RECREATION FEES

Management

Improvements Can

Help the

Demonstration

Program Enhance

Visitor Services

Report to the Ranking Minority

Member, Subcommittee on National

Parks, Historic Preservation, and

Recreation, Committee on Energy and

Natural Resources, U.S. Senate

United States General Accounting Office

GAO

November 2001

GAO-02-10
Page i GAO-02-10 Recreation Fees

Letter 1

Results in Brief 2

Background 4

More Innovation and Better Coordination Can Improve Visitor

Services 6

Management Improvements Are Needed to Make the Program

More Effective 18

Use of Fee Demonstration Revenues May Not Always Reflect

Agencies’ Highest-Priority Needs 24

Conclusions 29

Recommendations for Executive Action 30

Agency Comments 30

Appendix I Scope and Methodology 32

Appendix II Comments From the Department of the Interior 35

Appendix III Comments From the U.S. Department of

Agriculture 37

Tables

Table 1: Percentage of Fee Demonstration Sites That Used

Innovative Collection Methods for Entrance Fees 10

Table 2: Percentage of Fee Demonstration Sites That Used

Innovative Collection Methods for User Fees 10

Table 3: Response Rate for Fee Demonstration Program Survey 32

Table 4: Demonstration Sites GAO Visited 33

Figures

Figure 1: Fiscal Year 2000 Fee Demonstration Revenues 6

Figure 2: Percentage of Agency Sites That Used Innovative Fee

Pricing 8

Figure 3: Automated Fee Payment Machines at BLM’s Imperial

Sand Dunes Recreation Area 13

Contents
Page ii GAO-02-10 Recreation Fees

Figure 4: Percentage of Agency Sites Coordinating Fees 15

Abbreviations

BLM Bureau of Land Management

FWS Fish and Wildlife Service
Page 1 GAO-02-10 Recreation Fees

November 26, 2001

The Honorable Craig Thomas

Ranking Minority Member

Subcommittee on National Parks,

 Historic Preservation, and Recreation

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

United States Senate

Dear Senator Thomas:

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

federal land management agencies to continue providing high-quality

recreational opportunities to visitors and to enhance the protection of

resources. To address this concern, in 1996 the Congress authorized an

experimental initiative called the Recreational Fee Demonstration

Program. The program focuses on the activities of four land management

agencies: the National Park Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS),

and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) within the Department of the

Interior, and the Forest Service within the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Under the fee demonstration program, the participating agencies are

authorized to establish, charge, collect, and use fees at a number of sites to

enhance visitor services; to address a backlog of needs for repair and

maintenance; and to manage and protect resources, among other uses. The

program applies mainly to two types of visitor fees: “entrance fees” for

basic admission to an area and “user fees” for specific activities such as

camping or launching a boat. Under the law, as amended, 80 percent of

program revenue must be used at the site where it was collected, and the

remaining 20 percent may be distributed by the agencies to other sites that

may or may not be participating in the demonstration program.1

 The

program is currently authorized through September 30, 2004.

To reap the full benefits of the program, the Congress called upon the

agencies to be creative in developing and experimenting with new fees and

fee collection practices, to improve service to visitors, and to alleviate

visitors’ confusion by coordinating multiple or overlapping recreation fees.

In 1998, about 2 years after the program began, we reported to you that the

 1

P.L. 104-134, title III, sec. 315, as amended. The revenue is deposited into a special

Treasury account and then redistributed to the recreational sites.

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, DC 20548
Page 2 GAO-02-10 Recreation Fees

program was successful in many ways but that improvements were needed

in a number of areas. More specifically, opportunities remained for the

agencies to be more innovative and cooperative in designing, setting, and

collecting fees; cooperation and coordination among the agencies also

needed improvement. We further reported that under the program’s

requirement to use 80 percent of revenues at the collecting site, heavily

visited sites might eventually have more revenue than needed for their

projects, while sites with fewer visitors could have unmet needs.

Now, after 3 more years of experience, as the Congress is considering

whether to make the program permanent, you asked that we review some

of the same issues we reported on in 1998 to see if conditions have

changed substantially. As agreed with your office, we determined (1) the

extent to which agencies used innovative practices to design and collect

fees and coordinated their management of the fee demonstration program;

(2) what, if any, management improvements can be made to enhance

program performance; and (3) whether revenues from the fee

demonstration program are being used to meet the agencies’ highestpriority needs.

We based our analysis in part on a survey that we developed and made

accessible to managers of fee demonstration sites via the Internet. The

survey covered such issues as fee innovations, fee collection methods, and

attempts to coordinate fees with other agencies or nearby sites. In all,

managers of 346 (or 95 percent) of the 365 sites involved in the

demonstration program completed this survey. Our survey results are

included in a special publication entitled Recreational Fee Demonstration

Program Survey and is available only on the Internet at

http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?gao-02-88SP. We also based our analysis

on work conducted at the agencies' headquarters and selected sites of all

four agencies and contacted four state park systems and six interest

groups involved with natural resources or outdoor recreation. We

conducted our work from November 2000 through September 2001 in

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. See

appendix I for a more detailed description of our scope and methodology.

Some of the sites that we surveyed experimented with innovative fee

designs and collection methods, such as reducing fees during off-peak

seasons and allowing visitors to use credit cards to make it easier for them

to pay fees, but room for additional innovation exists, particularly in the

areas of fee collection and coordination. For example, 70 percent of sites,

including some large national parks that host millions of visitors annually,

Results in Brief
Page 3 GAO-02-10 Recreation Fees

do not accept credit cards for payment of entrance fees. Furthermore,

most sites have not adopted other common retailing techniques, such as

collecting fees via toll-free numbers or through off-site vendors. Such

techniques would increase visitor convenience by providing more payment

options and improve the safety and security of the employees collecting

the fees. Similarly, about 70 percent of the sites do not coordinate their

fees with other sites. For example, some sites charge a single entrance fee

that includes activities, such as hiking or touring a historic site, whereas

others nearby charge a separate user fee for these activities. Such lack of

coordination results in fees that are not only inconsistent, but also

confusing to visitors.

Improvements in three areas of program management are needed to

enhance program performance. First, the agencies need effective ways to

evaluate their managers’ performance in administering the fee program.

Performance expectations and associated performance measures, which

are largely absent in current performance evaluations, are especially

necessary in view of the fact that all four agencies give local site managers

broad discretion to implement the program. Without performance

expectations and measures, program managers cannot readily determine

whether fee-collection and coordination practices are acceptable either at

a site or throughout an agency. Second, the agencies need to develop

information on which fee-collection and coordination practices work best.

This information would become increasingly important as many more sites

begin collecting fees if the program is permanently authorized. Third, the

agencies need to resolve a number of interagency management issues. For

example, agency and interagency passes are not consistently accepted by

sites, resulting in visitor confusion and, in some cases, overlapping fees for

the same or similar activities. These issues have concerned agency

managers for a number of years but have yet to be resolved.

Revenues from the fee demonstration program may not always be used to

meet the highest-priority needs of the two agencies that generate almost

all of the fee revenue. First, the National Park Service and the Forest

Service do not maintain a centralized list of priority needs. Second, since

80 percent of the fees must be used at the site where they were collected,

sites that collect most of the revenue use it to meet their local needs even

if these needs are minor in comparison with the needs at locations where

fees are not as plentiful. Although the on-site retention and use of most of

its fee revenue is key to public acceptance of the program, this

requirement is creating funding imbalances among the sites managed by

the National Park Service and the Forest Service. While some high-revenue

sites have more revenue than they may need to meet their priority needs,
Page 4 GAO-02-10 Recreation Fees

the backlog of priority needs of lower-revenue sites or sites not

participating in the fee demonstration program may not be addressed for

many years. Interior officials acknowledge this problem and believe that

certain sites with high fee revenues and with no backlog of needs or a

limited backlog could end up searching for additional projects just to

spend the money. This situation is particularly acute in the National Park

Service, where fee revenue at 14 parks has effectively increased their

annual operating budgets by 50 percent or more.

We are making recommendations in this report to improve the

management of the fee demonstration program.

We received comments from the Department of the Interior and the

Department of Agriculture on a draft of this report. Both departments

generally agreed with the findings and the recommendations in the report.

Comments from the Department of the Interior are included in appendix

II, and comments from the Department of Agriculture are included in

appendix III.

Under the fee-demonstration program, up to 100 sites per agency have

been permitted to charge, collect, and establish recreation fees.2

 The

National Park Service and BLM have 100 sites each participating in the

program, while the FWS and the Forest Service have 88 sites each.3

Because the program is a demonstration program, the conference

committee encouraged the agencies to be innovative in designing and

collecting fees and to coordinate their fees with other federal, state, and

local recreational sites.4

Developing innovative fees and collection methods is a key objective of

the program because the Congress viewed experimentation with fees as a

way to improve customer service. Fee innovation was envisioned as

charging different types of fees beyond simply charging fees for entering a

site or using a facility or increasing fees that existed prior to the program.

 2

 The Congress recently expanded the fee demonstration program, eliminating the 100

demonstration sites per agency limitation (P. L. 107-63, sec. 312 (b)).

3

We excluded from our survey two FWS sites, two BLM sites, and seven Forest Service

sites because some sites were not collecting fees or the sites had been consolidated as of

September 30, 2000.

4

H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 105-825, at 1194 (1998).

Background
Page 5 GAO-02-10 Recreation Fees

For example, fee innovation includes such things as basing fees on the

length of stay or the season of the year visited. Innovative fee collection

procedures were encouraged to provide visitors with a broader variety of

payment options for recreation fees, such as using automated fee payment

machines and credit or debit cards.

Coordinating fees within and among the agencies, as well as with other

nearby recreational sites, is also an important aspect of the program.

Agencies are encouraged to work toward a seamless program by

cooperating to eliminate inconsistent, duplicative, or overlapping fees that

can confuse visitors or otherwise detract from the quality of service

provided to them.

Since fiscal year 1997, the four participating agencies have collected more

than $600 million in the program. In fiscal year 2000, revenue collections

totaled $186 million, with the National Park Service collecting over

75 percent of the total (see fig. 1).5

 5

 The National Park Service fee demonstration revenue includes $10.1 million from sales of

the National Parks Pass.
Page 6 GAO-02-10 Recreation Fees

Figure 1: Fiscal Year 2000 Fee Demonstration Revenues

Being innovative is an important goal of the fee demonstration program.

While some of the sites surveyed experimented with innovative types of

fees and fee collection methods, room for improvement exists—

particularly in the area of fee collection and coordination. Currently, many

sites use traditional collection methods and have not adopted innovative

practices that could improve the quality of service to the visiting public.

Furthermore, frequently agencies are not pursuing opportunities to

coordinate fees better among their own sites; with other agencies; or with

other nearby, nonfederal recreational sites. As a result, existing fees are

sometimes overlapping, duplicative, or confusing.

The experimental nature of the fee demonstration program furnishes

agencies with the opportunity to try different types of recreation fees. The

agencies are expected to take advantage of this opportunity by trying

different types of fees, rather than merely increasing existing entrance or

user fees. Our survey found that overall about 25 percent of sites tried

More Innovation and

Better Coordination

Can Improve Visitor

Services

Some Sites Experimented

With Innovative Fees
Page 7 GAO-02-10 Recreation Fees

some form of innovative fees. The remaining sites—about 75 percent—

continued with their traditional approaches for charging entrance and user

fees.

For purposes of our analysis, we defined fee innovation as doing more

than taking a traditional approach to setting fees. Specifically, if sites

made no changes to their fees or increased fees that were already in place

when the program began, we did not consider them to be innovative. On

the other hand, if sites used nontraditional approaches like basing fees on

their visitors’ length of stay or offering fee incentives for visiting during

off-peak periods, we considered the sites to be innovative. Such variable

pricing, often referred to as differential pricing, offers visitors a greater

range of recreational fee prices. It also enables agencies to manage

visitation better during peak periods, to align fees better with the costs of

providing services, and to help lessen overcrowding and the resulting

negative effect on resources.

The survey results show that 87 sites (about 25 percent of all sites

surveyed) have experimented with some type of fee innovation.6

 The

remaining 259 sites (about 75 percent) in the program have not

experimented with innovative fees. The extent of fee innovation varied

considerably among the agencies (see fig. 2).

 6

Specifically, we asked questions about a site’s use of peak-period pricing, reduced-fee

prices during shoulder seasons (such as the fall or spring or other times of the year with

lower visitation), increased-fee prices for campsites with scenic amenities, and other types

of new or experimental entrance or user fees. See

http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?gao-02-88SP, questions 46A-D and 53, for further detail.
Page 8 GAO-02-10 Recreation Fees

Figure 2: Percentage of Agency Sites That Used Innovative Fee Pricing

The following examples illustrate the kind of fee innovations that have

been used:

• 48 sites (14 percent of those surveyed) reported reducing fee prices during

off-peak or shoulder seasons, such as the fall or spring. For example,

BLM’s Upper Colorado River site, located in Colorado, has reduced its

camping fees in the spring and fall, when fewer services are available.

According to the fee manager, the site began this practice before the fee

demonstration program to more closely align fees with the level of service

provided.

• 35 sites (10 percent of those surveyed) reported using some other type of

peak-period or differential pricing. For example, to help manage high

visitation levels during the three summertime holiday weekends, the

Forest Service’s Sand Lake Recreation Area in Oregon added $10 to its

entrance fee and limits the number of off-highway vehicles to 1,200

vehicles for those weekends. These changes helped offset some of the

administrative and staffing costs associated with increased holiday

weekend use and provided an incentive to shift visits to non-holiday

weekends, according to an agency official. Before the fee demonstration

program, the area charged no additional fees, and increased operational

costs during the holiday weekends were absorbed into the site’s existing

budget, according to a Forest Service official.
Page 9 GAO-02-10 Recreation Fees

Each agency experimented to some extent with new or innovative

entrance or user fees. We recognize that some innovative types of fees

may not be practical or feasible at all locations. However, whether this

degree of experimentation is acceptable in terms of achieving the results

expected by agency managers cannot be determined because none of the

agencies developed performance expectations or criteria for success.

The fee demonstration program encouraged agencies to be innovative and

improve visitor service by using modern, more convenient fee collection

methods. Among the four agencies, a number of sites have used new or

innovative approaches to collecting fees to improve visitor convenience,

reduce collection costs, and improve the safety and security of employees

collecting fees. However, over 60 percent of sites surveyed reported that

there was little or only some difference in their fee collection methods for

both entrance and user fees since the program began. These data suggest

that much more can be done to offer visitors a wider variety of options for

paying recreation fees. The agencies could accomplish this goal by more

frequently adopting commonly used retail practices, such as using credit

cards, where feasible.

Our survey asked sites about their use of fee collection methods for both

entrance and user fees during the demonstration program.7

 These methods

included more traditional methods, such as collecting fees at an entrance

station or at an “iron ranger” fee tube—a metal tube which is used as a

self-service payment station—as well as methods that could be considered

innovative and more convenient for visitors when compared to the

traditional practices used by the agencies: credit cards, automated fee

payment machines, the Internet, 800 toll-free telephone numbers, and

off-site vendor sales.

We selected these five particular ones because they are collection and

payment methods used everyday in retail, recreation, or entertainment

industries.

As tables 1 and 2 show, relatively few sites have experimented with the

five innovative collection or payment methods for entrance and user fees.

 7

These methods included both fee collection and fee payment practices; e.g., collection of

fees paid by using an 800 toll-free telephone number. See

http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?gao-02-88SP for a list of the fee collection methods.

More Innovation to Update

Fee Collection Practices

Would Improve Visitor

Convenience
Page 10 GAO-02-10 Recreation Fees

In addition, significant variations existed among agencies in the use of

these methods. For example, while more than 40 percent of the Forest

Service sites collected user fees via off-site vendor sales, only 6 percent of

National Park Service sites used this method.

Table 1: Percentage of Fee Demonstration Sites That Used Innovative Collection Methods for Entrance Fees

Agency

Collection or payment methodaBLM FWS National Park Service Forest Service Total

Credit card at an entrance station 9 3 48 27 30

Automated fee payment machine 0 3 12 9 8

Internet 0 0 3 0 2

800 telephone number 0 0 4 0 2

Off-site vendor sales 18 3 15 18 12

Number of sites 11 35 69 11

a

Excludes sale of the FWS’ Duck Stamp and the National Park Service’s National Parks Pass.

Table 2: Percentage of Fee Demonstration Sites That Used Innovative Collection Methods for User Fees

Agency

Collection or payment methodaBLM FWS National Park Service Forest Service Total

Credit card at an entrance station 8 2 30 12 14

Automated fee payment machine 1 0 19 10 8

Internet 3 0 16 20 10

800 telephone number 3 0 20 20 11

Off-site vendor sales 7 4 6 42 14

Number of sites 76 54 70 59

a

Excludes sale of the FWS’ Duck Stamp and the National Park Service’s National Parks Pass.

The sites that did experiment with any of these collection practices

generally found that they increased visitor convenience, reduced agency

collection costs, and increased the safety and security of employees

collecting fees.

Using credit cards can make it easier for visitors to pay for multiple

entrance or user fees simultaneously and can increase the safety of

employees collecting fees by reducing cash handling. Nonetheless, while

credit cards are ubiquitous in retail transactions, many of the

demonstration sites have been reluctant to use them. For example,

30 percent of the surveyed sites that charge entrance fees and 14 percent

of the surveyed sites that charge user fees accept credit cards for payment

at an entrance station. While about half (33 of 69 sites that collect entrance

fees) of the Park Service demonstration sites accept credit cards at an
Page 11 GAO-02-10 Recreation Fees

entrance station, a number of popular parks visited by millions annually,

such as Yosemite National Park, do not accept credit cards. In

commenting on a draft of this report, the Park Service stated that

Yosemite National Park will begin accepting credit cards by the end of

2001. An October 2000 Forest Service review of fee demonstration sites in

one of its regions questioned why it was so difficult for the agency to

establish credit card acceptance and cited significant customer

inconvenience because of this. The review noted that credit cards would

also greatly reduce cash handling and improve employee safety. In

addition, our survey results show that none of the top five FWS revenue

sites, which accounted for 42 percent of the agency’s fiscal year 2000 total

fee demonstration revenues, offer visitors the option of using credit cards

for fee payment. Overall, while officials from the Interior agencies and the

Forest Service agree that more can be done in this area, many times it may

not be feasible for a number of reasons. For example, they said that credit

cards may not be cost-effective at all sites and that the lack of adequate

infrastructure, such as on-site power or phone lines in remote locations,

prevented some sites from accepting credit cards.

Another type of collection technique being used at some sites are

automated fee payment machines similar to the automated teller machines

used by banks and other financial institutions. With automated payment

machines, visitors can pay a variety of fees, such as entrance,

campground, or boat launch fees that can be paid with cash or credit

cards, and the machines issue receipts showing the fees were paid. At

BLM’s Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area, for example, a fee

demonstration site in southern California, 17 automated fee payment

machines are used to collect $10 for a weekly pass or $30 for an annual

pass from users of off-highway vehicles (see fig. 3). Total fee revenue at

this site in fiscal year 2000 was about $400,000, according to a BLM

official. About 500,000 people use the 118,000-acre site each year, peaking

at about 100,000 people during Thanksgiving weekend. According to a

BLM official at the site, the battery operated fee machines, which are

owned and maintained by a private contractor, are very convenient to use

and accept both cash and credit cards for fee payment. Use of the

machines has significantly reduced the number of agency staff required for

fee collection at the sites where the machines are located.

Despite the potential of automated fee machines to lower visitors’ waiting

times during peak periods and the potential to reduce the agencies’

collection costs, only 8 percent of the 126 sites charging entrance fees and

8 percent of the 259 sites charging user fees employed such machines.

According to Park Service and Forest Service officials, use of automated
Page 12 GAO-02-10 Recreation Fees

fee-payment machines may not always lower the cost of collection. In

addition, officials from the two agencies said some sites are reluctant to

purchase these machines because of the temporary nature of the fee

demonstration program and the potential for vandalism when they are

installed in remote locations. We recognize that automated fee payment

machines may not be practical or cost effective at all demonstration sites

such as those with low visitation or remote access. However, among those

sites that have not installed automated payment machines for collecting

entrance or user fees are several that have a high volume of visitors—each

with over a million annually—including Acadia and Yellowstone National

Parks; the Forest Service’s Sawtooth National Recreation Area in Idaho

and Shasta-Trinity National Recreation Area in California; and the FWS’

Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge in Virginia.

In commenting on a draft of this report, the Park Service and the Forest

Service noted that automated fee payment machines were not installed at

some locations for various reasons. The Park Service said that such

machines were not installed because power and telephone lines may not

be available and because of the park’s desire to maintain a uniformedranger contact with visitors when paying fees. The Forest Service cited

issues, such as sites having multiple points of entry, vandalism concerns,

and the potentially short-term nature of the program. We agree that these

are important considerations in helping decide whether to use these

machines. However, in light of the very limited use of these machines to

date—even at many high-visitation parks and forests—we believe that in

the interest of improving visitor services and convenience, the agencies

need to pursue all opportunities in this area.
Page 13 GAO-02-10 Recreation Fees

Figure 3: Automated Fee Payment Machines at BLM’s Imperial Sand Dunes

Recreation Area

Another little-used technique is paying entrance or user fees over the

Internet or via a toll-free telephone number. These techniques can also

increase customer convenience, encourage less cash handling at individual

sites, and lessen visitor delays during peak times. For example, camping

and hiking permits for Paria Canyon-Coyote Buttes in Arizona, one of

BLM’s demonstration sites, are sold via the Internet. Overnight camping in

the Paria Canyon area and hiking in the Coyote Buttes area are each

limited to 20 people a day. Using the Internet allows visitors to obtain

information on the area, check on the availability of required camping and

hiking permits for particular dates, make reservations, fill out and submit

detailed application forms, and print out the application forms for mailing.

A BLM official responsible for managing the program said the Internet

payment method was very successful and that it accounted for about

80 percent of total permit sales at that site. Despite the common use—and

convenience—of the Internet and a toll-free telephone number for

conducting retail transactions today, only 2 percent of all sites surveyed

used them for sales of entrance fees via the Internet, and 10 percent used
Page 14 GAO-02-10 Recreation Fees

the Internet for sales of user fees. Also, concerning 800 telephone number

sales, only 2 percent of sites surveyed used it for sales of entrance fees and

11 percent used it for sales of user fees.

Finally, using off-site vendors to collect entrance or user fees can be more

convenient for the visitor and more efficient for the agency. In some

instances, paying fees at a location inside a site may not always be

convenient particularly if the site has no main entrance or has multiple

access points, such as in many Forest Service recreation sites. In such

situations, some sites have experimented with having small businesses,

such as gas stations, grocery stores, fishing tackle stores, or other groups

in the vicinity or adjacent to the site, collect entrance and user fees from

visitors. For example, about 240 vendors sell passes to visitors for

recreation in 17 national forests in Oregon and Washington State that

participate in a fee demonstration project called the Northwest Forest

Pass—a user fee for payment at developed recreation facilities and for

trailhead parking. According to a Forest Service official, use of off-site

vendor sales have reduced agency operational costs as well as improved

visitor convenience. Despite the many advantages of off-site vendor sales,

less than 15 percent of all sites use them for sales of either entrance or

user fees, although 42 percent of Forest Service sites use this method for

sales of user fees. National Park Service officials said that they do not use

off-site sales as much as the Forest Service because unlike the Forest

Service, many of their sites rely on entrance stations for fee collection.

In commenting on a draft of this report, the Park Service reported that it is

expanding vendor sales of passes. The Park Service also commented that

it has implemented other types of innovations, such as computer-based

cash register systems, electronic banking, and commercial-tour-fee

vouchers. In addition, FWS commented that the report makes the

assumption that more traditional fee collection methods equate to poorer

customer service compared with more sophisticated higher-technology

methods. While we recognize that existing fee collection methods may

provide adequate customer service at some recreation sites, at others,

especially those with high visitation, greater use of more innovative

collection methods can improve visitor convenience, reduce collection

costs, and improve the safety and security of employees collecting fees.
Page 15 GAO-02-10 Recreation Fees

The legislative history of the fee demonstration program emphasizes the

need for the participating agencies to work together to minimize or

eliminate confusion for visitors when overlapping or inconsistent fees are

charged. In implementing the fee demonstration program, management in

each agency has encouraged local site managers to coordinate fees to

avoid such confusion. However, in the final analysis, whether coordination

occurs is largely based on the desire and will of local site managers. The

site managers responding to our questionnaire reported that about

30 percent of their sites—103 out of 346—began coordinating their fees

with other federal, state, or local recreation sites after the fee

demonstration program began. While coordination of fees may not be

feasible at all recreation sites, there are many additional opportunities for

addressing confusing fee situations by identifying and eliminating

overlapping or inconsistent fees. Figure 4 shows the extent of

coordination by each agency.

Figure 4: Percentage of Agency Sites Coordinating Fees

So far, the coordination that has occurred has led to some successes when

sites have worked together to better serve visitors by eliminating

overlapping and inconsistent fees. The following examples illustrate how

some sites have successfully avoided overlapping and inconsistent fees by

simplifying fees to better serve visitors.

More Coordination Will

Help Eliminate

Overlapping and

Inconsistent Fees
Page 16 GAO-02-10 Recreation Fees

• Seventeen recreational sites along the Oregon coast accept the Oregon

Pacific Coast Passport, which allows unrestricted access for entrance, day

use or parking at each facility. These 17 sites are a combination of federal

and state locations and include a site from the National Park Service, a

BLM site, several Forest Service sites, and numerous state park sites. The

per-vehicle pass is offered as either an annual pass ($35) or a 5-day pass

($10). This pass was initiated to reduce visitor confusion and frustration

over having to pay a fee at each different agency managing the recreational

sites along the Oregon Coast. Prior to the fee demonstration program,

visitors were required to pay entrance or other fees at each site

individually.

• The Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation and four federal

agencies—the Bureau of Reclamation, the Park Service, the Forest

Service, and BLM—-together offer the Visit Idaho Playgrounds pass. This

per-vehicle pass covers entrance, trailhead and boating fees at over 100

recreational sites statewide and costs either $69 for an annual pass or

$10 for a 5-day pass. The pass, which became available in December 2000,

covers day-use fees but not camping and group fees. With the advent of the

fee demonstration program, the statewide pass was created to address the

state’s concerns about visitors having to pay so many separate fees.

• The Park Service’s Assateague Island National Seashore in Maryland and

the FWS’ Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge in Virginia are adjacent

sites located on the same island bordering the Atlantic Ocean. Because of

their proximity and their relatively remote location, they share many of the

same visitors. To better accommodate the visitors, the managers at the

sites developed a reciprocal fee arrangement whereby each site accepts

the fee paid at the other site.

Despite these examples of successful coordination efforts, there are still

many opportunities where more coordination could improve the overall

quality of service being offered to visitors by eliminating the confusing fee

situations that still exist. For example, our survey results indicated that

30 percent of the sites responding to our questionnaire coordinated fees

with other sites. In addition, only 17 percent of the responding sites

coordinated fees with sites within their own agency. Even fewer sites

coordinated with state and local governments: 9 and 3 percent,

respectively.

Limited fee coordination by the four agencies has permitted confusing fee

situations to persist, both within and among the agencies. At some sites,

an entrance fee may be charged for one activity whereas a user fee may be

charged for essentially the same activity at a nearby site. For example, in

Washington state, visitors entering either Olympic National Park or
Page 17 GAO-02-10 Recreation Fees

Olympic National Forest for day hiking are engaging in the same

recreational activity—obtaining general access to federal lands—but are

charged distinct entrance and user fees for the same activity. For a 1-day

hike in Olympic National Park, users pay a $10 per-vehicle entry fee (good

for 1 week), whereas hikers using trailheads in Olympic National Forest

are charged a daily user fee of $5 per vehicle for trailhead parking. Also,

holders of the interagency Golden Eagle Passport—a $65 nationwide pass

that provides access to all federal recreation sites that charge entrance

fees—are able to use it to enter Olympic National Park but are not able to

use it to pay the Forest Service’s trailhead parking fee because that fee is a

user fee.

Such confusing and inconsistent fee situations also occur at sites within

the same agency. For example, visitors to some Park Service national

historic sites, such as the San Juan National Historic Site in Puerto Rico,

pay an entrance fee and have access to all amenities at the sites, such as

historic buildings. However, other Park Service historic sites, such as the

Roosevelt/Vanderbilt Complex in New York State, charge no entrance fees

but tours of the primary residences require payment of user fees. As a

result, visitors who have purchased annual passes for entrance fees such

as the Golden Eagle Passport or the Park Service’s National Parks Pass—a

$50 annual pass that provides access to all Park Service sites that charge

entrance fees—have access to the San Juan site but have to pay for the

activities at the Roosevelt/Vanderbilt Complex.

Other examples of this confusing situation involve fees charged for a

variety of cave tours within the national park system. For self-guided cave

tours at Carlsbad Caverns National Park in New Mexico and the Oregon

Caves National Monument, either the Golden Eagle Passport or National

Parks Pass is accepted for payment. However, at Mammoth Cave National

Park in Kentucky, visitors must pay a user fee to take the self-guided cave

tour, and the national entrance passes are not accepted. Several other

Park Service sites–such as Jewel Cave and Wind Cave—also charge user

fees for their cave tours and do not accept the national entrance passes for

payment. In our view, comments made by one of the site managers in

response to our questionnaire best sum up the current entrance and user

fee situation. According to the fee manager at the Roosevelt/Vanderbilt

Complex, “There is ongoing confusion as to what constitutes an entrance

and a use [fee]. Some sites consider entering the grounds of the site the

‘entrance’ and others consider entering the ‘prime’ resource or historic

home, etc., the entrance. The public at all levels are confused because the

agencies apply the definitions differently—both between and among the

agencies.”
Page 18 GAO-02-10 Recreation Fees

In commenting on a draft of this report, the Park Service acknowledged

inconsistencies among Park Service fee demonstration sites that charge

entrance and user fees. The agency stated that it was planning to

implement recommendations from a recent consultant study that would

reduce visitor confusion by using more consistent fees.

To achieve the desired level of experimentation with different types of

fees, improve the use of more up-to-date collection methods, and to foster

more coordination among sites, management improvements are needed in

three areas: performance expectations and measures, program evaluation

and identification of best practices, and the resolution of interagency

issues. Improvements in each of these areas could enhance the

effectiveness of the program and better position the agencies for full-scale

implementation of the program if it becomes permanent.

The fee demonstration program legislation gave each of the agencies

broad authority to implement the demonstration program. All four

agencies chose to manage the program on a decentralized basis, giving

local site managers considerable discretion in the way the program is

implemented. To hold site managers, and the agencies, accountable for

helping accomplish the goals of the program, performance expectations

and measures that are consistent with program goals are critical. Having

clear performance expectations and measures would clarify what site

managers are to accomplish and provide a basis for judging performance

and identifying areas needing improvement, both on a site-by-site basis

and across the program as a whole. However, none of the agencies have

developed performance expectations or measures. Without such guidance,

it is not surprising that the majority of the demonstration sites have not

experimented with new or additional types of entrance fees; used more

contemporary, convenient collection methods on a broader scale; or more

frequently coordinated fees with other recreation sites. As a result, there is

no way to determine whether the level of innovation and coordination that

has occurred at a site or throughout the agency is acceptable.

Our findings are similar to what the four agencies reported to the Congress

in January 1998.8

 In providing a progress report on the fee demonstration

 8

Recreational Fee Demonstration Program: Progress Report to Congress, U.S. Department

of the Interior and U.S. Department of Agriculture (Jan. 31, 1998).

Management

Improvements Are

Needed to Make the

Program More

Effective

Performance Expectations

and Measurement Criteria

Have Not Been Developed
Page 19 GAO-02-10 Recreation Fees

program, the Department of the Interior and the Department of

Agriculture stated that “. . . managers are often confused over what

primary objective, if any, should take priority, or whether they should

attempt to satisfy several objectives simultaneously.” In their January 2000

report to the Congress, the two departments emphasized the need to

measure the results of the demonstration program.9 The 2000 report

concluded that “the agencies continue to wrestle with the problem of how

to measure . . . accomplishments and to communicate . . . successes in a

meaningful way.” This need continues.

None of the four agencies have implemented an effective performance

measurement system. While the Forest Service has taken some steps to

address its performance-management needs for this program by

developing draft criteria for determining successful performance, the

program is already 5 years old, and the agency does not plan to implement

its performance criteria until January 2002.

Today, after almost 5 years of experience with the program, the agencies

have yet to complete systematic evaluations of the implementation of the

program to identify what types of fees and fee collection practices work

best. Performing such evaluations and developing knowledge of what the

best practices are would enable agency managers to identify the most

effective fees and collection practices to use should the program be

permanently authorized, which would improve visitor service.

The Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture, in their

January 1998 report to the Congress, cited the importance of assessing the

demonstration program. The report, among other things, identified the

need to evaluate the effectiveness of the way various agencies approach

fees as well as to determine the most effective modes to collect fees. Since

the January 1998 report, however, no formal system has been developed to

document, analyze, and exchange information on innovative fee

approaches, fee collection methods, or the extent of coordination with

other recreation sites in a consistent and systematic way. According to

fee-demonstration program managers, the agencies have shared

information on best practices through informal methods such as

attendance at conferences and email communications. In commenting on a

 9

Recreational Fee Demonstration Program: Progress Report to Congress, U. S.

Department of the Interior and U. S. Department of Agriculture (Jan. 31, 2000).

Systematic Program

Evaluations Have Not

Been Done; Best Practices

Have Not Been Identified
Page 20 GAO-02-10 Recreation Fees

draft of this report, the Park Service acknowledged that no formal

mechanism exists to share information, but it has several initiatives under

way to address this issue.

To its credit, the Forest Service performed evaluations of many individual

sites as well as regional programs for several years. While these

evaluations have been useful to agency managers, they have been general

in nature, varied in scope from site to site, and not consistently focused on

specific aspects of the fee demonstration program such as fee innovations,

fee-collection practices, and coordination activities. Furthermore, these

evaluations have not identified the best practices being used. Moreover,

the Forest Service has no process in place for ensuring that

recommendations made in its evaluation reports, if any, are implemented.

BLM is also beginning to make progress in evaluating its program. It began

site evaluations in March 2001 with plans to evaluate its major sites every

4 years. According to BLM officials, these evaluations will focus on the

overall management of the program. Park Service officials told us that the

agency’s regional offices and park units determine what, if any, audits of

the fee demonstration program are performed. The Park Service has

performed audits at some individual sites, generally involving cashhandling procedures, but no overall assessment of its fee demonstration

program was completed. FWS conducted no formal systematic evaluations

of its demonstration sites or its overall program. FWS officials told us that

the high turnover in the agency’s fee demonstration program managers in

Washington, D.C., resulted in substantial staff time devoted to recruiting

and training fee managers, and as a result, no evaluation of fee programs

was performed.

In June 2000, the Senate Committee on Appropriations expressed similar

concerns about the lack of program evaluation. In its report on 2001 fiscal

year appropriations for Interior and related agencies, the Committee

directed Interior and Agriculture to conduct an assessment of the

demonstration program.10 The assessment is to address many of the same

evaluation concerns discussed in this report, such as what criteria are

used for evaluating the success of the program, and whether sites are

coordinating to avoid multiple fee situations. The departments are now in

the process of preparing their report.

 10S. Rep. No. 106-312, at 114 (2000).
Page 21 GAO-02-10 Recreation Fees

Since the demonstration program began 5 years ago, several interagency

issues emerged that affected the implementation of the program and the

quality of services provided to visitors. While the agencies have been

aware of these issues for several years, little was done to successfully

resolve them. The effective resolution of these interagency issues would

require agreement, coordination, and consistency among the four

participating agencies and two departments. However, no effective

interagency mechanism is currently in place to ensure this resolution is

accomplished. These conditions led to confusion among many visitors and

have detracted from the overall quality of service provided by the

program.

Perhaps the best example of an interagency issue that needs to be

addressed is the inconsistency and confusion surrounding the acceptance

and use of the Golden Eagle Passport. This interagency pass costs

$65 annually and is used by tens of thousands of visitors each year.

Purchasers of the pass have unlimited access to federal recreational sites

that charge an entrance fee. However, many sites do not charge entrance

fees to gain access to a site; instead, they charge a user fee. For example,

Yellowstone National Park, Acadia National Park, and the Eisenhower

National Historic Site charge entrance fees. But sites like Wind Cave

National Park, Steamtown National Historic Site, and the Delaware Water

Gap National Recreation Area charge user fees for general access. If user

fees are charged in lieu of entrance fees, the Golden Eagle Passport is

generally not accepted even though, to the visitor with a Golden Eagle

Passport, there is no practical difference. Our survey results showed that

only about 10 percent of the 346 sites that responded to our survey accept

the Golden Eagle Passport for a user fee activity, even though many of

these sites have similar recreation activities as those charging an entrance

fee. A number of site managers commented about how confused visitors

were by the Golden Eagle Passport. The following comments are typical of

these managers.

Park Service site manager: “Visitors do not understand the difference

between a user fee and an entrance fee and are upset when their Golden

Eagles do not cover user fees. They understand paying for user fees such

as camping and boat launch user fees but not the user fee that permits

access to a site.”

Forest Service site manager: “Sales of the Golden Eagle . . . do not provide

the visitor with sufficient information as to where these passes are valid.

Frequently, visitors become confused and angry when they attempt to use

this pass at Forest Service sites where user fees are charged.”

No Effective Mechanism

Exists to Promote

Interagency Cooperation

or Resolve Interagency

Issues
Page 22 GAO-02-10 Recreation Fees

An interagency working group comprising the four agencies'

fee-demonstration coordinators recognized the problem concerning

confusion over the use of entrance versus user fees almost 4 years ago in

their January 1998 report to the Congress.11 They pointed out that “In the

absence of a clear understanding of the difference between entrance fees

and user fees, the public may be uncertain why the Golden Eagle passport

is accepted in some situations and locations and not in others.” The report

also stated that a common definition of entrance fees is needed that can be

applied consistently across all federal recreational facilities that accept the

Golden Eagle passport. Despite these concerns, the matter remains

unresolved.

Further exacerbating the public’s confusion over payment of use or

entrance fees was the implementation of the Park Service’s single-agency

National Parks Pass in April 2000. This pass costs $50 annually and admits

the holder, spouse, children, and parents to all National Park Service sites

that charge an entrance fee. However, the Parks Pass does not admit the

cardholder to Park Service sites that charge a user fee, nor is it accepted

for admittance to other sites in the Forest Service and in the Department

of the Interior, including BLM and Fish and Wildlife Service sites.

According to a former coordinator of the Forest Service’s demonstration

program, the Parks Pass removed the Park Service’s incentive to

effectively work with other agencies to resolve the problem. However, the

Park Service disagrees with this assertion.

Another example of an interagency issue that needs to be addressed is the

need to promote greater coordination of fees among nearby or adjacent

sites. Situations in which inconsistent and overlapping fees are charged for

similar recreational activities—such as at Olympic National Park/Olympic

National Forest in Washington—need to be resolved in a way that offers

visitors a more rational and consistent fee program.

We made a similar point in our 1998 report on the program.12 In that report,

we stated that further coordination among the agencies participating in

 11This interagency group meets periodically to discuss various fee demonstration program

issues such as fee innovation, interagency coordination, and measures of accomplishments.

It also prepares an annual report to the Congress on the progress in implementing the

program.

12Recreation Fees: Demonstration Fee Program Successful in Raising Revenues but

Could Be Improved (GAO/RCED-99-7, Nov. 20, 1998).
Page 23 GAO-02-10 Recreation Fees

the fee demonstration program could reduce confusion for visitors. We

recommended 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. We also recommended that the agencies

approach such an analysis systematically, first by identifying other federal

recreation areas close to each of the demonstration sites and then, for

each situation, determining whether a coordinated approach, such as a

reciprocal fee arrangement, would better serve the visiting public. While

the agencies have taken some steps to address this concern, our survey

results show that much more could be done. These longstanding problems

illustrate the need for all four agencies to make improvements in

interagency communication, coordination, and consistency for the

program to become visitor friendly. The extent of coordination that occurs

is still left to local site managers. In our view, further fee coordination is

not occurring because no effective mechanism exists to ensure that

interagency coordination occurs or to resolve interagency issues or

disputes when they arise. In commenting on a draft of this report, the Park

Service stated that it has been working with other agencies on the

acceptance of federal passes. However, there are no specific plans or time

frames to resolve this issue. BLM, in commenting on a draft of this report,

believed that there is an effective interagency mechanism to deal with

cross-agency problems. However, we question the effectiveness of this

mechanism because it has been almost 4 years since an interagency

working group recognized the confusion over federal passes and visitors

continue to be confused over the inconsistent acceptance of federal

passes.
Page 24 GAO-02-10 Recreation Fees

Almost 5 years into the demonstration program, an imbalance is growing

in fee revenues—high-priority needs at some lesser-visited sites go

unfunded, while more heavily visited sites will be able to address their

highest-priority needs and more. Many heavily visited sites in the fee

demonstration program in the Park Service and the Forest Service

generate a large amount of total fee revenues compared with other sites in

these agencies and other sites in the BLM and the FWS.13 However, most of

the revenue stays in the collecting units to address local needs, and these

needs may not be the highest-priority needs facing the agency. This

situation is particularly acute in the Park Service where fee revenue at 14

parks has effectively increased annual operating budgets by 50 percent or

more. In fact, in several cases, such as at the Grand Canyon and Arches

National Parks, operating budgets doubled resulting in a large pool of

funds for addressing these parks’ needs. In our 1998 Recreational Fee

Demonstration Program report, we suggested that the Congress might

wish to consider modifying the current requirement that 80 percent of fee

revenue be used in the units generating the revenues to allow for greater

flexibility in using fee revenues.14

Many heavily visited sites in the fee demonstration program of the

National Park Service and the Forest Service generate a large amount of

fee revenues compared with other sites in these agencies and other sites in

BLM and FWS. The total revenue collected by 42 of the 100 Park Service

sites in the fee demonstration program amounted to $116 million in fiscal

year 1999.15 This amount represented about 90 percent of all fee

demonstration revenues collected by the Park Service during that year.

The 42 sites retained 80 percent of the revenue they collected, or about

$92.8 million. Furthermore, of these 42 sites, 14 retained fees that ranged

from 50 percent to more than 100 percent of their fiscal year 1999

operating budgets. Three of these sites retained fee revenue that exceeded

their annual operating budgets for that year. For example, Arches National

 13Our review in this section focused only on the National Park Service and the Forest

Service because these two agencies generated about 95 percent of all fee demonstration

revenue.

14Recreation Fees: Demonstration Fee Program Successful in Raising Revenues but

Could Be Improved (GAO/RCED-99-7, Nov. 20, 1998).

15We used fiscal year 1999 revenue data because they were the latest available when we

began our review. The revenue figures exclude $10.5 million in Golden Eagle Passport

sales.

Use of Fee

Demonstration

Revenues May Not

Always Reflect

Agencies’ HighestPriority Needs

Many Fee-Demonstration

Sites Generate High Fee

Revenues
Page 25 GAO-02-10 Recreation Fees

Park retained fee-demonstration revenue of $1.4 million—156 percent of

its $911,000 fiscal year 1999 operating budget, and Grand Canyon National

Park retained fees of $19.5 million—116 percent of its $16.8 million

operating budget for that year. In contrast, if the remaining 20 percent

collected by the 42 sites that year ($23.2 million) were provided to the

other 342 park units within the national park system, each unit would

receive only about $68,000 for improving visitor services and program

operations.

The Forest Service also has many high-revenue sites. The total fee

demonstration revenue collected by 17 of the 81 sites in the program

amounted to $17.5 million, or 66 percent of the total amount collected by

the Forest Service during fiscal year 1999. The 17 sites include about 50

national forests in the country. The Forest Service allows sites to retain 90

to 100 percent of fee demonstration revenues collected. Assuming all these

17 sites retained 90 percent of the fee revenue they collected and the

balance of $1.75 million was made available to the other 105 national

forests, each forest would receive only about $17,000 for improving visitor

services and program operations. In commenting on a draft of this report,

the Forest Service responded that our statement that the Forest Service

has many high-revenue sites is misleading because several of those sites

are on multiple forests and the revenue per forest is often modest as a

percentage of appropriated funds. In this regard, the Forest Service noted

that it does not have any sites in an “over funded” situation at this time.

While some demonstration sites may have more needs than fee revenue

can address, our concern is that the agency be provided with the flexibility

to address its highest-priority needs first. As the Forest Service

acknowledged in its comments, it has not determined its highest-priority

needs.

Compared to the Park Service and the Forest Service, the total fee

demonstration revenue generated by BLM and the FWS was small—

$5.2 million and $3.4 million, respectively. BLM had only 15 sites that each

generated more than $100,000, and FWS had 6 sites that each generated

more than $100,000.
Page 26 GAO-02-10 Recreation Fees

Revenues from the fee demonstration program may not always be used to

meet the highest-priority needs of the two agencies that generate almost

all of the fee revenue. We had previously found this to be the case in two

prior reviews of the fee demonstration program.16 Furthermore, officials in

the agencies participating in the fee demonstration program acknowledge

that revenue from the program is not always spent on the highest-priority

projects. This condition exists for two reasons. First, the National Park

Service and the Forest Service do not maintain a centralized list of priority

needs. As a result, the use of fee revenue is not based on an agencywide

determination of priority needs. Second, 80 percent of fees collected must

be used at the site where they were collected, and thus, sites that collect

most of the revenue use it to meet their local needs even if these needs are

minor in comparison with those at other locations where funding is not as

plentiful. In accordance with this requirement, each of the demonstration

sites within the Park Service retains 80 percent of fee revenue collected.

The Forest Service allows each site to retain 90 to 100 percent of revenue.

Since these agencies are retaining 80 to 100 percent of fee revenue at a

site, agency officials consider some sites as “cash rich,” whereby they have

high fee revenues to meet many needs while other sites have not been able

to obtain sufficient revenue to meet their priority needs.

We reviewed the use of fee revenues at high-revenue sites, at lowerrevenue sites, and sites not in the fee demonstration program to determine

how the revenues are being used. For example, during fiscal year 1999,

Grand Canyon National Park retained about $19.5 million in fee

demonstration revenue that it used to fund many projects, including

$4.3 million to construct, repair, and rehabilitate restrooms parkwide and

$3.6 million to rehabilitate a park headquarters building and convert a

visitor center into administrative offices. Also, Castillo de San Marcos

National Monument in Florida retained about $1.1 million in fee revenue—

almost doubling its $1.2 million operating budget in fiscal year 1999—for

use in funding several projects including $500,000 to replace deteriorated

museum exhibits and $485,000 to construct a museum storage facility. We

could not determine the extent to which these parks are using fee revenue

to meet the agency’s highest-priority needs because the agency does not

maintain a centralized list of priority needs. As a result, these parks have

collected revenue to address many needs that may not always be the

 16Recreation Fees: Demonstration Fee Program Successful in Raising Revenues but

Could Be Improved (GAO/RCED-99-7, Nov. 20, 1998) and National Park Service:

Recreational Fee Demonstration Program Spending Priorities (GAO/RCED-00-37R,

Nov. 18, 1999).

Fee Revenues May Not

Address Agencies’ HighestPriority Needs
Page 27 GAO-02-10 Recreation Fees

highest-priority needs within the national park system. According to the

Park Service southeast regional coordinator, Castillo de San Marcos

National Monument is currently using fee revenue to meet its deferred

needs; however, in future years, given its high-fee revenue, retaining

80 percent of fee collections would not result in the most effective use of

revenue because of higher-priority needs in lower-revenue sites and other

sites not in the fee demonstration program.

In contrast to the higher-revenue sites, some of the lower-revenue sites

and sites not in the fee demonstration program have not been able to

address their high-priority needs because of limited availability of fee

demonstration revenues.17 For example, since fiscal year 1999, two non-fee

demonstration park units—Pipe Spring National Monument in Arizona and

Fort Union National Monument in New Mexico—have been unable to

obtain a sufficient amount of the 20-percent fee revenue to install fire

suppression systems to protect their primary historic structure and

museum and valuable curatorial collections. Pipe Spring and Fort Union

had requested $179,000 and $108,000, respectively, for these projects.

According to officials in these two park units, they have received limited

fee demonstration revenue to meet their priority needs.

Officials from the four land management agencies in the fee demonstration

program acknowledged that some sites with large fee revenues may

eventually have more revenue than they need to meet their priority needs,

while other lower-revenue sites in the program and sites not participating

in the demonstration program may have limited or no fee revenues to meet

their priority needs. For example, according to the January 1998 Interior

and Agriculture report to the Congress on the fee demonstration program,

“. . . it is possible that some key revenue-producing sites may quickly

reduce their backlog projects and then be faced with accumulating large

balances in their fee revenue accounts, funding projects that would rank

low in priority compared to projects elsewhere in the agency, or searching

for additional projects just to spend the money.”18 The report further states

that “This could be a significant problem for an agency if, at the same time,

 17The Park Service allocates the portion of fee demonstration revenue not used by

collecting sites (20 percent) to lower-revenue fee demonstration sites, park units that do

not participate in the fee demonstration program, and for servicewide initiatives. Examples

of servicewide initiatives include funding nonprofit youth groups to work on national park

projects and renewable energy efficiency technology projects.

18Recreational Fee Demonstration Program Progress Report to Congress (Jan. 31, 1998).
Page 28 GAO-02-10 Recreation Fees

there remain substantial backlogs at other agency sites that either have

low visitation, or are not authorized to charge recreation fees.”

The return of most of the revenue to the collecting sites for use in

improving services and facilities is a key incentive for fee collection and

for the high level of visitor support now enjoyed by the agencies. However,

because a small percentage of sites generate a high percentage of the

agencies’ total revenue, the agencies suggested, in the January 31, 2000,

Recreational Fee Demonstration Program Progress Report to Congress

that they needed increased flexibility in some situations to use more than

20 percent of the fees at sites other than where they were collected. They

pointed out that this flexibility would result in a more efficient use of fee

revenue to meet the highest-priority needs of the agencies.

In commenting on a draft of this report, the National Park Service

acknowledged that there is a need for flexibility in allocation formulas to

ensure that fee revenue funding can be made available to parks with the

greatest needs. It also stated that its revised project management system

due in November 2001 will help to ensure that the priority needs of

individual parks are identified and funded.

Furthermore, the Forest Service as well as the Interior agencies stated

back in 1998 that they would evaluate whether retaining 80 percent of fee

revenue at the collecting sites would constitute a problem in the long run

as the fee demonstration program progresses. Although the fee

demonstration program has been in effect for over 5 years, such an

evaluation has not been conducted.

In our 1998 Fee Demonstration Program report, we stated that the

Congress might wish to consider modifying the current requirement that

80 percent of fee revenue be used in the units generating the revenues to

allow for greater flexibility in using fee revenues. If this requirement were

changed, the agencies could consider various options that could result in a

more equitable use of fee revenue, while at the same time maintaining

incentives for collecting fees. For example, the agencies could allow sites

to use an amount up to a specified maximum percentage amount of their

operating budget (e.g., up to 60 percent of their operating budget).

In commenting on a draft of this report, both the Park Service and the

Forest Service agreed that the need exists for some flexibility in using fee

revenues. However, they expressed concerns about our example of

basing fee revenue allocations on operating budgets. The Park Service

stated that it favors basing fee revenues on its proposed comprehensive
Page 29 GAO-02-10 Recreation Fees

approach that identifies the priority needs of parks while the Forest

Service favors retaining 60 percent or more of fee revenue at the collecting

site if the intent were to redistribute funds. Basing fee revenues on

operating budgets is only one example of providing flexibility in using fee

revenues. We recognize that several alternative approaches may result in

a more equitable means of distributing such revenues.

Essentially, the fee demonstration program is about raising revenue for the

participating sites and using it to maintain and improve the quality of

visitor services and the protection of resources at federal recreation sites.

So far, the program has successfully raised a significant amount of

revenue. However, our analysis indicates that the agencies can do more to

improve the quality of visitor services it is providing. Without greater effort

to adopt more modern and convenient fee collection practices, like credit

cards or Internet sales, visitors to many sites will continue to be faced with

limited payment options. Furthermore, unless more is done to eliminate

the inconsistent fee situations that now exist, many visitors will continue

to be confused about the fees they are being asked to pay. Until these

conditions are addressed, the overall quality of the services provided to

visitors and the overall quality of a visitor’s experience are diminished.

Because each of the four participating agencies manage the program on a

decentralized basis, local site managers have considerable latitude in

determining how to implement the program. Under these circumstances,

holding individual site managers accountable for accomplishing the goals

of the program is imperative. To get this done, establishing performance

expectations and measures that would clarify what individual site

managers are to accomplish is critical. Yet, even though the program is

now over 5 years old, this has not been done. Establishing performance

expectations and measures on a site-by-site and agencywide basis would

help improve the overall quality of visitor services by, among other things,

making clear where improved collection practices should be used and

where increased coordination should occur. Furthermore, the agencies

have yet to complete systematic evaluations of the program to identify

what types of fees and fee collection practices work best. Performing such

evaluations and developing knowledge of what the best practices are will

enable agency managers to identify the most effective fees and fee

collection practices to use on a broader scale should the program be

permanently authorized. Finally, although agency managers have been

aware of a number of interagency issues for several years, little has been

done to resolve them. The most obvious example of this involves the

inconsistent application of entrance and user fees among the agencies.

Conclusions
Page 30 GAO-02-10 Recreation Fees

The effective resolution of these issues requires agreement, coordination,

and consistency among the four participating agencies in two

departments. However, no effective interagency mechanism is currently in

place to ensure that this is accomplished.

Concerning the revenue retention component of the demonstration

program, the current legislation provides a financial incentive to establish

and operate fee-collection programs, but it does not always provide the

agencies with enough flexibility to address high-priority needs of low

revenue recreation sites. In 1998, we suggested that the Congress might

wish to consider modifying the current requirement that 80 percent of fee

revenue be used in the units generating the revenues to allow for greater

flexibility in addressing high-priority needs. We still believe that our earlier

suggestion has merit.

In order to improve the performance and effectiveness of the program, we

recommend that the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture require the

agency head for each of the participating agencies to

• develop specific program performance expectations and measurable

performance criteria agencywide and for each participating site;

• develop and implement a process for conducting systematic evaluations of

the program to identify which fee designs, collection methods, and

coordination practices work best; and to disseminate the information to all

participating sites; and

• develop an effective interagency mechanism to oversee and coordinate the

program among the four agencies and resolve such interagency issues as

developing standard definitions of “entrance” versus “user” fees. If

congressional authorization is needed to accomplish this, then the

agencies should seek the necessary legislation.

We provided the Department of the Interior and the Department of

Agriculture copies of a draft of this report for their review and comment.

The Department of the Interior, including the three Interior agencies that

participate in the fee demonstration program, and the Department of

Agriculture generally agreed with the findings and the recommendations in

the report. In addition, both departments provided us with additional

clarifying and technical comments that we incorporated into the report as

appropriate. Comments from the Department of the Interior are included

in appendix II and comments from the Department of Agriculture are

included in appendix III.

Recommendations for

Executive Action

Agency Comments
Page 31 GAO-02-10 Recreation Fees

As arranged with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents

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

date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies to the Chairman of the

Subcommittee on National Parks, Historic Preservation, and Recreation of

the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources; the Secretary of

the Interior; the Secretary of Agriculture; the Director, National Park

Service; the Director, Bureau of Land Management; the Director, Fish and

Wildlife Service; the Chief of the Forest Service; the Director, Office of

Management and Budget; and other interested parties. We will make

copies available to others upon request. This report will also be available

on GAO’s home page at http://www.gao.gov.

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

at (202) 512-3841. Key contributors to this report were Lew Adams,

Brian Estes, Cliff Fowler, Frank Kovalak, Luann Moy, and Paul Staley.

Sincerely yours,

Barry T. Hill

Director, Natural Resources

 and Environment
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 32 GAO-02-10 Recreation Fees

To determine the extent to which the National Park Service, Forest

Service, Bureau of Land Management, and Fish and Wildlife Service used

innovative fees and fee collection practices and coordinated their

approaches in managing the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program, we

developed an automated survey instrument that we posted on GAO’s Web

site. We sent email messages to the managers at all 365 fee-demonstration

program sites which were collecting fees as of September 30, 2000, asking

them to fill out the survey to provide us with information about how they

were implementing the program at their site.1

 Table 3 shows the total

number of demonstration sites contacted and the rate of response.

Table 3: Response Rate for Fee Demonstration Program Survey

Agency

Total sites in

the program

Completed

responses

Percentage of

total sites

responding to

questionnaire

National Park Service 100 96 96

Bureau of Land Management 98 91 93

Fish and Wildlife Service 86 84 98

Forest Service 81 75 93

Total 365 346 95

See http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?gao-02-88SP for the entire

questionnaire and the responses from the four agencies.

During our design of the survey, we conducted two pretests with officials

from each of the four agencies, for a total of eight pretests, to ensure that

the officials understood the questions and could easily access and

complete the questionnaire via GAO’s Web site. After each pretest, we

made the necessary revisions to the questionnaire. Once completed, the

electronic questionnaire was made available from March 9 to April 18,

2001, to all site managers via GAO’s Web site on the Internet.

To ensure security and data integrity, we provided each manager with a

password that would allow him or her to access and complete a

questionnaire. To ensure the consistency and accuracy of our data, we

conducted edits to verify that the appropriate questions on the

 1

The fee demonstration program legislation allows each of the four participating agencies

to include up to 100 sites/projects in the program. A site may be made up of more than one

field unit. For example, the Park Service has 100 sites in the demonstration program that

are located at 137 different recreational units.

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 33 GAO-02-10 Recreation Fees

questionnaire had been answered. Because of the time and cost involved

in doing so, we did not independently verify the data that the site

managers provided. However, we did review the questionnaire responses

from six of the sites we visited (at least one in each agency) to ensure they

were consistent with the information we obtained on the fee

demonstration program at the time of our visit.

To determine what, if any, management improvements can be made to

enhance program performance and results, we analyzed the questionnaire

survey results relating to the implementation and management of the fee

demonstration program and discussed these issues with officials at the

four agencies’ headquarters offices, and regional or state offices, as well as

individual demonstration site managers.

Table 4 identifies the demonstration sites that we visited. We selected

individual sites because they were (1) in a previous fee demonstration

review and warranted follow-up, (2) identified by agency officials as

potential sites to visit, (3) experimenting with new fees or fee collection

practices, and/or (4) geographically dispersed.

Table 4: Demonstration Sites GAO Visited

Agency and site State

National Park Service:

Assateague Island National Seashore Maryland

Colonial National Historical Park Virginia

Lassen Volcanic National Park California

Mt. Rainier National Park Washington

Whiskeytown-Shasta-Trinity National Recreation Area California

Forest Service:

George Washington and Jefferson National Forests Virginia

Mt. St. Helens National Volcanic Monument Washington

San Bernardino National Forest California

Shasta-Trinity National Forests California

Bureau of Land Management:

Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area California

Redding Field Office California

Yaquina Head Outstanding Natural Area Oregon

Fish and Wildlife Service:

Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge Virginia

J. N. “Ding” Darling National Wildlife Refuge Florida
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 34 GAO-02-10 Recreation Fees

At each location we obtained, reviewed, and analyzed supporting

documentation, such as laws, regulations, and reports, on the fee

demonstration sites. We also discussed recreation fee pricing and related

issues with officials of state park agencies in Colorado, Idaho, Ohio, and

Washington state and the National Association of State Park Directors.

Furthermore, to gain a better understanding of their perspectives on the

fee demonstration program, we contacted the following natural

resource/recreation interest groups: America Outdoors, American

Recreation Coalition, The Mountaineers, the National Parks Conservation

Association, the National Park Foundation, and the Natural Resources

Defense Council.

Finally, to determine whether revenues from the fee demonstration

program were being used to meet the agencies’ highest-priority needs, we

obtained documentation on the fee revenue collected by the

demonstration sites and the types of projects funded with fee revenues.

We also discussed with headquarters, regional, and site officials the extent

to which fee revenues were being used to meet the highest-priority needs

of the sites and agencies. We reviewed Park Service documents to identify

sites where fiscal year 1999 retained fee revenues had increased operating

budgets by 50 percent or more. We compared these high-revenue sites

with other sites within the Park Service that either were not in the fee

demonstration program or had retained revenues representing less than

20 percent of their operating budgets (lower-revenue sites). For the Forest

Service, we reviewed the 17 fee demonstration sites that generated the

most fee revenue. We limited our review of this objective to these two

agencies because they generate most of the fee demonstration revenue.

We conducted our work from November 2000 through September 2001 in

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Appendix II: Comments From the Department

of the Interior

Page 35 GAO-02-10 Recreation Fees

Appendix II: Comments From the

Department of the Interior
Appendix II: Comments From the Department

of the Interior

Page 36 GAO-02-10 Recreation Fees
Appendix III: Comments From the U.S.

Department of Agriculture

Page 37 GAO-02-10 Recreation Fees

Appendix III: Comments From the U.S.

Department of Agriculture

(360006)
The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, exists to

support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to help

improve the performance and accountability of the federal government for the

American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal

programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other

assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding

decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values

of accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents is through the

Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and full-text files of

current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older products. The

Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents using key words

and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and

other graphics.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and

correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web site

daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO E-mail

this list to you every afternoon, go to our home page and complete the easy-to-use

electronic order form found under “To Order GAO Products.”

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. A

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

GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a

single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, D.C. 20013

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

TDD: (301) 413-0006

Fax: (202) 258-4066

GAO Building

Room 1100, 700 4th Street, NW (corner of 4th and G Streets, NW)

Washington, D.C. 20013

Contact:

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

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov, or

1-800-424-5454 (automated answering system).

Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G. Street NW, Room 7149,

Washington, D.C. 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of

GAO Reports and

Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone

Visit GAO’s Document

Distribution Center

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in

Federal Programs

Public Affairs