a

GAO

United States Government Accountability Office

Report to Congressional Requesters

May 2005 NATIONAL PARK 

SERVICE

Revenues Could 

Increase by Charging 

Allowed Fees for 

Some Special Uses 

Permits

GAO-05-410
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-410.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Robin M. 

Nazzaro at (202) 512-3841 or 

nazzaror@gao.gov. 

Highlights of GAO-05-410, a report to 

congressional requesters 

May 2005

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 

Revenues Could Increase by Charging 

Allowed Fees for Some Special Uses 

Permits 

The Park Service has developed policy guidance for issuing permits for 

special events and for commercial filming and still photography activities. 

This policy guidance includes general criteria about the terms and 

conditions as to when and where specific types of activities can take place 

and requires park units to recover applicable costs associated with 

administering and monitoring special park uses. Recovery of costs 

associated with filming activities is required by law. Recoverable costs 

include, for example, the time charged by a park ranger to visit the site of the 

event, such as a festival held on park grounds, to monitor that the terms and 

conditions of the permit are met. 

During fiscal year 2003, park units did not consistently apply Park Service 

guidance for permitting special events and for commercial filming and still 

photography, and often did not identify and recover costs associated with 

permitting such activities, thereby decreasing financial resources available 

to the parks. Of the six park units we visited, one did not charge fees for 

processing applications; one only recovered monitoring costs associated 

with some of its permits; and three others had not updated, for several years, 

hourly charges to reflect current higher costs for personnel time for 

administering and monitoring permitted activities. For example, National 

Capital Parks-Central officials charged no administrative fees for the 

estimated 1,400-plus permits issued for special events and for filming and 

still photography in fiscal year 2003. Officials said that park units had not 

updated fees because of regional policy and a high workload or because 

updating the fees was given low priority. 

The Park Service has not implemented a law enacted almost 5 years ago to 

collect location fees for commercial filming and still photography, resulting 

in significant annual forgone revenues. The agency has not implemented 

the law because of delays in reviewing the proposed regulations at the 

Department of Justice and a lack of agreement among the Interior agencies 

about the fee schedule and how it is to be applied. We estimated the Park 

Service would have collected about $1.6 million in location fee revenues in 

fiscal year 2003, if the requirement to collect such fees had been 

implemented. 

The National Park Service routinely 

issues permits for special park 

uses, such as special events or 

commercial filming and still 

photography. However, the 

National Football League’s use of 

the National Mall to launch its 2003 

season raised questions about 

whether permitting such events 

was consistent with existing 

policies and law and whether all 

applicable fees for permitting 

special park uses were being 

collected. 

GAO (1) identified applicable 

policy guidance for issuing special 

uses permits for special events and 

for commercial filming and still 

photography, (2) assessed the 

extent to which this guidance was 

applied during fiscal year 2003, and 

(3) determined the extent to which 

the Park Service implemented the 

requirement to collect location fees 

for commercial filming and still 

photography. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO is making several 

recommendations on identifying 

and collecting fees for 

administering and monitoring 

special events and commercial 

filming and still photography, and 

on expediting the implementation 

of the requirement to collect 

location fees and costs for such 

activities. 

In commenting on the draft report, 

Interior neither agreed nor 

disagreed with our 

recommendations. 
Page i GAO-05-410 National Park Service

Contents

Letter 1

Results in Brief 2

Background 4

The Park Service Has Specific Policy Guidance for Issuing Permits 

and Recovering Costs for Special Park Uses 7

Inconsistent Application of Special Park Uses Guidance Has 

Resulted in Some Park Units Not Fully Identifying and Recovering 

Costs, Thereby Decreasing Resources Available to the Parks 11

Delays in Implementing the Law to Collect Location Fees for 

Commercial Filming and Still Photography Have Resulted in 

Forgone Revenues 16

Conclusions 18

Recommendations for Executive Action 19

Agency Comments and Our Response 20

Appendixes

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 23

Appendix II: Details of the Forgone Revenue Calculations 28

Appendix III: Information on the 2003 National Football League Kickoff 

Event 31

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of the Interior 37

GAO Comments 44

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 45

Tables Table 1: Park Units Visited and Whether the Park Units Charged 

Administrative and Monitoring Fees and Recovered 

Associated Costs 12

Table 2: Forest Service Established Fee Schedule for Filming 29

Table 3: Forest Service Established Fee Schedule for Still 

Photography 29

Table 4: Park Service Proposed Filming Location Fee Schedule 29

Table 5: Park Service Proposed Still Photography Location Fee 

Schedule 30

Table 6: Estimates of Forgone Revenues, Fiscal Year 2003 30
Contents

Page ii GAO-05-410 National Park Service

Figures Figure 1: Park Service Regions 5

Figure 2: A Frequently Filmed and Photographed Thermal Pool at 

Yellowstone National Park 14

Abbreviations

BLM Bureau of Land Management

DCI data collection instrument

FS Forest Service

FWS Fish and Wildlife Service

NFL National Football League

OMB Office of Management and Budget

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-05-410 National Park Service

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

A

May 6, 2005 Letr

Congressional Requesters

For over 50 years, the National Park Service has permitted special park 

uses—such as special events or filming and still photography—that provide 

benefits to an individual, group, or organization beyond those available to 

the public at large. Annually, the Park Service issues thousands of permits 

for special events, such as festivals, receptions, and fund-raisers. In the 

past few years, questions have been raised by Members of Congress and 

the public about taxpayer costs, commercialism, and Park Service policies 

related to permitting these activities. One particular event—held in 

September 2003, when the Park Service granted the National Football 

League (NFL) use of the National Mall to kick off its season—caused 

controversy. Because of some complaints that there was extensive 

commercial advertising and some damage to the Mall grounds resulting 

from this event, Members of Congress and the public questioned whether 

permitting such an event was consistent with established policies, was an 

appropriate use of the Mall, and whether taxpayer dollars were used to 

support the event. The Park Service also issues hundreds of permits 

annually for commercial filming and still photography on park land. The 

Park Service is required by law to collect costs and location fees associated 

with these permits, and is authorized to collect costs for other permit uses.

In this context, you asked us to (1) identify applicable Park Service policy 

guidance for issuing special uses permits for special events and for 

commercial filming and still photography, (2) assess the extent to which 

this guidance was applied during fiscal year 2003 to ensure that all 

applicable costs were identified and recovered, and (3) determine the 

extent to which the Park Service has implemented the requirement to 

collect location fees for commercial filming and still photography 

activities.

We identified Park Service policy guidance for special uses permits and 

obtained and analyzed applicable laws, regulations, policies, and 

procedures. To evaluate the extent to which policy guidance was applied, 

we analyzed permit records and other documentation of six selected park 

units that we visited and interviewed Park Service headquarters, regional, 

and park unit officials. We selected these park units because, during fiscal 

year 2003, they had issued the greatest number of both special event and 

filming and still photography permits in each of the six Park Service 

regions within the continental U.S. To determine the extent to which the 
Page 2 GAO-05-410 National Park Service

Park Service implemented the requirement to collect location fees for 

commercial filming and still photography activities, we interviewed Park 

Service officials. We also collected and assessed the reliability of Park 

Service data on filming and still photography permits from all park units for 

fiscal year 2003 and estimated the forgone location fee revenues by 

applying the established fee schedule of another federal land management 

agency to the activities reported to GAO by the Park Service. The fee 

schedule of the other federal agency is based on similar criteria included in 

the legislation authorizing the Park Service to charge fees.

A more detailed description of our scope and methodology is presented in 

appendix I, and a detailed description of our forgone revenue calculations 

and results is presented in appendix II. We performed our work from May 

2004 through May 2005 in accordance with generally accepted government 

auditing standards.

Results in Brief The Park Service’s policy guidance includes general criteria about the 

terms and conditions as to when and where specific types of activities can 

take place. For example, the policy guidance states that activities may be 

permitted if they do not injure or damage park resources, are not contrary 

to the purposes for which the park was established, and do not 

unreasonably interfere with visitation. The policy guidance also covers 

requirements for such details as safety considerations and printing special 

signage. Specifically, as it relates to signage in the National Capital Region, 

where the 2003 NFL kickoff event was held, the park unit Superintendent 

must approve the size, scale, scope, and location of corporate logos and 

other lettering to be used in advertisements or as sponsor recognition. With 

regard to the 2003 NFL kickoff event, the Superintendent admittedly 

allowed a greater quantity of commercial signage to be displayed than she 

had intended. In 2004, Congress passed legislation that prohibited the use 

of appropriated funds in fiscal year 2004 for special event permits on the 

Mall unless the permits prohibited commercial advertising, although the 

Superintendent was authorized to approve discrete lettering recognizing 

sponsors. Also, the Park Service, in accordance with applicable law, has 

policy guidance requiring park units to generally recover costs associated 

with managing special park uses, including special event and commercial 

filming and still photography activities. This requirement includes 

recovering costs for processing permits, monitoring permit activities, 

equipment and facility use, as well as any incidental damage to park 

resources as a result of the event. For example, recoverable costs include 

the time charged by a park ranger to visit the site of the event, such as a 
Page 3 GAO-05-410 National Park Service

festival held on park grounds, to monitor that the terms and conditions of 

the permit are met.

At most of the park units we visited, the parks inconsistently applied 

guidance and did not fully identify and recover costs of permitting special 

events and commercial filming and still photography during fiscal year 

2003. Because costs recovered from permitting activities are used by park 

units for managing their permits program, failing to recover such costs 

decreases the financial resources park units have for administering permits 

and monitoring permitted activities. For 2003, the park units we visited 

either did not charge or had not updated fees for administering or 

monitoring permits. According to the Park Service, several of the units did 

not update their fees because of a high workload at some park units and 

because updating fees was given a low priority at other park units, as the 

following examples illustrate:

• Blue Ridge Parkway did not recover monitoring costs associated with 

some of its permits. Park Service officials with this unit did not charge 

for time spent monitoring activities for 20 of the 28 special event permits 

issued in 2003. 

• National Capital Parks-Central did not charge administrative fees for 

processing special uses permit applications because it was regional 

policy not to do so. Officials at this unit charged no administrative or 

permitting fees, even where applicable, for the estimated 1,400-plus 

permits issued for special events and for commercial filming and still 

photography in fiscal year 2003. We brought this issue to the attention of 

the Department of the Interior’s Solicitor’s Office and, as a result, it has 

modified its guidance and has initiated efforts to require the region to 

begin charging administrative fees to recover costs. 

• Blue Ridge Parkway, Golden Gate National Recreation Area, 

Independence National Historical Park, and Yellowstone National Park 

had not recently updated hourly charges to reflect current higher costs 

for personnel time to administer and monitor permitted activities. As a 

result, these park units were not fully recovering the costs associated 

with their special uses permits program, as required by policy guidance. 

The Park Service has also not implemented a requirement to collect 

location fees for commercial filming and still photography, resulting in 

significant annual forgone revenues. The requirement to collect location 

fees is in addition to the requirement to recover costs for administering and 
Page 4 GAO-05-410 National Park Service

monitoring permits. While the legislation creating the location fee 

requirement was passed almost five years ago, the Park Service has not 

implemented the law because of delays in reviewing the proposed 

regulations at the Department of Justice and a lack of agreement among 

Interior’s agencies about the fee schedule and how it is to be applied. We 

estimated the Park Service would have collected about $1.6 million in 

location fee revenues in fiscal year 2003 if the requirement had been 

implemented.

We are recommending that the Secretary of the Interior direct the Park 

Service Director to ensure that the park units we visited apply existing 

guidance and maintain updated cost recovery fee schedules, determine the 

extent to which park units systemwide are not fully recovering costs for 

special events and for commercial filming and still photography, follow 

through to ensure that National Capital Region assesses administrative fees 

to recover the cost of processing special event and commercial filming and 

still photography permits, and take action to ensure the Park Service 

implements the law requiring it to collect location fees and costs for 

commercial filming and still photography.

In commenting on a draft of this report, the Department of the Interior 

neither agreed nor disagreed with our recommendations. It did, however, 

offer several suggestions for technical clarifications and to clarify the 

application of policy guidance to the National Capital Region; we have 

incorporated these suggestions, as appropriate. 

Background The National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 created the Park Service to 

promote and regulate the use of national parks, monuments, and 

reservations with the purpose of conserving the scenery, natural and 

historic objects, and wildlife therein and to leave them “unimpaired” for the 

enjoyment of future generations. The 1970 National Park System General 

Authorities Act, as amended in 1978, prohibits the service from allowing 

any activities that would cause derogation of the values and purposes for 

which the parks have been established. The combination of these two laws 

forms the basis of a mandate for Park Service managers to actively manage 

all park uses in a manner that protects park resources and values.

Today, the Park Service comprises 388 units covering around 84 million 

acres in 49 states, the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, Puerto 

Rico, Saipan, and the Virgin Islands. Figure 1 shows a map of the Park 

Service regions.
Page 5 GAO-05-410 National Park Service

Figure 1: Park Service Regions

a

Parkland within the National Capital Region amounts to about 88,000 acres in the District of 

Columbia, Maryland, Virginia, and West Virginia.

Alaska

Pacific West

Intermountain Midwest

Southeast

National Capitala

Northeast

Source: National Park Service.

Puerto Rico

Hawaii

Virgin Islands
Page 6 GAO-05-410 National Park Service

National Parks are home to many unique and beautiful landscapes and 

open spaces that are venues for a variety of special event activities such as 

cultural programs, festivals, wedding ceremonies, and athletic events, as 

well as commercial filming and still photography. These special uses 

generally provide a benefit to an individual, group, or organization rather 

than the public at large. In order to protect park resources and the public 

interest, a special uses permit must be obtained from Park Service 

superintendents for these activities. Special uses permits regulate the 

amount, kind, time, and place of the proposed activity.1

 The Park Service 

issues special uses permits for several different types of activities, 

including the two types we reviewed (1) special events, and (2) commercial 

filming and still photography.

Special events permits are issued for a wide range of activities, including 

sports, pageants, celebrations, historical re-enactments, exhibitions, 

parades, fairs, and festivals. Commercial filming and still photography 

permits are issued for such activities as major motion picture filming, 

commercials, and magazine photo shoots. The Park Service has specific 

statutory authority to recover costs associated with special uses permits 

and to retain the funds recovered.2

 The Park Service has guidance in place 

to collect costs associated with special event permits, including costs for 

commercial filming and still photography. In addition, it has been required 

by law to collect costs and location fees associated with filming activities 

for almost five years.3

1

According to National Capital Parks-Central officials, a public gathering permit, rather than 

a special park uses permit, is issued by their unit in response to a request for either a 

demonstration or a special event. 

2

16 U.S.C. §3a.

3

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

the Commercial Filming Law.
Page 7 GAO-05-410 National Park Service

The Park Service Has 

Specific Policy 

Guidance for Issuing 

Permits and 

Recovering Costs for 

Special Park Uses

The Park Service developed specific policy guidance for issuing permits 

and recovering costs for special park uses. This guidance includes detailed 

permitting criteria for special events and for commercial filming and still 

photography. Park Service superintendents are required to follow the 

established policy guidance, including numerous cost recovery 

requirements, when issuing permits. The cost recovery guidance generally 

requires the park units to recover costs associated with the permitted 

activity from the permittee.

Park Unit Superintendents 

Are Required to Follow 

Specific Guidance When 

Issuing Permits for Special 

Events and for Commercial 

Filming and Still 

Photography 

The Park Service has developed extensive policy guidance that park unit 

superintendents are to follow when issuing any Park Service special uses 

permits. In this regard, the superintendent at each park unit is responsible 

for reviewing, approving, and monitoring permitted activities and for 

assuring that such activities are consistent with the Park Service’s purpose: 

“to conserve scenery, natural and historic objects, and wildlife, and to 

provide for the enjoyment of the public while maintaining the natural and 

cultural resources and values of the national park system unimpaired for 

future generations.” The policy guidance also gives the superintendent 

discretion by directing that permits include “the terms and conditions that 

the superintendent deems necessary to protect park resources or public 

safety.” Permits establish conditions for the approved activity, such as 

location, date, time, and estimated number of participants. 

Guidance on Special Events Special events within park units must meet basic criteria before a permit is 

issued, and Park Service policy guidance gives superintendents discretion 

when approving permits. The basic criteria for issuing a permit include that 

(1) there is a meaningful association between the park area and the event 

and (2) the event will contribute to visitor understanding of the significance 

of the park area. However, the determination of what is a “meaningful 

association” is generally left to the superintendent’s discretion. Some 

special event activities may be appropriate within certain park unit settings 

but not appropriate within others. For example, while the permitting of a 

rock concert in an urban park setting may be appropriate, the permitting of 

a rock concert at certain historical sites such as battlefields or cemeteries 

may not be appropriate. Also, in order to protect the park resources and the 

public’s health and safety, the policy
Page 8 GAO-05-410 National Park Service

guidance for special events provides strict limitations on certain uses, such 

as fireworks displays and the sale of food in the parks.4

 

Existing Park Service policies provide the superintendent with 

considerable discretion to determine the appropriateness of proposed 

advertisements. In 2003, the NFL kickoff event caused considerable 

controversy about the size, scale, scope, and location of advertising 

allowed during the event. In 2004, Congress passed legislation designed to 

strengthen and clarify commercial signage restrictions for the National 

Mall. This new legislation expressly prohibited the expenditure of funds in 

fiscal year 2004 for special uses permits on the National Mall unless the 

Park Service prohibited “the erection, placement, or use of structures and 

signs bearing commercial advertising.”5

 However, discrete recognition of 

program sponsors was authorized. As a result, the Park Service has drafted 

additional policy guidance, applicable to all park units, pertaining to the 

use of signage recognizing program sponsors that will restrict the size, 

scale, scope, and location of corporate logos and other lettering. 

Guidance on Commercial 

Filming and Still Photography

In general, the Park Service encourages filming and photography “when it 

will promote the protection and public enjoyment of park resources,” 

provided that the activity meets basic criteria, such as the activity will not 

cause unacceptable impacts to park resources. More specifically, the policy 

guidance outlines when a permit is and is not required. For example, a 

permit is required if the permitted activity involves the use of a model, set, 

or prop—such as a model holding a product for an advertisement 

photograph. However, no permit is required for visitors using a camera or 

recording device for their own personal use within normal visitation areas 

and hours. Some specific exceptions are included in the policy guidance—

for example, a permit is never required for press coverage of breaking 

news.6

 Also, superintendents, at their discretion, may grant the permittee 

4

Park Service general regulations for most park units are found at 36 C.F.R. §2.50. Other 

special regulations govern certain park units and include specific guidance on activities 

applicable to that particular unit, including some special permits. For example, the section 

specific to the National Capital Region includes subsections on permit requirements, permit 

applications, permit processing, and permit limitations. 36 C.F.R. §7.96(g)(2),(3),(4), and 

(5)(2004).

5

Department of Interior and Related Agencies Appropriation Act, 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-108 

§145. The appropriation act restrictions are limited to expenditures in fiscal year 2004.

6

Breaking news is an event that cannot be covered at any other time or location, according 

to Park Service guidance.
Page 9 GAO-05-410 National Park Service

access to a closed area of the park or permit the activity after normal 

visiting hours. Regardless of the specific type of commercial filming or still 

photography activity, the conditions specified in the permit must be 

followed.

Park Service Guidance 

Includes Requirement to 

Recover Costs

Park Service policy guidance generally requires park units to recover costs 

associated with managing special park uses, including special event and 

commercial filming and still photography activities, unless cost recovery is 

prohibited by law or otherwise exempted.7

 This policy guidance is in line 

with federal law requiring recovery of costs for filming activities and Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-25, which established 

guidelines for federal agencies to assess fees for government services and 

for the sale or use of government property or resources. The OMB Circular 

states, “When a service (or privilege) provides special benefits to an 

identifiable recipient beyond those that accrue to the general public, a 

charge will be imposed (to recover the full cost to the Federal Government 

for providing the special benefit, or the market price).” The circular also 

states that “user charges will be sufficient to recover the full cost to the 

Federal Government,” and it defines full cost as all direct and indirect 

costs—including personnel, physical overhead, and depreciation of 

structures and equipment—associated with providing a good, resource, or 

service. As authorized by law and under the policy guidance, these 

recovered costs are retained at the units issuing the permits to defray the 

costs of administering and monitoring the permits.

The Park Service’s 2001 Management Policies document, which provides 

the service’s most current overall policies, states that “all costs incurred by 

the Service in writing the permit, monitoring, providing protection services, 

restoring park areas, or otherwise supporting a special park use will be 

reimbursed by the permittee.” Park Service policy guidance further states 

that “appropriate fees for cost recovery, as well as performance bond and 

liability insurance requirements, will be imposed, consistent with 

applicable statutory authorities and regulations,” and directs that “when 

appropriate, the Service will also include a fair charge for the use of the 

land or facility.” Consequently, each permit should stipulate that these 

costs must be reimbursed by the permittee. Recoverable costs are those 

costs directly attributable to the use or necessary for the safe completion of 

7

As of May 2000, this was required by law for filming activities. Recovery of costs in general 

was authorized prior to 2000. See 16 U.S.C. §3a.
Page 10 GAO-05-410 National Park Service

the special park use. For example, the policy states that recoverable costs 

include the time charged by a park ranger to visit the site of the event, such 

as a festival held on park grounds, to monitor that the terms and conditions 

of the permit are met.8

 Additionally, the requirement includes recovering 

costs for equipment and facility use as well as restoration of any damage to 

park resources as a result of the event.

Park Service policy guidance also outlines the conditions under which 

charges for special uses may be waived. According to the policy guidance, 

exemptions from charges for special uses may be appropriate when

• the incremental costs of collecting the charges would be an unduly large 

part of the receipts from the activity;

• the furnishing of the service without charge is an appropriate courtesy 

to a foreign government or international organization, or comparable 

fees are set on a reciprocal basis with a foreign country;

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

government; or

• the superintendent determines that the use will promote the mission of 

the Park Service or promote public safety, health, or welfare. 

Exemptions from charges are appropriate when

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

• the requested use involves exercise of a right pertaining to water, 

property, minerals, access, Native American religious practices, or the 

rights guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution, including 

freedom of assembly, speech, religion, and the press.

Through their special uses permit system, Park Service superintendents 

also manage requests for public assembly for the exercise of First 

Amendment rights, including freedom of assembly, speech, religion, and 

the press. Consistent with the First Amendment, it is the Park Service’s 

8

According to the Special Park Uses Program Manager, there are also cases where 

monitoring was conducted as part of routine operations and when this was the case, “it did 

not seem appropriate to charge cost recovery.”
Page 11 GAO-05-410 National Park Service

policy to permit groups to assemble peaceably and exercise freedom of 

speech on park lands. The number of First Amendment permit requests 

varies greatly by park unit. For example, each year hundreds of permit 

requests are submitted for First Amendment activity in Washington, D.C., 

area park units, but there are few requests for this type of permit at remote 

units such as Yellowstone National Park. For First Amendment permits, as 

with other special uses permits, the superintendents establish conditions 

for the assembly, such as site location, date, time, and number of 

participants. However, unlike other special events permits, 

superintendents are required by Park Service policies to issue these 

permits without requiring fees, cost recovery, bonding, or insurance. 

Inconsistent 

Application of Special 

Park Uses Guidance 

Has Resulted in Some 

Park Units Not Fully 

Identifying and 

Recovering Costs, 

Thereby Decreasing 

Resources Available to 

the Parks

At five of the six parks we visited, we found failure to adhere to the Park 

Service’s policy to recover from permittees the cost to either administer or 

monitor permits for special events and for commercial filming and still 

photography activities. This inconsistent application of agency policy 

included not assessing or underassessing fees for reviewing and issuing 

permit applications, and not charging or undercharging for the cost of 

monitoring permits. As a result, parks did not fully identify and recover 

costs for permitting special events and for commercial filming and still 

photography. Consequently, in some parks, a portion of the financial 

resources spent on reviewing, issuing, and monitoring permits was not 

recovered from permittees, and therefore was not available to manage the 

park permits programs. 

Failure to Consistently 

Apply Guidance Means That 

Some Costs Are Not 

Identified and Recovered

Of the six park units we visited, we found that one park unit did not charge 

fees for reviewing and approving permit applications. Although five of the 

six park units charged administrative fees, three of these units did not 

recover the full costs associated with reviewing and approving permit 

applications. All six park units had established fees for monitoring the 

implementation of the permit. However, four of these units did not recover 

the full costs associated with their monitoring activities. Table 1 shows the 

park units we visited and whether they charged administrative or 

monitoring fees and recovered the associated costs. 
Page 12 GAO-05-410 National Park Service

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

Costs

Source: GAO.

Notes: Table is based on reviews of agency documents and, where documents were unavailable, 

interviews with park unit officials.

a

In addition to the monitoring fee, according to National Capital Parks-Central officials, for permits 

where a bond is required to cover potential damages to resources, the permittee is assessed a $50 flat 

fee. 

Administrative Fee Not Charged 

or Fully Recovered

The Park Service does not maintain centralized data on the number of 

special event and commercial filming and still photography permits issued 

each year. However, an agency official informed us that for fiscal year 2003, 

National Capital Parks-Central issued the largest number of these 

permits—estimated in excess of 1,400—of all park units. National Capital 

Parks-Central charged no administration fees for permitting special uses. 

For example, during fiscal year 2003, this park management unit did not 

assess any administrative fee for permits issued for special events, filming, 

and still photography, as required by Park Service policy unless prohibited 

by law or otherwise exempted. National Capital Parks-Central officials told 

us that since the mid-1990s, it has been regional policy that park units 

within the National Capital Region would not charge any administrative 

costs associated with processing permits. For example, National Capital 

Parks-Central issued permits for both the NFL kickoff event9

 and the 

filming of the major motion picture National Treasure, both of which 

engaged Park Service personnel in numerous planning meetings, but for 

which no administrative costs were recovered. As a result of GAO bringing 

this issue to the attention of the Solicitor’s Office at Interior, the Solicitor’s 

Office modified its guidance and directed the National Capital Region to

Region Park units visited

Administrative fee Monitoring fee

Fee

charged

Full cost

recovery

Fee 

charged

Full cost

recovery

Intermountain Yellowstone National Park yes yes yes no

Midwest Jefferson National Expansion Memorial yes yes yes yes

National Capital National Capital Parks-Central no no yesa no

Northeast Independence National Historical Park yes no yes yes

Pacific West Golden Gate National Recreation Area yes yes yes no

Southeast Blue Ridge Parkway yes no yes no

9

See appendix III for additional information on the 2003 NFL kickoff event.
Page 13 GAO-05-410 National Park Service

re-examine its administrative cost recovery practices. As of February 2005, 

according to Interior’s Solicitor’s Office, steps were being taken to require 

all park units in the National Capital Region to assess processing or 

application fees for all permit applications. 

Administrative fees are based on the actual costs incurred by the park unit 

involved in overseeing the permit activity and should include all costs to 

the Park Service associated with processing a permit application from the 

time the first inquiry is received until the permit is signed and issued.10 For 

example, officials at Independence National Historical Park charge a $50 

nonrefundable fee for each permit application. In fiscal year 2003, this park 

unit issued a total of over 300 permits for special events and for 

commercial filming and still photography. According to these park officials, 

this fee has not been updated for at least 8 years and will be increased to 

$100 in late 2005 to reflect increased administrative costs.11 Blue Ridge 

Parkway charged a $25 nonrefundable fee to cover the costs of initially 

considering permit applications and an additional $75 to cover additional 

processing costs for each approved permit. According to a park official, 

these fees had not been updated in 8 years, but the fees have now been 

increased as of January 2005 to $50 and $125, respectively, to reflect 

increased administrative costs. In fiscal year 2003, this park unit issued a 

total of about 40 permits for special events and for commercial filming and 

still photography. Officials at these park units agreed that their 2003 

charges did not reflect increases in costs, such as for personnel, that had 

occurred during the past several years.

In contrast, according to park officials, Golden Gate National Recreational 

Area, Jefferson National Expansion Memorial, and Yellowstone National 

Park charge administrative fees based on current costs. These park units 

periodically assess and adjust their fees to reflect increasing costs, such as 

for salary and associated benefits.

10According to Park Service Reference Manual 53, these costs may include environmental 

(National Environmental Policy Act), cultural (National Historic Preservation Act), and 

other compliance and approval, as appropriate, as well as meetings, travel, clerical, public 

health inspection and certification, and other cost factors. Administrative charges should 

reflect an accurate calculation of the actual costs associated with the administrative process 

of decision and, if approved, preparation of the permit. See full text of reference manual at

www.nps.gov/policy/DOrders/RM53.zip).

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

annually. 
Page 14 GAO-05-410 National Park Service

Monitoring Fees Not Fully 

Recovered

Delicate natural resources in park units (see fig. 1) require monitoring to 

ensure resources are protected for the enjoyment of future generations. 

For example, at Yellowstone National Park, if a film crew consists of five or 

more persons, a park official assigns staff to monitor the crew’s activities at 

all times to ensure compliance with permit conditions, safety, and that the 

activity does not interfere with the visitor experience. If the filming activity 

is at or near one of the park’s thermal pools, a Park Service staff monitor is 

required as part of the permit conditions to ensure that the film crew does 

not damage this natural resource or its surroundings by entering a 

restricted area to obtain a particular photo or angle of view. 

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

National Park

Thermal pool

Source: GAO.
Page 15 GAO-05-410 National Park Service

According to Yellowstone’s film permit coordinator, permittees sometimes 

try to push the boundaries of the permit conditions, without understanding 

the potential damage or injury that could result. The Yellowstone 

coordinator stated, however, that because of their close monitoring 

actions, there has not been any resource damage from permittee actions.

At three of the six parks we visited—Blue Ridge Parkway, Yellowstone 

National Park, and Golden Gate National Recreation Area—hourly 

monitoring fees had not been updated to reflect current higher costs, 

according to park officials. As a result, staffs at these units are not 

collecting fees sufficient to cover their monitoring costs. According to the 

Blue Ridge Parkway permit coordinator, actual hourly monitoring costs are 

about $50 per hour; however, the park has charged only $30 per hour since 

1997. At Blue Ridge Parkway, not only were the monitoring fees below 

actual costs, but staff who monitored permitted activities did not submit 

documentation that would allow the park unit to bill and collect monitoring 

fees from the permittee for 20 of 28 permitted special events. Blue Ridge 

Parkway officials plan to increase the monitoring fee to $50 per hour in 

2005.

At Yellowstone National Park, the $50 hourly monitoring fee has not been 

updated in about 10 years. The hourly monitoring fee at Golden Gate 

National Recreation Area ($65 per hour) has not been updated for 4 years. 

Officials at Blue Ridge, Golden Gate, and Yellowstone explained they had 

not updated their hourly monitoring fees either because of a high workload 

at some park units or because updating fees was given a low priority at 

other park units. However, they said they plan to revise the fee to more 

accurately reflect actual costs in fiscal year 2005. 

Officials at National Capital Parks-Central are not collecting fees sufficient 

to cover their monitoring costs. These officials require permittees to bear 

the cost of Park Service overtime to monitor permitted activity for those 

permits where a bond is required.12 However, National Capital ParksCentral officials do not recover their costs for any permit monitoring that 

occurs during normal business hours and where no bond is required.

12National Capital Parks-Central officials were uncertain about how often they required a 

permittee to post a bond. Of the 1,400-plus permits issued in fiscal year 2003, park officials 

estimated that 15 percent were required to have a bond.
Page 16 GAO-05-410 National Park Service

In contrast, two park units, Independence National Historical Park and 

Jefferson National Expansion Memorial, charged monitoring fees based on 

current cost rates. 

Additional Park Revenues 

Are Available to Parks If 

Costs Are Collected from 

Permittees

As mentioned earlier, five of the six parks we visited—Blue Ridge Parkway, 

Golden Gate National Recreation Area, Yellowstone National Park, 

Independence National Historical Park, and National Capital ParksCentral—did not fully recover applicable administrative or monitoring 

costs. Some of these parks failed to collect several thousand dollars or 

more in fiscal year 2003. For example, had National Capital Parks-Central

charged a $50 administrative fee like Independence National Historical 

Park, it would have collected at least $70,000 for the estimated 1,400-plus 

permits the park issued in fiscal year 2003 for special events and filming 

and photography. As a result, if these park units had implemented agency 

policy and the OMB directives to fully recover all costs, additional—and in 

one case, significant—revenues, such as those at National Capital ParksCentral, could have been available for managing permits programs. 

Delays in 

Implementing the Law 

to Collect Location 

Fees for Commercial 

Filming and Still 

Photography Have 

Resulted in Forgone 

Revenues

Delays in implementing the May 2000 legislation requiring the Secretary of 

the Interior to establish a fee schedule for commercial filming and still 

photography have resulted in significant annual forgone revenues for the 

Park Service. This law requires the agencies to establish a fee for the use of 

the land—referred to by the Park Service as a location fee—in addition to 

recovering agency costs. If the law requiring the Park Service’s officials to 

collect location fees for commercial filming and still photography had been 

implemented, GAO estimates that, for the reported permitted activity in 

fiscal year 2003, the agency would have collected revenues of about $1.6 

million (unadjusted for inflation).13 According to the Park Service’s Special 

Uses Program Manager, the commercial filming and still photography 

permitted activities used by GAO to estimate forgone revenues of about 

$1.6 million are representative of a typical year’s worth of activities. The 

Park Service, along with three other federal land management agencies, is 

currently participating in a working group to develop regulations to 

implement the legislation and the associated location fee schedule.

13To develop this estimate, GAO used the criteria currently in use by the Forest Service, 

which closely resemble the criteria specified in the law for the Park Service to use. The 

analysis presumes permittees would have paid the fees instead of choosing to film at 

relatively lower cost sites. See appendix II. 
Page 17 GAO-05-410 National Park Service

Law Requiring the 

Collection of Location Fees 

Has Not Been Implemented

The Commercial Filming Law, enacted in May 2000, requires the Secretary 

of the Interior and the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture to issue 

permits and establish reasonable fees for commercial filming and still 

photography activities. The law affects Interior’s Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM), Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and Park Service, 

and Agriculture’s Forest Service (FS). However, the law has not been 

implemented. Although BLM and FS already had established filming and 

still photography fee schedules in place prior to this law, the Park Service 

and FWS are collaborating with FS and BLM to develop a single fee 

schedule for all four agencies. 

Subsequent to the law’s enactment, the Department of the Interior’s Office 

of the Solicitor created a working group, in June 2000, with representatives 

from each of the four affected agencies to develop implementing 

regulations and a fee schedule. To ensure that First Amendment issues 

were adequately addressed, attorneys from the Solicitor’s Office agreed to 

seek concurrence from the Department of Justice prior to finalizing the 

regulations. In October 2000, the Solicitor’s Office submitted the proposed 

regulations drafted by the working group to Justice’s Office of Legal 

Counsel. However, Justice’s suggested revisions were not provided to 

Interior officials until October 2003. Since that time, representatives from 

each of the four land management agencies have worked together to 

finalize the regulations and the associated fee schedule. According to 

officials at Interior and the Park Service, the draft regulations are currently 

being circulated among the appropriate reviewing officials in each agency, 

and the agencies plan to have them published in the Federal Register later 

this year. 

In addition to drafting regulations to implement the Commercial Filming 

Law, the working group considered two different approaches when 

developing a uniform fee schedule: One approach specifies a uniform 

minimum fee schedule allowing the land management agencies to assess 

additional fees based on comparable markets, while the other approach 

does not allow for fee adjustments based on comparable markets. For 

example, the Forest Service currently uses the same fee schedule in five of 

its nine regions. In contrast, BLM’s existing fee schedule for filming and still 

photography, while similar, varies by state and is set by BLM state offices. 

Although the working group has developed a standardized fee schedule, 

one of the group’s challenges has been to reach consensus among the 

affected agencies on whether the use of a standardized fee schedule would 

allow individual locations to assess an additional fee for use of its sites. 
Page 18 GAO-05-410 National Park Service

Proposed Location Fee 

Schedule Includes Charges 

Based on the Number of 

People and Duration of 

Filming 

The Commercial Filming Law requires the Park Service to establish a 

location fee for commercial filming and still photography that provides a 

fair return for the use of the land to the United States. The law specifies 

that this fee must be based upon the following criteria: (1) the number of 

days the filming activity or similar project takes place on federal land under 

the Secretary’s jurisdiction,14 (2) the size of the film crew present on federal 

land under the Secretary’s jurisdiction, and (3) the amount and type of 

equipment present. Furthermore, the law allows that “other factors” may 

be included in determining an appropriate fee. The Forest Service has a fee 

schedule, developed prior to this law and implemented under other 

legislative authority, that uses similar criteria. For example, the Forest 

Service’s commercial filming fee schedule ranges from a minimum of $150 

per day for crews of 1 to 10 people to $600 per day for crews of over 60 

people.15 These fees are then multiplied by the number of days the crews 

are on the site during all phases of filming. For example, applying this 

schedule to just one of the 320-plus filming permits issued by National 

Capital Parks-Central in fiscal year 2003 (65 people for 2 days) would have 

resulted in a $1,200 return to the park. Once these fees are collected, they 

remain with the Park Service units and are available until expended.

GAO Estimated Forgone 

Revenues of about $1.6 

Million for Fiscal Year 2003

Using the fee schedule that the Forest Service has in effect, we estimate 

that the Park Service would have collected location fee revenues of about 

$1.6 million in fiscal year 2003. The Park Service has drafted a proposed 

standardized location fee schedule that would charge higher fees than the 

Forest Service for larger parties, but it has not yet been finalized. Using the 

Park Service’s draft fee schedule, we estimate forgone revenues of about $2 

million in 2003 (see app. II).

Conclusions The Park Service is required by law to collect costs and location fees 

associated with permits for commercial filming and still photography and 

authorized to collect costs for other permitted activities. Because costs 

recovered from permitting activities are used by park units for managing 

14Secretary refers to the Secretary of the Interior for the Bureau of Land Management, 

National Park Service, and Fish and Wildlife Service and the Secretary of Agriculture for the 

Forest Service.

15Appendix II contains the Forest Service-established location fee schedule for commercial 

filming and still photography.
Page 19 GAO-05-410 National Park Service

their permit program and other park programs, failing to recover such 

costs decreases the financial resources park units have for processing 

permits and monitoring permitted activities. Unless steps are taken to 

ensure that units fully identify and collect administrative and management 

(including monitoring) costs associated with special event permits and 

with commercial filming and still photography permits, the Park Service 

will continue to deprive itself of funds important for managing and carrying 

out agency policy and delivering agency services. This is particularly 

evident in the National Capital Region, where only recently has 

consideration been given to charging administrative fees to recover costs. 

Because our review was limited to six park units, the extent to which other 

park units are not consistently applying existing cost recovery guidance is 

unclear. Conducting a systemwide review would help identify park units 

that are not fully recovering costs for special events and filming and still 

photography, and the measures necessary to ensure that all park units 

identify and collect all appropriate permitting fees. 

Significant revenues that would be available to the Park Service to help 

defray the costs of administering its commercial filming and still 

photography permit program are forgone because of delays in 

implementing regulations consistent with the Commercial Filming Law. By 

law, the Park Service is now required to collect location fees for 

commercial filming and still photography activities. Expediting 

implementation of the law will help ensure that the Park Service does not 

experience more forgone revenues.

Recommendations for 

Executive Action

To ensure that the Park Service fully identifies and collects administrative 

and monitoring costs associated with special event and with commercial 

filming and still photography permits, as well as location fees for filming 

activities, we recommend that the Secretary of the Interior direct the Park 

Service Director to take the following four actions:

• Ensure that the park units we visited consistently apply existing cost 

recovery guidance and maintain updated cost recovery fee schedules.

• Ascertain the extent to which other park units are not consistently 

applying existing cost recovery guidance, and take appropriate actions 

to ensure they are consistently applied and costs are identified and 

recovered. 
Page 20 GAO-05-410 National Park Service

• Expedite the implementation of the law that requires the Park Service to 

collect location fees and costs for commercial filming and still 

photography, when appropriate. 

• Follow through to ensure that the National Capital Region assesses 

administrative fees to recover the costs of processing permits for 

special events and for commercial filming and still photography.

Agency Comments and 

Our Response

We provided the Department of the Interior with a draft of this report for 

review and comment. The department provided written comments that are 

included in appendix IV. The department did not comment on our 

recommendations; however it suggested language to clarify the application 

of Park Service general policy guidance to the National Capital Region. 

Specifically, it suggested that we include language to clarify that the 

regulations governing special events within the National Capital Region are 

different from those contained in the Park Service’s general regulations, 

particularly as it applied to the NFL kickoff event. We agree that the 

regulations governing such special events in the National Capital Region 

are different from the general regulations and have included clarifying 

language in the report. The department provided other technical 

clarifications that we have incorporated, as appropriate. 

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of 

this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the 

report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the Secretary 

of the Interior and other interested parties. We will also make copies 

available to others upon request. In addition, the report will be available at 

no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov. 
Page 21 GAO-05-410 National Park Service

If you or your staff have questions about this report, please contact me at 

(202) 512-3841 or nazzaror@gao.gov. Key contributors to this report are 

listed in appendix V.

Robin M. Nazzaro

Director, Natural Resources

and Environment
Page 22 GAO-05-410 National Park Service

List of Requesters

The Honorable James L. Oberstar

Ranking Democratic Member 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

House of Representatives

The Honorable Nick J. Rahall 

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Resources

House of Representatives

The Honorable Betty McCollum

House of Representatives

The Honorable Jim Moran

House of Representatives

The Honorable Eleanor Holmes Norton 

House of Representatives
Page 23 GAO-05-410 National Park Service

Appendix I

Scope and Methodology ApApenednxidexiIs

We identified and analyzed applicable laws, regulations, policies, and 

procedures to determine Park Service policy and requirements applicable 

to the review and approval of special uses permits, including those for 

special events and commercial filming and still photography. This included 

an analysis of servicewide guidance as well as guidance applicable to the 

specific units we visited,1

 such as units in the National Capital Region. We 

discussed the policy guidance with the Office of the Solicitor, Department 

of the Interior, and with officials from Park Service headquarters and each 

of the six park units visited to gain an understanding of how the guidance 

should be interpreted and applied.

To evaluate whether policy guidance was consistently applied, we reviewed 

files and examined permitting practices at the nonprobability sample of six 

park units visited2

 and interviewed park unit officials about their 

procedures in reviewing, approving, and monitoring permitted activities. 

We also reviewed these units’ procedures to identify and recover costs 

associated with permit activities. 

We first searched for existing data sources describing the number of 

special event and commercial filming and still photography activities on 

park land. However, the Park Service does not maintain national or 

regional data about these activities. We also contacted sources outside of 

the Park Service—including the Sierra Club and The Motion Picture 

Association of America—to ascertain whether these sources had 

information on the number of special event and commercial filming and 

still photography permits issued by each of the park units, but these groups 

did not have such data, either. In the absence of this data, we used an 

expert referral technique to identify park units to visit. We asked officials 

from each of the Park Service’s seven regional offices to identify, using 

their knowledge of regional operations, the three park units within their 

respective regions with the greatest number of (1) special event and (2) 

commercial filming and still photography permits. In each case, the 

officials produced a list in which the same unit had both the most special 

events and the most commercial filming and still photography permits for 

1

The six park units visited are Blue Ridge Parkway, Golden Gate National Recreation Area, 

Independence National Historical Park, Jefferson National Expansion Memorial, National 

Capital Parks-Central, and Yellowstone National Park.

2

Results from nonprobability samples cannot be used to make inferences about a 

population, because in a nonprobability sample, some elements of the population being 

studied have no chance or an unknown chance of being selected as part of the sample. 
Appendix I

Scope and Methodology

Page 24 GAO-05-410 National Park Service

fiscal year 2003. We selected the top park unit from each of the regional 

offices. Park Service regional officials identified the following seven park 

units issuing the greatest number of permits for both special events and for 

commercial filming and still photography in fiscal year 2003:

• Alaska Region—Denali National Park,

• Midwest Region—Jefferson National Expansion Memorial,

• Intermountain Region—Yellowstone National Park,

• Pacific West Region—Golden Gate National Recreation Area,

• Northeast Region—Independence National Historical Park,

• National Capital Region—National Capital Parks-Central, and

• Southeast Region—Blue Ridge Parkway.

Because of the relatively low number of reported permits issued in the Park 

Service’s Alaska Region, we limited our site visits to parks in the six Park 

Service regions within the continental United States. 

To determine the extent to which the Park Service implemented the 

Commercial Filming Law, requiring it to collect location fees for 

commercial filming and still photography activities, we analyzed the 

legislation and interviewed Park Service and Department of the Interior 

headquarters officials. We also contacted officials at the Department of 

Justice and obtained their concurrence regarding the delays and changes 

made to the draft regulations. In addition, we analyzed documents 

pertinent to Justice’s review of Interior’s proposed regulations for 

collecting location fees to verify reported delays in Justice’s review of the 

regulations. We asked the Special Uses Program Manager at Park Service 

headquarters to assist GAO in administering a data collection instrument 

(DCI) sent to each of the Park Service’s 388 park units to obtain 

information on the amount of commercial filming and still photography 

activity that would have been subject to location fees in fiscal year 2003, if 

the legislation had been implemented. 

The DCI was sent to all park units to obtain information on permits issued 

for filming and still photography activities occurring in fiscal year 2003. We 

asked the park units to provide (1) a permit number for each permit issued, 
Appendix I

Scope and Methodology

Page 25 GAO-05-410 National Park Service

(2) the date the permit activity started, (3) the number of days for which 

the permit was authorized, (4) the number of people using the permit, and 

(5) if the park unit would have charged a location fee based on current 

Park Service policy guidance. We requested that the information provided 

by the park units in the DCI be sent to GAO with a copy to the Special Uses 

Program Manager. 

We coordinated with the Special Uses Program Manager to ensure we 

received all of the responses and printed out hard copies of the filming and 

still photography activities provided by the park units. Because some of the 

smaller parks have a management office that issues permits for multiple 

park units, some of the respondents provided information containing the 

aggregated responses. These DCI responses were grouped into 27 

combined park unit responses representing 95 individual park units. 

Of the 388 park units operating in 2003, we removed 17 because they either 

(1) did not own or manage property in their designation or (2) were not 

located in the United States or the District of Columbia, leaving us with 371 

park units. Of the 371, we received responses from 355, giving us a 

response rate of 96 percent. Of these 355 park units, 95 were provided in 

grouped responses and the remaining 260 responses were from individual 

park units. 

We reviewed all of the filming and photography permits at four of the six 

sites visited. We reviewed these permit files to determine whether they 

contained specific required administrative information, such as evidence of 

the recovery of incurred costs. However, we did not review the permit files 

for evidence of all administrative requirements outlined in policy guidance 

because it was outside of the scope of this assignment. We reviewed

• 7 permit files at Jefferson National Expansion Memorial,

• 77 permit files at Yellowstone National Park,

• 76 permit files at Independence National Historical Park, and

• 15 permit files at Blue Ridge Parkway.

The key administrative information regarding cost recovery was present in 

all of the 175 files we reviewed.
Appendix I

Scope and Methodology

Page 26 GAO-05-410 National Park Service

Our file review at both of the remaining sites included an additional level of 

review. For these two sites, we reviewed the files for key administrative 

information as we did for the other four sites previously described. In 

addition, we also compared the information provided by the park unit on 

the DCI with the information contained in the permit file.

• Of 152 total permits at Golden Gate National Recreation Area, we 

reviewed 10 filming and photography permits with the highest costs 

recovered. These permits were selected using the park’s 318 account 

summary, which lists all fees charged and collected for filming and 

photography permits for fiscal year 2003. All key administrative cost 

recovery information was present, and all DCI information matched in 

these 10 permit files.

• We could not identify the top 10 highest-cost filming and photography 

permits for National Capital Parks-Central based on the park’s 318 

account summary for fiscal year 2003, because the account combines 

costs recovered for filming and photography permits with other special 

uses permit costs. As a result, we requested files for filming permits that 

included 25 or more people, as indicated on the returned DCI from 

National Capital Parks-Central. This resulted in a review of 29 of 678 

permit files (4 percent), which, according to National Capital ParksCentral staff, would generally be comparable with the permits with the 

highest costs recovered in fiscal year 2003. All key administrative cost 

recovery information was present, and all DCI information matched in 

these 29 permit files. 

The information we gathered was provided by staff at National Park 

Service units. The Park Service staff located the data by pulling paper files 

and transferring the information into the DCI. This information is not 

centralized, and it had never been gathered on a national level prior to our 

data collection for fiscal year 2003. The Special Uses Program Manager is 

responsible for ensuring that all Park Service staff adhere to the policy and 

guidance regarding issues associated with permit procedures, drafting 

policy and guidance associated with permitting procedures, and the 

coordination of the training and curriculum for Park Service staff on 

permitting policies and procedures. In her opinion, the information 

provided by the park units was accurate, complete, and reflective of the 

amount of permitted activity in a typical year. Based on our comparison of 

DCI data with hard copy files and our discussion with Park Service officials 

regarding the data, we determined that the data were reliable enough for 

the purposes of this report. 
Appendix I

Scope and Methodology

Page 27 GAO-05-410 National Park Service

Using the data we obtained from these park units, we estimated the 

forgone location fee revenues for fiscal year 2003 by applying the 

established fee schedule of the Forest Service. Both the Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) and the Forest Service have established location fee 

schedules in place; however, the BLM fee schedule varies by state. 

Therefore, we used the Forest Service’s established fee schedule for our 

calculations because it is standardized within five of its nine regions and 

based on similar criteria included in legislation authorizing the Park 

Service to charge fees. We used these data to estimate forgone revenue. 

Details of these calculations are provided in appendix II. 

We conducted our work from May 2004 through May 2005 in accordance 

with generally accepted government auditing standards. 
Page 28 GAO-05-410 National Park Service

Appendix II

Details of the Forgone Revenue Calculations ApendxiI

To estimate the revenues the Park Service could have collected in location 

fees in fiscal year 2003, if the requirement to collect such fees had been 

implemented, we asked the Park Services’ Special Uses Program Manager 

to assist GAO in administering a data collection instrument (DCI). The Park 

Services’ Special Uses Program Manager sent the DCI to each of the Park 

Service’s 388 park units to obtain information on the amount of filming and 

still photography activity that would have been subject to location fees in 

fiscal year 2003. In the DCI, we asked for information on activities 

specifically related to the number of filming and still photography permits 

issued, the number of days each permit was in effect, the number of people 

using the permit, and whether the unit would have charged a location fee 

based on current Park Service policy guidance. Park Service policy allows 

the superintendents to waive fees under certain conditions, such as if the 

permittee is a state, local, or federal government agency or a tribal 

government, or if the superintendent determines that the use will promote 

the mission of the Park Service or promote public safety, health, or welfare. 

In our calculations to estimate forgone revenues, we only used the permit 

activity reported by the park units where a location fee would not have 

been waived. We received responses from 355 of 371 park units in our 

sample, giving a 96 percent response rate. (Seventeen units were removed 

from the universe. See app. I for details of our methodology.) 

To estimate forgone revenues, we used the information collected from 

respondents, along with the Forest Service’s existing fee schedule used in 

five of its nine regions for commercial filming and still photography 

activities (see tables 2 and 3). We also used the Park Service’s draft fee 

schedule to provide an alternative estimate of forgone revenues even 

though its fee schedule is not yet final (see tables 4 and 5). Both schedules 

charge daily fees based on the number of people participating in the 

activity; the Forest Service’s fees are lower for larger parties.

To develop the forgone revenue estimates for activities in fiscal year 2003, 

we multiplied the number of people using permits each day by the 

corresponding Forest Service and Park Service fees when the park unit 

would have charged fees for the permitted activities. For example, as 

shown in table 6, we estimated forgone revenues for fiscal year 2003 of 

$1,135,250 and $464,450 for commercial filming and still photography 

activity, respectively, using the Forest Service fee schedule, for a total of 

$1,599,700. By comparison, we estimated forgone revenues of $1,292,850 

and $750,950 for commercial filming and still photography activity, 

respectively, using the Park Service proposed fee schedule, for a total of 

$2,043,800. However, this schedule has not been approved for use, and it is 
Appendix II

Details of the Forgone Revenue Calculations

Page 29 GAO-05-410 National Park Service

uncertain whether the amounts in the schedule would have been applicable 

in fiscal year 2003.

Table 2: Forest Service Established Fee Schedule for Filming 

Source: Forest Service.

Table 3: Forest Service Established Fee Schedule for Still Photography

Source: Forest Service.

Table 4: Park Service Proposed Filming Location Fee Schedule

Source: National Park Service.

Number of people Fee per day (dollars)

1-10 150

11-30 200

31-60 500

More than 60 600

Number of people Fee per day (dollars)

1-10 50

11-30 150

More than 30 250

Number of people Fee per day (dollars)

1-10 150

11–30 350

31–50 650

51–70 1,000

Over 70 1,500
Appendix II

Details of the Forgone Revenue Calculations

Page 30 GAO-05-410 National Park Service

Table 5: Park Service Proposed Still Photography Location Fee Schedule

Source: National Park Service.

Table 6: Estimates of Forgone Revenues, Fiscal Year 2003

Source: GAO analysis of Park Service data.

Note: Estimates are unadjusted for inflation. Analysis assumes that, in general, permittees would have 

paid the fees had the fee schedule been in effect. However, it is possible that some may have chosen 

to film at relatively lower-cost sites elsewhere rather than pay these location fees to the Park Service. 

Number of people Fee per day (dollars)

1-10 100

11–20 200

21–30 300

Over 30 450

Forgone revenues

Forest Service location

fee schedule

Park Service proposed

location fee schedule

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

Still photography 464,450 750,950

Total $1,599,700 $2,043,800
Page 31 GAO-05-410 National Park Service

Appendix III

Information on the 2003 National Football 

League Kickoff Event ApendxiI

In September 2003, the Park Service’s National Capital Parks-Central staff 

approved a permit for the National Football League (NFL) to hold its 

annual kickoff event on the National Mall (Mall) in Washington, D.C. The 4-

day event was promoted as a welcome home for American military troops. 

The Department of the Interior’s Take Pride in America initiative was listed 

as a partner in the event. The event was attended by thousands of people—

estimates ranged from 100,000 to 500,000—who participated in footballrelated activities and attended performances from a variety of entertainers. 

Public reaction to the event ranged from “joy to anger,” and many questions 

were raised about the event and the Park Service’s permitting process. 

Specifically, concerns were raised about the appropriateness of permitting 

this event on the Mall, the extent of commercial signage, limitations on 

public access, and whether costs to repair damages to Mall resources and 

property were recovered from the NFL. 

Park Service guidance states that special events should “contribute to 

visitor understanding of the significance of the park area.” Consequently, 

critics questioned whether the Mall was an appropriate venue for an NFL 

kickoff event. The Mall is a two-mile greenway that stretches from the U.S. 

Capitol on the east side to the Lincoln Memorial on the west. The Mall is 

the setting for world-renowned national museums, memorials, and 

significant federal buildings. However, for many years the Mall has also 

been host to diverse events, including fund-raisers, sports tournaments, 

and festivals as well as hundreds of First Amendment activities. Park 

Service policy for special events states that it “will not permit the public 

staging of special events that are conducted primarily for the material or 

financial benefit of organizers or participants; or are commercial in nature; 

or that demand in-park advertising or publicity; or for which a separate 

public admission fee is to be charged.” Critics of the NFL kickoff event 

asserted this was a commercial event that was conducted primarily for the 

financial benefit of the NFL and the event’s commercial sponsors.

As discussed in this report, Park Service superintendents have a great deal 

of discretion in applying the agency guidance for approving permits. 

According to Park Service officials, the NFL kickoff event was intended to 

honor members of America’s armed forces and to promote volunteerism on 

public lands. According to a September 3, 2003, statement by the Secretary 

of the Interior, the NFL kickoff event was “a wonderful opportunity to 

showcase public service by volunteers” who put “their love of country to 

work to improve our national parks, wildlife refuges, public lands, cultural 

and historic sites, playgrounds and other recreation areas.” In addition to 
Appendix III

Information on the 2003 National Football 

League Kickoff Event

Page 32 GAO-05-410 National Park Service

setting up a Take Pride in America booth at the event to recruit volunteers 

for this program, public service announcements about Take Pride in 

America, narrated by Washington Redskins players, were broadcast during 

the NFL team’s season opener. Finally, Park Service officials stated the 

product-related signs were allowed as a form of sponsor recognition for 

those companies underwriting the cost of the concert and other activities 

that were all free to the public.

The 2003 NFL Kickoff 

Permit

On May 7, 2003, a permit application for a season-opening event on the Mall 

was submitted to the Park Service’s National Capital Parks-Central office 

by an NFL representative. In the application, the event was described as a 

celebration of American treasures, heroes, places, and pastimes. Following 

receipt of the application, numerous discussions and planning meetings 

took place between Park Service and NFL representatives. According to 

Park Service officials involved in these meetings, the key issues addressed 

involved public safety and protection of park resources. 

Park Service permits for these types of events contain general conditions 

such as the requirement to procure liability insurance that lists the agency 

granting the permit as an insured party. In addition to meeting the general 

conditions, the NFL was also required to acquire certain permits from the 

District of Columbia through the city’s Emergency Management Agency, 

which coordinates with the Metropolitan Police, the Fire Department, and 

other District agencies to assure the NFL provided adequate emergency 

medical services such as first aid stations and ambulances during the event. 

In late August 2003, National Capital Parks-Central formally approved the 

agreed-upon terms and conditions for the event by issuing the event permit. 

National Capital Parks-Central officials continued to meet with NFL event 

planners to reach agreement on last minute details of the event and a 

revised permit was issued on September 3, 2003. 

Due to the location of the event—the Mall—the NFL was required to 

closely coordinate all security plans through the United States Park Police 

(Park Police), which provided public safety and security for the event and 

related activities. A condition of the permit stated that the NFL was 

responsible for obtaining the necessary permissions and permits from the 

Metropolitan Police Department and from other agencies and departments 

with jurisdiction over the public lands not under the jurisdiction of the Park 

Service. In addition, the Park Police used the assistance of other law 

enforcement officers from federal, state, and local agencies to provide 

sufficient staff and personnel to handle the event. As required by the 
Appendix III

Information on the 2003 National Football 

League Kickoff Event

Page 33 GAO-05-410 National Park Service

permit, the costs for providing law enforcement officers, including Park 

Police, were reimbursed by the NFL.

During and following the event, criticism was directed at the Park Service 

over the lineup of entertainers, which included Aerosmith, Britney Spears, 

and Aretha Franklin, as well as the content of some of the performances. 

For example, some people did not consider specific aspects of Britney 

Spears’ show to be appropriate family entertainment for an 8:00 p.m. 

broadcast. While Park Service policies state “the theme of the special event 

must be consistent with the mission of the park and appropriate to the park 

in which it is to be held,” National Capital Parks-Central officials stated 

they do not make “content-based decisions on whether to permit” 

requested events.

Signage The NFL kickoff event was advertised as a welcome home celebration for 

American soldiers—a tribute to the military personnel serving in Iraq and 

Afghanistan—and an opportunity for people to gather and watch popular 

entertainers for no charge. But to some observers, such as the President of 

the National Coalition to Save Our Mall, it was a “tasteless extravaganza of 

electronic advertising.” Following the event, criticisms directed at the Park 

Service for allowing commercial signage on the Mall grew. Critics claimed 

there were contradictions between the Park Service’s policies and the 

activities that occurred during the event. Some critics of the event claimed 

that most, if not all, of the commercial signs should not have been 

displayed on the Mall. One author, a former national park ranger who is the 

director of a Washington, D.C.-based advocacy organization and former 

president of the Conservation and Preservation Charities of America, 

concurred with outraged critics over “the dimensions of the commercial 

displays that had no legitimate place on the National Mall in the first 

place”—his description of the giant product banners on the grounds 

between the U.S. Capitol and the Lincoln Memorial.

According to the National Capital Parks-Central Superintendent, the 

nationally televised event was a new experience for park staff and resulted 

in many “lessons learned.” Concerning the “excessive commercial signage” 

described by some critics, the current Superintendent, who was the Acting 

Superintendent at the Park in September 2003, took responsibility for these 

issues and said she had misunderstood the amount, type, and size of 

signage the NFL planned to use. In the event permit, she noted, Park 

Service had not quantified the number of sponsor recognition signs allowed 

because they had not foreseen the need to do so. Consequently, there were 
Appendix III

Information on the 2003 National Football 

League Kickoff Event

Page 34 GAO-05-410 National Park Service

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

anticipated.

Congress passed legislation putting new restrictions on permits issued for 

the Mall. Public Law No. 108-108 prohibited the use of appropriated funds 

in fiscal year 2004 for special event permits on the Mall, unless the permit 

“expressly prohibits the erection, placement, or use of structures and signs 

bearing commercial advertising.” The law still allowed for recognizing the 

sponsors of special events, providing “the size and form of the recognition 

shall be consistent with the special nature and sanctity of the Mall and any 

lettering or design identifying the sponsor shall be no larger than one-third 

the size of the lettering or design identifying the special event.” As a result 

of this legislation, the Park Service has drafted policy guidance to restrict 

“the size, scale, scope and location of corporate logos and script.” In 

addition, National Capital Parks-Central officials now require permit 

applicants to provide detailed lists of planned signage along with a scaled 

replica of each sign to the Park Service for approval at least 30 days in 

advance of an event.

Public Access Restrictions Park Service regulations for the National Capital Region state that the 

decision to issue a special event permit must be based on a consideration 

of a number of factors, including whether the park area requested is 

reasonably suited in terms of size, accessibility, and nature of the event. 

The NFL kickoff event, although permitted, raised a number of access 

issues. For example, while the permit for the event stipulated that “all 

sidewalks, walkways, and roadways must remain unobstructed to allow for 

the reasonable use of these areas by pedestrians, vehicles, and other park 

visitors,” some groups complained that large portions of the Mall were 

inaccessible for days leading up to the NFL event. Another condition of the 

permit stated “no vehicle shall obstruct or interfere with the Tourmobile 

service that utilizes Jefferson and Madison Drives, from 3rd to 14th Streets. 

However, the National Tour Association Web page advised tour operators 

and motorcoach drivers bound for Washington, D.C., to be aware of several 

street closures and the closure of access to the Mall at noon on September 

4 in association with the NFL kickoff event. The Smithsonian Institution 

museums remained open during the festival, but access was not available 

from the regular Mall-side doors on the afternoon of the NFL kickoff event. 

According to Park Service officials, these streets were closed during the 

event for security reasons consistent with security plans for other largescale public gatherings on the Mall. The Mall entrance to the Smithsonian 

Metro stop was also closed at noon on the day of the NFL event by the 
Appendix III

Information on the 2003 National Football 

League Kickoff Event

Page 35 GAO-05-410 National Park Service

Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority for security reasons. In 

addition to addressing signage limitations, Public Law 108-108 also stated 

that “the Secretary shall ensure, to the maximum extent practicable, that 

public use of, and access to the Mall is not restricted.” 

Resource Damage Cost 

Recovery

There was significant turf and walkway damage to the Mall as a result of 

the NFL kickoff event. Prior to the event, National Capital Parks–Central 

officials required the permittee to provide irrevocable letters of credit 

totaling $250,000 to cover event-related liabilities, such as monitoring costs 

and potential resource damages as a result of the event. The actual cost of 

the event far exceeded the Park Service’s estimated costs. According to a 

November 3, 2003, letter to the permittee, the increase in damage recovery 

costs occurred in part due to “the increase in the number and types of 

heavy equipment that were utilized during the setup and break down of the 

event staging and other facilities.” The Superintendent noted that several 

days of heavy rain also contributed to the higher-than-expected amount of 

damage to the turf and walkways. However, a condition in the NFL kickoff 

event permit—which is a standard condition in special event permits—

specifies that the permittee is liable for damage to the resource as a result 

of the permitted activity. Consequently, after the NFL kickoff event, the turf 

and walkway damage was assessed and the permittee was notified of the 

damage along with the Park Service’s estimate of repair costs. The NFL 

ultimately reimbursed the Park Service over $430,000 to cover both event 

monitoring costs and to repair resource damages (primarily to turf and 

sod).

The NFL reimbursed the Park Police almost $700,000 to cover the cost for 

security personnel for the NFL event. Prior to the event, the NFL posted a 

letter of credit for the Park Police in the amount of $1,150,000. The actual 

expenses charged for Park Police support of operations relating to the NFL 

kickoff permit totaled $698,625. The inclement weather was cited by Park 

Police officials as a factor in their reduced costs, because fewer 

participants showed up at the event and fewer people stayed late. This 

resulted in fewer required security personnel than originally anticipated 

and with fewer actual hours of monitoring.

Reimbursement was not sought from the NFL for the time both Park 

Service and Park Police officials spent in planning meetings for the 2003 

NFL kickoff event. The practice of the National Capital Region—to limit 

charges for administration of permits to cost recovery for overtime 

expenses—was based on a mid-1990s unwritten legal opinion from the 
Appendix III

Information on the 2003 National Football 

League Kickoff Event

Page 36 GAO-05-410 National Park Service

Solicitor’s Office at the Department of the Interior. National Capital ParksCentral officials told us they viewed time spent in event-planning meetings 

and in processing the permit paperwork as a “budgeted” or sunk cost. In 

February 2005, Interior’s Office of Solicitor revised its legal conclusion and 

recommendation on this matter and advised both Park Service and Park 

Police officials in the National Capital Region to re-examine this practice in 

order to come into better compliance with cost recovery policy guidance.
Page 37 GAO-05-410 National Park Service

Appendix IV

Comments from the Department of the 

Interior ApendxiIV

Note: GAO comments 

supplementing those in 

the report text appear 

at the end of this 

appendix.
Appendix IV

Comments from the Department of the 

Interior

Page 38 GAO-05-410 National Park Service

See comment 1.

See comment 2.

See comment 3.

Now on p. 13.
Appendix IV

Comments from the Department of the 

Interior

Page 39 GAO-05-410 National Park Service

Now on p. 14.

Now on p. 17.

See comment 4.

Now on p. 33.
Appendix IV

Comments from the Department of the 

Interior

Page 40 GAO-05-410 National Park Service

See comment 5.

Now on p. 8; footnote 4.

Now on p. 7.

See comment 6.
Appendix IV

Comments from the Department of the 

Interior

Page 41 GAO-05-410 National Park Service

Now on p. 8.

Now on p. 11.

Now on p. 34.

See comment 7.
Appendix IV

Comments from the Department of the 

Interior

Page 42 GAO-05-410 National Park Service

Now on p. 6.

Now on p. 2.

Now on p. 3.

Now on p 12; footnote is 

now superscript a.

Now on p. 12.

Now footnote 12, p. 15.

Now on p. 18.
Appendix IV

Comments from the Department of the 

Interior

Page 43 GAO-05-410 National Park Service

Now on p. 19.

Now on p. 32.

Now on p. 33.

Now on p. 34.

See comment 8.

See footnote 11, p. 13.
Appendix IV

Comments from the Department of the 

Interior

Page 44 GAO-05-410 National Park Service

The following are GAO’s comments on the Department of the Interior’s 

letter dated April 25, 2005.

GAO Comments 1. We added the Special Park Uses Manager’s comment about the 

appropriateness of charging cost recovery when the monitoring was 

conducted as part of routine operations, in footnote 8 on page 10. 

However, based on our review of permit documentation and 

discussions with officials at Blue Ridge Parkway, this circumstance did 

not exist at Blue Ridge Parkway. Thus, no change to the example on 

page 3 is needed.

2. We have included the Reference Manual 53 Web site address in footnote 

10 on page 13, so that readers can more easily seek out Park Service 

policy guidance.

3. We agree that further definition of the term “administrative fee” is 

warranted. As a result, we added clarifying text and a footnote to page 

13 to more explicitly describe permit processing costs included in 

administrative fees. (See footnote 10.)

4. While it is true that FWS and Park Service were barred from collecting 

a location fee for filming and photography prior to the passage of the 

Commercial Filming Law, this was a regulatory prohibition instituted 

by the agency itself. The Commercial Filming Law effectively repealed 

that prohibition.

5. Park Service regulations are cited in footnote 4 on page 8; 

consequently, including a lengthy excerpt from the regulations in the 

text is unnecessary. 

6. See GAO comment 5.

7. We have removed the reference to the general Park Service regulations 

and modified the text on page 34 to describe the specific regulations 

associated with the National Capital Region’s permitting of the NFL 

event and public access restrictions. 

8. See GAO comment 1.
Page 45 GAO-05-410 National Park Service

Appendix V

GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments ApendxiV

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

Staff 

Acknowledgments

In addition to those named above, John Delicath, Doreen Feldman, 

Timothy Guinane, Julian Klazkin, Roy Judy, Diane Lund, Judy Pagano, Paul 

Staley, and Mary Welch made key contributions to this report. Darren 

Goode, Robert Martin, Miguel Lujan, Glenn Slocum, and John Warner made 

significant contributions related to cost accounting issues during this 

review. Kevin Bailey, Denton Herring, and Matthew Reinhart made 

important graphic or data input contributions to the report. 

(360458)
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help 

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost 

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to 

www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.”

Order by Mail or Phone The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to:

U.S. Government Accountability Office

441 G Street NW, Room LM

Washington, D.C. 20548

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Contact:

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Congressional 

Relations

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548

Public Affairs Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548