United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to Congressional Requesters

November 1998 RECREATION FEES

Demonstration Fee

Program Successful in

Raising Revenues but

Could Be Improved

GAO/RCED-99-7

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

Resources, Community, and

Economic Development Division

B-280840 

November 20, 1998

The Honorable Craig Thomas

Chairman, Subcommittee on Parks,

 Historic Preservation, and Recreation

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

United States Senate

The Honorable James V. Hansen

Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks

 and Public Lands

Committee on Resources

House of Representatives

This report responds to your request that we review the implementation by four agencies of the

recreational fee demonstration program. The four agencies are the Park Service, the Forest

Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the Fish and Wildlife Service. We have reviewed

the program, focusing on (1) the implementation of the program and the fee revenues

generated; (2) the program’s expenditures; (3) the extent to which the agencies have used

innovative or coordinated approaches to fee collection; and (4) the program’s effects, if any, on

visitation.

As arranged with your offices, unless you publicly announce its contents earlier, we plan no

further distribution of this report until 10 days after the date of this letter. At that time, we will

send copies to the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior and to the heads of the Park

Service, the Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the Fish and Wildlife Service.

We will make copies available to others on request.

Please contact me at (202) 512-3841 if you or your staff have any questions. Major contributors

to this report are listed in appendix VIII.

Barry T. Hill

Associate Director, Energy,

 Resources, and Science Issues
Executive Summary

Purpose For many years, the Congress has expressed concern about the ability of

federal land management agencies to provide high-quality recreational

opportunities to visitors. These agencies include the Park Service, the Fish

and Wildlife Service, and the Bureau of Land Management within the

Department of the Interior and the Forest Service within the Department

of Agriculture. The recreational fee demonstration program, authorized in

1996, allows these agencies to test new or increased fees to help address

unmet needs for visitor services, repairs and maintenance, and resource

management. In response to congressional requests, GAO reviewed the

demonstration program, focusing on (1) the implementation of the

program and the fee revenues generated; (2) the program’s expenditures;

(3) the extent to which the agencies have used innovative or coordinated

approaches to fee collection; and (4) the program’s effects, if any, on

visitation.

Background Prior to the fee demonstration program, each of the four land management

agencies had collected fees from visitors for many years. The

demonstration program legislation allows these agencies to experiment

with new or increased fees at up to 100 demonstration sites per agency.

Key congressional expectations for the program included providing more

money to address unmet needs, encouraging creativity in designing and

collecting fees, developing partnerships among agencies, and improving

agencies’ customer service. At least 80 percent of the revenues is to be

spent at the site collecting the fees; the remaining 20 percent can be spent

at the discretion of each agency. The program is currently authorized

through fiscal year 2001, and funds from fee revenues must be spent by the

end of fiscal year 2004.

Results in Brief Among the four agencies, the pace and the approach used to implement

the recreational fee demonstration program have differed. Some of the

agencies had more demonstration sites operational earlier than others.

This difference reflects the extent of the agencies’ experiences in charging

fees prior to the demonstration. Nonetheless, each agency has been

successful in increasing fee revenues. As a result of the fee demonstration

program, the four agencies estimated that their combined recreational fee

revenues have nearly doubled from about $93 million in fiscal year

1996—the last year before the demonstration program was

implemented—to about $179 million in fiscal year 1998. Of the four

agencies, the Park Service is generating the most fee revenues. For fiscal

year 1998, the Park Service estimates that its fee revenues will be about

Page 2 GAO/RCED-99-7 Recreational Fees
Executive Summary

85 percent of the total estimated revenues collected by the four agencies at

demonstration sites.

Because agencies needed to spend time developing expenditure-approval

procedures and setting up accounting systems, among other things, about

76 percent of the funds available under the program had not been spent

through March 1998. Thus far, most expenditures have been for repairs

and maintenance and the cost of fee collection. The agencies expect to

make significant expenditures in the latter part of fiscal year 1998 and in

fiscal year 1999. In the longer term, because some sites may have a much

greater potential than others for raising revenues, the requirement that at

least 80 percent of the fees be retained at the location where they were

collected may lead to substantial inequities between sites. Some sites may

reach the point where they have more revenues than they need for their

projects, while other sites still do not have enough.

Opportunities remain for the agencies to be more innovative and

cooperative in designing, setting, and collecting fees. Among the agencies,

several notable examples of innovation exist at demonstration sites of the

Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management. These innovations

have resulted in either more equitable pricing for the visitors, such as by

setting fees based on the extent of the visitors’ use of a site, or greater

convenience for visitors in how they pay fees. While a third agency—the

Park Service—has been innovative in making fees more convenient for

visitors to pay, it has not experimented with different pricing structures to

make fees more equitable. In addition, coordination of fees among

agencies has been erratic. For example, at the 15 demonstration sites GAO

visited, it found several opportunities where better coordination among

the agencies could have resulted in, among other things, better service to

the visitors by removing multiple or duplicative fees at adjacent sites.

Overall, preliminary data suggest the increased or new fees have had no

major adverse effect on visitation to the fee demonstration sites. With data

from just 1 year, however, it is difficult to accurately assess the fees’

impact on visitation. The agencies’ surveys indicate that visitors generally

support the purposes of the program and the level of the fees

implemented. Each agency is planning additional visitor surveys and

research in 1998 and 1999. However, some groups have raised concerns

about gaps in the research. For example, many completed visitor surveys

do not address the impact of fees on some types of visitors, such as those

with low incomes.

Page 3 GAO/RCED-99-7 Recreational Fees
Executive Summary

Principal Findings

Recreational Fee Revenues

Have Increased

Substantially

Since obtaining the authority to begin collecting new and increased fees,

each of the agencies has taken a different approach. The agencies’

approaches have largely been influenced by (1) their traditions and

experiences in collecting fees, (2) the geographic characteristics of the

lands they manage, and (3) a recent amendment to the law authorizing the

demonstration program that increased incentives to the agencies by

allowing them to retain all of the fee revenues collected. As a result of

these differing approaches, the pace of implementation among the

agencies has varied.

While their approaches have differed, the agencies have nonetheless been

successful in increasing fee revenues. Because of the fee demonstration

program, the four agencies estimated that total fee revenues nearly

doubled from about $93 million in fiscal year 1996—the last year prior to

the implementation of the demonstration program—to about $179 million

in fiscal year 1998. Of the $179 million in estimated fee revenues in fiscal

year 1998, about $160 million, or 89 percent, was generated at the

agencies’ fee demonstration sites.

Among the agencies, the Park Service has collected the most revenues

under the program, based on estimates for fiscal year 1998, generating

about 85 percent of the revenues collected by the four agencies. The

principal reason the Park Service is generating so much revenue is that it

manages a large number of high-revenue sites. For example, in fiscal year

1997, the Park Service managed 28 sites that each generated over

$1 million. In comparison, the Forest Service managed two such sites, and

neither the Bureau of Land Management nor the Fish and Wildlife Service

managed any sites with revenues above $1 million.

Most Fee Collections

Remain Unspent

About 76 percent of the revenues available for expenditure under the fee

demonstration program through March 1998 had yet to be spent. This

situation was due to a variety of reasons, including the time the agencies

spent developing (1) financial systems and (2) internal processes for

headquarters’ oversight of expenditures. Overall, most of the revenues that

were expended went toward repair and maintenance, the cost of fee

collection, and routine operations at the respective sites. At the sites GAO

visited, the agencies’ expenditures appeared to be consistent with the

Page 4 GAO/RCED-99-7 Recreational Fees
Executive Summary

purposes authorized in the legislation establishing the program. Among

the sites visited, the largest amount of expenditures was for the capital

and operating costs of fee collection. The next largest category of

expenditures was for annual operations, such as restoring visitor services

at Mount St. Helens National Volcanic Monument in Washington State.

Other funds were expended for backlogged repairs and maintenance and

for visitor services.

For many sites—particularly those of the Park Service and the Forest

Service—the increased fee revenues equals 20 percent or more of the sites’

annual budgets. With this infusion of revenues, some units with

maintenance backlogs will be able to address their unmet needs in

relatively few years, and other units with small or nonexistent backlogs

will be able to undertake further development and

enhancement—assuming appropriations remain stable and the program is

extended. But other sites, including those that are not in the

demonstration program and those that do not generate high fee revenues,

may not be able to address some high-priority needs. While it is important

to maintain incentives to collect fees, this imbalance in revenues may raise

questions about the desirability of the current legislative requirement that

at least 80 percent of the fee revenues be expended at the sites where they

are collected.

Opportunities for More

Innovation and

Coordination

Some agencies have missed opportunities to develop innovative fee

programs—which was one of the principal goals of the authorizing

legislation. While the agencies have been innovative in making it more

convenient for visitors to pay fees, more can be done to experiment with

the fee rates that visitors pay. Among the agencies, GAO found several

notable examples of innovation that have resulted in greater convenience

for visitors by increasing the number of locations where visitors can pay

fees. These innovations include using machines similar to automated teller

machines (ATM) outside the sites to sell entrance passes and using the

Internet to sell hiking permits. In addition, two agencies—the Forest

Service and the Bureau of Land Management—have experimented with

different pricing structures, such as setting fees that vary on the basis of

(1) the extent of use or (2) whether the visit occurred during a peak

period, such as a weekend. Such pricing has resulted in greater equity to

the visitors and would appear to have broader applicability in the other

agencies as well. However, the Park Service has done little to experiment

with different pricing structures.

Page 5 GAO/RCED-99-7 Recreational Fees
Executive Summary

GAO’s site reviews found several instances in which the agencies have

attempted to coordinate, resulting in multiple benefits for the public. One

example was at the American Fork Canyon/Alpine Loop Recreation Area

in Utah, a joint project between the Forest Service’s Uinta National Forest

and the Park Service’s Timpanogos Cave National Monument. Timpanogos

Cave is surrounded by the Uinta National Forest, and common road access

enabled the agencies to charge one fee for entrance. Such coordination

can reduce agencies’ operating costs, strengthen resource management

activities, and provide more agency personnel to assist visitors. However,

other examples were noted in which coordination can still be improved.

For example, Olympic National Park and Olympic National Forest in

Washington State share a common border, yet backcountry visitors using

trails crossing the lands of the Park Service and the Forest Service are

required to pay multiple fees, which has led to confusion for visitors. GAO

also found other instances in which agencies managing adjacent lands

have not consolidated or eliminated multiple fees that may confuse

visitors.

Visitation Appears Largely

Unaffected by the

Demonstration Program

Overall, visitation in fiscal year 1997 did not appear to be adversely

affected by the implementation of new or increased fees, although visits

did decline at a number of fee demonstration sites. For the four agencies,

visitation at the demonstration sites increased overall by 5 percent,

compared with 4 percent at the nondemonstration sites. Of the 206

demonstration sites, visitation increased at 120 sites, declined at 84 sites,

and remained unchanged at 2 sites. However, with data from only 1 year, it

is difficult to draw definitive conclusions, either about the lack of a

negative effect on visitation at most sites or about whether fees had an

impact at sites where visitation declined.

The agencies’ research on visitors’ reactions to new or increased fees

shows that visitors generally support the fee demonstration program and

the amount of the entrance or user fees charged. Visitors especially

endorsed the retention of the fees at the sites where they were collected

so that they could be used to fund the sites’ needs. For example, a 1997

Park Service survey at 11 national park units showed that 83 percent of the

respondents were either satisfied with the fees they paid or thought the

fees were too low. All four agencies plan additional surveys of visitors in

1998 and 1999. However, some interest groups and recreation fee experts

have identified some gaps in the research. For example, some of the visitor

surveys will not address the impact of fees on certain groups, such as

those not visiting recreation sites, backcountry users, and low-income

Page 6 GAO/RCED-99-7 Recreational Fees
Executive Summary

users. Therefore, the impact of the fee demonstration program on these

groups is largely unknown.

Recommendations GAO recommends that the Secretary of the Interior direct the heads of the

Park Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service to take advantage of the

time remaining under the fee demonstration authority to look for further

opportunities to experiment and innovate with new and existing fees. The

pricing structures used by the Forest Service, the Bureau of Land

Management, and commercial recreation providers such as amusement

parks, golf courses, and ski areas—all of which set fees that vary on the

basis of (1) the extent of use or (2) whether the visit occurred during a

peak period, such as a weekend—could provide useful models.

GAO also recommends that the Secretary of the Interior direct the heads of

the Park Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Bureau of Land

Management and that the Secretary of Agriculture direct the Chief of the

Forest Service to improve their service to visitors by better coordinating

their fee-collection activities under the recreational fee demonstration

program. To address this issue, each agency should perform a review of

each of its demonstration sites to identify other federal recreation areas

nearby. Once identified, these locations should be reviewed to determine

whether a coordinated approach, such as a reciprocal fee arrangement,

would better serve the visiting public.

Matters for

Congressional

Consideration

As the Congress decides on the future of the fee demonstration program, it

may wish to consider whether to modify the current requirement that at

least 80 percent of all fee revenues remain in the units generating the

revenues. Permitting some further flexibility in where fee revenues can be

spent, particularly the fees from high-revenue sites, would provide greater

opportunities to address the highest-priority needs of the agencies.

However, any change to the 80-percent requirement would have to be

balanced against the need to maintain incentives at fee-collecting units

and to maintain the support of the visitors.

Agency Comments

and GAO’S Evaluation

GAO provided copies of a draft of this report to the Department of

Agriculture and the Department of the Interior for their review and

comment. The Department of Agriculture generally agreed with the

findings and recommendations in the report and stated that the report was

well done and would prove quite useful in its efforts to continue the

Page 7 GAO/RCED-99-7 Recreational Fees
Executive Summary

effective implementation of the fee demonstration program. The Forest

Service raised concerns about the matter for consideration on the need for

flexibility in the requirement that 80 percent of the revenues be spent at

the collecting units. GAO continues to believe this requirement should be

considered for high-revenue sites but must be balanced against the need to

maintain incentives for the fee-collecting units and to maintain the support

of visitors to those sites. The Department of the Interior generally agreed

with the findings in the report and indicated that the agencies within the

Department are aware of the issues raised in the report and will continue

to refine their recreational fee projects to ensure the best possible

experience for visitors. In addition, the Department of the Interior noted

that its agencies have struggled to find the right balance of innovation and

simplicity in their fee structures. While the Department generally agreed

with the findings of the report, agencies within the Department raised

concerns about sections of it. The Park Service objected to findings about

innovative fees and doubted that the recommendation to increase

innovation would be feasible, as it could result in increased processing

time at entrance stations, confused visitors, and complex fee schedules

and could also make enforcement of fees more difficult. GAO believes,

however, that because price structures could be used to better manage

demand and could have potential benefits to park visitors, they warrant

further testing. The Fish and Wildlife Service commented that the

opportunities for off-peak pricing are limited to those sites that have

sufficient numbers of visitors to create crowding during peak

periods—which creates an incentive for off-peak use. GAO agrees that the

opportunities to experiment may be limited to those sites where there is

enough visitation to warrant off-peak pricing.

More detailed discussions of the comments from individual agencies

within the departments of Agriculture and the Interior are included at the

end of chapters 3 and 4. These agencies also provided clarifications on

several technical points that have been included in the report as

appropriate. The full text of the comments and GAO’s responses are

included in appendix VI for the Department of the Interior and appendix

VII for the Department of Agriculture.

Page 8 GAO/RCED-99-7 Recreational Fees
Page 9 GAO/RCED-99-7 Recreational Fees
Contents

Executive Summary 2

Chapter 1 

Introduction

14

Background 14

Scope and Methodology 19

Chapter 2 

Fee Revenues Have

Substantially

Increased—

Particularly in the

Park Service

23

The Pace and the Approach Used to Implement the Fee

Demonstration Program Have Differed

23

Recreational Fee Revenues Have Increased Substantially 29

Chapter 3 

Spending Has Been

Limited, but There

Are Significant

Opportunities for

Addressing Needs

33

The Agencies Have Used Only 24 Percent of the Funds Available 33

Most Expenditures Have Been for Repairs and Maintenance, the

Cost of Fee Collection, and Operations

35

Expenditures May Not Reflect Agencies’ Greatest Needs 44

Conclusions 53

Matter for Congressional Consideration 54

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 54

Chapter 4 

Greater Innovation

and Improved

Coordination Will

Enhance Program

Effectiveness

56

Innovations Have Benefited Visitors, but Further Opportunities

Exist

56

Cooperation and Coordination Among the Agencies Could Be

Improved

61

Conclusion 72

Recommendations 72

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 73

Page 10 GAO/RCED-99-7 Recreational Fees
Contents

Chapter 5 

Early Information

Suggests Overall

Visitation Was Largely

Unaffected by

Recreational Fees, but

Some Users Voiced

Concerns

75

Preliminary Data Suggest No Major Adverse Effect on Visitation

From New Recreational Fees

75

Initial Visitation Research Shows General Support for Fee

Demonstration Program

79

Interest Groups Generally Support New Fee Program, but Some

Voice Concerns

85

Appendixes Appendix I: Recreational Fee Gross Revenues, Fiscal Years

1996-98

88

Appendix II: Details on Expenditures at the Park Service’s Sites

GAO Visited

89

Appendix III: Details on Expenditures at the Forest Service’s

Sites GAO Visited

94

Appendix IV: Details on Expenditures at the Fish and Wildlife

Service’s Sites GAO Visited

96

Appendix V: Details on Expenditures at the BLM’s Sites GAO

Visited

97

Appendix VI: Comments From the Department of the Interior and

Our Evaluation

98

Appendix VII: Comments From the Department of Agriculture

and Our Evaluation

108

Appendix VIII: Major Contributors to This Report 114

Related GAO Products 115

Tables Table 1.1: Federal Land Management Agencies’ Responsibilities 15

 Table 1.2: Sites Visited by GAO, by Agency 19

 Table 1.3: Industry and User Groups Contacted by GAO 21

 Table 2.1: Fee Demonstration Sites, by Agency, for Fiscal Year

1997 and Fiscal Year 1998 Through March 31, 1998

29

 Table 3.1: Fee Revenues Available for Expenditure and Actual

Expenditures for Four Agencies, From October 1, 1996, Through

March 31, 1998

34

Page 11 GAO/RCED-99-7 Recreational Fees
Contents

 Table 3.2: The Park Service’s Demonstration Sites Retaining

Fiscal Year 1998 Fee Revenues That Exceeded 20 Percent of

Their Operating Budgets

45

 Table 3.3: Forest Service Demonstration Sites With Fiscal Year

1997 Fee Revenues Exceeding 20 Percent of Their Operating

Budgets

49

 Table 4.1: Fees for Two Adults Taking a 3-Day, 2-Night Hike

From Lena Creek in Olympic National Forest to Upper Lena Lake

in Olympic National Park

70

 Table 5.1: Visitation at Recreational Fee Demonstration Sites,

1996-97

76

 Table 5.2: Changes in Visitation at Recreational Fee

Demonstration Sites, 1996-97

76

Figures Figure 2.1: Map of Arches National Park in Utah 25

Figure 2.2: Map of White Mountain National Forest in New

Hampshire and Maine

26

Figure 2.3: New Entrance Station Under Construction at Red

Rock Canyon—a BLM Demonstration Site in Nevada

28

Figure 2.4: New Fee Receptacle and Signs Installed for New

Self-Service Fee at Tonto National Forest in Arizona

28

Figure 2.5: Total Fee Revenues for the Four Agencies, Fiscal

Years 1996-98

30

Figure 2.6: Percentage of Total Fiscal Year 1998 Estimated

Revenues for the Fee Demonstration Program, by Each Agency

32

Figure 3.1: Combined Categories of Expenditure at the Park

Service, the Forest Service, and the Fish and Wildlife Service as

of March 31, 1998

36

Figure 3.2: Categories of Actual Expenditures by the Park

Service’s Demonstration Program Sites Through March 31, 1998

39

Figure 3.3: Categories of Actual Expenditures by the Forest

Service’s Demonstration Program Sites Through March 31, 1998

41

Figure 3.4: Categories of Actual Expenditures by the Fish and

Wildlife Service’s Demonstration Program Sites Through

March 31, 1998

43

Figure 4.1: Joint Entrance Station at American Fork Canyon,

Uinta National Forest, Utah

62

Figure 4.2: Bridge Rehabilitation in Popular Picnic Area at

American Fork Canyon, Utah

63

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

National Conservation Area

66

Page 12 GAO/RCED-99-7 Recreational Fees
Contents

Figure 4.4: Hiking Trails Using Olympic National Park and

Olympic National Forest

69

Figure 4.5: Assateague Island National Seashore and

Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge

71

Figure II.1: Photos of Projects Paid for by the Olympic National

Park’s Demonstration Program Revenues: Road Project and

Replacement of Picnic Tabletops

90

Figure II.2a: Shenandoah National Park’s Vista Clearing Project:

Typical Area Where Historic Vista Along Skyline Drive Is

Obscured by Tree Growth

91

Figure II.2b: Shenandoah National Park’s Vista Clearing Project:

Area Where Trees Were Cleared From Historic Vista Along

Skyline Drive

92

Figure II.3: Rehabilitation of the Zion National Park Watchman

Campground Campsites and New Group Shelter

93

Figure III.1: Reconstruction of the Tibble Fork Parking Area of

American Fork Canyon Recreation Area, Uinta National Forest

94

Figure III.2: Reconstructed Boat Launch at the Saguaro del Norte

Recreation Site in Tonto National Forest

95

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

National Wildlife Refuge

96

Figure V.1: New Entrance Fee-Collection Facility Under

Construction at BLM’s Red Rock National Conservation Area

97

Abbreviations

ATM automated teller machine

BLM Bureau of Land Management

GAO General Accounting Office

Page 13 GAO/RCED-99-7 Recreational Fees
Chapter 1 

Introduction

In recent years, the Congress heard and expressed concerns about the

ability of federal land management agencies to provide high-quality

recreational opportunities. These concerns focused on declines in visitor

services, extensive needs for repairs and maintenance at the facilities and

infrastructure that support recreation, and a lack of information on the

condition of natural and cultural resources and the trends affecting them.

In addressing these concerns, the Congress faced a dilemma: While the

needs of federal recreation areas and the rate of visitation to these areas

were increasing, the funding for addressing these needs and providing

visitor services was growing tighter.1

 As a result, the Congress was looking

for means, other than appropriations, to provide additional resources to

these areas. The recreational fee demonstration program was one such

means.

Authorized by the Congress in 1996 as a 3-year pilot program, the

recreational fee demonstration program allows the Park Service, the

Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and the Fish and

Wildlife Service to experiment with new or increased fees at up to 100

demonstration sites per agency.2

 The program aims to bring additional

resources to recreation lands by generating recreational fee revenues and

spending most of the fee revenues at the sites where the fees are collected

to increase the quality of the visitors’ experience and to enhance the

protection of the sites’ resources. In addition, in carrying out the program,

the agencies are to (1) be creative and innovative in designing and testing

the collection of fees, (2) develop partnerships with federal agencies and

with state and local agencies, (3) provide higher levels of service to the

public, and (4) assess the public’s satisfaction with the program. The

conference report on the program’s original legislation requested that the

Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture each prepare a

report that evaluates the demonstration program, including

recommendations for further legislation, by March 31, 1999. The program

is currently authorized through fiscal year 2001. The agencies have until

the end of fiscal year 2004 to spend money generated under the program.

Background Each of the four federal land management agencies included in the

program provides a variety of recreational opportunities to the visiting

1

The Budget Enforcement Act, as amended, imposes limits on discretionary spending, which includes

these agencies’ appropriations.

2

P.L. 104-134, title III, section 315, as amended. The latest amendment, P.L. 105-277, in the Omnibus

Appropriations bill for fiscal year 1999, approved October 21, 1998, extended the demonstration to

September 30, 2001. The availability of funds was also extended 2 years through September 30, 2004.

Page 14 GAO/RCED-99-7 Recreational Fees
Chapter 1 

Introduction

public. Together, these agencies manage over 630 million acres of

land—over one-quarter of the land in the United States. In 1997, they

received over 1.2 billion visits. Table 1.1 provides information on the

acreage, visitation, and lands managed by the four agencies.

Table 1.1: Federal Land Management

Agencies’ Responsibilities

Agency Acreage

Visitors

(1997) Lands managed

Park Service 83 million 275 million 376 park units, from large natural parks to

small historic sites in 49 states, the District

of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam,

Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands

Forest Service 192 million 885 million

(est.)

155 national forests and 20 national

grasslands in 44 states and Puerto Rico

BLM 264 million 61 million 139 resource areas in 28 states

Fish and

Wildlife Service

92 million 30 million 503 national wildlife refuges, 65 national

fish hatcheries, and other units in all 50

states, Puerto Rico, 3 territories, and 5

Pacific island possessions

Source: Agency data compiled by GAO.

Deteriorating Conditions

Have Created a Need for

Additional Financial

Resources

The fee demonstration program was established to test ways to address

deteriorating conditions at many federal recreation areas, particularly

those managed by the Park Service, which collects the most fee revenues,

and the Forest Service, which hosts the most recreational visitors. Our

prior work has detailed significant needs,3

 including the following:

• The federal land management agencies have accumulated a

multibillion-dollar backlog of maintenance, infrastructure, and

development needs.

• The quality and the scope of visitor services at federal recreation sites

have been declining. Some sites have closed facilities, while others have

reduced their hours of operation or are providing fewer services.

• The condition of many key natural and cultural resources in the national

park system is deteriorating, and the condition of many others is not

known.

• Despite annual increases in federal appropriations for operating the

national park system, the financial resources available have not been

sufficient to stem the deterioration of the resources, services, and

recreational opportunities managed by the agency.

3

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

Page 15 GAO/RCED-99-7 Recreational Fees
Chapter 1 

Introduction

One way of addressing these needs was providing additional financial

resources to these agencies through new or increased recreational fees.

But while new or increased fees could have increased the federal land

management agencies’ revenues, generally these additional fees did not

directly benefit the agencies’ field units until the fee demonstration

program was established.4

 The Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965,

as amended,5

 limited the amount of revenues that could be raised through

collecting recreational fees and required that the funds be deposited in a

special U.S. Treasury account. The funds in the special Treasury account

could only be used for certain purposes, including resource protection and

maintenance activities, and only became available through congressional

appropriations.6

 These amounts were generally treated as a part of, rather

than a supplement to, the agencies’ regular appropriations, and were

included under the spending limits imposed by the Budget Enforcement

Act. In the context of the Budget Enforcement Act’s limits, in order for the

agencies to address deteriorating conditions at recreation areas through

fee revenues, the Congress had to provide authority for the agencies to

retain the fees.

In 1996, the Congress authorized the fee demonstration program to test

recreational fees as a source of additional financial resources for the

federal land management agencies. The Congress directed that at least

80 percent of the revenues collected under the program be spent at the

units collecting the fees; the remaining 20 percent could be spent at the

discretion of each agency.7

 By allowing the local units to retain such a

large percentage of the fees they collected, the Congress created a

powerful incentive for unit managers to emphasize fee collections. In

essence, the more revenues that field units could generate through fees,

the more they would have to spend on improving conditions in the areas

they managed. In addition, the program’s legislative history reflected the

congressional belief that allowing the local units to retain most of the

revenues they collected would be likely to improve the public’s

4

However, the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986, 16 U.S.C. 3911, which authorized entrance

fees for Fish and Wildlife Service refuges, did provide that 70 percent of those fees be placed into the

migratory bird conservation fund for nationwide acquisition of refuge lands and that 30 percent be

retained by the refuges to offset the cost of collection, operation, and maintenance.

5

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

6

Under the act, the Secretaries of Agriculture and of the Interior could retain up to 15 percent of fee

receipts to cover the cost of collection.

7

For fiscal year 1997, the distribution of revenues applied only to those fee revenues that exceeded the

amounts collected prior to the program. For fiscal 1998, the law was amended to permit the agencies

to retain all revenues at fee demonstration sites.

Page 16 GAO/RCED-99-7 Recreational Fees
Chapter 1 

Introduction

acceptance of the fees. This belief was consistent with past studies of

visitors to recreation areas that indicated that most visitors would support

increases in fees if the fees remained at the local units.8

Under the legislation, the program’s expenditures were to be used to

increase the quality of visitors’ experiences at public recreation areas and

to enhance the protection of resources. Specifically, authorized

expenditures were to address backlogged repair and maintenance

projects; enhancements to interpretation, signage, habitats, or facilities;

and resource preservation, annual operations (including fee collections),

maintenance, and law enforcement relating to public use. In broad terms,

these authorized expenditures cover the principal aspects of managing

recreation areas on federal lands.

The legislation also provided an opportunity for the agencies to be creative

and innovative in developing and testing fees by giving them the flexibility

to develop a wide variety of fee proposals, including some that were

nontraditional as well as others that simply increased previously existing

fees. During the demonstration period, the agencies were to experiment

with (1) various types of fees to determine what does and does not work

and (2) various methods of collecting fees to make payment easier and

more convenient for the visiting public. In addition, according to the

program’s legislative history, the agencies were expected to coordinate

with each other, as well as with state and local recreation areas, so that

visitors did not face numerous fees from several agencies in the same

geographic area. Coordination among the agencies could yield better

service to the public, thereby potentially improving the program’s chances

of success.

Agencies May Charge

Several Types of Fees

Federal land management agencies have traditionally charged several

types of fees to visitors, all of which may still be charged under the fee

demonstration program. Most of these fees can be categorized generally as

either entrance or user fees.

• Entrance fees are generally charged for short-term access to federal

recreation sites. Most are charged on a per-vehicle basis, but some are

charged to individuals hiking or cycling into a recreation area. The

entrance fee gives the visitor access to the key features of the area. For

example, visitors pay $10 per car to enter Zion National Park in Utah; this

8

National Opinion Survey on the National Park System, National Parks and Conservation Association

(Feb. 1995), and Parks Canada Revenue Strategy, Parks Canada (Nov. 1994).

Page 17 GAO/RCED-99-7 Recreational Fees
Chapter 1 

Introduction

fee covers everyone in the vehicle and is good for up to a week. Another

example of an entrance fee is collected within the Wasatch-Cache National

Forest in Utah, where visitors to the Mirror Lake area pay an entrance fee

of either $3 per vehicle for a day or $6 per vehicle for a week.

• Annual passes allow entrance or use of a site for the next 12 months,

benefiting frequent visitors to a single recreation area, such as a park or

forest. For example, instead of paying a $10 entrance fee every time they

drive into Shenandoah National Park in Virginia, frequent visitors can

purchase an annual pass for $20, which will give them unlimited access to

the park during the next year. Similarly, in the White Mountain National

Forest in New Hampshire, visitors can pay $20 for an annual pass rather

than pay $5 for a daily vehicle pass.

• The Golden Eagle Passport provides unlimited entry for a year to most

national parks, Fish and Wildlife Service sites where entrance fees are

charged, and several Forest Service and BLM sites. Costing $50 for the

purchaser and his or her passengers in a privately owned vehicle, the

passport can be economical when people are planning to visit a number of

sites that charge entrance fees within a single year. While the Golden

Eagle Passport covers entrance fees, it does not cover most user fees;9

hence, passport holders pay separately for activities such as boat

launching, camping, parking, or going on an interpretive tour.

• User fees are charged for engaging in specific activities. They are generally

charged to individuals or groups for activities such as boat launching,

camping, parking, or going on an interpretive tour. For example,

individuals pay $3 for a guided interpretive tour of the Frederick Douglass

home at the Frederick Douglass National Historic Site in Washington, D.C.

Another example of a user fee is at Paria Canyon, a BLM demonstration site

in Utah, where visitors pay $5 per day for hiking or backpacking.

Individual sites may charge several types of fees for entry and other

activities. For example, a demonstration site may have a $10 entrance fee,

good for 7 days, and a $20 annual pass. In addition, visitors to the site may

pay user fees for a variety of specific activities, such as backcountry

hiking, camping, interpretive tours, or disposing of waste from a

recreational vehicle.

9

Another annual pass, the Federal Duck Stamp, provides entry to all Fish and Wildlife Service refuges

that charge entrance fees. Officially known as the migratory bird hunting and conservation stamp, it

was originally authorized in 1934 as a federal permit to hunt waterfowl. It costs $15 per year and can

be used as a hunting permit as well as an entry pass. However, by law, revenues from the Federal Duck

Stamp are earmarked for acquiring wetlands. Therefore, the Federal Duck Stamp is not currently part

of the fee demonstration program.

Page 18 GAO/RCED-99-7 Recreational Fees
Chapter 1 

Introduction

Scope and

Methodology

Our review included fee demonstration sites in the Park Service, the

Forest Service, BLM, and the Fish and Wildlife Service. At each of these

agencies, we contacted staff from headquarters and at least two regional

offices. In addition, we visited 15 judgmentally selected sites operated by

the four agencies. More of the selected sites were operated by the Park

Service than by any other agency because the Park Service (1) had the

most sites in the program and (2) generates considerably more fee

revenues than any of the other agencies. The 15 selected sites were both

large and small and were located throughout the country in eight different

states and the District of Columbia. Table 1.2 lists the sites, by agency.

Table 1.2: Sites Visited by GAO, by

Agency Agency/site Location

Park Service

Assateague Island National Seashore Maryland

Carlsbad Caverns National Park New Mexico

Frederick Douglass National Historic Site Washington, D.C.

Olympic National Park Washington State

Shenandoah National Park Virginia

Timpanogos Cave National Monument Utah

Zion National Park Utah

Fish and Wildlife Service

Bosque del Apache National Wildlife Refuge New Mexico

Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge Virginia

Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Washington State

Forest Service

American Fork Canyon-Alpine Loop

Recreation Area, Uinta National Forest

Utah

Mount St. Helens National Volcanic

Monument, Gifford Pinchot National Forest

Washington State

Roosevelt Lake, Salt and Verde Rivers

Recreation Complex, Tonto National Forest

Arizona

BLM

Red Rock Canyon National Conservation

Area

Nevada

Yaquina Head Outstanding Natural Area Oregon

We collected information on revenues, expenditures, and visitation from

the headquarters offices of the four agencies and the 15 sites we visited.

For each agency’s revenues and expenditures, we collected actual data for

fiscal year 1997 and the agency’s estimates for fiscal year 1998. At each of

the 15 sites, we collected more detailed information on revenues, such as

Page 19 GAO/RCED-99-7 Recreational Fees
Chapter 1 

Introduction

the types of fees and the methods used to collect fees. We also compared

actual with planned expenditures and classified the expenditures, using

the broad purposes authorized in the program’s legislation.

To determine the extent to which the agencies had adopted innovative or

coordinated approaches to the fee program, we used the information we

collected to accomplish our first two objectives. Various agency officials,

agency task forces, and officials from the industry and user groups we

contacted provided comments and ideas on innovative or coordinated

approaches available to the agencies—including identifying practices

employed by the private sector. To prepare for our review of the

implementation of the demonstration program to date, we reviewed prior

fee legislation, the program’s authorizing legislation, and its legislative

history.

To determine what, if any, impact the fee demonstration program had on

visitation, we attempted to compare data on visitation during the

demonstration period with baseline information on visitation developed

since 1993. Since visitation at the Park Service’s sites accounted for over

three-fourths of total visitation among all fee demonstrations at the four

agencies, we compared trends in visitation at their demonstration sites

with nondemonstration sites for the 1993-97 period. To conduct this

analysis, we obtained visitation data from the Park Service’s Public Use

Statistics Office.

For each of the agencies, we collected anecdotal information on trends in

visitation from officials at agency headquarters and at the sites we visited

as well as officials from each of the affected industry and user groups we

contacted. We also contacted six experts who either had conducted

surveys of visitors concerning the recreational fee demonstration program

or had prior experience with recreational fees on federal lands. These

individuals were Dr. Deborah J. Chavez, Research Social Scientist, Pacific

Southwest Research Station, U.S. Forest Service; Dr. Sam H. Ham, College

of Forestry, Wildlife and Range Sciences, University of Idaho; Dr. David W.

Lime, Senior Research Associate, University of Minnesota, Department of

Forest Resources; Dr. Gary E. Machlis, Visiting Chief Social Scientist, Park

Service; Mr. Jim Ridenour, Director, The Epply Institute for Parks and

Public Lands, Department of Recreation and Park Administration, Indiana

University, and former Director, National Park Service; and Dr. Alan E.

Watson, Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute, U.S. Department of

Agriculture and Department of Interior, Missoula, Montana.

Page 20 GAO/RCED-99-7 Recreational Fees
Chapter 1 

Introduction

During our review, we contacted various industry and user groups that

might be affected by the fee demonstration program. We spoke with these

groups to obtain their views on the agencies’ management of the program.

We selected these groups because they (1) had participated in

congressional hearings on the demonstration fee authority, (2) had been

identified as affected parties by agency officials or officials from other

industry or user groups, or (3) were widely known to be involved with

recreation on federal lands. Table 1.3 provides the names and a brief

description of each group we contacted.

Table 1.3: Industry and User Groups

Contacted by GAO Name of group Description of group

American Recreation Coalition (ARC) National federation of a variety of

organizations, representing such

recreational interests as canoeing,

camping, skiing, boating, and bicycling

America Outdoors Association of outfitters and guides

National Forest Recreation Association Trade association of private recreational

providers (e.g., marinas, campgrounds, ski

areas) that operate on federal lands

National Parks Hospitality Association Association of large concessioners that

operate lodging and food service

businesses, mostly in national parks

National Parks and Conservation Association National nonprofit park advocacy

organization

Northwest Interpretive Association Nonprofit organization providing

publications, interpretive exhibits, and

educational programs to visitors in four

northwestern states and California

Outward Bound USA Nonprofit outfitter and guide organization

operating in 25 states and escorting over

30,000 people annually onto federal

recreation lands

The Mountaineers Nonprofit outdoor recreation and

conservation club

Washington Trails Association Nonprofit organization providing

educational and informational programs to

preserve and enhance Washington State’s

trail system

In addition to contacting these industry and user groups, we reviewed the

testimonies of several other affected groups that participated in

congressional hearings on the fee demonstration program. These included

industry groups, such as Kampgrounds of America, the Outdoor

Recreation Coalition of America, and the National Tour Association, and

user groups, such as the American Hiking Society, the American

Page 21 GAO/RCED-99-7 Recreational Fees
Chapter 1 

Introduction

Motorcyclist Association, and the Grand Canyon Private Boaters

Association.

We did not independently verify the reliability of the financial or visitation

data provided, nor did we trace the data to the systems from which they

came. In some cases, data were not available at headquarters and could be

collected only at the local site.

We conducted our review from September 1997 through November 1998 in

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Page 22 GAO/RCED-99-7 Recreational Fees
Chapter 2 

Fee Revenues Have Substantially

Increased—Particularly in the Park Service

Among the four agencies, the pace and the approach used to implement

the recreational fee demonstration program have differed. Some of the

agencies had more demonstration sites operational earlier than others.

This difference is a result of the agencies’ experiences in charging fees

prior to the demonstration. Nonetheless, there have been substantial

increases in the amount of fees collected. Each agency estimated that it

has generated at least 70 percent more in fee revenues than it did prior to

the demonstration program, and the combined estimated revenues for the

four agencies have nearly doubled since fiscal year 1996. According to

estimates for fiscal year 1998, the Park Service has collected the most

revenues under the program, generating about 85 percent of all the

revenues collected at demonstration sites by the four agencies.

The Pace and the

Approach Used to

Implement the Fee

Demonstration

Program Have

Differed

Since getting the authority to begin testing the collection of new and

increased fees, each of the agencies has taken different approaches. The

agencies’ approaches have largely been influenced by (1) their respective

traditions and experiences in collecting fees, (2) the geographic

characteristics of the lands they manage, and (3) a recent amendment to

the law authorizing the demonstration program that increased incentives

to the agencies. As a result of these differing approaches, the pace of

implementation among the agencies has varied.

Fees are not new to the four agencies in the demonstration program. Prior

to the program, each of the agencies collected fees from visitors at

recreation areas. However, the agencies’ experiences with fees have

differed. For example, prior to the demonstration, the Park Service

collected entrance fees at about one-third of its park units. The Forest

Service and BLM collected user fees at many of their more developed

recreation areas—predominantly for camping—and the Fish and Wildlife

Service charged a mix of entrance and user fees at about 65 of its sites.

Not only did their past experiences with fees differ, but the geographical

characteristics of the lands they were managing also were different,

making fee collection easier in some areas and more difficult in others.

For example, many sites in the Park Service have only a few roads that

provide access to them. With limited access, collecting fees at an entrance

station is very practical. In contrast, many Forest Service, BLM, and Fish

and Wildlife Service sites have multiple roads accessing areas they

manage. Multiple roads make it difficult for an agency to control access to

an area, thus making it difficult to charge entrance fees. As a result, most

Page 23 GAO/RCED-99-7 Recreational Fees
Chapter 2 

Fee Revenues Have Substantially

Increased—Particularly in the Park Service

Forest Service, BLM, and Fish and Wildlife Service sites have not charged

entrance fees but instead charged user fees for specific activities.

Figures 2.1 and 2.2 further illustrate the varying characteristics of federal

lands. As an example, figure 2.1 shows the relatively few access points to

Arches National Park in Utah. This park has only one paved road going in

and out of the park. In comparison, figure 2.2 shows the multiple access

points that exist along the many roads that go through the White Mountain

National Forest in New Hampshire and Maine.

Page 24 GAO/RCED-99-7 Recreational Fees
Chapter 2 

Fee Revenues Have Substantially

Increased—Particularly in the Park Service

Figure 2.1: Map of Arches National Park in Utah

191

191 279

ARCHES NATIONAL PARK

Visitor Center

Park headquarters

Campground

La Sal Mountains

Viewpoint

Petrified Dunes

Viewpoint

Devils Garden

Trailhead

Tower Arch Navajo Arch

Partition Arch

Landscape Arch

Marching

Men

Delicate Arch

Balanced

Rock

Delicate

Arch

Panorama Viewpoint

Point

THE WINDOWS

SECTION

COURTHOUSE

TOWERS

FIERY

FURNACE

KLONDIKE

BLUFFS

128

128

Legend:

Paved Road

Colorado River

Utah

Page 25 GAO/RCED-99-7 Recreational Fees
Chapter 2 

Fee Revenues Have Substantially

Increased—Particularly in the Park Service

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

MAINE

N.H.

Conway

North

Conway Bartlett

Gorham

Lincoln

Plymouth

Bethlehem

Berlin

Groveton

Lancaster

Littleton

16

302

302

3

3

10

3

3

2 2

110

110

116

302 18

16

18 93

93

93

NEW HAMPSHIRE

MAINE

WHITE MOUNTAIN

NATIONAL FOREST

White Mountain National Forest Boundary

Roadways

State Boundary

Warren

2

25

118

112

112

16

16

113

Many of the traditions in collecting fees have influenced the agencies in

both their pace of implementation and the types of fees they charge.

Because many sites in the Park Service previously charged entrance fees,

the agency was quickly able to bring a large number of sites into the

Page 26 GAO/RCED-99-7 Recreational Fees
Chapter 2 

Fee Revenues Have Substantially

Increased—Particularly in the Park Service

demonstration program by increasing the entrance fees that existed prior

to the demonstration. For the Park Service, of the 96 demonstration sites1

in the first year of the program,2 57 of them increased existing entrance

fees.3

 According to officials in several of the agencies, it is generally easier

for the agencies to increase existing fees than to implement new fees

because (1) the fee-collection infrastructure is already in place and (2) the

public is already accustomed to paying a fee.

The three other agencies were collecting predominantly new fees at their

demonstration sites during fiscal year 1997, the first year of the program,

including all 10 of BLM’s sites, 29 of 39 Forest Service sites, and 35 of 61

Fish and Wildlife Service sites. Compared with increases in existing fees,

new fees are generally more difficult to implement because the agencies

need to (1) develop an infrastructure for collecting fees and (2) inform the

public and gain acceptance for the new fees. This infrastructure could

include new facilities; new signs; new collection equipment, such as cash

registers and safes; and new processes, such as implementing internal

control standards for handling cash. Figures 2.3 and 2.4 show examples of

new facilities that were constructed or put in place during the

demonstration period to collect new fees.

1

For several of the agencies, a “demonstration site” may be made up of more than one field unit. For

example, Mesa Verde National Park and Hovenweep National Monument are two separate units of the

Park Service, but the agency considers them together to be one demonstration site. Similarly, the

Forest Service considers the fee program operating in four national forests in southern California to be

one demonstration site.

2

We refer to fiscal year 1997 as the first year of the demonstration program because the overwhelming

majority of sites did not become operational until after fiscal year 1996. However, late in fiscal year

1996, four Forest Service fee demonstration sites did become operational and started charging fees,

bringing in a total of about $20,000 in revenues for that year.

3

The Golden Eagle Passport is sold by all four of the agencies in the demonstration program. However,

for reporting purposes, the Park Service and Forest Service each consider sales of Golden Eagle

Passports in parks and forests as a separate demonstration “site.”

Page 27 GAO/RCED-99-7 Recreational Fees
Chapter 2 

Fee Revenues Have Substantially

Increased—Particularly in the Park Service

Figure 2.3: New Entrance Station

Under Construction at Red Rock

Canyon—a BLM Demonstration Site in

Nevada

Figure 2.4: New Fee Receptacle and

Signs Installed for New Self-Service

Fee at Tonto National Forest in Arizona

Through the first half of fiscal year 1998—that is, as of March 31,

1998—each of the four agencies added sites to the program. Through

Page 28 GAO/RCED-99-7 Recreational Fees
Chapter 2 

Fee Revenues Have Substantially

Increased—Particularly in the Park Service

March 1998, the four agencies had 284 sites in the program, compared with

206 sites through fiscal year 1997. The Park Service added 4 sites through

March 1998 and has a total of 100 sites in the program—the maximum

allowed by law. Each of the other three agencies has added sites to the

program, with the majority of new sites coming from BLM—the agency that

had the fewest sites in fiscal year 1997. For the second half of fiscal year

1998 and fiscal year 1999, the Forest Service plans to add as many as 38 to

45 sites to the program. Officials from BLM indicated they plan to add 15 to

20 sites to the program. The Fish and Wildlife Service has added six sites

during the last half of fiscal year 1998 but does not plan to add any further

sites unless the demonstration program is extended beyond fiscal year

1999. Table 2.1 lists the number of fee demonstration sites, by agency, for

fiscal year 1997 and through the first half of fiscal year 1998.

Table 2.1: Fee Demonstration Sites, by

Agency, for Fiscal Year 1997 and

Fiscal Year 1998 Through March 31,

1998

Agency FY 1997 FY 1998 Total

Park Service 96 4 100

Fish and Wildlife Service 61 10 71

Bureau of Land

Management 10 53 63

Forest Service 39 11 50

Total 206 78 284

Source: Data provided by the four agencies.

An amendment to the law authorizing the demonstration program was one

of the factors contributing to the addition of sites to the program. The law

originally authorized each agency to retain the fee revenues that exceeded

the revenues generated prior to the demonstration. As a result, the

agencies could only retain the portion of the fee revenues that were in

addition to existing fees. In November 1997, the law was amended to

permit the agencies to retain all fee revenues generated by demonstration

sites. This amendment created additional incentives for agencies to add

existing fee sites to the program because the agency could retain all of the

fee revenues generated at the site.

Recreational Fee

Revenues Have

Increased

Substantially

While the approach and pace of implementation have varied, the four

agencies have each been successful in raising substantial new revenues

through the fee demonstration program. Before the program was

authorized, each of the agencies collected fees at many recreation sites.

But since the implementation of the program, each of the agencies has

Page 29 GAO/RCED-99-7 Recreational Fees
Chapter 2 

Fee Revenues Have Substantially

Increased—Particularly in the Park Service

estimated that it has increased its fee collections by more than 70 percent

above fiscal year 1996 levels—the last year before the program began. On

the basis of estimates for fiscal year 1998, the Park Service has brought in

significantly more in fee revenues than the other agencies. The estimated

revenues of the Park Service account for about 85 percent of the revenues

generated by the four agencies at demonstration sites.

As shown in figure 2.5, as a result of the demonstration program, the four

agencies have nearly doubled total combined fee collections since fiscal

year 1996, according to the agencies’ estimates. In addition, each of the

four agencies estimated that their fees increased under the demonstration

by over 70 percent above fiscal year 1996 levels. Revenues under the fee

demonstration program have come from a mix of new fees and increases

to fees that existed before the program was authorized.

Figure 2.5: Total Fee Revenues for the

Four Agencies, Fiscal Years 1996-98 Fee revenues (in thousands)

0

50000

100000

150000

1996 1997 1998

(est.)

Fiscal year

Nondemonstration fees

Demonstration fees

Source: Data provided by the four agencies.

Page 30 GAO/RCED-99-7 Recreational Fees
Chapter 2 

Fee Revenues Have Substantially

Increased—Particularly in the Park Service

In fiscal year 1996, the last year before the demonstration program was

implemented, the four agencies collected a total of about $93.3 million in

fees from visitors. In fiscal year 1997, the four agencies generated a total of

about $144.6 million in fee revenues, of which about $123.8 million was

attributed to fees at demonstration sites. For fiscal year 1998, the agencies

estimate that total fee revenues will increase to about $179.3 million, with

about $159.8 million in revenues from demonstration sites. (App. I

contains information on each agency’s gross fee revenues for fiscal years

1996 through 1998.) Three of the four agencies have not developed formal

estimates for fiscal year 1999. The one agency with fiscal year 1999

estimates—the Park Service—predicts only modest increases in revenues

since the agency has already implemented the maximum number of

demonstration sites authorized under the program. However, officials at

each of the other three agencies estimated that as more sites become part

of the demonstration program, revenues will increase.

Each agency collected fees prior to the demonstration program, and as

sites with existing fees were converted to demonstration sites, much of the

agencies’ fee revenues have now been included in the demonstration. As a

result, much of the demonstration fee revenues collected in fiscal year

1997 and beyond come from sites where fees were collected prior to the

demonstration.4

Of the four agencies, the Park Service has generated about 85 percent of

the $159.8 million in total estimated fee demonstration revenues for fiscal

year 1998. The agency with the second largest revenues is the Forest

Service, which estimated that it generated about 11 percent of the total fee

demonstration revenues. The relative size of each agency’s revenues

compared with the total revenues of the four-agency program is depicted

in figure 2.6.

4

Some fees continue to be collected outside of the demonstration program—about half at Park Service

sites that were not included in the 100 sites authorized under the demonstration program.

Page 31 GAO/RCED-99-7 Recreational Fees
Chapter 2 

Fee Revenues Have Substantially

Increased—Particularly in the Park Service

Figure 2.6: Percentage of Total Fiscal

Year 1998 Estimated Revenues for the

Fee Demonstration Program, by Each

Agency

2.0%

BLM

• 2.1% • Fish and Wildlife Service

11.1%

Forest Service

84.8%•

Park Service

Source: Data provided by the four agencies.

The substantially higher revenues of the Park Service are mostly due to the

agency’s large number of high-revenue sites. For fiscal year 1997, 28 Park

Service sites each generated more than $1 million in fee revenues, and 2 of

these sites—the Grand Canyon and Yosemite National Parks—each

generated more than $10 million. Nearly all of these 28 sites attract high

numbers of visitors and had histories of charging entrance fees prior to the

demonstration program. In addition to the high-revenue sites of the Park

Service, the Forest Service has two sites with revenues above $1 million.

In contrast, in fiscal year 1997, the Fish and Wildlife Service and BLM did

not have any sites with revenues above $1 million.

Page 32 GAO/RCED-99-7 Recreational Fees
Chapter 3 

Spending Has Been Limited, but There Are

Significant Opportunities for Addressing

Needs

During the first year and a half of the recreational fee demonstration

program, overall expenditures at individual demonstration sites have been

limited in comparison to revenues collected. So far, only about 24 percent

of the revenues collected has been expended. Most of the expenditures

have gone toward repair and maintenance, the costs of collection, and

routine operations at the respective sites. At the sites we visited, we found

that the agencies’ expenditures appeared to be consistent with the

purposes authorized in the legislation establishing the program. The

amount of collections varied considerably among the agencies and the

individual sites within each agency, more than doubling operating budgets

at some sites, while providing little revenue at others. As a result,

assuming appropriations remain stable and that the program is extended

beyond fiscal year 1999, many sites in the program will, in time, have

sufficient revenues to address all of their needs—regardless of their

relative priority within the agency. At the same time, other sites within an

agency may not have enough to meet their most critical needs. Over the

long term, this condition raises questions about the appropriateness of the

high-revenue sites retaining 80 percent or more of their revenues as

currently required by law.

The Agencies Have

Used Only 24 Percent

of the Funds Available

The four agencies have spent about 24 percent of the revenues available

under the fee demonstration program through March 1998. Under the

program’s original authority, not all of the revenues generated during fiscal

year 1997 were available for expenditure.1

 As a result, of the $123.8 million

generated at demonstration sites in fiscal year 1997, $55 million was

available to the agencies. For fiscal year 1998, the Congress amended the

law authorizing the program to permit the agencies to retain all of the fee

revenues generated under the program. As a result, the agencies have the

full amount of the fee revenues generated at their demonstration sites in

fiscal year 1998 available for expenditure. Through the first half of fiscal

year 1998, the four agencies had generated about $36 million in fee

revenues. Thus, the total amount available to the agencies for expenditure

under the demonstration program through March 1998 was about

$91 million.

On a national basis, the four agencies estimated that of the $91 million

available for expenditure through March 1998, about $22 million had been

spent. Under the demonstration program’s current authorization, the

1

As discussed in chapter 1, the original authorization required that the amount of recreational fees

collected before the demonstration program—known as the base year amount—be subtracted from

the demonstration program collections in fiscal year 1997 and deposited into the Treasury, to be made

available through appropriations.

Page 33 GAO/RCED-99-7 Recreational Fees
Chapter 3 

Spending Has Been Limited, but There Are

Significant Opportunities for Addressing

Needs

participating agencies have until the end of fiscal year 2004 to spend the

revenues raised by the program. Table 3.1 provides information comparing

the fee revenues available for expenditure with actual expenditures

through March 1998 for each of the four agencies.

Table 3.1: Fee Revenues Available for

Expenditure and Actual Expenditures

for Four Agencies, From October 1,

1996, Through March 31, 1998

Dollars in thousands

Agency

Fee revenues

available for

expenditure

through 3/31/98

Expenditures

through 3/31/98

Percentage of

revenues

expended

Park Service $75,173 $12,806 17

Forest Service 12,999 7,763 60

Fish and Wildlife Service 2,019 501 25

BLM 1,021 572 56

Total $91,212 $21,643 24

Note: We asked all four agencies to update their data through the end of the second quarter of

fiscal 1998 to provide enough lead time for their assembly of the data and our analysis of it. Some

numbers for fiscal 1997 were also updated in the process.

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

According to the managers in the participating agencies, the reasons that

only 24 percent of the revenues available have been spent included (1) the

approval of the authorizing legislation occurring in mid fiscal year 1996,

(2) the delays in setting up accounting systems to track collections and

return the funds to the sites, (3) the time needed to set up internal

processes for headquarters’ approval of site expenditure plans, (4) the

time needed to plan and implement expenditure projects, (5) the need to

use funds during fair weather construction seasons, and (6) the fiscal year

1997 requirement for expenditures to exceed the base year amount before

funds could be spent on the collecting site.

Page 34 GAO/RCED-99-7 Recreational Fees
Chapter 3 

Spending Has Been Limited, but There Are

Significant Opportunities for Addressing

Needs

Most Expenditures

Have Been for Repairs

and Maintenance, the

Cost of Fee

Collection, and

Operations

The legislation authorizing the fee demonstration program permits the

agencies to fund a broad array of activities from fee revenues, including

the cost of fee collection,2

 health and safety items, interpretation and

signage, habitat enhancement, facility enhancement, resource

preservation, annual operations,3

 and law enforcement. The legislative

history of the program further emphasized that fees were to be a new

source of revenues to address backlogged repairs and maintenance. The

law also states that at the discretion of agency heads, 20 percent of the fee

revenues may be set aside for agencywide use for the same purposes.

Of the $21.6 million in expenditures by the four participating agencies as

of March 31, 1998, most have been for repairs and maintenance, the cost of

collection, and operations.4

 Figure 3.1 displays the relative size of three

agencies’ expenditures by the categories authorized by the program’s

legislation.

2

The cost of collection consists of (1) operating expenses, such as salaries and benefits, utilities,

vehicles, training, security equipment and services, communications, maintenance of collection

equipment and facilities, and contracted services, such as banks and armored cars; and (2) capital

costs, such as the construction of fee-collection facilities.

3

The cost of keeping recreation facilities open.

4

This is based on breakdowns available from the headquarters of each agency, with the exception of

BLM, which had no breakdown of $572,034 in total expenditures as of that date.

Page 35 GAO/RCED-99-7 Recreational Fees
Chapter 3 

Spending Has Been Limited, but There Are

Significant Opportunities for Addressing

Needs

Figure 3.1: Combined Categories of

Expenditure at the Park Service, the

Forest Service, and the Fish and

Wildlife Service as of March 31, 1998

29.7% • Cost of collection

36.0% • Repairs and maintenance

•

3.7%

Health and safety

•

5.0%

Interpretation and signage

0.0%

Habitat enhancement

•

3.5%

Facility enhancement

•

5.5%

Resource preservation

•14.7%

Annual operations

1.5%

Law enforcement

0.5%

Other

Notes: Percentages do not add to 100 because of rounding. BLM had no national breakdown of

its expenditures as of March 31, 1998, available.

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

As of March 31, 1998, the Park Service’s actual expenditures were mainly

for the costs of repairs and maintenance, the cost of fee collection,

resource preservation, and annual operations. Expenditures at the Forest

Page 36 GAO/RCED-99-7 Recreational Fees
Chapter 3 

Spending Has Been Limited, but There Are

Significant Opportunities for Addressing

Needs

Service’s demonstration sites were predominantly for annual operations,

the cost of fee collection, repairs and maintenance, and interpretation. At

the Fish and Wildlife Service’s sites, the cost of collection, repairs and

maintenance, health and safety, and facility enhancement were the top

expenditure categories. BLM did not have a national breakdown available.

At the sites we visited, we found that the agencies’ expenditures appeared

to be consistent with the purposes authorized in the legislation

establishing the program. The top expenditures among the 15 sites visited

were for the cost of fee collection, followed by annual operations and

repairs and maintenance. Agency officials said that cost of fee collection is

among the top categories of expenditure because of the necessary start-up

costs for the demonstration program. The program’s authorization allows

the agencies to spend their revenues on the actual cost of collection rather

than funding the activity from other sources, such as appropriated funds.

Since few expenditures had been made overall as of March 31, 1998,

agency officials said the cost of collection makes up a disproportionately

large part of the actual expenditures through that date.

Each of the four agencies has developed its own approach for using the

fees collected through the demonstration program. Each has exercised a

different amount of direction and oversight over its demonstration sites’

expenditures. As a result, the agencies’ priorities and criteria for spending

the fee revenues, their decisions on spending the 20 percent of the

revenues not required to remain with the collecting sites, and their

procedures for approving projects funded with fee revenues vary

considerably.

The following sections provide information about each agency’s overall

expenditures. More detailed information on each agency’s expenditures

for legislatively authorized purposes at the sites we visited appears in

appendixes II through V.

Park Service Emphasizes

Repair and Maintenance

Expenditures

The Park Service has developed the most detailed criteria for spending fee

revenues. After using the fees to cover the cost of their collection, the Park

Service has given the highest priority to reducing its repair and

maintenance backlog. The Park Service has required both headquarters

and regional reviews of the demonstration site managers’ expenditure

proposals. In addition, an Interior Department-level work group, including

Park Service representatives, was commissioned by the Assistant

Secretary for Policy, Management, and Budget to review the proposals.

Page 37 GAO/RCED-99-7 Recreational Fees
Chapter 3 

Spending Has Been Limited, but There Are

Significant Opportunities for Addressing

Needs

The Park Service’s headquarters had intended to have regional offices

approve the expenditure of fee demonstration funds but found, after

reviewing region-approved projects, that some did not meet the

established criteria.5

The Park Service is addressing its spending priorities with both the 80

percent of the fee revenues that stay at the collecting sites and with the 20

percent of the funds that are put into an agencywide account for

distribution primarily to nondemonstration sites. The Park Service spent

$12.8 million on projects at its demonstration sites through March 31, 1998.

This amounts to about 17 percent of its $75.2 million in fee revenues

available for park use through that date. Park Service officials said that the

amount of funds expended was small because the amendment to the

authorizing legislation in November 1997 made significantly more

revenues available to the agencies for expenditure than they had expected

to be allowed to spend. Furthermore, the Park Service recreational fee

program coordinator and the Park Service comptroller’s staff reported that

because accounts and allocation procedures took time to establish, the

first release of funds to the collecting sites for expenditure came in mid

fiscal year 1997. Another factor affecting the start-up of the Park Service’s

expenditures under the demonstration has been the time needed for the

extensive reviews of proposed projects. On a national basis, the Park

Service’s demonstration sites’ expenditures were in the categories

displayed in figure 3.2.

5

According to the Park Service’s criteria, projects should meet the agency’s most critical needs, as

determined through reliable inventories and assessments of conditions. In addition, projects may

provide services for visitors or recreational activities in areas where new fees have been charged.

Visitors should be able to see and appreciate the benefits of projects; fee revenues can be used to

provide the infrastructure for collecting fees but cannot be used for existing or to hire permanent park

staff (other than fee collectors), for administrative facilities, or for housing.

Page 38 GAO/RCED-99-7 Recreational Fees
Chapter 3 

Spending Has Been Limited, but There Are

Significant Opportunities for Addressing

Needs

Figure 3.2: Categories of Actual

Expenditures by the Park Service’s

Demonstration Program Sites Through

March 31, 1998

34.5% • Cost of collection

49.1%•

Repairs and maintenance

0.7%

Health and safety

•

2.1%

Interpretation and signage

•

2.1%

Facility enhancement

•

7.7%

Resource preservation

•

3.7%

Annual operations

0.2%

Other

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

Source: Park Service headquarters’ data.

Forest Service’s

Expenditures Focus on

Operations, Cost of

Collection, and Repairs

and Maintenance

The Forest Service permits demonstration sites to retain 95 percent of

their fee collections and to use them as allowed by the program’s

authorizing legislation—with the remaining 5 percent to be spent at the

discretion of each site’s regional office. Accordingly, the Forest Service

has instructed their demonstration sites to use their fee revenues for any

Page 39 GAO/RCED-99-7 Recreational Fees
Chapter 3 

Spending Has Been Limited, but There Are

Significant Opportunities for Addressing

Needs

of the broad purposes set forth in the legislation. At the same time, the

agency has emphasized the need to use the revenues in ways that visibly

benefit visitors.

Forest Service headquarters officials said the determination of the

program’s expenditures is driven by the project managers at the

demonstration sites. The ranger districts and forests involved develop lists

of projects and set priorities among them. The fee demonstration sites

have typically sought public input on what projects should be done, along

with meeting other requirements.6

The Forest Service began to use the funds raised by the recreational fees

at 40 demonstration sites in fiscal year 1997 to address the deferred

maintenance backlog, visitor services, and maintenance enhancements. Of

the $13 million in demonstration fee revenues through March 31, 1998, the

demonstration sites have expended $7.8 million, or about 60 percent,

according to data collected by Forest Service headquarters recreation

staff. Headquarters officials noted that in fiscal year 1997, most sites had

not been able to spend all the revenues they collected because fee

collection started in the middle of the fiscal year, time was needed to make

the fee deposits available to the sites for expenditure, and time was

needed to plan and contract for the projects to be funded with fee

revenues.

On a national basis, as of March 31, 1998, the Forest Service’s

demonstration sites have expended the greatest amount of fee revenues in

the following categories: operations, the cost of fee collection, repairs and

maintenance, and interpretation and signage (see fig. 3.3). Details on the

expenditures at the Forest Service’s sites we visited are in appendix III.

6

Each of the Forest Service’s demonstration sites selected had to meet the following minimum

requirements before implementing fees: completion of a local communication plan, an initial

assessment of the community’s position toward the proposed fees, and a business plan

framework—all approved at the Washington office; identification of the site, county, state, and

congressional district; and establishment of a Treasury account to receive and disburse collections.

Page 40 GAO/RCED-99-7 Recreational Fees
Chapter 3 

Spending Has Been Limited, but There Are

Significant Opportunities for Addressing

Needs

Figure 3.3: Categories of Actual

Expenditures by the Forest Service’s

Demonstration Program Sites Through

March 31, 1998

19.1% • Cost of collection

15.5% • Repairs and maintenance

• 8.6%

Health and safety

•

10.0%

Interpretation and signage

0.1%

Habitat enhancement

•

5.9%

Facility enhancement

•

2.2%

Resource preservation

•33.6%

Annual operations

•

4.0%

Law enforcement

1.0%

Other

Source: Forest Service data.

Page 41 GAO/RCED-99-7 Recreational Fees
Chapter 3 

Spending Has Been Limited, but There Are

Significant Opportunities for Addressing

Needs

The Fish and Wildlife

Service’s Expenditures

Emphasize Cost of

Collection

The Fish and Wildlife Service decided to allow its demonstration sites to

use their fee revenues to maintain or improve recreation opportunities and

enhance visitors’ experiences. Fish and Wildlife Service headquarters

reviews the demonstration sites’ expenditure of the funds after the fact,

using the agency’s overall criteria and specific guidance.7

The Fish and Wildlife Service has allowed its regional directors to

determine where to use the 20 percent of the fee revenues that does not

have to be spent at the collecting sites. This has resulted in collecting sites

in four of the Fish and Wildlife Service’s seven regions being permitted to

retain all of the fee revenues they generate. Directors of the three other

regions8

 have decided to require that 20 percent of the fee revenues from

their demonstration sites be submitted to a central account for use as seed

money to initiate fee programs at other sites, for improvements to visitor

services, or for backlogged maintenance projects at other sites in the

region.

In the first year and a half of the program, the Fish and Wildlife Service’s

demonstration sites have spent about one-quarter of the fee revenues they

generated. Of the $2 million in fee revenues through March 31, 1998, the

demonstration sites had expended $500,949, or 25 percent, according to

data provided by Fish and Wildlife Service headquarters staff.

According to the Fish and Wildlife Service, of the $500,949 spent nationally

on projects during the first year and a half of the program, 71 percent was

for the cost of collection, including start-up costs, with the remainder

spent on repairs and maintenance, health and safety, facility enhancement,

and interpretation projects (see fig. 3.4). Details on expenditures at the

Fish and Wildlife Service sites we visited are included in appendix IV of

this report.

7

The Fish and Wildlife Service’s guidance states that the fees collected are to be used (1) to defray the

cost of collection, (2) for the operation and maintenance of the collecting unit, and (3) for the

operation and maintenance of all units. The agency prohibited the use of fees for a site’s base salaries

and directed that fees are to be used primarily to improve the visitor’s experience for which a fee has

been paid. Backlogged repair and maintenance projects may be funded, with priority given to projects

related to visitor services.

8

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

Page 42 GAO/RCED-99-7 Recreational Fees
Chapter 3 

Spending Has Been Limited, but There Are

Significant Opportunities for Addressing

Needs

Figure 3.4: Categories of Actual

Expenditures by the Fish and Wildlife

Service’s Demonstration Program

Sites Through March 31, 1998

71.0% • Cost of collection

•18.4%

Repairs and maintenance

•

6.0%

Health and safety

•

2.2%

Interpretation and signage

•

2.4%

Facility enhancement

Source: Fish and Wildlife Service data.

Breakdown of BLM

Expenditures Not Available

BLM headquarters decided to allow demonstration sites to spend funds for

any of the purposes in the authorizing legislation and permitted the

following uses for the demonstration funds: operations, maintenance, and

improvements and interpretation to enhance recreational opportunities

and visitors’ experiences.

Site managers and their state offices decide on expenditures but are

required to report the expenditures to the public and headquarters after

each fiscal year. BLM headquarters decided to allow 100 percent of the

revenues to be retained at the collecting sites, rather than requiring

20 percent of it to be submitted to a central fund for distribution.

Page 43 GAO/RCED-99-7 Recreational Fees
Chapter 3 

Spending Has Been Limited, but There Are

Significant Opportunities for Addressing

Needs

BLM’s demonstration sites have expended $572,034, or 56 percent, of the

$1.0 million in fee revenues they collected through March 31, 1998,

according to data provided by BLM headquarters staff. According to BLM

headquarters staff, no breakdown by category of the actual expenditures

as of March 31, 1998, was available for all of the agency’s sites. BLM’s fee

demonstration program has expanded significantly in fiscal year 1998,

from 10 active sites in fiscal year 1997 to a total of 63 approved sites as of

March 31. Not all 53 new sites had begun collections or expenditures as of

March 31, however.

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

Expenditures May Not

Reflect Agencies’

Greatest Needs

For many sites in the demonstration program—particularly the Park

Service’s sites—the increased fee revenues equal 20 percent or more of the

sites’ annual operating budgets. For the purposes of this report, we refer to

these sites as high-revenue sites.9

 At sites with backlogs of needs for

maintenance, resource preservation and protection, and visitor services,

this level of additional revenues will be sufficient to eliminate the backlogs

over several years—assuming the program is extended and that existing

appropriations remain stable. And, at sites with small or no backlogs, the

additional revenues will support further site development and

enhancement. However, the agencies selected demonstration sites not

necessarily because of their extent of unmet needs for repairs,

maintenance, or resource preservation, but rather because of their

potential to generate fee revenues. At sites outside the demonstration

program or sites that do not collect much fee revenues, the backlog of

needs may remain or further development of the site may not occur. As a

result, some of the agencies’ highest-priority needs may not be addressed.

This potential for inequity among sites raises questions about the

desirability of the current legislative requirement that at least 80 percent of

the fee revenues be expended at the collecting site.

Many Park Service Sites

Generate High Revenues

Under the recreational fee demonstration program, 44 park units included

in the Park Service’s 100 demonstration sites retained fees that exceeded

20 percent of their annual operating budgets in fiscal year 1998. Of these

44 sites, 13 retained fees exceeding 50 percent of their annual operating

budgets, and 4 retained fees equaling or exceeding their operating budgets.

9

We used increases in revenues equal to 20 percent or more of sites’ annual operating budgets to

identify sites as high revenue because in prior work on the condition of recreation sites, we were told

by site managers that small increments in their discretionary funds (those paying for needs other than

salaries and expenses) have a very significant impact in addressing their critical needs.

Page 44 GAO/RCED-99-7 Recreational Fees
Chapter 3 

Spending Has Been Limited, but There Are

Significant Opportunities for Addressing

Needs

For example, Arches National Park expects to supplement its fiscal year

1998 operating budget of $0.9 million with fees of $1.4 million—an

effective increase of 160 percent in funds available on site. Castillo de San

Marcos National Monument is expected to retain $1.3 million in fees,

which is 110 percent of its operating budget of $1.2 million. Bryce Canyon

National Park expected to retain $2.3 million in fees, which is 110 percent

of its operating budget. Such substantial increases in the financial

resources available to these sites should improve their ability to address

their outstanding needs. Table 3.2 provides data on the fees retained by

the 44 parks.10

Table 3.2: The Park Service’s

Demonstration Sites Retaining Fiscal

Year 1998 Fee Revenues That

Exceeded 20 Percent of Their

Operating Budgets

Dollars in thousands

Park

Fiscal year 1998

estimated

revenues

available for park

usea

Fiscal year 1998

enacted operating

budgetb

Percentage of

revenues

compared with

budget

Muir Woods NMc $1,405 $323 435%

Arches NPc 1,372 858 160

Castillo de San Marcos NM 1,285 1,165 110

Bryce Canyon NP 2,339 2,133 110

Zion NP 4,460 4,481 100

Grand Canyon NP 15,444 16,212 95

Yosemite NP 14,518 19,169 76

Devils Tower NM 492 675 73

Timpanogos Cave NM 318 524 61

Haleakala NP 1,737 2,983 58

Hawaii Volcanoes NP 2,092 3,971 53

Cabrillo NM 603 1,148 53

Carlsbad Caverns NP 2,172 4,235 51

Grand Teton NP 3,596 7,343 49

White Sands NM 492 1,014 49

Badlands NP 1,021 2,198 47

Rocky Mountain NP 3,526 8,065 44

Joshua Tree NP 1,349 3,283 41

Great Sand Dunes NM 361 881 41

Acadia NP 1,537 3,772 41

Bandelier NM 786 1,970 40

(continued)

10This analysis does not consider other funds that parks compete for internally, known as “soft

money,” from such sources as repair and rehabilitation funds, the line-item construction funds, and

cyclic maintenance funds.

Page 45 GAO/RCED-99-7 Recreational Fees
Chapter 3 

Spending Has Been Limited, but There Are

Significant Opportunities for Addressing

Needs

Dollars in thousands

Park

Fiscal year 1998

estimated

revenues

available for park

usea

Fiscal year 1998

enacted operating

budgetb

Percentage of

revenues

compared with

budget

Petrified Forest NP 945 2,370 40

Little Bighorn Battlefield

NM 272 692 39

Glacier Bay NP and

Preserve 880 2,408 37

Black Canyon of the

Gunnison NMc 240 663 36

Perry’s Victory and

International Peace

Memorial 216 663 33

Jefferson National

Expansion Memorial 1,860 5,722 33

Shenandoah NP 2,886 8,929 32

Home of Franklin D.

Roosevelt NHSc 457 1,430 32

Canaveral NS 600 1,943 31

Mammoth Cave NP 1,362 4,459 31

Natural Bridges NMc 105 353 30

Wupatki, Sunset Crater,

and Walnut Canyonc 496 1,684 30

Padre Island NS 633 2,369 27

Mesa Verde NP 998 3,769 27

Yellowstone NP 5,473 22,421 24

Death Valley NP 1,226 5,337 23

Glacier NP 1,910 8,486 23

Aztec Ruins NM 121 539 22

Mount Rainier NP 1,815 8,146 22

Sequoia NP and Kings

Canyon NP 2,322 10,458 22

Crater Lake NP 758 3,495 22

Sleeping Bear Dunes NL 564 2,722 21

Lassen Volcanic NP 625 3,039 21

(Table notes on next page)

Page 46 GAO/RCED-99-7 Recreational Fees
Chapter 3 

Spending Has Been Limited, but There Are

Significant Opportunities for Addressing

Needs

Legend

NHS = National Historic Site

NL = National Lakeshore

NM = National Monument

NP = National Park

NS = National Seashore

aThe Park Service’s estimates for fiscal year 1998 are based on 80 percent of park revenues and

50 percent of the Golden Eagle revenues at each park.

bThe operating budget of the Park Service, known as ONPS, includes the annual amount

allocated to a site for its basic operations and programs.

cThis park is part of a group of jointly managed parks or a multiple unit demonstration project.

Source: Park Service data.

Of the seven Park Service sites we visited during our review, four—Zion

National Park, Timpanogos Cave National Monument, Carlsbad Caverns

National Park, and Shenandoah National Park—were among those with

fee revenues exceeding 20 percent of their operating budgets. Except for

Timpanogos Cave, each of these sites had a list of backlogged repair and

maintenance needs to be addressed. Managers at each of the three sites

told us that the additional fee revenues would allow them to address these

needs in a relatively short time.

For example, Zion National Park officials told us that the park expected to

receive so much new fee revenue in fiscal year 1998—about $4.5 million, a

doubling of its operating budget—that they might have difficulty preparing

and implementing enough projects to use the available funds if a major

new $20 million alternative transportation system was not begun in the

park. Without this major project, they probably would not be able to spend

all of the money available to them in ways that were consistent with the

demonstration program’s objectives, they said. The new transportation

system is being initiated to eliminate car traffic from the most popular area

of the park.

Similarly, managers at Shenandoah National Park told us that the fee

demonstration program revenues they expect to receive will be very useful

in addressing unmet needs. The revenues expected in fiscal year 1998 of

$2.9 million is equal to about 32 percent of the park’s operating budget. If

the park continues to receive this level of fee revenues, the park

superintendent said it should be able to eliminate its estimated $15 million

repair and maintenance backlog in relatively few years.

Page 47 GAO/RCED-99-7 Recreational Fees
Chapter 3 

Spending Has Been Limited, but There Are

Significant Opportunities for Addressing

Needs

Unlike Zion and Shenandoah, Timpanogos Cave National Monument in

Utah is a smaller park and does not have a backlog of repair and

maintenance needs. According to managers, appropriated funds have been

sufficient to keep up with the monument’s repairs and maintenance.

Consequently, the managers plan to use the fee revenues they

retain—$318,000 in fiscal year 1998, or about 61 percent of the

monument’s annual operating budget—to enhance visitor services, such as

by providing more cave tours.

Park Service and Interior officials have recognized that certain sites with

high fee revenues and small or nonexistent backlogs of needs will have

difficulty spending their new revenues for projects that meet the

demonstration program’s criteria. For example, the Comptroller of the

Park Service said that some sites would run out of backlogged repair and

maintenance needs to address with their fee revenues. In his view, an

exemption from the requirement to retain 80 percent of the collected fees

at the collecting sites and the authority to transfer more than 20 percent to

a central fund for distribution to other sites would be among the options to

consider. In addition, the Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Policy,

Management, and Budget has testified that setting aside some of the fee

revenues for broader agency priorities is important and has cautioned that

permanent legislation giving collecting sites a high percentage of the

revenues could “create undesirable inequities” within an agency. Similarly,

some managers at higher-revenue sites we visited supported more

flexibility in splitting revenues between high-revenue sites and other

locations that have little or no fee revenues or that have large maintenance

needs or both.

Some sites participating in the demonstration program and many

nonparticipating sites have repair and maintenance backlogs or health and

safety needs but little or no fee revenues to address them. Under the

demonstration program’s current 80-20 percent split of the revenues, the

Park Service’s park units will stand to receive very uneven shares of the

program’s $136 million in estimated fee revenues for fiscal year 1998: Of

the 100 fee-collecting sites (which actually includes 116 park units), the

top 44 units in terms of revenues are expected to retain $93 million, or 68

percent of the total, while the remaining collecting sites are expected to

retain $13 million, or 10 percent of the total, leaving $30 million, or

22 percent of the total,11 for 260 nonparticipating sites. These sites include

heavily visited locations like the Statue of Liberty National Monument in

11This amount includes the 20 percent to be distributed centrally and the 50 percent of the Golden

Eagle revenues to be returned to the selling parks.

Page 48 GAO/RCED-99-7 Recreational Fees
Chapter 3 

Spending Has Been Limited, but There Are

Significant Opportunities for Addressing

Needs

New York and some of the less visited sites such as Hopewell Furnace

National Historic Site in Pennsylvania.

The Forest Service Also

Has Many High-Revenue

Sites

At the other three agencies, particularly the Forest Service, there are also

many sites that have as high a level of fee revenues as that realized by

many of the Park Service’s sites. At least 33 of the Forest Service’s 39

demonstration sites operating in fiscal 1997 had fee revenues over

20 percent of their estimated operating budgets. Under the agency’s policy,

the demonstration sites are retaining 95 percent of the fees for their own

use, and the remaining 5 percent is spent at the discretion of the sites’

regional offices. As shown in table 3.3, for fiscal year 1997, of these 33

sites, 21 had fee revenues exceeding 50 percent of their operating budgets,

and 8 of the sites had fee revenues equaling or exceeding their operating

budgets. Data for the first half of fiscal year 1998 indicate that an even

higher number of the collecting sites will generate revenues amounting to

20 percent or more of their operating budgets by year end.

Table 3.3: Forest Service

Demonstration Sites With Fiscal Year

1997 Fee Revenues Exceeding 20

Percent of Their Operating Budgets

Dollars in thousands

Demonstration

project/national

forest/state

Fiscal year 1997

gross fee

revenues

Fiscal year 1997

operating

appropriationa

Percentage of

fiscal year 1997

revenues

compared with

budget

Chadwick Off-Highway

Vehicle Area, Mark Twain,

Missouri $46.1 $6.5 709%

Salt and Verde Rivers

Recreation Complex,

Tonto, Arizona 1,603.1 575.0 279

Sawtooth National

Recreation Area,

Sawtooth, Idaho 46.4 18.0 258

Quake Lake Visitor Center,

Gallatin, Montana 32.7 16.6 197

Fish Lake Campgrounds,

Fish Lake, Utah 6.5 4.5 144

North Carolina National

Forests, North Carolina 542.9 409.6 133

Mount Evans,

Arapaho-Roosevelt,

Colorado 112.6 90.0 125

Wenatchee, Wenatchee

Washington 39.3 37.0 106

(continued)

Page 49 GAO/RCED-99-7 Recreational Fees
Chapter 3 

Spending Has Been Limited, but There Are

Significant Opportunities for Addressing

Needs

Dollars in thousands

Demonstration

project/national

forest/state

Fiscal year 1997

gross fee

revenues

Fiscal year 1997

operating

appropriationa

Percentage of

fiscal year 1997

revenues

compared with

budget

Mount St. Helens National

Volcanic Monument,

Gifford Pinchot,

Washington 1,952.0 2,079.0 94

Verde Valley Heritage,

Coconino, Arizona 14.7 16.0 92

Umpqua Heritage,

Umpqua, Oregon 4.5 5.0 91

Day-Use Parking Fees,

Chequamegon-Nicolet,

Wisconsin 26.9 33.0 82

South Fork Snake River,

Targhee, Idaho 3.9 4.5 87

Interpretive Umbrella,

Multiple,b Colorado 106.5 125.5 85

Pack Creek,

Tongass-Chatham, Alaska 38.0 45.0 84

Shasta-Trinity,

Shasta-Trinity, California 140.0 169.0 83

Newberry National

Volcanic Monument,

Deschutes, Oregon 62.3 82.7 75

Cataract Lake Recreation

Complex, White River,

Colorado 13.1 23.0 57

Ozark-St. Francis,

Ozark-St. Francis,

Arkansas 711.9 1,300.0 55

Heather Meadows

Recreation Complex,

Mount Baker-Snoqualmie,

Washington 43.6 80.0 55

Enterprise Forest, Multiple,

Californiab 859.0 1,624.6 53

Desolation-Carson Pass,

Eldorado-Inyo, California 121.0 247.5 49

North Umpqua Basin,

Umpqua, Oregon 117.5 243.5 48

Hells Canyon NRA,

Salmon River, Idaho 3.2 6.7 48

Trailhead Parking Permit,

Multipleb 433.5 918.8 47

(continued)

Page 50 GAO/RCED-99-7 Recreational Fees
Chapter 3 

Spending Has Been Limited, but There Are

Significant Opportunities for Addressing

Needs

Dollars in thousands

Demonstration

project/national

forest/state

Fiscal year 1997

gross fee

revenues

Fiscal year 1997

operating

appropriationa

Percentage of

fiscal year 1997

revenues

compared with

budget

American Fork Canyon,

Uinta, Utah 110.9 250.0 44

Mirror Lake Area,

Wasatch-Cache, Utah 175.7 429.0 41

Mono Basin National

Scenic Area, Inyo,

California 87.0 220.0 40

Lake Como Recreation

Complex, Bitterroot,

Montana 9.4 25.6 37

Sylvania Wilderness Area,

Ottawa, Michigan 30.7 93.0 33

Southeast Alaska Visitor

Center,

Tongass-Ketchikan, Alaska 117.9 360.8 33

Sandia Recreation

Complex, Cibola, New

Mexico 157.0 512.8 31

Siuslaw, Siuslaw, Oregon 321.3 1,100.0 29

aAlthough the recreational fee demonstration sites in the Forest Service are part of larger national

forests, the operating budgets used in our calculation are based on the recreation sites only and

do not necessarily include all of the overhead of the national forest programs that support the

sites. This differs from the Park Service, where the operating budget we used covered the entire

basic annual operation of the parks.

b“Multiple” refers to multiple forests or multiple states.

Source: Forest Service data.

The Forest Service’s high-revenue sites include the Salt and Verde Rivers

Recreation Complex in Tonto National Forest, Arizona, where fee

collections in fiscal year 1997 were 279 percent of the fiscal year 1997

operating budget. For fiscal year 1998, the complex expects to collect

$2.5 million, or about 435 percent of its operating budget, in fees. Similarly,

at Mount St. Helens National Volcanic Monument in the Gifford Pinchot

National Forest in Washington, $2 million in fees was collected in fiscal

year 1997, which was 94 percent of the operating budget. For fiscal year

1998, about 102 percent of the monument’s operating budget is expected

Page 51 GAO/RCED-99-7 Recreational Fees
Chapter 3 

Spending Has Been Limited, but There Are

Significant Opportunities for Addressing

Needs

to be collected in fees.12 A two- to four-fold increase in funds available

compared with the sites’ annual operating budgets amounts to a

tremendous boost in available resources. While absorbing this level of

additional funding for the needs of these sites is possible, the extent of

sites’ unmet needs was not the principal factor in selecting them for

participation in the program. Under these circumstances, it is likely that

other higher-priority needs within the agency will go unaddressed at sites

within the national forest system that do not have a high level of revenues

or that are not participating in the demonstration program. Accordingly,

keeping all of the revenues at the demonstration sites that collect

substantial amounts of fees may not be in the best interests of the agency

as a whole.

Few of BLM’s or Fish and

Wildlife Service’s Sites

Have High Revenues

Data on the revenues and operating budgets for the Fish and Wildlife

Service’s and BLM’s demonstration sites were more limited. As a result, we

did not do analyses that were comparable to those we did on the Park

Service’s and Forest Service’s sites. However, since visitation at the Fish

and Wildlife Service’s and BLM’s sites is generally less than at park or forest

sites, it is likely that these agencies do not have a high proportion of

high-revenue sites. Among the sites we visited, one of the Fish and Wildlife

Service’s sites and one of BLM’s sites realized fee revenues through the

demonstration program that were high in relation to their operating

budgets.

BLM has allowed its demonstration sites to retain 100 percent of the fee

revenues they collect to address their own needs. However, it is likely that

only a few sites have or will generate high levels of revenues relative to

their operating budgets, according to BLM headquarters staff. We could not

determine specifically how many BLM demonstration sites have or will

generate fee revenues equal to 20 percent or more of their operating

budgets because this information was not available at BLM headquarters

and only 10 sites were operational in fiscal 1997, with 53 more approved as

of March 31, 1998, that were to begin collecting fees during fiscal year

1998.

Among all of BLM’s demonstration sites, the Red Rock Canyon National

Conservation Area that we visited in Nevada is the highest revenue site,

according to BLM staff. At Red Rock, the annual operating budget is

estimated to be $1.2 million, while estimated gross revenues from the

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

calculations.

Page 52 GAO/RCED-99-7 Recreational Fees
Chapter 3 

Spending Has Been Limited, but There Are

Significant Opportunities for Addressing

Needs

demonstration program for fiscal year 1998 are $0.9 million, or 75 percent

of the operating budget. Another of BLM’s demonstration sites with

relatively high revenues is the Lower Deschutes Wild and Scenic River in

central Oregon where boater use and campsite fees generated $326,088 in

fiscal year 1997, which is 53 percent of the recreation site’s annual

operating budget of $617,000.

As with BLM, data on how many of the Fish and Wildlife Service’s

demonstration sites are generating fee revenues amounting to 20 percent

or more of their operating budgets were limited. However, agency staff

have reported few sites generating revenues that might amount to 20

percent or more of their operating budgets. Of the three Fish and Wildlife

Service sites we visited, only one—Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge

in Virginia—had relatively high recreational fee revenues. There, about

$300,000 was expected in fee revenues in fiscal year 1998, or about 17

percent of the refuge’s annual operating budget of $1.8 million. If this level

of revenue continues, and appropriations remain stable, then managers at

the refuge thought that the entire repair and maintenance backlog could

be addressed with the program’s revenues.

Conclusions The fee demonstration program has created a significant new revenue

source, particularly for the Park Service and the Forest Service, during a

period of tight budgets. However, at high-revenue sites, there is no

assurance that the needs being addressed are among those having the

highest priority within an agency—raising questions about the desirability

of the legislative requirement that at least 80 percent of the revenues

remain at the collecting site. Using the revenues created by the fee

demonstration program on projects that may not have the highest priority

is inefficient and restricts the agencies from maximizing the potential

benefits of the program.

While giving recreation site managers a significant financial incentive to

establish and operate fee-collection programs, the current legislation may

not provide the agencies with enough flexibility to address high-priority

needs outside of high-revenue sites. Factors such as the benefit to visitors,

the size of a site’s resource and infrastructure needs, the site’s fee

revenues, and the most pressing needs of the agency as a whole are

important to consider in deciding where to spend the funds collected.

Even if the demonstration program is made permanent and all recreation

sites are permitted to collect fees, inequities between sites will continue.

Page 53 GAO/RCED-99-7 Recreational Fees
Chapter 3 

Spending Has Been Limited, but There Are

Significant Opportunities for Addressing

Needs

Matter for

Congressional

Consideration

As the Congress decides on the future of the fee demonstration program, it

may wish to consider whether to modify the current requirement that at

least 80 percent of all fee revenues remain in the units generating these

revenues. Permitting some further flexibility in where fee revenues could

be spent, particularly the fees from high-revenue sites, would provide

greater opportunities to address the highest-priority needs of the agencies.

However, any change to the 80-percent requirement would have to be

balanced against the need to maintain incentives at fee-collecting units

and to maintain the support of the visitors.

Agency Comments

and Our Evaluation

Two agencies within the Department of the Interior raised concerns about

this chapter. In general, the Park Service agreed with the findings of the

report. However, the Park Service commented on the abilities of some

park units to address their backlogged repair and maintenance needs

through fee revenues. Specifically, the Park Service said that our portrayal

of this issue paints a false picture as the report does not address

backlogged resource management needs in addition to repair and

maintenance needs. We disagree with the Park Service’s comment on this

point. We acknowledge that regardless of what happens to the repair and

maintenance backlog, there may continue to be needs related to the

natural and cultural resources at the parks we reviewed and at other sites.

However, early in its implementation of the demonstration program, the

Park Service directed its demonstration sites to focus program

expenditures on addressing backlogged repair and maintenance items.

Because of this Park Service emphasis, we sought to determine to what

extent the new fee revenues would be able to address these items. We

found that park managers at several parks indicated that they could

address their existing repair and maintenance backlog in a few years (5

years or less) through these fee revenues. For example, managers of some

of the parks we visited, such as Zion and Shenandoah, indicated that they

could resolve their backlog of repair and maintenance needs in a few years

through revenues from the demonstration program. In our view, this belief

that individual park units may be able to eliminate their repair and

maintenance backlog is not consistent with the Park Service’s past

portrayal of a large repair and maintenance backlog, especially since the

backlog, and not resource needs, is the agency’s stated focus for new

revenues.

The Fish and Wildlife Service disagreed with what it viewed as “an

inference in the draft report that the practice of retaining 80 percent of the

revenues at the station where fees are collected may not be a good

Page 54 GAO/RCED-99-7 Recreational Fees
Chapter 3 

Spending Has Been Limited, but There Are

Significant Opportunities for Addressing

Needs

practice.” In fact, the 80-percent requirement is appropriate in some cases;

however, providing the agencies with greater flexibility may enable them

to better address their highest-priority needs. The matter for congressional

consideration on providing additional flexibility to the agencies that we

have offered is primarily directed at high-revenue sites. Furthermore, our

comments on this issue are consistent with the testimony of the Assistant

Secretary of the Interior for Policy, Management, and Budget who said

that setting aside some of the fee revenues for broader agency priorities is

important and cautioned that giving the collecting sites a high percentage

of the revenues could create undesirable inequities within an agency.

The Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service agreed with our matter for

congressional consideration that the 80-percent requirement be changed

to permit greater flexibility. They noted that the emphasis on this point

should remain on high-revenue sites and that any change to the 80-percent

requirement would have to be balanced against the need to maintain

incentives at fee-collecting units and to maintain the support of the

visitors.

Page 55 GAO/RCED-99-7 Recreational Fees
Chapter 4 

Greater Innovation and Improved

Coordination Will Enhance Program

Effectiveness

Each of the agencies can point to a number of success stories and positive

impacts that the fee demonstration program has had so far. Among the

four agencies, a number of examples exist in which a new or innovative

approach to collecting fees has resulted in greater convenience for the

visitors and has improved efficiency for the agency. In addition, several of

the agencies have tried innovative approaches to pricing that have resulted

in greater equity in fees. However, some agencies could do more in this

area. For example, while the Park Service has been innovative in looking

for new ways to collect fees, it has been reluctant to experiment with

different pricing approaches. As a result, the agency has not taken full

advantage of the opportunity presented by the demonstration program.

Greater innovation, including more business-like practices like

peak-period pricing, could help address visitors’ and resource

management needs. In addition, although the Congress envisioned that the

agencies would work with one another in implementing this program, the

coordination and the cooperation among the agencies have, on the whole,

been erratic. More effective coordination and cooperation among the

agencies would better serve visitors by making the payment of fees more

convenient and equitable and, at the same time, reduce visitors’ confusion

about similar or multiple fees being charged at nearby or adjacent federal

recreation sites.

Innovations Have

Benefited Visitors, but

Further Opportunities

Exist

One of the key legislative objectives of the demonstration program is for

the agencies to be creative and innovative in implementing their fee

programs. The program offers an opportunity to try new things and to

learn lessons on what worked well and what did not. Among the four

agencies, numerous examples can be found of innovation in developing

new methods for collecting fees. In addition, the Forest Service and BLM

have also experimented with new pricing structures that have resulted in

greater equity in fees. However, the Park Service and the Fish and Wildlife

Service have generally maintained the traditional pricing practices they

used prior to the demonstration program. Accordingly, the Park Service

and the Fish and Wildlife Service can do more in this area. Furthermore,

greater experimentation would better meet the objective of the

demonstration program as agencies could further their understanding of

ways to make fees more convenient, equitable, and potentially useful as

tools to influence visitation patterns and to protect resources.

Examples of innovations in fee programs are differential pricing and

vendor sales, which have been widely used by commercial recreation

enterprises for many years. For instance, golf courses and ski areas

Page 56 GAO/RCED-99-7 Recreational Fees
Chapter 4 

Greater Innovation and Improved

Coordination Will Enhance Program

Effectiveness

frequently charge higher prices on the weekend than they do midweek,

and amusement parks often sell entrance passes through many vendors.

These concepts had rarely, if ever, been part of the four agencies’ fee

programs prior to the demonstration.

Several Agencies Have

Made Paying Fees More

Convenient for Visitors

The Park Service, the Forest Service, and BLM are trying new ways of

collecting fees that may prove more convenient for visitors. For example,

the Park Service is now using automated fee-collecting machines at over

30 of its demonstration sites. These machines are similar to automated

teller machines (ATM): Visitors can pay their fees with cash or credit cards,

and the machine issues receipts showing the fees were paid. For example,

the Grand Canyon National Park sells entrance passes at machines located

in several areas outside the park, including in the towns of Flagstaff and

Williams, Arizona, which are both along frequently used routes to the park

and more than 50 miles from the park’s south entrance. The park has

dedicated one of the four lanes at its entrance station for visitors who have

already purchased their entrance passes. Thus, visitors who use the

machines outside the park can avoid lines of cars waiting to pay fees at the

park’s entrance station. At other demonstration sites within the Park

Service, visitors can use automated fee-collection machines to pay for

entrance fees, annual passes, or boat launch fees.

As part of the demonstration program, the Forest Service is looking for

ways to make paying fees more convenient for the visitor and more

efficient for the agency. In some instances, paying fees at a location inside

a forest may not always be convenient for visitors—particularly if that

location is not near where visitors enter the forest, according to a Forest

Service headquarters official. Some sites have experimented with having

businesses and other groups outside of the forest collect entrance and

user fees from visitors before they come into the forest. The vendors of the

entrance and user permits are frequently small businesses, such as gas

stations, grocery stores, or fish and tackle stores, that are located near the

forest. For example, 350 vendors sell passes to visitors for recreation on

any of four national forests in southern California. By having vendors sell

entrance and user permits, a forest can increase the number of locations

where visitors can pay fees and can thereby make paying fees more

convenient.

At Paria Canyon-Coyote Buttes in Arizona, one of BLM’s demonstration

sites, the agency is experimenting with selling hiking and camping permits

via the Internet. Permits are required for overnight camping by up to a

Page 57 GAO/RCED-99-7 Recreational Fees
Chapter 4 

Greater Innovation and Improved

Coordination Will Enhance Program

Effectiveness

total of 20 persons per day in the Paria Canyon area and for hiking by up

to a total of 20 persons per day in the Coyote Buttes area. BLM, working in

cooperation with Northern Arizona University and the Arizona Strip

Interpretive Association, has developed a website that allows visitors to

obtain information on the area, check on the availability of permits for

future dates, make reservations, fill out and submit detailed application

forms, or print out the application forms for mailing.1

 In addition, visitors

can pay for permits over the Internet using credit cards, although the

agency is still in the process of developing the security protocols that are

needed to properly protect the transactions. Visitors can also fax credit

card payments or send payments through the mail.

Innovative Pricing Is Being

Tried by Some Agencies

Besides innovating and experimenting to make paying fees more

convenient for visitors, two of the agencies are also experimenting with

various pricing strategies at demonstration sites. Pricing strategies being

tried by the Forest Service and BLM are focused on charging fees that vary

based on the extent of use or on whether the visit is made during a peak

period—such as a weekend—or during an off-peak period. This concept is

generally referred to as differential pricing and has resulted in greater

equity in pricing at the sites where it has been tried.

For example, in Utah, Uinta National Forest and Wasatch-Cache National

Forest have both experimented with differential pricing. At American Fork

Canyon/Alpine Loop Recreation Area, within the Uinta National Forest,

the forest began charging a new entrance fee under the demonstration

program of $3 per car for a 3-day visit and $10 for a 2-week visit. Similarly,

at the Mirror Lake area within the Wasatch-Cache National Forest, visitors

pay a new entrance fee of either $3 per vehicle for a day or $10 per vehicle

for a week. Thus visitors to both the Uinta and Wasatch-Cache National

Forests pay fees that vary with the extent of use. Fees that vary with use

are more equitable than a single fee for all visitors regardless of use, as has

been the traditional practice at many federal recreation sites.

The Forest Service and BLM have also experimented with charging fees

that differ based on peak and off-peak periods. For example, at Tonto

National Forest in Arizona, the entrance fees vary depending on the day of

the week. The forest sells two annual passes for day use, including use of

the boat launch facilities, at six lakes within the forest. One pass sells for

$90 per year and is valid 7 days a week. The other pass sells for $60 per

1

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

Arizona University.

Page 58 GAO/RCED-99-7 Recreational Fees
Chapter 4 

Greater Innovation and Improved

Coordination Will Enhance Program

Effectiveness

year and is valid only Monday through Thursday, the forest’s off-peak

period. Another example of peak pricing is at the Lower Deschutes Wild

and Scenic River in Oregon, one of BLM’s sites, where as part of the

demonstration program, the agency charges a camping fee of $10 per site

per day on weekends in the summer and a $5 per site per day fee midweek

and during weekends in the off-season. By charging lower fees for off-peak

use, these agencies are using fees as a management tool to encourage

greater use when sites have fewer visitors. This practice can help to

mitigate the impact of users on resources during what would normally be

the sites’ busiest periods.

Opportunities Remain for

More Innovation—

Particularly in the Park

Service

While the Park Service has tried new methods for collecting fees,

opportunities remain for the agency to further the goals of the

demonstration program by being more innovative and experimental in its

pricing strategies. While the agency certainly does not need to retool its

program or use differential pricing arrangements at each of its sites, the

Park Service could build on what it has already done. Specifically, it could

look for ways, where appropriate, to provide greater equity in fees to give

visitors incentives to use parks during less busy periods, thus reducing

demand on park facilities and resources during the busiest times.

Because of the large numbers of visitors and the large amount of fee

revenues generated, the Park Service has an opportunity to improve its

pricing strategies. For the types of areas managed by the Park Service,

entrance fees have worked well for the agency and are convenient for

most visitors to pay. However, visitors to units of the national park system

having entrance fees (about one-third of the 376 units) generally pay the

same fee whether they are visiting during a peak period, such as a

weekend in the summer, or an off-peak period, such as midweek during

the winter, and whether they are staying for several hours or several days.

A more innovative fee system would make fees more equitable for visitors

and may change visitation patterns somewhat to enhance economic

efficiency and reduce overcrowding and its effects on parks’ resources.

For example, managers at several of the parks we visited, including

Assateague Island National Seashore and Shenandoah National Park,

discussed how during peak visitation periods, such as summer weekends,

long lines of cars frequently form at entrance stations, with visitors waiting

to pay the fee to enter the parks. The lines are an inconvenience to the

visitors and the emissions from idling cars could affect the sites’

resources. By experimenting with pricing structures that have higher fees

Page 59 GAO/RCED-99-7 Recreational Fees
Chapter 4 

Greater Innovation and Improved

Coordination Will Enhance Program

Effectiveness

for peak periods and lower fees for off-peak periods, sites might be able to

shift more visitation away from high-use periods. Our past work has found

that increased visitation has eroded many parks’ ability to keep up with

visitors’ and resource needs.2

 Innovative pricing structures that result in

less crowding in popular areas would also improve the recreational

experience of many park visitors. Furthermore, according to the four

agencies, reducing visitation during peak periods can lower the costs of

operating recreation sites by reducing (1) the staff needed to operate a

site, (2) the size of facilities, (3) the need for maintenance and future

capital investments, and (4) the extent of damage to a site’s resources. As

we already pointed out, the private sector uses such pricing strategies as a

matter of routine—including when the private sector operates within

parks. The private sector concessioner that operates the lodging facilities

in Yosemite National Park in California, for example, employs peak pricing

practices. Lodging rates are higher during the peak summer months and

lower during the months when the park attracts fewer visitors.

Furthermore, most parks with entrance fees charge the same fee

regardless of the extent of use. For example, Zion and Olympic National

Parks both charge an entrance fee of $10 per vehicle for a visit of up to 1

week. This fee is the same whether visitors are enjoying these areas for

several hours, a day, several days, or the full week. This one-size-fits-all

approach is convenient for the agency but may not be equitable or

efficient because visitors staying longer enjoy more benefits from a site.

At one park, the lack of an alternative to the 7-day entrance fee has

contributed to the formation of a “black market” in entrance passes.

According to recent media reports, some visitors to Yellowstone National

Park are reselling their $20 1-week entrance passes—after staying only a

few days or less at the park—to other visitors planning to enter the park.

Since the passes are valid for 7 days, a family could sell its pass to another

carload of park visitors for perhaps half price and reduce the cost of

visiting the park for both parties. Even though the entrance pass is

nontransferable and selling a pass is illegal and subject to a $100 fine, the

park does not have an estimate of the extent of the situation. The park has

not experimented with an entrance fee for visits of less than 7 days, a

pricing option that would be likely to address the illegal resale of passes.

Park Service headquarters officials indicated that the agency had not tried

differential pricing at demonstration sites because, in their view, it

2

See National Parks: Difficult Choices Need to Be Made About the Future of the Parks

(GAO/RCED-95-238, Aug. 30, 1995).

Page 60 GAO/RCED-99-7 Recreational Fees
Chapter 4 

Greater Innovation and Improved

Coordination Will Enhance Program

Effectiveness

(1) would be difficult to conduct sufficient enforcement activities to

ensure compliance, (2) would increase the costs of fee collection, and

(3) may result in a decrease in fee revenues. While we acknowledge that it

may be simpler to charge only one rate to visitors at demonstration sites,

the agencies that are currently using differential pricing—the Forest

Service and BLM—have been able to address the concerns raised by the

Park Service. Given the potential benefits of differential pricing to both the

agency and the visitors, an opportunity exists for the Park Service to

experiment with such pricing at a small sample of demonstration sites.

Cooperation and

Coordination Among

the Agencies Could Be

Improved

The four agencies have implemented a number of multiple-agency fee

demonstration projects. Although these efforts are few in comparison to

the more than 200 fee projects that have begun so far, they demonstrate

that multiple agencies with somewhat varying missions can form

successful partnerships when conditions, such as geographical proximity,

present the opportunity. While we found several examples of successful,

multiple-agency fee demonstration projects, more could be done. At

several of the sites we visited, opportunities existed for improving the

cooperation and coordination among the agencies that would increase the

quality of service provided to visitors.

Successful Cross-Agency

Fee Projects Are Under

Way

The legislative history of the fee demonstration program includes an

emphasis on the participating agencies’ working together to minimize or

eliminate confusion for visitors where multiple fees could be charged by

recreation sites in the same area. There are several areas that are now

working together to accomplish this goal.

For example, a joint project was developed in 1997 at the American Fork

Canyon/Alpine Loop Recreation Area in Utah between the Forest Service’s

Uinta National Forest and the Park Service’s Timpanogos Cave National

Monument. The monument is surrounded by Forest Service land, and the

same roads provide access to both areas. Because of this configuration,

the agencies generally share the same visitors and charge one fee for

entrance to both areas.3

 The sites also have similar public service and

resource management goals. Fee-collection responsibilities are shared

between the two agencies, and expenditures are decided upon by

representatives from both agencies as well as from two other partners in

the project—the State of Utah Department of Transportation and the

county government. Figure 4.1 shows the partnership’s entrance station

3

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

Page 61 GAO/RCED-99-7 Recreational Fees
Chapter 4 

Greater Innovation and Improved

Coordination Will Enhance Program

Effectiveness

for the area. Since 1997, fee revenues from the project have paid for the

rehabilitation of several bridges in popular picnic areas (see fig. 4.2).

Future fee revenues will fund the staffing and maintenance of entrance

stations where fees are collected; the repair and maintenance of camping

areas, trails, and parking areas; additional law enforcement services; and

resource management projects.

Figure 4.1: Joint Entrance Station at

American Fork Canyon, Uinta National

Forest, Utah

Page 62 GAO/RCED-99-7 Recreational Fees
Chapter 4 

Greater Innovation and Improved

Coordination Will Enhance Program

Effectiveness

Figure 4.2: Bridge Rehabilitation in

Popular Picnic Area at American Fork

Canyon, Utah

Agencies—federal and nonfederal—have worked together to improve

visitor services and reduce visitor confusion as part of the fee

demonstration program in other areas as well. Examples include (1) the

Tent Rocks area in northern New Mexico (BLM and an Indian reservation);

(2) recreation sites along the South Fork of the Snake River in Idaho (the

Forest Service, BLM, state agencies, and county governments);

(3) recreation sites in the Paria Canyon-Coyote Buttes area in Arizona

(BLM, the Arizona Strip Interpretive Association, and Northern Arizona

University); (4) the Pack Creek bear-viewing area in the southeast Alaska

(the Forest Service and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game); and

(5) the proposed Oregon Coastal Access Pass (the Park Service, BLM, the

Forest Service, and Oregon state parks).

Through the partnership at the Tent Rocks area in north-central New

Mexico between Albuquerque and Sante Fe, visitors get access to a unique

geological area that BLM administers via a 3-mile access road across Pueblo

de Cochiti, an Indian reservation. BLM’s site, known as the Tent Rocks Area

of Critical Environmental Concern and National Recreation Trail, features

large, tent-shaped rocks that hug steep canyon walls. The area is

surrounded by two Indian reservations.

Page 63 GAO/RCED-99-7 Recreational Fees
Chapter 4 

Greater Innovation and Improved

Coordination Will Enhance Program

Effectiveness

The only access road for vehicles to Tent Rocks crosses land owned by

Pueblo de Cochiti. In 1998, a cooperative partnership agreement gave

visitors access to Tent Rocks, while specifying prohibited activities to

preserve the tranquility of the pueblo community. The agreement also

specifies resource preservation measures to protect the Tent Rocks area.

Annually, Tent Rocks is visited by about 100,000 people. Under the terms

of the agreement, BLM is responsible for collecting fees and shares $1 of

the $5 vehicle fee with Pueblo de Cochiti. The pueblo provides interpretive

talks, trash pickup, and road maintenance. As of July 1998, this

interorganizational demonstration project was working satisfactorily,

according to BLM officials.

The Oregon Coastal Access Pass has been proposed for visitors to enter

several adjacent federal and state recreation sites, each of which now

charges a separate entrance fee. These include the Park Service’s Fort

Clatsop National Memorial, BLM’s Yaquina Head Outstanding Natural Area,

the Forest Service’s Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area, and the state

of Oregon’s Department of Parks and Recreation. All of these sites

currently charge separate fees, ranging from several dollars per person to

over $10.

For a number of years, visitors to these sites have commented on the lack

of government coordination over the numerous entrance and user fees

these facilities charge. During the last 2 years, representatives from the

federal and state agencies involved have held meetings to develop an

Oregon Coastal Access Pass, which would be good for entrance and use at

all participating federal and state sites along the Oregon coast. According

to a Forest Service official, two issues need to be resolved before

implementing the pass: (1) the estimation of the revenues from each of the

facilities to determine the amount of anticipated revenues to be shared

and (2) the development of and agreement on an equitable formula to

share fee revenues among the federal and state sites. The pass could be

implemented in 1999, according to a Forest Service official participating

on this project.

Opportunities for More

Interagency Coordination

Exist

While some progress is being made to increase coordination among

agencies, our work shows that there are still opportunities for

improvement that would benefit both the federal government and visitors.

Further coordination among the agencies participating in the fee

demonstration program could reduce confusion for the visitors as well as

increase the revenues available for maintenance, infrastructure repairs, or

Page 64 GAO/RCED-99-7 Recreational Fees
Chapter 4 

Greater Innovation and Improved

Coordination Will Enhance Program

Effectiveness

visitor services. Even at the few participating sites we visited, we

identified three areas where better interagency coordination would

provide improved services and other benefits to the visiting public, while

at the same time generating increased fee revenues.

For example, in New Mexico, BLM administers a 263,000-acre parcel called

El Malpais National Conservation Area. Within the BLM boundaries of this

site is the El Malpais National Monument created in 1987 and managed by

the Park Service (see fig. 4.3). Adjoining several sides of the agencies’

lands are two Indian reservations. Interstate, state, and county roads cross

and border the BLM and Park Service lands. Presently, neither parcel has an

entrance or user fee.

Page 65 GAO/RCED-99-7 Recreational Fees
Chapter 4 

Greater Innovation and Improved

Coordination Will Enhance Program

Effectiveness

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







41

42

42

42

49

49

50

50

102

103

447

480

EL MALPAIS NATIONAL MONUMENT

Milan

Grants

Acoma

Indian

Reservation

El Malpais (NPS)

Information Center

117

117

117

El Malpais (BLM)

Ranger Station

EL MALPAIS NATIONAL

CONSERVATION AREA

Zuni-Acoma

Ramah

Navajo

Indian

Reservation

New Mexico

40

605

547

53

53

National Conservation Area (BLM)

National Monument (NPS)

Unpaved 2-wheel-drive road

Paved road

Hiking trail

Unpaved high-clearance 4-wheel-drive road

Page 66 GAO/RCED-99-7 Recreational Fees
Chapter 4 

Greater Innovation and Improved

Coordination Will Enhance Program

Effectiveness

In 1997, as part of the fee demonstration program, BLM proposed a $3 daily

fee to the site. According to a BLM official, the proposed demonstration site

was to be managed as a joint fee demonstration project with the Park

Service, with the fee applicable to both areas. According to BLM, a

demonstration project would not only increase revenues to pay for work

needed at the site but also increase the presence of agencies’ officials at

the site, which would help deter vandalism and other resource-related

crimes. Because it is difficult for visitors to distinguish between the two

sites, a unified and coordinated approach to fee collection made good

management sense and would avoid confusion among fee-paying visitors

to the sites.

The surrounding communities endorsed BLM’s proposal, but Park Service

officials at the site did not. They told us that they believed that there

would be low compliance with any fee requirements because of the

multiple access roads to the site, that potentially delicate situations would

arise with Native Americans using the land for ceremonial purposes, and

that theft and vandalism would increase because of the proposed project’s

unstaffed fee-collection tubes. A local BLM official, however, said that the

site could generate significant revenues (over $100,000 annually), that fee

exemption cards could be developed for Native Americans using the land

for traditional purposes, and that past experience in the southwest has not

shown extensive damage to unstaffed fee-collection devices like those

proposed for use at this site. As a result of the differing views between BLM

and Park Service officials at this site, no coordinated approach has been

developed. However, our work at the site indicated that experimenting

with a new fee at the location would be entirely consistent with the

objective of the demonstration program. As of August 1998, neither agency

had documented its analysis of the situation, and BLM was considering

deleting the site as a potential fee demonstration project.

In the state of Washington, we found another opportunity for interagency

coordination. Olympic National Park and the Olympic National Forest

share a common border for hundreds of miles and are both frequently

used by backcountry hikers. For backcountry use, hikers are subject to

two separate fees at Olympic National Park—a $5 backcountry hiking

permit and a $2 per night fee for overnight stays in the park. In contrast,

Olympic National Forest does not have an entry fee, a backcountry permit

fee, or any overnight fee in areas that are not specifically designated as

campsites. However, the forest does have a trailhead parking fee of $3 per

day per vehicle or $25 annually per vehicle. As a result, backcountry users

who hike trails that cross back and forth over each agency’s lands are

Page 67 GAO/RCED-99-7 Recreational Fees
Chapter 4 

Greater Innovation and Improved

Coordination Will Enhance Program

Effectiveness

faced with multiple and confusing fees. Figure 4.4 shows an example of a

backcountry hike from Lena Creek (Olympic National Forest land) to

Upper Lena Lake (Olympic National Park land)—14 miles

round-trip—where backcountry users would face such multiple fees. Table

4.1 lists the fees involved for the hike.

Page 68 GAO/RCED-99-7 Recreational Fees
Chapter 4 

Greater Innovation and Improved

Coordination Will Enhance Program

Effectiveness

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

101

101 101

OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK BOUNDARY

LAKE

CUSHMAN

Lena Creek

LAKE CUSHMAN

STATE PARK

O LY M P I C

NATIONAL FOREST

Staircase

O LY M P I C

NATIONAL PARK

O LY M P I C

NATIONAL FOREST

Lena Lake

Upper

Lena Lake

Lake 

Campground

Legend:

Trail

Park Boundary

Primitive Trail

Road

OLYMPIC

NATIONAL

PARK

Pacific

Ocean

Un

Canada

ited States

Tacoma

Seattle

01 5

0 1 5 Miles

10 Kilometers

Area

of

Map

Page 69 GAO/RCED-99-7 Recreational Fees
Chapter 4 

Greater Innovation and Improved

Coordination Will Enhance Program

Effectiveness

Table 4.1: Fees for Two Adults Taking

a 3-Day, 2-Night Hike From Lena Creek

in Olympic National Forest to Upper

Lena Lake in Olympic National Park

Fee

Olympic National Park

Wilderness permit $5

Backcountry fee, $4 per night for 2 nights 8

Olympic National Forest

Parking fee, $3 per day for 3 days 9

Total $22

We discussed this situation with on-site managers from both agencies.

They agreed that they should better coordinate their respective fees to

reduce the confusion and multiplicity of fees for backcountry users.

However, so far, neither agency has taken the initiative to make this

happen. At the time of our review, no one at the departmental or agency

headquarters level routinely got involved in these kinds of decisions.

Instead, the decisions were left to the discretion of the site managers.

A third example of where greater coordination and cooperation would

lead to operational efficiencies and less visitor confusion is in Virginia and

Maryland at the Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge, administered by

the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Assateague Island National

Seashore, administered by the Park Service. Although the sites adjoin each

other on the same island (see fig. 4.5), they are not a joint project in the fee

demonstration program—each site is a separate fee demonstration

project.

Page 70 GAO/RCED-99-7 Recreational Fees
Chapter 4 

Greater Innovation and Improved

Coordination Will Enhance Program

Effectiveness

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

528 North

Atlantic Ocean

NPS

Toms Cove

Visitor Center

Assateague State Park

Entrance Station Ocean City

ASSATEAGUE ISLAND

National Seashore Entrance Station

Chincoteague National

Wildlife Refuge

0 1

0 1 2 Miles

2 Kilometers

Assateague Island National Seashore

611 611

376

394

175

679

12

50

113

Chincoteague Bay

Maryland

F&WS

Visitor Center

NPS Visitor Center

Berlin

Snow

Hill

CHINCOTEAGUE

The 50-mile distance between the north and south ends of the island takes about 1 1/4 hours to drive. 

National Park Service lands

National Wildlife Refuge lands, F&WS

State Park lands

Virginia

Del.

Virginia

MD

During our review, we found many similarities between these two sites

that offer the possibility of testing a single entrance fee for both sites. Both

sites charge a daily entrance fee ($5 per vehicle), cooperate on law

enforcement matters, and run a joint permit program for off-road vehicles.

In 1997, according to Park Service officials, the two agencies together

issued 5,000 annual off-road vehicle permits at $60 each. By agreement

between the two agencies, the permit revenues are shared, with one-third

going to the refuge and two-thirds going to the Park Service. The Park

Service already provides staff to operate and maintain a ranger station and

bathing facilities on refuge land.

Despite these overlapping programs and similarities, the units still

maintain separate, nonreciprocal entrance fee programs. This situation is

continuing even though officials at the refuge told us that visitors are

Page 71 GAO/RCED-99-7 Recreational Fees
Chapter 4 

Greater Innovation and Improved

Coordination Will Enhance Program

Effectiveness

sometimes confused by separate agencies managing adjoining lands

without any reciprocity of entrance fees. For example, during a 7-day

period in July 1998, refuge officials counted 71 of 4,431 visitor vehicles as

wishing to use their vehicle entrance passes for Assateague to gain

admittance to Chincoteague. Similarly, during the 7-day period of July 31

through August 6, 1998, Assateague officials counted 40 of 4,056 visitor

vehicles as presenting Chincoteague entrance passes to gain admittance to

Assateague. In both instances, visitors needed explanations about the

entrance fee policies and practices of the two sites. Refuge and seashore

officials have discussed this issue, but the matter remains unresolved.

Conclusion While there are many notable examples of innovation and experimentation

in setting and collecting fees at demonstration sites, further opportunities

remain in this area. Innovation and experimentation were one of the

objectives under the demonstration program’s authority and could result

in fees that are more equitable, efficient, and convenient and could also

work toward helping the agencies accomplish their resource management

goals. Congressional interest in encouraging more interagency

coordination and cooperation was focused not only on seeking additional

revenues but also on developing ways to lessen the burden of multiple,

similar fees being paid by visitors to adjoining or nearby recreation sites

offering similar activities. Successful experiences with interagency

coordination and cooperation have produced noteworthy benefits to the

agencies and to visitors. Additional coordination and cooperation efforts

should be tested at other locations to get a better understanding of the full

impact and potential of the program.

Recommendations We recommend that the Secretary of the Interior require that the heads of

the Park Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service take advantage of the

remaining time under the fee demonstration authority to look for

opportunities to experiment with peak-period pricing and with fees that

vary with the length of stay or extent of use at individual sites.

We also recommend that the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture

direct the heads of the participating agencies to improve their services to

visitors by better coordinating their fee-collection activities under the

recreational fee demonstration program. To address this issue, each

agency should perform a review of each of its demonstration sites to

identify other federal recreation areas that are nearby. Once identified,

each situation should be reviewed to determine whether a coordinated

Page 72 GAO/RCED-99-7 Recreational Fees
Chapter 4 

Greater Innovation and Improved

Coordination Will Enhance Program

Effectiveness

approach, such as a reciprocal fee arrangement, would better serve the

visiting public.

Agency Comments

and Our Evaluation

Two agencies within the Department of the Interior commented on this

chapter. The Park Service raised concerns about experimenting with

differential or peak-period pricing. The agency said that experimenting

with fees could result in complex fee schedules, increased processing

times at entrance stations, confused visitors, and more difficult

enforcement. In addition, the agency took exception to the draft report’s

comparisons to the differential pricing practices used at amusement parks,

golf courses, and ski areas, noting that the agency’s purpose is different

from the purposes of such operations. However, we disagree that these

concerns are reasons not to implement different pricing policies at some

parks. We recognize that the Park Service’s current fee schedule has been

successful but question whether the agency has responded sufficiently to

one of the intents of the recreational fee demonstration program: that

agencies experiment with innovative pricing structures. If done well,

experimenting with differential pricing at Park Service demonstration sites

need not result in complex fee schedules, delays at entrance stations,

confused visitors, or significant increases to the cost of collection. It is in

this context, that we provided the examples of golf courses, amusement

parks, and ski areas—recreation activities that routinely use differential

pricing to which the public is already accustomed. In many cases, these

fee systems are equitable, easily understood by the public, and do not

cause delay or confusion.

Furthermore, the Park Service comments on this point are not consistent

with the January 1998 report to the Congress on the status of the fee

demonstration program, which was jointly prepared by the Park Service,

the Forest Service, BLM, and the Fish and Wildlife Service and transmitted

by the Undersecretary of the Department of Agriculture and an Assistant

Secretary of the Department of the Interior. In that report, the four

agencies noted that among the lessons learned up to that point was that

differential pricing could be used to maximize resource protection or to

minimize infrastructure investment. The report states that “higher fees on

weekends, summer months, or other [periods of] traditionally-high

recreation use, might reduce the peak loads on resources and 

facilities . . . . Reductions in peak loads can directly reduce the cost to

taxpayers associated with operating the recreation sites, providing

services to these sites, and any attendant damage to the resource.”

Page 73 GAO/RCED-99-7 Recreational Fees
Chapter 4 

Greater Innovation and Improved

Coordination Will Enhance Program

Effectiveness

The Park Service also raised concerns about the draft report’s discussion

of the potential for a joint fee demonstration site between the Park Service

and BLM at El Malpais National Monument and El Malpais National

Conservation Area. (BLM did not comment on this point.) The Park Service

said that (1) a cost-benefit analysis showed it was not worth collecting

fees and (2) collecting fees would affect the use of the area by five

neighboring Native American tribes. It was clear from our work that there

was disagreement among Park Service and BLM officials over whether El

Malpais was a suitable site for inclusion in the demonstration program and

that this disagreement continues. The boundaries of the agencies’ land

make it unlikely that the project could succeed without a joint effort. We

disagree with the Park Service’s concerns raised on this point and question

their accuracy since the analysis showing that fee revenues would be low,

referred to in the Park Service’s comments, has not been completed. We

obtained a draft of that analysis which, according to Park Service staff at

El Malpais National Monument, was the most recent analysis available as

of October 15, 1998. The draft analysis contains no information on

anticipated costs or revenues from charging fees at this site. Furthermore,

we disagree with the Park Service’s assertion that fees would affect Native

American use of the site. According to the Park Service regional fee

demonstration coordinator, at park units where similar situations existed,

local managers were able to resolve cultural issues with the Native

Americans using the sites.

The Fish and Wildlife Service commented that there may be opportunities

for the agency to experiment with off-peak pricing, but such opportunities

would be limited to those sites where there is sufficient visitation to create

crowding and provide an incentive for off-peak use. We agree. In fact,

crowded parking at one refuge was a big enough concern that managers

were considering measures to better handle visitation during peak periods.

The Fish and Wildlife Service also commented on the need for greater

coordination among the agencies. The agency noted that cooperative fees

have been tried in many instances where they are appropriate and that

some of these have resulted in moderate success. We encourage the

agency to continue to look for opportunities to coordinate since it would

generally increase the level of service provided to the visiting public.

The Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service agreed with the

recommendation for the agencies to look for opportunities to coordinate

their fee programs.

Page 74 GAO/RCED-99-7 Recreational Fees
Chapter 5 

Early Information Suggests Overall

Visitation Was Largely Unaffected by

Recreational Fees, but Some Users Voiced

Concerns

Data from recreational fee demonstration sites participating in 1997

suggest that the new or increased fees have had no overall adverse effect

on visitation, although visitation did decline at a number of sites. Such

data, however, are based on only 1 year’s experience, so the full impact of

fees on visitation will not be known until completion of the program. Early

research on visitors’ opinions of the new fees has shown that visitors

generally support the need for, and the amount of, new fees. However,

these conclusions are based on limited analysis in that only two of the four

agencies—the Park Service and the Forest Service—have completed

visitor surveys at a small number of sites participating in the

demonstration program. Accordingly, the survey results may not represent

visitors’ opinions at all participating sites or represent views of

nonvisitors. Each participating agency planned to conduct additional

visitor surveys in 1998 and 1999 to more fully assess the impact of fees on

visitation. However, some interest groups and recreation fee experts have

identified some research gaps, such as potential visitors who do not come

to recreation sites or who do go to sites but drive off because of the new

or increased fees and fail to participate in the survey. A number of interest

groups we contacted were generally supportive of the program. However,

some had concerns about the program and how it was being implemented.

Preliminary Data

Suggest No Major

Adverse Effect on

Visitation From New

Recreational Fees

Although data for more years will be needed to fully assess the effect of

increased recreational fees on visitation, 1997 data from the 206 sites

participating in the demonstration program preliminarily suggest that the

increased fees have had no major adverse effect on visitation. Except for

BLM, each agency reported that, overall, visitation increased from 1996 to

1997 at its sites, even though some individual sites experienced declines in

visitation, especially when new fees were charged.

Overall Visitation

Increased, but Fee Levels

Are Only One Factor

Data from 1997 are the first available to assess the impact of the fee

demonstration program on visitation, since the four agencies spent 1996

designing the program and selecting the sites. Overall, of the 206

demonstration sites operated by the four agencies, visitation during 1997

increased by 4.6 percent from 1996. Visitation increased at three agencies’

sites, with the Park Service sites showing the largest increase, while BLM

reported an overall decline in visitation of 10.4 percent (see table 5.1).

Among the 206 sites, visitation increased at 120 sites, decreased at 84 sites,

and was unchanged at 2 sites (see table 5.2).

Page 75 GAO/RCED-99-7 Recreational Fees
Chapter 5 

Early Information Suggests Overall

Visitation Was Largely Unaffected by

Recreational Fees, but Some Users Voiced

Concerns

Table 5.1: Visitation at Recreational

Fee Demonstration Sites, 1996-97 Millions of visitors

Number of sites

1996 visitation

before fee

demonstration

1997 visitation

after fee

demonstration

Percentage

change

Park Service 96 141.1 149.0 +5.6%

Fish and Wildlife

Service 61 9.4 9.5 +1.1

Forest Servicea 39 34.5 35.2 +2.0

BLM 10 1.2 1.0 –10.4

Total 206 186.2 194.7 +4.6%

aVisitation data for the Forest Service are estimates.

Source: Data provided by the four agencies.

Table 5.2: Changes in Visitation at

Recreational Fee Demonstration Sites,

1996-97

Sites where

visitation

increased

Sites where

visitation

decreased

Sites where

visitation was

unchanged Total

Park Service 50 45 1 96

Fish and Wildlife

Service 43 17 1 61

Forest Service 25 14 0 39

BLM 2 8 0 10

Total 120 84 2 206

Percentage of

total 58% 41% 1%

Source: Data provided by the four agencies.

Because these data represent only the change in 1 year and many factors

besides fees can affect visitation levels, several agency officials told us

that the 1996 to 1997 visitation changes provide only a preliminary

indicator of the impact of increasing or imposing fees at the demonstration

sites.1

 In addition, visitation can be affected by a variety of factors, such as

weather patterns, the overall state of the economy, gasoline prices,

currency exchange rates, and historical celebrations. Accordingly, changes

in fee levels or instituting new fees, by themselves, do not fully account for

changes in visitation levels. Nonetheless, on the basis of the data currently

available, a report by the four participating agencies to the Congress

1

Because there may be substantial differences between the sites participating in the demonstration

program and other sites, it is not possible to use data on changes in visitation levels at the

demonstration sites to make inferences about the effects that fee increases might have at other sites.

Page 76 GAO/RCED-99-7 Recreational Fees
Chapter 5 

Early Information Suggests Overall

Visitation Was Largely Unaffected by

Recreational Fees, but Some Users Voiced

Concerns

states, “Visitation to the fee demonstration sites does not appear to have

been significantly affected, either positively or negatively, by the new

fees.”2

Changes in Visitation

Levels Varied Among Sites

While overall visitation increased 4.6 percent among all agencies in 1997,

visitation levels varied among agencies and among sites within the same

agency. During the period, visitation at nondemonstration sites among the

agencies increased 3.6 percent. Changes in visitation to sites participating

in the recreational fee demonstration program are summarized below for

each of the four participating agencies.

Park Service Annual visitation at the Park Service’s 96 sites participating in the

recreational fee demonstration program in 1997 increased 5.6 percent over

1996—from 141.1 million to 149.0 million visitors. Visitation increased at

50 sites, decreased at 45 sites, and remained unchanged at 1 site. Some

sites that raised existing fees in 1997 experienced significantly higher rates

of visitation after the increased or new fees went into effect. For example,

at one site we visited, Timpanogos Cave National Monument in Utah, a

new entrance fee plus increased fees for cave tours allowed the park to

hire additional cave interpreters, which lengthened the season for cave

tours by 3 months. As a result, visitation increased 16 percent, and about

16,000 more visitors were able to tour the site in 1997 than 1996. In

contrast, at another site we visited, Frederick Douglass National Historic

Park in Washington, D.C., visitation declined 24 percent from 45,000 in

1996 to 34,000 in 1997. In 1997, the site instituted a new $3 per person

entrance fee, whereas in 1996, entrance was free. According to a Park

Service official, the new fees probably played a role in the decline in

visitation. In commenting on a draft of this report, the Park Service stated

that the closure of a nearby museum and several major road projects may

have also influenced visitation at the site.

Because visitation at the Park Service’s sites represents about

three-quarters of total 1997 visitation at all of the demonstration program

sites, we asked the Park Service for data on historical visitation levels at

both its demonstration and nondemonstration sites. These data show that

visitation at nondemonstration sites rose faster from 1996 to 1997,

7.0 percent compared with 5.6 percent for demonstration sites. The higher

2

Recreational Fee Demonstration Program: Progress Report to the Congress, Volume 1 - Overview and

Summary, submitted by the U.S. Department of the Interior (National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife

Service, Bureau of Land Management) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (Forest Service)

(Jan. 31, 1998).

Page 77 GAO/RCED-99-7 Recreational Fees
Chapter 5 

Early Information Suggests Overall

Visitation Was Largely Unaffected by

Recreational Fees, but Some Users Voiced

Concerns

fees might be one factor accounting for a smaller percentage increase in

visitation at the demonstration sites, but other factors might be more

important. We found that the larger percentage increase at the

nondemonstration sites in 1997 was consistent with changes in visitation

over the last few years (1993-97) and, therefore, might have occurred even

if fees had not been increased at the demonstration sites. Since 1994, there

has been a steady trend in which visitation at nondemonstration sites has

grown relative to visitation at demonstration sites. In fact, there was a

much more substantial difference between the two groups in the changes

in visitation from 1995 to 1996 before fees were increased at any of the

sites. During that period, visitation increased by 0.9 percent at the

nondemonstration sites but fell by 4.1 percent at the demonstration sites.

Forest Service Of the Forest Service’s 39 fee demonstration sites operating in 1997,

visitation totaled 35.2 million—an increase of 724,000 recreation visits or a

2-percent increase over 1996. Visitation increased at 25 sites and

decreased at 14 sites. At some sites where new fees were charged or

where fees were paid only for entrance to a visitor center, visitation

generally declined, according to a Forest Service official. For example,

after Mono Lake in the Inyo National Forest in northern California

instituted a $2 fee per person for day use or entry to a section of the visitor

center (an exhibit room and movie theater), visitation declined 10 percent

from the prior year, according to a Forest Service official.

At other Forest Service sites, visitation increased despite new fees. At one

site we visited, the Mount St. Helens National Volcanic Monument in

Washington State, 1997 visitation rose to 3.1 million—a 15-percent

increase over 1996. This increase occurred even though the site

implemented two new fees: a user fee of $8 for a 3-day pass to the visitor

centers and other developed sites and a climbing fee of $15. In 1997, the

site also opened an additional visitor center and deployed snow plows

earlier than in prior years, further increasing visitation.

Fish and Wildlife Service Visitation at the Fish and Wildlife Service’s 61 sites participating in the

program increased from 9.4 million in 1996 to 9.5 million in 1997, or

slightly over 1 percent. In 1997, visitation decreased at 17 sites, increased

at 43 sites, and was unchanged at 1 unit compared with visitation in 1996.

At the 30 refuges charging fees for the first time as well as at the 31 refuges

that increased existing fees, there was little or no change in the level of

visitation or participation in activities. The three sites we visited reflected

Page 78 GAO/RCED-99-7 Recreational Fees
Chapter 5 

Early Information Suggests Overall

Visitation Was Largely Unaffected by

Recreational Fees, but Some Users Voiced

Concerns

these national visitation patterns. At Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge in

Washington State, the entrance fee was increased from $2 to $3, and

visitation increased by 41 percent, from about 45,000 in 1996 to 63,000 in

1997. At Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge in Virginia, the entrance

fee increased from $4 to $5, and visitation increased 7 percent, from

1.3 million visitors in 1996 to 1.4 million visitors in 1997. At another site we

visited, Bosque del Apache National Wildlife Refuge in New Mexico, the

entrance fee increased from $2 to $3, and visitation declined 10 percent

from 132,000 in 1996 to 119,000 in 1997.

Bureau of Land

Management

Overall visitation at BLM’s 10 demonstration sites dropped by 10.4 percent

from 1996 to 1997. This drop reflected decreases at eight sites and

increases at two other sites. According to BLM, factors affecting visitation

in 1997 included (1) inclement weather and flooding that limited access to

recreation sites such as Paria Canyon-Coyote Buttes in Arizona and Utah,

where visitation declined 16 percent between 1996 and 1997;

(2) construction projects that interfered with visitors’ use of several sites

such as the Kipp Recreation Area in Montana; and (3) new fees, such as at

Anasazi Heritage Center in Colorado, where visitation declined 22 percent,

in part because of resistance to new fees.

At one BLM site we visited, Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area

west of Las Vegas, Nevada, a new entrance fee of $5 was implemented in

1997, but visitation increased from about 1 million in 1996 to about

1.14 million in 1997. At another BLM site we visited, Yaquina Head

Outstanding Natural Area on the central Oregon coast, site visitation

declined 10 percent, from about 540,000 in 1996 to about 486,000 in 1997.

Visits to the interpretive center declined 27 percent when fees were

introduced, and at the lighthouse, visits dropped from 531 walk-in visitors

a day to 65—an 88-percent decrease. Subsequent changes in the lighthouse

fee raised the average daily attendance to 425 in July 1998.

Initial Visitation

Research Shows

General Support for

Fee Demonstration

Program

Surveys completed by the Park Service and the Forest Service show that

visitors generally support the need for, and the amount of, new or

increased entrance or user fees. However, these surveys are limited to

only a few sites and do not cover visitors to the sites of the Fish and

Wildlife Service and BLM. Both the Park Service and the Forest Service are

planning additional surveys for 1998 and 1999 that will probe more deeply

into visitation issues. In addition, some representatives of interest groups

and recreation fee researchers identified several areas needing further

Page 79 GAO/RCED-99-7 Recreational Fees
Chapter 5 

Early Information Suggests Overall

Visitation Was Largely Unaffected by

Recreational Fees, but Some Users Voiced

Concerns

research to fully assess the impact of the fee demonstration program.

Agency officials agreed that additional research is needed in a number of

areas. All four agencies have research planned to address several of the

research topics.

Completed Visitation

Research on the Fee

Demonstration Program

Research on actual impact of the fee demonstration program by both the

Park Service and the Forest Service shows that most visitors support the

need for fees and believe that the fees are set at about the right level.

A Park Service survey in 11 national park units taken during summer 1997

showed that 83 percent of the respondents were either satisfied with the

fees they paid or thought the fees were too low; 17 percent thought the

fees were too high.3

 According to 96 percent of respondents, the fees

would not affect their current visit or future plans to visit the park. Visitors

supported the new fees in large part because they wanted all or most of

the fee revenues to remain in the park where they were collected or with

the Park Service so that the funds could be used to improve visitor

services or protect resources, rather than be returned to the U.S. Treasury.

Three surveys at fee demonstration sites administered by the Forest

Service found general support for the program. A survey of over 400

visitors at the Mount St. Helens National Volcanic Monument in

Washington State in 1997 found 68 percent of those surveyed said their

visitor experience was worth the fee they paid.4

 Although over 50 percent

of those surveyed were not aware of the new fees prior to coming to

Mount St. Helens, 69 percent said their visitation plans did not change as a

result of the new fees. Overall, 92 percent of those surveyed were either

very satisfied or satisfied with their experience at the site.

A June 1997 to May 1998 survey of 1,392 backpackers and hikers at

Desolation Wilderness, Eldorado National Forest, in California found that

a majority accepted the concept of wilderness use fees and considered the

amount charged to be about right.5

 However, day-use fees were less

acceptable than overnight camping fees—about 33 percent of those who

3

Allen L. Lundgren and David W. Lime, Overview of a 1997 National Park Service Monitoring Study to

Obtain Visitor Reactions to the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program Final Report, University of

Minnesota, Department of Forest Resources, Cooperative Park Studies Unit (Nov. 1997).

4

Laura Garcia Tagliani and Sam H. Ham, Visitors’ Reactions to the Recreational Fee Pilot Program at

Mount St. Helens National Volcanic Monument, College of Graduate Studies, University of Idaho

(May 1998).

5

Alan E. Watson and others, Case Study of the Desolation Wilderness Fee Pilot Program, Aldo Leopold

Wilderness Research Institute, Missoula, Mont. (May 1998).

Page 80 GAO/RCED-99-7 Recreational Fees
Chapter 5 

Early Information Suggests Overall

Visitation Was Largely Unaffected by

Recreational Fees, but Some Users Voiced

Concerns

were surveyed disliked day-use fees compared with 20 percent who

disliked camping fees.

Starting in 1997, visitors to all 39 of the Forest Service’s fee demonstration

sites were given the opportunity to respond to a customer “comment

card” when they purchased a permit. As of March 1998, 528 cards had

been received from visitors to 45 individual national forests participating

in the fee demonstration program. About 57 percent of the respondents

either agreed or strongly agreed with the statement that the opportunities

and services they experienced during their visits were at least equal to the

fee they paid.6

Additional Surveys Are

Planned to Assess the

Impact of the Fee

Demonstration Program

Because only two of the four agencies participating in the recreational fee

demonstration program have completed visitor surveys, additional

research is planned for 1998 and 1999 to more fully assess visitors’ views

on new or increased recreational fees. In 1998, both BLM and the Fish and

Wildlife Service began their initial evaluations of the impact of the fee

demonstration program on visitors. These surveys will be included as part

of the final evaluation report of the demonstration program, which is

intended to be a comprehensive evaluation on the impact of fees on

visitation by each of the four agencies. Additional research by all four

agencies, when completed, should more fully illustrate public acceptance

and reaction to new or increased fees. Surveys on the impact of fees on

visitation and other issues planned for 1998 and 1999 include the

following:

• The Park Service plans additional research on visitation in 1998 that will

(1) survey the managers at all 100 recreational fee demonstration sites

concerning visitation and obtain their perceptions of the equity, the

efficiency, and the quality of visitors’ experiences resulting from the fee

demonstration program; and (2) conduct detailed case study evaluations

at 13 fee demonstration sites, including a detailed visitor survey at each

site. The case study sites will explore such questions as whether fees

affected the mix of sites’ visitors and how fees and changes in fee levels

have affected the visitors’ experience at the sites, among other questions.

The surveys are being administered for the Park Service by the University

of Idaho with assistance from the University of Montana and Pennsylvania

State University. Survey results are expected by April 1999.

6

Debbie Chavez and Dave Olson, USDA Forest Service Fee Demonstration Projects: Comment Card

Analysis, U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Riverside, Calif. (Mar. 1998).

Page 81 GAO/RCED-99-7 Recreational Fees
Chapter 5 

Early Information Suggests Overall

Visitation Was Largely Unaffected by

Recreational Fees, but Some Users Voiced

Concerns

• The Forest Service plans to survey visitors at several national forests in

1998 to assess their views on new or increased fees under the

demonstration program. Several visitor surveys will be completed at the

national forests in Southern California as part of the fee demonstration

project. The primary objectives of the surveys are to assess visitors’

responses to new recreational fees and the effects of the new fees on

visitation patterns and to complete a follow-up survey of users who visited

the demonstration sites before the new fees were in place. The surveys are

being done by the Pacific Southwest Research Station in Riverside and by

California State University, San Bernadino, and should be completed in

1999. In addition, a follow-up to a 1997 visitor survey is planned to assess

the opinions of campers on new fee charges at the Boundary Waters

Canoe Area Wilderness in Minnesota. The survey is being done by the

College of Natural Resources, University of Minnesota, and should be

completed by November 1998.

• A 1998 survey of a total of 2,600 visitors is planned at nine of the Fish and

Wildlife Service’s wildlife refuges, according to an agency official. The

survey objectives are to obtain visitors’ opinions on the fairness and equity

of the fee being charged, alternative fee-collection methods, and the use of

revenues from fee collections, among other topics. The nine sites selected

will include those charging both entrance and user fees as well as sites

with new fees and those that changed existing fees. The study is being

completed for the Service by a contractor to the Department of the

Interior’s National Biological Survey with assistance from Colorado State

University. Survey results will be available by the end of 1998.

• During September 1998, BLM plans to survey a total of 800 people who

visited eight different demonstration sites to assess their views on the

program. The specific objectives of the survey are to determine the

appropriateness of the fees charged, how revenues from fees should be

used, and how fees will affect future visitation, among other topics. The

sites selected will represent a cross-section of both dispersed and

developed recreation sites. The survey is being done with assistance from

the University of Virginia Survey Research Center and should be

completed by December 1998.

Areas in Need of Further

Research

While much of the completed research on visitors’ opinions about

recreational fees shows general support for the demonstration program,

recreation fee experts and some interest groups we contacted raised

concerns about some effects that completed or planned visitation

research, generally, does not address. The concerns fell into three areas:

Page 82 GAO/RCED-99-7 Recreational Fees
Chapter 5 

Early Information Suggests Overall

Visitation Was Largely Unaffected by

Recreational Fees, but Some Users Voiced

Concerns

the impact of new or increased fees on those not visiting recreation sites,

backcountry users, and low-income users.

First, almost all completed and planned visitation surveys concerning the

recreational fee demonstration program have assessed or will assess

visitors who have paid a user or entrance fee at the recreation site. This

practice is consistent with the agencies’ evaluation approach of assessing

visitors’ reactions to paying new or increased fees. However, potential

visitors who do not come to the recreation site or who come to the site but

leave because of new or increased fees have not been included in the

surveys. For example, at Glacier National Park in 1997-98 a fee was

collected at the park’s western entrance on certain winter weekends.

According to reports in the media, during this period, passengers in a

number of cars refused to pay the fee and canceled their visit to the park.

It is because of situations like this that several recreation fee researchers

we contacted said further research is needed to determine whether

recreational fees are precluding potential recreation users from visiting

the sites in the demonstration program.

Representatives from two of the four agencies participating in the fee

demonstration program agreed this was an important research concern

that completed or planned visitation research will not address. The Forest

Service plans a national recreation survey in 1998-99 that, among other

topics, will address the general public’s reaction to new or increased fees.

In commenting on this report, the Park Service said it plans to conduct a

survey of the general public to determine the impact of new or increased

fees on visitation. This survey should be completed by December 1999.

Fish and Wildlife Service officials said they had not planned such research

because (1) this type of research was expensive to conduct and (2) it was

not yet a high enough priority among competing research needs within the

agency. Officials from BLM said that if fee increases appeared to be a factor

in causing a decline in 1998 visitation figures, the agency would be likely

to conduct research on this topic.

Second, limited visitation surveys have been completed or are planned on

the impact of new or increased fees on backcountry recreation. Only one

of the completed surveys and one survey planned for 1998 has or will

focus exclusively on backcountry recreation: the Forest Service’s 1997-98

survey of Desolation Wilderness in northern California7

 and its summer

1998 survey of visitors to the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness in

7

Alan E. Watson and others, Providing Science Input to Management Issues: Defining and Answering

Researchable Questions: Introduction to a Case Study of the Desolation Wilderness Fee Pilot Program,

Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute, Missoula, Mont. (May 1998).

Page 83 GAO/RCED-99-7 Recreational Fees
Chapter 5 

Early Information Suggests Overall

Visitation Was Largely Unaffected by

Recreational Fees, but Some Users Voiced

Concerns

Minnesota. Furthermore, only 1 of the 11 national park units included in

the Park Service’s 1997 visitation survey had instituted fees for

backcountry use. One interest group contacted, Outward Bound USA,8

suggested that visitors’ acceptance of new or increased fees was greater in

developed recreation areas and that backcountry users were less

enthusiastic about the program because agencies charge multiple fees for

backcountry activities in the same area and many backcountry fees are

new fees rather than increases in existing fees. Several recreation fee

researchers contacted said that since many backcountry use fees were

new, additional research was needed to determine if fees were affecting

backcountry visitation patterns.

While representatives from the Park Service and the Forest Service agreed

this was an important research concern, Fish and Wildlife Service officials

did not, since their recreation sites do not involve nearly as much

dispersed backcountry recreation as the Park Service’s and the Forest

Service’s. A BLM official acknowledged this was an important issue, but

said the agency’s visitation survey would only be administered at a small

number of sites with dispersed backcountry recreation. In commenting on

a draft of this report, the Park Service said that it plans to conduct a

survey of backcountry/winter recreation users, to be completed by

December 1999, to determine the impact of new or increased fees on

visitation. A Forest Service official said the agency’s two surveys would

shed some light on the impact of fees on backcountry use but believed

more research was needed to fully assess the impact of fees on the Forest

Service’s many sites with backcountry use. The Forest Service official

favored more emphasis on such research but said that funding it would

have to be balanced with other research priorities.

Third, concerns have been expressed about the effect of new or increased

fees on low-income visitors to federal recreation sites participating in the

fee demonstration program. While BLM and the Fish and Wildlife Service

plan surveys to address this issue, neither the Park Service nor the Forest

Service has completed or plans research sufficient to address this topic at

a number of sites participating in the demonstration program. Two groups

we contacted, the National Parks and Conservation Association and

Outward Bound USA, emphasized that although recreational fees are

becoming more common, at some point fee increases will affect the

demographics of recreation users, particularly those with limited means.

In commenting on a draft of this report, the Forest Service stated that it is

considering requiring fee demonstration sites to (1) collect data on the

8

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

Page 84 GAO/RCED-99-7 Recreational Fees
Chapter 5 

Early Information Suggests Overall

Visitation Was Largely Unaffected by

Recreational Fees, but Some Users Voiced

Concerns

impact of fees on low-income and ethnic populations and (2) offer

proposals to mitigate any impacts.

Prior recreation fee research has also raised concerns about the impact of

fees on the visitation patterns of low- and moderate-income users. For

example, a study of the impact of fees on recreational day use at Army

Corps of Engineers recreation facilities suggests that a larger proportion of

low-income users would stop visiting a site if fees were charged and, since

low-income users are more sensitive to the magnitude of fees charged, that

higher fees would displace a higher proportion of low-income users.9

 In

addition, a 1997 survey of 1,260 visitors to 11 national park units found

that 17 percent thought the fees charged were too high and that the lower

the respondent’s income, the greater the tendency to think the fees

charged were too high.10 Several recreation fee researchers contacted said

that while some completed research has shown support for new fees

among users of all income levels, further research is needed to understand

how new fees and fee levels affect visitation of low-income users at federal

recreation sites.

Interest Groups

Generally Support

New Fee Program, but

Some Voice Concerns

A number of interest groups we contacted, while generally supportive of

the program, had some concerns about how the program was being

implemented and were withholding a strong endorsement until more

tangible results of the program were available. Some groups were

concerned that recreational fee increases represented an unfair burden on

commercial recreation providers and that public acceptance of fee

increases may diminish if fee increases go much higher. Also, some users

were concerned that fees were too high and amounted to double taxation.

All nine of the interest groups we contacted supported the recreational fee

demonstration program, but some had concerns about how the program

was being implemented.11 For example, the American Recreation Coalition

supports the program because fees have generated funds to preserve aging

agency facilities, provide new interpretative services, or experiment with

new or innovative fee-collection initiatives, such as a regional trail pass

program. However, the coalition was concerned that, in some cases, new

or increased fees were being added to permit fees already paid by

9

Stephen Reiling and others, Potential Equity Effects of a New Day-Use Fee (1995); and Stephen

Reiling and others, Demand and Marketing Study at Army Corps of Engineers Day-Use Areas, U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss. (1994).

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

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

Page 85 GAO/RCED-99-7 Recreational Fees
Chapter 5 

Early Information Suggests Overall

Visitation Was Largely Unaffected by

Recreational Fees, but Some Users Voiced

Concerns

commercial recreation providers to the agencies, which represented an

unfair and costly burden to their operations. The National Parks and

Conservation Association told us it supports the fee demonstration

program because fees are retained at the sites where they are collected

and are used to reduce maintenance backlogs. At the same time, however,

the association was concerned that at some point the public’s acceptance

of fee increases may erode. For example, according to the association,

excessive use fees for private boaters along the Colorado River12 and a

doubling or tripling of entrance fees at certain popular national parks such

as Yosemite are actions that are likely to stretch the limit of public

acceptance of new recreational fees. Another group from Washington

State, the Mountaineers, told us that while the public has initially accepted

the program, the group was withholding a strong endorsement of it until it

could see the results from the agencies’ spending on increased

maintenance, enhanced visitor services, or interpretative programs and the

results of visitor surveys.

Some visitors to federal recreation sites under the demonstration program

have voiced opposition to new or increased fees. For example, a Forest

Service analysis of 528 comment cards found that about 26 percent

disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement that the value of the

recreation opportunities and services the visitors had experienced was at

least equal to the fee they paid.13 In addition, 43 percent of the 420 people

providing written comments on the cards made negative statements about

the recreational fees, such as “the price is too high,” “this is double

taxation,” or “I oppose the fees.” Similarly, an analysis of 484 pieces of

correspondence received by the Park Service between July 1996 and

September 1997 showed that 67 percent of respondents expressed some

opposition to new fees.14 According to Park Service and Forest Service

officials, the surveys were not based on statistical sampling and, therefore,

are not representative of all users. Comment cards and correspondence

are more likely to be completed by those having a strong opinion on fees,

especially those who are opposed to fees.

12According to the Park Service, some of the fees charged to private boaters on the Colorado River in

the Grand Canyon are collected under 16 U.S.C. 3a—a separate authority outside of the fee

demonstration program.

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

14Allen L. Lundgren and others, Content Analysis of Correspondence Received by the National Park

Service Regarding the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program, Cooperative Park Studies Unit,

University of Minnesota (Nov. 1997).

Page 86 GAO/RCED-99-7 Recreational Fees
Page 87 GAO/RCED-99-7 Recreational Fees
Appendix I 

Recreational Fee Gross Revenues, Fiscal

Years 1996-98

Dollars in thousands

Agency/fees FY 1996 FY 1997

FY 1998

(estimated)

Percentage

increase from

FY 1996 to FY

1998

Park Service

Nondemonstration fees $77,771 $7,451 $9,500

Demonstration fees 0 114,041 135,572

Agency total 77,771 121,492 145,072 86.5%

Forest Service

Nondemonstration fees 9,988 7,700 7,000

Demonstration fees 20 8,744 17,744

Agency total 10,008 16,444 24,744 147.2%

Bureau of Land Management

Nondemonstration fees 3,311 3,249 2,525

Demonstration fees 0 419 3,200

Agency total 3,311 3,668 5,725 72.9%

Fish and Wildlife Service

Nondemonstration fees 2,177 2,325 500

Demonstration fees 0 622 3,300

Agency total 2,177 2,947 3,800 74.6%

The four agencies combined

Nondemonstration fees 93,247 20,725 19,525

Demonstration fees 20 123,826 159,816

Total $93,267 $144,551 $179,341 92.3%

Note: Prior to fiscal year 1998, not all of the fee revenues generated by demonstration sites were

available for expenditure. The agencies could spend only those revenues that exceeded the level

of revenues they had generated prior to the demonstration program. This is discussed in greater

detail in chapter 3.

Source: Data provided by the four agencies.

Page 88 GAO/RCED-99-7 Recreational Fees
Appendix II 

Details on Expenditures at the Park

Service’s Sites GAO Visited

In contrast to expenditures on a national basis in which repair and

maintenance predominated, at the seven Park Service sites we visited,

expenditures to support fee-collection activities were the largest

expenditure. For example, Assateague Island National Seashore in

Maryland had $188,624 in available revenues as of March 31, 1998.1

 The

seashore had spent $72,488, or 38 percent, of revenues collected—$61,488

of it on the cost of fee collection and $11,000 on health and safety or

interpretation items. The health and safety funds were spent on new

restrooms that can be removed from the site when a major storm is

expected. At the Frederick Douglass National Historic Site in Washington,

D.C., $5,000 was spent on the cost of collecting fees as of March 31, 1998,

but nothing was spent on other planned expenditures out of the $20,002 in

available revenues. At Olympic National Park in Washington State, with

$807,235 in available revenues, $37,000, or 5 percent, had been spent on

the cost of collection as of March 31, 1998, and the other project

expenditures of $131,199, or 16 percent, included replacing restroom

doors and privies, spreading gravel on roads and parking areas, and

making repairs at picnic areas (see fig. II.1).

1

The revenue numbers mentioned in this paragraph are the amounts available after the deduction of

the 20 percent for the agencywide fund and the base year amount applicable to fiscal year 1997.

Page 89 GAO/RCED-99-7 Recreational Fees
Appendix II 

Details on Expenditures at the Park

Service’s Sites GAO Visited

Figure II.1: Photos of Projects Paid for

by the Olympic National Park’s

Demonstration Program Revenues:

Road Project and Replacement of

Picnic Tabletops

Page 90 GAO/RCED-99-7 Recreational Fees
Appendix II 

Details on Expenditures at the Park

Service’s Sites GAO Visited

At Carlsbad Caverns National Park in New Mexico, the only expenditures

from the $652,983 in available revenues through March 31, 1998, were for

the cost of collection, totaling about $351,392, or 54 percent. At

Shenandoah National Park in Virginia, $720,819, or 41 percent, of the

$1.7 million in available revenues was spent on the cost of collection.

Some of the remainder was spent on clearing historic vistas along Skyline

Drive (see fig. II.2a and II.2b).

Figure II.2a: Shenandoah National

Park’s Vista Clearing Project: Typical

Area Where Historic Vista Along

Skyline Drive Is Obscured by Tree

Growth

Page 91 GAO/RCED-99-7 Recreational Fees
Appendix II 

Details on Expenditures at the Park

Service’s Sites GAO Visited

Figure II.2b: Shenandoah National

Park’s Vista Clearing Project: Area

Where Trees Were Cleared From

Historic Vista Along Skyline Drive

Timpanogos Cave National Monument in Utah has spent $95,611, or 67

percent, of the $142,421 in available revenues, almost all of it for the cost

of collection. At Zion National Park in Utah, with $2.3 million in available

revenues as of March 31, 74 percent, or $601,184 of $812,701 in

expenditures were for the cost of collection, and most of the remainder

was spent on the rehabilitation of the Watchman Campground near park

headquarters (see fig. II.3).

Page 92 GAO/RCED-99-7 Recreational Fees
Appendix II 

Details on Expenditures at the Park

Service’s Sites GAO Visited

Figure II.3: Rehabilitation of the Zion

National Park Watchman Campground

Campsites and New Group Shelter

Page 93 GAO/RCED-99-7 Recreational Fees
Appendix III 

Details on Expenditures at the Forest

Service’s Sites GAO Visited

At the Forest Service’s fee demonstration sites we visited, the distribution

of actual expenditures varied from those reported on a national basis. For

example, at the American Fork Canyon—Alpine Loop Recreation Area of

Uinta National Forest in Utah, which had $198,629 in revenues available to

spend through March 31, 1998, $184,688 or 93 percent, had been spent. Of

that amount, 68 percent was spent on the cost of fee collection and the

remainder on annual operations, facility enhancement, repairs and

maintenance, and interpretation and signage. An example of an

expenditure there was the use of fee demonstration funds to leverage

additional funding for the reconstruction of a road and a parking lot at a

popular recreation area (see fig. III.1).

Figure III.1: Reconstruction of the

Tibble Fork Parking Area of American

Fork Canyon Recreation Area, Uinta

National Forest

Mount St. Helens National Volcanic Monument in the Gifford Pinchot

National Forest in Washington State had $2.3 million in revenues through

March 31, 1998, and spent 57 percent, or $1.3 million. Of that amount, 32

percent was spent on interpretation and 28 percent on repairs and

maintenance. Fee revenues allowed the monument to extend seasons and

hours at visitor centers, information stations, and interpretive sites and to

Page 94 GAO/RCED-99-7 Recreational Fees
Appendix III 

Details on Expenditures at the Forest

Service’s Sites GAO Visited

provide daily cleaning and maintenance of developed areas, such as

viewpoints, picnic areas, and trailheads. Other expenditures were for

health and safety improvements, law enforcement, resource preservation,

facility enhancement, and the cost of collection. At the Salt and Verde

Rivers Recreation Complex in Tonto National Forest in Arizona,

$2.1 million was taken in and $2.0 million, or 90 percent, was spent

through March 31, 1998. Of the expenditures, 63 percent were for annual

operations, followed by 14 percent for the cost of collection, and

14 percent for facility enhancement. Figure III.2 shows a reconstructed

boat launch at the Saguaro del Norte recreation site in Tonto that was

funded with $225,000 in demonstration fee revenues. The remainder of the

expenditures were for repairs and maintenance, interpretation, and law

enforcement.

Figure III.2: Reconstructed Boat

Launch at the Saguaro Del Norte

Recreation Site in Tonto National

Forest

Page 95 GAO/RCED-99-7 Recreational Fees
Appendix IV 

Details on Expenditures at the Fish and

Wildlife Service’s Sites GAO Visited

At the three Fish and Wildlife Service’s refuges we visited, a total of

$137,704, or 39 percent, of $345,294 in revenues was reported spent as of

March 31, 1998. For these three sites, the predominant area of expenditure

was $81,980, or 60 percent, for the cost of fee collection—$14,000 by

Bosque Del Apache National Wildlife Refuge, New Mexico; $66,000 by

Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge, Virginia; and $1,980 by Nisqually

National Wildlife Refuge, Washington State (see fig. IV.1). All of the

remainder was spent on repairs and maintenance, mostly on projects

under way at Chincoteague, including the replacement of a roof and

carpeting at the visitor contact station, trail work, and construction of a

mobile environmental learning center. For the other two sites we visited,

the only expenditure outside of those for the cost for collection was

$16,808 on repair and maintenance at Bosque Del Apache.

Figure IV.1: Self-Service Fee-Collection

Facility at Nisqually National Wildlife

Refuge

Page 96 GAO/RCED-99-7 Recreational Fees
Appendix V 

Details on Expenditures at the BLM’s Sites

GAO Visited

For the two Bureau of Land Management (BLM) sites we visited, $213,320

had been spent as of March 31, 1998, with the greatest amount, 77 percent,

going toward the cost of fee collection.

At the Red Rock National Conservation Area in Nevada, of the $473,567 in

revenues available to spend through March 31, 1998, $178,767 had been

spent. Most of that amount, $128,783, or 72 percent, was spent for the cost

of collection and the remainder for minor facility enhancement, repair and

maintenance, and interpretation items (see fig. V.1).

Yaquina Head Outstanding Natural Area in Oregon reported no actual

expenditures from its $69,707 in revenues other than $34,463 spent on the

cost of collection as of March 31, 1998.

Figure V.1: New Entrance

Fee-Collection Facility Under

Construction at BLM’s Red Rock

National Conservation Area

Page 97 GAO/RCED-99-7 Recreational Fees
Appendix VI 

Comments From the Department of the

Interior and Our Evaluation

Note: GAO comments

supplementing those in the

report text appear at the

end of this appendix.

The page numbers

in this letter refer

to a draft of this

report. We have

indicated page

number changes for

those comments that we

discuss in detail.

Page 98 GAO/RCED-99-7 Recreational Fees
Appendix VI 

Comments From the Department of the

Interior and Our Evaluation

See comment 1.

See comment 1.

See comment 1.

See comment 1.

See comment 1.

Page 99 GAO/RCED-99-7 Recreational Fees
Appendix VI 

Comments From the Department of the

Interior and Our Evaluation

Now on p. 4.

See comment 2.

Now on p. 48.

See comment 3.

Now on p. 48.

See comment 3.

Now on p. 49.

See comment 3.

Now on pps. 58-62.

See comment 1.

Page 100 GAO/RCED-99-7 Recreational Fees
Appendix VI 

Comments From the Department of the

Interior and Our Evaluation

Now on pps. 66-68.

See comment 4.

See comment 4.

See comment 5.

Page 101 GAO/RCED-99-7 Recreational Fees
Appendix VI 

Comments From the Department of the

Interior and Our Evaluation

See comment 6.

Page 102 GAO/RCED-99-7 Recreational Fees
Appendix VI 

Comments From the Department of the

Interior and Our Evaluation

See comment 7.

Now app. I.

See comment 7.

See comment 7.

See comment 7.

Page 103 GAO/RCED-99-7 Recreational Fees
Appendix VI 

Comments From the Department of the

Interior and Our Evaluation

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

letter dated October 8, 1998. While the Department generally agreed with

the findings of the report, agencies within the Department raised concerns

about several sections of it. The agencies also provided clarifications and

technical points that were incorporated into the report as appropriate.

Within the letter, there are seven key points on which we provide the

following comments.

1. The comments of the Park Service suggest that the agency is reluctant

to experiment with differential pricing for a number of reasons, including

concerns that new pricing structures could result in increased processing

time at entrance stations, confused visitors, and complex fee schedules

and could also make enforcement of fees more difficult. We recognize that

the Park Service’s fee schedule has been successful, but question whether

the agency has responded sufficiently to one of the intents of the

recreational fee demonstration program—that agencies experiment with

innovative pricing structures. If done well, experimenting with differential

pricing at the Park Service’s demonstration sites need not result in

complex fee schedules, delays at entrance stations, confused visitors or

significant increases in the cost of fee collection. It is in this context, that

we provided the examples of golf courses, amusement parks, and ski

areas—recreation activities that routinely use differential pricing to which

the public is already accustomed. In many cases, these fee systems are

equitable, easily understood by the visitor, and do not cause delay or

confusion.

The Park Service commented that park managers had the discretion of

adopting high-season or weekend differential fee structures if they best

suited the area. It is unclear to us whether the few examples provided in

the comments are the only park units at which park managers believed

such pricing was suitable. If so, it further demonstrates our point that park

managers are capable of successfully using differential fees but have done

so to date on a very limited basis. We continue to believe that charging

visitors the same rate whether they visit for 1 day or 7 days may not be

equitable. More equitable pricing based on length of stay could also better

manage demand during high visitation periods. The potential benefits to

park visitors, such as less crowding and equitable fees, warrant that

differential pricing be tried at a greater number of park units than listed in

the agency’s comments.

Furthermore, the Park Service’s comments on this point are not consistent

with the January 1998 report to the Congress on the status of the fee

Page 104 GAO/RCED-99-7 Recreational Fees
Appendix VI 

Comments From the Department of the

Interior and Our Evaluation

demonstration program, which was jointly prepared by the Park Service,

the Forest Service, BLM and the Fish and Wildlife Service and transmitted

by the Undersecretary of the Department of Agriculture and an Assistant

Secretary of the Department of the Interior. In that report, the four

agencies noted that among the lessons learned up to that point was that

differential pricing could be used to maximize resource protection or to

minimize infrastructure investment. The report states that “higher fees on

weekends, summer months, or other [periods of] traditionally-high

recreation use, might reduce the peak loads on resources and 

facilities . . . . Reductions in peak loads can directly reduce the cost to

taxpayers associated with operating the recreation sites, providing

services to these sites, and any attendant damage to the resource.”

2. We agree that there are a large number of high-revenue sites in the Park

Service because the agency charges higher fees at premium sites, invests

resources in collecting these fees, and conducts reasonable enforcement

activities to ensure payment.

3. Early in its implementation of the demonstration program, the Park

Service directed its demonstration sites to focus the program’s

expenditures on addressing backlogged repair and maintenance items.

Because of this Park Service emphasis, we sought to determine to what

extent the new fee revenues would be able to address these items. We

found that park managers at several parks indicated that they could

address their existing repair and maintenance backlog in a few years (5

years or less) through these fee revenues—assuming the program

continues and that appropriations remain stable. We agree that regardless

of what happens to the repair and maintenance backlog, a backlog of

natural and cultural resource-related needs may continue. Nonetheless, it

is significant that managers of some of the parks we visited, such as Zion

and Shenandoah, indicated that they could resolve their backlog of repair

and maintenance needs in a few years through revenues from the

demonstration program.

4. It was clear from our work that there was disagreement among Park

Service and BLM officials over whether El Malpais National Monument was

a suitable site for the fee demonstration program, and the Park Service’s

comments indicate that this disagreement continues. The boundaries of

the agencies’ land make it unlikely that the project could succeed without

a joint effort. As a result, the site and its visitors will not reap the benefits

other sites have gained from being included in the demonstration program,

such as better maintained visitor facilities. We disagree with the concerns

Page 105 GAO/RCED-99-7 Recreational Fees
Appendix VI 

Comments From the Department of the

Interior and Our Evaluation

that the Park Service raised on this point and question their accuracy since

the cost-benefit analysis referred to in the Park Service’s comments has

not been completed. We obtained a draft of that analysis, which, according

to Park Service staff at El Malpais, was the most recent analysis available

as of October 15, 1998. The draft analysis contains no information on

anticipated costs or revenues from charging fees at this site. Furthermore,

we disagree with the Park Service’s belief that fees would affect Native

Americans’ use of the site. According to the Park Service regional fee

demonstration coordinator, at park units at which similar situations

existed, local managers have been able to resolve the cultural issues

involved with Native Americans’ use of sites at which fees had been

established.

5. We agree that the Fish and Wildlife Service’s opportunities to

experiment with differential pricing may be limited to those sites where

there is enough visitation to provide incentives to visit during off-peak

periods. One of the Fish and Wildlife Service’s sites included in our review

was Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge. There, the lack of parking was

a big enough concern that refuge managers are considering the need for a

shuttle system to better handle visitors during peak periods. While

Chincoteague may not be typical of other sites of the Fish and Wildlife

Service, it nonetheless is one area at which visitors and the agency could

benefit from differential pricing.

6. Our matter for congressional consideration on providing additional

flexibility to agencies in spending fee revenues rather than allowing sites

to retain 80 percent of the fees they collect in all cases is primarily

directed at high-revenue sites. At this point, few of the demonstration sites

in the Fish and Wildlife Service generate levels of revenues that exceed

20 percent of their operating budget—the threshold we used to designate

high-revenue sites. Furthermore, as our report notes, the Assistant

Secretary of the Interior for Policy, Management, and Budget has testified

that setting aside some of the fee revenues for broader agency priorities is

important and that giving the collecting sites a high percentage of the

revenues could create undesirable inequities within an agency.

7. The Department’s Office of Budget indicated that there was a factual

error in the reporting of revenues earned during fiscal year 1997 at fee

demonstration sites in the Park Service. This is not correct. According to

Park Service documents and to discussions with Park Service budget and

fee program officials, the amount of gross revenues generated at the Park

Service’s demonstration sites during fiscal year 1997 was $114,041,000. The

Page 106 GAO/RCED-99-7 Recreational Fees
Appendix VI 

Comments From the Department of the

Interior and Our Evaluation

amount suggested by Interior’s Office of Budget—$45,079,000—may

reflect only the amount of the Park Service’s fee revenues in fiscal year

1997 that were available for expenditure. Prior to fiscal year 1998, the

agencies could only spend those fee revenues that exceeded the amount of

fees they generated before the demonstration. For fiscal years 1998 and

1999, the agencies can spend all of the revenues generated from fees at

demonstration sites. This is more fully discussed in chapter 3. For greater

clarity, we have added a note to the table on program revenues in

appendix I that states that not all revenues generated prior to fiscal year

1998 were available for expenditure.

Page 107 GAO/RCED-99-7 Recreational Fees
Appendix VII 

Comments From the Department of

Agriculture and Our Evaluation

Note: GAO comments

supplementing those in the

report text appear at the

end of this appendix.

The page numbers in

this letter refer to a

draft of this report.

We have indicated

page number changes

for those comments

that we dicuss in

detail.

Page 108 GAO/RCED-99-7 Recreational Fees
Appendix VII 

Comments From the Department of

Agriculture and Our Evaluation

Now on p. 2.

See comment 1.

Page 109 GAO/RCED-99-7 Recreational Fees
Appendix VII 

Comments From the Department of

Agriculture and Our Evaluation

Page 110 GAO/RCED-99-7 Recreational Fees
Appendix VII 

Comments From the Department of

Agriculture and Our Evaluation

Now on p. 34.

See comment 2.

Now on p. 45.

See comment 2.

Page 111 GAO/RCED-99-7 Recreational Fees
Appendix VII 

Comments From the Department of

Agriculture and Our Evaluation

Now on p. 55.

See comment 2.

Now on p. 62.

See comment 3.

Page 112 GAO/RCED-99-7 Recreational Fees
Appendix VII 

Comments From the Department of

Agriculture and Our Evaluation

GAO Comments The following are GAO’s comments on the Department of Agriculture’s

letter dated October 2, 1998. The Department generally agreed with the

findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the report, but provided

several clarifications and technical points that were incorporated into the

report as appropriate. Within the letter, there are three key points on

which we provide the following comments.

1. We agree that there are vast recreational opportunities available on

lands administered by the Forest Service and that the agency has the

potential of raising significantly more in fee revenues to maintain site

resources and enhance the services and facilities available on these lands.

This is supported by the agency’s estimate that its visitation is about three

times as great as the Park Service’s.

2. The Forest Service raises several points on our matter for congressional

consideration about modifying the current requirement that 80 percent of

the fee revenues be spent at the collecting units to provide the agencies

with greater flexibility to spend the revenues on the agencies’

highest-priority needs. Our analysis and conclusion that greater flexibility

could be beneficial were based on the spending at high-revenue sites,

where, in the long term, the sites may be able to use increased revenues to

address most or all of their critical needs. In these cases, making

80 percent of the revenues available to the collecting sites may result in

sites spending money on relatively low-priority items compared with the

needs of other sites within the agency. Therefore, in the long term, greater

flexibility may permit the agency to better address its highest-priority

needs at all sites. Nevertheless our matter for congressional consideration

notes that any change to the 80-percent requirement would have to be

balanced against the need to maintain incentives at fee-collecting units

and to maintain the support of the visitors.

3. We did not delete examples of cooperation among the agencies that had

been part of a “statement of facts” that we provided to and discussed with

the Forest Service. After we received the agency’s comments, we

discussed this concern with the key focal point for the fee demonstration

program in the Forest Service. He indicated that the agency may have

made this comment in error.

Page 113 GAO/RCED-99-7 Recreational Fees
Appendix VIII 

Major Contributors to This Report

Resources,

Community and

Economic

Development

Division, Washington,

D.C.

Jay Cherlow

Cliff W. Fowler

John P. Scott

Ned H. Woodward

Seattle Field Office Brian A. Estes

Paul E. Staley, Jr

Office of General

Counsel

A. Richard Kasdan

Page 114 GAO/RCED-99-7 Recreational Fees
Related GAO Products

National Park Service: Efforts to Identify and Manage the Maintenance

Backlog (GAO/RCED-98-143, May 14, 1998).

Forest Service: Barriers to Generating Revenue or Reducing Costs

(GAO/RCED-98-58, Feb. 13, 1998).

National Park Service: Maintenance Backlog Issues (GAO/T-RCED-98-61,

Feb. 4, 1998).

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

1997).

Park Service: Managing for Results Could Strengthen Accountability

(GAO/RCED-97-125, Apr. 10, 1997).

U.S. Forest Service: Fees for Recreation Special-Use Permits Do Not

Reflect Fair Market Value (GAO/RCED-97-16, Dec. 20, 1996).

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

National Parks: Difficult Choices Need to Be Made About the Future of the

Parks (GAO/RCED-95-238, Aug. 30, 1995).

National Park Service: Better Management and Broader Restructuring

Efforts Are Needed (GAO/T-RCED-95-101, Feb. 9, 1995).

National Park Service: Reexamination of Employee Housing Program Is

Needed (GAO/RCED-94-284, Aug. 30, 1994).

National Park Service: Activities Outside Park Borders Have Caused

Damage to Resources and Will Likely Cause More (GAO/RCED-94-59, Jan. 3,

1994).

Department of the Interior: Transfer of the Presidio From the Army to the

National Park Service (GAO/RCED-94-61, Oct. 26, 1993).

National Park Service: Condition of and Need for Employee Housing

(GAO/RCED-93-192, Sept. 30, 1993).

National Park Service: Scope and Cost of America’s Industrial Heritage

Project Need to Be Defined (GAO/RCED-93-134, May 14, 1993).

Page 115 GAO/RCED-99-7 Recreational Fees
Related GAO Products

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

Forest Service: Difficult Choices Face the Future of the Recreation

Program (GAO/RCED-91-115, Apr. 15, 1991).

Parks and Recreation: Resource Limitations Affect Condition of Forest

Service Recreation Sites (GAO/RCED-91-48, Jan. 15, 1991).

Air Pollution: Protecting Parks and Wilderness From Nearby Pollution

Sources (GAO/RCED-90-10, Feb. 7, 1990).

National Forests: Special Recreation Areas Not Meeting Established

Objectives (GAO/RCED-90-27, Feb. 5, 1990).

Wilderness Preservation: Problems in Some National Forests Should Be

Addressed (GAO/RCED-89-202, Sept. 26, 1989).

Parks and Recreation: Maintenance and Reconstruction Backlog on

National Forest Trails (GAO/RCED-89-182, Sept. 22, 1989).

Parks and Recreation: Park Service Managers Report Shortfalls in

Maintenance Funding (GAO/RCED-88-91BR, Mar. 21, 1988).

(141128) Page 116 GAO/RCED-99-7 Recreational Fees
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address

are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, DC 20013

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 

or by using fax number (202) 512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-2537.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any

list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a

touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on

how to obtain these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,

send an e-mail message with "info" in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at:

http://www.gao.gov

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100