Testimony 

Before the Subcommittee on Forests and 

Forest Health, Committee on Resources, 

House of Representatives 

United States General Accounting Office 

GAO

For Release on Delivery 

Expected at 2:00 p.m. a.m. EDT 

Wednesday, September 17, 2003 RECREATION FEES 

Information on Forest 

Service Management of 

Revenue from the Fee 

Demonstration Program 

Statement of Barry T. Hill, Director 

Natural Resources and Environment 

GAO-03-1161T 
Local forest managers largely determine Forest Service spending priorities 

for the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program. Given broad discretion in 

deciding how to use fee demonstration revenues, local forest managers 

retain between 90 and 100 percent of the fee demonstration revenue at the 

sites where fees are collected and are expected to establish spending 

priorities consistent with general program guidance provided by Forest 

Service headquarters. This guidance advises local forest managers to spend 

fee demonstration revenues on needs that have been identified by forest 

visitors and to maintain existing facilities rather than initiate new 

construction projects. 

On the basis of priorities identified by local users, the Forest Service has 

spent fee demonstration revenues on a wide range of projects at national 

forests throughout the country. The legislation authorizing the fee 

demonstration program permitted all the participating agencies to spend fee 

revenues on certain categories of activities to increase the quality of the 

visitor experience and enhance the protection of resources. GAO’s review at 

selected Forest Service sites found that expenditures were consistent with 

authorizing legislation and agency spending priorities. 

The Forest Service does not have a process for measuring the impact of fee 

demonstration expenditures on reducing the deferred maintenance backlog. 

Further, while the agency acknowledges that it has a significant deferred 

maintenance problem, it has not developed a reliable estimate of its deferred 

maintenance needs. 

Consistent with the authorizing legislation for the fee demonstration 

program, the Forest Service keeps its fee revenue in accounts separate from 

other appropriated funds. The agency also tracks its fee revenues and 

expenditures separately from its appropriated funds. 

Since 1996, federal land 

management agencies have 

collected over $900 million in 

recreation fees from the public 

under an experimental initiative 

called the Recreational Fee 

Demonstration Program. The 

Forest Service’s part was about 

$160 million. The authority to 

collect these fees expires at the end 

of fiscal year 2004. Central to the 

debate about whether to 

reauthorize the program is how 

effectively the land management 

agencies are using the hundreds of 

millions of dollars that the 

recreation fees have provided 

them. In April 2003, GAO reported 

on Forest Service management of 

the fee demonstration program. 

(See Recreation Fees: Information 

on Forest Service Management of 

Revenue from the Fee 

Demonstration Program, GAO-03-

470 [Washington D.C.: Apr. 25, 

2003]). 

This testimony is based on the 

work GAO conducted for the April 

2003 report. Four issues are 

addressed: (1) how the Forest 

Service determines spending 

priorities for the revenues 

generated by the fee program, (2) 

how the agency has spent its fee 

demonstration program revenues, 

(3) what the agency is doing to 

measure the impact of the 

recreation fee revenues on 

reducing its deferred maintenance 

backlog, and (4) how it accounts 

for its fee demonstration program 

revenues. 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-1161T.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Barry T. Hill at 

(202) 512-3841 or hillbt@gao.gov. 

Highlights of GAO-03-1161T, testimony 

before the Subcommittee on Forests and 

Forest Health, Committee on Resources, 

House of Representatives 

September 17, 2003

RECREATION FEES 

Information on Forest Service 

Management of Revenue from the Fee 

Demonstration Program 
Page 1 GAO-03-1161T 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

I am pleased to be here today to discuss our most recent report on the 

Forest Service’s management of the Recreational Fee Demonstration 

Program.1

 Since 1996, federal land management agencies have collected 

over $900 million in recreation fees from the public under an experimental 

initiative called the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program. The Forest 

Service’s part is about $160 million. The Forest Service is one of the four 

federal land management agencies authorized by Congress to charge fees 

to visitors and to retain the revenues for use in addition to other 

appropriated funds.2

 The Congress originally authorized the program for 3 

years and has extended it several times. The authority to collect these fees 

currently expires at the end of fiscal year 2004. 

As the program enters its seventh year, the fees continue to be 

controversial at some sites, and critics question the extent to which 

program expenditures directly benefit visitors. Many of the concerns 

involve the Forest Service, which, unlike the National Park Service, had 

not historically charged fees to enter its public lands or to use amenities 

such as trails prior to the fee demonstration program. Moreover, the 

Forest Service introduced a variety of new recreation fees aimed at a 

range of visitor uses, including fees for dispersed recreation, such as trail 

access or backcountry camping, or for general access. Although this 

experimentation provided valuable information about the types of fees 

that were feasible, it also fueled questions about the Forest Service’s 

administration of the program. Accordingly, as you requested, my 

testimony today will address the following issues: (1) how the Forest 

Service determines spending priorities for the revenues generated by the 

fee program; (2) how the agency has spent its fee demonstration program 

revenues; (3) what the agency is doing to measure the impact of the 

recreation fee revenues on reducing its deferred maintenance backlog; and 

(4) how it accounts for its fee demonstration program revenues. 

 1

U.S. General Accounting Office, Recreation Fees: Information on Forest Service 

Management of Revenue from the Fee Demonstration Program, GAO-03-470 (Washington, 

D.C: Apr. 25, 2003). 

2

The other three land management agencies authorized to charge fees under the 

Recreational Fee Demonstration Program are the National Park Service, the Fish and 

Wildlife Service, and the Bureau of Land Management. 
Page 2 GAO-03-1161T 

Local forest managers largely determine Forest Service spending priorities 

for the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program. Given broad discretion 

in deciding how to use fee demonstration revenues, local forest managers 

retain between 90 and 100 percent of the fee demonstration revenue at the 

sites where fees are collected. Local managers are expected to establish 

spending priorities consistent with general program guidance provided by 

Forest Service headquarters. This guidance advises local managers to 

spend fee demonstration revenues on needs that have been identified by 

forest visitors; it also directs local managers to spend the resources on 

maintaining existing facilities rather than initiating new construction 

projects. 

On the basis of priorities identified by local users, the Forest Service has 

spent fee demonstration revenues on a wide range of projects at national 

forests throughout the country. The legislation authorizing the fee 

demonstration program permits the participating agencies to spend fee 

revenues on a broad range of activities aimed at increasing the quality of 

the visitor experience and enhancing the protection of resources such as 

providing visitor services, maintaining and enhancing facilities, fee 

collections, and enforcing laws. To verify how the fee revenue was being 

spent we visited a number of Forest Service sites across the country and 

found that expenditures were consistent with the authorizing legislation 

for the program and agency spending guidance and priorities. 

The Forest Service has not developed a process for measuring the impact 

of fee demonstration expenditures on reducing the deferred maintenance 

backlog. According to agency officials, there are several reasons for this—

for example, the temporary status of the program and the fact that the 

legislation establishing the program does not require that the impact be 

measured. Further, while officials acknowledge that the Forest Service has 

a significant deferred maintenance problem, the agency has not developed 

a reliable estimate of its deferred maintenance needs. 

Consistent with the authorizing legislation for the fee demonstration 

program, the Forest Service keeps its fee revenue in Treasury accounts 

separate from other appropriated funds. The agency also tracks its fee 

revenue and expenditures separately from its appropriated funds. 

The Forest Service is responsible for managing over 192 million acres of 

public lands in the United States. In carrying out its responsibilities, the 

Forest Service has traditionally been a decentralized organization, whose 

Results in Brief 

Background 
Page 3 GAO-03-1161T 

programs are administered through nine regional offices, 155 national 

forests, and over 600 ranger districts (each forest has several districts). 

The Forest Service began implementing the Recreational Fee 

Demonstration Program in fiscal year 1996 with four demonstration sites 

that generated a total of $43,000 during the year.3

 The program has steadily 

grown over the past 6 years and now covers 92 sites in 114 national forests 

and grasslands. These sites generated about $38 million in revenue in fiscal 

year 2002. A demonstration site may consist of an individual forest; a 

group of forests, such as the National Forests in Texas; or a specific area 

or activity within a forest, such as Mount St. Helens National Volcanic 

Monument in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest in Washington. 

Spending priorities for the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program are 

largely determined by local forest managers who are given broad 

discretion in deciding how to use fee demonstration revenues. Forest 

Service headquarters provides general program guidance that advises the 

local managers to focus their spending priorities on two things. First, local 

managers are to identify what the visitors want because the Forest Service 

believes that users will more likely accept having to pay fees if they see 

that their money is spent on improving services in the forests they visit. 

Second, existing facilities such as restrooms and visitor centers should be 

maintained because the agency prefers to use fee revenue to maintain 

such facilities rather than to initiate new capital projects that would 

increase its inventory of assets and add to operating and maintenance 

costs. 

In the three Forest Service regions that we visited, local forest managers 

told us that they establish priorities on the basis of visitor desires that are 

identified through visitor comment cards, visitor surveys, local user 

 3

Although the Forest Service refers to fee demonstration sites as projects throughout this 

statement, we call them sites. Under the original Recreational Fee Demonstration Program 

legislation, between 10 and 50 sites per agency were permitted to establish, charge, and 

collect recreation fees (P.L. 104-134, title III, Sec. 315 [1996]). In fiscal year 1997 

appropriations, the Congress increased the number of authorized sites to 100 per agency 

(P.L. 104-208, title III, Sec. 319 [1996]). In fiscal year 2002 appropriations, the Congress 

eliminated the 100 demonstration sites per agency limitation (P.L. 107-63, title III, Sec. 312 

(b)[2001]). 

Local Forest Service 

Officials Determine 

Spending Priorities 
Page 4 GAO-03-1161T 

groups, associations, and regional boards.4 According to these officials, 

visitors generally desire spending priorities that address health and safety 

needs; maintenance needs; and improved visitor services, such as 

interpretative services. 

Further, local forest managers told us that visitors expect that fee 

demonstration revenues be retained and used at the sites where fees are 

collected. In this regard, the Forest Service retains between 90 and 100 

percent of fee revenues for use at the collection sites. The portion of fee 

revenues that is not retained on site is used by the regional offices for a 

variety of program-related activities, such as providing start-up money for 

new demonstration sites, providing fee demonstration program signs and 

brochures, initiating regional pass sales, and supporting marketing 

activities. 

In the authorizing legislation for the Recreational Fee Demonstration 

Program, the Congress provided the Forest Service and the other land 

management agencies broad authority in deciding how to spend fee 

demonstration revenues. The 1996 authorizing legislation5

 permitted the 

agencies to spend fee demonstration revenues for: backlogged repair and 

maintenance projects, interpretation, signage, habitat or facility 

enhancement, resource preservation, annual operation (including fee 

collection), maintenance, and law enforcement relating to the public use 

of lands. Our analysis at a sample of sites participating in the fee 

demonstration program showed that fee revenue was being spent on a 

wide range of projects that were consistent with the authorizing legislation 

the program and agency spending priorities. For fiscal year 2001, the 

Forest Service reported that it collected about $35 million in fees and 

spent about $29.3 million, with about half of the expenditures going 

toward visitor services and operations and maintenance activities. 

We reviewed the activities at a sample of demonstration sites in three 

Forest Service regions that have generated the most revenue to determine 

 4

Regional boards, which consist of members with recreation, forest, law enforcement, 

fiscal, and economic backgrounds, are used to help oversee the fee demonstration program 

within each region of the Forest Service. 

5

Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996, P.L. No. 104-134, title 

III, Sec.315(c)(3). 

Revenues Are Spent 

on a Wide Range of 

Activities 
Page 5 GAO-03-1161T 

how funds were spent, the appendix lists the specific regions and sites we 

visited. The types of projects being funded at the sites we visited included 

• constructing a boat launch area along the Nantahala River, a world-class 

whitewater river that attracts about 250,000 people annually in the 

National Forests of North Carolina; 

• operating a wastewater treatment plant that serves the visitor center at 

Multnomah Falls, located within 30 miles of Portland, Oregon, and one of 

the most popular attractions in the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic 

Area, which receives over 2 million visitors per year; and 

• acquiring fire rings, cooking grills, and picnic tables at Kisatchie National 

Forest in Louisiana to improve campground services. 

On the basis of our review and on-site observations, we found that the fee 

demonstration program expenditures were consistent with the legislative 

authority provided for the program and with agency spending priorities. 

The Forest Service has used a portion of its fee program revenues to help 

address its deferred maintenance backlog. However, the agency does not 

have a process for measuring how much has been spent on deferred 

maintenance or the impact of the fee revenue program has had on 

reducing its deferred maintenance needs. In addition, while the agency 

acknowledges that it has a significant deferred maintenance problem, it 

has not developed a reliable estimate of its deferred maintenance needs. 

As a result, even if the agency knew how much fee revenue it spent on 

deferred maintenance, it would not know the extent to which its total 

deferred maintenance needs were being reduced. 

The legislation authorizing the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program 

permits the Forest Service and the other participating agencies to spend 

fee revenues on deferred maintenance needs. In fact, at each of the 

locations we visited, the site managers told us that they were using a 

portion of fee revenues to implement a variety of projects that addressed 

deferred maintenance needs such as replacing worn and rotted picnic 

tables at a campground in Klamath National Forest in California, fixing 

eroded hiking trails in the Nantahala Gorge in the North Carolina National 

Forest, and replacing deteriorating restrooms in Kisatchie National Forest 

in Louisiana. 

The Forest Service 

Has No Process for 

Measuring the Impact 

of Fee Revenues on 

Deferred Maintenance 
Page 6 GAO-03-1161T 

Forest Service officials told us that there are a number of reasons why the 

agency has not developed a process to track deferred maintenance 

expenditures from fee demonstration revenues. First, the agency chose to 

use its fee demonstration revenue to improve and enhance on-site visitor 

services rather than to use its revenue in developing and implementing a 

system for tracking deferred maintenance spending. Second, because the 

fee demonstration program is still temporary, agency officials said that 

they have concerns about developing an additional process for tracking 

deferred maintenance. Finally, the agency faced no specific requirement 

was to measure the impact of fee revenues on deferred maintenance. 

Forest Service officials acknowledge that the agency has a significant 

deferred maintenance problem. In fiscal year 2001, the agency estimated 

that its total deferred maintenance backlog was in the billions of dollars, 

most of which was for forest roads and bridges. According to the Forest 

Service, the recreation-related component of this estimate was in the 

hundreds of millions of dollars. 

However, in March 1999, the Department of Agriculture’s Inspector 

General testified that the Forest Service did not have a reliable estimate of 

the amount of its deferred maintenance backlog.6

 Further, the Inspector 

General pointed out that the agency had no systematic method for 

compiling the information needed to provide managers or the Congress 

with reliable estimates. Although the Forest Service has since 

implemented an initiative to help gather and develop better information on 

the amount of its deferred maintenance backlog, the findings of the 

Inspector General’s report are still valid. Forest Service officials 

acknowledge that they are still in the process of developing a reliable 

estimate of the agency’s deferred maintenance backlog. 

 6

Testimony of Roger Viadero, Inspector General, U.S. Department of Agriculture, before the 

Committee on Agriculture, Subcommittee on Department Operations, Oversight, Nutrition, 

and Forestry, House of Representatives, Concerning the Financial Accountability of the 

Forest Service (Mar. 11, 1999). 
Page 7 GAO-03-1161T 

The authorizing legislation for the fee demonstration program requires the 

participating federal agencies to maintain fee revenue in separate Treasury 

accounts and to account for fee expenditures separately from other 

appropriated fund expenditures. Consistent with the requirement, the 

Forest Service maintains its fee revenues in separate Treasury accounts 

and tracks fee revenue and expenditures separately from other 

appropriated funds. For example, officials at the Gifford Pinchot National 

Forest in the Pacific Northwest Region used a combination of fee 

demonstration revenues and other appropriated funds to replace a bridge 

on the Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail in 2001. For this project, agency 

officials accounted for revenues and expenditures from the fee 

demonstration program separately from the revenues and expenditures 

from other appropriated funding sources. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be happy to 

respond to any questions that you or Members of the Subcommittee may 

have. 

For further information about this testimony, please contact me at (202) 

512-3841. Nancy Crothers, Cliff Fowler, Amy Webbink and Arvin Wu made 

key contributions to this statement. 

The Forest Service 

Accounts for Its Fee 

Demonstration 

Program Revenues 

and Expenditures 

Separately from Other 

Funds 

GAO Contacts and 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 
Page 8 GAO-03-1161T 

Region/sites visited State 

5—Pacific Southwest

Enterprise Forest Projecta 

Shasta-Trinity National Forests (Shasta- 

 Trinity National Recreation Area) 

Klamath National Forest 

California 

California 

California 

6—Pacific Northwest

Gifford Pinchot National Forest (Mount St. 

 Helens National Volcanic Monument) 

Columbia River Gorge National Scenic 

 Area (Multnomah Falls) 

Colville National Forest 

Washington 

Washington and Oregon 

Washington 

8—Southern

North Carolina National Forests 

Kisatchie National Forest 

Texas National Forests 

North Carolina 

Louisiana 

Texas 

Source: GAO based on Forest Service data. 

Note: We did not visit the Kisatchie National Forest site because it was closed due to a hurricane at 

the time we were conducting our fieldwork. We did, however, obtain documentation from the site 

manager on each of our review objectives. 

a

The Enterprise Forest project covers four national forests in Southern California: the Angeles, 

Cleveland, Los Padres, and San Bernardino forests. We visited the Angeles and San Bernardino 

National Forests. 

Appendix: Demonstration Sites Visited 

(360401) 
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

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

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

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

reproduce this material separately. 
The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm of 

Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities 

and to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal 

government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; 

evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, 

recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed 

oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government 

is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

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

through the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and fulltext 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 www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to e-mail 

alerts” under the “Order GAO Products” heading. 

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 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

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

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

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

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

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 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Public Affairs