Federal Lands

The Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) are the two major federal agencies whose lands are used as sites to broadcast radio, television, and other electronic signals. These sites, mainly located in the western United States, are for the most part leased to private entities that build and operate communications facilities. The annual fees being charged for such communications sites are, in many cases, significantly below fair market value. Forest Service and BLM officials estimate that charging fees on the basis of fair market value would boost total federal revenues by more than 500 percent--from about $4 million to about $23 million annually. Although the Forest Service and BLM have been trying to set fees reflecting fair market value, annual appropriations legislation has limited the amount by which these fees can be increased. As long as these limits are in effect, the fees charged will not reflect fair market value. Both the Forest Service and BLM lack reliable and complete information needed to manage their communications site programs. In addition, many unauthorized communications users are operating on Forest Service lands, and annual inspections to ensure that the sites are properly maintained are rarely done. GAO summarized this report in testimony before Congress; see: Federal Lands: Fees for Communications Sites Are Below Fair Market Value, by John H. Anderson, Jr., Associate Director for Natural Resources Management Issues, before the Subcommittee on the Environment, Energy, and Natural Resources, House Committee on Government Operations, and the Subcommittee on Natural Parks, Forests, and Public Lands, House Committee on Natural Resources. GAO/T-RCED-94-262, July 12 (13 pages).

GAO found that: (1) annual fees are significantly below fair market value for the use of the communications sites because the Forest Service bases fees on a 40-year-old formula and BLM bases fees on outdated appraisals; (2) the agencies estimate that fair market fees would increase total revenues by over 500 percent; (3) state and private landowners generally base their fees on their lands' fair market value and charge more than the federal fees; (4) some state officials believe that the low federal fees depress the fair market value of state-owned sites and deprive the states of revenue; (5) the agencies and the communications industry have been unable to agree on the amount of fee increases, partly because of the industry's concerns regarding the higher fees' adverse impact on small rural broadcasters; (6) legislative limits on fee increases prevent the agencies from charging fair market fees; (7) the agencies lack complete and reliable program information needed to manage their communications sites; and (8) numerous unauthorized communications users are operating on the sites and the Forest Service has not performed annual site inspections to monitor user compliance.

Recommendations

Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.

Director: Team: Phone: