DOI’s BLM, FWS, NPS, and Reclamation, and USDA’s FS manage more than 638 million acres of land in the United States, including lands in national forests, grasslands, parks, refuges, and reservoirs. These agencies manage the federal lands for multiple uses, including recreational activities such as camping and boating. To enhance visitor services while protecting natural and other resources, as well as to address concerns about the prior recreation fee program, Congress passed REA, which authorized the collection and use of recreation fees at federal lands and waters. BLM’s mission is to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations. BLM manages more than 260 million acres located primarily in 12 western states. The agency manages and issues permits for activities such as recreation, livestock grazing, timber harvesting, and mining. Recreation fees are collected under REA at about 100 BLM field offices. The mission of the FWS is to work with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. FWS manages more than 545 national wildlife refuges and 37 large, multiple-unit wetland management districts on more than 96 million acres of land throughout the nation, 69 national fish hatcheries, and 46 administrative sites. As of August 2006, recreation fees are collected under REA at 166 FWS sites. An additional 32 national wildlife refuges only sell passes. The mission of NPS is to conserve the scenery, the natural and historic objects, and the wildlife of the national park system so that they will remain unimpaired for the enjoyment of this and future generations. NPS manages 390 national park units covering more than 84 million acres in 49 states, the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, Saipan, and the Virgin Islands. NPS manages many of the nation’s most precious natural and cultural resources. About 190 park units collect recreation fees such as entrance, use, and pass sales. An additional 31 units only generate revenue from the National Parks Pass and other pass sales. The mission of Reclamation is to manage, develop, and protect water and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of the American public. Reclamation manages about 8.5 million acres of land associated with water projects in 17 western states. The agency delivers water and hydroelectric power through the maintenance and administration of dams and reservoirs. Currently, Reclamation has identified seven locations that meet REA requirements for collecting standard amenity fees. The mission of the USDA FS is to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the nation’s forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations. FS manages more than 190 million acres throughout the country. The agency manages and issues permits for activities such as skiing, livestock grazing, recreation, timber harvesting, mining, and rights-of-way for road construction. Recreation fees are collected at about 410 ranger districts in 155 national forests. BLM, FWS, NPS, and FS have had broad authority to collect recreation fees for over 40 years, first under the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Act of 1965 and later under Fee Demo. Initially, Fee Demo authorized only a limited number of sites to charge and retain recreation fees—up to 100 sites per agency—but Congress later expanded the authority to allow any number of sites to charge and collect recreation fees. Under Fee Demo, the agencies were encouraged to be innovative in designing and collecting fees and to coordinate their fees with other federal, state, and local recreational sites. The program yielded substantial benefits for recreation sites by funding significant on-the-ground improvements. Total fee collections were about $192 million in fiscal year 2004, with about 67 percent or $129 million collected by NPS; the four agencies collected a total of over $1 billion in recreation fee revenues during the 8 years of the Fee Demo program. Nevertheless, under the demonstration program, the majority of the agencies’ funds were still provided to them through annual appropriations. Between 1998 and 2004, GAO conducted several reviews of the Fee Demo program, resulting in numerous reports and testimonies. During these reviews, we found that Fee Demo was successful in raising revenues and providing benefits to the agencies, but that improvements could be made to better the program. GAO informed Congress of several areas that needed to be addressed to ensure the program’s success. These included: (1) providing a more permanent source of revenue to supplement existing appropriations by providing the agencies with a more permanent fee authority; (2) encouraging effective coordination and cooperation among agencies and individual fee sites to better serve visitors by making the payment of fees more convenient and equitable, while at the same time reducing visitor confusion about similar or multiple fees charged at adjacent federal recreation sites; (3) providing the agencies with greater flexibility regarding fee revenue expenditures by modifying the requirement that at least 80 percent of fee revenues remain at the collection site; and (4) encouraging fee innovation through pricing structures based on extent of use or peak pricing. In 2004, Congress passed REA, in part, as a response to the suggestions and concerns documented in these previous reports. REA repealed several prior authorities such as those contained in LWCF Act, Fee Demo, and the National Parks Omnibus Management Act of 1998, which authorized national passes including the National Parks Pass. However, many of the fees currently charged under REA were first instituted under the LWCF Act or during the Fee Demo program. For fee revenues, REA provides that recreation fees collected under the act be deposited in a special fund account and remain available for expenditure without further appropriation action. REA allows the revenues to be used in a variety of ways such as for repair, maintenance, and facility enhancement; interpretation and visitor information; law enforcement; and direct operating or capital costs associated with the fee program. However, not more than an average of 15 percent of total recreation fee revenues may be used for administration, overhead, and indirect costs related to the recreation fee program. Further, REA prohibits the use of recreation fee revenues for employee bonuses or for biological monitoring under the Endangered Species Act. Both visitors to federal lands and agency officials generally support recreation fees and tout the benefits that fee revenues provide through improved facilities and services. Some assert that the recreation fee program will improve recreational opportunities and that it is a needed supplement to general fund appropriations. However, concerns about the recreation fee program continue to exist for a variety of reasons. For example, some people are concerned that the fee program under REA does not go far enough in simplifying fees, that federal lands will be overdeveloped to attract fee-paying tourists, and that the law fails to ensure that most collections will be used for the agencies’ highest priorities. Other critics continue to oppose recreation fees in concept, in large part, on the grounds that the cost of operating and maintaining federal lands should be covered by general fund appropriations and that these fees constitute a barrier to public access to federally managed lands. However, in times of budget constraints, recreation fees may provide an important source of additional funding needed to sustain agency operations. The four technical working groups formed by DOI and USDA to facilitate interagency cooperation and coordination on specific REA implementation issues have made progress. However, progress has been slow in some areas, such as resolving issues surrounding the RRACs and the new interagency pass, possibly delaying agency implementation of these aspects of the law. For example, the working group responsible for forming advisory committees, such as RRACs, has missed target dates, which has ultimately delayed the establishment of some new recreation fees. GAO has reported in the past that agencies face barriers any time they attempt to work collaboratively, but that there are key practices that can be applied to help enhance and sustain agency collaboration. For example, it is important to establish compatible policies, procedures, and other means to operate across agency boundaries. While one working group has finalized its interagency handbook, one is not planning to issue any guidelines, and two have not issued all of their interagency guidelines and agreements. For example, the working group responsible for preparing for the new interagency federal lands pass has not issued interagency guidelines outlining such details as pass eligibility requirements and distribution of costs and revenues among the agencies, which could potentially delay implementing the new pass. The RRACs/Public Participation working group has focused on establishing RRACs or utilizing existing advisory councils as part of the REA public participation requirements. These committees may make recommendations to the Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture related to public concerns about implementation of standard and expanded amenity fees or the establishment of a specific recreation fee site managed by BLM or FS, among other issues. However, the development of the RRACs has been slow, which has delayed the implementation of new fees or fee changes at some units. According to a June 2005 interagency presentation, it was expected that the RRACs would be established with members appointed by the end of 2005. Despite progress toward establishing RRACs, some tasks have taken longer than originally estimated and, as of August 2006, no state or regional RRACs are fully operational. Before the working group can move forward with many aspects of establishing RRACs— including issuing a charter and soliciting nominations for membership—or existing advisory councils can begin reviewing fee issues, an interagency agreement on implementing the RRAC requirements had to be signed. This interagency agreement, which covers issues such as the specific duties of the new RRACs and existing advisory councils, was finalized on September 1, 2006, but there is no time line for implementation, according to an agency official. In addition, other preparatory work to implement the new RRAC requirement has begun.