Recreation Fees
Information on Forest Service Management of Revenue from the Fee Demonstration Program Gao ID: GAO-03-470 April 25, 2003Since 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. Under the trial program, the Congress authorized the four federal land management agencies, including the Forest Service, to charge fees to visitors and to retain the revenues for use in addition to other appropriated funds. The Congress originally authorized the program for 3 years and has extended it several times. As Congress considers whether to extend the program or to make it permanent, the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health asked GAO to address several questions about the Forest Service's administration of the program: (1) How are spending priorities determined for the revenues generated by the program? (2) How has the agency spent its fee demonstration program revenues? (3) What, if anything, is the agency doing to measure the impact of the recreation fee revenues on reducing the agency's deferred maintenance backlog? (4) How does the agency account for its fee demonstration program revenues?
The Forest Service largely determines its spending priorities for the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program through local forest managers who are given broad discretion in deciding how to use fee demonstration revenues. Local managers 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. 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 reviewed the activities of nine demonstration sites in three Forest Service regions to verify that the fee revenues were being spent in accordance with the authorizing legislation for the program and agency spending priorities. GAO found no inconsistency. The Forest Service does not have a process for measuring the impact of fee demonstration expenditures on reducing the deferred maintenance backlog. Further, while acknowledging that it has a significant deferred maintenance problem, the agency has not developed a reliable estimate of its deferred maintenance needs. The Forest Service keeps its fee revenue in an account separate from other appropriated funds, as required by the authorizing fee program legislation. Although the Forest Service tracks its fee revenues and expenditures separately from other appropriated funds, it does not accurately account for some fee collection costs. The Forest Service, in commenting on a draft of this report, generally agreed with the report's contents.
GAO-03-470, Recreation Fees: Information on Forest Service Management of Revenue from the Fee Demonstration Program
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-03-470
entitled 'Recreation Fees: Information on Forest Service Management of
Revenue from the Fee Demonstration Program' which was released on May
19, 2003.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a
longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
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. 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.
Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health,
Committee on Resources, House of Representatives:
April 2003:
Recreation Fees:
Information on Forest Service Management of Revenue From the Fee
Demonstration Program:
GAO-03-470:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-03-470, a report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on
Forests and Forest Health, Committee on Resources, House of
Representatives
Why GAO Did This Study:
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. Under
the trial program, the Congress authorized the four federal land
management agencies, including the Forest Service, to charge fees to
visitors and to retain the revenues for use in addition to other
appropriated funds. The Congress originally authorized the program
for 3 years and has extended it several times.
As Congress considers whether to extend the program or to make it
permanent, the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Forests and Forest
Health asked GAO to address several questions about the Forest
Service‘s administration of the program: (1) How are spending
priorities determined for the revenues generated by the program? (2)
How has the agency spent its fee demonstration program revenues? (3)
What, if anything, is the agency doing to measure the impact of the
recreation fee revenues on reducing the agency‘s deferred maintenance
backlog? (4) How does the agency account for its fee demonstration
program revenues?
What GAO Found:
The Forest Service largely determines its spending priorities for the
Recreational Fee Demonstration Program through local forest managers
who are given broad discretion in deciding how to use fee
demonstration revenues. Local managers 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.
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 reviewed the activities of
nine demonstration sites in three Forest Service regions to verify
that the fee revenues were being spent in accordance with the
authorizing legislation for the program and agency spending
priorities. GAO found no inconsistency.
The Forest Service does not have a process for measuring the impact of
fee demonstration expenditures on reducing the deferred maintenance
backlog. Further, while acknowledging that it has a significant
deferred maintenance problem, the agency has not developed a reliable
estimate of its deferred maintenance needs.
The Forest Service keeps its fee revenue in an account separate from
other appropriated funds, as required by the authorizing fee program
legislation. Although the Forest Service tracks its fee revenues
and expenditures separately from other appropriated funds, it does not
accurately account for some fee collection costs.
The Forest Service, in commenting on a draft of this report, generally
agreed with the report‘s contents.
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-470.
To view the full report, including the scope
and methodology, click on the link above.
For more information, contact Barry T. Hill at (202) 512-9775 or
hillbt@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Results in Brief:
Background:
Local Forest Service Officials Determine Spending Priorities:
The Forest Service Has Spent Most Revenues on a Wide Range of
Activities at the Sites Where the Fees Are Collected:
The Forest Service Has No Process for Measuring the Impact of Fee
Revenues on Deferred Maintenance:
The Forest Service Accounts for Its Fee Demonstration Program Revenues
and Expenditures Separately from Other Funds but Does Not Accurately
Account for Some Fee Collection Costs:
Agency Comments:
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Answers to Additional Subcommittee Questions:
Appendix II: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix III: Comments from the U.S. Department of Agriculture:
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of the Interior:
Tables:
Table 1: Forest Service Fee Demonstration Expenditures in Fiscal
Year 2001:
Table 2: Revenues and Visitation Data and Reason for Selecting
Demonstration Sites GAO Visited:
Table 3: Amount of Forest Service Recreation Programs‘
Appropriations and Its Recreational Fee Demonstration
Program Revenues, Fiscal Years 1996-2002:
Table 4: Comparison of Forest Service Recreation Appropriations‘
Allocations to Its Regional Offices to Fee Demonstration
Revenues:
Table 5: Demonstration Sites GAO Visited:
Figures:
Figure 1: Forest Service and National Park Service Fiscal Year 2001
Fee Demonstration Expenditures by Category:
Figure 2: Enhancement of Boat Launching Area along the
Nantahala River:
Figure 3: Increased Lake Patrols and Maintenance of Floating
Restrooms at Shasta-Trinity National Recreation Area:
Figure 4: Cleanup of an Illegal Trash Dump in San Bernardino
National Forest:
Figure 5: Wastewater Treatment Plant at Multnomah Falls:
Figure 6: Comparison of Forest Service and National Park Service Fiscal
Year 2001 Fee Demonstration Expenditures:
Figure 7: Before and After Pictures of a Rehabilitated Trail at the
Nantahala River Gorge:
April 25, 2003:
The Honorable Scott McInnis
Chairman, Subcommittee on Forests
and Forest Health
Committee on Resources
House of Representatives:
Dear Mr. Chairman:
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. Under the
trial program, the Congress authorized the four federal land management
agencies--the National Park Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and
the Bureau of Land Management, all within the Department of the
Interior, and the Forest Service, within the Department of Agriculture-
-to charge fees to visitors and to retain the revenues for use in
addition to other appropriated funds. The Congress originally
authorized the program for 3 years and has extended it four times. The
authority to collect these fees currently expires at the end of fiscal
year 2004. The Congress is now considering whether it should extend the
program a fifth time or whether it should make the program permanent.
Central to the debate is how effectively the land management agencies
are using the hundreds of millions of dollars that the recreation fees
have provided them.
The legislation authorizing the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program
encouraged the land management agencies to experiment with new fees and
fee structures for recreational activities and directed them to use the
fee revenues to increase the quality of the visitor experience and to
enhance the protection of natural, historic, and cultural resources.
The agencies were given authority to use fee revenues for a broad array
of activities. The agencies must set aside at least 80 percent of the
revenues collected under the program for the sites that collected the
fees. By allowing the field sites to retain such a large percentage of
the fees collected, the Congress created a powerful incentive for these
sites to generate enough revenues to visibly improve conditions in the
areas they managed. According to the program's legislative history, the
Congress believed that such local improvements would enhance visitor
acceptance of the new fees.
As the Recreational Fee Demonstration 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, you asked us to address the
following questions about the Forest Service's administration of the
program: (1) How are spending priorities determined for the revenues
generated by the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program?
(2) How has the agency spent its fee demonstration program revenues?
(3) What, if anything, is the Forest Service doing to measure the
impact of the recreation fee revenues on reducing the agency's deferred
maintenance backlog? (4) How does the Forest Service account for its
fee demonstration program revenues?
While our analysis focused on the Forest Service, to provide some
perspective, we also obtained some information on how the National Park
Service manages its fee demonstration program since it generates, by
far, the largest amount of fee revenue. Specifically, where significant
differences exist between the two agencies, we provide contrasting
information. Together, the Forest Service and the Park Service collect
over 90 percent of the fees under the Recreational Fee Demonstration
Program. In fiscal year 2001, the Forest Service collected $35 million
in fees; the Park Service collected $126 million.
Further, as our work progressed, you asked us to respond to additional
questions about specific aspects of the Recreational Fee Demonstration
Program. These questions and our responses to them are included as
appendix I of this report. The scope and methodology used in our
analysis is included as appendix II.
Results in Brief:
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. Local
managers 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. The
guidance also emphasizes a preference for maintaining existing
facilities such as restrooms and visitor centers and discourages forest
managers from initiating new construction projects. In the Forest
Service, local forest managers retain between 90 and 100 percent of the
fee demonstration revenue at the sites where fees are collected. In
contrast, local National Park Service managers retain 80 percent of fee
revenues at collecting sites, with the remaining 20 percent going to
other sites that have high-priority needs.
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. Based on the most
recent Forest Service data available, in fiscal year 2001, the agency
spent 29 percent of its fee demonstration revenue expenditures on
visitor services and operations, including trash collection, campfire
programs, and visitor satisfaction surveys; 21 percent on maintenance
of facilities, such as repairing comfort stations and fixing roofs; and
17 percent on fee collection. The remaining 33 percent was spent on
such activities as enhancing facilities, protecting resources, and
enforcing laws. The legislation authorizing the fee demonstration
program permitted the participating agencies to spend fee revenues on
all of these kinds of on-site activities as long as the expenditures
contributed to enhancing the visitor experience or helped protect,
preserve, or enhance resources. We reviewed the activities of nine
demonstration sites in three different regions to verify that the fee
revenues were actually being spent in accordance with the authorizing
legislation for the program and agency spending priorities. We found no
inconsistency. However, we did find that the Forest Service does not
provide consistent information on where fee revenue is being spent. At
each of the sites we reviewed, officials told us that deciding which
category a particular expenditure falls into is a subjective judgment
that is not necessarily consistent among sites. For example, the repair
of an aging restroom facility could be categorized as either
"maintenance," or a facility enhancement that could fall into the
"other" category. As shown in figure 1, the National Park Service's fee
demonstration expenditures reflect greater emphasis on maintenance and
fee collection activities compared to the Forest Service.
Figure 1: Forest Service and National Park Service Fiscal Year 2001 Fee
Demonstration Expenditures by Category:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
The Forest Service does not have a process for measuring the impact of
fee demonstration expenditures on reducing the deferred maintenance
backlog. According to the Forest Service, the agency does not track the
extent to which fee demonstration expenditures have been used for
deferred maintenance for a number of reasons including the temporary
nature of the program and because the agency is not required by the fee
program legislation to measure the impact of fee demonstration revenues
on deferred maintenance. Further, while acknowledging that it has a
significant deferred maintenance problem, the agency has not developed
a reliable estimate of its deferred maintenance needs. In contrast, the
National Park Service has placed a higher priority on addressing its
deferred maintenance needs with revenues from the fee demonstration
program. In fiscal year 2001, the Park Service began to track the
extent to which it has used fee demonstration revenues to address its
multi-billion dollar deferred maintenance backlog. During that year,
the Park Service spent about 35 percent of its fee demonstration
revenues on maintenance activities. Since the program began, agency
officials estimate that about
70 percent of its fee demonstration expenditures have been for deferred
maintenance activities ($274 million out of $395 million). However,
like the Forest Service, the Park Service has not yet developed a
reliable estimate of its deferred maintenance needs.
The Forest Service keeps its fee demonstration revenue in two different
Treasury accounts separate from its other appropriated funds, as
required by the authorizing fee program legislation. Eighty percent of
its fee revenues are maintained in an account for expenditure without
further appropriation at the site where the fees were collected and 20
percent of its fee revenues in another account for expenditure on an
agencywide basis without further appropriation. Although the Forest
Service tracks its fee revenues and expenditures separately from other
appropriated funds, it does not accurately account for some fee
collection costs. Specifically, the Forest Service does not report
total revenues and fee collection costs related to discounts that
vendors receive for selling recreation passes directly to the public.
The National Park Service has established a similar account structure
to comply with the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program requirements.
We received comments from the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the
Department of the Interior on a draft of this report. The U.S.
Department of Agriculture generally agreed with the report's contents.
Interior did not offer overall comments on the report. Both departments
provided us with clarifying and technical comments that we incorporated
into the report as appropriate. Comments from the U.S. Department of
Agriculture are included in appendix III and comments from the
Department of the Interior are included in appendix IV.
Background:
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 traditionally has been a
decentralized organization, in which its programs are administered
through 9 regional offices, 155 national forests, and over 600 ranger
districts (each forest has several districts).
The Forest Service implemented the Recreational Fee Demonstration
Program in fiscal year 1996 with four demonstration sites that
generated $43,000 during the year.[Footnote 1] The program has steadily
grown over the past
5 years and covers 87 sites, in 80 national forests, that generated
over
$35 million in fiscal year 2001. 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.
Local Forest Service Officials Determine Spending Priorities:
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 provide general program guidance that advises
local managers to establish spending priorities that focus on two
things. First, local managers are to identify what the visitors want
because the Forest Service believes that forest users will more likely
accept paying fees if they see that their money is spent on improving
recreational visitor services in the national forests they visit.
Second, existing facilities such as restrooms and visitor centers
should be maintained because the agency prefers to use recreation fees
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 through such methods as obtaining comment cards that are
received from visitors, using universities to conduct visitor surveys,
and using local user groups, associations, and regional
boards.[Footnote 2] According to these officials, visitors desire that
spending priorities should address such things as 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 has committed to
retaining almost all fee demonstration revenues at the collection
sites--between 90 and 100 percent of fee revenues collected are to be
retained and used at the collection site. In regions 5 and 8 (the
Pacific Southwest and Southern regions) that we visited, 95 percent of
fee revenues are retained and used at the collecting site and in region
6 (the Pacific Northwest), 92 percent of fee revenues are retained on
site. The portion of fee revenues that are not retained on site is used
by the regional offices for a variety of program-related activities
like providing new demonstration projects with start-up money,
providing fee demonstration signs and brochures, regional pass sales,
and for marketing activities.
In contrast to the Forest Service, the National Park Service permits
demonstration sites to retain no more than 80 percent of the fee
revenue collected. The Park Service requires that the remaining 20
percent of fee revenues be used for addressing high-priority needs at
other lower-revenue fee demonstration sites, at park units that do not
participate in the fee demonstration program, or for servicewide
priorities, such as funding youth groups to work on national park
projects. In terms of program priorities, the Park Service emphasizes
that local managers focus on addressing deferred maintenance and
critical resources protection needs.
The Forest Service Has Spent Most Revenues on a Wide Range of
Activities at the Sites Where the Fees Are Collected:
As permitted by the authorizing legislation for the Recreational Fee
Demonstration Program, the Forest Service has spent fee revenues on a
wide range of projects. Our analysis at a sample of sites participating
in the fee demonstration program revealed that fee revenue was being
spent for activities that were consistent with the legislation
authorizing the program and the agency's spending priorities. On the
national level, the most recently available information indicates that
about one half of the fee revenues were being spent for visitor
services and maintenance activities. However, because the agency relies
on subjective determinations by local forest managers to categorize its
expenditures, these determinations are not consistent among sites.
Accordingly, the accuracy of program-wide information depicting the
amounts of fee revenues spent for various categories is questionable.
In contrast to the Forest Service, the National Park Service uses a
larger portion of its fee demonstration expenditures on collecting fees
and addressing its maintenance needs and less for visitor services.
Forest Service Expenditures Emphasize Maintaining Existing Facilities
and Providing Visitor Services:
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 legislation for the program[Footnote 3]
directed the agencies to spend fee revenues to "—increase the quality
of the visitor experience at public recreational areas and enhance the
protection of resources." This legislation permitted the agencies to
spend fee demonstration revenues in the following areas: backlogged
repair and maintenance projects (including projects related to health
and safety), interpretation, signage, habitat or facility enhancement,
resource preservation, annual operation (including fee collection),
maintenance, and law enforcement relating to the public use of lands.
For fiscal year 2001, the Forest Service reported that it collected
about $35 million in fees and spent about $29.3 million. As shown in
table 1, the Forest Service spent the fee revenues on a wide range of
activities, as allowed by the legislation that authorized the program.
The Forest Service spent about half of their fee revenues in two
categories: visitor services and operations and maintenance.
Table 1: Forest Service Fee Demonstration Expenditures in Fiscal Year
2001:
Dollars in thousands.
Expenditure category[A]: Visitor Services and Operations; Types of
activities included in expenditure category: Routine incidental costs
like mowing, trash collections, and toilet pumping; Fee demonstration
expenditures: $8,566; Percent of total expenditures: 29.
Expenditure category[A]: Maintenance; Types of activities included in
expenditure category:
Repair or replacement of worn assets such as toilets, roofs, and
trails; includes projects related to health and safety and backlogged
maintenance[B]; Fee demonstration expenditures: 6,101; Percent of total
expenditures: 21.
Expenditure category[A]: Cost of Collection; Types of activities
included in expenditure
category: Direct fee collections costs including fee collections and
non-payment enforcement; Fee demonstration expenditures: 5,051;
Percent of total expenditures: 17.
Expenditure category[A]: Interpretation and Signing; Types of
activities included in expenditure
category: Delivering interpretation and information to visitors such as
interpretive programs and tours; Fee demonstration expenditures: 3,859;
Percent of total expenditures: 13.
Expenditure category[A]: Facility Enhancement; Types of activities
included in expenditure
category: Enhancement of existing facilities such as new building,
trail, or picnic table construction; Fee demonstration expenditures:
3,365; Percent of total expenditures: 12.
Expenditure category[A]: Security and Enforcement; Types of activities
included in expenditure
category: Enforcement of laws and regulations such as protection of
facilities, visitors, and natural and cultural resources; Fee
demonstration expenditures: 1,164; Percent of total expenditures: 4.
Expenditure category[A]: Resource Preservation and Enhancement; Types
of activities included in
expenditure category: Resource and habitat restoration, enhancement and
preservation, such as landscaping and wildlife fencing; Fee
demonstration expenditures: 911; Percent of total expenditures: 3.
Expenditure category[A]: Other; Types of activities included in
expenditure category: Includes
interagency transfers and other miscellaneous expenditures; Fee
demonstration expenditures: 238; Percent of total expenditures: 1.
Total;
Fee demonstration expenditures: $29,255; Percent of total expenditures:
100.
Source: GAO analysis of Forest Service data.
[A] In fiscal year 2002, the Forest Service combined health and safety
expenditures into the maintenance category and habitat enhancement
expenditures into the resource preservation and enhancement category.
We used these combined categories for reporting the fiscal year 2001
expenditures.
[B] Backlogged or deferred maintenance expenditures may also be
categorized under categories other than maintenance.
[End of table]
To get some indication whether the Forest Service is spending the fee
revenues consistent with the authorizing legislation and agency
priorities and to verify that projects were being completed, we
reviewed the activities of a sample of demonstration sites in the three
Forest Service regions that have generated the most fee demonstration
revenues. The three regions we visited were region 5, the Pacific
Southwest, generating
$5.7 million; region 6, the Pacific Northwest, generating $5.7 million;
and region 8, the Southern Region, generating $6.1 million in fiscal
year 2001. Collectively, the three regions represent 58 percent of
total fee demonstration revenues generated by the Forest Service in
fiscal year 2001. In each of the three regions, we selected three fee
demonstration sites, as shown in table 2. Our site selection criteria
were the same for each region. Specifically, we selected a site that
generated the most fee revenues, a site that had the least fee
revenues, and of the remaining sites in each region, the one that had
the least fee revenue per visitor.
Table 2: Revenues and Visitation Data and Reason for Selecting
Demonstration Sites GAO Visited:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis based on Forest Service data.
[A] We did not make an on-site visit to the Kisatchie National Forest site
because the site was closed due to a hurricane at the time we were
conducting our fieldwork. We did, however, obtain appropriate
supporting documentation from the site manager.
[B] The Enterprise Forest project covers four national forests in
Southern California. Revenues in each of these four forests--Angeles,
Cleveland, Los Padres, and San Bernardino Forests--do not exceed the
revenue generated at Shasta-Trinity National Forests. The Enterprise
Forest site generated the lowest revenues per visitor. We visited the
Angeles and San Bernardino National Forests.
[End of table]
Based on our review and on-site observations at the selected sites, we
found that the fee revenues were spent consistent with the legislative
authority provided for the program and with spending priorities set by
the agency. The following paragraphs illustrate the types of projects
that were being funded with fee demonstration revenues at the sites we
visited.
Projects at Sites Having Relatively High Amounts of Fee Revenue:
The three sites having relatively high amounts of fee revenue generally
had popular destination attractions for visitors. At these sites, fee
revenues were spent on projects geared toward enhancing the overall
visitor experience. For example:
* The Nantahala River Gorge, one of the sites in the National Forests
of North Carolina fee demonstration project, is a world-class
whitewater river that attracts about 250,000 people annually. In fiscal
year 2001, the site generated about $208,000 in fee revenues through
user fees and special use permits for commercial outfitters. During
that year, the site spent over $292,000 in fee revenues, which included
revenues generated from prior years. Nantahala Gorge officials spent
most of their fee revenues to upgrade or enhance facilities for serving
visitors. For example, they spent about $150,000 by providing handicap
accessibility, improving visitor safety, and eliminating erosion and
sedimentation of the Nantahala River by constructing a concrete surface
for launching boats and rafts on the river. The following figure shows
the enhanced boat-launching area.
Figure 2: Enhancement of Boat Launching Area along the Nantahala River:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
* The Shasta Trinity National Recreation Area demonstration site,
located in northern California, generated in fiscal year 2001 about
$1.1 million fee revenues through special use permit fees for over 700
privately-owned house boats and 55 recreation facilities such as
resorts, docks, marinas, and organized camps on Shasta Lake and Trinity
Lake. Site managers spent over $514,000 in fee revenues in fiscal year
2001. Most of the expenditures were for maintenance, enhancing
facilities, and visitor services. The expenditures included regular
cleaning and maintenance of the floating restrooms, increasing the
number of portable restrooms and dumpsters available for visitors,
installing floating directional signs and underwater obstacle markers
for boaters, providing bear-proof food lockers, increasing the
frequency of safety patrols on the lake, and expanding staffing and
hours of operation at the visitor center. Figure 3 shows some examples
of these projects.
Figure 3: Increased Lake Patrols and Maintenance of Floating Restrooms
at Shasta-Trinity National Recreation Area:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Projects at Sites Having Relatively Low Amounts of Fee Revenue:
The three sites that we visited that had relatively low amounts of fee
revenues were generally located away from urban areas.[Footnote 4]
These sites had fewer visitors and fewer visitor needs than the high
revenue sites. Their expenditures focused on maintaining existing
facilities and providing basic visitor services. The following examples
illustrate the types of expenditures at these sites.
* The Klamath National Forest in northern California collects fee
revenues through fees charged at 15 of 36 campgrounds in the forest.
The Klamath National Forest collected over $37,000 in fiscal year 2001,
the first year of the fee program in this forest. They did not report
any expenditures until fiscal year 2002. Their spending was limited in
fiscal year 2002 because they were asked to defer spending on projects
and acquisitions to help ensure that the Forest Service had enough
money to carry out fire suppression activities.[Footnote 5] In fiscal
year 2002, the site spent only $1,740 to replace four decaying picnic
tables at a campground.
* The Kisatchie National Forest, in Louisiana, collects fee revenues
from 31 recreational sites, including 12 campgrounds and 12 day-use
sites. The Kisatchie National Forest generated over $103,000 and spent
about $58,000 in fee revenue during fiscal year 2001. They spent most
of their fee revenues on fee collections, facility enhancements, and
maintenance, including such things as repairing or replacing water and
sewer lines, reconstructing trails, constructing handicap-accessible
walkways and restrooms, and acquiring fire rings, cooking grills, and
picnic tables to improve campground services.
Projects at Sites Having Relatively Heavy Visitor Use and Low Amount of
Revenue:
The sites that had large numbers of visitors, but relatively small
amounts of revenue were generally located near major metropolitan
areas. As a result, these sites typically spent their fee revenues
managing the impacts of visitors. The following examples illustrate the
types of expenditures at these sites.
* The Angeles and San Bernardino National Forests are two of the four
forests that are part of the Enterprise Forest fee demonstration site
that received over 15 million visitors during fiscal year 2001. The
Angeles and San Bernardino National Forests are both located within a
2-hour drive of metropolitan Los Angeles. They generate most of their
fee revenues through a recreation use fee called the Adventure
Pass.[Footnote 6] In fiscal year 2001, the Angeles National Forest
generated about
$1.3 million and spent over $737,000, and the San Bernardino National
Forest generated about $920,000 and spent over $832,000 in
expenditures. Both the Angeles and San Bernardino National Forests
spent about 80 percent of its fiscal year 2001 revenue for providing
visitor services and maintaining operations, maintenance of facilities,
and for providing interpretative services. At the Angeles National
Forest, these expenditures included such things as providing more
public restrooms, including crew expenses to clean and maintain them,
and for renting portable toilets. At the San Bernardino National
Forest, fee revenues were spent on new interpretative programs for
visitors, maintaining trails, and improving forest operations,
including removing refuse from illegal trash dumps, as shown below.
Figure 4: Cleanup of an Illegal Trash Dump in San Bernardino National
Forest:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
* Multnomah Falls, located within 30 miles of Portland, Oregon, is one
of the most popular attractions in the Columbia River Gorge National
Scenic Area. This site receives nearly 2 million visitors per year.
Visitors are not charged a fee at Multnomah Falls. Instead, the site
gets its fee revenue by retaining a portion of the special use permit
fees from a private concessionaire that runs the Multnomah Falls Lodge.
The Lodge is located at the entrance to the falls and serves as a
visitor center that sells food and souvenirs to visitors. In fiscal
year 2001, the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area generated
about $220,800. It spent $290,000 from current and prior year fee
revenues, of which nearly 90 percent was spent on visitor services and
operations. More than half of these expenditures were for a contract to
operate a wastewater treatment plant for the Multnomah Falls Lodge, as
shown in the following figure. Most of the remaining expenditures were
spent on staffing and operating the visitor center at the lodge.
Figure 5: Wastewater Treatment Plant at Multnomah Falls:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Forest Service Information on Fee Demonstration Expenditure Is Not
Consistently Reported:
To promote accountability for using fee demonstration funds, the House
Committee on Appropriations directed the Forest Service, along with the
other federal agencies participating in the fee Demonstration Program,
to jointly prepare an annual report on the Recreational Fee
Demonstration Program.[Footnote 7] Among other things, this report
provides the Congress with information on the amount of fee
demonstration revenues collected and how they are spent. The Forest
Service compiles this data from the local fee program managers across
the nation. However, we found that the information that the Forest
Service provides on categorizing expenditures is not consistently
reported. First, the fee program managers do not allocate their
expenditures into the spending categories in a systematic manner.
Second, the Forest Service fee revenue expenditure reporting categories
overlap.
The Forest Service reports its fee demonstration expenditures using
spending categories largely corresponding to those identified in the
legislation authorizing the demonstration program. These categories are
visitor services and operations, maintenance, interpretation and
signing, facility enhancement, resource preservation and enhancement,
security and enforcement, and cost of collection. However, the Forest
Service officials stated that their accounting system is not set up to
track expenditures into these categories. Local fee program managers,
who compile the fee revenue expenditure data, use various methods to
record their expenditures. At the sites we visited, we found that local
managers relied on a variety of financial information sources such as
project work plans and job code summary reports, as well as reviewing
bills and receipts, as a basis for allocating their expenditures into
the reporting categories. Further, one manager stated that he also
interviewed his staff on work performed and the time they devoted to
various tasks to estimate the amount of fee revenues spent in each
reporting category. Accordingly, in the absence of forest managers
having a consistent and systematic method for tracking and recording
the expenditure amounts by spending category, the accuracy of the
spending information in the agency's annual report is questionable.
Another concern affecting the spending information in the agency's
annual report is the subjectivity of the spending categories
themselves. Despite headquarters guidance that attempts to define the
kinds of activities that should be included in each spending category,
officials at seven of the nine demonstration sites that we visited told
us that deciding which reporting category a particular expenditure
falls into involves making a judgment that is not necessarily
consistent among sites.[Footnote 8] For example, when an aging restroom
needs extensive repairs, it may be more cost effective to build a new
facility to replace it. In this situation, the expenditures for
building a new facility can be reported as a "maintenance" expense, or
as a "facility enhancement" expense. In either instance, the
expenditure is consistent with the types of expenditures authorized
under the program. However, deciding under which expenditure category
is reported is a judgment of the site manager. Similarly, expenditures
for fee enforcement activities and fee collections may also be reported
inconsistently. For example, we found that some sites we visited
reported fee enforcement activities as part of their "cost of
collections." However, other sites reported fee enforcement activities
as part of their expenditures for "security and enforcement." These
inconsistencies further affect the consistency of the Forest Service's
reporting of where fee revenues are actually spent.
According to Forest Service program officials, the agency is reluctant
to invest in a new system that would more accurately categorize
expenditures because further categorization of expenditures is not
required by legislation, nor have the agencies participating in the fee
demonstration program been asked by the Congress to do so.
In commenting on a draft of this report, the Forest Service noted that
it chose to create seven expenditure categories to track those
identified in the legislation as a means of reporting accomplishments
to the Congress. To help ensure that fee demonstration expenditures are
consistently reported, the Forest Service also said that it will re-
examine its reporting procedures and consider using broader categories
that are used by the Department of the Interior agencies.
National Park Service Fee Expenditures Emphasize Maintenance and Fee
Collection:
Compared to the Forest Service, the National Park Service spent
relatively more of its fee demonstration expenditures on maintenance
and fee collection activities.[Footnote 9] In fiscal year 2001, the
Forest Service spent about
$29 million and the National Park Service spent about $116 million of
its fee demonstration revenues.[Footnote 10] The National Park Service
spent about
35 percent of its fiscal year 2001 fee demonstration expenditures on
maintenance activities. In contrast, the Forest Service spent about
21 percent of its expenditures in this area. The Park Service spent
about
26 percent of its fee expenditures on fee collection activities
compared to about 17 percent in the Forest Service. About 10 percent of
the Park Service's fee demonstration expenditures were used on visitor
services, such as interpretation exhibits and services, compared to 29
percent for the Forest Service. The Park Service spent the remaining 28
percent on such other activities as protecting natural and cultural
resources compared to
33 percent for the Forest Service.
The following figure graphically portrays the spending emphasis of the
two agencies.
Figure 6: Comparison of Forest Service and National Park Service Fiscal
Year 2001 Fee Demonstration Expenditures:
[See PDF for image]
Note: The percentages for the National Park Service do not add up to
100 due to rounding.
[End of figure]
In commenting on a draft of this report, the Forest Service noted that
compared to the National Park Service, the Forest Service expends more
fee demonstration expenditures on visitor services and less on
maintenance because unlike the Park Service, many Forest Service sites
with high visitation near metropolitan areas lack the infrastructure
that might require deferred maintenance. Additionally, the Forest
Service noted that its expenditures reflect the agency's guidance to
local forest managers to spend fee demonstration revenues on needs that
have been identified by forest visitors.
The Forest Service Has No Process for Measuring the Impact of Fee
Revenues on Deferred Maintenance:
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 its impact 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 is spending on deferred maintenance, it would
not know if its total deferred maintenance needs are being reduced.
While the Park Service also does not have a reliable estimate of its
deferred maintenance needs, it has placed a higher priority on
addressing this problem and has begun to track the amount of fee
revenues that are being used for deferred maintenance.
The Forest Service Does Not Track Fee Expenditures That Address
Deferred Maintenance Needs:
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 do a variety of projects that
addressed deferred maintenance needs. Those projects included such
things as replacing worn and rotted picnic tables at a campground in
Klamath National Forest in California, fixing eroded and deteriorated
hiking trails in the Nantahala Gorge in the North Carolina National
Forest, and replacing deteriorating restrooms in Kisatchie National
Forest in Louisiana. Figure 7 shows before and after pictures of a
rehabilitated trail at the Nantahala River Gorge.
Figure 7: Before and After Pictures of a Rehabilitated Trail at the
Nantahala River Gorge:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
However, even though the Forest Service is spending a portion of its
fee revenues in this area, the agency does not specifically track how
much it spent on deferred maintenance. So, expenditures like the trail
maintenance at Nantahala Gorge are reported as a "resource preservation
and enhancement expenditure." Because the Forest Service uses this
approach, the amount of agency expenditures for deferred maintenance
cannot be determined nor can the agency determine whether the backlog
of deferred maintenance needs is being reduced.
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 invest its fee demonstration revenues
for developing and implementing a system for tracking deferred
maintenance spending. Second, the fee demonstration program is
temporary and it is unclear at this time whether the Congress will make
the program permanent. As a result, agency officials said that this
uncertainty makes them question the wisdom of developing an additional
process for tracking deferred maintenance. Finally, the agency was not
required by the fee program legislation to measure the impact of fee
revenues on deferred maintenance. They have chosen not to do so.
The Forest Service Has a Significant Deferred Maintenance Problem:
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. Further,
the Inspector General pointed out that the agency had no system or
systematic way to compile the information needed to provide managers or
Congress with reliable estimates.[Footnote 11] 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. Accordingly, even if the Forest Service collected
specific information on the amount of fee revenue being used to address
deferred maintenance needs, the agency would not know if its total
deferred maintenance needs are being reduced.
The National Park Service Has Placed a Higher Priority on Addressing
Deferred Maintenance Needs:
Since the fee demonstration program began, the Congress and the current
administration have encouraged the National Park Service to place a
priority on spending fee demonstration revenues to help reduce its
multi-billion dollar deferred maintenance backlog. Our review of the
Park Service's guidance to on-site park managers showed that the agency
has emphasized that fee demonstration revenues should be spent on
deferred maintenance projects. In fiscal year 2001, the Park Service
began to track the amount of fee revenues used for addressing deferred
maintenance needs. During that year, the Park Service spent about 35
percent of its fee demonstration expenditures on maintenance
activities. Since the program began, agency officials estimate that
about 70 percent of its fee demonstration expenditures have been for
deferred maintenance activities ($274 million out of $395
million).[Footnote 12],[Footnote 13]
However, while the agency is now tracking its deferred maintenance
expenditures, like the Forest Service, the Park Service has not yet
developed a reliable estimate of its total deferred maintenance
backlog. As reported by us, the Department of Interior's Inspector
General, and others,[Footnote 14] the Park Service has had longstanding
difficulties in developing an accurate and reliable estimate of the
amount of deferred maintenance on its assets. In 2002, we reviewed the
status of the Park Service's efforts to develop better deferred
maintenance data.[Footnote 15] At that time, the agency was just
beginning to implement a new asset management process that should, when
fully and properly implemented, provide a systematic and reliable
methodology for estimating the amount of deferred maintenance needs
throughout the national park system.
The Forest Service Accounts for Its Fee Demonstration Program Revenues
and Expenditures Separately from Other Funds but Does Not Accurately
Account for Some Fee Collection Costs:
The federal agencies participating in the Recreational Fee
Demonstration Program are required by the authorizing legislation to
maintain fee revenues in separate Treasury accounts and to account for
fee expenditures separately from other appropriated funds. Consistent
with this requirement, the Forest Service accounts for its fee revenues
and expenditures separately from other appropriated funds, even when
using fee demonstration revenues along with other appropriated funds.
The National Park Service also tracks its fee demonstration funds apart
from its other appropriated funds as required by law. Although the
Forest Service generally tracks its fee revenues and expenditures
separately from other appropriated funds, it does not accurately
account for some fee collection costs.
The Forest Service Separately Accounts for Its Fee Demonstration
Revenues and Expenditures:
The authorizing legislation for the fee demonstration program requires
the participating federal agencies to maintain fee revenues in separate
Treasury accounts and to account for fee expenditures separately from
other appropriated fund expenditures. The Forest Service is required to
maintain its fee revenues in two separate Treasury accounts--80 percent
of its fee revenues are maintained in an account for expenditure
without further appropriation at the site where the fees were collected
and
20 percent of its fee revenues in another account for expenditure on an
agencywide basis without further appropriation. The Forest Service
appropriately maintains its fee revenues in separate Treasury accounts
and tracks expenditures separately from other appropriated funds. The
Forest Service officials generally follow the same recording and
spending procedures for its fee demonstration funds that they use for
other appropriated funds. In particular, agency officials ensure they
have proper authority before spending the fee revenues and that they do
not spend over the amount of resources available.[Footnote 16]
While the Forest Service accounts for fee revenue and expenditures
separate from other appropriated funds, it can and does use fee
revenues along with other appropriated funds to complete projects. For
example, officials at the Gifford Pinchot National Forest 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 separately accounted for revenues
and expenditures from the fee demonstration program from the other
appropriated funding sources.
The National Park Service, like the Forest Service, also accounts for
fee demonstration funds separately from its other appropriated funds.
Park Service officials stated that the funds in the fee demonstration
program accounts are also deposited with the U.S. Treasury and are
separately accounted for when used with other appropriated funds to
complete projects.
Forest Service Does Not Accurately Account for Some Fee Collection
Costs:
In the Pacific Southwest and the Pacific Northwest regions, the Forest
Service uses vendors to help sell some forest passes directly to the
public. The Forest Service uses vendors in order to increase
convenience for the visiting public and to save agency administration
costs. As payment for a vendor's services, the Forest Service allows
the vendor to retain a certain percentage of the value of the pass,
which the Forest Service refers to as a discount.[Footnote 17] These
vendor discounts are one part of the total fee collection costs for the
Forest Service. The Forest Service may use up to 15 percent of the
current year fee collections to cover fee collection costs in that
fiscal year.
Forest Service officials in the Pacific Southwest and Pacific Northwest
regions did not record the vendor discount and did not count vendor
discounts as part of their fee collection costs. Although the Forest
Services accounting system should capture all revenues and expenses,
program officials were not aware at the time the system was developed
that vendor discounts should have been captured. Forest officials at
the locations where this was occurring could not tell us the total
amount of vendor discounts that the agency has permitted. Excluding
vendor discounts from the cost of collection is also inconsistent with
federal financial accounting
standards and the U.S. Department of Agriculture financial
manual.[Footnote 18] These standards require that total revenues and
expenses be reported.
The Forest Service practice of allowing vendor discounts results in
inaccurate fee revenue and expenditure reporting. Because the vendor
retains the discount rather than the Forest Service first collecting
all fee revenues and then paying the vendor out of these revenues, the
amount of fee revenues that the forest receives is reduced. In
addition, the vendor discounts are not included as part of fee
collection costs. Thus, both fee revenues and fee collection costs are
underreported. Because of inaccurate reporting of fee revenues and
collection costs, the Forest Service has no assurance that it is in
compliance with the recreational fee demonstration legislation
requirement only allowing 15 percent of fee revenues to be used for fee
collection costs.
For example, at the San Bernardino and Angeles National Forests,
private vendors receive a handling fee of $1.00 for every $5.00 daily
pass sold. For illustration purposes, consider the following scenario.
If these two forests sell 1,000 daily $5 passes in 1 year they should
have $5,000 in reported fee revenues. If they pay the vendor $1 for
each $5 pass, they should have fee collection costs associated with the
vendor's services of $1,000. In contrast, the Forest Service's practice
of not reporting vendor discounts would result in only $4,000 in
reported fee revenues and no reported fee collection costs associated
with the vendor's services. For the two forests in our example, both of
which are in the Enterprise Forest project, nearly 20 percent of fee
revenues were used to cover fee collection costs in fiscal year 2001.
If this occurs at multiple recreation sites, there is a risk that the
Forest Service would exceed the statutory limitation that not more than
15 percent of total revenues be used for fee collection costs. The
practice of not reporting vendor discounts as part of fee collection
costs makes it difficult to determine compliance with the statutory
limitation.
The Forest Service agrees that vendor discount expenses are not fully
disclosed and as a result collections are understated. According to the
Forest Service, however, its use of vendors is limited and thus
represents a relatively small portion of expenditures.
In commenting on a draft of this report, the Forest Service stated that
it is preparing accounting instructions for the field, and it plans to
implement a new procedure in the immediate future to record the revenue
deposited into the U.S. Treasury and use an accounting mechanism that
would indicate the foregone revenue and "cost of collection" associated
with the discount.
Agency Comments:
We provided the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Department of
the Interior copies of a draft of this report. The U.S. Department of
Agriculture generally agreed with the contents in the report. Interior
did not offer overall comments on the report. Both departments provided
us with clarifying and technical comments that we incorporated into the
report as appropriate. Comments from the U.S. Department of Agriculture
are included in appendix III and comments from the Department of the
Interior are included in appendix IV.
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
Secretary of Agriculture; the Secretary of the Interior; the Chief of
the Forest Service; Director, National Park 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
Cliff Fowler, Frank Kovalak, Patricia Rennie, Jason Venner, Amy
Webbink, and Arvin Wu.
Sincerely yours,
Barry T. Hill
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
Signed by Barry T. Hill:
[End of section]
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Answers to Additional Subcommittee Questions:
Subsequent to completing our fieldwork during this review, the
Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health asked us additional questions
about specific aspects of the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program.
To address these additional questions, we requested the Forest Service
fee demonstration program manager to respond to the specific questions
and to provide relevant supporting documentation. We reviewed the
supporting documentation to determine if it was consistent with our
knowledge of the program and it supported agency statements made in
response to the issues being questioned. A summary of the Forest
Service's responses follows.
:
Question 1: Since the implementation of the Recreational Fee
Demonstration Program in fiscal year 1996, how much money was
transferred from the Forest Service recreation program, including the
fee demonstration program, to fund wildfire suppression and emergency
rehabilitation activities?
Since fiscal year 1996, the Forest Service has transferred $38 million
from its recreation program to fund wildfire suppression and emergency
rehabilitation activities. All of the recreation program funds
transferred occurred in fiscal year 2002. In that year, the agency
transferred over
$900 million from a variety of Forest Service appropriation accounts.
The $38 million dollars transferred from the recreation program was a
portion of the total amount transferred. More specifically, the agency
transferred $24 million from its recreation appropriation and $14
million from the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program. The $24
million came from two recreation accounts--$9 million from an account
called Recreation, Heritage, and Wilderness Resources, and $15 million
from an account for capital improvements and maintenance for trials.
The remaining
$14 million that was transferred from the fee demonstration program
came from an unobligated balance of about $34 million that existed at
the end of fiscal year 2002. According to the fee demonstration program
manager, the fee revenues were the last tier of funds to be transferred
for 2002 fire suppression activities. All funds transferred from the
fee demonstration program were replenished when the Congress enacted
the fiscal year 2003 appropriations for the Forest Service.
:
Question 2(a): Have congressional appropriations for the Forest Service
recreation programs been reduced since the implementation of the
Recreational Fee Demonstration Program?
Congressional appropriations for the Forest Service recreation programs
have not declined since the start of the Recreational Fee Demonstration
Program in 1996. The following table shows the general increase in
recreation appropriations and fee demonstration program revenues since
1996.
Table 3: Amount of Forest Service Recreation Programs' Appropriations
and Its Recreational Fee Demonstration Program Revenues, Fiscal Years
1996-2002:
Dollars in millions.
Recreation appropriations[A]; Fiscal Year: 1996:
$267; Fiscal Year: 1997: $281;
Fiscal Year: 1998: $277; Fiscal Year:
1999: $293; Fiscal Year: 2000: $301;
Fiscal Year: 2001: $363; Fiscal Year:
2002: $390.
Fee demonstration revenues; Fiscal Year: 1996:
0[B]; Fiscal Year: 1997: 9;
Fiscal Year: 1998: 21; Fiscal Year: 1999: 27;
Fiscal Year: 2000: 32; Fiscal
Year: 2001: 35; Fiscal Year: 2002: 38.
Source: GAO analysis of Forest Service data.
[A] Includes appropriations for the Forest Service trails and facilities
maintenance, reconstruction, and capital improvements; recreation,
heritage, and wilderness program. Excludes recreation fee collections
and fee demonstration revenue.
[B] The Forest Service implemented the Recreational Fee Demonstration
Program in fiscal year 1996 with four demonstration sites that
generated $43,000 during the year.
[End of table]:
Question 2(b): Has the agency itself reduced the operating budgets of
recreation programs since the implementation of the fee demonstration
program?
The implementation of the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program does
not appear to be a factor in deciding the amount of recreation program
funds that the Forest Service allocates to its regional offices. In
order to determine whether the Forest Service offset recreation
appropriations with fee demonstration revenues, we reviewed whether the
recreation appropriation allocations to its regional offices decreased
as fee demonstration revenues increased. We reviewed the regional
allocations for each year since the fee demonstration program began. As
shown in the following table, regional allocations have generally
increased since the fee program began. As a result, it appears that the
fee demonstration revenues were used to supplement rather than supplant
recreation program funds.
Table 4: Comparison of Forest Service Recreation Appropriations'
Allocations to Its Regional Offices to Fee Demonstration Revenues:
Dollars in millions.
Region 1 (Northern Rockies); Fiscal year: 1996: $22; Fiscal year: 1997:
$21; Fiscal year: 1998: $21; Fiscal year: 1999: $23; Fiscal year: 2000:
$25; Fiscal year: 2001: $27; Fiscal year: 2002: $30.
Region 2 (Rocky Mountain); Fiscal year: 1996: 27; Fiscal year: 1997:
29; Fiscal year: 1998: 28; Fiscal year: 1999: 29; Fiscal year: 2000:
27; Fiscal year: 2001: 35; Fiscal year: 2002: 36.
Region 3 (Southwest); Fiscal year: 1996: 23; Fiscal year: 1997: 26;
Fiscal year: 1998: 24; Fiscal year: 1999: 28; Fiscal year: 2000: 26;
Fiscal year: 2001: 31; Fiscal year: 2002: 34.
Region 4 (Intermountain); Fiscal year: 1996: 27; Fiscal year: 1997: 31;
Fiscal year: 1998: 32; Fiscal year: 1999: 35; Fiscal year: 2000: 32;
Fiscal year: 2001: 40; Fiscal year: 2002: 41.
Region 5 (Pacific Southwest); Fiscal year: 1996: 40; Fiscal year: 1997:
40; Fiscal year: 1998: 42; Fiscal year: 1999: 43; Fiscal year: 2000:
45; Fiscal year: 2001: 52; Fiscal year: 2002: 57.
Region 6 (Pacific Northwest); Fiscal year: 1996: 40; Fiscal year: 1997:
38; Fiscal year: 1998: 38; Fiscal year: 1999: 37; Fiscal year: 2000:
39; Fiscal year: 2001: 44; Fiscal year: 2002: 46.
Region 8 (Southern); Fiscal year: 1996: 32; Fiscal year: 1997: 31;
Fiscal year: 1998: 31; Fiscal year: 1999: 34; Fiscal year: 2000: 33;
Fiscal year: 2001: 41; Fiscal year: 2002: 46.
Region 9 (Eastern); Fiscal year: 1996: 28; Fiscal year: 1997: 26;
Fiscal year: 1998: 27; Fiscal year: 1999: 26; Fiscal year: 2000: 27;
Fiscal year: 2001: 31; Fiscal year: 2002: 36.
Region 10 (Alaska); Fiscal year: 1996: 13; Fiscal year: 1997: 17;
Fiscal year: 1998: 16; Fiscal year: 1999: 18; Fiscal year: 2000: 16;
Fiscal year: 2001: 20; Fiscal year: 2002: 22.
Total regional allocation[A]; Fiscal year: 1996: $252; Fiscal year:
1997: $259; Fiscal year: 1998: $258; Fiscal year: 1999: $273; Fiscal
year: 2000: $271; Fiscal year: 2001: $321; Fiscal year: 2002: $347.
Other[B]; Fiscal year: 1996: 16; Fiscal year: 1997: 22; Fiscal year:
1998: 19; Fiscal year: 1999: 20; Fiscal year: 2000: 30; Fiscal year:
2001: 42; Fiscal year: 2002: 42.
Total[ A] recreation appropriationsc; Fiscal year: 1996: $267; Fiscal
year: 1997: $281; Fiscal year: 1998: $277; Fiscal year: 1999: $293;
Fiscal year: 2000: $301; Fiscal year: 2001: $363; Fiscal year: 2002:
$390.
Fee demonstration revenues; Fiscal year: 1996: [D]; Fiscal year: 1997:
$9; Fiscal year: 1998: $21; Fiscal year: 1999: $27; Fiscal year: 2000:
$32; Fiscal year: 2001: $35; Fiscal year: 2002: $38.
Source: GAO analysis based on Forest Service data.
[A] Some totals do not add correctly due to rounding.
[B] Other includes funds for headquarters administration and program
operations, research stations, and program reserves that have not been
allocated to each region.
[C] Total recreation funds exclude fee demonstration revenues and fee
collections. Fee collections were deleted because the regions directly
request appropriation budget authority based on 15 percent of fee
collections. Thus, the headquarters do not allocate fee collections to
its regional offices.
[D] The fee demonstrated program generated $43,000 in fiscal year 1996
when the program began.
[End of table]:
Question 3(a): What is the amount of appropriated dollars the Forest
Service spent in fiscal year 2001 for administrative overhead to manage
and operate the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program?
The Forest Service accounting system does not specifically track
administrative overhead costs for the Recreational Fee Demonstration
Program or any other individual program within the agency. Forest
Service officials estimate that in 2001 the agency spent about $10
million of appropriated funds to support the fee demonstration program.
The agency estimates that $1 million is specifically for fee collection
activities and about $9 million is for support costs for the program
such as the salary and benefits for staff involved in general
management, program planning, legislative and public communications,
business services, as well as common service costs such as rents and
utilities, and certain personnel costs like worker's compensation and
unemployment insurance.
:
Question 3(b): What is the amount of recreation fee demonstration
dollars that the Forest Service spent in fiscal year 2001 for
administrative overhead to manage and operate the Recreational Fee
Demonstration Program?
As noted in the answer to 3(a), the Forest Service accounting system
does not track administrative overhead costs for the Recreational Fee
Demonstration Program or any other individual program within the
agency. As a result the agency cannot determine these costs. Fee
program expenses that could be considered administrative overhead are
comprised of the cost of collecting fees and expenditures for routine
program operations provided at the fee demonstration sites--such as on-
site management support, site operation and maintenance planning
activities, and conducting on-site visitor surveys. In fiscal year
2001, the Forest Service spent approximately $5.1 million in fee
revenues for fee collection. In addition, the national fee program
manager estimates that a small percentage of the $8.6 million spent for
fee program operations in fiscal year 2001 could also be considered
administrative overhead.
:
Question 3(c): How does the Forest Service account for Recreational Fee
Demonstration Program expenses such as periodic agencywide meetings on
the fee demonstration program?
The Forest Service pays for its annual national meeting of fee
demonstration program managers and staff using other recreation
appropriated funds although agency officials told us that some
attendees may use fee demonstration program funds if it is part of
their training program. According to the fee demonstration program
manager, this practice allows more fee demonstration funds to be used
for on-the-ground demonstration site activities.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Scope and Methodology:
To address each of the objectives, we reviewed the relevant Forest
Service policies and procedures at the agency's headquarters, three
regional offices, and nine demonstration sites. We selected three
Forest Service regions to contact because they represented: (1) the
three largest fee demonstration program revenue generating regions
during fiscal year 2001; (2) geographical diversity; and (3) diversity
in the types of recreational use (concentrated use in smaller areas
versus more dispersed use in large areas.) At each of these regions, we
selected and obtained information on how fee demonstration projects
were prioritized, and how the revenues were used and accounted for at
selected demonstration sites. Within each region, we selected the sites
that generated the largest fee demonstration revenues in fiscal year
2001, the lowest fee revenues, and of the remaining sites in each
region, the one that had the least fee revenue per visitor. We selected
this methodology to determine whether capital development projects were
being funded at the high-revenue sites while some basic health or
safety or other high-priority needs were not being addressed at other
sites because of the lack of fee demonstration revenues. Table 5
identifies the demonstration sites that we visited.
Table 5: Demonstration Sites GAO Visited:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO based on Forest Service data.
[A] We did not make an on-site visit to the Kisatchie National Forest site
because the site was closed because of 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.
[B] The Enterprise Forest project covers four national forests in
Southern California. These include the Angeles, Cleveland, Los Padres,
and San Bernardino Forests. We visited the Angeles and San Bernadino
National Forests.
[End of table]
In additon to collecting and reviewing this general information, we
addressed each of the four objectives as follows. To determine how
spending priorities are determined for the revenues generated by the
Recreational Fee Demonstration Program, we interviewed Forest Service
fee demonstration program officials at headquarters, the three regional
offices, and the nine sampled sites; reviewed the applicable program
guidance; and reviewed on-site records at each of the nine sites we
visited to determine how spending priorities were actually being set.
To determine how the Forest Service spent its fee demonstration program
revenues, we obtained information on total fee demonstration
expenditures for fiscal year 2001 and program expenditures for the nine
demonstration sites we visited in the three regions selected. We also
obtained information on the types of projects being funded and the
amount of expenditures for each site. In addition, we determined
whether the types of expenditures made by each of the fee demonstration
sites we visited were made in accordance with the legislative authority
provided for the program and with the agency's program priorities.
To determine what, if anything, the Forest Service is doing to measure
the impact of recreation fee revenues on reducing the agency's deferred
maintenance backlog, we interviewed local site managers to determine
the types of projects being funded and the extent of fee revenues spent
to address the deferred maintenance backlog. We also obtained
information on whether the Forest Service has a reliable estimate of
its deferred maintenance needs and identified whether the agency has a
process to measure the impact of fee demonstration revenues on deferred
maintenance. We obtained this information from interviews with
headquarters and on-site program officials and a review of Forest
Service and other agency reports on the deferred maintenance issues
within the agency.
To determine how the Forest Service accounts for its fee demonstration
program revenues and expenditures, we interviewed the headquarters fee
demonstration program manager and site managers on how the agency
accounts for fee demonstration revenues and expenditures compared to
other appropriated funds and how it accounts for its fee collection
costs.
While our analysis focused on the Forest Service, we also collected
some information on how the National Park Service was handling its
activities in each of the four areas covered by the objectives. We
selected the Park Service to provide perspective and comparative
information to that of the Forest Service because these two agencies
generate most of the fee revenues under the Recreational Fee
Demonstration Program. We limited our work at the Park Service to
obtaining and reviewing the relevant documentation for each of the four
objectives and interviewing appropriate agency officials to get a
complete understanding of the documents. We did not conduct any on-site
visits to verify the practices being followed by local park managers.
Because our analysis focused on the Forest Service, specifically on a
detailed review of nine Forest Service fee demonstration sites, the
information reported should not be generalized in making any
conclusions with respect to the National Park Service.
Finally, to address the three additional questions about specific
aspects of the recreational fee demonstration program (see app. I), we
requested the Forest Service fee demonstration program manager at
headquarters to response to the specific questions and to provide
supporting documentation. We reviewed this documentation and asked
appropriate follow-up questions, as necessary, to make sure the
information was consistent with our understanding of the program.
We conducted our work from August 2002 through January 2003 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
[End of section]
Appendix III: Comments from the U.S. Department of Agriculture:
United States Forest Service
Washington Office
Department of Agriculture:
14TH & Independence SW
P.O. Box 96090
Washington, DC 20090-6090:
File Code: 2300:
Date: APR 09 2003:
Mr. Barry T. Hill:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment U.S. General Accounting
Office:
441 G Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Hill:
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments to the General
Accounting Office's draft report Recreation Fees: Information on Forest
Service Management of Revenue From the Fee Demonstration Program (GAO-
03-470). We are pleased that the draft report highlights several of the
Forest Service's Recreation Fee Demonstration program successes, and we
geNERALLY agree with the report's content. The comments that are
enclosed are intended to clarify some areas of the report. We note that
there are no recommendations for further action.
If you have additional questions or concerns, please contact our
agency's External Audit Liaison, Sandy Coleman, at 703-605-4940.
Sincerely,
DALE N. BOSWORTH
Chief:
Signed by DALE N. BOSWORTH:
Enclosure:
Comments on Draft Report GAO-03-470 Information Forest Service
Management of Revenue from the Fee Demonstration Program:
4/1/03:
General Comments: The Forest Service appreciates the efforts of the
General Accounting Office (GAO) staff to visit several Forest Service
fee demonstration sites and learn how it administers the complex
Recreational Fee Demonstration Program. We are pleased that the
resulting report highlights the Forest Service program successes and
that there are no recommendations for further action. The specific
comments on the draft report that follow may clarify issues on which,
from discussions with GAO staff, we believe we agree.
A key finding of the report concludes that Forest Service "...fee
revenues were spent consistent with the legislative authority provided
for the program and with spending priorities set by the agency" (page
12). This is relevant to the discussion that begins on page 20 on how
the Forest Service categorizes expenditures. As noted, the Forest
Service chose to create seven expenditure categories to track those
identified in the legislation, as a means of reporting accomplishments
to Congress. Because of the number of categories, GAO questions both
the accuracy and consistency of these figures (page 21). We believe the
comment is strictly in reference to the categorization of expenditures,
not the amount of total expenditures, which are taken from our
accounting system. Based on this observation, the Forest Service will
re-examine its reporting procedures and consider using the broader
categories used by the Department of Interior agencies. We will also
take steps to re-emphasize existing direction that clearly defines how
enforcement activities should be accounted for (page 21, paragraph 2).
Another key finding of the report is found on Page 17, first paragraph,
which indicates that the Forest Service expends fee demo revenues
"managing the impacts of visitors", particularly at sites with high
visitation near major metropolitan areas. Many of these areas lack the
infrastructure that might require deferred maintenance, as can be found
more often at National Parks. This is one reason that the Forest
Service expends relatively more on visitor services and relatively less
on maintenance than the Park Service, as shown in the pie charts on
page 23 and noted on page 8. This also reflects the agency's guidance
to local forest managers, as noted on page 3, to "spend fee
demonstration revenues on needs that have been identified by forest
visitors.":
Page 26, second paragraph, first sentence: the following addition is
recommended: ". . . maintenance expenditures from fee demo revenue", to
clarify.
Pages 30-1 of the report more fully addresses the vendor discount
issue. We agree that our accounting system has not captured the costs
of providing passes to vendors at a discount. A discount transaction
saves time and expense. The alternative is to sell a pass to a vendor
at full price, deposit the revenue into Treasury, then pay the vendor
for their costs by sending them a check from the fee demo account.
Instead, the agency can record
the revenue deposited into Treasury, and use an accounting mechanism to
indicate the foregone revenue that is the discount, and a "cost of
collection." We are preparing accounting instructions for the field and
plan to implement this new procedure in the immediate future. As is
stated at the bottom of page 31, the "...use of vendors is limited and
thus represents a relatively small portion of expenditures." The
overall agency expenditures of fee revenue for fee collection are at
14%, and we are confident that it will not exceed 15% after the
adjustments are made.
Generally, we are pleased with the report's conclusions as well as the
opportunity to show GAO staff some Forest Service fee demonstration
sites. The report highlights some of the many areas where fee
demonstration revenues have made a critical difference in providing
quality recreation opportunities for our visitors.
The following are GAO's comments on the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's letter dated April 9, 2003.
GAO's Comments:
1. We agree and acknowledged their comments on page 17 of the report.
2. We agree and acknowledged their comments on page 19 of the report.
3. We agree and revised the sentence on page 22 of the report.
4. We agree and acknowledged their comments on page 27 of the report.
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of the Interior:
United States Department of the Interior:
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY Washington, D.C. 20240:
APR 11 2003:
Mr. Barry T. Hill:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment U.S. General Accounting
Office:
441 G Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Mr. Hill:
Thank you for providing the Department of the Interior the opportunity
to review and comment on the draft U.S. General Accounting Office
report entitled, "Recreation Fees: Information on Forest Service
Management of Revenue From the Fee Demonstration Program (GAO-03-
470).":
Specific comments are listed in the enclosure. If you have any further
questions, please contact Carol Maass, Fee Demonstration Program
Coordinator, Park Facility Management Division, at 202/513-7072.
Sincerely,
Craig Manson:
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks:
Signed for Craig Manson:
Enclosure:
The National Park Service has a concern with a misnomer that is
repeated through out the document. The Interagency Annual Report, Table
5 categories have been cited by the General Accounting Office (GAO) as
the data utilized. The Table 5 category labeled "Health & Safety
Maintenance" has been changed in your report to "Maintenance." By doing
this, the reporting data is misinterpreted to represent deferred
maintenance. The health and safety maintenance category was established
by bureaus within the Department of Interior (DOI) a:; a reporting
category for the Interagency Annual Report because of the DOI
initiative "Safe Visits to Public Lands." While health & safety
maintenance is a large portion of the deferred maintenance obligations,
it is not the total. It also includes health and safety projects that
are capitol improvement. Deferred maintenance crosses all the
categories as reported in the annual report. In order to be consistent
in our reporting and not misrepresent the data, we request that the
complete category name "health and safety maintenance" be use in the
following paragraphs:
Page 5; paragraph 1; line 9:
Page 22; paragraph 1; lines 2 and 5 Page 27; paragraph 2; lines 9:
On page 7; paragraph 3; last line insert "critical" and "with a visitor
connection" to read: In terms of program priorities, the Park Service
emphasizes that local managers focus on addressing deferred maintenance
and critical resources protection needs with a visitor connection.
On page 8; paragraph 1; last line replace revenues with "obligations"
to read: In contrast to the Forest Service, the National Park Service
shows a larger portion of its fee demonstration obligations on
collecting fees and addressing its health and safety maintenance needs
and less for visitor services.
These changes will convey that the National Park Service has been
utilizing its fee revenues to accomplish projects that address health
and safety maintenance needs and re-affirms that we have also addressed
deferred maintenance needs that cross the five categories as
established for the Interagency Annual Report.
The Department notes that the methodology used by GAO does not allow
generalization beyond. the nine specific sites examined. The report
should include a "methodology" section that discusses the methods used
by GAO and the extent to which these methods might limit the
conclusions that can be drawn from the data.
The following are GAO's comments on the Department of the Interior's
letter dated April 11, 2003.
GAO's Comments:
1. The National Park Service expressed the concern that we used
"maintenance" as one of the expenditure categories rather than "health
and safety maintenance" and by doing so the expenditure category is
misinterpretated to represent deferred maintenance. We did not change
the report to "health and safety maintenance" as requested by the Park
Service. In table 1 of our report, we describe that the maintenance
expenditure category includes projects related to health and safety and
backlogged maintenance and we note that backlogged or deferred
maintenance expenditures may also be categorized under categories other
than maintenance. We added a note stating that we refer to the Park
Service's "health and safety maintenance" expenditures as
"maintenance.":
2. We revised the report to say that local managers focus on addressing
deferred maintenance and critical resource protection needs.
3. We changed the language to say that the National Park Service uses a
larger portion of fee demonstration "expenditures" rather than
"revenues" on collecting fees and addressing its maintenance needs and
less for visitor services.
4. We added the following statement in the scope and methodology.
Because our analysis focused on the Forest Service, specifically on a
detailed review of nine Forest Service fee demonstration sites, the
information reported should not be generalized in making any
conclusions with respect to the National Park Service.
(360247):
:
FOOTNOTES
[1] The Forest Service refers to fee demonstration sites as projects.
Throughout this report, we refer to them as sites. Under the original
Recreational Fee Demonstration Program legislation, no fewer than 10
but up to 50 sites per agency were permitted to charge, collect, and
establish recreation fees (Pub. L. No. 104-134, tit. III, § 315(1996)).
In fiscal year 1997 appropriations, Congress increased the number of
authorized sites per agency to 100
(Pub. L. No. 104-208, tit. III, § 319 (1996)). In fiscal year 2002
appropriations, the Congress eliminated the 100 demonstration sites per
agency limitation (Pub. L. No. 107-63, tit. III, § 312 (b)(2001)).
[2] Regional boards consist of membership with recreation, forest, law
enforcement, fiscal, and economic backgrounds and are used to help
oversee the fee demonstration program within each region of the Forest
Service.
[3] Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996,
Pub. L. No. 104-134, tit. III, § 315(c)(3).
[4] We did not make an on-site visit to the Kisatchie National Forest
site because the site was closed because of 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.
[5] See appendix I for a discussion of transferring funds from the
Forest Service recreation programs for supplementing wildfire
suppression activities.
[6] The Adventure Pass is a vehicle-parking pass that is required to be
displayed on vehicles while occupants are recreating on the four urban
national forests in Southern California.
[7] H. R. Rep. No. 105-163 (1997).
[8] The other two demonstration sites did not have any expenditures
during fiscal year 2001.
[9] In making this comparison, we combined several of the reporting
categories for these two agencies in order to report similar
categories. As a result, the percentage shown in the "Other" category
appears large. Also, we refer to the Park Service's "health and safety
maintenance" expenditures as "maintenance."
[10] Total fiscal year 2001 fee demonstration revenues for the Forest
Service and Park Service were about $35 million and about $126 million
(excluding $14 million in National Park Passport revenue),
respectively.
[11] 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).
[12] Recreational Fee Demonstration Program: Interim Report to Congress
submitted by the U.S. Department of the Interior and the U.S.
Department of Agriculture; April 2002.
[13] It should be noted that deferred maintenance expenditures include
projects such as resource preservation and visitor services.
[14] U.S. General Accounting Office, National Park Service: Efforts to
Identify and Manage the Maintenance Backlog, GAO/RCED-98-143
(Washington, D.C.: May 14, 1998). U.S. Department of the Interior,
Office of Inspector General, Followup of Maintenance Activities,
National Park Service, 98-I-344 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 1998). U.S.
Department of the Interior, Interior Planning, Design and Construction
Council, Facilities Maintenance Assessment and Recommendations
(Washington, D.C.: Feb. 1998).
[15] U.S. General Accounting Office, National Park Service: Status of
Efforts to Develop Better Deferred Maintenance Data, GAO-02-568R
(Washington, D.C.: Apr. 12, 2002).
[16] The Anti-Deficiency Act prohibits expenditures and obligations
that exceed the amounts available in the related appropriation or fund
accounts.
[17] These discounts are incentives or commissions to vendors for
handling and selling the passes.
[18] Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards No. 4
(Managerial Cost Accounting Concepts and Standards for the Federal
Government) and No. 7 (Accounting for Revenue and Other Financing
Sources) and the USDA Financial and Accounting Standards Manual, March
17, 2000; section 12.51.1.9.
GAO's Mission:
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.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
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 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
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to daily E-mail alert for newly
released products" under the GAO Reports heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
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:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
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:
