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 cardï¿½ 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. ***