Recreation Fees: Comments on the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act, H.R. 3283
Published: 2004-05-06T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: In 1996, the Congress authorized an experimental initiative called the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program that provides funds to increase the quality of visitor experience and enhance resource protection. Under the program, the Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Park Service--all within the Department of the Interior--and the Forest Service--within the U.S. Department of Agriculture--are authorized to establish, charge, collect, and use fees at a number of sites to, among other things, address a backlog of repair and maintenance needs. Also, sites may retain and use the fees they collect. The Congress is now considering, through H.R. 3283, whether to make the program permanent. Central to the debate is how effectively the agencies are using the revenues that they have collected. This testimony focuses on the potential effect of H.R. 3283 on the issues GAO raised previously in its work on the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program. Specifically, it examines the extent to which H.R. 3283 would affect (1) federal agencies' deferred maintenance programs, (2) the management and distribution of the revenue collected, and (3) interagency coordination on fee collection and use.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: H.R. 3283 would provide agencies with a permanent source of funds to better address their maintenance backlog, and by making the program permanent, the act would provide agencies incentive to develop a system to track their deferred maintenance backlogs. According to the Department of the Interior's latest estimates, the deferred maintenance backlog for the Interior agencies participating in the fee demonstration program ranges from $5.1 billion to $8.3 billion, with the Park Service alone accounting for an estimated $4 to $7 billion. Likewise, the Forest Service, the other participating agency, estimates its total deferred maintenance backlog to be about $8 billion. GAO's prior work on the Park Service's and Forest Service's backlog has demonstrated that neither agency has accurate and reliable information on its deferred maintenance needs and cannot determine how much of the fee demonstration revenues it spends on reducing its deferred maintenance needs. Furthermore, some agency officials have hesitated to divert resources to develop a process for tracking deferred maintenance because the fee demonstration program is temporary. H.R. 3283 would allow agencies to reduce the percentage of fee revenue used on-site down to 60 percent, thus providing the agencies with greater flexibility in how they use the revenues. Currently, the demonstration program requires federal land management agencies to maintain at least 80 percent of the collected fee revenues for use on-site. This requirement has helped some demonstration sites generate revenue in excess of their high-priority needs, but the high-priority needs at other sites, which did not collect as much in fee revenues, remained unmet. GAO has suggested that the Congress consider modifying the current 80-percent on-site spending requirement to provide agencies greater flexibility in using fee revenues. H.R. 3283 would standardize the types of fees federal land management agencies may use and creates a single national pass that provides visitors general access to a variety of recreation sites managed by different agencies and allows for the regional coordination of fees to access multiple nearby sites. GAO's prior reports have demonstrated the need for more effective coordination and cooperation among the agencies to better serve visitors by making the payment of fees more convenient and equitable while reducing visitor confusion about similar or multiple fees being charged at nearby or adjacent federal recreation sites.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: I am pleased to be here today to discuss H.R. 3283, the Federal Lands  Recreation Enhancement Act, which proposes, among other things, to  establish a permanent recreation fee program for certain federal land  management agencies and standardize certain visitor fees. For many years,  the Congress has sought to identify programs that would help federal land  management agencies provide high-quality recreational opportunities for  visitors while at the same time protecting their resources. Accordingly, in  1996, the Congress authorized an experimental initiative, called the  Recreational Fee Demonstration Program. Under this program, four land  management agencies—the Bureau of Land Management, Fish and  Wildlife Service, and National Park Service within the Department of the  Interior, and the Forest Service within the U.S. Department of  Agriculture—are authorized to establish, charge, collect, and use fees at a  number of sites to, among other things, enhance visitor services, address a  backlog of needs for repair and maintenance, and manage and protect  resources. We have issued a number of reports and testimonies on the  program since its inception, identifying issues that need to be addressed to  improve the program’s effectiveness. (Appendix I lists our related reports  and testimonies.)
The Congress is now considering, through H.R. 3283, whether it should  make the program permanent. Central to the debate is how effectively the  land management agencies use the funds generated from recreation fee  collection. My testimony today focuses on H.R. 3283’s potential effect on  the issues that we raised in our prior work on the Recreational Fee  Demonstration Program, specifically the extent to which the act would  affect (1) federal agencies’ deferred maintenance programs, (2) the  management and distribution of the revenue collected, and (3) interagency  coordination on fee collection and use.
We did not conduct any follow-up audit work in conjunction with this  testimony. All of our prior work was conducted in accordance with  generally accepted government auditing standards.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: For the past several years, concerns about the cost of operating and  maintaining federal recreation sites within the federal land management  agencies have led the Congress to provide a significant new source of  funds. This additional source of funding—the Recreational Fee  Demonstration Program—was authorized in 1996. The fee demonstration  program authorized the Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife  Service, National Park Service, and the Forest Service to experiment with  new ways to administer existing fee revenues and to establish new  recreation entrance and user fees. The current authorization for the  program expires December 31, 2005.
Previously, all sites collecting entrance and user fees deposited the  revenue into a special U.S. Treasury account to be used for certain  purposes, including resource protection and maintenance activities, and  funds in this account only became available through congressional  appropriations. The fee demonstration program currently allows agencies  to maintain fee revenues in special U.S. Treasury accounts for use without  further appropriation: 80 percent of the fees are maintained in an account  for use at the site and the remaining 20 percent are maintained in another  account for use on an agency-wide basis. As a result, these revenues have  yielded substantial benefits for local recreation sites by funding significant  on-the-ground improvements.
From the inception of the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program, the  four participating agencies have collected over $1 billion in recreation fees  from the public. The Department of the Interior and the Department of  Agriculture’s most recent budget requests indicate that the agencies  expect to collect $138 million and $46 million, respectively, from the fee  demonstration program in fiscal year 2005.
section_title: H.R. 3283 Provides a Permanent Source of Revenue That Could Be Used to Address Participating Agencies’ Maintenance Backlogs
paragraphs: H.R. 3283, as proposed, would provide a permanent source of revenue for  federal land management agencies to use to, among other things, help  address the backlog in repair and maintenance of federal facilities and  infrastructure. One of the principal uses of the revenues generated under  the existing Recreational Fee Demonstration Program is for participating  agencies to reduce their respective maintenance backlogs.
The Department of the Interior owns, builds, purchases, and contracts  services for such assets as visitor centers, roads, bridges, dams, and  reservoirs, many of which are deteriorating and in need of repair or  maintenance. We have identified Interior’s land management agencies  inability to reduce their maintenance backlogs as a major management  challenge. According to the Department of the Interior’s latest estimates,  the deferred maintenance backlog for its participating agencies ranged  from about $5.1 billion to $8.3 billion. Table 1 shows the Department’s  estimate of deferred maintenance for its agencies participating in the  Recreational Fee Demonstration Program.
Of the current participating agencies within Interior, the National Park  Service has the largest estimated maintenance backlog—ranging from $4  to nearly $7 billion. As we have previously reported, the Park Service’s  problems with maintaining its facilities have steadily worsened in part  because the agency lacks accurate data on the facilities that need to be  maintained or on their condition. As a result, the Park Service cannot  effectively determine its maintenance needs, the amount of funding  needed to address them, or what progress, if any, it has made in closing  the maintenance gap. Although the Park Service has used some of the  revenues generated from the fee demonstration program to address its  high-priority maintenance needs, without accurate and reliable data, it  cannot demonstrate the effect of fee demonstration revenues in improving  the maintenance of its facilities.
The Park Service has acknowledged the problems associated with not  having an accurate and reliable estimate of its maintenance needs and  promised to develop an asset management process that, when operable,  should provide a systematic method for documenting deferred  maintenance needs and tracking progress in reducing the amount of  deferred maintenance. Furthermore, the new process should enable the  agency to develop (1) a reliable inventory of its assets, (2) a process for  reporting on the condition of each asset, and (3) a system-wide  methodology for estimating its deferred maintenance costs. In 2002, we  identified some areas that the agency needed to address in order to  improve the performance of the process, including the need to develop  cost and schedules for completing the implementation of the process,  better coordinating the tracking of the process among Park Service  headquarters units to avoid duplication of effort within the agency, and  better definition of its approach to determine the condition of its assets  and how much the assessments will cost. In our last testimony on this  issue before this Subcommittee in September 2003, we stated that the  complete implementation of the new process would not occur until fiscal  year 2006, but that the agency had completed, or nearly completed, a  number of substantial and important steps to improve the process.
The two other Interior agencies participating in the program—the Fish and  Wildlife Service and the Bureau of Land Management also report deferred  maintenance backlogs of about $1 billion and $330,000, respectively. We  do not have any information at this time on the effectiveness of the  program in reducing these backlogs.
The Forest Service also has an estimated $8 billion maintenance backlog  most of which is needed to maintain forest roads and bridges. In  September 2003, we reported that the Forest Service (like the Park  Service) had no effective means for measuring how much of the fee  demonstration revenues it had spent on deferred maintenance or the  impact that the fee program had had on reducing its deferred maintenance  needs. Although the Forest Service has recognized the significance of its  deferred maintenance problem, it does not have a systematic method for  compiling the information needed to provide a reliable estimate of its  deferred maintenance needs. Furthermore, the agency has not developed a  process to track deferred maintenance expenditures from fee  demonstration revenues. As a result, even if the agency knew how much  fee revenue it spent on deferred maintenance, it could not determine the  extent to which these revenues had reduced its overall deferred  maintenance needs. Forest Service officials provided several reasons why  the agency had not developed a process to track deferred maintenance  expenditures from the demonstration revenues. First, they said that the  agency chose to use its fee demonstration revenue to improve and  enhance on-site visitor services rather than to develop and implement a  system for tracking deferred maintenance spending. Second, the agency  was not required to measure the impact of fee revenues on deferred  maintenance. Finally, because the fee demonstration program was  temporary, agency officials had concerns about developing a process for  tracking deferred maintenance, not knowing if the program would  subsequently be made permanent.
H.R. 3283 would provide participating agencies with a permanent source  of funds to supplement existing appropriations and to better address  maintenance backlogs. Furthermore, by making the program permanent,  H.R. 3283 could provide participating agencies like the Forest Service with  an incentive to develop a system to track their deferred maintenance  backlogs.
section_title: H.R. 3283 Provides Agencies Additional Flexibility in Distributing Collected Fee Revenues
paragraphs: The existing fee demonstration program requires federal land management  agencies to maintain at least 80 percent of the fee revenues for use on-site.  In a 1998 report, we suggested that, in order to provide greater  opportunities to address high priority needs of the agencies, the Congress  consider modifying the current requirement to grant agencies greater  flexibility in using fee revenues. H.R. 3283 provides the agencies with  flexibility to reduce the percentage of revenues spent on-site down to 60  percent.
We also reported that the requirement that at least 80 percent of the  revenues be maintained for use at the collection site may inadvertently  create funding imbalances between sites and that some heavily visited  sites may reach a point where they have more revenues than they need for  their projects, while other sites would still fall short. In 1999, we testified  that some demonstration sites were generating so much revenue as to  raise questions about their long-term ability to spend these revenues on  high-priority items. In contrast, we warned that sites outside the  demonstration program, as well as demonstration sites that did not collect  as much in fee revenues, may have high-priority needs that remained  unmet. As a result, some of the agencies’ highest-priority needs might not  be addressed. Our testimony indicated that, at many sites in the  demonstration program, the increased fee revenues amounted to 20  percent or more of the sites’ annual operating budgets, allowing such sites  to address past unmet needs in maintenance, resource protection, and  visitor services. While these sites could address their needs within a few  years, the 80-percent requirement could, over time, preclude the agencies  from redistributing fee revenues to meet more pressing needs at other  sites. Our November 2001 report confirmed that such imbalances had  begun to occur. Officials from the land management agencies  acknowledged that some heavily visited sites with large fee revenues may  eventually collect more revenue than they need to address their priorities,  while other lower-revenue generating sites may have limited or no fee  revenues to meet their needs.
To address this imbalance, we suggested that the Congress consider  modifying the current requirement that 80 percent of fee revenue be  maintained for use by the sites generating the revenues to allow for greater  flexibility in using fee revenues. H.R. 3283 would still generally require  agencies to maintain at least 80 percent of fee revenues for use on-site.  However, if the Secretary of the Interior determined that the revenues  collected at a site exceeded the reasonable needs of the unit for which  expenditures may be made for that fiscal year, under H.R. 3283 the  Secretary could then reduce the percentage of on-site expenditures to 60  percent and transfer the remainder to meet other priority needs across the  agency.
The need for flexibility in transferring revenue must also be balanced  against the necessity of keeping sufficient funds on-site to maintain  incentives at fee-collecting units and to maintain the support of the  visitors. Such a balance is of particular concern to the Forest Service,  which has identified that visitors generally support the program so long as  the fees are used on-site and they can see improvements to the site where  they pay fees. Accordingly, under the existing fee demonstration program,  the Forest Service has committed to retaining 90 to 100 percent of the fees  on-site. As such, H.R. 3283 would not likely change the Forest Service’s  use of collected fees. However, it would provide the Forest Service, as  well as the other agencies, with the flexibility to balance the need to  provide incentives at fee collecting sites and support of visitors against  transferring revenues to other sites.
section_title: H.R. 3283 Should Help Reduce Visitor Confusion by Creating a National Pass and Requiring Participating Agencies to Coordinate Fee Collection on a Regional Level
paragraphs: The legislative history of the fee demonstration program places an  emphasis on participating agency collaboration to minimize or eliminate  confusion for visitors where multiple fees could be charged to visit  recreation sites in the same area. Our prior work has pointed to the need  for more effective coordination and cooperation among the agencies to  better serve visitors by making the payment of fees more convenient and  equitable while at the same time, reducing visitor confusion about similar  or multiple fees being charged at nearby or adjacent federal recreation  sites. For example, sites do not consistently accept agency and  interagency passes, resulting in visitor confusion and, in some cases,  overlapping or duplicative fees for the same or similar activities. H.R. 3283  would allow for improved service to visitors by coordinating federal  agency fee-collection activities. First, the act would standardize the types  of fees that the federal land management agencies use. Second, it would  create a single national pass that would provide visitors access to  recreation sites managed by different agencies. Third, it would allow for  the coordination of fees on a regional level for access to multiple nearby  sites.
subsections: section_title: H.R. 3283 Standardizes Recreation Fees
paragraphs: In November 2001, we reported that agencies had not pursued  opportunities to coordinate their fees better among their own sites, with  other agencies, or with other nearby, nonfederal recreational sites. As a  result, visitors often had to pay fees that were sometimes overlapping,  duplicative, or confusing. Limited fee coordination by the four agencies  has permitted confusing fee situations to persist. 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,  visitors who entered either Olympic National Park or the Olympic National  Forest in Washington state for day hiking are engaged in the same  recreational activity—obtaining general access to federal lands—but were  charged distinct entrance and user fees. For a 1-day hike in Olympic  National Park, users paid a $10 per-vehicle entry fee (good for 1 week),  whereas hikers using trailheads in Olympic National Forest were 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—could use  the pass to enter Olympic National Park, but had to pay the Forest  Service’s trailhead parking fee because the fee for the pass covers only  entrance fees and not a user fees. However, the two agencies now allow  holders of the Golden Eagle Passport to use it for trailhead parking at  Olympic National Forest.
Similarly, confusing and inconsistent fee situations also occur at similar  types of 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 a user 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 user  fees, but tours of the primary residences require the payment of entrance  fees. Visitors in possession of an annual pass that cover entrance fees,  such as the National Parks Pass, may be further confused that their annual  entrance pass is sufficient for admission to a user fee site, such as the San  Juan National Historic Site, but not sufficient to allow them to enter  certain buildings on the Roosevelt/Vanderbilt Complex, which charge  entrance fees.
H.R. 3283 would streamline the recreational fee program by providing a  standard fee structure across federal land management agencies using a 3- tiered fee structure: a basic recreation fee, an expanded recreation fee,  and a special recreation permit fee. H.R. 3283 establishes several areas  where a basic recreation fee may be charged. For example, the basic  recreation fee offers access to, among other areas, National Park System  units, National Conservation Areas, and National Recreation Areas.  Expanded recreation fees are charged either in addition to the basic  recreation fee or by itself when the visitor uses additional facilities or  services, such as a developed campground or an equipment rental. A  special recreation permit is charged when the visitor participates in an  activity such as a commercial tour, competitive event, or an outfitting or  guiding activity.
section_title: H.R. 3283 Would Create a National Pass
paragraphs: In November 2001 we reported another example of an interagency issue  that needed to be addressed—the inconsistency and confusion  surrounding the acceptance and use of the $65 Golden Eagle Passport.  The annual pass provides visitors with unlimited access to federal  recreation sites that charge an entrance fee. However, many sites do not  charge entrance fees to gain access to a site and instead 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 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.
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 $50 pass admits the holder, spouse,  children, and parents to all National Park Service sites that charge an  entrance fee for a full year. However, the Parks Pass does not admit the  cardholder to the 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 the Fish and Wildlife Service sites.
H.R. 3283 would eliminate the current national passes and replace them  with one federal lands pass—called the “America the Beautiful—the  National Parks and Federal Recreation Lands Pass”—for use at any site of  a federal land management agency that charges a basic recreation fee. The  act also calls for the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior to jointly  establish the National Parks and Federal Recreation Lands Pass and to  jointly issue guidelines on the administration of the pass. In addition, it  requires that the Secretaries develop guidelines for establishing or  changing fees and that these guidelines, among other things, would require  federal land management agencies to coordinate with each other to the  extent practicable when establishing or changing fees.
section_title: H.R. 3283 Would Provide Interagency Coordination on the Regional Level
paragraphs: H.R. 3283 would also provide local site managers the opportunity to  coordinate and develop regional passes to reduce visitor confusion over  access to adjacent sites managed by different agencies. When authorizing  the demonstration program, the Congress called upon the agencies to  coordinate multiple or overlapping fees. We reported in 1999 that the  agencies were not taking advantage of this flexibility. For example, the  Park Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service manage sites that share a  common border on the same island in Maryland and Virginia—Assateague  Island National Seashore and Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge.  When the agencies selected the two sites for the demonstration program,  they decided to charge separate entrance fees. However, as we reported in  2001, the managers at these sites developed a reciprocal fee arrangement  whereby each site accepted the fee paid at the other site to better  accommodate the visitors. Resolving situations in which inconsistent and  overlapping fees are charged for similar recreation activities would offer  visitors a rational and consistent fee program. We stated that further  coordination among the agencies participating in the fee demonstration  program could reduce the confusion for visitors. We reported that  demonstration sites may be reluctant to coordinate on fees partly because  the program’s incentives are geared towards increasing their revenues.  Because joint fee arrangements may potentially reduce revenues to  specific sites, there may be a disincentive among these sites to coordinate.  Nonetheless, we believe that the increase in service to the public might be  worth a small reduction in revenues.
Accordingly, we recommended that the Secretaries of Agriculture and the  Interior direct the heads of the participating agencies to improve their  service to visitors by better coordinating their fee collection activities  under the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program. In response, in 2002,  the Departments of the Interior and Agriculture formed the Interagency  Recreational Fee Leadership Council to facilitate coordination and  consistency among the agencies on recreation fee policies. We also  recommended that the agencies approach such an analysis systematically,  first by identifying other federal recreation areas close to each other and  then, for each situation, determining whether a coordinated approach,  such as a reciprocal fee arrangement, would better serve the visiting  public. The agencies implemented this recommendation to a limited extent  as evidenced by the reciprocal fee arrangement between Assateague  Island National Seashore and Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge.
H.R. 3283 offers federal agencies the opportunity to develop regional  passes to offer access to sites managed by different federal, state and local  agencies. As we have reported in the past, for all four agencies to make  improvements in interagency communication, coordination, and  consistency for the program to become user-friendly, an effective  mechanism is needed to ensure that interagency coordination occurs or to  resolve interagency issues or disputes when they arise.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Essentially, the fee demonstration program raises revenue for the  participating sites to use for maintaining and improving the quality of  visitor services and protecting the resources at federal recreation sites.  The program has been successful in raising a significant amount of  revenue. However, the agencies could enhance the quality of visitor  services more by providing better overall management of the program.  Several of the provisions in H.R. 3283 address many of the quality of  service issues we have identified through our prior work and if the  provisions are properly implemented these services should improve.
While the fee demonstration program provides funds to increase the  quality of the visitor experience and enhance the protection of resources  by, among other things, addressing a backlog of needs for repair and  maintenance, and to manage and protect resources, the program’s short  and long-term success lies in the flexibility it provides agencies to spend  revenues and the removal of any undesirable inequities that occur to  ensure that the agencies’ highest priority needs are met. However, any  changes to the program’s requirements should be balanced in such a way  that fee-collecting sites would continue to have an incentive to collect fees  and visitors who pay them will continue to support the program.
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.
section_title: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: For further information about this testimony, please contact me at (202)  512-3841. Doreen Feldman, Roy Judy, Jonathan McMurray, Patrick Sigl,  Paul Staley, Amy Webbink, and Arvin Wu made key contributions to this  statement.
section_title: Related GAO Products
paragraphs: The following is a listing of related GAO products on recreation fees,  deferred maintenance, and other related issues.
subsections: section_title: Recreation Fees
paragraphs: Recreation Fees: Information on Forest Service Management of Revenue  from the Fee Demonstration Program. GAO-03-1161T. Washington, D.C.:  September 17, 2003.
Recreation Fees: Information on Forest Service Management of Revenue  from the Fee Demonstration Program. GAO-03-470. Washington, D.C.:  April 25, 2003.
Recreation Fees: Management Improvements Can Help the  Demonstration Program Enhance Visitor Services. GAO-02-10.  Washington, D.C.: November 26, 2001.
Recreational Fee Demonstration Program Survey. GAO-02-88SP.  Washington, D.C.: November 1, 2001.
National Park Service: Recreational Fee Demonstration Program  Spending Priorities. GAO/RCED-00-37R. Washington, D.C.: November 18,  1999.
Recreation Fees: Demonstration Has Increased Revenues, but Impact on  Park Service Backlog Is Uncertain. GAO/T-RCED-99-101. Washington,  D.C.: March 3, 1999.
Recreation Fees: Demonstration Program Successful in Raising  Revenues but Could Be Improved. GAO/T-RCED-99-77. Washington, D.C.:  February 4, 1999.
Recreation Fees: Demonstration Fee Program Successful in Raising  Revenues but Could Be Improved. GAO/RCED-99-7. Washington, D.C.:  November 20, 1998.
section_title: Deferred Maintenance
paragraphs: National Park Service: Efforts Underway to Address Its Maintenance  Backlog. GAO-03-1177T. Washington, D.C.: September 27, 2003.
National Park Service: Status of Agency Efforts to Address Its  Maintenance Backlog. GAO-03-992T. Washington, D.C.: July 8, 2003.
National Park Service: Status of Efforts to Develop Better Deferred  Maintenance Data. GAO-02-568R. Washington, D.C.: April 12, 2002.
National Park Service: Efforts to Identify and Manage the Maintenance  Backlog. GAO/RCED-98-143. Washington, D.C.: May 14, 1998.
National Park Service: Maintenance Backlog Issues. GAO/T-RCED-98-61.  Washington, D.C.: February 4, 1998.
Deferred Maintenance Reporting: Challenges to Implementation.  GAO/AIMD-98-42. Washington, D.C.: January 30, 1998.
section_title: Other Related Products
paragraphs: Major Management Challenges and Program Risks, Department of the  Interior. GAO-03-104. Washington, D.C.: January 2003.
Major Management Challenges and Program Risks, Department of the  Interior. GAO-01-249. Washington, D.C.: January 2001.
Park Service: Managing for Results Could Strengthen Accountability.  GAO/RCED-97-125. Washington, D.C.: April 10, 1997.
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.