, it is not
    possible to use data on changes in visitation levels at the
    demonstration sites to make inferences about the effects that fee
    increases might have at other sites.

    \2 Recreational Fee Demonstration Program:  Progress Report to the
    Congress, Volume 1 - Overview and Summary, submitted by the U.S.
    Department of the Interior (National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife
    Service, Bureau of Land Management) and the U.S.  Department of
    Agriculture (Forest Service) (Jan.  31, 1998).

          CHANGES IN VISITATION LEVELS
          VARIED AMONG SITES
    -------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 5:1.2

    While overall visitation increased 4.6 percent among all agencies in
    1997, visitation levels varied among agencies and among sites within
    the same agency.  During the period, visitation at nondemonstration
    sites among the agencies increased 3.6 percent.  Changes in
    visitation to sites participating in the recreational fee
    demonstration program are summarized below for each of the four
    participating agencies.

          PARK SERVICE
    -------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 5:1.3

    Annual visitation at the Park Service's 96 sites participating in the
    recreational fee demonstration program in 1997 increased 5.6 percent
    over 1996--from 141.1 million to 149.0 million visitors.  Visitation
    increased at 50 sites, decreased at 45 sites, and remained unchanged
    at 1 site.  Some sites that raised existing fees in 1997 experienced
    significantly higher rates of visitation after the increased or new
    fees went into effect.  For example, at one site we visited,
    Timpanogos Cave National Monument in Utah, a new entrance fee plus
    increased fees for cave tours allowed the park to hire additional
    cave interpreters, which lengthened the season for cave tours by 3
    months.  As a result, visitation increased 16 percent, and about
    16,000 more visitors were able to tour the site in 1997 than 1996.
    In contrast, at another site we visited, Frederick Douglass National
    Historic Park in Washington, D.C., visitation declined 24 percent
    from 45,000 in 1996 to 34,000 in 1997.  In 1997, the site instituted
    a new $3 per person entrance fee, whereas in 1996, entrance was free.
    According to a Park Service official, the new fees probably played a
    role in the decline in visitation.  In commenting on a draft of this
    report, the Park Service stated that the closure of a nearby museum
    and several major road projects may have also influenced visitation
    at the site.

    Because visitation at the Park Service's sites represents about
    three-quarters of total 1997 visitation at all of the demonstration
    program sites, we asked the Park Service for data on historical
    visitation levels at both its demonstration and nondemonstration
    sites.  These data show that visitation at nondemonstration sites
    rose faster from 1996 to 1997, 7.0 percent compared with 5.6 percent
    for demonstration sites.  The higher fees might be one factor
    accounting for a smaller percentage increase in visitation at the
    demonstration sites, but other factors might be more important.  We
    found that the larger percentage increase at the nondemonstration
    sites in 1997 was consistent with changes in visitation over the last
    few years (1993-97) and, therefore, might have occurred even if fees
    had not been increased at the demonstration sites.  Since 1994, there
    has been a steady trend in which visitation at nondemonstration sites
    has grown relative to visitation at demonstration sites.  In fact,
    there was a much more substantial difference between the two groups
    in the changes in visitation from 1995 to 1996 before fees were
    increased at any of the sites.  During that period, visitation
    increased by 0.9 percent at the nondemonstration sites but fell by
    4.1 percent at the demonstration sites.

          FOREST SERVICE
    -------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 5:1.4

    Of the Forest Service's 39 fee demonstration sites operating in 1997,
    visitation totaled 35.2 million--an increase of 724,000 recreation
    visits or a 2-percent increase over 1996.  Visitation increased at 25
    sites and decreased at 14 sites.  At some sites where new fees were
    charged or where fees were paid only for entrance to a visitor
    center, visitation generally declined, according to a Forest Service
    official.  For example, after Mono Lake in the Inyo National Forest
    in northern California instituted a $2 fee per person for day use or
    entry to a section of the visitor center (an exhibit room and movie
    theater), visitation declined 10 percent from the prior year,
    according to a Forest Service official.

    At other Forest Service sites, visitation increased despite new fees.
    At one site we visited, the Mount St.  Helens National Volcanic
    Monument in Washington State, 1997 visitation rose to 3.1 million--a
    15-percent increase over 1996.  This increase occurred even though
    the site implemented two new fees:  a user fee of $8 for a 3-day pass
    to the visitor centers and other developed sites and a climbing fee
    of $15.  In 1997, the site also opened an additional visitor center
    and deployed snow plows earlier than in prior years, further
    increasing visitation.

          FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
    -------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 5:1.5

    Visitation at the Fish and Wildlife Service's 61 sites participating
    in the program increased from 9.4 million in 1996 to 9.5 million in
    1997, or slightly over 1 percent.  In 1997, visitation decreased at
    17 sites, increased at 43 sites, and was unchanged at 1 unit compared
    with visitation in 1996.  At the 30 refuges charging fees for the
    first time as well as at the 31 refuges that increased existing fees,
    there was little or no change in the level of visitation or
    participation in activities.  The three sites we visited reflected
    these national visitation patterns.  At Nisqually National Wildlife
    Refuge in Washington State, the entrance fee was increased from $2 to
    $3, and visitation increased by 41 percent, from about 45,000 in 1996
    to 63,000 in 1997.  At Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge in
    Virginia, the entrance fee increased from $4 to $5, and visitation
    increased 7 percent, from 1.3 million visitors in 1996 to 1.4 million
    visitors in 1997.  At another site we visited, Bosque del Apache
    National Wildlife Refuge in New Mexico, the entrance fee increased
    from $2 to $3, and visitation declined 10 percent from 132,000 in
    1996 to 119,000 in 1997.

          BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
    -------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 5:1.6

    Overall visitation at BLM's 10 demonstration sites dropped by 10.4
    percent from 1996 to 1997.  This drop reflected decreases at eight
    sites and increases at two other sites.  According to BLM, factors
    affecting visitation in 1997 included (1) inclement weather and
    flooding that limited access to recreation sites such as Paria
    Canyon-Coyote Buttes in Arizona and Utah, where visitation declined
    16 percent between 1996 and 1997; (2) construction projects that
    interfered with visitors' use of several sites such as the Kipp
    Recreation Area in Montana; and (3) new fees, such as at Anasazi
    Heritage Center in Colorado, where visitation declined 22 percent, in
    part because of resistance to new fees.

    At one BLM site we visited, Red Rock Canyon National Conservation
    Area west of Las Vegas, Nevada, a new entrance fee of $5 was
    implemented in 1997, but visitation increased from about 1 million in
    1996 to about 1.14 million in 1997.  At another BLM site we visited,
    Yaquina Head Outstanding Natural Area on the central Oregon coast,
    site visitation declined 10 percent, from about 540,000 in 1996 to
    about 486,000 in 1997.  Visits to the interpretive center declined 27
    percent when fees were introduced, and at the lighthouse, visits
    dropped from 531 walk-in visitors a day to 65--an 88-percent
    decrease.  Subsequent changes in the lighthouse fee raised the
    average daily attendance to 425 in July 1998.

       INITIAL VISITATION RESEARCH
       SHOWS GENERAL SUPPORT FOR FEE
       DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM
    ---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 5:2

    Surveys completed by the Park Service and the Forest Service show
    that visitors generally support the need for, and the amount of, new
    or increased entrance or user fees.  However, these surveys are
    limited to only a few sites and do not cover visitors to the sites of
    the Fish and Wildlife Service and BLM.  Both the Park Service and the
    Forest Service are planning additional surveys for 1998 and 1999 that
    will probe more deeply into visitation issues.  In addition, some
    representatives of interest groups and recreation fee researchers
    identified several areas needing further research to fully assess the
    impact of the fee demonstration program.  Agency officials agreed
    that additional research is needed in a number of areas.  All four
    agencies have research planned to address several of the research
    topics.

          COMPLETED VISITATION
          RESEARCH ON THE FEE
          DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM
    -------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 5:2.1

    Research on actual impact of the fee demonstration program by both
    the Park Service and the Forest Service shows that most visitors
    support the need for fees and believe that the fees are set at about
    the right level.

    A Park Service survey in 11 national park units taken during summer
    1997 showed that 83 percent of the respondents were either satisfied
    with the fees they paid or thought the fees were too low; 17 percent
    thought the fees were too high.\3 According to 96 percent of
    respondents, the fees would not affect their current visit or future
    plans to visit the park.  Visitors supported the new fees in large
    part because they wanted all or most of the fee revenues to remain in
    the park where they were collected or with the Park Service so that
    the funds could be used to improve visitor services or protect
    resources, rather than be returned to the U.S.  Treasury.

    Three surveys at fee demonstration sites administered by the Forest
    Service found general support for the program.  A survey of over 400
    visitors at the Mount St.  Helens National Volcanic Monument in
    Washington State in 1997 found 68 percent of those surveyed said
    their visitor experience was worth the fee they paid.\4 Although over
    50 percent of those surveyed were not aware of the new fees prior to
    coming to Mount St.  Helens, 69 percent said their visitation plans
    did not change as a result of the new fees.  Overall, 92 percent of
    those surveyed were either very satisfied or satisfied with their
    experience at the site.

    A June 1997 to May 1998 survey of 1,392 backpackers and hikers at
    Desolation Wilderness, Eldorado National Forest, in California found
    that a majority accepted the concept of wilderness use fees and
    considered the amount charged to be about right.\5

    However, day-use fees were less acceptable than overnight camping
    fees--about 33 percent of those who were surveyed disliked day-use
    fees compared with 20 percent who disliked camping fees.

    Starting in 1997, visitors to all 39 of the Forest Service's fee
    demonstration sites were given the opportunity to respond to a
    customer "comment card� when they purchased a permit.  As of March
    1998, 528 cards had been received from visitors to 45 individual
    national forests participating in the fee demonstration program.
    About 57 percent of the respondents either agreed or strongly agreed
    with the statement that the opportunities and services they
    experienced during their visits were at least equal to the fee they
    paid.\6

    --------------------
    \3 Allen L.  Lundgren and David W.  Lime, Overview of a 1997 National
    Park Service Monitoring Study to Obtain Visitor Reactions to the
    Recreational Fee Demonstration Program Final Report, University of
    Minnesota, Department of Forest Resources, Cooperative Park Studies
    Unit (Nov.  1997).

    \4 Laura Garcia Tagliani and Sam H.  Ham, Visitors' Reactions to the
    Recreational Fee Pilot Program at Mount St.  Helens National Volcanic
    Monument, College of Graduate Studies, University of Idaho (May
    1998).

    \5 Alan E.  Watson and others, Case Study of the Desolation
    Wilderness Fee Pilot Program, Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research
    Institute, Missoula, Mont.  (May 1998).

    \6 Debbie Chavez and Dave Olson, USDA Forest Service Fee
    Demonstration Projects:  Comment Card Analysis, U.S.  Forest Service,
    Pacific Southwest Research Station, Riverside, Calif.  (Mar.  1998).

          ADDITIONAL SURVEYS ARE
          PLANNED TO ASSESS THE IMPACT
          OF THE FEE DEMONSTRATION
          PROGRAM
    -------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 5:2.2

    Because only two of the four agencies participating in the
    recreational fee demonstration program have completed visitor
    surveys, additional research is planned for 1998 and 1999 to more
    fully assess visitors' views on new or increased recreational fees.
    In 1998, both BLM and the Fish and Wildlife Service began their
    initial evaluations of the impact of the fee demonstration program on
    visitors.  These surveys will be included as part of the final
    evaluation report of the demonstration program, which is intended to
    be a comprehensive evaluation on the impact of fees on visitation by
    each of the four agencies.  Additional research by all four agencies,
    when completed, should more fully illustrate public acceptance and
    reaction to new or increased fees.  Surveys on the impact of fees on
    visitation and other issues planned for 1998 and 1999 include the
    following:

      -- The Park Service plans additional research on visitation in 1998
         that will (1) survey the managers at all 100 recreational fee
         demonstration sites concerning visitation and obtain their
         perceptions of the equity, the efficiency, and the quality of
         visitors' experiences resulting from the fee demonstration
         program; and (2) conduct detailed case study evaluations at 13
         fee demonstration sites, including a detailed visitor survey at
         each site.  The case study sites will explore such questions as
         whether fees affected the mix of sites' visitors and how fees
         and changes in fee levels have affected the visitors' experience
         at the sites, among other questions.  The surveys are being
         administered for the Park Service by the University of Idaho
         with assistance from the University of Montana and Pennsylvania
         State University.  Survey results are expected by April 1999.

      -- The Forest Service plans to survey visitors at several national
         forests in 1998 to assess their views on new or increased fees
         under the demonstration program.  Several visitor surveys will
         be completed at the national forests in Southern California as
         part of the fee demonstration project.  The primary objectives
         of the surveys are to assess visitors' responses to new
         recreational fees and the effects of the new fees on visitation
         patterns and to complete a follow-up survey of users who visited
         the demonstration sites before the new fees were in place.  The
         surveys are being done by the Pacific Southwest Research Station
         in Riverside and by California State University, San Bernadino,
         and should be completed in 1999.  In addition, a follow-up to a
         1997 visitor survey is planned to assess the opinions of campers
         on new fee charges at the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness
         in Minnesota.  The survey is being done by the College of
         Natural Resources, University of Minnesota, and should be
         completed by November 1998.

      -- A 1998 survey of a total of 2,600 visitors is planned at nine of
         the Fish and Wildlife Service's wildlife refuges, according to
         an agency official.  The survey objectives are to obtain
         visitors' opinions on the fairness and equity of the fee being
         charged, alternative fee-collection methods, and the use of
         revenues from fee collections, among other topics.  The nine
         sites selected will include those charging both entrance and
         user fees as well as sites with new fees and those that changed
         existing fees.  The study is being completed for the Service by
         a contractor to the Department of the Interior's National
         Biological Survey with assistance from Colorado State
         University.  Survey results will be available by the end of
         1998.

      -- During September 1998, BLM plans to survey a total of 800 people
         who visited eight different demonstration sites to assess their
         views on the program.  The specific objectives of the survey are
         to determine the appropriateness of the fees charged, how
         revenues from fees should be used, and how fees will affect
         future visitation, among other topics.  The sites selected will
         represent a cross-section of both dispersed and developed
         recreation sites.  The survey is being done with assistance from
         the University of Virginia Survey Research Center and should be
         completed by December 1998.

          AREAS IN NEED OF FURTHER
          RESEARCH
    -------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 5:2.3

    While much of the completed research on visitors' opinions about
    recreational fees shows general support for the demonstration
    program, recreation fee experts and some interest groups we contacted
    raised concerns about some effects that completed or planned
    visitation research, generally, does not address.  The concerns fell
    into three areas:  the impact of new or increased fees on those not
    visiting recreation sites, backcountry users, and low-income users.

    First, almost all completed and planned visitation surveys concerning
    the recreational fee demonstration program have assessed or will
    assess visitors who have paid a user or entrance fee at the
    recreation site.  This practice is consistent with the agencies'
    evaluation approach of assessing visitors' reactions to paying new or
    increased fees.  However, potential visitors who do not come to the
    recreation site or who come to the site but leave because of new or
    increased fees have not been included in the surveys.  For example,
    at Glacier National Park in 1997-98 a fee was collected at the park's
    western entrance on certain winter weekends.  According to reports in
    the media, during this period, passengers in a number of cars refused
    to pay the fee and canceled their visit to the park.  It is because
    of situations like this that several recreation fee researchers we
    contacted said further research is needed to determine whether
    recreational fees are precluding potential recreation users from
    visiting the sites in the demonstration program.

    Representatives from two of the four agencies participating in the
    fee demonstration program agreed this was an important research
    concern that completed or planned visitation research will not
    address.  The Forest Service plans a national recreation survey in
    1998-99 that, among other topics, will address the general public's
    reaction to new or increased fees.  In commenting on this report, the
    Park Service said it plans to conduct a survey of the general public
    to determine the impact of new or increased fees on visitation.  This
    survey should be completed by December 1999.  Fish and Wildlife
    Service officials said they had not planned such research because (1)
    this type of research was expensive to conduct and (2) it was not yet
    a high enough priority among competing research needs within the
    agency.  Officials from BLM said that if fee increases appeared to be
    a factor in causing a decline in 1998 visitation figures, the agency
    would be likely to conduct research on this topic.

    Second, limited visitation surveys have been completed or are planned
    on the impact of new or increased fees on backcountry recreation.
    Only one of the completed surveys and one survey planned for 1998 has
    or will focus exclusively on backcountry recreation:  the Forest
    Service's 1997-98 survey of Desolation Wilderness in northern
    California\7 and its summer 1998 survey of visitors to the Boundary
    Waters Canoe Area Wilderness in Minnesota.  Furthermore, only 1 of
    the 11 national park units included in the Park Service's 1997
    visitation survey had instituted fees for backcountry use.  One
    interest group contacted, Outward Bound USA,\8 suggested that
    visitors' acceptance of new or increased fees was greater in
    developed recreation areas and that backcountry users were less
    enthusiastic about the program because agencies charge multiple fees
    for backcountry activities in the same area and many backcountry fees
    are new fees rather than increases in existing fees.  Several
    recreation fee researchers contacted said that since many backcountry
    use fees were new, additional research was needed to determine if
    fees were affecting backcountry visitation patterns.

    While representatives from the Park Service and the Forest Service
    agreed this was an important research concern, Fish and Wildlife
    Service officials did not, since their recreation sites do not
    involve nearly as much dispersed backcountry recreation as the Park
    Service's and the Forest Service's.  A BLM official acknowledged this
    was an important issue, but said the agency's visitation survey would
    only be administered at a small number of sites with dispersed
    backcountry recreation.  In commenting on a draft of this report, the
    Park Service said that it plans to conduct a survey of
    backcountry/winter recreation users, to be completed by December
    1999, to determine the impact of new or increased fees on visitation.
    A Forest Service official said the agency's two surveys would shed
    some light on the impact of fees on backcountry use but believed more
    research was needed to fully assess the impact of fees on the Forest
    Service's many sites with backcountry use.  The Forest Service
    official favored more emphasis on such research but said that funding
    it would have to be balanced with other research priorities.

    Third, concerns have been expressed about the effect of new or
    increased fees on low-income visitors to federal recreation sites
    participating in the fee demonstration program.  While BLM and the
    Fish and Wildlife Service plan surveys to address this issue, neither
    the Park Service nor the Forest Service has completed or plans
    research sufficient to address this topic at a number of sites
    participating in the demonstration program.  Two groups we contacted,
    the National Parks and Conservation Association and Outward Bound
    USA, emphasized that although recreational fees are becoming more
    common, at some point fee increases will affect the demographics of
    recreation users, particularly those with limited means.  In
    commenting on a draft of this report, the Forest Service stated that
    it is considering requiring fee demonstration sites to (1) collect
    data on the impact of fees on low-income and ethnic populations and
    (2) offer proposals to mitigate any impacts.

    Prior recreation fee research has also raised concerns about the
    impact of fees on the visitation patterns of low- and moderate-income
    users.  For example, a study of the impact of fees on recreational
    day use at Army Corps of Engineers recreation facilities suggests
    that a larger proportion of low-income users would stop visiting a
    site if fees were charged and, since low-income users are more
    sensitive to the magnitude of fees charged, that higher fees would
    displace a higher proportion of low-income users.\9 In addition, a
    1997 survey of 1,260 visitors to 11 national park units found that 17
    percent thought the fees charged were too high and that the lower the
    respondent's income, the greater the tendency to think the fees
    charged were too high.\10 Several recreation fee researchers
    contacted said that while some completed research has shown support
    for new fees among users of all income levels, further research is
    needed to understand how new fees and fee levels affect visitation of
    low-income users at federal recreation sites.

    --------------------
    \7 Alan E.  Watson and others, Providing Science Input to Management
    Issues:  Defining and Answering Researchable Questions:  Introduction
    to a Case Study of the Desolation Wilderness Fee Pilot Program, Aldo
    Leopold Wilderness Research Institute, Missoula, Mont.  (May 1998).

    \8 See chapter 1 for a description and list of groups contacted.

    \9 Stephen Reiling and others, Potential Equity Effects of a New
    Day-Use Fee (1995); and Stephen Reiling and others, Demand and
    Marketing Study at Army Corps of Engineers Day-Use Areas, U.S.  Army
    Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss.
    (1994).

    \10 Lundgren and Lime, Overview of a 1997 National Park Service
    Monitoring Study.

       INTEREST GROUPS GENERALLY
       SUPPORT NEW FEE PROGRAM, BUT
       SOME VOICE CONCERNS
    ---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 5:3

    A number of interest groups we contacted, while generally supportive
    of the program, had some concerns about how the program was being
    implemented and were withholding a strong endorsement until more
    tangible results of the program were available.  Some groups were
    concerned that recreational fee increases represented an unfair
    burden on commercial recreation providers and that public acceptance
    of fee increases may diminish if fee increases go much higher.  Also,
    some users were concerned that fees were too high and amounted to
    double taxation.

    All nine of the interest groups we contacted supported the
    recreational fee demonstration program, but some had concerns about
    how the program was being implemented.\11 For example, the American
    Recreation Coalition supports the program because fees have generated
    funds to preserve aging agency facilities, provide new interpretative
    services, or experiment with new or innovative fee-collection
    initiatives, such as a regional trail pass program.  However, the
    coalition was concerned that, in some cases, new or increased fees
    were being added to permit fees already paid by commercial recreation
    providers to the agencies, which represented an unfair and costly
    burden to their operations.  The National Parks and Conservation
    Association told us it supports the fee demonstration program because
    fees are retained at the sites where they are collected and are used
    to reduce maintenance backlogs.  At the same time, however, the
    association was concerned that at some point the public's acceptance
    of fee increases may erode.  For example, according to the
    association, excessive use fees for private boaters along the
    Colorado River\12 and a doubling or tripling of entrance fees at
    certain popular national parks such as Yosemite are actions that are
    likely to stretch the limit of public acceptance of new recreational
    fees.  Another group from Washington State, the Mountaineers, told us
    that while the public has initially accepted the program, the group
    was withholding a strong endorsement of it until it could see the
    results from the agencies' spending on increased maintenance,
    enhanced visitor services, or interpretative programs and the results
    of visitor surveys.

    Some visitors to federal recreation sites under the demonstration
    program have voiced opposition to new or increased fees.  For
    example, a Forest Service analysis of 528 comment cards found that
    about 26 percent disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement
    that the value of the recreation opportunities and services the
    visitors had experienced was at least equal to the fee they paid.\13
    In addition, 43 percent of the 420 people providing written comments
    on the cards made negative statements about the recreational fees,
    such as "the price is too high," "this is double taxation," or "I
    oppose the fees." Similarly, an analysis of 484 pieces of
    correspondence received by the Park Service between July 1996 and
    September 1997 showed that 67 percent of respondents expressed some
    opposition to new fees.\14 According to Park Service and Forest
    Service officials, the surveys were not based on statistical sampling
    and, therefore, are not representative of all users.  Comment cards
    and correspondence are more likely to be completed by those having a
    strong opinion on fees, especially those who are opposed to fees.

    --------------------
    \11 See chapter 1 for a description and list of groups contacted.

    \12 According to the Park Service, some of the fees charged to
    private boaters on the Colorado River in the Grand Canyon are
    collected under 16 U.S.C.  3a--a separate authority outside of the
    fee demonstration program.

    \13 Chavez and Olson, USDA Forest Service Fee Demonstration Projects.

    \14 Allen L.  Lundgren and others, Content Analysis of Correspondence
    Received by the National Park Service Regarding the Recreational Fee
    Demonstration Program, Cooperative Park Studies Unit, University of
    Minnesota (Nov.  1997).

    RECREATIONAL FEE GROSS REVENUES,
    FISCAL YEARS 1996-98
    =========================================================== Appendix I

                             (Dollars in thousands)

                                                                Percentage
                                                                  increase
                                                       FY 1998     from FY
                                          FY      FY  (estimat  1996 to FY
    Agency/fees                         1996    1997       ed)        1998
    --------------------------------  ------  ------  --------  ----------
    Park Service
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Nondemonstration fees             $77,77  $7,451    $9,500
                                           1
    Demonstration fees                     0  114,04   135,572
                                                   1
    Agency total                      77,771  121,49   145,072       86.5%
                                                   2

    Forest Service
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Nondemonstration fees              9,988   7,700     7,000
    Demonstration fees                    20   8,744    17,744
    Agency total                      10,008  16,444    24,744      147.2%

    Bureau of Land Management
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Nondemonstration fees              3,311   3,249     2,525
    Demonstration fees                     0     419     3,200
    Agency total                       3,311   3,668     5,725       72.9%

    Fish and Wildlife Service
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Nondemonstration fees              2,177   2,325       500
    Demonstration fees                     0     622     3,300
    Agency total                       2,177   2,947     3,800       74.6%

    The four agencies combined
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Nondemonstration fees             93,247  20,725    19,525
    Demonstration fees                    20  123,82   159,816
                                                   6
    ======================================================================
    Total                             $93,26  $144,5  $179,341       92.3%
                                           7      51
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Note:  Prior to fiscal year 1998, not all of the fee revenues
    generated by demonstration sites were available for expenditure.  The
    agencies could spend only those revenues that exceeded the level of
    revenues they had generated prior to the demonstration program.  This
    is discussed in greater detail in chapter 3.

    Source:  Data provided by the four agencies.

    DETAILS ON EXPENDITURES AT THE
    PARK SERVICE'S SITES GAO VISITED
    ========================================================== Appendix II

    In contrast to expenditures on a national basis in which repair and
    maintenance predominated, at the seven Park Service sites we visited,
    expenditures to support fee- collection activities were the largest
    expenditure.  For example, Assateague Island National Seashore in
    Maryland had $188,624 in available revenues as of March 31, 1998.\1

    The seashore had spent $72,488, or 38 percent, of revenues
    collected--$61,488 of it on the cost of fee collection and $11,000 on
    health and safety or interpretation items.  The health and safety
    funds were spent on new restrooms that can be removed from the site
    when a major storm is expected.  At the Frederick Douglass National
    Historic Site in Washington, D.C., $5,000 was spent on the cost of
    collecting fees as of March 31, 1998, but nothing was spent on other
    planned expenditures out of the $20,002 in available revenues.  At
    Olympic National Park in Washington State, with $807,235 in available
    revenues, $37,000, or 5 percent, had been spent on the cost of
    collection as of March 31, 1998, and the other project expenditures
    of $131,199, or 16 percent, included replacing restroom doors and
    privies, spreading gravel on roads and parking areas, and making
    repairs at picnic areas (see fig.  II.1).

       Figure II.1:  Photos of
       Projects Paid for by the
       Olympic National Park's
       Demonstration Program Revenues:
       Road Project and Replacement of
       Picnic Tabletops

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    At Carlsbad Caverns National Park in New Mexico, the only
    expenditures from the $652,983 in available revenues through March
    31, 1998, were for the cost of collection, totaling about $351,392,
    or 54 percent.  At Shenandoah National Park in Virginia, $720,819, or
    41 percent, of the $1.7 million in available revenues was spent on
    the cost of collection.  Some of the remainder was spent on clearing
    historic vistas along Skyline Drive (see fig.  II.2a and II.2b).

       Figure II.2a:  Shenandoah
       National Park's Vista Clearing
       Project:  Typical Area Where
       Historic Vista Along Skyline
       Drive Is Obscured by Tree
       Growth

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

       Figure II.2b:  Shenandoah
       National Park's Vista Clearing
       Project:  Area Where Trees Were
       Cleared From Historic Vista
       Along Skyline Drive

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    Timpanogos Cave National Monument in Utah has spent $95,611, or 67
    percent, of the $142,421 in available revenues, almost all of it for
    the cost of collection.  At Zion National Park in Utah, with $2.3
    million in available revenues as of March 31, 74 percent, or $601,184
    of $812,701 in expenditures were for the cost of collection, and most
    of the remainder was spent on the rehabilitation of the Watchman
    Campground near park headquarters (see fig.  II.3).

       Figure II.3:  Rehabilitation of
       the Zion National Park Watchman
       Campground Campsites and New
       Group Shelter

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    --------------------
    \1 The revenue numbers mentioned in this paragraph are the amounts
    available after the deduction of the 20 percent for the agencywide
    fund and the base year amount applicable to fiscal year 1997.

    DETAILS ON EXPENDITURES AT THE
    FOREST SERVICE'S SITES GAO VISITED
    ========================================================= Appendix III

    At the Forest Service's fee demonstration sites we visited, the
    distribution of actual expenditures varied from those reported on a
    national basis.  For example, at the American Fork Canyon--Alpine
    Loop Recreation Area of Uinta National Forest in Utah, which had
    $198,629 in revenues available to spend through March 31, 1998,
    $184,688 or 93 percent, had been spent.  Of that amount, 68 percent
    was spent on the cost of fee collection and the remainder on annual
    operations, facility enhancement, repairs and maintenance, and
    interpretation and signage.  An example of an expenditure there was
    the use of fee demonstration funds to leverage additional funding for
    the reconstruction of a road and a parking lot at a popular
    recreation area (see fig.  III.1).

       Figure III.1:  Reconstruction
       of the Tibble Fork Parking Area
       of American Fork Canyon
       Recreation Area, Uinta National
       Forest

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    Mount St.  Helens National Volcanic Monument in the Gifford Pinchot
    National Forest in Washington State had $2.3 million in revenues
    through March 31, 1998, and spent 57 percent, or $1.3 million.  Of
    that amount, 32 percent was spent on interpretation and 28 percent on
    repairs and maintenance.  Fee revenues allowed the monument to extend
    seasons and hours at visitor centers, information stations, and
    interpretive sites and to provide daily cleaning and maintenance of
    developed areas, such as viewpoints, picnic areas, and trailheads.
    Other expenditures were for health and safety improvements, law
    enforcement, resource preservation, facility enhancement, and the
    cost of collection.  At the Salt and Verde Rivers Recreation Complex
    in Tonto National Forest in Arizona, $2.1 million was taken in and
    $2.0 million, or 90 percent, was spent through March 31, 1998.  Of
    the expenditures, 63 percent were for annual operations, followed by
    14 percent for the cost of collection, and 14 percent for facility
    enhancement.  Figure III.2 shows a reconstructed boat launch at the
    Saguaro del Norte recreation site in Tonto that was funded with
    $225,000 in demonstration fee revenues.  The remainder of the
    expenditures were for repairs and maintenance, interpretation, and
    law enforcement.

       Figure III.2:  Reconstructed
       Boat Launch at the Saguaro del
       Norte Recreation Site in Tonto
       National Forest

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    DETAILS ON EXPENDITURES AT THE
    FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE'S SITES
    GAO VISITED
    ========================================================== Appendix IV

    At the three Fish and Wildlife Service's refuges we visited, a total
    of $137,704, or 39 percent, of $345,294 in revenues was reported
    spent as of March 31, 1998.  For these three sites, the predominant
    area of expenditure was $81,980, or 60 percent, for the cost of fee
    collection--$14,000 by Bosque Del Apache National Wildlife Refuge,
    New Mexico; $66,000 by Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge,
    Virginia; and $1,980 by Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge,
    Washington State (see fig.  IV.1).  All of the remainder was spent on
    repairs and maintenance, mostly on projects under way at
    Chincoteague, including the replacement of a roof and carpeting at
    the visitor contact station, trail work, and construction of a mobile
    environmental learning center.  For the other two sites we visited,
    the only expenditure outside of those for the cost for collection was
    $16,808 on repair and maintenance at Bosque Del Apache.

       Figure IV.1:  Self-Service
       Fee-Collection Facility at
       Nisqually National Wildlife
       Refuge

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    DETAILS ON EXPENDITURES AT THE
    BLM'S SITES GAO VISITED
    =========================================================== Appendix V

    For the two Bureau of Land Management (BLM) sites we visited,
    $213,320 had been spent as of March 31, 1998, with the greatest
    amount, 77 percent, going toward the cost of fee collection.

    At the Red Rock National Conservation Area in Nevada, of the $473,567
    in revenues available to spend through March 31, 1998, $178,767 had
    been spent.  Most of that amount, $128,783, or 72 percent, was spent
    for the cost of collection and the remainder for minor facility
    enhancement, repair and maintenance, and interpretation items (see
    fig.  V.1).

    Yaquina Head Outstanding Natural Area in Oregon reported no actual
    expenditures from its $69,707 in revenues other than $34,463 spent on
    the cost of collection as of March 31, 1998.

       Figure V.1:  New Entrance
       Fee-Collection Facility Under
       Construction at BLM's Red Rock
       National Conservation Area

       (See figure in printed
       edition.)

    (See figure in printed edition.)Appendix VI
    COMMENTS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF
    THE INTERIOR AND OUR EVALUATION
    =========================================================== Appendix V

    (See figure in printed edition.)

    (See figure in printed edition.)

    (See figure in printed edition.)

    (See figure in printed edition.)

    (See figure in printed edition.)

    GAO COMMENTS

    The following are GAO's comments on the Department of the Interior's
    letter dated October 8, 1998.  While the Department generally agreed
    with the findings of the report, agencies within the Department
    raised concerns about several sections of it.  The agencies also
    provided clarifications and technical points that were incorporated
    into the report as appropriate.  Within the letter, there are seven
    key points on which we provide the following comments.

    1.  The comments of the Park Service suggest that the agency is
    reluctant to experiment with differential pricing for a number of
    reasons, including concerns that new pricing structures could result
    in increased processing time at entrance stations, confused visitors,
    and complex fee schedules and could also make enforcement of fees
    more difficult.  We recognize that the Park Service's fee schedule
    has been successful, but question whether the agency has responded
    sufficiently to one of the intents of the recreational fee
    demonstration program--that agencies experiment with innovative
    pricing structures.  If done well, experimenting with differential
    pricing at the Park Service's demonstration sites need not result in
    complex fee schedules, delays at entrance stations, confused visitors
    or significant increases in the cost of fee collection.  It is in
    this context, that we provided the examples of golf courses,
    amusement parks, and ski areas--recreation activities that routinely
    use differential pricing to which the public is already accustomed.
    In many cases, these fee systems are equitable, easily understood by
    the visitor, and do not cause delay or confusion.

    The Park Service commented that park managers had the discretion of
    adopting high-season or weekend differential fee structures if they
    best suited the area.  It is unclear to us whether the few examples
    provided in the comments are the only park units at which park
    managers believed such pricing was suitable.  If so, it further
    demonstrates our point that park managers are capable of successfully
    using differential fees but have done so to date on a very limited
    basis.  We continue to believe that charging visitors the same rate
    whether they visit for 1 day or 7 days may not be equitable.  More
    equitable pricing based on length of stay could also better manage
    demand during high visitation periods.  The potential benefits to
    park visitors, such as less crowding and equitable fees, warrant that
    differential pricing be tried at a greater number of park units than
    listed in the agency's comments.

    Furthermore, the Park Service's comments on this point are not
    consistent with the January 1998 report to the Congress on the status
    of the fee demonstration program, which was jointly prepared by the
    Park Service, the Forest Service, BLM and the Fish and Wildlife
    Service and transmitted by the Undersecretary of the Department of
    Agriculture and an Assistant Secretary of the Department of the
    Interior.  In that report, the four agencies noted that among the
    lessons learned up to that point was that differential pricing could
    be used to maximize resource protection or to minimize infrastructure
    investment.  The report states that "higher fees on weekends, summer
    months, or other [periods of] traditionally-high recreation use,
    might reduce the peak loads on resources and
    facilities .  .  .  .  Reductions in peak loads can directly reduce
    the cost to taxpayers associated with operating the recreation sites,
    providing services to these sites, and any attendant damage to the
    resource."

    2.  We agree that there are a large number of high-revenue sites in
    the Park Service because the agency charges higher fees at premium
    sites, invests resources in collecting these fees, and conducts
    reasonable enforcement activities to ensure payment.

    3.  Early in its implementation of the demonstration program, the
    Park Service directed its demonstration sites to focus the program's
    expenditures on addressing backlogged repair and maintenance items.
    Because of this Park Service emphasis, we sought to determine to what
    extent the new fee revenues would be able to address these items.  We
    found that park managers at several parks indicated that they could
    address their existing repair and maintenance backlog in a few years
    (5 years or less) through these fee revenues--assuming the program
    continues and that appropriations remain stable.  We agree that
    regardless of what happens to the repair and maintenance backlog, a
    backlog of natural and cultural resource-related needs may continue.
    Nonetheless, it is significant that managers of some of the parks we
    visited, such as Zion and Shenandoah, indicated that they could
    resolve their backlog of repair and maintenance needs in a few years
    through revenues from the demonstration program.

    4.  It was clear from our work that there was disagreement among Park
    Service and BLM officials over whether El Malpais National Monument
    was a suitable site for the fee demonstration program, and the Park
    Service's comments indicate that this disagreement continues.  The
    boundaries of the agencies' land make it unlikely that the project
    could succeed without a joint effort.  As a result, the site and its
    visitors will not reap the benefits other sites have gained from
    being included in the demonstration program, such as better
    maintained visitor facilities.  We disagree with the concerns that
    the Park Service raised on this point and question their accuracy
    since the cost-benefit analysis referred to in the Park Service's
    comments has not been completed.  We obtained a draft of that
    analysis, which, according to Park Service staff at El Malpais, was
    the most recent analysis available as of October 15, 1998.  The draft
    analysis contains no information on anticipated costs or revenues
    from charging fees at this site.  Furthermore, we disagree with the
    Park Service's belief that fees would affect Native Americans' use of
    the site.  According to the Park Service regional fee demonstration
    coordinator, at park units at which similar situations existed, local
    managers have been able to resolve the cultural issues involved with
    Native Americans' use of sites at which fees had been established.

    5.  We agree that the Fish and Wildlife Service's opportunities to
    experiment with differential pricing may be limited to those sites
    where there is enough visitation to provide incentives to visit
    during off-peak periods.  One of the Fish and Wildlife Service's
    sites included in our review was Chincoteague National Wildlife
    Refuge.  There, the lack of parking was a big enough concern that
    refuge managers are considering the need for a shuttle system to
    better handle visitors during peak periods.  While Chincoteague may
    not be typical of other sites of the Fish and Wildlife Service, it
    nonetheless is one area at which visitors and the agency could
    benefit from differential pricing.

    6.  Our matter for congressional consideration on providing
    additional flexibility to agencies in spending fee revenues rather
    than allowing sites to retain 80 percent of the fees they collect in
    all cases is primarily directed at high-revenue sites.  At this
    point, few of the demonstration sites in the Fish and Wildlife
    Service generate levels of revenues that exceed 20 percent of their
    operating budget--the threshold we used to designate high-revenue
    sites.  Furthermore, as our report notes, the Assistant Secretary of
    the Interior for Policy, Management, and Budget has testified that
    setting aside some of the fee revenues for broader agency priorities
    is important and that giving the collecting sites a high percentage
    of the revenues could create undesirable inequities within an agency.

    7.  The Department's Office of Budget indicated that there was a
    factual error in the reporting of revenues earned during fiscal year
    1997 at fee demonstration sites in the Park Service.  This is not
    correct.  According to Park Service documents and to discussions with
    Park Service budget and fee program officials, the amount of gross
    revenues generated at the Park Service's demonstration sites during
    fiscal year 1997 was $114,041,000.  The amount suggested by
    Interior's Office of Budget--$45,079,000--may reflect only the amount
    of the Park Service's fee revenues in fiscal year 1997 that were
    available for expenditure.  Prior to fiscal year 1998, the agencies
    could only spend those fee revenues that exceeded the amount of fees
    they generated before the demonstration.  For fiscal years 1998 and
    1999, the agencies can spend all of the revenues generated from fees
    at demonstration sites.  This is more fully discussed in chapter 3.
    For greater clarity, we have added a note to the table on program
    revenues in appendix I that states that not all revenues generated
    prior to fiscal year 1998 were available for expenditure.

    (See figure in printed edition.)Appendix VII
    COMMENTS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF
    AGRICULTURE AND OUR EVALUATION
    =========================================================== Appendix V

    (See figure in printed edition.)

    (See figure in printed edition.)

    (See figure in printed edition.)

    (See figure in printed edition.)

    GAO COMMENTS

    The following are GAO's comments on the Department of Agriculture's
    letter dated October 2, 1998.  The Department generally agreed with
    the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the report, but
    provided several clarifications and technical points that were
    incorporated into the report as appropriate.  Within the letter,
    there are three key points on which we provide the following
    comments.

    1.  We agree that there are vast recreational opportunities available
    on lands administered by the Forest Service and that the agency has
    the potential of raising significantly more in fee revenues to
    maintain site resources and enhance the services and facilities
    available on these lands.  This is supported by the agency's estimate
    that its visitation is about three times as great as the Park
    Service's.

    2.  The Forest Service raises several points on our matter for
    congressional consideration about modifying the current requirement
    that 80 percent of the fee revenues be spent at the collecting units
    to provide the agencies with greater flexibility to spend the
    revenues on the agencies' highest-priority needs.  Our analysis and
    conclusion that greater flexibility could be beneficial were based on
    the spending at high-revenue sites, where, in the long term, the
    sites may be able to use increased revenues to address most or all of
    their critical needs.  In these cases, making 80 percent of the
    revenues available to the collecting sites may result in sites
    spending money on relatively low-priority items compared with the
    needs of other sites within the agency.  Therefore, in the long term,
    greater flexibility may permit the agency to better address its
    highest-priority needs at all sites.  Nevertheless our matter for
    congressional consideration notes that any change to the 80-percent
    requirement would have to be balanced against the need to maintain
    incentives at fee-collecting units and to maintain the support of the
    visitors.

    3.  We did not delete examples of cooperation among the agencies that
    had been part of a "statement of facts" that we provided to and
    discussed with the Forest Service.  After we received the agency's
    comments, we discussed this concern with the key focal point for the
    fee demonstration program in the Forest Service.  He indicated that
    the agency may have made this comment in error.

    MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
    ======================================================== Appendix VIII

    RESOURCES, COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC
    DEVELOPMENT DIVISION, WASHINGTON,
    D.C.

    Jay Cherlow
    Cliff W.  Fowler
    John P.  Scott
    Ned H.  Woodward

    SEATTLE FIELD OFFICE

    Brian A.  Estes
    Paul E.  Staley, Jr

    OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL

    A.  Richard Kasdan

    RELATED GAO PRODUCTS
    ============================================================ Chapter 1

    National Park Service:  Efforts to Identify and Manage the
    Maintenance Backlog (GAO/RCED-98-143, May 14, 1998).

    Forest Service:  Barriers to Generating Revenue or Reducing Costs
    (GAO/RCED-98-58, Feb.  13, 1998).

    National Park Service:  Maintenance Backlog Issues (GAO/T-RCED-98-61,
    Feb.  4, 1998).

    National Park Service:  Employee Housing Issues (GAO/T-RCED-98-35,
    Oct.  29, 1997).

    Park Service:  Managing for Results Could Strengthen Accountability
    (GAO/RCED-97-125, Apr.  10, 1997).

    U.S.  Forest Service:  Fees for Recreation Special-Use Permits Do Not
    Reflect Fair Market Value (GAO/RCED-97-16, Dec.  20, 1996).

    Comments on H.R.  2107 (GAO/RCED-96-189R, June 11, 1996).

    National Parks:  Difficult Choices Need to Be Made About the Future
    of the Parks (GAO/RCED-95-238, Aug.  30, 1995).

    National Park Service:  Better Management and Broader Restructuring
    Efforts Are Needed (GAO/T-RCED-95-101, Feb.  9, 1995).

    National Park Service:  Reexamination of Employee Housing Program Is
    Needed (GAO/RCED-94-284, Aug.  30, 1994).

    National Park Service:  Activities Outside Park Borders Have Caused
    Damage to Resources and Will Likely Cause More (GAO/RCED-94-59, Jan.
    3, 1994).

    Department of the Interior:  Transfer of the Presidio From the Army
    to the National Park Service (GAO/RCED-94-61, Oct.  26, 1993).

    National Park Service:  Condition of and Need for Employee Housing
    (GAO/RCED-93-192, Sept.  30, 1993).

    National Park Service:  Scope and Cost of America's Industrial
    Heritage Project Need to Be Defined (GAO/RCED-93-134, May 14, 1993).

    Natural Resources Management Issues (GAO/OCG-93-17TR, Dec.  1992).

    Forest Service:  Difficult Choices Face the Future of the Recreation
    Program (GAO/RCED-91-115, Apr.  15, 1991).

    Parks and Recreation:  Resource Limitations Affect Condition of
    Forest Service Recreation Sites (GAO/RCED-91-48, Jan.  15, 1991).

    Air Pollution:  Protecting Parks and Wilderness From Nearby Pollution
    Sources (GAO/RCED-90-10, Feb.  7, 1990).

    National Forests:  Special Recreation Areas Not Meeting Established
    Objectives (GAO/RCED-90-27, Feb.  5, 1990).

    Wilderness Preservation:  Problems in Some National Forests Should Be
    Addressed (GAO/RCED-89-202, Sept.  26, 1989).

    Parks and Recreation:  Maintenance and Reconstruction Backlog on
    National Forest Trails (GAO/RCED-89-182, Sept.  22, 1989).

    Parks and Recreation:  Park Service Managers Report Shortfalls in
    Maintenance Funding (GAO/RCED-88-91BR, Mar.  21, 1988).

    *** End of document. ***