a

GAO

United States Government Accountability Office

Report to Congressional Requesters

September 2006 RECREATION FEES

Agencies Can Better 

Implement the Federal 

Lands Recreation 

Enhancement Act and 

Account for Fee 

Revenues

GAO-06-1016
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

September 2006

RECREATION FEES

Agencies Can Better Implement the 

Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement 

Act and Account for Fee Revenues 

Highlights of GAO-06-1016, a report to 

congressional requesters 

The Departments of the Interior (DOI) and Agriculture (USDA) established 

four working groups to facilitate interagency cooperation and coordination 

of REA implementation. Each working group has made progress, but some 

issues remain unresolved. For example, the Interagency Pass working group 

has yet to determine the price to charge for the new pass, which is to be 

implemented in January 2007. 

To implement REA, agencies reviewed their fee programs and made 

modifications to the fee programs at some of their units. For example, 

several of USDA’s Forest Service units dropped 437 sites from their fee 

program, such as picnic areas, because they did not meet REA criteria. 

However, not all units are in compliance with REA. Many agency officials

said that while the agencies have issued some interim guidance, REA was 

difficult to interpret and suggested the need for more specific and detailed 

guidance on the fee program. In addition, DOI’s Bureau of Reclamation has 

not yet determined whether to implement REA. Reclamation is assessing 

how REA applies to its operations. 

Some agencies lack adequate controls and accounting procedures for 

collected recreation fees and lack effective guidance for establishing such 

controls. On the basis of visits, some units did not have an effective means 

of verifying whether all collected fees are accounted for. In addition, many 

units have not implemented a system of routine audits to help ensure that 

fees are collected and used as authorized and that collected funds are

safeguarded.

The various agencies participating under REA have different processes for 

selecting projects to be funded with recreation fee revenues. At DOI’s 

Bureau of Land Management and Fish and Wildlife Service and USDA’s 

Forest Service, most proposed projects are approved at the local unit level, 

usually within a few weeks. At DOI’s National Park Service, fee projects are 

reviewed and approved at the unit, regional, and headquarters or department 

level before projects are funded. According to National Park Service 

officials, under this process, it can sometimes take a year or more to obtain 

approval for a requested fee project, which delays project implementation 

and contributes to unobligated fee revenue balances. 

Agencies have $300 million in unobligated fee revenue balances. Unit 

officials cited several reasons for the unobligated balances, such as the need

to save for large projects. Many unit officials also said that recreation fee 

revenues are essential to providing services at their recreation areas that 

would not otherwise be funded. 

In recent years, Congress has 

expressed concerns about the 

federal land management agencies’

ability to provide quality 

recreational opportunities and 

reduce visitor confusion over the 

variety of user fees. In December

2004, Congress passed the Federal

Lands Recreation Enhancement Act 

(REA) to standardize recreation fee 

collection and use at federal lands 

and waters.

GAO was asked to determine (1) 

what the agencies have done to 

coordinate implementation of REA, 

(2) what agencies have done to

implement REA, (3) the extent to 

which agencies have controls and

accounting procedures for collected

fees, (4) how projects and activities 

are selected to receive funding from

fees, and (5) the extent of

unobligated fund balances. To

answer these objectives, GAO 

reviewed agency guidance, analyzed

fee data, interviewed officials, 

visited 26 fee-collecting units, and 

administered a nationwide survey 

to 900 fee-collecting units. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO is making a number of

recommendations to improve 

agencies’ implementation of REA, 

including controls for recreation

fee collection. In commenting on 

the draft report, Interior and 

Agriculture identified actions under 

way or planned to address them. 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-1016.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Robin Nazzaro 

at (202) 512-3841 or nazzaror@gao.gov. 
Page i GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

Contents

Letter 1

Results in Brief 5

Background 10

Working Groups Formed to Foster Interagency Cooperation and 

Coordination on REA Implementation Issues Have Made 

Progress, but Some Issues Remain Unresolved 14

Most Agencies Have Reviewed and Begun to Modify Recreation Fee 

Programs to Implement REA, but Some Units are Still 

Transitioning, Reclamation Is Not Yet Participating, and Agencies 

Have Been Slow to Issue Final Guidance 22

Some Agencies Do Not Have Adequate Controls and Accounting 

Procedures for Collected Fees and Lack Effective Guidance for 

Establishing a System of Internal Controls, Including Routine 

Audits 30

Agencies Have Different Processes for Selecting Projects to Be 

Funded with Fee Revenues 36

Agencies Have Millions of Dollars in Unobligated Recreation Fee 

Balances to Fund Future Projects; Some Projects Funded May Be 

Similar to Those Formerly Funded with Other Appropriations 52

Conclusions 61

Recommendations for Executive Action 63

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 64

Appendixes

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 67

Appendix II: Fees for Recreational Uses Vary by Agency and for Amenities 

Across and within Agencies Participating in REA 73

Appendix III: Information on Organizational Structure, Costs, and 

Membership Requirements of Recreation Resource Advisory 

Committees 82

Appendix IV: Information on Total Fee Revenues, Obligated Funds, and 

Unobligated Balances 86

Appendix V: Information on Participating Agencies’ 10 Units with Largest 

Unobligated Fund Balances 88

Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of the Interior 90

GAO Comments 100
Contents

Page ii GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

Appendix VII: Comments from the Forest Service 103

GAO Comments 109

Appendix VIII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 111

Tables Table 1: Primary Differences between Fee Demo and REA 4

Table 2: Description of America the Beautiful—the National Parks 

and Federal Recreational Lands Pass 18

Table 3: Agency Fee Revenue Expenditure Guidance 40

Table 4: Distribution of Recreation Fee Revenues to Central or 

Regional Funds 52

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

Unobligated Balances 53

Table 6: BLM, NPS, FWS Units, and FS Forests with Unobligated 

Balances at End of Fiscal Year 2005 and Those with 

Unobligated Balances Greater Than Revenues Collected 

54

Table 7: 10 Largest Unobligated Balances of Recreation Fee 

Revenue Among All Units and Forests 55

Table 8: Agency Reasons for Their Unobligated Balance of 

Recreation Fee Revenues 56

Table 9: NPS Unit Recreation Fee Projects Similar to Those 

Previously Funded by General Appropriations, Such as the 

Construction Account 60

Table 10: Estimated Response Rates by Agency and Overall 69

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

Agency 70

Table 12: Recreation Fee Units GAO Visited 71

Table 13: Number of Units Reporting Entrance Fees of Various 

Categories, with the Overall Minimum and Maximum Fee 

Amounts 74

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

REA Authority 75

Table 15: Amenities Available at BLM and FS Units Charging 

Standard Amenity Fees 75

Table 16: Number of Units Charging a Fee under REA for the Various 

Types of Activities, Amenities, or Services Provided 77

Table 17: Number of Units with a Campsite Fee and the Average and 

Range of Fees Charged for Individual and Group 

Campsites 78

Table 18: Number of Units Offering Motor Boating for a Fee or That 

Charge for the Use of a Boat Launch or Other Facilities 79
Contents

Page iii GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

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

the Purpose of Accessing a Body of Water for Rafting, 

Canoeing, or Kayaking 80

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

Region 83

Table 21: Composition of the New RRACs 85

Table 22: Fee Demo/REA Revenue and Obligations 86

Table 23: Ten Largest Unobligated Balances of Recreation Fee 

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

Headquarters for Forests 88

Figures Figure 1: Interpretive Panel at Colonial National Historic Park 37

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

Wildlife Refuge 38

Figure 3: Restroom Constructed with Fee Revenue at the Big 

Meadows Winter Trailhead in Sequoia National Forest 44

Figure 4: Lake Directional Sign Funded with Fee Revenues at the 

Shasta-Trinity National Forest 45

Figure 5: Campsite at Rocky Mountain National Park 46

Figure 6: Fishing Pier at Whiskeytown National Recreation Area 47

Figure 7: Photo Blind at Klamath Falls National Wildlife Refuge 

Complex 49

Figure 8: Monument at Antietam National Battlefield 50

Figure 9: Interpretive Panels at American Basin 51
Contents

Page iv GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

Abbreviations

ASC Albuquerque Service Center

BLM Bureau of Land Management

DOI Department of the Interior

FACA Federal Advisory Committee Act

FS Forest Service

FWPRA Federal Water Project Recreation Act

FWS Fish and Wildlife Service

GPO Government Printing Office

HIRA High Impact Recreational Area

LWCF Land and Water Conservation Fund

NPS National Park Service

NWR National Wildlife Refuge

PMIS Project Management Information System

REA Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act

RFP Request for Proposal

RRAC Recreation Resource Advisory Committee

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

WASO Washington Office (National Park Service)

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

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

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

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

reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

A

September 22, 2006 Letr

The Honorable Charles H. Taylor

Chairman, Subcommittee on Interior,

Environment, and Related Agencies

Committee on Appropriations

House of Representatives

The Honorable Norm Dicks

Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Interior,

Environment, and Related Agencies

Committee on Appropriations

House of Representatives

Over the past several years, Congress has expressed concern about the 

operation and maintenance of federal recreation sites and the ability of 

federal land management agencies to continue providing visitors highquality recreational opportunities, while at the same time protecting 

natural and other resources. To help address these concerns, Congress 

passed legislation in 1996 authorizing an experimental initiative called the 

Recreational Fee Demonstration Program (Fee Demo), under which 

participating agencies were authorized to establish and collect recreation 

fees at a number of sites and to use the revenues to enhance visitor 

services, manage and protect resources, and reduce maintenance backlogs, 

among other uses. Agencies participating in the Fee Demo program 

included the Department of the Interior’s (DOI) Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM), Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and the National 

Park Service (NPS), as well as the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) 

Forest Service (FS). The Fee Demo program created two types of 

recreation fees: entrance fees for basic admission to an area and user fees 

for specific activities, such as camping or boat launching. Between 1996 

and 2004, Congress reauthorized the program several times. The program 

was designed to allow agencies to be creative in developing and 

experimenting with new fees and fee collection practices for improving 

visitor services, and to alleviate visitor confusion by coordinating multiple 

or overlapping recreation fees. The program required that at least 80 

percent of fee revenues be used at the sites where they were collected, 

while allowing for the remaining 20 percent to be distributed to other sites 

that may or may not be participating in the demonstration program. 

Despite these program benefits, our reviews of the Fee Demo program
Page 2 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

identified a number of areas needing improvement.1 Specifically, we 

reported that opportunities remained for the agencies to be more 

innovative and cooperative in designing, setting, collecting, and 

coordinating fees. We also reported that heavily visited sites might 

eventually have more revenue than needed for their projects, while other 

sites could have unmet needs as a result of adhering to the requirement that 

80 percent of the revenues be used at the sites where they were collected. 

To address these and other issues, in December 2004, Congress passed the 

Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (REA), which repealed the 

Fee Demo program. Under REA, five federal agencies—BLM, FWS, NPS, 

and the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) in DOI, and FS in USDA—

are authorized to charge and collect recreation fees at federal lands and 

waters. When Congress authorized REA, it attempted to improve upon the 

demonstration program by providing fee authority for 10 years until 

December 2014, standardizing the types of fees, increasing flexibility for 

fee revenue expenditures, and authorizing a new national, interagency 

“America the Beautiful—the National Parks and Federal Recreational 

Lands Pass” designed to minimize visitor confusion over which passes can 

be accepted where. REA also provides criteria for establishing several 

different kinds of fees (entrance, standard amenity, expanded amenity, and 

special recreation permit) and prohibits charging of fees for certain 

activities and services such as outings conducted by schools for 

noncommercial educational purposes.

Under REA, only NPS and FWS are authorized to collect entrance fees. An 

entrance fee simply refers to a fee charged to enter lands managed by these 

agencies. BLM, FS, and Reclamation are authorized to collect standard 

amenity fees, which is a fee for access to a National Conservation Area; a 

National Volcanic Monument; a destination visitor or interpretive center 

that provides a broad range of interpretive services, programs, and media; 

or use of an area that provides significant opportunities for outdoor 

recreation and contains all of the following six amenities: (1) designated 

developed parking; (2) a permanent toilet facility; (3) a permanent trash 

receptacle; (4) an interpretive sign, exhibit or kiosk; (5) picnic tables; and 

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

1

GAO, Recreation Fees: Management Improvements Can Help the Demonstration 

Program Enhance Visitor Services, GAO-02-10 (Washington, D. C.: Nov. 26, 2001). GAO, 

Recreation Fees: Information on Forest Service Management of Revenue from the Fee 

Demonstration Program, GAO-03-470 (Washington, D. C.: Apr. 25, 2003).
Page 3 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

“expanded amenity fees,” as well as fees for special recreation permits. 

Expanded amenity fees may be charged for the use of a specialized facility, 

equipment, or service, such as a campground, boat launch, reservation 

service, or interpretive tour. REA outlines the criteria that must be met in 

order to charge this fee. For example, in order for a BLM, FS, or 

Reclamation unit to charge an expanded amenity fee for use of a developed 

campground, the campground must include at least a majority of nine 

specified amenities such as tent or trailer spaces, drinking water, and 

simple devices for containing a campfire. Each of the five agencies can also 

collect a special recreation permit fee in connection with the issuance of a 

permit for specialized recreation uses of federal recreational lands and 

waters, such as group activities, recreation events, and motorized 

recreational vehicle use. 

In general, REA directs the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture to 

involve the public in developing recreation fees and requires BLM and FS to 

establish committees, called Recreation Resource Advisory Committees 

(RRACs) or use an existing Resource Advisory Committee,2

 to allow public 

input on recommendations for fee amounts and their usage, and the 

establishment of new fee sites. REA provides that recreation fee revenues 

are available for expenditure without further appropriation, until expended 

and, in general, requires that the collecting unit retain a minimum of 80 

percent of revenues from recreation fees.3

 However, REA does give the 

agencies some flexibility to make an annual decision to reduce the 

percentage allocation to a collecting unit to as little as 60 percent if they 

determine the revenues collected at a given unit exceed its reasonable 

needs. The remainder of these revenues goes into a central agency account 

for expenditure on an agencywide or regional basis. While we describe 

agency procedures for distribution of these funds, the use of these central 

funds was beyond the scope of this review. Furthermore, the law extends 

the agencies’ authority to collect recreation fees to December 2014. The 

primary differences between the Fee Demo program and REA authority are 

illustrated in table 1.

2

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

3

Recreation fees collected under REA are deposited in the Recreation Enhancement Fee 

account.
Page 4 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

Table 1: Primary Differences between Fee Demo and REA

Source: GAO.

You asked us to provide an early assessment of REA implementation and to 

help ensure that the guidelines being developed to implement the new law 

are based on sound management practices. As requested, we determined 

(1) what agencies have done to coordinate the implementation of REA, 

including preparing for the new interagency federal lands pass; (2) what 

agencies have done to implement REA fee and amenity requirements and 

sufficiency of guidance for REA implementation; (3) the extent to which 

the agencies have control and accounting procedures for collected 

recreation fee revenues; (4) how participating agencies prioritize and 

approve activities and projects funded with fee revenues; and (5) the extent 

to which units have unobligated fund balances and if recreational fees are 

being used to fund projects formerly funded with other appropriations. We 

are also providing in appendix II information on how recreation fees vary 

Fee Demo REA

Authority Pub. L. No. 104-134, tit. III, § 315 (1996); 

Pub. L. No. 104-208, tit. III, § 319 (1996); 

and Pub. L. No. 107-63, tit. III, § 312(b) 

(2001)

Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement 

Act, Pub. L. No. 108-447, tit. VIII (2004)

Authority time frame Operated on periodic reauthorizations from 

Congress.

Expires 10 years from date of enactment 

(December 8, 2014).

Authorized agencies DOI: NPS, BLM, FWS

USDA: FS 

DOI: NPS, BLM, FWS, Reclamation

USDA: FS

Types of fees Entrance and user fees. Entrance, standard amenity, expanded 

amenity, special recreation permit fees.

Fee prohibitions No specific prohibitions. Prohibitions on charging fees for certain 

individuals, such as those under 16 years of 

age; at certain places such as the Flight 93 

National Memorial; and for activities such as 

noncommercial education programs.

Public participation No specific requirements. Public notification requirements for new fees 

and fee modifications; Recreation Resource 

Advisory Committee or existing Resource 

Advisory Committee input generally required 

on fee changes or new fee areas for BLM 

and FS.

Fee revenue collections At least 80% must be retained by collecting 

unit for its use.

At least 60% must be retained by collecting 

unit for its use. 

National passes Various agency passes such as the National 

Parks Pass and interagency national 

passes, such as the Golden Eagle, Age, and 

Access Passports. 

One national interagency pass. 
Page 5 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

by type, amount, and the level of amenities offered at units with similar 

recreational opportunities across and within agencies participating in REA.

To address these objectives, we obtained and reviewed applicable laws, 

regulations, agencywide policies and procedures, regional policies and 

procedures, and the fees collected at selected units under the Fee Demo 

program and REA in order to determine what changes have resulted since 

REA implementation. We developed and administered a nationwide survey 

to about 900 units4

 collecting fees under REA, and 89 percent of the units 

responded. We supplemented the survey information with records reviews, 

analyses of documents, and testimonial evidence gathered during 26 unit 

visits and in meetings with state, regional, and headquarters officials. 

Appendix I shows the 26 units we visited, as well as a more detailed 

description of our objectives, scope, and methodology. We conducted our 

work between June 2005 and August 2006 in accordance with generally 

accepted government auditing standards.

Results in Brief The Departments of the Interior and Agriculture established four working 

groups to facilitate interagency cooperation and coordination on REA 

implementation issues. While each of the four working groups has made 

overall progress facilitating the implementation of REA, some key issues 

being addressed by two of the working groups remain unresolved, which is 

impacting or has the potential of impacting progress on implementing some 

REA requirements. Some unresolved issues are as follows:

• The RRACs/Public Participation working group is focused on 

establishing RRACs or utilizing existing Resource Advisory Councils 

(advisory councils) as part of the REA public participation 

requirements. This working group is involved in establishing state and 

regional RRACs that may make recommendations to the Secretaries of 

the Interior and Agriculture related to public concerns about 

implementation of standard and expanded amenity fees or the 

establishment of a specific recreation fee site managed by BLM or FS, 

among other issues. As of April 2006, the working group had determined 

the organization of the RRACs and drafted an interagency agreement 

required before the RRACs could be formed. However, this interagency 

4

A unit is defined as a BLM field office, a FWS national wildlife refuge, a unit of the national 

park system (e.g., a national park, national historic site, or national monument), or a FS 

ranger district. 
Page 6 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

agreement was finalized on September 1, 2006, and there is no time line 

for implementation. As a result, no state or regional RRACs are fully 

operational. Since BLM and FS interim policy generally requires units to 

obtain RRAC review and recommendation for approval of new or 

increased fees, the delay in forming these advisory committees—which 

were originally estimated to be established with members appointed by 

the end of 2005—has delayed the implementation of new fees or fee 

changes in some BLM and FS units. 

• The Interagency Pass working group has mainly focused on 

preparations for the new interagency pass. While the working group has 

made progress in preparing to implement the new pass, certain critical 

aspects in the pass development time line have taken much longer than 

anticipated. For example, the working group has yet to determine the 

price to charge for the new pass, which is to be implemented in January 

2007. According to working group officials, they are working under a 

very tight time line to implement the new pass by this deadline, but say 

they are committed to implementing the pass on schedule. 

The responsibilities of the other two working groups are essentially 

completed. The Fee Collection/Expenditure working group focused on 

developing common definitions and policy guidance to provide a consistent 

basis for implementing REA and enable common reporting by each of the 

agencies. This working group finalized an interagency handbook with 

common definitions and guidance in March 2006. Also, the 

Communications working group was formed to act as a vehicle for 

communicating REA implementation issues between the authorized 

agencies, Congress, and the public. According to agency officials, this 

working group has been used to facilitate interagency communication to 

Congress and the public, such as organizing public listening sessions on the 

new pass and formation of the RRACs.

To implement REA, participating agencies have reviewed their recreation 

fees under the former Fee Demo program and have begun modifying their 

fee programs. Most NPS and FWS units continued charging entrance fees 

as allowed under REA. Units at BLM and FS made modifications to their 

fee programs to comply with REA standard amenity or expanded amenity 

fee requirements. For example, FS stated that it dropped 437 sites from its 

fee program, including numerous trailheads and picnic areas, because they 

did not offer the required minimum amenities. In cases where existing 

amenities met REA criteria, agencies continued charging fees by 

converting existing user and entrance fees to the new fee categories 
Page 7 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

defined by REA. Some units, primarily within FS and BLM, added amenities 

such as picnic tables or trash receptacles to bring sites into compliance 

with REA. However, in survey responses some BLM and FS units reported 

collecting standard amenity fees, without having all six amenities required 

under REA. BLM and FS headquarters officials said many of these survey 

responses were in error. Some of these units are still transitioning toward 

compliance with REA, as they plan to add the additional required 

amenities. Although REA included Reclamation as a participating agency, 

Reclamation is still considering whether to implement REA. It is assessing 

advice from the Office of the Solicitor on issues such as its authority to 

charge recreation fees under other legislation that was not repealed by 

REA. Although agencies reported no major problems with the transition 

from Fee Demo to REA, many unit officials said that REA was difficult to 

interpret, such as defining criteria for charging standard and expanded 

amenity fees, and suggested the need for more specific guidance, including 

detailed policies and procedures for implementing REA and managing 

recreation fee programs. 

Some agencies lack adequate controls and accounting procedures over 

collected recreation fees and also lack effective guidance for establishing 

these controls. According to federal internal control guidance, program 

managers need to identify risks that could impair the safeguarding of fee 

revenues at the unit level and should formulate an approach for risk 

management that identifies the internal controls necessary to mitigate 

those risks. However, on the basis of our unit visits, we determined that 

some BLM, FWS, and FS officials did not have sufficient guidance—or even 

examples of best practices—to follow for implementing effective internal 

controls over cash management. For example, some units did not have a 

means of determining the amount of cash an employee collected and, 

therefore, could not verify that all collected fees were accounted for. Some 

agencies lacked adequate guidance to help develop an effective system of 

internal controls over collected fees. Further, many units have not 

implemented a system of routine audits to help ensure that fees are 

collected and used as authorized and that collected funds are safeguarded. 

On the basis of 752 units responding to this question in our survey, only 37 

percent reported having their fee collection program examined by an 

auditor since October 2000. The percentage of units having their fee 

collection programs examined varies significantly by agency. For example, 

about 63 percent of NPS units reported having such examinations, whereas 

only 14 percent of FWS units, 27 percent of BLM units, and 33 percent of FS 

units had examinations. According to some unit officials with whom we 

spoke, they either did not believe they had access to internal or external 
Page 8 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

audit resources or they rationalized that they did not need to implement an 

audit program since they had trustworthy staff. However, without routine 

audits, the agencies lack an important internal control that could allow 

them to promptly detect unauthorized transactions involving recreation fee 

revenues and assess the design and implementation effectiveness of 

controls over these assets agencywide.

The agencies have different processes for selecting projects to be funded 

by recreation fee revenues. Agencies prioritize projects based on REA 

criteria and related agency guidance. REA criteria allow the agencies to 

obligate fee revenues on a wide variety of projects such as repairs and 

maintenance, interpretive programs, and habitat restoration. However, 

REA also places restrictions on expenditures, including prohibiting the use 

of fees for threatened and endangered species biological monitoring and 

employee bonuses. Agency priorities, which focus the emphasis on using 

recreation fees to enhance the visitor’s experience, are also guided by 

agency needs and revised policies under REA. The differences in the 

process for reviewing and approving projects can affect the types of 

projects funded and time lines for their implementation. For example, at 

BLM, FWS, and FS, most proposed projects are approved at the local unit 

level, which according to unit staff usually occurs within a few weeks or, in 

some cases, immediately without unit manager approval. At NPS, projects 

are reviewed and approved at the unit and regional levels, as well as at the 

headquarters level, prior to submitting them for Departmental or 

Congressional approval per a multi-level approval process that is based on 

dollar amounts. According to NPS officials, under this process it can 

sometimes take 1 year or more to obtain approval to fund a requested 

project, and many unit and regional officials expressed frustration about 

the length of this process. According to NPS officials at the unit and 

regional levels, the length of time to obtain approval for funding NPS 

projects has delayed project implementation and contributed to units 

having unobligated fee revenue balances. In contrast, a NPS headquarters 

recreation fee program manager stated that their approval approach helps 

to ensure that projects funded are consistent with REA and to assure 

accountability. The agencies have used recreation fee revenues to fund or 

partially fund a wide variety of maintenance, operations, and capital 

improvement projects. For example, fee revenues were used for 

maintenance work such as trail repairs, increased seasonal staff to help 

with operations such as teaching river safety, and the installation of capital 

improvements such as new restroom facilities. The collection and 

distribution of central and/or regional funds also varies by agency and 

sometimes by region. Generally, these central and regional funds are 
Page 9 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

distributed among the units based on project proposals or are used to cover 

administrative costs of the recreation fee program. 

The four agencies collecting recreation fees have accumulated unobligated 

balances of nearly $300 million at the end of fiscal year 2005. These 

balances have accrued under REA and its predecessor, Fee Demo, for a 

variety of reasons. On the basis of our survey, 114 of 270 NPS, BLM, and 

FWS units with unobligated balances reported that their balances exceeded 

the amount of fee revenues the units collected in fiscal year 2005. This 

condition also existed at 63 of 107 forests that FS reported as having 

unobligated balances. An example of a unit with a large balance is the 

Grand Canyon National Park. With revenues of about $20 million in fiscal 

year 2005 and with previous balances accumulated over several years, the 

park had an unobligated balance of almost $37 million at the end of 2005. 

NPS, BLM, FWS, and FS units responding to our survey identified several 

reasons for unobligated balances, including the fact that some units have 

inadequate staffing to administer and implement projects, the need to carry 

over funds for the next season’s operations, and the need to carry over 

funds to complete large projects. For example, officials with the Grand 

Canyon National Park planned to use the park’s $37 million unobligated 

balance for an alternative transportation project that is estimated to cost 

approximately $47 million. Officials from 58 percent of the four agencies’ 

units responding to our survey indicated they believed that, to a moderate, 

great, or very great extent, recreation fee revenues are being used to fund 

the types of projects formerly funded with other general appropriations at 

their unit. However, many unit staff we interviewed or who commented on 

our survey stated that recreation fee revenues are essential to providing 

services at their recreation areas that would not otherwise be funded. 

Additionally, officials from 64 percent of responding units indicated they 

believed that, to a moderate, great or very great extent, they may need to 

replace other general appropriations with recreation fee revenues in the 

future. Interior and FS headquarters officials stated that historically, fee 

revenues have not replaced appropriations and there is no reason to expect 

this to change in the future. Further, Interior headquarters officials stated 

that the department has organized spending of recreation fee revenues in 

such a manner as to focus on supplementing spending that would have 

occurred absent fee revenues.

To allow for public input on new fees or modifications to existing fees, we 

are recommending that the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture 

expedite completing the steps needed for the RRACs and existing advisory 

councils to begin implementing REA. To improve (1) agencies’ REA 
Page 10 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

implementation and (2) improve the accountability and controls for 

recreation fee collection, we recommend that the Secretaries of the 

Interior and Agriculture direct their land management agency Directors 

and Chief to promptly issue final REA regulations and implementation 

guidance on their fee programs and ascertain the extent to which some of 

their units do not have processes and procedures for accounting for and 

controlling collected fees and develop cost effective approaches for 

implementing reasonable internal controls over cash management. We are 

also recommending the Secretary of the Interior to direct the 

Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation to expedite a decision on 

implementing REA so that units can begin to collect and retain recreation 

fees to enhance their recreation programs, as authorized under REA.

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

generally agreed with our recommendations and provided some specific 

actions planned or under way to address them. The Department of 

Agriculture’s Forest Service also outlined some actions to address the 

recommendations. With regard to our recommendation for both agencies 

to complete the interagency agreement necessary for the RRAC’s and 

advisory councils to implement REA, both agencies advised us that they 

had signed this agreement, which was finalized on September 1, 2006. As a 

result, we removed this recommendation from the report. Both agencies 

also offered several suggestions for updating information in the report and 

for technical clarifications; we have incorporated these suggestions, as 

appropriate.

Background DOI’s BLM, FWS, NPS, and Reclamation, and USDA’s FS manage more than 

638 million acres of land in the United States, including lands in national 

forests, grasslands, parks, refuges, and reservoirs. These agencies manage 

the federal lands for multiple uses, including recreational activities such as 

camping and boating. To enhance visitor services while protecting natural 

and other resources, as well as to address concerns about the prior 

recreation fee program, Congress passed REA, which authorized the 

collection and use of recreation fees at federal lands and waters. 

• BLM’s mission is to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the 

public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future 

generations. BLM manages more than 260 million acres located 

primarily in 12 western states. The agency manages and issues permits 

for activities such as recreation, livestock grazing, timber harvesting, 
Page 11 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

and mining. Recreation fees are collected under REA at about 100 BLM 

field offices. 

• The mission of the FWS is to work with others to conserve, protect, and 

enhance fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats for the continuing 

benefit of the American people. FWS manages more than 545 national 

wildlife refuges and 37 large, multiple-unit wetland management 

districts on more than 96 million acres of land throughout the nation, 69 

national fish hatcheries, and 46 administrative sites. As of August 2006, 

recreation fees are collected under REA at 166 FWS sites. An additional 

32 national wildlife refuges only sell passes. 

• The mission of NPS is to conserve the scenery, the natural and historic 

objects, and the wildlife of the national park system so that they will 

remain unimpaired for the enjoyment of this and future generations. 

NPS manages 390 national park units covering more than 84 million 

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

Puerto Rico, Saipan, and the Virgin Islands. NPS manages many of the 

nation’s most precious natural and cultural resources. About 190 park 

units collect recreation fees such as entrance, use, and pass sales. An 

additional 31 units only generate revenue from the National Parks Pass 

and other pass sales. 

• The mission of Reclamation is to manage, develop, and protect water 

and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound 

manner in the interest of the American public. Reclamation manages 

about 8.5 million acres of land associated with water projects in 17 

western states. The agency delivers water and hydroelectric power 

through the maintenance and administration of dams and reservoirs. 

Currently, Reclamation has identified seven locations that meet REA 

requirements for collecting standard amenity fees. 

• The mission of the USDA FS is to sustain the health, diversity, and 

productivity of the nation’s forests and grasslands to meet the needs of 

present and future generations. FS manages more than 190 million acres 

throughout the country. The agency manages and issues permits for 

activities such as skiing, livestock grazing, recreation, timber harvesting, 

mining, and rights-of-way for road construction. Recreation fees are 

collected at about 410 ranger districts in 155 national forests. 

BLM, FWS, NPS, and FS have had broad authority to collect recreation fees 

for over 40 years, first under the Land and Water Conservation Fund 
Page 12 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

(LWCF) Act of 1965 and later under Fee Demo. Initially, Fee Demo 

authorized only a limited number of sites to charge and retain recreation 

fees—up to 100 sites per agency—but Congress later expanded the 

authority to allow any number of sites to charge and collect recreation fees. 

Under Fee Demo, the agencies were encouraged to be innovative in 

designing and collecting fees and to coordinate their fees with other 

federal, state, and local recreational sites. The program yielded substantial 

benefits for recreation sites by funding significant on-the-ground 

improvements. Total fee collections were about $192 million in fiscal year 

2004, with about 67 percent or $129 million collected by NPS; the four 

agencies collected a total of over $1 billion in recreation fee revenues 

during the 8 years of the Fee Demo program.5

 Nevertheless, under the 

demonstration program, the majority of the agencies’ funds were still 

provided to them through annual appropriations. 

Between 1998 and 2004, GAO conducted several reviews of the Fee Demo 

program, resulting in numerous reports and testimonies. During these 

reviews, we found that Fee Demo was successful in raising revenues and 

providing benefits to the agencies, but that improvements could be made to 

better the program. GAO informed Congress of several areas that needed to 

be addressed to ensure the program’s success. These included: (1) 

providing a more permanent source of revenue to supplement existing 

appropriations by providing the agencies with a more permanent fee 

authority; (2) encouraging effective coordination and cooperation among 

agencies and individual fee sites to better serve visitors by making the 

payment of fees more convenient and equitable, while at the same time 

reducing visitor confusion about similar or multiple fees charged at 

adjacent federal recreation sites; (3) providing the agencies with greater 

flexibility regarding fee revenue expenditures by modifying the 

requirement that at least 80 percent of fee revenues remain at the collection 

site; and (4) encouraging fee innovation through pricing structures based 

on extent of use or peak pricing. In 2004, Congress passed REA, in part, as 

a response to the suggestions and concerns documented in these previous 

reports. REA repealed several prior authorities such as those contained in 

LWCF Act, Fee Demo, and the National Parks Omnibus Management Act of 

1998, which authorized national passes including the National Parks Pass.6

 

5

Dollars in this report are unadjusted for inflation.

6

Existing passes purchased prior to the establishment of the new interagency pass will 

remain valid until expired, lost, or stolen.
Page 13 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

However, many of the fees currently charged under REA were first 

instituted under the LWCF Act or during the Fee Demo program.

For fee revenues, REA provides that recreation fees collected under the act 

be deposited in a special fund account and remain available for 

expenditure without further appropriation action. REA allows the revenues 

to be used in a variety of ways such as for repair, maintenance, and facility 

enhancement; interpretation and visitor information; law enforcement; and 

direct operating or capital costs associated with the fee program. However, 

not more than an average of 15 percent of total recreation fee revenues may 

be used for administration, overhead, and indirect costs related to the 

recreation fee program. Further, REA prohibits the use of recreation fee 

revenues for employee bonuses or for biological monitoring under the 

Endangered Species Act. 

Both visitors to federal lands and agency officials generally support 

recreation fees and tout the benefits that fee revenues provide through 

improved facilities and services. Some assert that the recreation fee 

program will improve recreational opportunities and that it is a needed 

supplement to general fund appropriations. However, concerns about the 

recreation fee program continue to exist for a variety of reasons. For 

example, some people are concerned that the fee program under REA does 

not go far enough in simplifying fees, that federal lands will be 

overdeveloped to attract fee-paying tourists, and that the law fails to ensure 

that most collections will be used for the agencies’ highest priorities. Other 

critics continue to oppose recreation fees in concept, in large part, on the 

grounds that the cost of operating and maintaining federal lands should be 

covered by general fund appropriations and that these fees constitute a 

barrier to public access to federally managed lands. However, in times of 

budget constraints, recreation fees may provide an important source of 

additional funding needed to sustain agency operations.
Page 14 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

Working Groups 

Formed to Foster 

Interagency 

Cooperation and 

Coordination on REA 

Implementation Issues 

Have Made Progress, 

but Some Issues 

Remain Unresolved

The four technical working groups formed by DOI and USDA to facilitate 

interagency cooperation and coordination on specific REA implementation 

issues have made progress. However, progress has been slow in some 

areas, such as resolving issues surrounding the RRACs and the new 

interagency pass, possibly delaying agency implementation of these 

aspects of the law. For example, the working group responsible for forming 

advisory committees, such as RRACs, has missed target dates, which has 

ultimately delayed the establishment of some new recreation fees. GAO has 

reported in the past that agencies face barriers any time they attempt to 

work collaboratively, but that there are key practices that can be applied to 

help enhance and sustain agency collaboration.7

 For example, it is 

important to establish compatible policies, procedures, and other means to 

operate across agency boundaries. While one working group has finalized 

its interagency handbook, one is not planning to issue any guidelines, and 

two have not issued all of their interagency guidelines and agreements. For 

example, the working group responsible for preparing for the new 

interagency federal lands pass has not issued interagency guidelines 

outlining such details as pass eligibility requirements and distribution of 

costs and revenues among the agencies, which could potentially delay 

implementing the new pass. 

The RRACs/Public 

Participation Working 

Group is Facilitating the 

Establishment of State and 

Regional RRACs, but 

Progress Has Been Slow

The RRACs/Public Participation working group has focused on establishing 

RRACs or utilizing existing advisory councils as part of the REA public 

participation requirements.8

 These committees may make 

recommendations to the Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture related to 

public concerns about implementation of standard and expanded amenity 

fees or the establishment of a specific recreation fee site managed by BLM 

or FS, among other issues. However, the development of the RRACs has 

been slow, which has delayed the implementation of new fees or fee 

changes at some units. According to a June 2005 interagency presentation, 

it was expected that the RRACs would be established with members 

appointed by the end of 2005. Despite progress toward establishing RRACs, 

7

GAO, Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance and Sustain 

Collaboration among Federal Agencies, GAO-06-15 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 21, 2005).

8

The establishment of the RRACs is guided by the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 

as well as REA. Under FACA, there are specific requirements for organizing and managing 

such committees, such as assigning of a Designated Federal Officer to each committee, 

achieving balanced membership on the committees, and requiring open public meetings. 
Page 15 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

some tasks have taken longer than originally estimated and, as of August 

2006, no state or regional RRACs are fully operational. Before the working 

group can move forward with many aspects of establishing RRACs—

including issuing a charter and soliciting nominations for membership—or 

existing advisory councils can begin reviewing fee issues, an interagency 

agreement on implementing the RRAC requirements had to be signed. This 

interagency agreement, which covers issues such as the specific duties of 

the new RRACs and existing advisory councils, was finalized on September 

1, 2006, but there is no time line for implementation, according to an 

agency official. In addition, other preparatory work to implement the new 

RRAC requirement has begun. For example, BLM and FS have begun 

educating existing advisory councils and the public about recreation fees 

and the REA public participation requirements. 

Because BLM and FS generally cannot create new fees or modify existing 

fees (per each agency’s interim policy) without the participation of RRACs, 

or existing advisory councils, the delay in establishing these advisory 

committees has prevented many units from making fee decisions. Agency 

officials at 26 percent of BLM and almost 38 percent of FS fee-collecting 

units responding to our survey, or 171 units out of 481 total units, said that 

the establishment of or changes to recreation fees at their units had been 

prevented or delayed to a moderate, great, or very great extent since the 

passage of REA in December 2004. For example, the Dillon Ranger District 

in the White River National Forest in Colorado is currently considering 

modifying its fee structure but has been delayed because the RRACs are 

not operational. Because adding new fees or increasing existing fees 

generally results in an overall increase in fee revenue, some units may be 

losing fee revenue that could be used to further enhance visitor services 

without functioning RRACs in place. Some units, however, were allowed to 

add or modify fees prior to implementation of the new RRAC requirement if 

the fee changes were already in progress, and public notification and 

participation requirements had been met. For example, about 25 new 

expanded amenity fees have been implemented at FS units since early 

2006, most of which are for cabin rentals, according to the FS Fee Program 

Coordinator. In addition, in some states there are no units that currently 

want to add or modify fees, so the implementation of the RRAC 

requirements is not delaying fee changes at any units in those states. 

The organizational structure for the RRACs and use of existing advisory 

councils was approved by DOI and USDA in March 2006 via an interagency 

organizational agreement that established, among other things, how the 

REA RRAC requirement will be met in each state/region. In the majority of 
Page 16 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

western states, BLM and FS will use joint RRACs or committees, many of 

which will be composed of existing BLM advisory councils—REA allows 

existing advisory committees or fee advisory boards to perform the RRAC 

duties. In addition, five new RRACs are being established nationwide. 

Appendix III outlines the organizational structure and membership 

requirements for the RRACs. 

Finally, in addition to the specific requirement for BLM and FS to establish 

RRACs or use existing advisory councils to review fee issues, REA has 

several other provisions for public participation that apply to all agencies, 

and these new public participation requirements have also delayed the 

implementation of new fees or fee changes at some units. DOI and USDA 

issued interagency guidelines on public participation that apply to all 

participating agencies in September 2005. The guidelines direct the 

Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior to publish a Federal Register notice 

for establishing each new recreation fee area 6 months prior to its 

establishment, as required by REA. The guidelines also direct the agencies 

to identify outreach efforts, such as public meetings, to encourage public 

involvement in establishing recreation fee areas9

 and to annually post 

notices at each recreation fee area describing the use or anticipated use of 

recreation fees collected at that site during the previous year. Some of the 

agencies, including NPS, BLM, and FS, have issued agency-specific 

guidance for meeting REA public participation requirements. According to 

agency officials, the public participation requirements have delayed fee 

changes or the establishment of new fees at some units. Agency officials at 

almost 17 percent of fee-collecting units within all four agencies 

responding to our survey said that the public participation process in 

general had delayed or prevented the establishment of or changes to 

recreation fees at their unit to a moderate, great, or very great extent since 

the passage of REA in December 2004. 

9

The public involvement opportunities must also include “sharing plans” developed by the 

agencies when deciding to establish any new recreation fee areas. These plans will generally 

contain (1) a description of the new recreation fee areas; (2) a financial analysis, including 

projected development, operating, and maintenance costs, as well as projected income for 

the fee area; (3) an analysis of existing private and public facilities or services in the vicinity 

of the fee area that may compete with it; and (4) a description of how the cooperating 

agencies will inform the public as to how the fees collected at the area will be spent. 
Page 17 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

Interagency Pass Working 

Group Has Made Progress 

Preparing for the New 

Interagency Federal Lands 

Pass, but Some Issues 

Remain Unresolved

The Interagency Pass working group has mainly focused on preparations 

for the new interagency “America the Beautiful—the National Parks and 

Federal Recreational Lands Pass.” While the agencies have made progress 

in preparing to implement the new pass, some issues remain unresolved. 

For example, while the working group has generally determined how 

revenues from passes sold centrally will be distributed for the first 3 to 5 

years, it is unclear how these revenues will be distributed among all 

participating agencies beyond this time frame. In addition, the working 

group has not determined the price to charge for the new pass. According 

to DOI, the most complex and time-consuming aspect of implementing 

REA relates to establishing this new pass. The Interagency Pass working 

group has been addressing the various issues involved with the pass, 

including the price of the pass, the distribution of revenues from the sale of 

the pass, and operational issues like accepting the pass and tracking its use 

at recreation sites. The target date for implementing the new pass is 

January 1, 2007, with passes available for distribution by November 1, 2006. 

According to the working group, this is a very tight time line that will 

require the contracting processes to stay on schedule and for subsequent 

design, production, and shipping deadlines to be met.

The standard version of the new pass will be available to the general public; 

in addition, there will be versions of the pass available to senior citizens, 

persons with disabilities, and volunteers. Table 2 provides a description of 

each of the versions of the new pass. The price of the standard pass has not 

yet been determined. The Golden Eagle, Age, and Access Passports, and 

the National Parks Pass will continue to be sold until the new interagency 

passes are available and all existing passes will be valid for the lifetime of 

the pass (e.g., 1 year from purchase for National Parks Pass and Golden 

Eagle Passport; lifetime of the pass holder for Golden Age and Access 

Passports). 
Page 18 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

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

Source: GAO.

While the price of the new standard pass has yet to be determined as of 

August 2006, the pricing decision is critically important because of the 

potential impact of the pass on entrance and standard amenity fee 

revenues. In particular, agency officials at NPS have emphasized the 

importance of pricing and marketing decisions and their potential impacts 

on entrance fee revenue. To provide information to help determine the 

price of the new pass, the agencies entered into a cooperative agreement 

with the University of Wyoming to conduct a pricing analysis. For the study, 

researchers conducted six focus groups throughout the nation,10 collected 

benchmarking information from a number of U.S. state parks and Canadian 

national parks, and developed and implemented a random telephone 

survey of recreation users. According to a NPS headquarters official, the 

working group is not considering potential revenue losses due to the new 

interagency pass, only what the public is willing to pay for the new pass. 

However, in commenting on a draft of this report, NPS headquarters 

officials informed us that revenue impacts will be considered in the pricing 

decision. According to a DOI official, the price of the new pass was to be 

determined in the summer of 2006. As of August 2006, the price of the new 

standard (annual) pass had not yet been established.

Pass name Price of pass Coverage Eligibility Valid

Standard (annual) pass Not determined Entrance fees and standard 

amenity fees

General public 12 months from time of 

purchase

Senior lifetime pass $10.00 Entrance fees and standard 

amenity fees; discounts on 

some expanded amenity fees

U.S. citizens or 

permanent residents 

aged 62 or older

Lifetime of pass holder

Access lifetime pass Free Entrance fees and standard 

amenity fees; discounts on 

some expanded amenity fees

U.S. citizens or 

permanent residents who 

have a permanent 

disability

Lifetime of pass holder

Volunteer pass Free Entrance fees and standard 

amenity fees

Volunteers at recreation 

sites who log 500 

volunteer hours over any 

period of time

12 months from time of 

receipt

10Focus groups were held in Richmond, VA; Boston, MA; Salt Lake City, UT; Fresno, CA; 

Portland, OR; and Madison, WI. 
Page 19 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

The details of the plan for distributing revenues from the sale of new 

interagency passes sold centrally, such as through the Internet or outside 

vendors, beyond the first 3 to 5 years of the pass program is still uncertain. 

All pass revenue from passes sold at units will remain within the agency 

where the pass was sold, and it will be up to each agency to determine how 

to redistribute pass revenues within the agency. For the first 3 to 5 years of 

the pass program, revenues from passes sold centrally will initially be used 

to cover administrative costs of the new pass and to reimburse NPS for the 

almost $2.4 million it loaned to fund development of the new pass. After 

administrative costs for the new pass are covered and NPS is reimbursed, 

any remaining central pass revenues will be distributed equally among all 

participating agencies for at least the first 3 to 5 years of the program, with 

the goal of assisting all agencies in establishing a pass program. However, 

this plan may be revisited if central pass sales significantly increase or 

decrease11 or if central pass revenue after 3 years is not adequate to cover 

administrative costs of the program or to reimburse NPS for its loan. The 

long-term plan for revenue distribution beyond the initial 3 to 5 years is 

more uncertain because these plan details have not been agreed upon. 

According to an official from the working group, the current long-term plan 

is to distribute central pass revenues to the agencies based on a formula 

that takes into account pass use, where passes were purchased, and 

possible additional factors. However, the details of the formula have not 

been determined, and there are some potential problems with the 

collection of pass-use data to be used in the formula. 

While units are generally able to track the number of passes sold, it would 

be difficult for many units to collect accurate data about use of the pass. At 

most NPS and FWS sites, fees covered by the new interagency pass will 

generally be collected at staffed entry points, whereas at BLM and FS sites, 

fees covered by these new passes will generally be collected at unstaffed 

and often remote locations where fee compliance and enforcement will be 

irregular and infrequent. One way to track pass usage would be to swipe a 

magnetic strip on the passes at recreation site entry gates. However, even 

within NPS, whose sites frequently have staffed entry points, only one-third 

of the sites with entrance fees are currently capable of reading magnetic 

strips at their entry gates. It would likely be difficult and expensive to 

11In 2004 and 2005, more than 85 percent of National Parks Passes were sold at fee sites, 

approximately 5 percent were sold through the Internet, less than 1 percent were sold 

through the current contractor’s contact center, and approximately 8 percent were sold 

through third-party sales.
Page 20 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

install technology to read magnetic strips at many remote and unstaffed 

units, and compliance with such systems would be difficult to enforce at 

sites without staffed entry booths by January 2007. According to a member 

of the working group, the working group is aware of these issues and, while 

it has not yet addressed them, the group plans to develop a consistent data 

collection strategy that the agencies can use at unstaffed locations to 

determine pass usage. Agencies will be responsible for implementing the 

strategy and units will be expected to collect data on the use of the pass 

after the new interagency pass is released. 

As of August 2006, the agencies are engaged in a contracting process to 

acquire the goods and services necessary to implement the new 

interagency pass and are planning to issue the pass by the January 2007 

target date. A Request for Proposal (RFP) for the contract was published 

on June 5, 2006, and, according to agency officials, it is unknown when the 

contract will be awarded. The U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO) will 

print the new pass and any accompanying products. Agency officials from 

the Interagency Pass working group have acknowledged that they are 

working within a very tight time line, but have said that they are committed 

to issuing the new pass by January 2007. However, certain critical aspects 

in the pass development time line have taken much longer than originally 

anticipated. For example, an earlier estimated date for issuing the RFP for 

contracting services was fall 2005 before it was pushed back several times 

and finally published in June 2006. In addition, interagency guidelines for 

the new pass12 that were estimated in June 2005 to be completed in fall 2005 

had not been completed as of August 2006. However, the working group 

still has several months to meet their target pass implementation date of 

January 2007. 

One goal of the new single interagency pass is to reduce visitor confusion 

over which passes can be accepted where, since the various passes 

currently offered by the agencies create considerable confusion among the 

visiting public. The majority of units responding to our survey, almost 63 

percent, were aware that the visiting public was confused about the use of 

current national passes, regional passes, or annual passes. The factor most 

frequently cited for causing visitor confusion was where the different types 

of passes are accepted, with 82 percent of units responding that this factor 

12The interagency guidelines will address the price of the pass, the benefits provided, 

eligibility requirements, marketing and design, the issuance of passes to volunteers, and the 

distribution of costs and revenues.
Page 21 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

causes confusion to a moderate, great, or very great extent. Other factors 

cited by more than two-thirds of survey respondents as causing confusion 

were the differences in the benefits between passes, the recreation uses 

covered by each pass, the differences in the Golden Eagle Passport versus 

the National Parks Pass, the difference between federal and nonfederal 

units, and understanding the differences between various passes (e.g., 

eligibility, cost, benefits, etc.). Given that there will be overlap between the 

current National Parks Pass, the Golden Eagle, Age, and Access Passports, 

and the new interagency pass, it will be important for the new pass 

guidelines and agency-specific guidance and training on it to address these 

issues and provide unit staff with materials and information to better 

educate the public.

Fee Collection/Expenditure 

Working Group Has Issued 

Final Interagency Guidance 

in an Attempt to More 

Clearly Define REA 

Terminology

The Fee Collection/Expenditure working group was established to address 

organizational concerns, implementation issues, and coordination among 

the agencies as they relate to fee collections and expenditures. While the 

agencies individually took steps after the enactment of REA to assess their 

recreation fee programs and begin implementing the new act, the working 

group’s main task was to develop common definitions and policy guidance 

to establish a basis for consistent implementation of REA and common 

reporting by each of the agencies. This working group finalized an 

interagency handbook with common definitions and guidance—the 

Interagency Implementation Handbook for Federal Lands Recreation 

Enhancement Act—in March 2006. 

The interagency handbook provided definitions for some of the terms used 

in the law, such as “designated developed parking,” “permanent trash 

receptacle,” “reasonable visitor protection,” and “special recreation permit 

fees” in order to clarify terms that may be interpreted differently by the 

various agencies. In addition to the definitions, the handbook provided 

general policy guidance regarding certain aspects of the law—such as 

overall guidance on some aspects of the new interagency pass and annual 

reporting of budgetary information—while delegating the authority to 

develop and implement policies on other issues to the individual agencies. 

For example, the handbook directed the agencies to develop and 

implement a policy for revenue distribution decisions, including retention 

of recreation fee revenues and agencywide distribution of funds. For the 

sections of REA that were delegated to the individual agencies, the 

handbook directed the agencies to develop written policy guidance that 

incorporates the standard definitions and policy guidelines. According to a 

working group official, the Fee Collection/Expenditure working group is no 
Page 22 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

longer formally meeting since developing the interagency handbook was 

the group’s main task, and the handbook has now been finalized. 

Communications Working 

Group Has Been Used to 

Facilitate Interagency 

Communication with 

Congress and the Public

The Communications working group was formed to facilitate interagency 

communications about REA implementation issues with Congress, the 

public, and other interested third parties, such as states and localities. The 

working group organized listening sessions to gain public input on the 

RRACs and the new interagency pass. The agencies have periodically 

briefed congressional staffers on a variety of issues, including the Federal 

Lands Recreation Enhancement Act First Triennial Report to Congress; 

Fiscal Year 2006, which was released in May 2006. According to agency 

officials, the working group now meets infrequently and has not issued any 

joint press releases to the public since all press releases regarding REA 

have thus far been issued by individual agencies. 

Most Agencies Have 

Reviewed and Begun to 

Modify Recreation Fee 

Programs to 

Implement REA, but 

Some Units are Still 

Transitioning, 

Reclamation Is Not Yet 

Participating, and 

Agencies Have Been 

Slow to Issue Final 

Guidance

After the passage of REA, agencies directed their units to assess and 

modify their fee programs to comply with REA criteria. Although most 

units have made some modifications to their programs, such as converting 

fees, eliminating sites and fees, or adding amenities, some units are still in 

transition and may still need to add required amenities. Some responding 

units, however, reported collecting standard amenity fees, without having 

all six amenities required under REA. In commenting on a draft of this 

report, agency officials said many of these survey responses were in error. 

Although Reclamation was included as a participating agency under REA, it 

has yet to make a final decision about whether to implement REA. Also, 

most BLM, FWS, NPS, and FS units reported that some kind of guidance is 

available; however, the agencies have not yet issued final guidance, and 

many unit officials indicated that some aspects of the law are unclear and 

that they need more specific guidance on how to add new fee sites or 

modify existing fees to fully implement the law.
Page 23 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

Agencies Assessed Existing 

Fee Programs and Made 

Changes to Comply with 

REA, but Some Units Are 

Still in Transition, and 

Reclamation Is Deciding 

Whether to Implement REA

To implement REA, participating agencies reviewed their recreation fees 

under the former Fee Demo program and other legal authorities and 

instructed units to make necessary modifications to ensure compliance 

with key REA provisions. While most units converted fees, eliminated fees, 

or added amenities to comply with REA, some are still transitioning toward 

taking such actions and, in some cases, are charging fees without having all 

of their required amenities. One agency, Reclamation, has assessed its 

recreation fees but has not decided whether it will implement REA. 

Agencies Assessed Recreation 

Fee Programs and Made Changes

In 2005, all agencies assessed existing fee programs to determine whether 

existing fee collecting sites met REA requirements, and some units made 

modifications to comply with REA. Overall, the transition from Fee Demo 

to REA was easiest for NPS and FWS, both of which charged entrance fees 

under Fee Demo, were authorized to charge such fees under REA, and 

continued to charge entrance fees. Therefore, the transition for these 

agencies to REA did not have much impact. NPS eliminated a day-use fee at 

the Exit Glacier site in Kenai Fjords National Park in Alaska because of 

concerns that it would be perceived as an entrance fee, which is prohibited 

under both the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act and REA.13

FWS eliminated an entrance fee at Gavin’s Point National Fish Hatchery in 

South Dakota because fish hatcheries are not allowed to charge entrance 

fees under REA.14

The transition from Fee Demo to REA had more of an impact on FS and 

BLM since REA provided additional criteria for fee sites and prohibitions 

on certain fees at these agencies. Unlike Fee Demo, REA limits the 

authority of BLM and FS, authorizing these agencies to collect fees only at 

locations with a certain level of infrastructure and/or services and prohibits 

charging fees for parking, general access to dispersed areas with little or no 

investment, and scenic overlooks, among others. BLM and FS assessed 

existing fee programs and either eliminated fees, converted fees, or added 

amenities in order to convert entrance or day-use fees to standard amenity 

13REA prohibits charging an entrance fee at an area or unit covered by section 203 of the 

Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, with the exception of Denali National 

Park and Preserve. Section 203 prohibits charging fees for entrance to any unit of the 

national park system located in Alaska. 16 U.S.C. 410hh-2.

14REA allows FWS to collect entrance fees only at units of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System. Since Gavin’s Point National Fish Hatchery is a unit of the National Fish Hatchery 

System and not a unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System, collection of entrance fees at 

that unit is not allowed under REA. 
Page 24 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

fees. BLM and FS also assessed existing campgrounds and other developed 

facilities to ensure that they had at least the minimum number of required 

amenities to charge an expanded amenity fee.

BLM eliminated several fees after passage of REA, including fees for 

overlooks at Imperial Sand Dunes in California, fees at undeveloped sites at 

Orilla Verde Recreation Area in New Mexico, and youth fees at several 

sites, including Cape Blanco Lighthouse in Oregon. For BLM, a key change 

was converting existing entrance fees to standard amenity fees where sites 

met the new criteria. According to a BLM headquarters official, BLM 

converted entrance fees at 10 sites to standard amenity fees. According to 

state coordinators, only one of these sites, located in Arizona, did not meet 

standard amenity criteria and had to add an informational kiosk. Other 

BLM sites converted various fees charged for activities such as camping to 

expanded amenity fees. For example, campgrounds at Fisherman’s Bend 

Recreation Area in western Oregon had at least the minimum amenities 

required by REA to convert a camping fee to an expanded amenity fee.

FS reviewed its existing recreation fees and stated that it dropped 437 sites, 

such as trailheads and picnic areas, from its fee program because they did 

not meet the new criteria described under REA. Under Fee Demo, FS 

charged fees for entrance into large areas, sometimes entire forests. 

However, REA prohibited FS from charging entrance fees and only allowed 

FS to charge standard amenity fees if the sites provide the required level of 

amenities. In addition to dropping fee sites, numerous FS units added 

amenities to bring sites into compliance with REA. According to one FS 

regional coordinator, if a developed site was missing one or two amenities, 

then the unit added those amenities, otherwise, the site was dropped from 

the fee program. 

Concerns about FS compliance with REA criteria have been raised by users 

who are critical of the use of High Impact Recreational Area (HIRA) 

designations and standard amenity fee areas. While HIRAs are not 

specifically mentioned in REA, FS relies on a section of REA that 

authorizes standard amenity charges for the use of “an area” as authority to 

designate HIRAs. The Interagency Implementation Handbook for Federal 

Lands Recreation Enhancement Act defines a HIRA as an area of 

concentrated recreation use that includes a variety of developed sites 

providing a similar recreation opportunity that incur significant 

expenditures for restoration, public safety, sanitation facilities, education, 

maintenance, and other activities necessary to protect the health and safety 

of visitors, cultural resources, and the natural environment. The handbook 
Page 25 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

also defines limitations on which areas can be designated as a HIRA. For 

example, whole administrative units, such as a national forest or a 

Reclamation project, cannot be declared a HIRA. During the past few years, 

FS identified HIRA sites and has proceeded to charge standard amenity 

fees for the use of these areas under REA. According to the agency’s 

officials, the HIRA designation is a logical way of categorizing amenities 

supporting high levels of recreation use, and collected fees go to maintain 

and clean these provided amenities, such as restroom facilities. 

Another concern about the HIRAs is that some access points into parts of 

wilderness areas that are not considered part of a HIRA are only accessible 

via the HIRA, so visitors must still pay the standard amenity fee to access 

these parts of the national forests. In addition, some assert that because 

REA prohibits charging a fee “solely for parking” or “driving through, 

walking through, boating through, horseback riding through, or hiking 

through...without using the facilities and services,” the standard amenity 

fees for HIRAs are prohibited in some cases. For example, a visitor to an 

Arizona national forest challenged FS citations issued to her for failing to 

display the required day pass permit to travel into a HIRA. The visitor was 

cited on two occasions because she parked within a HIRA to hike the area 

without having paid for the day pass permit. On September 5, 2006, a 

district court held that the REA bars the FS from collecting fees for parking 

along roads or trailsides and that the FS acted “far beyond its legislative 

authority” in its attempt to collect the fee. Accordingly, the court dismissed 

the citations against the visitor.15

According to FS officials, the agency significantly decreased the size of 

many of its HIRAs to only cover areas where required standard amenities 

are within reasonable access. For example, the entire Flaming Gorge 

National Recreation Area in Utah and Wyoming had an entrance fee under 

Fee Demo; now only 4 percent of the recreation area is subject to fees. 

Another example is the Los Padres National Forest in southern California, 

which reportedly decreased the size of its HIRA from almost 1.5 million 

acres to 71,000 acres while also removing 37 fee sites. However, in 

testimony before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 

Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests, on October 26, 2005, 

representatives from the Arizona and Western Slope No-Fee Coalitions 

charged that the BLM and FS are using the HIRA and standard amenity 

concepts to circumvent the intent of Congress and charge fees for areas 

15United States v. Wallace, 2066 WL 2563468 (D. Ariz. Sept. 5, 2006).
Page 26 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

that do not have the amenities required by REA. However, REA does not 

provide a definition for “area” and thus the criteria used to define an “area” 

are open to the agencies’ discretion. For example, the Arapaho National 

Recreation Area in Colorado charges a standard amenity fee for an area it 

defines as an HIRA that contains 25 developed sites including picnic areas, 

boat launches, campgrounds, and trailheads. Not all six of the amenities 

that are required under REA are collocated at each of the developed sites. 

However, since all six of the required amenities are somewhere within the 

hundreds of acres of their designated HIRA, the FS is charging a standard 

amenity fee for the entire area under REA. In the October 26, 2005, Senate 

subcommittee hearing, a USDA official acknowledged that FS 

implementation of REA is a “work in progress” and that different local 

conditions and characteristics make it difficult to develop HIRA criteria 

that fit all circumstances. According to this official, FS has continued to 

work on providing consistent signage and to identify areas that may not 

meet the criteria for charging fees and plans to have the RRACs comment 

on how the agency is applying HIRA criteria.

Some BLM and FS Units Do Not 

Have All Required Amenities to 

Charge Standard Amenity Fees 

We also found that some BLM and FS units still do not meet REA 

requirements for charging standard amenity fees. Based on the results of 

our survey, of the 195 BLM and FS units that reported that they charge a 

standard amenity fee, 38 reported they did not provide all six amenities that 

are required for them to charge the fee. Two BLM units and 36 FS units 

reported that they did not provide all six required amenities. The amenities 

that the units were most frequently lacking were a permanent trash 

receptacle and interpretive signs, exhibits, or kiosks. Although these units 

reported in survey responses that their unit did not have all six required 

amenities, BLM state-level officials and FS headquarters officials stated 

they believed all of their fee-collecting units were in compliance with REA 

criteria. In commenting on a draft of this report, both BLM and FS indicated 

their unit officials had likely been confused by the fee terminology in the 

survey question and/or may have misunderstood the definitions of the 

required amenities, rather than because these units lack amenities such as 

picnic tables.

However, during interviews with agency officials, we learned that some 

units charging a standard amenity fee did not have all six required 

amenities, but had plans to add these amenities. For example, the Meadow 

Creek site at the Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest in Colorado lacked 

two of the six amenities—picnic tables and interpretative signage—

required under REA when we visited it in December 2005. The unit has 

continued to charge a standard amenity fee since REA passed because unit 
Page 27 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

officials thought it would be confusing to visitors to temporarily 

discontinue the fee while they worked on upgrading the area to meet REA 

criteria. The unit received a $20,000 grant in 2005 from the central fee 

revenue fund to add picnic tables and signage, as well as fire rings to the 

area. According to a unit official, the required amenities were added during 

the summer of 2006, and the Meadow Creek site now has all of the required 

amenities in place.

Some FS unit staff also found the standard amenity criteria at odds with 

wildlife management practices. For example, several national forests near 

the Canadian border are in grizzly bear areas, so FS has instructed the 

public to “pack out,” or dispose of their trash outside of camping and dayuse areas, rather than install costly bear-proof garbage cans. Now, if these 

forests are going to continue charging recreation fees at these sites, REA 

requires FS to put trash receptacles in the areas. In another example, picnic 

tables were previously removed from Mt. Evans, in the Arapaho-Roosevelt 

National Forest, because of wildlife interaction issues. However, in order to 

comply with REA, FS must provide all six required amenities, including 

picnic tables. 

In commenting on a draft of this report, BLM headquarters officials stated 

that they checked with the two units that reported having less than six 

required amenities in their response to our survey. The officials determined 

that the two units’ reports were in error and that the units did offer all six 

amenities. Similarly, the FS headquarters staff made further inquiries of the 

36 units that reported less than the six required amenities and determined 

that some of the information that the units reported on their survey 

response was in error. Based on information from FS officials and our 

analysis, the status of those units is as follows:

• 12 units did not have a standard amenity fee but instead had an 

expanded amenity fee, which does not have the same amenity 

requirements under REA.

• 11 units did have the required six amenities and did not accurately 

report this in their survey response to us.

• 4 units had a standard amenity fee for a visitor or interpretive center, 

which under REA may be charged without having the six required 

amenities.
Page 28 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

• 2 units had no standard amenity fee and should have reported this in 

their survey response to us.

• 7 units have not yet responded to the follow up inquiries.

It should be noted, however, that the results of BLM and FS headquarters 

officials’ inquiries have not been verified.

Reclamation Undecided on 

Implementing REA

Reclamation has not made a decision to move forward with REA 

implementation. The agency officials are assessing Office of the Solicitor 

advice concerning how the act applies to their operational situation and to 

the alternate authority for Reclamation to charge fees under the Federal 

Water Project Recreation Act (FWPRA). Reclamation had requested advice 

from the solicitor’s office because of their unusual operational situation 

that includes the management of about 250 of Reclamation’s approximately 

300 sites by partner organizations, such as other government entities. In 

2005, Reclamation conducted an assessment to determine which of its 

recreation sites met REA requirements. Reclamation identified 7 of the 50 

sites it directly manages that would qualify to charge standard amenity fees 

under REA, one of which was New Melones Reservoir in California. New 

Melones collected about $170,000 in 2004 under LWCFA, which was 

repealed by REA. Reclamation is now using FWPRA as its authority to 

collect recreation fees at New Melones. Any fees collected under FWPRA 

are to be deposited into a Department of the Treasury (Treasury) account, 

unless project specific legislation provides otherwise. Reclamation has not 

indicated how many of the 50 sites they directly manage meet REA criteria 

for charging an expanded amenity fee. 

Although Most Units Have 

Received Some Guidance, 

Final Policy Guidance on 

REA Is Still Pending for all 

Agencies, and Many Unit 

Officials Said Some Aspects 

of the Law Are Unclear and 

More Specific Guidance Is 

Needed

After REA passed, the Interagency Implementation Handbook directed 

agencies to develop written policy guidance that incorporates the standard 

definitions and overarching policy guidelines established in the handbook. 

Although agencies reported that they made the transition from Fee Demo 

to REA without major problems, many units said that some aspects of REA 

are unclear, and more specific guidance is needed. For example, some unit 

officials expressed confusion about how to add new fees or modify existing 

fees, while others expressed confusion about amenity criteria.

BLM and FS issued interim guidance documents, and the NPS has issued 

memos and provided training on REA implementation, while FWS has 

issued no formal guidance to the field. BLM and FS issued interim 

recreation fee guidelines within months after the passage of REA, and both 
Page 29 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

have since issued additional guidance on different aspects of the law. NPS 

issued transitional guidelines and memos on various aspects of REA and 

has provided training on REA implementation. FWS formed a working 

group with representatives from headquarters and the field to work on 

various implementation tasks, including drafting guidance and policy on 

REA. According to an FWS official, interim guidance will be out by the end 

of fiscal year 2006. Since Reclamation has not yet determined whether the 

agency will implement REA, the agency has not issued any guidance on the 

new law.

While most respondents to our survey indicated that some type of guidance 

on the fee program is available, many unit and regional officials indicated 

during interviews that additional guidance is needed. Based on the results 

of our survey, most units responding indicated that some kind of guidance 

is available from national headquarters and a regional or state office, with 

the majority of units indicating that the existing guidance is at least 

moderately useful on authorized types of fees and passes. For example, 85 

percent of BLM, FS, FWS and NPS units reported that written guidance is 

available from national headquarters. Most units also indicated that 

unwritten, unit-specific guidance, staff knowledge, and experience are 

additional sources of guidance that are generally available to them. 

However, although the vast majority of survey respondents reported that 

some kind of written guidance was available, unit officials at the state and 

regional level, as well as at some of the sites we visited, emphasized that 

more specific guidance is needed, including detailed policy and procedures 

for implementing and managing fee programs. For example, as BLM and FS 

unit staffs have implemented REA, some unit agency officials have found 

REA amenity criteria and terminology ambiguous, and some units 

expressed confusion about how to interpret and apply such criteria as 

“reasonable security” and “permanent trash receptacle.” Other unit officials 

at the various agencies said they needed more guidance on how to add new 

fee sites or modify existing fees. For example, according to an FWS official, 

the main obstacle to implementing fees at a refuge complex in Nevada has 

been a lack of policies and procedures, as well as basic guidance, on how 

to implement a fee program. According to FWS officials, such guidance 

should include examples of implementation plans, information on how to 

set up accounts, effective ways to share lessons learned among the seven 

FWS regions, and contact information for other agency officials with fee 

program experience. 
Page 30 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

Some Agencies Do Not 

Have Adequate 

Controls and 

Accounting Procedures 

for Collected Fees and 

Lack Effective 

Guidance for 

Establishing a System 

of Internal Controls, 

Including Routine 

Audits 

We found that some agencies’ units did not have adequate controls for 

safeguarding and accounting for collected fee revenues. While current 

federal guidance requires managers to establish and maintain accounting 

systems that incorporate effective internal controls, we determined that 

some BLM, FWS, and FS units did not have sufficient guidance—including 

examples of best practices—to follow for implementing internal controls 

over collected fee revenues.16 NPS has also been slow to issue updated 

guidance on accounting for and controlling collected fee revenues. 

However, despite this lack of guidance, NPS units we visited appear to have 

generally implemented effective internal controls. Furthermore, routine 

audits are an integral part of any system of effective internal controls over 

agencies’ financial assets. However, less than 37 percent of respondents to 

our survey indicated their units have been examined by auditors since 

October 2000. Without effective internal controls, the units cannot provide 

reasonable assurance that the fee revenues collected are properly 

controlled and accounted for. 

Some Agencies Lack 

Adequate Controls on 

Collected Fees 

Federal internal control standards require management to identify risks 

that could impair the safeguarding of agency resources, such as fee 

revenues at the unit level, and suggest that management should formulate 

an approach for risk management that identifies the internal controls 

necessary to mitigate those risks. A good set of internal controls should 

incorporate physical control over vulnerable assets—such as cash—with 

other controls such as segregation of duties, controls over information 

processing, accurate and timely recording of transactions and events, and 

access restrictions to and accountability for resources and records. 

However, cash collection is an area where agencies are particularly 

vulnerable to the risk of theft. Some locations, such as BLM’s Gunnison 

Field Office, have such limited staff running their recreation fee program 

that their program coordinator indicated the appropriate separation of 

duties, not to mention using procedures such as two staff jointly counting 

fee receipts, is simply not possible.17 Unfortunately, this circumstance may 

16GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO/AIMD-99-21.3.2

(Washington, D.C.: November 1999) and GAO, Internal Control Management and 

Evaluation Tool, GAO-01-1008G (Washington, D.C.: August 2001).

17According to a BLM official, since our visit in March 2006, the officials at the Gunnison 

Field Office have made changes to their fee collection procedures, including utilizing two 

employees for fee collections and processing.
Page 31 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

not be unusual, especially at smaller units where resource management 

staffs—generally with little or no accounting or business operations 

experience—are tasked with implementing the fee program, including cash 

handling procedures. The staffs at these units face many challenges ranging 

from the development of safe and secure procedures for gathering and 

transporting fee envelopes from remote campground sites to assuring that 

staff with appropriate knowledge and skills are assigned to process and 

account for collected fees. In addition, survey respondents indicated a 

myriad of other problems such as

• security concerns over the delivery of collected cash fees from their unit 

to the bank,

• local banks not accepting agency procedures for depositing funds to a 

Treasury account,

• local banks and/or post offices charging fees for issuing the money 

order or cashier’s check necessary to make deposits in Treasury 

accounts, 

• employees having to pay bank fees for money orders or cashiers checks 

with their own funds and then seek reimbursement from the agency, and

• the closest local bank sometimes being an inconvenient 30 to 60 miles 

away from fee collecting locations.

According to federal internal control standards, management should strive 

to remove the temptation for unethical behavior by avoiding the receiving 

and handling of cash by individual staff without a reasonable means of 

determining the amount of revenues the employee has received. For 

example, at the Tonto National Forest Mesa Ranger District, near Phoenix, 

staff members sometimes collect cash fees directly from visitors when the 

automated fee machines are broken. Most of the district’s fees are collected 

by automated machines that are owned and serviced by a contractor. 

However, one or more of the unit’s automated fee machines are often 

broken. To avoid a loss of revenues when the machines are not working, 

the managers designate staff members as collection officers to work at 

busy entry points to collect fees and direct traffic flow. According to 

district management, the staff later feed the collected fees into a working 

automated machine someplace else in the district. However, the managers 

have not developed physical or other compensating controls over these 

cash collections (easily amounting to several hundred dollars on a busy 
Page 32 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

day) that would enable managers to verify that all of the fees collected by 

any given staff member are actually fed into a working machine. In 

commenting on a draft of this report, FS headquarters officials indicated 

that they believe that automated fee machines should rarely be broken and 

they also noted that local officials are responsible for reasonable internal 

controls over cash collection.

In addition, the safety of staff involved in collecting the cash could be 

jeopardized due to the risk of being targeted for robbery. In another 

example, at BLM’s Gunnison Field Office, in western Colorado, one or two 

staff members collect the fee envelopes containing campground fees from 

a remote self-service fee station and place the envelopes into a bag for 

transport back to the office. At the office, the envelopes are placed in a safe 

until another employee has an opportunity to open the envelopes, count 

the cash, and record the fees collected. However, the manager has not 

developed physical controls over the cash collections and accounting to 

provide assurance that all of the fee envelopes collected by the first staff 

member(s) are turned in at the office or that all of the funds counted by the 

second employee are deposited and accurately documented. Consequently, 

in both of these examples, the managers were left without reasonable 

assurance that the revenue each employee collected was received and 

accounted for by the agency.

Some Agencies’ Units Lack 

Adequate Guidance to 

Establish Accounting 

Procedures and an Effective 

System of Internal Controls 

for Collected Fee Revenues

Most available agency guidance provides overall objectives for establishing 

and maintaining an effective accounting system. For example, the FS 

Manual on Accounting states that one of the overall objectives is to 

“establish and maintain an accounting system that provides: A system for 

internal control and accountability of funds, property, and other assets 

from acquisition to disposition.” However, this guidance does not provide 

the detailed, “cook book” type of instructions most unit-level fee program 

managers need to successfully implement an effective system of internal 

controls. In contrast, Yosemite National Park’s written opening procedures 

provide detailed step by step instructions as follows: 

• Check the accountable stock [of passes]; verify that the numbers are in 

sequence.

• Make note of any missing passes.

• Enter the first and last number of each type of pass on the shift report.
Page 33 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

• Date and initial the shift report.

According to several unit-level officials we interviewed, agency-level 

support and training on accounting and control issues is needed to help 

units develop this type of detailed procedures for their fee programs. Some 

field staffs have also requested training opportunities to help them learn 

how they should manage their fee programs. The lack of both written 

procedures that are current and comprehensive and fee program training 

are obstacles to developing successful internal controls.

Due to the numerous comments shared by agency staff about the need for 

updated guidance, we included questions about this issue in our 

nationwide survey of BLM, FWS, NPS, and FS units. Of those units that 

reported receiving some sort of guidance related to controlling and 

accounting for collected fees, over one-third (277/752) indicated the 

guidance they received was less than moderately useful. When asked about 

whether staff had been provided training on controlling and accounting for 

collected funds, over 40 percent indicated they had not received training on 

this issue. Of the survey respondents who did receive training, over 60 

percent indicated the training was less than moderately useful. In 

commenting on a draft of this report, FS acknowledged the need for 

revising the Forest Service Manual and indicated it will expedite 

publication of the handbook and updated procedures as soon as 

practicable.

Although NPS units we visited appear to have implemented reasonable 

accounting procedures and effective internal controls, the agency has been 

slow to issue updated guidance on accounting and controlling collected fee 

revenues. NPS parks are still following NPS-22, the 1989 NPS policy for fee 

collection. However, technologies have changed so much since 1989 that 

the old policy does not even address issues such as electronic processing of 

credit card payments. The parks have been waiting for years for a new fee 

collection policy to be issued, and several unit and regional officials stated 

that the revised policy guidance is needed immediately. NPS management 

indicated they had developed a draft of the new policy when REA passed in 

late 2004, making portions of the previous draft obsolete. NPS fee program 

coordinators in the headquarters office said they recognize that units need 

and want updated guidance and, although they are trying hard to get the 

guidance on recreation fees out as soon as possible, could not provide an 

estimated time frame for issuance. 
Page 34 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

Some units’ fee coordinators, such as the coordinators at Rocky Mountain 

National Park in Colorado and the Shasta Trinity National Forest Shasta 

Lake Ranger District in California appear to have a good handle on how to 

develop and implement sound financial and accounting internal controls. 

However, many other units lacked both the technical and professional 

expertise to develop sound procedures without detailed guidance. Since 

many unit-level staffs have not received detailed agency guidance that 

would be useful in establishing such procedures on their own, they 

continue to struggle with these issues and the risks associated with poor 

internal controls. 

Some Agencies Do Not Have 

a System of Routine Audits 

to Account for Collected 

Fee Revenues

Many units have not implemented a system of routine audits to help ensure 

that fees are collected and used as authorized and that collected funds are 

safeguarded. Only 37 percent of the 752 units responding to this question in 

our survey reported having their fee collection program examined by an 

auditor since October 2000. The percentage of units having their fee 

collection programs examined varies significantly by agency. For example, 

NPS reported the highest percentage of audits of unit-level fee programs 

with about 63 percent of units (110/175) having their control and 

accounting procedures examined since October 2000. According to a NPS 

regional fee program coordinator, some NPS regions are aggressive about 

audits, such as the Intermountain Region where one staff person is 

dedicated to conducting audits. Other regions may not have dedicated 

resources to conduct audits. For example, the Northeast Region has only 

one fee coordinator available to conduct fee program audits, and she does 

not feel she is justified in going to parks unless unit managers ask her to 

review how the unit is doing operationally. In the past, the NPS 

headquarters fee project coordinator reportedly proposed using a portion 

of the centrally held recreation fees to fund a national audit program, but 

the proposal was only partially implemented in one region. In commenting 

on a draft of this report, NPS stated its intention to reconvene a workgroup 

to develop a National Audit Program. 

Other agencies reported having many fewer routine audits of their 

programs: only 14 percent of FWS units, 27 percent of BLM units, and 33 

percent of FS units reported having examinations. According to some unit 

officials with whom we spoke, they either did not believe they have access 

to internal or external audit resources or they rationalized that they did not 

need to implement an audit program since they had trustworthy staff. A 

lack of staff resources is also a factor in the limited number of units that 

have had their recreation fee programs audited during the past 5 years. 
Page 35 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

Routine audits are an important internal control that could allow agency 

officials to promptly detect unauthorized transactions involving recreation 

fee revenues and assess the design, implementation, and effectiveness of 

controls over these assets agencywide.

One example that highlights the need for routine audits was at the Tonto 

National Forest Mesa Ranger District, where officials acknowledged that 

no audit had been conducted on the contractor who maintains the 

automated machines and processes the fees collected through the 

machines. In fact, the district officials said they had seen no reason to 

request that the contractor, who owns and services the automated fee 

machines, be audited. The contractor collects the fees (cash and credit 

card payments) directly from the machines and then prepares quarterly 

reports for the FS unit, stating the amount collected and the amount to be 

remitted to FS under the contract. Over the life of the contract, FS staff 

members have verified the amount of the contractor’s remittance against 

the reported total collected fees to ensure the contractor submitted the 

correct percentage of the fees under their contract. Unfortunately, by 

simply relying on this approach, FS officials have no way of independently 

verifying actual receipts because they have no access to raw data from the 

automated machines.18 FS was simply verifying the contractor’s 

mathematical calculation against what the contractor had self-reported as 

total fee receipts. 

In commenting on a draft of this report, FS officials noted that it is FS 

policy to audit collection officers at least annually, but acknowledged they 

have not been meeting this goal. In order to begin addressing FS’s 

recognized shortfall in meeting their prescribed audit program, they have 

assigned a full-time FS Albuquerque Service Center (ASC) resource to 

monitor the program, nationwide. Also, according to a FWS headquarters 

official, in fiscal year 2004, FWS implemented a procedure to help target 

units for visitor service reviews.

18Since our visit to this unit in March 2006, Tonto officials have sought assistance from the 

FS Albuquerque Service Center (ASC) to audit this contract. ASC officials indicated they 

have requested copies of the automated machine data from the contractor, but the 

contractor has refused to provide the data because of proprietary issues.
Page 36 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

Agencies Have 

Different Processes for 

Selecting Projects to 

Be Funded with Fee 

Revenues

While REA establishes the basic priority of using recreation fee revenues 

for enhancing visitors’ experience, each agency has a different process for 

selecting projects to be funded with fee revenues based on the agency’s 

needs and revised policies under REA. These different processes affect the 

types of projects the agencies fund and their time lines for project 

implementation.19 Agencies fund a wide variety of priority projects with fee 

revenues, typically maintenance, operations, and some capital 

improvements. Examples of projects and activities funded with fee revenue 

include campground renovations within American Fork Canyon at the 

Uinta National Forest in Utah, interpretive panels at Colonial National 

Historic Park in Virginia as pictured in figure 1, interpretive staff at BLM’s 

Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area in Nevada, and trail work at 

FWS’s Rocky Mountain Arsenal National Wildlife Refuge in Colorado as 

pictured in figure 2. Some units also use recreation fee revenues to leverage 

funds received from other sources, such as grants or donations.

19We discussed project selection processes and time lines with agency officials at specific 

units, state/regional offices, and headquarters but did not collect data to confirm their 

statements.
Page 37 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

Figure 1: Interpretive Panel at Colonial National Historic Park

Note: This panel was funded with recreation fee revenue.

Source: GAO.
Page 38 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

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

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

fee revenue.

Project Prioritization 

Processes Are Based on 

REA Criteria and Agency 

Guidance 

REA established limits on the use of recreation fees to focus the 

expenditures more directly on benefiting the people who visit the unit at 

which they were collected. For example, REA supports the use of 

recreation fees to repair, maintain, and enhance facilities related directly to 

visitor enjoyment, visitor access, and visitor health and safety but restricts 

the use of recreation fees for biological monitoring under the Endangered 

Species Act or for employee bonuses. It also limits the use of fee revenues 

to not more than an average of 15 percent of total revenues for 

administration, overhead, and indirect costs related to the recreation fee 

program. Other sanctioned uses of recreation fee revenues include a

Source: GAO.
Page 39 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

myriad of things ranging from interpretive signage to law enforcement20 to 

certain limited types of habitat restoration. Specifically, REA mandates that 

fee revenues only be used for the following:

• repair, maintenance, and facility enhancement related directly to visitor 

enjoyment, visitor access, and health and safety;

• interpretation, visitor information, visitor service, visitor needs 

assessments, and signs;

• habitat restoration directly related to wildlife-dependent recreation that 

is limited to hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, or photography;

• law enforcement related to public use and recreation;

• direct operating or capital costs associated with the recreation fee 

program; and

• a fee management agreement or a visitor reservation service.

In addition to REA guidance, BLM, NPS, and FS have all issued at least 

interim guidance on expenditure priorities for projects funded with fee 

revenues. BLM guidance emphasizes that fee revenues be used to support 

projects or activities related to recreation and stipulates a specific 

percentage of funding be spent in this area. NPS has established deferred 

maintenance projects as its first priority for recreation fee revenues and 

stipulates the percentage of funding that should be spent in support of this. 

FS guidance essentially repeats the priorities established in REA. FWS has 

not issued any interim guidance on expenditure priorities, but draft 

guidance that has not been finalized also repeats the priorities established 

in REA, similar to FS guidance. Each of the agencies’ guidance also 

stipulates the amount of fee revenues that can be spent for either (1) 

administration, overhead, and indirect costs or (2) collections cost. Table 3 

shows the guidance developed by the agencies for how recreational fee 

revenues should be spent. 

20Use of these funds for law enforcement is acceptable as long as the enforcement activity is 

related to public use and recreation.
Page 40 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

Table 3: Agency Fee Revenue Expenditure Guidance

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

a

NPS committed $95 million in 2006 to deferred maintenance. Consequently, deferred maintenance is 

the NPS priority for fee money—especially projects that improve the visitor experience while at the 

same time reduce deferred maintenance.

Project Selection Processes 

Are Guided by Agency 

Needs and Revised Policies 

under REA

While REA establishes the basic priority of using recreation fee revenues 

for enhancing visitors’ experience, each agency has a different process for 

selecting projects to be funded with fee revenues based on the agency’s 

needs and policies revised under REA. These different processes can affect 

the types of projects agencies fund and their time lines for project 

implementation. At BLM, FWS, and FS, most proposed projects are 

approved at the local unit level. Unit staff indicated that most projects 

funded with fee revenues are usually approved within a couple of days to a 

few weeks or, in some cases, implemented immediately without unit 

manager approval. At NPS, however, projects must be reviewed and 

approved at the unit and regional levels, as well as at the headquarters or 

department level before projects are funded. In commenting on a draft of 

this report, NPS noted that its project approval process was put in place by 

DOI and the Office of Management and Budget and has been articulated in 

congressional appropriations report language.

Agency Fee revenue expenditure priorities

BLM According to BLM’s guidance, 85% of fee revenues shall be used for recreation related projects or activities. Guidance 

also states that fee expenditures shall be used (1) to reduce recreation deferred maintenance, (2) for a revolving fund 

focused on recreation projects authorized by legislation that provide a demonstrable improvement to BLM public land 

recreation sites and services that would otherwise take years to realize, (3) for funding recreation enhancements 

through volunteer projects and Challenge Cost Share program, and (4) for limited state and national recreation fee 

program administration. No more than an average of 15% of fee revenues can generally be used for administration, 

overhead, and indirect costs.

NPS The top priorities for fee revenues are to meet NPS mission and performance goals in four areas: (1) deferred 

maintenance obligation targets,a

 (2) overall condition of the NPS constructed asset inventory, (3) cost of collection 

targets, and (4) critical needs in other allowable areas. The service wide target for the units to spend approximately 

60% of their yearly revenue on deferred maintenance is prorated to and applied by the regions. NPS has various 

restrictions on what fees can be spent on, such as employee housing and some operations. NPS guidance generally 

directs units to not exceed 20% for cost of collection and does not allow any unit to exceed 50%; each region has an 

annual cost of collection target.

FS Agency guidance details what REA allows fees to be used for. The guidance also states that cost of collection 

expenditures are included in the REA “direct operation expenses” category and caps cost of collection at 15%. The 

guidance also provides suggestions for expenditures for special use permits and guidance for regional and national fee 

expenditures.

FWS FWS draft guidance details what REA allows fees to be used for. The draft guidance also states that cost of collection 

expenditures are included in the REA “direct operation expenses” category and caps cost of collection at 20%.
Page 41 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

BLM, FWS, and FS project approvals generally occur at the local unit level. 

The initial project suggestions are typically generated by local unit staff 

members who have identified a need that could be filled with fee revenues. 

In BLM and FWS units, it is generally a field office or refuge manager that 

approves proposed projects. For example, at BLM’s Upper Colorado River 

unit, ideas for fee projects are suggested, discussed, and agreed upon by 

unit staff members and the field office Manager has final approval on all 

recreation fee projects. This was also the case at FWS’s Back Bay National 

Wildlife Refuge, where unit staff members suggest and jointly prioritize fee 

projects, while the refuge Manager has final approval. Similarly, the FS 

Manager of a ranger district may decide on projects or, in some cases, the 

projects are reviewed at a higher level—by the Forest Supervisor or 

regional office. At some FS units, a fee board reviews and approves 

proposed projects. For example, at the Shasta-Trinity National Recreation 

Area within the Shasta-Trinity National Forest in California, any employee 

may propose a fee project, which must be presented to the Recreation 

Area’s fee board for approval. 

Suggestions for projects within NPS are also typically generated by local 

unit staff, except this is only the first of several steps in an often timeconsuming NPS project approval process. NPS project requests are entered 

into the Project Management Information System (PMIS) by unit staff in 

advance of regional and NPS headquarters—the Washington Office 

(WASO)—project call due dates for prioritization by the park management 

team, with approval at the park level. After the units submit their project 

proposals, the regional official(s) review the project proposals/requests21

and generally either approve the proposals or mark them for edits. 

According to one regional official, a regional reviewer may occasionally 

reject a proposal if the project does not comply with established criteria or 

if the requesting unit did not meet their deferred maintenance goal; 

however, most projects are forwarded to WASO for approval. In 

commenting on a draft of this report, NPS headquarters informed us that 

on average, a Fee Demo project remains at the region or park level for 3 

years as the data and information are edited and updated. Those projects 

that do not have accurate and complete data in PMIS are delayed in the 

approval process at all levels.

21The regional reviewers rank the projects in PMIS based on certain criteria and generally 

aim to target deferred maintenance activities, facilities, visitor enjoyment, and interpretive 

projects.
Page 42 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

The project approval process at WASO was put in place by DOI and NPS to 

improve accountability. This process is managed by the NPS Headquarters 

Park Facilities Management Division to provide review for consistency to 

established policies. According to a Facility Management Specialist within 

this division, project approval depends on the dollar amount of the project 

because NPS’ Development Advisory Board, DOI, Congress, and the Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB) all approve projects over certain dollar 

amounts. For example, the agency’s Development Advisory Board reviews 

and approves all projects over $500,000, and Congress approves projects 

over $500,000 and all projects over $100,000 if the money comes from the 

central fund. Meanwhile, DOI reviews all projects over $100,000, and 

regional and national projects are approved at the national level. The 

complexity of the approval process has required parks and regions to be 

proactive in getting projects into the process early. However, according to 

NPS officials, it can sometimes take 1 year or more to obtain approval to 

fund a project under this process. Many agency officials at the unit and 

regional levels expressed frustration about the length of time it takes to 

obtain approval for funding NPS projects, and some noted that the 

approval process has delayed project implementation and/or has 

contributed to units having unobligated fee revenue balances. For example, 

one park unit official noted in the survey that the lengthy approval process 

jeopardizes projects, especially partnership projects that may be time 

sensitive. However, others noted that the approval process can be 

expedited in emergency situations to enable project approval within a 

couple of months.

According to some unit officials, part of the reason WASO approvals take 

so long is that parks’ priorities for fee revenue projects do not always 

match WASO priorities and, as a result, WASO may question a project’s 

appropriateness and delay or deny its approval, even if it is consistent with 

projects allowed by law or under NPS policy. In addition, while WASO 

officials sometimes contact regional officials to question or offer 

suggestions on a project that has not yet been approved, WASO will, in 

other cases, allow projects to remain in the system indefinitely without 

approval or disapproval, according to another agency official. NPS 

headquarters officials explained that the lack of accurate and complete 

data in PMIS is the primary reason for projects remaining in the system 

indefinitely and pointed to mistakes by the units and regions as the cause of 

this problem.

According to a Facility Management Specialist, the agency is implementing 

a comprehensive plan approach under REA, which should help units and 
Page 43 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

regions to better manage their projects through an advance 5-year planning 

process. According to this official, the Regional Directors can also approve 

projects estimated to cost under $500,000, but she still retains the authority 

to review these approved projects and related project data to ensure that 

projects funded are consistent with REA and to assure accountability. NPS 

headquarters officials stated that the 5-year plan of projects, which was 

first instituted in fiscal year 2003, requires parks to be strategic and 

proactive in submitting projects for approval, and to identify their 

sequential needs for compliance, design and planning prior to project 

execution.

Agencies Fund a Variety of 

Maintenance, Operations, 

and Capital Improvement 

Projects with Fee Revenues

Recreational fee revenues are used by the agencies to fund a variety of 

maintenance, operations, visitor services, and some capital improvement 

projects. The specific types of activities or projects funded with these fees 

vary by agency. For example, in fiscal year 2005, NPS spent the majority of 

fees they collected under REA on various types of maintenance work, 

mostly focusing on deferred maintenance. Meanwhile, FS units spent about 

40 percent of the fees collected under REA on maintenance, which 

included deferred maintenance, annual maintenance, and capital 

improvements. For example, recreation fee revenues at the Sequoia 

National Forest in California funded capital improvements including a new 

restroom (see fig. 3), paving of a parking lot, and the installation of trash 

receptacles, picnic tables, and grills at the Big Meadows Winter Trailhead, 

which is heavily used by snowmobile riders and skiers in the winter. While 

BLM and FWS also funded some maintenance work, they spent a large 

portion of their revenues on visitor services. BLM spent about 33 percent of 

their fee revenues on visitor services, such as increased seasonal staff to 

complete trail work and other projects and to help monitor and teach river 

safety along the Merced River. FWS also focused a lot of their resources on 

providing/enhancing visitor services, almost 44 percent of the total fees 

they collected under REA. For example, at Chincoteague National Wildlife 

Refuge in Virginia and Maryland, REA fee revenues have funded visitor 

services such as the design, development, and installation of interpretive 

exhibits along four separate trails. 
Page 44 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

Figure 3: Restroom Constructed with Fee Revenue at the Big Meadows Winter 

Trailhead in Sequoia National Forest

Source: GAO.
Page 45 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

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

National Forest

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

Some units are quite creative with their use of recreation fee revenues to 

fund fee projects. For example, agency officials at the Shasta-Trinity 

National Forest in northern California use recreation fee revenues to 

purchase materials to make “pack-out bags” that are given to mountain 

climbers to facilitate the removal of human waste from Mount Shasta. The 

bags help with resource protection since climbers are able to remove their 

waste using the bags rather than leaving it on the mountain, as was done 

prior to the inception of the program. Also at the Shasta-Trinity National 

Forest, recreation fees funded the lake directional signage on Shasta and 

Trinity Lakes pictured in figure 4. The lakes are quite large—Shasta Lake 

has about 420 miles of shoreline—so the signs improve visitor services by 

helping direct boaters to various locations on the lakes. At Rocky Mountain 

National Park in Colorado, recreation fee revenues have been used to fund 

campsite improvements, including new tent pads, fire rings, and picnic 

Source: GAO.
Page 46 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

tables, as can be seen in figure 5. These improvements enhanced visitor 

services by improving the level of amenities while also protecting natural 

resources by containing visitor impacts.

Figure 5: Campsite at Rocky Mountain National Park

Note: Fee revenues were used to improve this campsite.

Source: GAO.
Page 47 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

Figure 6: Fishing Pier at Whiskeytown National Recreation Area

Note: Fishing pier shown is universally accessible.

Recreation fee revenues at NPS’s Whiskeytown National Recreation Area in 

northern California were used to construct the universally accessible 

fishing piers pictured in figure 6, which have improved visitor services and 

are heavily used, according to the park Superintendent. Many units within 

various agencies have used recreation fee revenues to purchase and install 

improved restroom facilities, such as the one pictured earlier in figure 3 at 

Sequoia National Forest. Such restrooms improve visitor services while 

also enhancing resource protection, according to Sequoia’s Assistant 

Recreation Fee Coordinator. 

Many units, especially within BLM and FS, use fee revenue for daily site 

maintenance and operations and, while these activities may not be as 

visible as capital improvement projects such as new restrooms, officials 

noted they still provide valuable services to visitors. For example, at 

Desolation Canyon in Utah, which is managed by BLM’s Price Field Office, 

Source: GAO.
Page 48 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

the main source of recreation fee revenue is rafting permits. The revenues 

are then primarily used to fund ranger staff who fulfill multiple roles 

including inspecting rafters’ equipment and permits, patrolling the waters, 

providing interpretive information to rafters, and maintaining the launch 

and take-out sites along the Green River. Another example of a unit that 

funds operations and maintenance activities with fee revenues is 

Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge in Virginia, where recreation fees fund 

restroom maintenance, including toilet pumping and supplies. At most 

units, a portion of fee revenues are also used to cover other operations, 

such as the cost of collecting fees. 

Finally, some units use recreation fee revenues to leverage funds received 

from other sources, such as grants or donations. For example, the Klamath 

Falls National Wildlife Refuge Complex on the California-Oregon border 

worked with a birding group to construct the universally accessible photo 

blind pictured in figure 7. The birding group provided funds to construct 

the handicapped accessible pathway leading to the blind, while FWS 

leveled the ground for the pathway and purchased materials to construct 

the photo blind with fee revenues. Another example is NPS’s Antietam 

National Battlefield, where recreation fee revenues were leveraged with 

other funds to restore a 106-year old monument located at the unit, see 

figure 8. The total cost of the project was $300,000—the unit’s largest fee 

project to date—with $255,000 of the project cost funded by recreation fee 

revenues and the remaining $45,000 leveraged from other sources, 

including a $31,000 donation from the state of Maryland, funds from the 

“Adopt-a-Monument Program,” and donations from a local newspaper. 

Recreation fees have been used to leverage grant funding at BLM’s 

Gunnison Field Office in Colorado, which received about $100,000 in grants 

in 2006. The interpretive panels pictured in figure 9 at American Basin, 

managed by the Gunnison Field Office, were partially funded with 

recreation fees. 
Page 49 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

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

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

Source: GAO.
Page 50 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

Figure 8: Monument at Antietam National Battlefield

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

Source: NPS.
Page 51 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

Figure 9: Interpretive Panels at American Basin

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

The Collection and 

Distribution of Central 

and/or Regional Funds 

Varies by Agency and by 

Region

The collection and distribution of central and/or regional funds varies by 

agency and sometimes by region. Three of the participating agencies—

NPS, FWS, and FS—have central or regional funds where a portion of fee 

revenues are deposited, as shown in table 4. The projects and activities 

funded with central or regional funds vary by agency and, in some cases, by 

region, but generally the central and regional funds are distributed among 

the units based on project proposals or are used to cover the administrative 

costs of the recreation fee program. For example, FWS Region 2, which has 

a 20 percent regional fund, uses a portion of its regional funds to cover 

administrative charges and distributes the remaining funds to refuges 

within the region based on submitted project proposals. Similarly, FS 

Region 5 uses a large portion of its 5 percent regional fund to cover fee 

program management costs, and special project expenditures, such as the 

RRAC start-up costs, and distributes a portion of the regional funds back to 

Source: BLM.
Page 52 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

the units in the form of resource and internship grants. Within FWS and FS, 

the distribution of regional funds is generally determined at the regional 

level. At NPS, project proposals must be reviewed and approved at both the 

regional and WASO levels before central funds are distributed to the units.

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

Source: GAO.

a

Park units that collect less than $500,000 per year are allowed to retain 100% of their fee revenues 

on-site. Other NPS units retain 80% of the fee revenue generated, and 20% is deposited into a central 

fund. NPS retains 15% of the total National Parks Pass revenues to pay for pass administration and 

overhead, with the majority of these funds used to reimburse the National Park Foundation under their 

pass sales contract. Of the remaining pass revenue, the unit that sold the pass retains 70%, and 30% 

is deposited into a central fund.

b

Units in four of the seven FWS regions—Regions 1 (including the California-Nevada Office), 3, 6, and 

7—retain 100% of fee revenue on-site. Units in three of the seven FWS regions—Regions 2, 4, and 

5—retain 80% of fee revenue and deposit 20% into a regional fund.

c

FS units will retain 80% of Golden Passport sales until revenue distribution for the new interagency 

pass is determined.

Agencies Have Millions 

of Dollars in 

Unobligated 

Recreation Fee 

Balances to Fund 

Future Projects; Some 

Projects Funded May 

Be Similar to Those 

Formerly Funded with 

Other Appropriations

The four agencies collecting recreation fees under REA have accumulated 

unobligated balances of nearly $300 million dollars at the end of fiscal year 

2005. These balances have accrued for several reasons that included their 

units’ plans to undertake large projects requiring them to have all required 

funds available before initiating the project, the need to carry over funds 

for the next season’s operations, and the lack of adequate staffing to 

administer and implement projects in a more timely fashion. Many agency 

sources believe that the recreation fees are to supplement and not replace 

funds from other appropriations, such as construction and operations. 

Despite this, the majority of officials at the units we surveyed indicated 

they believed to a moderate, great, or very great extent that recreation fee 

revenues are being used to fund projects formerly funded with other 

appropriations at their unit. In addition, the majority of agency officials told 

us they believe that they may need to replace appropriations with 

Agency

Percentage of fee revenue 

retained on-site

Percentage of revenue 

deposited into central or 

regional fund

NPS 80-100%a 0-20%

FWS 80-100b 0-20

BLM 100 0

FS 95%c 5%
Page 53 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

recreation fee revenues in the future. However, in commenting on a draft of 

this report, FS and DOI noted that historically, fee revenues have not 

replaced appropriations and there is no reason to expect this change in the 

future.

Overall, Agencies Report 

Unobligated Balances 

Consisting of Millions of 

Dollars at the End of Fiscal 

Year 2005 

According to the agencies’ recent report to Congress,22 BLM, FWS, FS, and 

NPS reported a total unobligated balance of $295.8 million at the end of 

fiscal year 2005, or 61 percent of the $483.8 million available for obligation 

(total fee revenues collected plus unobligated balance and recoveries). In 

response to our survey, 75 percent of fee-collecting units in NPS, BLM, and 

FWS reported unobligated balances at the end of fiscal year 2005. 

Furthermore, 93 percent or 107 of 115 of the FS’s national forests reported 

unobligated balances.23 FS headquarters reported unobligated balances at 

the forest level, and the balances were not available for individual units 

(ranger districts) because of changes in their accounting system. The fiscal 

year 2005 revenue, unobligated balance and recoveries, funds obligated, 

and unobligated balances reported by the four agencies are provided in 

table 5 below. A 5-year history of the agencies’ recent revenue and 

obligations are provided in appendix IV.

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

Balances

Source: U.S. Departments of the Interior and Agriculture. Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act: First Triennial Report to 

Congress, Fiscal Year 2006 (Washington, D.C.: May 2006), p.68.

22U.S. Departments of the Interior and Agriculture, Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement 

Act: First Triennial Report to Congress, Fiscal Year 2006 (Washington, D.C.: May 2006).

23The 115 national forests collecting recreation fees include many that consist of two or 

more forests merged into one administrative unit.

BLM NPS FWS FS

Fee Demo/REA revenue $13.3 $128.2 $4.3 $50.2

Unobligated balance 

brought forward and 

recoveries 7.7 240.7 3.7 35.7

Funds obligated 12.7 125.2 4.4 45.6

Unobligated balance $8.2 $243.6 $3.6 $40.3 
Page 54 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

Typically, units collecting recreation fees had an unobligated balance of 

these funds in their accounts at the end of fiscal year 2005 because not all 

funds collected during a fiscal year are spent during that fiscal year. 

According to the NPS Facilities Management Specialist, the majority of 

revenues, especially at large western park units, are typically collected 

during the last 3 months of the fiscal year and, therefore, are unlikely to be 

obligated that same year.

We also found that at the end of fiscal year 2005, unobligated balances for 

many of the units or forests exceeded the revenues collected that year. For 

example, on the basis of our survey responses, 114, or 42 percent of 270 

BLM, NPS, and FWS units and 63 of 107 FS forests with unobligated 

balances had balances that were greater than 100 percent of the total fee 

revenue they reported for fiscal year 2005. Table 6 shows for each of the 

four agencies the number of units/forests with unobligated balances and 

those with unobligated balances that exceeded the annual revenues 

collected by 100 percent or more. 

Table 6: BLM, NPS, FWS Units, and FS Forests with Unobligated Balances at End of 

Fiscal Year 2005 and Those with Unobligated Balances Greater Than Revenues 

Collected 

Sources: GAO survey and agency data.

Note: FS data is based on numbers at forest level provided by FS headquarters, rather than at the 

ranger district units included in the GAO survey.

Also, on the basis of information provided by units responding to our 

survey and information provided on national forests, the top 10 units with 

the largest unobligated balances at the end of fiscal year 2005 were all in 

NPS. Table 7 lists the 10 units with the highest unobligated balances 

compared with their fiscal year 2005 fee revenues. Appendix V provides a 

listing of the top 10 units with the largest unobligated balances in all four of 

the agencies. 

Overall BLM NPS FWS FS

Number of units with a fiscal year 2005 

unobligated balance 270 56 138 76 107

Number of units in which the unobligated 

balance was greater than 100% of the total fees 

collected in fiscal year 2005 114 26 64 24 63

Percentage 42% 46% 46% 32% 58%
Page 55 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

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

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

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

REA provides a mechanism for units to reduce their unobligated balances. 

As part of the new REA authority for the recreation fee program, Congress 

included a provision that allows the Secretary of the Interior or the 

Secretary of Agriculture to reduce the percentage allocation of the 

recreation fees and site-specific pass revenues to a unit from 80 percent to 

60 percent for a fiscal year. This authority can be exercised if the Secretary 

determines that the revenues collected at the unit or area exceed the 

reasonable needs that may be addressed during a fiscal year. As part of the 

interagency guidance developed for the implementation of REA, the 

Secretaries have agreed to delegate to the individual agencies the authority 

to develop and implement policy for this provision, including identifying 

the metrics and benchmarks required to determine when a unit’s revenue 

retention may be reduced and devising a method for distributing the 

remaining funds. To date, none of the agencies have completed the process 

of establishing final criteria for implementing this provision, although it is 

reportedly under discussion in NPS.

Fee-Collecting Units Cite 

Several Reasons for 

Unobligated Balances

Those recreation fee collecting units reporting an unobligated balance 

cited a variety of reasons for why all available funds were not obligated. To 

a moderate, great, or very great extent, units cited the following as the most 

common reasons for their unobligated balances: (1) saving funds to ensure 

they had sufficient funds to pay for large projects, (2) saving funds needed 

Unit

End of fiscal year 2005 

unobligated balance

Fiscal year 2005

total fee revenue

Unobligated balance as a 

percentage of total revenue

Jefferson National Expansion Memorial $3,019,449 $2,608,161 116%

Haleakala National Park 4,172,814 2,880,126 145

Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Park 4,447,870 3,163,540 141

Golden Gate National Recreation Area/Muir 

Woods National Monument 4,734,347 3,288,230 144

Lake Mead National Recreation Area 4,847,637 4,101,875 118

Mammoth Cave National Park 4,972,503 3,495,605 142

Hawaii Volcanoes National Park 5,262,769 3,799,829 139

Gateway National Recreation Area 6,641,400 2,436,786 273

Grand Canyon National Park 36,726,755 20,082,719 183

Yosemite National Park $36,730,533 $15,019,482 245%
Page 56 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

for the following season’s operations, (3) lack of personnel to administer 

and implement projects on a more timely basis, and (4) completing 

environmental compliance or analysis. Table 8 provides a complete list of 

reasons cited for the unobligated balances overall, and by each agency, and 

the percentage of the units citing the reason to moderate, great, or very 

great extent. 

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

Source: Unit responses to GAO survey.

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

a

Forest Service numbers include all ranger district units responding to the question, not just those with 

an unobligated balance of funds.

The following examples highlight some of the reasons for unobligated 

balances at specific units. 

• Officials at Yosemite National Park, the unit with the highest 

unobligated balance of about $36.7 million or 245 percent of its annual 

revenue, cited the following as the primary reasons for its unobligated 

balance: legal actions need to be resolved that have delayed spending on 

certain projects and the lack of personnel to manage, oversee, and 

Reason Total BLM FSa NPS FWS

Saving funds for large project 61.7% 76.8% 55.1% 61.6% 75.0%

Funds are needed for next season's operations 52.4 69.6 58.0 23.2 72.4

Lack of personnel to implement project 31.1 30.4 30.8 37.7 21.1

Lack of personnel to manage and oversee project 28.0 28.6 26.1 37.7 17.1

Environmental compliance or analysis to be completed 26.6 28.6 26.8 37.7 3.9

Design and engineering work to be completed 25.8 30.4 21.4 42.8 7.9

Used appropriated dollars before fee revenues 22.2 39.3 24.3 11.6 21.1

Contracting delays 13.0 12.5 9.1 26.1 3.9

Project approval process at higher levels 11.9 7.1 5.8 32.6 .0

Change in unit's priorities 10.8 8.9 8.7 18.1 6.6

Other 10.3 8.9 14.1 5.1 6.6

Weather caused delays 9.0 5.4 7.6 13.0 9.2

Actual expenditures less than original estimate 8.1 5.4 7.6 11.6 5.3

Unanticipated growth of fee revenues 6.0 5.4 9.1 2.9 1.3

Lack of projects meeting agency criteria 2.7 1.8 .7 7.2 2.6

Legal actions need to be resolved 1.8% 0.0% 1.8% 2.9% 1.3%
Page 57 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

implement the projects planned for these funds. Park officials said that 

unobligated funds accumulated in the early years of the Fee Demo 

program when obligations were lower relative to collections. 

Obligations have now increased as major projects have passed the 

planning and design phase. Another factor in the amount of obligations 

for projects funded with recreation fees was that the same Yosemite 

staff concurrently managed the 1997 flood recovery work funded by an 

appropriation. The flood recovery work occupied the same Project 

Managers that manage recreation fee funded projects thereby reducing 

the amount of work and obligations under that program. A major part of 

the fee revenues are planned for utility projects that are under way, 

including replacing sewers and reconstructing other utilities, the staff 

said.

• Officials at Grand Canyon National Park, with an unobligated balance 

also of about $36.7 million, or 184 percent of its annual revenue, stated 

that the primary reasons for its unobligated balance that has 

accumulated over at least 3 years were the need to save funds for large 

projects and the lead time needed to complete design and engineering 

work that had delayed the actual expenditure of most funds allocated 

for a particular project. Park staff reported plans to use the unobligated 

balance primarily for an alternative transportation system for park 

visitors, involving parking area and road construction, and upgrading 

the current shuttle bus system. These improvements are expected to 

cost approximately $47 million and take 9 years to complete in phases 

using unobligated funds already accumulated, as well as a portion from 

future fee revenues. 

• Officials at BLM’s Coos Bay District Office in North Bend, Oregon, cited 

saving funds for large projects, needing funds for the next season’s 

operations, and using other appropriated dollars before fee revenues as 

the primary reasons for its unobligated balance. Coos Bay’s unobligated 

balance was about $320,000 at the end of fiscal year 2005 or about 202 

percent of the fee revenues. 

• Officials at Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge in Marion, Illinois, 

reported an unobligated balance of about $645,000 at the end of fiscal 

year 2005, which was 184 percent of its fee revenue. Refuge officials 

cited needing to save funds for a large project, completing design and 

engineering work, and needing funds for the next season’s operations as 

the primary reasons for the unobligated balance. 
Page 58 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

• Shasta-Trinity National Forest in northern California had an unobligated 

balance of about $2.8 million in fiscal year 2005, which was 246 percent 

of its fee revenue and the largest reported for a national forest. Forest 

staff cited the need to save these funds to cover programs and services 

during the next year that were previously funded with the fee revenue 

from the marina area. Under REA, the unit is no longer authorized to 

keep approximately $900,000 in annual marina revenues that the unit 

collected under the Fee Demo program from marina operations.24 Staff 

indicated the unobligated balance will be used to continue a number of 

marina area programs including a fish rearing program, boat patrols, 

floating toilets, illegal dump cleanups, boating safety program, and 

interpretive programs that began under Fee Demo. 

Agencies Use Fee Revenues 

to Fund All or Part of Needs 

Formerly Funded with 

General Appropriations and 

View Fee Revenues as an 

Important Supplement to 

General Appropriations 

During our site visits and in response to our survey, recreation feecollecting units also provided many examples in which recreation fee 

revenues were used in conjunction with other general appropriated funds, 

donations, or other revenues to complete projects within their units. 

According to responses from units in the four agencies responding to our 

survey, 58 percent of the units indicated that they believed to a moderate, 

great, or very great extent that recreation fee revenues are being used to 

fund projects formerly funded with other general appropriations at their 

unit, such as the construction account. The percentage of units within each 

agency that expressed this opinion varied from a high of 65 percent in FS to 

a low of 46 percent in FWS. In addition, about 64 percent of the units 

believed to a moderate, great, or very great extent that, over the next 5 

years, fee revenues will be used to fund projects that would have been 

funded with other general appropriated dollars. The portion of respondents 

in each agency believing this was 74 percent in BLM, 67 percent in FS, 57 

percent in FWS, and 58 percent in NPS. In contrast to the opinions of unit 

level officials, FS and DOI comments on a draft of this report noted that fee 

revenues have not historically replaced appropriations and denied there is 

any reason to expect this to change in the future.

24Throughout Fee Demo, the Shasta-Trinity National Forest collected resort and marina 

special use permit fees under the Term Permit Act but were able to use Fee Demo as a 

second authority to retain the resort and marina revenues on-site. However, the unit no 

longer has the authority to retain the revenues because there is a limitation in REA that 

states that amounts collected under any other law may not be disbursed under REA. The 

unit does not use REA to collect the funds because the marina permits are issued for 20 

years, and the authority to carry out REA terminates in 10 years after REA was enacted. 
Page 59 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

We identified a number of NPS projects similar to those funded by other 

general appropriations, such as items typically funded by the construction 

appropriations account, which are being or have been funded wholly or in 

part by recreation fee revenues. For example, the fiscal year 2006 

construction appropriation for NPS includes $11.8 million for a conversion 

to narrowband radios to ensure rapid response to emergency and lifethreatening situations. NPS stated in its fiscal year 2007 budget justification 

that it was proposing to reduce funding for the narrowband radio system 

program in order to fulfill higher priority needs in other areas. NPS added 

that to minimize the delay in achieving full conversion to narrowband radio 

equipment, those systems that are to be converted after fiscal year 2005 

will be funded through construction appropriations and augmented, as 

necessary, by other NPS fund sources, such as recreation fee revenues. 

In response to our survey or during our site visits, many NPS units reported 

completed, planned, or ongoing expenditures from recreation fee funds for 

the narrowband radio upgrade, including: Yosemite National Park, $3.4 

million; Grand Canyon National Park, $3.0 million; Lake Mead National 

Recreation Area, $1.0 million; Gateway National Recreation Area, $1.7 

million; Sequoia-Kings Canyon National Park, $0.9 million; Acadia National 

Park, $0.7 million; Olympic National Park, $0.7 million; Channel Islands 

National Park, $0.7 million; Great Smokey Mountains National Park, $0.6 

million; and Glacier National Park, $0.6 million. NPS officials said the 

decision to fund the radio upgrade with fee revenues was made because of 

concern that construction appropriations would not be enough to fund the 

new system. 

Many NPS units listed other projects that have been funded wholly or in 

part by recreation fee revenues similar to those previously funded by 

general appropriations, such as construction appropriations account. See 

table 9 for a list of examples. 
Page 60 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

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

Construction Account

Source: Unit responses to GAO survey.

In addition, many of the unit staff we visited or who commented on our 

survey stated that recreation fee revenues are essential to providing 

services at their recreation areas that would not otherwise be funded. The 

following is a sampling of such comments from units in each agency:

BLM

• “The recreation fee program has been a great asset to the overall 

recreation program. Without these dollars coming back into the system 

to help augment other appropriation dollars, BLM could not continue 

with current standards for existing facilities, developing new facilities, 

providing proper monitoring of special recreation permits, or to provide 

the public with service they need and deserve.”

• “Unfortunately, our recreation fee funds collected have become the 

primary source of revenue for our (unit). This was not the original intent 

of the fee demo program but with shrinking budgets it has become our 

main funding source.”

Unit Project Category of expenditure

Recreation fees 

used

Yosemite National Park Replacement of the Valley/El Portal force 

main and gravity sewers

Deferred maintenance and 

capital improvement

$10.0 million

Repair valley sewer collection system

(Phase I)

Deferred maintenance 5.7 million

Relocate and improve utility lines for Curry 

Village

Deferred maintenance 19.6 million

Grand Canyon National Park Construct a South Rim Emergency Services 

Building

Capital improvement 3.6 million

Restore historic district buildings Deferred maintenance 16.6 million

Sequoia and Kings Canyon 

National Parks

Rehabilitate General’s Highway/Grant Tree 

parking lot

Deferred maintenance 0.5 million

Yellowstone National Park Rehabilitate and upgrade Canyon Visitor 

Center

Capital improvement 1.5 million

Resurface 5 miles of roads for visitors’

safety

Deferred maintenance 2.1 million

Shenandoah National Park Complete headquarters maintenance 

building

Capital improvement $1.2 million
Page 61 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

FS

• “In this time of declining budgets and increasing use of national forests 

as the Baby Boomer generation retires, a loss of REA funds would be 

devastating to our ability to provide recreation opportunities.”

• “Our unit has become very much dependent on REA funds to provide 

basic care and maintenance activities of our developed facilities. These 

include the high costs of solid waste disposal; toilet pumping and 

disposal; and maintaining a seasonal workforce to meet standards and 

guidelines for recreation management.”

NPS

• “Funding for projects via the recreation fee program has enabled the 

park to make modest improvements in visitor facilities and services. 

Without the recreation fee program, very little of work that has been 

done would have been done.”

• “Recreational fee revenues allow us to accomplish projects which 

wouldn’t have been accomplished with other (general) appropriated 

funds. While some of the more urgent projects might have been 

accomplished with other (general) appropriations, fee dollars enable us 

to accomplish much more.”

FWS

• “Most public use activities and projects would not be conducted if we 

did not have funds from a recreation fee program.”

• “The recreation fee program has provided additional revenue to support 

visitor needs and enhance the visitor experience. Without these funds, 

we could not provide visitors with a high quality of visitor service.”

Conclusions REA was essentially designed to mitigate past problems with the recreation 

fee demonstration program, such as having multiple passes that caused 

visitor confusion, provide a more sustainable long-term authority to 

support effective planning and management of fee programs, encourage 

increased public participation, protect recreational resources, and provide 

the public with quality visitor services. In addition, REA authorized a new 

multiagency recreation pass to help relieve visitor confusion associated 
Page 62 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

with having to use multiple passes to access and enjoy federal recreation 

sites. REA was enacted almost 2 years ago, and our early assessment of the 

participating agencies’ implementation of the act indicates that they are 

making progress. Still, there are areas in need of management attention. 

Two key working groups established to facilitate REA implementation have 

yet to take important steps to carry out REA, such as completing necessary 

tasks to allow RRAC requirements to be fully implemented, which will 

enhance public participation requirements. Also, our analysis indicates that 

some of the DOI agency and FS units are struggling with how to interpret 

certain aspects of the agencies’ interim guidance for implementing the act, 

which has caused confusion regarding the types and amount of fees to 

collect. Furthermore, unit officials are in need of guidance on facilitating 

public participation and how to ensure projects funded with REA fees are 

connected to the visitor experience. Unless actions are taken to issue final 

regulations and implementation guidance for the fee program, including 

detailed policy and procedure guidance, many unit officials will continue to 

struggle with how to effectively and consistently implement the recreation 

fee program. 

Measures the agencies have in place to control and account for collected 

fee revenues is another area that needs attention. While the results of our 

analysis cannot be projected to all fee-collecting sites, we noted 

weaknesses in the controls over fee collections at some BLM, FWS, and FS 

sites that warrant attention because they not only affect the accounting for 

the collected revenues, but they may also affect the safety of the 

individuals involved in the collection efforts. Although millions of dollars 

are collected annually through REA, some agencies have not provided 

adequate guidance or conducted routine audits needed by the units to 

ensure that they develop and maintain proper controls over their fee 

revenues and provide reasonable physical protection for their staff. 

Despite the fact that Congress intended all five federal land management 

agencies to implement REA, Reclamation has not determined whether it 

will implement the act. Unlike the other participating agencies, 

Reclamation operates most of its recreation sites through partnerships that 

collect fees to support the costs of administering the recreation programs 

they provide. Reclamation has determined that its recreation areas that are 

managed by nonfederal partners will not be participating in REA, and thus 

will not accept the new multiagency pass. Further, the federal managing 

partners will be allowed to decide on their own how REA impacts the 

recreation areas located on Reclamation lands that they manage. 

Reclamation has not yet decided what actions to take with regard to those 
Page 63 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

units managed by Reclamation that it identified as meeting REA criterion 

for charging recreation fees. 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action

To allow for public input on new fees or modifications to existing fees, we 

recommend that the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture expedite 

completing the steps needed for the RRACs and existing advisory councils 

to begin implementing REA. 

In order to improve agencies’ implementation of the Federal Lands 

Recreation Enhancement Act and improve the accountability and controls 

for recreation fee collection, we recommend that the Secretary of the 

Interior direct the

• Director, National Park Service; Director, Bureau of Land Management; 

and Director, Fish and Wildlife Service to promptly issue final 

regulations and implementation guidance on the fee program, including 

detailed policy and procedure guidance; and

• Director, Bureau of Land Management and Director, Fish and Wildlife 

Services to ascertain the extent to which their units do not have 

effective processes and procedures for accounting for and controlling 

collected fees and develop guidance for implementing appropriate and 

effective internal controls over cash management. This guidance for 

implementing such controls should identify and encourage the use of 

best practices, such as routine audits.

We recommend that the Secretary of the Interior direct the Commissioner 

of the Bureau of Reclamation to expedite its decision on implementation of 

REA.

In order to improve the Forest Service’s implementation of the Federal 

Lands Recreation Enhancement Act and improve the accountability and 

controls for collected recreation fees, we recommend that the Secretary of 

Agriculture direct the Chief of the Forest Service to take the following two 

actions:

• promptly issue final regulations and implementing guidance on the fee 

program, including detailed policy and procedure guidance; and 

• ascertain the extent to which its units do not have effective processes 

and procedures for accounting for and controlling collected fees and 
Page 64 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

develop guidance for implementing appropriate and effective internal 

controls over cash management. This guidance for implementing such 

controls should identify and encourage the use of best practices, such as 

routine audits. 

Agency Comments and 

Our Evaluation

We provided the Departments of the Interior and Agriculture with a draft of 

this report for review and comment. Their written comments are provided 

in appendixes VI and VII, respectively. DOI generally agreed with our 

findings and recommendations. It said that our recommendations further 

REA implementation efforts and it was dedicated to addressing them 

promptly. Specifically, with regard to issuing final regulations and 

implementation guidance for the new interagency pass, the department 

said that, while guidelines had not been formally completed, most of the 

policy decisions composing the guidelines have been taken and discussed 

in congressional testimony. Although this may be the case, the results of 

our survey and site visits indicated that those who are to implement REA in 

each of DOI’s agencies are in need of clarifying guidance, particularly with 

regard to adding new fee sites or modify existing fees to fully implement 

the act, which will also help to ensure consistency in applying the 

requirements of REA.

We also recommended that DOI direct that BLM and FWS ascertain the 

extent to which their units have effective processes and procedures for 

accounting for and controlling collected fees and develop effective 

guidance and internal controls over cash management, such as routine 

audits. Although this recommendation was not directed at the Park Service, 

the department’s comments state that the Park Service has the intention to 

recommitting to a National Audit Program. It said that such a program has 

been delayed due to other program priorities and lack of staff resources. 

However, it said that the Park Service has a working group that is being 

reconvened to restart the process of developing a National Audit Program 

and that, once additional resources are in place, it will be possible to 

implement a more standardized program. On the basis of our visits to eight 

sites, we observed practices for controlling and accounting for fee 

revenues that appeared to be working well at these locations in the Park 

Service. However, we are encouraged by the additional actions that the 

Park Service plans to take to improve their processes in this area and any 

lessons learned from this effort may also benefit BLM and FWS.

With regard to our recommendation that the department direct 

Reclamation to expedite its decision on implementing REA, the department 
Page 65 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

provided comments from the bureau that said that the bureau had only 

identified seven sites that currently meet the statutory criteria for charging 

standard amenity fees under REA. Given this fact and the likely costs of 

implementing REA for the agency, it said that there is a strong possibility 

that Reclamation would require all recreation sites meeting the criteria to 

participate in REA. However, as recognized in our report, Reclamation 

should decide this issue soon so that its units can begin taking the needed 

steps to implement REA.

The Department of Agriculture did not specifically state its agreement or 

disagreement with our recommendations. However, it outlined actions it 

has planned or under way to address them. Specifically, it acknowledged 

the Forest Service’s need to revise several policies that relate to REA and 

collections in general. It said that the Forest Service had already initiated 

policy revisions for its manuals and handbooks, which it plans to produce 

by September 2007. It also said that the Forest Service is in the process of 

revising its policies on billings and cash collections, which it will expedite 

for publication as soon as practicable.

Both DOI and the Department of Agriculture provided other comments for 

updating information in the report or for providing technical clarifications 

that we have incorporated, as appropriate.

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

this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 2 days from the 

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

of the Interior, the Secretary of Agriculture, and other interested parties. 

We will also make copies available to others upon request. In addition, the 

report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at 

http://www.gao.gov. 
Page 66 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

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

(202) 512-3841 or nazzaror@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of 

Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page 

of this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix VIII.

Robin M. Nazzaro

Director, Natural Resources

and Environment
Page 67 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology AAppenednxidexiIs

Based on the congressional request letter of May 2005 and subsequent 

discussions with your staffs, we agreed to determine (1) what agencies 

have done to coordinate the implementation of the Federal Lands 

Recreation Enhancement Act (REA), including preparing for the new 

interagency federal lands pass; (2) what agencies have done to implement 

the REA fee and amenity requirements and sufficiency of guidance for REA 

implementation; (3) the extent to which the agencies have control and 

accounting procedures for collected recreation fee revenues; (4) how 

participating agencies prioritize and approve activities and projects funded 

with fee revenues; and (5) the extent to which units have unobligated fund 

balances and if recreational fees are being used to fund projects formerly 

funded with other appropriations. In addition, we are providing 

information on how recreation fees vary by type, amount, and level of 

amenities offered at units with similar recreational opportunities across 

and within agencies participating in REA. 

To address the objectives, we obtained and reviewed applicable laws; 

regulations; agencywide policies and procedures; regional policies and 

procedures; and the fees collected at selected units under the Fee 

Demonstration Program and REA in order to determine what changes have 

resulted since the implementation of REA. We developed and administered 

a nationwide survey to agency officials responsible for fee programs under 

REA. We supplemented the survey information with records reviews, 

analyses of documents, and testimonial evidence gathered during unit 

visits and in meetings with state, regional, and headquarters officials.

To obtain information on all of our objectives related to the implementation 

of REA, the collection and expenditure of recreation fee revenues, we 

designed and administered a national survey of units collecting these fees. 

We worked to develop the survey instrument with social science survey 

specialists to administer to staff at National Park Service (NPS) units, 

Forest Service (FS) ranger districts, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

field offices, and Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) refuges. Because this was 

not a sample survey, there are no sampling errors. However, the practical 

difficulties of conducting any survey may introduce errors, commonly 

referred to as nonsampling errors. For example, differences in how a 

particular question is interpreted, in the sources of information that are 

available to respondents, or how the data are entered into a database can 

introduce unwanted variability into the survey results. We took steps in the 

development of the surveys, the data collection, and data analysis to 

minimize these nonsampling errors. For example, prior to administering 

the survey, we pretested the content and format of the surveys with several 
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 68 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

site officials at each agency to determine whether (1) the survey questions 

were clear, (2) the terms used were precise, (3) respondents were able to 

provide the information we were seeking, and (4) the questions were 

unbiased. In addition, we provided a draft of the survey to the national fee 

program coordinators at the four agencies and met with them to obtain 

comments and corrections to the wording and structure of the questions in 

the survey. We made changes to the content and format of the final 

questions based on pretest results. We verified some financial information 

from a random sample of 25 non-FS units by asking these respondents to 

check their answers originally provided to four questions and verify the 

reported dollar amounts or provide corrections. Our analysis showed that 

a significant number of units reported they had made errors in providing 

the original survey data; however, total dollars reported after correction did 

not differ significantly from the dollars reported originally. The revised sum 

of the total fees collected differed from the original by less than plus or 

minus 2 percent and for unobligated balances, less than plus or minus 4 

percent. We also checked a sample of cases to ensure the accuracy of data 

entry and made corrections as needed. We performed computer analyses to 

identify inconsistencies in responses and other indications of error. We 

contacted survey respondents, as needed, to correct errors and verify 

responses. In addition, a second independent analyst verified that the 

computer programs used to analyze the data were written correctly. It is 

our opinion that the data we present is valid and reliable for the purposes 

of this report.

To identify the current fee-collecting units to complete the survey, we 

asked the national fee program coordinators at NPS, FS, BLM, and FWS to 

provide a full list of these units including phone numbers and e-mail 

addresses. The survey was designed to be distributed as a locked MS Word 

document attached to a transmittal e-mail, allowing the document to be 

saved on unit computers, altered with answers, and returned via 

attachment to e-mail messages. Respondents were instructed to complete 

one survey per unit to reflect all recreation fee activities managed as a 

single unit. Based on phone calls from respondents and returned surveys, 

we determined some surveys included responses for more than one unit on 

the list provided by the agency. In other cases, surveys were returned for 

units that were not on the list. In either case, we contacted the unit to 

determine the status of the unit. If we found that the management of a fee 

program extended across the boundaries of more than one unit, and its fee 

collection and spending were combined, with funds commingled and 

project priorities jointly determined, then we accepted a single survey for 

more than one unit. Because some units were combined, and because 
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 69 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

others indicated that they were not collecting fees, contrary to the lists 

provided by agency headquarters, the number of units in the universe for 

this survey declined. Table 10 provides the estimated response rates by 

agency and overall.

Table 10: Estimated Response Rates by Agency and Overall

Source: GAO.

The number of units identified, 904, reflects the total number of units 

remaining in the universe after adjustments, when units reported that they 

had been administratively merged with another unit or, in a few cases, 

when they were not included on the list provided by the agencies. The 

units identified by the agencies included units that indicated that they did 

not collect fees under REA. These respondents were not intended to have 

been included in the universe and, therefore, were dropped from the 

analysis of responses. Once the surveys were received, logged in, and 

printed, they were checked for completeness and logic, and the responses 

were then coded into a database for summarization and analysis.

To assess the accounting and control procedures in place at various feecollecting units, we conducted unit visits to a sample of unit locations 

where we collected documents, observed accounting and control practices, 

and interviewed staff. Information that we gathered during our site visits 

and during our interviews represents only the conditions present in the 

units at the time of our review. We cannot comment on any changes that 

may have occurred after our fieldwork was completed. Furthermore, our 

fieldwork focused on in-depth analysis of only a few selected units. Based 

on our interviews, we cannot generalize our findings beyond the units and 

officials we contacted.

Agency

Number of 

units 

identified 

Number of units 

returning 

surveys 

Number of fee 

collecting units 

returning 

surveys

Response 

rates

BLM 128 104 88 81.3% 

FS 467 408 393 87.4 

NPS 197 192 174 97.5

FWS 112 103 97 92.0

Total 904 807 752 89.3% 
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 70 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

As of 2005, four of the five agencies were actually collecting recreation fees 

under REA—the same four that had previously been authorized to collect 

fees under the Fee Demo program. The amounts of recreation fee 

collections varied substantially among the four agencies. For example, 

NPS’s top fee-collecting unit, Grand Canyon National Park, collected 

$15,773,239 in Fee Demo revenue in fiscal year 2003, while FWS’s top feecollecting unit, Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge, collected $658,497 

in the same fiscal year, and there were only seven units within the entire 

FWS agency that collected over $100,000 in recreation fee revenue. 

Therefore, in order to ensure that we visited fee units of varying sizes 

within each of the four agencies, we created different small, medium, and 

large fee categories for each agency. These categories were identified by 

sorting the fee-collecting units within each agency from highest to lowest in 

fee revenue for fiscal year 2003.1

 After sorting the data by fee revenue, we 

analyzed the data to see where natural breaks for small, medium, and large 

units fell, in order to determine the categories for each agency. The 

resulting categories are shown in table 11.

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

Source: GAO.

Our original plan was to visit at least three large units, two medium units, 

and one small unit within each agency. In addition, to address 

congressional concerns about large unobligated carryover balances, we 

planned to visit at least two more units with very large carryover balances. 

We also recognized the importance of visiting units in several different 

geographic areas to document possible differences in the implementation 

of the fee programs within different states or regions. We completed this 

1

We used revenue data from the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program (Progress 

Report to Congress for Fiscal Year 2003), because this was the most recent report that had 

been published that included fee revenue data broken down by individual unit for all four 

agencies.

Agency Small unit Medium unit Large unit

NPS under $250,000 $250,000-$1 million over $1 million

FS under $100,000 $100,000-$500,000 over $500,000

BLM under $50,000 $50,000-$100,000 over $100,000

FWS under $20,000 $20,000-$50,000 over $50,000
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 71 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

original methodological plan with one exception; we only visited two large 

FWS units. However, given the relatively small size of even the largest of 

FWS’ fee-collecting units, we believe that our review had already 

sufficiently covered their program. Table 12 identifies the recreation fee 

units we visited.

Table 12: Recreation Fee Units GAO Visited 

Agency and unit State

BLM

 Folsom Field Office California

 Grand Junction Field Office Colorado

 Gunnison Field Office Colorado

 Kremmling Field Office (includes Upper Colorado River) Colorado 

 Price Field Office (includes Desolation Canyon) Utah

 Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area Nevada

FWS 

 Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge Virginia

 Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge Maryland

 Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge Virginia (also partially in 

Maryland)

 Klamath Basin National Wildlife Refuge Complex California (also partially 

in Oregon

 Rocky Mountain Arsenal National Wildlife Refuge Colorado

NPS

 Antietam National Battlefield Maryland

 Colonial National Historic Park Virginia

Grand Canyon National Parka Arizona

 Lake Mead National Recreation Area Nevada

 Rocky Mountain National Park Colorado

 Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks California

 Whiskeytown National Recreation Area California

 Yosemite National Parka California

FS

Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests, Sulphur Ranger 

District (includes Arapaho National Recreation Area)

Colorado

 Sequoia National Forest, Hume Lake Ranger District California
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 72 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

Source: GAO.

a

Units visited due to identified large carryover balances.

Finally, we spoke with headquarters officials at all five agencies to obtain 

their views on the implementation of REA, their plans for future monitoring 

and assessment activities, the status of the new interagency federal lands 

pass, and their opinions on the future impact of REA fees on their agency’s 

appropriations.

We conducted our work between June 2005 and August 2006 in accordance 

with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Shasta-Trinity National Forest, Shasta Lake, and Mount 

Shasta Ranger Districts (includes Shasta-Trinity National 

Recreation Area)

California

Tonto National Forest, Mesa Ranger District (includes Salt 

and Verde Rivers National Recreation Complex)

Arizona

Uinta National Forest, Pleasant Grove Ranger District 

(includes American Fork Canyon)

Utah

George Washington and Jefferson National Forests, 

Glenwood-Pedlar Ranger District

Virginia

White River National Forest, Dillon Ranger District (includes 

Green Mountain Reservoir and Cataract Lake)

Colorado

(Continued From Previous Page)

Agency and unit State
Page 73 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

Appendix II

Fees for Recreational Uses Vary by Agency 

and for Amenities Across and within Agencies 

Participating in REA ApendxiI

This appendix provides information on how the fees charged and the 

amenities provided for use of recreational units across the country vary by 

the activity offered, the provisions of the Federal Lands Recreation 

Enhancement Act (REA) and the agency offering them. For example, under 

REA, units of the National Park Service (NPS) and the Fish and Wildlife 

Service (FWS) are authorized to charge entrance fees for accessing the 

lands they manage. REA does not specify minimum amenity requirements 

for entrance fees. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and Forest 

Service (FS) units, on the other hand, are authorized to charge standard 

amenity fees, not entrance fees. Unlike entrance fees, REA specifies the 

minimum amenities required at recreation sites to charge this fee.

NPS and FWS Entrance 

Fees

Of the 271 NPS and FWS units responding to our survey, 168, or 62 percent 

had entrance fees. Of the 168 units with entrance fees, 137, or 82 percent 

were NPS, and 31, or 18 percent, were FWS units. In NPS, the entrance fees 

ranged from a low of $1 per person to a high of $300 per bus or group, while 

FWS units reported an average fee ranging from a low of $1 per person to a 

high of $50 per bus. The entrance fees are typically charged per visit, on per 

vehicle, per person, per group, or commercial vehicle bases, as well as on 

an annual basis. Table 13 shows the number of units that reported charging 

an entrance fee and the minimum and maximum fees charged for the 

various entrance categories.1

 

1

Data in this appendix represent fees in effect at the time the respondents completed the 

survey (February to May 2006).
Appendix II

Fees for Recreational Uses Vary by Agency 

and for Amenities Across and within 

Agencies Participating in REA 

Page 74 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

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

Amounts 

Source: GAO survey results.

BLM and FS Standard 

Amenity Fees

Standard amenity fees were authorized by REA to be charged for federal 

recreational lands and waters under the jurisdiction of BLM, Reclamation, 

or FS. As mentioned earlier in this report, Reclamation has not 

implemented REA and, therefore, is not included in these results. The law 

sets criteria for the establishment of standard amenity fees: the area where 

charged must have significant outdoor recreation, a substantial federal 

investment, allow efficient collection of fees, and must have the following 

amenities: designated developed parking, a permanent toilet facility, a 

permanent trash receptacle, interpretive sign, exhibit or kiosk, picnic 

tables, and security services. Of the 472 survey responses from BLM and FS 

units, 38 of 85 (45 percent) BLM units and 157 of 387 (41 percent) of FS 

units reported having standard amenity fees. BLM’s units responding to the 

survey had standard amenity fees ranging from a low of $1 to a high of $10 

for each person and from $2 to $10 per vehicle. FS’s units reported standard 

amenity fees ranging from a low of $0.50 per person to a high of $7.50 per 

person and per vehicle standard amenity fees that ranged from $1 to $50.2

Table 14 outlines the number and types of standard amenity fees charged 

and the range of fees of each category reported. 

 NPS FWS

Category

Number of units 

that charge

this fee

Minimum 

fee

Maximum

fee

Number of units 

that charge 

this fee

Minimum

fee

Maximum 

fee

Private vehicle 71 $1 $25 26 $2 $12

Per person 133 0 15 15 1 25

Motorcycle 60 3 20 22 2 12

Bicycle 61 3 20 16 1 12

Commercial bus 74 3 300 19 3 50

Group rate 14 4 300 4 15 30

Unit-specific annual entrance 

pass 103 $10 $45 28 $10 $30

2

A $50 standard amenity fee is charged to reserve one day use of the Jack’s Creek or Holy 

Ghost Large Group Areas in the Pecos-Las Vegas Ranger District of the Sante Fe National 

Forest. 
Appendix II

Fees for Recreational Uses Vary by Agency 

and for Amenities Across and within 

Agencies Participating in REA 

Page 75 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

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

Source: GAO survey results.

Many Units Offer More 

Amenities Than What Is 

Required Under REA

Our survey identified 195 BLM and FS units that reported charging a 

standard amenity fee for recreation use in their units. In addition to the six 

amenities required under REA to charge a standard amenity fee, many of 

the units reported providing various other amenities for the visiting public. 

Table 15 shows the various amenities provided at the 195 BLM and FS 

units, for either the minimum or maximum (if any) standard amenity fee, 

including the amenities required under REA for the unit to charge a 

standard amenity fee. 

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

 BLM FS

Category

Number that 

charge fee

Minimum

fee

Maximum 

fee

Number that 

charge fee

Minimum 

fee

Maximum

fee

Per person 9 $1 $10 22 $0.50 $7.50

Per vehicle 26 $2 $10 126 $1 $50

Features and amenities

Number of 

BLM units 

Number of

FS units Total

Permanent toilet facilitya 37 152 189

Picnic shelter 21 60 81

Picnic tablesa 37 143 180

Drinking water 29 103 132

Fire ring or grill 32 119 151

Permanent trash receptaclea 36 139 175

Reasonable visitor protection (security)a 35 146 181

Designated developed parkinga 34 152 186

Access roads 37 144 181

Interpretive sign, exhibit, or kioska 35 139 174

Museum or visitor center 13 29 42

Interpretive staff 13 34 47

Self-service fee collection 33 130 163

Collection of fee by staff and/or 

attendant 21 65 86
Appendix II

Fees for Recreational Uses Vary by Agency 

and for Amenities Across and within 

Agencies Participating in REA 

Page 76 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

Source: GAO survey results.

a

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

Our survey also identified that 52 of the 195 units that charge standard 

amenity fees had more than one standard amenity fee. For example, one 

recreation site at a unit could offer such amenities as attendant fee 

collection in addition to the amenities required by REA and charge a fee of 

$3 per person. Another recreation site at the same unit could offer these 

same amenities but charge a higher fee amounting to $5 per person because 

it also offers additional amenities such as picnic shelters and drinking 

water. Of the 52 units with more than one standard amenity fee, the five 

most common additional amenities offered for the higher fee were picnic 

shelters, drinking water, shower or bath house, fire ring or grill, and a 

permanent trash receptacle. It should not be implied that the higher fees 

are solely due to these added amenities. However, according to our survey 

results, the units responding indicated that the level of amenities offered 

was one of the most influential factors in determining the type and amounts 

of fees charged. Other factors that had a significant influence on these fees 

were professional judgment, fees at comparable sites, and agency policy. 

Fees Charged for Similar 

Activities Vary

We also collected information on the various types of activities, amenities, 

or services for which units charge a fee, other than entrance fees. These 

could be standard or expanded amenity fees and special recreation permit 

fees authorized by REA. The most common activities, amenities, or 

services for which a fee is charged are camping, outfitter or guides, day 

use, Christmas tree cutting, and cabin rentals. Table 16 shows the number 

of units charging a fee under REA for the various types of activities, 

amenities, or services provided.

Boat dock or pier 12 32 44

Boat launch 15 51 66

Fish cleaning station 7 5 12

Shower/bathhouse 8 22 30

(Continued From Previous Page)

Features and amenities

Number of 

BLM units 

Number of 

FS units Total
Appendix II

Fees for Recreational Uses Vary by Agency 

and for Amenities Across and within 

Agencies Participating in REA 

Page 77 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

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

Source: GAO survey results.

To determine the extent to which similar fees are charged for similar 

activities or services, we asked units for further details on the specific fees 

charged for a few of the common activities or services at recreation units: 

camping, motor boating, and access to a body of water for rafting, 

canoeing, or kayaking. Specifically, we asked the units to identify a 

minimum and maximum fee for the activity or service, as well as the 

amenities provided for the fee charged. To illustrate, a campsite at a unit 

Activity, amenity, or service 

Number of units charging fee

Total BLM FS NPS FWS

Day use, individual or family (e.g., for general use of a recreation area) 147 30 105 9 3

Group day-use site (e.g., picnic site or pavilion) 145 21 102 19 3

High Impact Recreation Area (FS only) 56 0 56 0 0

Scenic drive 3 0 1 0 2

Boat launch or lake use (with a boat) 71 12 46 10 3

Boat docking, marinas, other slips 11 4 4 1 2

Fishing 27 3 14 1 9

Rafting, canoeing, or kayaking 35 13 16 4 2

Cave tours 7 0 1 6 0

Visitor center, museum, or historic site 19 3 12 4 0

Interpretive tour or program (aside from cave tours) 37 5 12 18 2

Rock climbing 9 4 5 0 0

Hiking or trailhead access, including day-use backcountry permits 44 4 37 3 0

Camping at established campgrounds 385 61 259 63 2

Backcountry overnight use or camping 47 8 22 17 0

Cross-country skiing 7 0 7 0 0

Off-road or off-highway or all-terrain vehicle 54 8 42 1 3

Snowmobile use 5 0 5 0 0

Hunting 65 2 3 3 57

Christmas tree cutting 145 21 124 0 0

Cabin rentals 126 4 117 3 2

RV dump service 50 14 27 9 0

Parking 46 13 28 5 0

Shuttle bus 8 1 4 3 0

Outfitter or guide activities 314 65 237 5 7

Other 81 10 54 6 11
Appendix II

Fees for Recreational Uses Vary by Agency 

and for Amenities Across and within 

Agencies Participating in REA 

Page 78 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

may charge $5 per night per individual for camping and for that fee provide 

only a site to put up a tent, whereas another campsite at this unit may 

charge $10 per night per individual and provide a site, shower facilities, 

drinking water, and electrical service. Our analysis of responses from NPS, 

BLM, FS, and FWS units indicated that there was a wide range of fees 

charged for these common activities or services, and a variety of amenities 

were available at the locations where these fees were charged.

Campsite Fees and Amenities Units may have more than one campsite available for recreation and charge 

fees for their use. Our survey asked each unit to identify the fees and 

amenities for their lowest priced campsite and for their highest priced 

campsite. The fees charged for a campsite in BLM, FS, FWS, and NPS units 

ranged from a low of $2 in BLM and FS to a high of $225 in FS.3

 This range 

includes both individual and group campsites. Table 17 shows the number 

of units offering camping for a fee, their median fees, and range of fees 

charged for the lowest and highest priced campsites. 

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

Campsites

Source: GAO survey results.

Note: The reported “higher priced campsite” fee amounts for BLM, FS, and NPS units within the “high” 

column are fees for group campsites. 

Camping for a fee is offered in 55 percent of the units responding to our 

survey. FS had the greatest percentage of units offering camping for a fee, 

71 percent of units responding. FWS had the lowest, with only 2 percent of 

the units responding offering camping for a fee. 

3

A group campsite fee of up to $225 was reported for the Hot Springs Campground in the 

Emmett Ranger District in the Boise National Forest.

Agency

Lower priced campsite Higher priced campsite

Number of units Median Low High Number of units Median Low High

BLM 63 $6 $2 $18 63 $8 $4 $90

FS 278 7 2 50 278 10 3 225

NPS 69 10 3 25 69 15 3 64

FWS 2 $7 $5 $8 2 $8 $5 $10
Appendix II

Fees for Recreational Uses Vary by Agency 

and for Amenities Across and within 

Agencies Participating in REA 

Page 79 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

We asked units to identify which amenities were provided at the campsites 

with the minimum and maximum fees within that unit. Overall, an average 

of 10.7 amenities was offered at the minimum fee campsites, and an 

average of 12.1 amenities was offered at the maximum fee campsites. The 

amenities most often available for the maximum fee sites, and not the 

minimum fee sites, are drinking water, availability of reservation system, 

electrical hookups, water hookups, and sanitary dump stations. Within the 

individual agencies, the difference in number of amenities between 

minimum fee camping sites versus maximum fee camping sites was on 

average within two amenities or fewer. 

Motor Boating Fees and 

Amenities

Our analysis of responses from NPS, BLM, FS, and FWS units on the 

minimum and maximum fees for motor boating charged in the unit also 

focused on amenities available for these fees. Boating for a fee is offered in 

10 percent of the units overall with FS having the largest number of units 

with motor boating for a fee available, 52 units, or 13 percent of FS units 

responding. FWS has the lowest number of units with boating fees, with 

only 4, or 4 percent of units reporting a motor boating fee. The results of 

our survey on the extent of motor boating fees are given in table 18. 

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

Source: GAO survey results.

Motor boating fees at units in the four agencies surveyed are charged on a 

number of bases: per person, per boat, or other bases, such as a per trip 

charge. A total of 5 FS and FWS units reported charging motor boating fees 

on a per person basis, with the minimum and maximum fees per person 

starting at $1 and ranging up to $4. A total of 41 units in all four agencies 

reported charging on a per boat basis, with the minimum fees starting at $1 

per boat and ranging up to a maximum of $40. Fees charged on various 

other bases, such as per trip, were reported in 30 units, with the

Total BLM FS NPS FWS

Units Percentage Units Percentage Units Percentage Units Percentage Units Percentage 

Motor 

boating fee 72 9.6% 6 6.8% 52 13.2% 10 5.7% 4 4.1%

No fee 672 89.2% 82 93.2% 337 85.8% 163 93.7% 90 92.8%
Appendix II

Fees for Recreational Uses Vary by Agency 

and for Amenities Across and within 

Agencies Participating in REA 

Page 80 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

fees starting at $0.50 and ranging up to a maximum of $300.4 Survey 

responses showed that only 9 of the 72 units with a fee for motor boating 

and related activities had a maximum fee in addition to the minimum fee 

listed for these activities.

We asked the units with a motor boating fee to identify which common 

amenities were provided for boating with the minimum and maximum fees 

within that unit. Overall, an average of 11.5 amenities was offered at the 

minimum fee areas, and an average of 11.9 amenities was offered at the 

maximum fee areas, virtually the same when considering all the units. 

Special Recreation Permit Fees 

for Rafting, Canoeing or 

Kayaking, and Amenities

The third type of fee we asked survey respondents about was special 

recreation permit fees for access to a body of water for rafting, canoeing, or 

kayaking. A total of 45 units reported this type of fee, with the greatest 

number in FS and BLM, and few reported by NPS or FWS. Table 19 

provides a breakdown of the agency units reporting on our survey a special 

recreation permit fee for these activities.

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

Canoeing, or Kayaking

Source: GAO survey results.

These special recreation permit fees for rafting, canoeing, or kayaking at 

units in the four agencies surveyed are charged on a number of bases: per 

person per day, per group per day, per boat per day, per trip, or other bases. 

A total of 12 BLM, FS, and FWS units reported charging per person per day 

fees for this activity, with the fees per person starting at $1 and ranging up 

to a maximum of $6. A total of 9 units in BLM and FS reported charging on 

a per person per trip basis, with the fee starting at $3 and ranging up to a 

4

An example of such a motor boating fee is the $300 that the Midway Atoll National Wildlife 

Refuge charges ships over 65 feet in length for harbor entrance.

Total BLM FS NPS FWS

Units Percentage Units Percentage Units Percentage Units Percentage Units Percentage

Special recreation 

permit fee for 

rafting, canoeing 

or kayaking 45 6.0% 17 19.3% 21 5.3% 5 2.9% 2 2.1%

No fee 705 93.6% 71 80.7% 370 94.1% 169 97.1% 95 97.9%
Appendix II

Fees for Recreational Uses Vary by Agency 

and for Amenities Across and within 

Agencies Participating in REA 

Page 81 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

maximum of $404.5 Fees were charged on various other bases, such as per 

group per day, or per boat per day, with the fees starting at $1 and ranging 

up to a maximum of $90. Our survey showed that only 10 of the 45 units 

with special recreation permit fees for rafting, canoeing, or kayaking had a 

maximum fee in addition to the minimum fee listed for these activities.

We asked the units with a special recreation permit fee for rafting, 

canoeing, or kayaking to identify which common amenities were provided 

for boating with the minimum and maximum fees within that unit. Overall, 

an average of 9 amenities was offered at the minimum fee areas, and an 

average of 9.3 amenities was offered at the maximum fee areas, virtually 

the same when considering all the units. 

5

This maximum special recreation permit fee was estimated for an outfitter to provide 

whitewater rafting of the Kern River in the Sequoia National Forest. Under the permit, a two 

day trip costing $898 per person, for a maximum of 15 people, results in a fee of 3% of the 

total outfitter trip revenue, or $404.
Page 82 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

Appendix III

Information on Organizational Structure, 

Costs, and Membership Requirements of 

Recreation Resource Advisory Committees ApendxiI

This appendix provides information on the organizational structure, costs, 

and membership requirements of Recreation Resource Advisory 

Committees (RRAC). In March 2006, the Department of the Interior (DOI) 

and the Department of Agriculture (USDA) approved the organizational 

structure for the RRACs and existing advisory councils via an interagency 

organizational agreement. Table 20 outlines the nature and type of RRACs 

and advisory councils that Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and Forest 

Service (FS) have agreed to use in each state and/or region.1

 In the majority 

of western states, BLM and FS will use joint RRACs or committees, many of 

which will be composed of existing BLM advisory councils since the 

Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (REA) allows existing 

advisory committees or fee advisory boards to perform the RRAC duties. In 

addition, five new RRACs are being established nationwide. Two of the new 

RRACs are being formed in the eastern United States and will primarily 

address FS fees since BLM has minimal land and only one fee-collecting 

unit in the East.2

 Of the two new eastern RRACs, one will cover all of FS 

Southern Region (Region 8), 3 and one will cover all of FS Eastern Region4

(Region 9). The remaining three new RRACs are being formed in the 

western states: one joint RRAC covering all of California, one joint RRAC 

covering Washington and Oregon, and one joint RRAC covering Colorado. 

1

Hawaii is not included in the RRAC interagency organizational agreement.

2

The one BLM fee-collecting unit in the eastern states is a horse boarding stable that has a 

multiyear management contract. This unit will be covered by the new Southern Region 

RRAC.

3

FS’s Southern Region covers Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, 

Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and 

Virginia.

4

FS’s Eastern Region covers Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, 

Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, 

New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.
Appendix III

Information on Organizational Structure, 

Costs, and Membership Requirements of 

Recreation Resource Advisory Committees

Page 83 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

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

Source: GAO.

a

The governors of Alaska, Nebraska, and Wyoming decided that a RRAC was not necessary in their 

respective states; therefore, these states will not have a RRAC or utilize existing advisory councils 

regarding recreation fee issues.

b

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

c

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

d

There is only one fee-collecting unit in Kansas—a national grassland—which will be managed with the 

new joint BLM/FS RRAC for the purpose of determining fees. 

e

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

RRAC.

f

Western Texas and Oklahoma grasslands that are managed out of the Cibola National Forest will use 

BLM’s existing New Mexico advisory council.

g

FS’s Region 8 (Southern Region) covers Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, 

Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia. 

h

The one BLM fee-collecting unit in the eastern states is a horse boarding stable that has a multiyear 

management contract. This unit will be covered by the new Southern RRAC.

i

FS’s Region 9 (Eastern Region) covers Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, 

Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, 

Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

j

While BLM does not currently have any fee-collecting units in the Eastern Region, the new Eastern 

Region RRAC will also consider BLM’s fee issues if BLM has fee-collecting units in that region in the 

future.

State/region RRAC type

Alaska No RRACa

Arizona Existing BLM advisory councilb to act as joint BLM/FS RRAC 

California New joint BLM/FS RRAC 

Colorado New joint BLM/FS RRAC

Idaho Existing BLM advisory councils to act as joint BLM/FS RRAC 

Kansas New Colorado RRAC to act as joint BLM/FS RRACc d

Montana/Dakotas Existing BLM advisory councils to act as joint BLM/FS RRACe 

Nebraska No RRACa

Nevada Existing BLM advisory councils to act as joint BLM/FS RRAC 

New Mexicof Existing BLM advisory council to act as joint BLM/FS RRAC 

Oregon/ Washington New joint BLM/FS RRAC 

Utah Existing BLM advisory council to act as joint BLM/FS RRAC

Wyoming No RRACa

Region 8 (Southern 

Region)g

New joint BLM/FS RRACh

Region 9 (Eastern 

Region)i

New joint BLM/FS RRACc j
Appendix III

Information on Organizational Structure, 

Costs, and Membership Requirements of 

Recreation Resource Advisory Committees

Page 84 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

The March 2006 interagency organizational agreement states that BLM is 

responsible for the direct costs of its advisory councils, while FS will be 

responsible for the direct costs of the new RRACs. FS estimates that it will 

cost about $90,000 to $120,000 per year to fund each new RRAC—based on 

travel costs for the RRACs to meet twice per year, FS staff time, and the 

assumption that each RRAC will have one to five subcommittees—and all 

funding for the RRACs will come from the FS’s 5 percent regional funds, 

according to a FS headquarters official. However, implementing the RRACs 

may cost more the first year since the members of the RRACs may need to 

meet more frequently than twice per year during the initial establishment of 

the RRACs. BLM is allocating $3,000 per state per year in base funds 

starting in fiscal year 2007 to implement the RRAC requirements where 

existing advisory councils are used, according to a BLM headquarters 

official.

The new RRACs will be composed of 11 members. In appointing members 

to the RRACs, the Secretary is to provide for a broad and balanced 

representation of the recreation community; table 21 outlines the 

requirements for the composition of the RRACs. Nominations for the new 

RRACs will be solicited during a 30-day nomination period established in a 

Federal Register notice that will be published once the interagency 

agreement is finalized.5

 The Secretary of Agriculture will make formal 

appointments to the RRACs once the nominations are received and 

evaluated by FS. According to agency officials, it is unknown how long the 

appointment process will take but it is hoped that nominees will be 

appointed within 90 days of issuance of the interagency agreement, which 

occurred on September 1, 2006. 

5

Under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, anyone can nominate individuals to serve on 

the RRAC. REA allows state Governors and designated county officials to submit 

nominations. Members of the RRACs will serve in staggered terms of 2 to 3 years. 
Appendix III

Information on Organizational Structure, 

Costs, and Membership Requirements of 

Recreation Resource Advisory Committees

Page 85 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

Table 21: Composition of the New RRACs

Source: GAO.

The RRACs and existing advisory councils may form subcommittees to 

allow for local representation and to provide additional advice and 

recommendations to the RRAC or existing advisory council. DOI and USDA 

will be providing advice on subcommittee membership; however, final 

determination on whether subcommittees are utilized and their 

membership will be the determination of the existing advisory councils and 

not the agencies involved. 

11 total members from the following three categories:

Five members who represent 

recreation users in the following 

categories:

• winter motorized recreation 

(e.g., snowmobiling),

• winter nonmotorized recreation 

(e.g., snowshoeing),

• summer motorized recreation 

(e.g., off-highway vehicles),

• summer nonmotorized 

recreation (e.g., backpacking), 

and

• hunting and fishing.

Three members who 

represent the following 

interest groups:

• motorized outfitters and 

guides,

• nonmotorized outfitters 

and guides, and

• local environmental 

groups.

Three members who 

represent the following:

• a state tourism official to 

represent the state,

• a person who represents 

affected Indian tribes, 

and

• a person who represents 

affected local government 

interests.
Page 86 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

Appendix IV

Information on Total Fee Revenues, Obligated 

Funds, and Unobligated Balances ApendxiIV

This appendix provides information on the fee revenue and obligations 

collected under the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program (Fee Demo) 

and the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (REA) as reported by 

the agencies to Congress. Table 22 shows the fee revenue, the funds 

obligated, and unobligated balances for fiscal years 2001 through 2005 for 

the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management, Fish and 

Wildlife Service, the National Park Service, and Department of 

Agriculture’s Forest Service.

Table 22: Fee Demo/REA Revenue and Obligations

Dollars in millions

Agency/account 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 

National Park Service

Fee Demo/REA revenue $126.2 $125.7 $123.5 $128.6 $128.2

Unobligated balance brought 

forward and recoveries 232.0 243.7 269.7 251.5 240.7

Funds obligated 116.4 101.9 142.3 141.1 125.2

Unobligated balance 241.7 267.5 250.9 239.1 243.6 

Fish and Wildlife Service

Fee Demo/REA revenue 3.7 3.6 3.8 3.9 4.3

Unobligated balance brought 

forward and recoveries 3.4 3.6 3.9 4.0 3.7

Funds obligated 3.6 3.4 3.7 4.3 4.4

Unobligated balance 3.5 3.8 4.0 3.5 3.6 

Bureau of Land Management 

Fee Demo/REA revenue 7.6 8.7 10.3 13.3 13.3

Unobligated balance brought 

forward and recoveries 4.8 5.6 5.4 0.2 7.7

Funds obligated 6.9 9.1 9.0 12.6 12.7

Unobligated balance 5.5 5.2 6.5 0.8 8.2 

Forest Service

Fee Demo/REA revenue 35.3 37.7 39.3 46.8 50.2

Unobligated balance brought 

forward and recoveries 20.9 26.9 22.0 25.4 35.7

Funds obligated 29.3 45.3 35.1 44.0 45.6

Unobligated balance 26.9 19.3 26.2 28.2 40.3 

Totals, all four agencies:

Fee Demo/REA revenue 172.8 175.7 176.9 192.5 196.0
Appendix IV

Information on Total Fee Revenues, 

Obligated Funds, and Unobligated Balances

Page 87 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

Sources: U.S. Departments of the Interior and Agriculture, Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act: First Triennial Report to 

Congress, Fiscal Year 2006 (Washington, D.C.: May 2006), p.68.

Dollars in millions

Agency/account 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 

Unobligated balance brought 

forward and recoveries 261.0 279.8 300.9 281.1 287.8

Total funds available $433.6 $455.4 $477.8 $480.1 $483.8

Funds obligated 156.2 159.7 190.1 202.0 187.9

Funds obligated as a percentage of 

total funds available 36.0% 35.1% 39.8% 41.9% 38.8%

Unobligated balance $277.6 $295.8 $287.6 $271.6 $295.8 
Page 88 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

Appendix V

Information on Participating Agencies’ 10 

Units with Largest Unobligated Fund Balances 

ApendxiV

This appendix provides information on the unobligated balances for 

recreation fee funds collected under the Recreational Fee Demonstration 

Program (Fee Demo) and the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act 

(REA). Table 23 shows the 10 units with the largest unobligated fund 

balances of recreation fees for Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 

National Park Service (NPS), Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and Forest 

Service (FS).

Table 23: Ten Largest Unobligated Balances of Recreation Fee Funds Reported by 

BLM, NPS, and FWS Units and FS Headquarters for Forests

Agency/unit

Fiscal year 2005 

end of year 

unobligated 

balance 

Fiscal year 

2005 total 

revenue

Unobligated 

balance as a 

percentage of 

total revenue

BLM

Shoshone Field Office $175,000 $214,000 82%

Cedar City Field Office 199,000 176,000 113

Monticello Field Office 219,000 259,330 84

Deschutes Resource Areas 226,000 694,600 33

Cottonwood Field Office 233,544 121,395 192

Las Cruces District Office 243,071 59,000 412

Umpqua Resource Areas 260,069 123,205 211

Coos Bay District Office 320,321 158,691 202

Winnemucca Field Office 490,000 749,784 65

El Centro Field Office 675,000 2,897,000 23

NPS

Jefferson National Expansion 

Memorial 3,019,449 2,608,161 116

Haleakala National Park 4,172,814 2,880,126 145

Sequoia and Kings Canyon 

National Park 4,447,870 3,163,540 141

Golden Gate National Recreation 

Area/Muir Woods National 

Monument 4,734,347 3,288,230 144

Lake Mead National Recreation 

Area 4,847,637 4,101,875 118

Mammoth Cave National Park 4,972,503 3,495,605 142

Hawaii Volcanoes National Park 5,262,769 3,799,829 139

Gateway National Recreation Area 6,641,400 2,436,786 273

Grand Canyon National Park 36,726,755 20,082,719 183
Appendix V

Information on Participating Agencies’ 10 

Units with Largest Unobligated Fund 

Balances 

Page 89 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

Sources: GAO survey and FS data.

a

Number not reported on survey.

b

FS unobligated balances and total revenue reported at the forest level rather than the unit level. In 

commenting on a draft of this report, FS officials noted that the national forests listed in this table are 

generally spending the same amount that they collect in one year. 

Yosemite National Park 36,730,533 15,019,482 245

FWS

Felsenthal National Wildlife Refuge 

(NWR) 43,431 30,872 141

Kodiak NWR 47,646 12,030 396

Klamath Basin NWR Complex 53,253 57,288 93

Nisqually NWR 63,544 43,022 148

Piedmont NWR 70,056 65,102 108

North Mississippi NWR Complex 75,907 a

J. N. Ding Darling NWR 80,000 297,743 27

Chincoteague NWR 120,000 712,000 17

Kilauea Point NWR 247,834 474,692 52

Crab Orchard NWR 644,868 349,996 184

FSb

Mississippi National Forests 652,660 256,215 255

George Washington-Jefferson 

National Forests 734,375 719,855 102

Cherokee National Forest 791,891 645,596 123

Salmon and Challis National 

Forests 844,523 713,703 118

Ouachita National Forest 897,116 234,864 382

North Carolina National Forests 948,046 913,094 104

Superior National Forest 1,084,595 495,739 219

Chattahoochee-Oconee National 

Forests 1,322,172 691,148 191

Angeles National Forest 1,823,616 637,199 286

Shasta-Trinity National Forest $2,769,806 $1,126,791 246%

(Continued From Previous Page)

Agency/unit

Fiscal year 2005 

end of year 

unobligated 

balance 

Fiscal year 

2005 total 

revenue

Unobligated 

balance as a 

percentage of 

total revenue
Page 90 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

Appendix VI

Comments from the Department of the 

Interior ApendxiVI

Note: GAO comments 

supplementing those in the 

report text appear at the end 

of this appendix.
Appendix VI

Comments from the Department of the 

Interior

Page 91 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

Now on pp. 6 and 18.

Now on p. 8.

Now on p. 8.

Now on p. 9.

Now on p. 11.

Now on p. 13.

Now on p. 17.

Now on p. 18.

Now on p. 19.

See comment 1.

Now on p. 8.

Now on p. 8.

See Highlights page.
Appendix VI

Comments from the Department of the 

Interior

Page 92 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

Now o

Now on p. 21.

Now on p. 22.

Now on p. 29.

Now on pp. 30 and 33.

See comment 2.

Now on p. 34.

Now on p. 39.

Now on p. 19.
Appendix VI

Comments from the Department of the 

Interior

Page 93 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

Now on p. 40.

Now on p. 42.

Now on p. 40.

Now on p. 41.

Now on p. 42.
Appendix VI

Comments from the Department of the 

Interior

Page 94 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

Now on p. 42.

Now on p. 42.

Now on p. 42.
Appendix VI

Comments from the Department of the 

Interior

Page 95 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

Now on p. 52.

Now on p. 6.

Now on p. 7.

See comment 3.

Now on p. 14.

See comment 4.

Now on p. 14.

Now on p. 30.

Now on p. 74.

Now on p. 43.
Appendix VI

Comments from the Department of the 

Interior

Page 96 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

Now on p. 78.

Now on p. 83.

Now on p. 85.

Now on p. 23.

Now on p. 31.

Now on p. 51.

Now on p. 10.

Now on p. 11.
Appendix VI

Comments from the Department of the 

Interior

Page 97 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

Now on p. 11.

Now on p. 23.

Now on p. 62.

Now on p. 63.

See comment 5.
Appendix VI

Comments from the Department of the 

Interior

Page 98 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

Now on pp. 6 and 14.

Now on p. 9.

See comment 6.

Now on p. 6.
Appendix VI

Comments from the Department of the 

Interior

Page 99 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

Now on p. 13.

See comment 7.

Now on p. 10.

Now on p. 14.

See comment 8.

Now on p. 15.

Now on p. 19.

See comment 9.

Now on p. 19.

Now on p. 20.
Appendix VI

Comments from the Department of the 

Interior

Page 100 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

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

dated September 12, 2006.

GAO Comments 1. We disagree with NPS’s comment concerning distribution of the new 

pass revenues. The NPS noted in its comments that “the revenue share 

formula appears to be identified.” However, the details of the formula 

have not yet been determined. The working group has only determined 

that the revenue will be distributed based on a formula that takes into 

account pass use and other factors. Therefore, the long-term revenue 

distribution strategy is unclear.

2. We stand by our description of NPS’ efforts to update its guidance on 

accounting and controlling collected fee revenues as “slow.” NPS’ 

current guidance on this subject was last published in 1989, which it 

recognizes as needing to be revised. In addition, the NPS’ statement 

that our report language indicates “NPS does have effective internal 

controls in place,” is incorrect. We specifically state that NPS units we 

visited, which are only 8 of 390, appear to have implemented 

reasonable accounting procedures and effective internal controls. 

Thus, we cannot attribute this condition to the entire universe of NPS 

units.

3. BLM provided additional detail on the results of their inquiries to units 

that responded to our survey that they did not offer all six amenities 

required to charge standard amenity fees under REA. We have 

summarized this information on pages 27 and 28 of the report. In 

essence, BLM officials imply from the results of their inquiries that their 

units did offer all six amenities required under REA. This new 

information would have to be verified to attest to its accuracy.

4. We agree that “slow” is a relative term but believe that it is used 

appropriately in the context of the information presented in the 

paragraph pertaining to the development of the RRACs. The 

information in the paragraph notes that, according to a June 2005 

interagency presentation, the RRACs were expected to be established 

with members appointed by the end of 2005. Since none of the 

members for any of the RRACs have been appointed, we feel 

comfortable in referring to this RRAC development as “slow.”

5. One of REA’s goals was to reduce visitor confusion. We believe that 

Reclamation’s approach to allowing each managing partner to make its 
Appendix VI

Comments from the Department of the 

Interior

Page 101 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

own determination of how REA impacts each unit, to include the 

decision of whether or not to accept the new pass, will create an 

inconsistent and more confusing system of fees for the visitors.

6. We disagree with DOI’s contention that evaluating the validity and 

interpreting the responses of units to our survey is problematic, since 

we have simply reported the survey results. The results we reported are 

based on two opinion survey questions that we asked both FS and DOI 

field-level officials to respond to. The first question asked if the unit 

officials believed recreation fee revenues are being used to fund the 

types of projects formerly funded with appropriations at their unit. The 

second question sought the officials’ opinions about the extent to 

which they believe that recreation fee revenue will be used to fund the 

types of projects over the next 5 years at their units that would have 

been funded with appropriated dollars. We recognize that individual 

units do not have agencywide perspectives on these issues. Also, 

including these survey results in our report is not intended to forecast 

the future, but rather to share the perspective of the survey 

respondents responsible for the on-the-ground implementation of this 

program. No GAO conclusions or recommendations were based on 

these stated perceptions.

7. The concerns noted in the background are general concerns that are 

frequently cited by critics of the fee program. Implementing both Fee 

Demo and the recreation fee program under REA has been 

controversial and many people and groups, such as the Western Slope 

No-Fee Coalition and the Arizona No-Fee Coalition, have spoken out 

against recreation fees.

8. Same as comment 4.

9. Since the working group has not determined a formula and how pass 

use or other factors will be considered in such a formula, it is still not 

clear how revenues will be distributed beyond the first 3 to 5 years of 

the pass program. Therefore, the long-term revenue distribution 

strategy is unclear. The potential problems with collecting pass use 

data are outlined in this report. Accurate pass-use data will be difficult 

to collect at remote locations and many units within the agencies do 

not have the infrastructure in place to collect pass-use data. This may 

lead units to have inaccurate pass-use data or data largely based on 

estimates. Since pass use revenue distribution will be tied to the passuse data, units and/or agencies may benefit from submitting inflated 
Appendix VI

Comments from the Department of the 

Interior

Page 102 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

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

collection of pass-use data.
Page 103 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

Appendix VII

Comments from the Forest Service ApendxiVI

Note: GAO comments 

supplementing those in 

the report text appear 

at the end of this 

appendix.
Appendix VII

Comments from the Forest Service

Page 104 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

Now on p. 5.

Now on p. 7.

See comment 1.
Appendix VII

Comments from the Forest Service

Page 105 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

Now on p. 22.

Now on p. 26.

Now on p. 27.

Now on p. 9.

See comment 2.

Now on p. 52.

Now on p. 58.

Now on pp. 14 and 15.

Now on p. 62.

Now on p. 10.

Now on p. 9.

Now on p. 9.

Now on p. 32.

Now on p. 14.
Appendix VII

Comments from the Forest Service

Page 106 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

Now on p. 14.

See comment 3.

Now on p. 17.

Now on p. 28.

See comment 4.

Now on p. 32.

See comment 5.

Now on p. 35.

Now on p. 51.

Now on p. 62.
Appendix VII

Comments from the Forest Service

Page 107 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

Now on p. 62.

Now on p. 62.

Now on p. 63.

Now on pp. 74 and 75.

Now on pp. 63 and 64.

Now on pp. 63 and 64.
Appendix VII

Comments from the Forest Service

Page 108 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

Now on p. 78.

Now on p. 81.

Now on p. 83.

Now on p. 85.

Now on p. 89.
Appendix VII

Comments from the Forest Service

Page 109 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

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

Forest Service letter dated September 7, 2006.

GAO Comments 1. FS provided additional detail on the results of their inquiries to units 

that responded to our survey that they did not offer all six amenities 

required to charge standard amenity fees under REA. We have 

summarized this information on pages 27 and 28 of the report. In 

essence, FS officials imply from the results of their inquiries that many 

of these unit officials were not aware of the type of fees they were 

charging or the amenities offered for the fees charged under the REA 

authority when they replied to our survey. This new information would 

have to be verified to attest to its accuracy.

2. The GAO survey was sent to 467 FS Ranger District officials directly 

responsible for implementation of the fee program, under REA. The 

results we reported are based on two opinion survey questions that we 

asked both FS and DOI field-level officials to respond to. The first 

question asked if the unit officials believed recreation fee revenues are 

being used to fund the types of projects formerly funded with 

appropriations at their unit. The second question sought the officials’ 

opinions about the extent to which they believe that recreation fee 

revenue will be used to fund the types of projects over the next 5 years 

at their units that would have been funded with appropriated dollars. 

We recognize that individual units do not have agencywide perspectives 

on these issues. Also, the inclusion of these survey results in our report 

is not intended as a forecast of the future but rather as a way to share 

the perspective of the survey respondents responsible for the on-theground implementation of this program. No GAO conclusions or 

recommendations were based on these stated perceptions. In addition, 

we have added the FS statement that, historically, fee revenues have 

not replaced appropriations, and there is no reason to expect this to 

change in the future in order to also share the agency’s official 

perspective on this issue.

3. We agree that “slow” is a relative term but believe that it is used 

appropriately in the context of the information presented in the 

paragraph pertaining to the development of the RRACs. The 

information in the paragraph notes that according to a June 2005 

interagency presentation, the RRACs were expected to be established 

with members appointed by the end of 2005. Since none of the 
Appendix VII

Comments from the Forest Service

Page 110 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

members for any of the RRACs have been appointed, we feel 

comfortable in referring to this RRAC development as “slow.”

4. We recognize that the FS interim implementation guidelines for REA 

have definitions of the standard amenities; however, these guidelines 

have not prevented confusion about amenity criteria. In their 

comments on a draft of this report (bottom of page 104), the FS 

contends 31 of their unit officials erroneously reported they were out of 

compliance with REA’s standard amenity requirements because they 

were either confused over the difference between standard and 

expanded amenities, or, because “there was misunderstanding over the 

definitions of the amenities.” Such results further highlight the need for 

more specific FS guidance on implementing and managing the fee 

program. 

5. We believe that for department-level management to have assurance 

that collected fees are controlled effectively and accounted for 

properly, detailed department- or bureau-level guidance on procedures 

are an important tool for local managers and imperative for those who 

have little or no formal accounting training or background.
Page 111 GAO-06-1016 Recreation Fees

Appendix VIII

GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments ApendxiVI

GAO Contact Robin Nazzaro (202) 512-3841or nazzaror@gao.gov

Staff 

Acknowledgments

In addition to the individual named above, Roy Judy, Assistant Director; 

Carolyn Boyce; Elizabeth Curda; John Delicath; Denise Fantone; Doreen 

Feldman; Timothy Guinane; Anne Hobson; Susan Irving; Stanley Kostyla; 

Diane Lund; Robert Martin; Matt Michaels; Angie Nichols-Friedman; Lesley 

Rinner; John Scott; Jack Warner; and Amy Webbink made key 

contributions to this report.

(360596) 
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