National Park Service
Revenues Could Increase by Charging Allowed Fees for Some Special Uses Permits Gao ID: GAO-05-410 May 6, 2005The National Park Service routinely issues permits for special park uses, such as special events or commercial filming and still photography. However, the National Football League's use of the National Mall to launch its 2003 season raised questions about whether permitting such events was consistent with existing policies and law and whether all applicable fees for permitting special park uses were being collected. GAO (1) identified applicable policy guidance for issuing special uses permits for special events and for commercial filming and still photography, (2) assessed the extent to which this guidance was applied during fiscal year 2003, and (3) determined the extent to which the Park Service implemented the requirement to collect location fees for commercial filming and still photography.
The Park Service has developed policy guidance for issuing permits for special events and for commercial filming and still photography activities. This policy guidance includes general criteria about the terms and conditions as to when and where specific types of activities can take place and requires park units to recover applicable costs associated with administering and monitoring special park uses. Recovery of costs associated with filming activities is required by law. Recoverable costs include, for example, the time charged by a park ranger to visit the site of the event, such as a festival held on park grounds, to monitor that the terms and conditions of the permit are met. During fiscal year 2003, park units did not consistently apply Park Service guidance for permitting special events and for commercial filming and still photography, and often did not identify and recover costs associated with permitting such activities, thereby decreasing financial resources available to the parks. Of the six park units we visited, one did not charge fees for processing applications; one only recovered monitoring costs associated with some of its permits; and three others had not updated, for several years, hourly charges to reflect current higher costs for personnel time for administering and monitoring permitted activities. For example, National Capital Parks-Central officials charged no administrative fees for the estimated 1,400-plus permits issued for special events and for filming and still photography in fiscal year 2003. Officials said that park units had not updated fees because of regional policy and a high workload or because updating the fees was given low priority. The Park Service has not implemented a law enacted almost 5 years ago to collect location fees for commercial filming and still photography, resulting in significant annual forgone revenues. The agency has not implemented the law because of delays in reviewing the proposed regulations at the Department of Justice and a lack of agreement among the Interior agencies about the fee schedule and how it is to be applied. We estimated the Park Service would have collected about $1.6 million in location fee revenues in fiscal year 2003, if the requirement to collect such fees had been implemented.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-05-410, National Park Service: Revenues Could Increase by Charging Allowed Fees for Some Special Uses Permits
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-05-410
entitled 'National Park Service: Revenues Could Increase by Charging
Allowed Fees for Some Special Uses Permits' which was released on June
7, 2005.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
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 Congressional Requesters:
May 2005:
National Park Service:
Revenues Could Increase by Charging Allowed Fees for Some Special Uses
Permits:
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-410]:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-05-410, a report to congressional requesters:
Why GAO Did This Study:
The National Park Service routinely issues permits for special park
uses, such as special events or commercial filming and still
photography. However, the National Football League‘s use of the
National Mall to launch its 2003 season raised questions about whether
permitting such events was consistent with existing policies and law
and whether all applicable fees for permitting special park uses were
being collected.
GAO (1) identified applicable policy guidance for issuing special uses
permits for special events and for commercial filming and still
photography, (2) assessed the extent to which this guidance was applied
during fiscal year 2003, and (3) determined the extent to which the
Park Service implemented the requirement to collect location fees for
commercial filming and still photography.
What GAO Found:
The Park Service has developed policy guidance for issuing permits for
special events and for commercial filming and still photography
activities. This policy guidance includes general criteria about the
terms and conditions as to when and where specific types of activities
can take place and requires park units to recover applicable costs
associated with administering and monitoring special park uses.
Recovery of costs associated with filming activities is required by
law. Recoverable costs include, for example, the time charged by a park
ranger to visit the site of the event, such as a festival held on park
grounds, to monitor that the terms and conditions of the permit are
met.
During fiscal year 2003, park units did not consistently apply Park
Service guidance for permitting special events and for commercial
filming and still photography, and often did not identify and recover
costs associated with permitting such activities, thereby decreasing
financial resources available to the parks. Of the six park units we
visited, one did not charge fees for processing applications; one only
recovered monitoring costs associated with some of its permits; and
three others had not updated, for several years, hourly charges to
reflect current higher costs for personnel time for administering and
monitoring permitted activities. For example, National Capital Parks-
Central officials charged no administrative fees for the estimated
1,400-plus permits issued for special events and for filming and still
photography in fiscal year 2003. Officials said that park units had not
updated fees because of regional policy and a high workload or because
updating the fees was given low priority.
The Park Service has not implemented a law enacted almost 5 years ago
to collect location fees for commercial filming and still photography,
resulting in significant annual forgone revenues. The agency has not
implemented the law because of delays in reviewing the proposed
regulations at the Department of Justice and a lack of agreement among
the Interior agencies about the fee schedule and how it is to be
applied. We estimated the Park Service would have collected about $1.6
million in location fee revenues in fiscal year 2003, if the
requirement to collect such fees had been implemented.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO is making several recommendations on identifying and collecting
fees for administering and monitoring special events and commercial
filming and still photography, and on expediting the implementation of
the requirement to collect location fees and costs for such activities.
In commenting on the draft report, Interior neither agreed nor
disagreed with our recommendations.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-410.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Robin M. Nazzaro at (202)
512-3841 or nazzaror@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
The Park Service Has Specific Policy Guidance for Issuing Permits and
Recovering Costs for Special Park Uses:
Inconsistent Application of Special Park Uses Guidance Has Resulted in
Some Park Units Not Fully Identifying and Recovering Costs, Thereby
Decreasing Resources Available to the Parks:
Delays in Implementing the Law to Collect Location Fees for Commercial
Filming and Still Photography Have Resulted in Forgone Revenues:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Response:
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: Details of the Forgone Revenue Calculations:
Appendix III: Information on the 2003 National Football League Kickoff
Event:
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of the Interior:
GAO Comments:
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 45:
Tables:
Table 1: Park Units Visited and Whether the Park Units Charged
Administrative and Monitoring Fees and Recovered Associated Costs:
Table 2: Forest Service Established Fee Schedule for Filming:
Table 3: Forest Service Established Fee Schedule for Still Photography:
Table 4: Park Service Proposed Filming Location Fee Schedule:
Table 5: Park Service Proposed Still Photography Location Fee Schedule:
Table 6: Estimates of Forgone Revenues, Fiscal Year 2003:
Figures:
Figure 1: Park Service Regions:
Figure 2: A Frequently Filmed and Photographed Thermal Pool at
Yellowstone National Park:
Abbreviations:
BLM: Bureau of Land Management:
DCI: data collection instrument:
FS: Forest Service:
FWS: Fish and Wildlife Service:
NFL: National Football League:
OMB: Office of Management and Budget:
Letter May 6, 2005:
Congressional Requesters:
For over 50 years, the National Park Service has permitted special park
uses--such as special events or filming and still photography--that
provide benefits to an individual, group, or organization beyond those
available to the public at large. Annually, the Park Service issues
thousands of permits for special events, such as festivals, receptions,
and fund-raisers. In the past few years, questions have been raised by
Members of Congress and the public about taxpayer costs, commercialism,
and Park Service policies related to permitting these activities. One
particular event--held in September 2003, when the Park Service granted
the National Football League (NFL) use of the National Mall to kick off
its season--caused controversy. Because of some complaints that there
was extensive commercial advertising and some damage to the Mall
grounds resulting from this event, Members of Congress and the public
questioned whether permitting such an event was consistent with
established policies, was an appropriate use of the Mall, and whether
taxpayer dollars were used to support the event. The Park Service also
issues hundreds of permits annually for commercial filming and still
photography on park land. The Park Service is required by law to
collect costs and location fees associated with these permits, and is
authorized to collect costs for other permit uses.
In this context, you asked us to (1) identify applicable Park Service
policy guidance for issuing special uses permits for special events and
for commercial filming and still photography, (2) assess the extent to
which this guidance was applied during fiscal year 2003 to ensure that
all applicable costs were identified and recovered, and (3) determine
the extent to which the Park Service has implemented the requirement to
collect location fees for commercial filming and still photography
activities.
We identified Park Service policy guidance for special uses permits and
obtained and analyzed applicable laws, regulations, policies, and
procedures. To evaluate the extent to which policy guidance was
applied, we analyzed permit records and other documentation of six
selected park units that we visited and interviewed Park Service
headquarters, regional, and park unit officials. We selected these park
units because, during fiscal year 2003, they had issued the greatest
number of both special event and filming and still photography permits
in each of the six Park Service regions within the continental U.S. To
determine the extent to which the Park Service implemented the
requirement to collect location fees for commercial filming and still
photography activities, we interviewed Park Service officials. We also
collected and assessed the reliability of Park Service data on filming
and still photography permits from all park units for fiscal year 2003
and estimated the forgone location fee revenues by applying the
established fee schedule of another federal land management agency to
the activities reported to GAO by the Park Service. The fee schedule of
the other federal agency is based on similar criteria included in the
legislation authorizing the Park Service to charge fees.
A more detailed description of our scope and methodology is presented
in appendix I, and a detailed description of our forgone revenue
calculations and results is presented in appendix II. We performed our
work from May 2004 through May 2005 in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards.
Results in Brief:
The Park Service's policy guidance includes general criteria about the
terms and conditions as to when and where specific types of activities
can take place. For example, the policy guidance states that activities
may be permitted if they do not injure or damage park resources, are
not contrary to the purposes for which the park was established, and do
not unreasonably interfere with visitation. The policy guidance also
covers requirements for such details as safety considerations and
printing special signage. Specifically, as it relates to signage in the
National Capital Region, where the 2003 NFL kickoff event was held, the
park unit Superintendent must approve the size, scale, scope, and
location of corporate logos and other lettering to be used in
advertisements or as sponsor recognition. With regard to the 2003 NFL
kickoff event, the Superintendent admittedly allowed a greater quantity
of commercial signage to be displayed than she had intended. In 2004,
Congress passed legislation that prohibited the use of appropriated
funds in fiscal year 2004 for special event permits on the Mall unless
the permits prohibited commercial advertising, although the
Superintendent was authorized to approve discrete lettering recognizing
sponsors. Also, the Park Service, in accordance with applicable law,
has policy guidance requiring park units to generally recover costs
associated with managing special park uses, including special event and
commercial filming and still photography activities. This requirement
includes recovering costs for processing permits, monitoring permit
activities, equipment and facility use, as well as any incidental
damage to park resources as a result of the event. For example,
recoverable costs include the time charged by a park ranger to visit
the site of the event, such as a festival held on park grounds, to
monitor that the terms and conditions of the permit are met.
At most of the park units we visited, the parks inconsistently applied
guidance and did not fully identify and recover costs of permitting
special events and commercial filming and still photography during
fiscal year 2003. Because costs recovered from permitting activities
are used by park units for managing their permits program, failing to
recover such costs decreases the financial resources park units have
for administering permits and monitoring permitted activities. For
2003, the park units we visited either did not charge or had not
updated fees for administering or monitoring permits. According to the
Park Service, several of the units did not update their fees because of
a high workload at some park units and because updating fees was given
a low priority at other park units, as the following examples
illustrate:
* Blue Ridge Parkway did not recover monitoring costs associated with
some of its permits. Park Service officials with this unit did not
charge for time spent monitoring activities for 20 of the 28 special
event permits issued in 2003.
* National Capital Parks-Central did not charge administrative fees for
processing special uses permit applications because it was regional
policy not to do so. Officials at this unit charged no administrative
or permitting fees, even where applicable, for the estimated 1,400-plus
permits issued for special events and for commercial filming and still
photography in fiscal year 2003. We brought this issue to the attention
of the Department of the Interior's Solicitor's Office and, as a
result, it has modified its guidance and has initiated efforts to
require the region to begin charging administrative fees to recover
costs.
* Blue Ridge Parkway, Golden Gate National Recreation Area,
Independence National Historical Park, and Yellowstone National Park
had not recently updated hourly charges to reflect current higher costs
for personnel time to administer and monitor permitted activities. As a
result, these park units were not fully recovering the costs associated
with their special uses permits program, as required by policy
guidance.
The Park Service has also not implemented a requirement to collect
location fees for commercial filming and still photography, resulting
in significant annual forgone revenues. The requirement to collect
location fees is in addition to the requirement to recover costs for
administering and monitoring permits. While the legislation creating
the location fee requirement was passed almost five years ago, the Park
Service has not implemented the law because of delays in reviewing the
proposed regulations at the Department of Justice and a lack of
agreement among Interior's agencies about the fee schedule and how it
is to be applied. We estimated the Park Service would have collected
about $1.6 million in location fee revenues in fiscal year 2003 if the
requirement had been implemented.
We are recommending that the Secretary of the Interior direct the Park
Service Director to ensure that the park units we visited apply
existing guidance and maintain updated cost recovery fee schedules,
determine the extent to which park units systemwide are not fully
recovering costs for special events and for commercial filming and
still photography, follow through to ensure that National Capital
Region assesses administrative fees to recover the cost of processing
special event and commercial filming and still photography permits, and
take action to ensure the Park Service implements the law requiring it
to collect location fees and costs for commercial filming and still
photography.
In commenting on a draft of this report, the Department of the Interior
neither agreed nor disagreed with our recommendations. It did, however,
offer several suggestions for technical clarifications and to clarify
the application of policy guidance to the National Capital Region; we
have incorporated these suggestions, as appropriate.
Background:
The National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 created the Park Service
to promote and regulate the use of national parks, monuments, and
reservations with the purpose of conserving the scenery, natural and
historic objects, and wildlife therein and to leave them "unimpaired"
for the enjoyment of future generations. The 1970 National Park System
General Authorities Act, as amended in 1978, prohibits the service from
allowing any activities that would cause derogation of the values and
purposes for which the parks have been established. The combination of
these two laws forms the basis of a mandate for Park Service managers
to actively manage all park uses in a manner that protects park
resources and values.
Today, the Park Service comprises 388 units covering around 84 million
acres in 49 states, the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam,
Puerto Rico, Saipan, and the Virgin Islands. Figure 1 shows a map of
the Park Service regions.
Figure 1: Park Service Regions:
[See PDF for image]
[A] Parkland within the National Capital Region amounts to about 88,000
acres in the District of Columbia, Maryland, Virginia, and West
Virginia.
[End of figure]
National Parks are home to many unique and beautiful landscapes and
open spaces that are venues for a variety of special event activities
such as cultural programs, festivals, wedding ceremonies, and athletic
events, as well as commercial filming and still photography. These
special uses generally provide a benefit to an individual, group, or
organization rather than the public at large. In order to protect park
resources and the public interest, a special uses permit must be
obtained from Park Service superintendents for these activities.
Special uses permits regulate the amount, kind, time, and place of the
proposed activity.[Footnote 1] The Park Service issues special uses
permits for several different types of activities, including the two
types we reviewed (1) special events, and (2) commercial filming and
still photography.
Special events permits are issued for a wide range of activities,
including sports, pageants, celebrations, historical re-enactments,
exhibitions, parades, fairs, and festivals. Commercial filming and
still photography permits are issued for such activities as major
motion picture filming, commercials, and magazine photo shoots. The
Park Service has specific statutory authority to recover costs
associated with special uses permits and to retain the funds
recovered.[Footnote 2] The Park Service has guidance in place to
collect costs associated with special event permits, including costs
for commercial filming and still photography. In addition, it has been
required by law to collect costs and location fees associated with
filming activities for almost five years.[Footnote 3]
The Park Service Has Specific Policy Guidance for Issuing Permits and
Recovering Costs for Special Park Uses:
The Park Service developed specific policy guidance for issuing permits
and recovering costs for special park uses. This guidance includes
detailed permitting criteria for special events and for commercial
filming and still photography. Park Service superintendents are
required to follow the established policy guidance, including numerous
cost recovery requirements, when issuing permits. The cost recovery
guidance generally requires the park units to recover costs associated
with the permitted activity from the permittee.
Park Unit Superintendents Are Required to Follow Specific Guidance When
Issuing Permits for Special Events and for Commercial Filming and Still
Photography:
The Park Service has developed extensive policy guidance that park unit
superintendents are to follow when issuing any Park Service special
uses permits. In this regard, the superintendent at each park unit is
responsible for reviewing, approving, and monitoring permitted
activities and for assuring that such activities are consistent with
the Park Service's purpose: "to conserve scenery, natural and historic
objects, and wildlife, and to provide for the enjoyment of the public
while maintaining the natural and cultural resources and values of the
national park system unimpaired for future generations." The policy
guidance also gives the superintendent discretion by directing that
permits include "the terms and conditions that the superintendent deems
necessary to protect park resources or public safety." Permits
establish conditions for the approved activity, such as location, date,
time, and estimated number of participants.
Guidance on Special Events:
Special events within park units must meet basic criteria before a
permit is issued, and Park Service policy guidance gives
superintendents discretion when approving permits. The basic criteria
for issuing a permit include that (1) there is a meaningful association
between the park area and the event and (2) the event will contribute
to visitor understanding of the significance of the park area. However,
the determination of what is a "meaningful association" is generally
left to the superintendent's discretion. Some special event activities
may be appropriate within certain park unit settings but not
appropriate within others. For example, while the permitting of a rock
concert in an urban park setting may be appropriate, the permitting of
a rock concert at certain historical sites such as battlefields or
cemeteries may not be appropriate. Also, in order to protect the park
resources and the public's health and safety, the policy guidance for
special events provides strict limitations on certain uses, such as
fireworks displays and the sale of food in the parks.[Footnote 4]
Existing Park Service policies provide the superintendent with
considerable discretion to determine the appropriateness of proposed
advertisements. In 2003, the NFL kickoff event caused considerable
controversy about the size, scale, scope, and location of advertising
allowed during the event. In 2004, Congress passed legislation designed
to strengthen and clarify commercial signage restrictions for the
National Mall. This new legislation expressly prohibited the
expenditure of funds in fiscal year 2004 for special uses permits on
the National Mall unless the Park Service prohibited "the erection,
placement, or use of structures and signs bearing commercial
advertising."[Footnote 5] However, discrete recognition of program
sponsors was authorized. As a result, the Park Service has drafted
additional policy guidance, applicable to all park units, pertaining to
the use of signage recognizing program sponsors that will restrict the
size, scale, scope, and location of corporate logos and other
lettering.
Guidance on Commercial Filming and Still Photography:
In general, the Park Service encourages filming and photography "when
it will promote the protection and public enjoyment of park resources,"
provided that the activity meets basic criteria, such as the activity
will not cause unacceptable impacts to park resources. More
specifically, the policy guidance outlines when a permit is and is not
required. For example, a permit is required if the permitted activity
involves the use of a model, set, or prop--such as a model holding a
product for an advertisement photograph. However, no permit is required
for visitors using a camera or recording device for their own personal
use within normal visitation areas and hours. Some specific exceptions
are included in the policy guidance--for example, a permit is never
required for press coverage of breaking news.[Footnote 6] Also,
superintendents, at their discretion, may grant the permittee access to
a closed area of the park or permit the activity after normal visiting
hours. Regardless of the specific type of commercial filming or still
photography activity, the conditions specified in the permit must be
followed.
Park Service Guidance Includes Requirement to Recover Costs:
Park Service policy guidance generally requires park units to recover
costs associated with managing special park uses, including special
event and commercial filming and still photography activities, unless
cost recovery is prohibited by law or otherwise exempted.[Footnote 7]
This policy guidance is in line with federal law requiring recovery of
costs for filming activities and Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
Circular A-25, which established guidelines for federal agencies to
assess fees for government services and for the sale or use of
government property or resources. The OMB Circular states, "When a
service (or privilege) provides special benefits to an identifiable
recipient beyond those that accrue to the general public, a charge will
be imposed (to recover the full cost to the Federal Government for
providing the special benefit, or the market price)." The circular also
states that "user charges will be sufficient to recover the full cost
to the Federal Government," and it defines full cost as all direct and
indirect costs--including personnel, physical overhead, and
depreciation of structures and equipment--associated with providing a
good, resource, or service. As authorized by law and under the policy
guidance, these recovered costs are retained at the units issuing the
permits to defray the costs of administering and monitoring the
permits.
The Park Service's 2001 Management Policies document, which provides
the service's most current overall policies, states that "all costs
incurred by the Service in writing the permit, monitoring, providing
protection services, restoring park areas, or otherwise supporting a
special park use will be reimbursed by the permittee." Park Service
policy guidance further states that "appropriate fees for cost
recovery, as well as performance bond and liability insurance
requirements, will be imposed, consistent with applicable statutory
authorities and regulations," and directs that "when appropriate, the
Service will also include a fair charge for the use of the land or
facility." Consequently, each permit should stipulate that these costs
must be reimbursed by the permittee. Recoverable costs are those costs
directly attributable to the use or necessary for the safe completion
of the special park use. For example, the policy states that
recoverable costs include the time charged by a park ranger to visit
the site of the event, such as a festival held on park grounds, to
monitor that the terms and conditions of the permit are met.[Footnote
8] Additionally, the requirement includes recovering costs for
equipment and facility use as well as restoration of any damage to park
resources as a result of the event.
Park Service policy guidance also outlines the conditions under which
charges for special uses may be waived. According to the policy
guidance, exemptions from charges for special uses may be appropriate
when:
* the incremental costs of collecting the charges would be an unduly
large part of the receipts from the activity;
* the furnishing of the service without charge is an appropriate
courtesy to a foreign government or international organization, or
comparable fees are set on a reciprocal basis with a foreign country;
* the permittee is a state, local, or federal government agency or a
tribal government; or:
* the superintendent determines that the use will promote the mission
of the Park Service or promote public safety, health, or welfare.
Exemptions from charges are appropriate when:
* a charge is prohibited by legislation or executive order; or:
* the requested use involves exercise of a right pertaining to water,
property, minerals, access, Native American religious practices, or the
rights guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution, including
freedom of assembly, speech, religion, and the press.
Through their special uses permit system, Park Service superintendents
also manage requests for public assembly for the exercise of First
Amendment rights, including freedom of assembly, speech, religion, and
the press. Consistent with the First Amendment, it is the Park
Service's policy to permit groups to assemble peaceably and exercise
freedom of speech on park lands. The number of First Amendment permit
requests varies greatly by park unit. For example, each year hundreds
of permit requests are submitted for First Amendment activity in
Washington, D.C., area park units, but there are few requests for this
type of permit at remote units such as Yellowstone National Park. For
First Amendment permits, as with other special uses permits, the
superintendents establish conditions for the assembly, such as site
location, date, time, and number of participants. However, unlike other
special events permits, superintendents are required by Park Service
policies to issue these permits without requiring fees, cost recovery,
bonding, or insurance.
Inconsistent Application of Special Park Uses Guidance Has Resulted in
Some Park Units Not Fully Identifying and Recovering Costs, Thereby
Decreasing Resources Available to the Parks:
At five of the six parks we visited, we found failure to adhere to the
Park Service's policy to recover from permittees the cost to either
administer or monitor permits for special events and for commercial
filming and still photography activities. This inconsistent application
of agency policy included not assessing or underassessing fees for
reviewing and issuing permit applications, and not charging or
undercharging for the cost of monitoring permits. As a result, parks
did not fully identify and recover costs for permitting special events
and for commercial filming and still photography. Consequently, in some
parks, a portion of the financial resources spent on reviewing,
issuing, and monitoring permits was not recovered from permittees, and
therefore was not available to manage the park permits programs.
Failure to Consistently Apply Guidance Means That Some Costs Are Not
Identified and Recovered:
Of the six park units we visited, we found that one park unit did not
charge fees for reviewing and approving permit applications. Although
five of the six park units charged administrative fees, three of these
units did not recover the full costs associated with reviewing and
approving permit applications. All six park units had established fees
for monitoring the implementation of the permit. However, four of these
units did not recover the full costs associated with their monitoring
activities. Table 1 shows the park units we visited and whether they
charged administrative or monitoring fees and recovered the associated
costs.
Table 1: Park Units Visited and Whether the Park Units Charged
Administrative and Monitoring Fees and Recovered Associated Costs:
Region: Intermountain;
Park units visited: Yellowstone National Park;
Administrative fee: Fee charged: yes;
Administrative fee: Full cost recovery: yes;
Monitoring fee: Fee charged: yes;
Monitoring fee: Full cost recovery: no.
Region: Midwest;
Park units visited: Jefferson National Expansion Memorial;
Administrative fee: Fee charged: yes;
Administrative fee: Full cost recovery: yes;
Monitoring fee: Fee charged: yes;
Monitoring fee: Full cost recovery: yes.
Region: National Capital;
Park units visited: National Capital Parks-Central;
Administrative fee: Fee charged: no;
Administrative fee: Full cost recovery: no;
Monitoring fee: Fee charged: yes[A];
Monitoring fee: Full cost recovery: no.
Region: Northeast;
Park units visited: Independence National Historical Park;
Administrative fee: Fee charged: yes;
Administrative fee: Full cost recovery: no;
Monitoring fee: Fee charged: yes;
Monitoring fee: Full cost recovery: yes.
Region: Pacific West;
Park units visited: Golden Gate National Recreation Area;
Administrative fee: Fee charged: yes;
Administrative fee: Full cost recovery: yes;
Monitoring fee: Fee charged: yes;
Monitoring fee: Full cost recovery: no.
Region: Southeast;
Park units visited: Blue Ridge Parkway;
Administrative fee: Fee charged: yes;
Administrative fee: Full cost recovery: no;
Monitoring fee: Fee charged: yes;
Monitoring fee: Full cost recovery: no.
Source: GAO.
Notes: Table is based on reviews of agency documents and, where
documents were unavailable, interviews with park unit officials.
[A] In addition to the monitoring fee, according to National Capital
Parks-Central officials, for permits where a bond is required to cover
potential damages to resources, the permittee is assessed a $50 flat
fee.
[End of table]
Administrative Fee Not Charged or Fully Recovered:
The Park Service does not maintain centralized data on the number of
special event and commercial filming and still photography permits
issued each year. However, an agency official informed us that for
fiscal year 2003, National Capital Parks-Central issued the largest
number of these permits--estimated in excess of 1,400--of all park
units. National Capital Parks-Central charged no administration fees
for permitting special uses. For example, during fiscal year 2003, this
park management unit did not assess any administrative fee for permits
issued for special events, filming, and still photography, as required
by Park Service policy unless prohibited by law or otherwise exempted.
National Capital Parks-Central officials told us that since the mid-
1990s, it has been regional policy that park units within the National
Capital Region would not charge any administrative costs associated
with processing permits. For example, National Capital Parks-Central
issued permits for both the NFL kickoff event[Footnote 9] and the
filming of the major motion picture National Treasure, both of which
engaged Park Service personnel in numerous planning meetings, but for
which no administrative costs were recovered. As a result of GAO
bringing this issue to the attention of the Solicitor's Office at
Interior, the Solicitor's Office modified its guidance and directed the
National Capital Region to:
re-examine its administrative cost recovery practices. As of February
2005, according to Interior's Solicitor's Office, steps were being
taken to require all park units in the National Capital Region to
assess processing or application fees for all permit applications.
Administrative fees are based on the actual costs incurred by the park
unit involved in overseeing the permit activity and should include all
costs to the Park Service associated with processing a permit
application from the time the first inquiry is received until the
permit is signed and issued.[Footnote 10] For example, officials at
Independence National Historical Park charge a $50 nonrefundable fee
for each permit application. In fiscal year 2003, this park unit issued
a total of over 300 permits for special events and for commercial
filming and still photography. According to these park officials, this
fee has not been updated for at least 8 years and will be increased to
$100 in late 2005 to reflect increased administrative costs.[Footnote
11] Blue Ridge Parkway charged a $25 nonrefundable fee to cover the
costs of initially considering permit applications and an additional
$75 to cover additional processing costs for each approved permit.
According to a park official, these fees had not been updated in 8
years, but the fees have now been increased as of January 2005 to $50
and $125, respectively, to reflect increased administrative costs. In
fiscal year 2003, this park unit issued a total of about 40 permits for
special events and for commercial filming and still photography.
Officials at these park units agreed that their 2003 charges did not
reflect increases in costs, such as for personnel, that had occurred
during the past several years.
In contrast, according to park officials, Golden Gate National
Recreational Area, Jefferson National Expansion Memorial, and
Yellowstone National Park charge administrative fees based on current
costs. These park units periodically assess and adjust their fees to
reflect increasing costs, such as for salary and associated benefits.
Monitoring Fees Not Fully Recovered:
Delicate natural resources in park units (see fig. 1) require
monitoring to ensure resources are protected for the enjoyment of
future generations. For example, at Yellowstone National Park, if a
film crew consists of five or more persons, a park official assigns
staff to monitor the crew's activities at all times to ensure
compliance with permit conditions, safety, and that the activity does
not interfere with the visitor experience. If the filming activity is
at or near one of the park's thermal pools, a Park Service staff
monitor is required as part of the permit conditions to ensure that the
film crew does not damage this natural resource or its surroundings by
entering a restricted area to obtain a particular photo or angle of
view.
Figure 2: A Frequently Filmed and Photographed Thermal Pool at
Yellowstone National Park:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
According to Yellowstone's film permit coordinator, permittees
sometimes try to push the boundaries of the permit conditions, without
understanding the potential damage or injury that could result. The
Yellowstone coordinator stated, however, that because of their close
monitoring actions, there has not been any resource damage from
permittee actions.
At three of the six parks we visited--Blue Ridge Parkway, Yellowstone
National Park, and Golden Gate National Recreation Area--hourly
monitoring fees had not been updated to reflect current higher costs,
according to park officials. As a result, staffs at these units are not
collecting fees sufficient to cover their monitoring costs. According
to the Blue Ridge Parkway permit coordinator, actual hourly monitoring
costs are about $50 per hour; however, the park has charged only $30
per hour since 1997. At Blue Ridge Parkway, not only were the
monitoring fees below actual costs, but staff who monitored permitted
activities did not submit documentation that would allow the park unit
to bill and collect monitoring fees from the permittee for 20 of 28
permitted special events. Blue Ridge Parkway officials plan to increase
the monitoring fee to $50 per hour in 2005.
At Yellowstone National Park, the $50 hourly monitoring fee has not
been updated in about 10 years. The hourly monitoring fee at Golden
Gate National Recreation Area ($65 per hour) has not been updated for 4
years. Officials at Blue Ridge, Golden Gate, and Yellowstone explained
they had not updated their hourly monitoring fees either because of a
high workload at some park units or because updating fees was given a
low priority at other park units. However, they said they plan to
revise the fee to more accurately reflect actual costs in fiscal year
2005.
Officials at National Capital Parks-Central are not collecting fees
sufficient to cover their monitoring costs. These officials require
permittees to bear the cost of Park Service overtime to monitor
permitted activity for those permits where a bond is required.[Footnote
12] However, National Capital Parks-Central officials do not recover
their costs for any permit monitoring that occurs during normal
business hours and where no bond is required.
In contrast, two park units, Independence National Historical Park and
Jefferson National Expansion Memorial, charged monitoring fees based on
current cost rates.
Additional Park Revenues Are Available to Parks If Costs Are Collected
from Permittees:
As mentioned earlier, five of the six parks we visited--Blue Ridge
Parkway, Golden Gate National Recreation Area, Yellowstone National
Park, Independence National Historical Park, and National Capital Parks-
Central--did not fully recover applicable administrative or monitoring
costs. Some of these parks failed to collect several thousand dollars
or more in fiscal year 2003. For example, had National Capital Parks-
Central charged a $50 administrative fee like Independence National
Historical Park, it would have collected at least $70,000 for the
estimated 1,400-plus permits the park issued in fiscal year 2003 for
special events and filming and photography. As a result, if these park
units had implemented agency policy and the OMB directives to fully
recover all costs, additional--and in one case, significant--revenues,
such as those at National Capital Parks-Central, could have been
available for managing permits programs.
Delays in Implementing the Law to Collect Location Fees for Commercial
Filming and Still Photography Have Resulted in Forgone Revenues:
Delays in implementing the May 2000 legislation requiring the Secretary
of the Interior to establish a fee schedule for commercial filming and
still photography have resulted in significant annual forgone revenues
for the Park Service. This law requires the agencies to establish a fee
for the use of the land--referred to by the Park Service as a location
fee--in addition to recovering agency costs. If the law requiring the
Park Service's officials to collect location fees for commercial
filming and still photography had been implemented, GAO estimates that,
for the reported permitted activity in fiscal year 2003, the agency
would have collected revenues of about $1.6 million (unadjusted for
inflation).[Footnote 13] According to the Park Service's Special Uses
Program Manager, the commercial filming and still photography permitted
activities used by GAO to estimate forgone revenues of about $1.6
million are representative of a typical year's worth of activities. The
Park Service, along with three other federal land management agencies,
is currently participating in a working group to develop regulations to
implement the legislation and the associated location fee schedule.
Law Requiring the Collection of Location Fees Has Not Been Implemented:
The Commercial Filming Law, enacted in May 2000, requires the Secretary
of the Interior and the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture to
issue permits and establish reasonable fees for commercial filming and
still photography activities. The law affects Interior's Bureau of Land
Management (BLM), Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and Park Service,
and Agriculture's Forest Service (FS). However, the law has not been
implemented. Although BLM and FS already had established filming and
still photography fee schedules in place prior to this law, the Park
Service and FWS are collaborating with FS and BLM to develop a single
fee schedule for all four agencies.
Subsequent to the law's enactment, the Department of the Interior's
Office of the Solicitor created a working group, in June 2000, with
representatives from each of the four affected agencies to develop
implementing regulations and a fee schedule. To ensure that First
Amendment issues were adequately addressed, attorneys from the
Solicitor's Office agreed to seek concurrence from the Department of
Justice prior to finalizing the regulations. In October 2000, the
Solicitor's Office submitted the proposed regulations drafted by the
working group to Justice's Office of Legal Counsel. However, Justice's
suggested revisions were not provided to Interior officials until
October 2003. Since that time, representatives from each of the four
land management agencies have worked together to finalize the
regulations and the associated fee schedule. According to officials at
Interior and the Park Service, the draft regulations are currently
being circulated among the appropriate reviewing officials in each
agency, and the agencies plan to have them published in the Federal
Register later this year.
In addition to drafting regulations to implement the Commercial Filming
Law, the working group considered two different approaches when
developing a uniform fee schedule: One approach specifies a uniform
minimum fee schedule allowing the land management agencies to assess
additional fees based on comparable markets, while the other approach
does not allow for fee adjustments based on comparable markets. For
example, the Forest Service currently uses the same fee schedule in
five of its nine regions. In contrast, BLM's existing fee schedule for
filming and still photography, while similar, varies by state and is
set by BLM state offices. Although the working group has developed a
standardized fee schedule, one of the group's challenges has been to
reach consensus among the affected agencies on whether the use of a
standardized fee schedule would allow individual locations to assess an
additional fee for use of its sites.
Proposed Location Fee Schedule Includes Charges Based on the Number of
People and Duration of Filming:
The Commercial Filming Law requires the Park Service to establish a
location fee for commercial filming and still photography that provides
a fair return for the use of the land to the United States. The law
specifies that this fee must be based upon the following criteria: (1)
the number of days the filming activity or similar project takes place
on federal land under the Secretary's jurisdiction,[Footnote 14] (2)
the size of the film crew present on federal land under the Secretary's
jurisdiction, and (3) the amount and type of equipment present.
Furthermore, the law allows that "other factors" may be included in
determining an appropriate fee. The Forest Service has a fee schedule,
developed prior to this law and implemented under other legislative
authority, that uses similar criteria. For example, the Forest
Service's commercial filming fee schedule ranges from a minimum of $150
per day for crews of 1 to 10 people to $600 per day for crews of over
60 people.[Footnote 15] These fees are then multiplied by the number of
days the crews are on the site during all phases of filming. For
example, applying this schedule to just one of the 320-plus filming
permits issued by National Capital Parks-Central in fiscal year 2003
(65 people for 2 days) would have resulted in a $1,200 return to the
park. Once these fees are collected, they remain with the Park Service
units and are available until expended.
GAO Estimated Forgone Revenues of about $1.6 Million for Fiscal Year
2003:
Using the fee schedule that the Forest Service has in effect, we
estimate that the Park Service would have collected location fee
revenues of about $1.6 million in fiscal year 2003. The Park Service
has drafted a proposed standardized location fee schedule that would
charge higher fees than the Forest Service for larger parties, but it
has not yet been finalized. Using the Park Service's draft fee
schedule, we estimate forgone revenues of about $2 million in 2003 (see
app. II).
Conclusions:
The Park Service is required by law to collect costs and location fees
associated with permits for commercial filming and still photography
and authorized to collect costs for other permitted activities. Because
costs recovered from permitting activities are used by park units for
managing their permit program and other park programs, failing to
recover such costs decreases the financial resources park units have
for processing permits and monitoring permitted activities. Unless
steps are taken to ensure that units fully identify and collect
administrative and management (including monitoring) costs associated
with special event permits and with commercial filming and still
photography permits, the Park Service will continue to deprive itself
of funds important for managing and carrying out agency policy and
delivering agency services. This is particularly evident in the
National Capital Region, where only recently has consideration been
given to charging administrative fees to recover costs. Because our
review was limited to six park units, the extent to which other park
units are not consistently applying existing cost recovery guidance is
unclear. Conducting a systemwide review would help identify park units
that are not fully recovering costs for special events and filming and
still photography, and the measures necessary to ensure that all park
units identify and collect all appropriate permitting fees.
Significant revenues that would be available to the Park Service to
help defray the costs of administering its commercial filming and still
photography permit program are forgone because of delays in
implementing regulations consistent with the Commercial Filming Law. By
law, the Park Service is now required to collect location fees for
commercial filming and still photography activities. Expediting
implementation of the law will help ensure that the Park Service does
not experience more forgone revenues.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To ensure that the Park Service fully identifies and collects
administrative and monitoring costs associated with special event and
with commercial filming and still photography permits, as well as
location fees for filming activities, we recommend that the Secretary
of the Interior direct the Park Service Director to take the following
four actions:
* Ensure that the park units we visited consistently apply existing
cost recovery guidance and maintain updated cost recovery fee
schedules.
* Ascertain the extent to which other park units are not consistently
applying existing cost recovery guidance, and take appropriate actions
to ensure they are consistently applied and costs are identified and
recovered.
* Expedite the implementation of the law that requires the Park Service
to collect location fees and costs for commercial filming and still
photography, when appropriate.
* Follow through to ensure that the National Capital Region assesses
administrative fees to recover the costs of processing permits for
special events and for commercial filming and still photography.
Agency Comments and Our Response:
We provided the Department of the Interior with a draft of this report
for review and comment. The department provided written comments that
are included in appendix IV. The department did not comment on our
recommendations; however it suggested language to clarify the
application of Park Service general policy guidance to the National
Capital Region. Specifically, it suggested that we include language to
clarify that the regulations governing special events within the
National Capital Region are different from those contained in the Park
Service's general regulations, particularly as it applied to the NFL
kickoff event. We agree that the regulations governing such special
events in the National Capital Region are different from the general
regulations and have included clarifying language in the report. The
department provided other technical clarifications that we have
incorporated, as appropriate.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents
of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days
from the report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report
to the Secretary of the Interior and other interested parties. We will
also make copies available to others upon request. In addition, the
report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staff have questions about this report, please contact
me at (202) 512-3841 or [Hyperlink, nazzaror@gao.gov]. Key contributors
to this report are listed in appendix V.
Signed by:
Robin M. Nazzaro:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
List of Requesters:
The Honorable James L. Oberstar:
Ranking Democratic Member:
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Nick J. Rahall:
Ranking Minority Member:
Committee on Resources:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Betty McCollum:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Jim Moran:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Eleanor Holmes Norton:
House of Representatives:
[End of section]
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
We identified and analyzed applicable laws, regulations, policies, and
procedures to determine Park Service policy and requirements applicable
to the review and approval of special uses permits, including those for
special events and commercial filming and still photography. This
included an analysis of servicewide guidance as well as guidance
applicable to the specific units we visited,[Footnote 16] such as units
in the National Capital Region. We discussed the policy guidance with
the Office of the Solicitor, Department of the Interior, and with
officials from Park Service headquarters and each of the six park units
visited to gain an understanding of how the guidance should be
interpreted and applied.
To evaluate whether policy guidance was consistently applied, we
reviewed files and examined permitting practices at the nonprobability
sample of six park units visited[Footnote 17] and interviewed park unit
officials about their procedures in reviewing, approving, and
monitoring permitted activities. We also reviewed these units'
procedures to identify and recover costs associated with permit
activities.
We first searched for existing data sources describing the number of
special event and commercial filming and still photography activities
on park land. However, the Park Service does not maintain national or
regional data about these activities. We also contacted sources outside
of the Park Service--including the Sierra Club and The Motion Picture
Association of America--to ascertain whether these sources had
information on the number of special event and commercial filming and
still photography permits issued by each of the park units, but these
groups did not have such data, either. In the absence of this data, we
used an expert referral technique to identify park units to visit. We
asked officials from each of the Park Service's seven regional offices
to identify, using their knowledge of regional operations, the three
park units within their respective regions with the greatest number of
(1) special event and (2) commercial filming and still photography
permits. In each case, the officials produced a list in which the same
unit had both the most special events and the most commercial filming
and still photography permits for fiscal year 2003. We selected the top
park unit from each of the regional offices. Park Service regional
officials identified the following seven park units issuing the
greatest number of permits for both special events and for commercial
filming and still photography in fiscal year 2003:
* Alaska Region--Denali National Park,
* Midwest Region--Jefferson National Expansion Memorial,
* Intermountain Region--Yellowstone National Park,
* Pacific West Region--Golden Gate National Recreation Area,
* Northeast Region--Independence National Historical Park,
* National Capital Region--National Capital Parks-Central, and:
* Southeast Region--Blue Ridge Parkway.
Because of the relatively low number of reported permits issued in the
Park Service's Alaska Region, we limited our site visits to parks in
the six Park Service regions within the continental United States.
To determine the extent to which the Park Service implemented the
Commercial Filming Law, requiring it to collect location fees for
commercial filming and still photography activities, we analyzed the
legislation and interviewed Park Service and Department of the Interior
headquarters officials. We also contacted officials at the Department
of Justice and obtained their concurrence regarding the delays and
changes made to the draft regulations. In addition, we analyzed
documents pertinent to Justice's review of Interior's proposed
regulations for collecting location fees to verify reported delays in
Justice's review of the regulations. We asked the Special Uses Program
Manager at Park Service headquarters to assist GAO in administering a
data collection instrument (DCI) sent to each of the Park Service's 388
park units to obtain information on the amount of commercial filming
and still photography activity that would have been subject to location
fees in fiscal year 2003, if the legislation had been implemented.
The DCI was sent to all park units to obtain information on permits
issued for filming and still photography activities occurring in fiscal
year 2003. We asked the park units to provide (1) a permit number for
each permit issued, (2) the date the permit activity started, (3) the
number of days for which the permit was authorized, (4) the number of
people using the permit, and (5) if the park unit would have charged a
location fee based on current Park Service policy guidance. We
requested that the information provided by the park units in the DCI be
sent to GAO with a copy to the Special Uses Program Manager.
We coordinated with the Special Uses Program Manager to ensure we
received all of the responses and printed out hard copies of the
filming and still photography activities provided by the park units.
Because some of the smaller parks have a management office that issues
permits for multiple park units, some of the respondents provided
information containing the aggregated responses. These DCI responses
were grouped into 27 combined park unit responses representing 95
individual park units.
Of the 388 park units operating in 2003, we removed 17 because they
either (1) did not own or manage property in their designation or (2)
were not located in the United States or the District of Columbia,
leaving us with 371 park units. Of the 371, we received responses from
355, giving us a response rate of 96 percent. Of these 355 park units,
95 were provided in grouped responses and the remaining 260 responses
were from individual park units.
We reviewed all of the filming and photography permits at four of the
six sites visited. We reviewed these permit files to determine whether
they contained specific required administrative information, such as
evidence of the recovery of incurred costs. However, we did not review
the permit files for evidence of all administrative requirements
outlined in policy guidance because it was outside of the scope of this
assignment. We reviewed:
* 7 permit files at Jefferson National Expansion Memorial,
* 77 permit files at Yellowstone National Park,
* 76 permit files at Independence National Historical Park, and:
* 15 permit files at Blue Ridge Parkway.
The key administrative information regarding cost recovery was present
in all of the 175 files we reviewed.
Our file review at both of the remaining sites included an additional
level of review. For these two sites, we reviewed the files for key
administrative information as we did for the other four sites
previously described. In addition, we also compared the information
provided by the park unit on the DCI with the information contained in
the permit file.
* Of 152 total permits at Golden Gate National Recreation Area, we
reviewed 10 filming and photography permits with the highest costs
recovered. These permits were selected using the park's 318 account
summary, which lists all fees charged and collected for filming and
photography permits for fiscal year 2003. All key administrative cost
recovery information was present, and all DCI information matched in
these 10 permit files.
* We could not identify the top 10 highest-cost filming and photography
permits for National Capital Parks-Central based on the park's 318
account summary for fiscal year 2003, because the account combines
costs recovered for filming and photography permits with other special
uses permit costs. As a result, we requested files for filming permits
that included 25 or more people, as indicated on the returned DCI from
National Capital Parks-Central. This resulted in a review of 29 of 678
permit files (4 percent), which, according to National Capital Parks-
Central staff, would generally be comparable with the permits with the
highest costs recovered in fiscal year 2003. All key administrative
cost recovery information was present, and all DCI information matched
in these 29 permit files.
The information we gathered was provided by staff at National Park
Service units. The Park Service staff located the data by pulling paper
files and transferring the information into the DCI. This information
is not centralized, and it had never been gathered on a national level
prior to our data collection for fiscal year 2003. The Special Uses
Program Manager is responsible for ensuring that all Park Service staff
adhere to the policy and guidance regarding issues associated with
permit procedures, drafting policy and guidance associated with
permitting procedures, and the coordination of the training and
curriculum for Park Service staff on permitting policies and
procedures. In her opinion, the information provided by the park units
was accurate, complete, and reflective of the amount of permitted
activity in a typical year. Based on our comparison of DCI data with
hard copy files and our discussion with Park Service officials
regarding the data, we determined that the data were reliable enough
for the purposes of this report.
Using the data we obtained from these park units, we estimated the
forgone location fee revenues for fiscal year 2003 by applying the
established fee schedule of the Forest Service. Both the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) and the Forest Service have established location fee
schedules in place; however, the BLM fee schedule varies by state.
Therefore, we used the Forest Service's established fee schedule for
our calculations because it is standardized within five of its nine
regions and based on similar criteria included in legislation
authorizing the Park Service to charge fees. We used these data to
estimate forgone revenue. Details of these calculations are provided in
appendix II.
We conducted our work from May 2004 through May 2005 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Details of the Forgone Revenue Calculations:
To estimate the revenues the Park Service could have collected in
location fees in fiscal year 2003, if the requirement to collect such
fees had been implemented, we asked the Park Services' Special Uses
Program Manager to assist GAO in administering a data collection
instrument (DCI). The Park Services' Special Uses Program Manager sent
the DCI to each of the Park Service's 388 park units to obtain
information on the amount of filming and still photography activity
that would have been subject to location fees in fiscal year 2003. In
the DCI, we asked for information on activities specifically related to
the number of filming and still photography permits issued, the number
of days each permit was in effect, the number of people using the
permit, and whether the unit would have charged a location fee based on
current Park Service policy guidance. Park Service policy allows the
superintendents to waive fees under certain conditions, such as if the
permittee is a state, local, or federal government agency or a tribal
government, or if the superintendent determines that the use will
promote the mission of the Park Service or promote public safety,
health, or welfare. In our calculations to estimate forgone revenues,
we only used the permit activity reported by the park units where a
location fee would not have been waived. We received responses from 355
of 371 park units in our sample, giving a 96 percent response rate.
(Seventeen units were removed from the universe. See app. I for details
of our methodology.)
To estimate forgone revenues, we used the information collected from
respondents, along with the Forest Service's existing fee schedule used
in five of its nine regions for commercial filming and still
photography activities (see tables 2 and 3). We also used the Park
Service's draft fee schedule to provide an alternative estimate of
forgone revenues even though its fee schedule is not yet final (see
tables 4 and 5). Both schedules charge daily fees based on the number
of people participating in the activity; the Forest Service's fees are
lower for larger parties.
To develop the forgone revenue estimates for activities in fiscal year
2003, we multiplied the number of people using permits each day by the
corresponding Forest Service and Park Service fees when the park unit
would have charged fees for the permitted activities. For example, as
shown in table 6, we estimated forgone revenues for fiscal year 2003 of
$1,135,250 and $464,450 for commercial filming and still photography
activity, respectively, using the Forest Service fee schedule, for a
total of $1,599,700. By comparison, we estimated forgone revenues of
$1,292,850 and $750,950 for commercial filming and still photography
activity, respectively, using the Park Service proposed fee schedule,
for a total of $2,043,800. However, this schedule has not been approved
for use, and it is uncertain whether the amounts in the schedule would
have been applicable in fiscal year 2003.
Table 2: Forest Service Established Fee Schedule for Filming:
Number of people: 1-10;
Fee per day (dollars): $150.
Number of people: 11-30;
Fee per day (dollars): $200.
Number of people: 31-60;
Fee per day (dollars): $500.
Number of people: More than 60;
Fee per day (dollars): $600.
Source: Forest Service.
[End of table]
Table 3: Forest Service Established Fee Schedule for Still Photography:
Number of people: 1-10;
Fee per day (dollars): $50.
Number of people: 11-30;
Fee per day (dollars): $150.
Number of people: More than 30;
Fee per day (dollars): $250.
Source: Forest Service.
[End of table]
Table 4: Park Service Proposed Filming Location Fee Schedule:
Number of people: 1-10;
Fee per day (dollars): $150.
Number of people: 11-30;
Fee per day (dollars): $350.
Number of people: 31-50;
Fee per day (dollars): $650.
Number of people: 51-70;
Fee per day (dollars): $1,000.
Number of people: Over 70;
Fee per day (dollars): $1,500.
Source: National Park Service.
[End of table]
Table 5: Park Service Proposed Still Photography Location Fee Schedule:
Number of people: 1-10;
Fee per day (dollars): $100.
Number of people: 11-20;
Fee per day (dollars): $200.
Number of people: 21-30;
Fee per day (dollars): $300.
Number of people: Over 30;
Fee per day (dollars): $450.
Source: National Park Service.
[End of table]
Table 6: Estimates of Forgone Revenues, Fiscal Year 2003:
Commercial filming;
Forgone revenues: Forest Service location fee schedule: $1,135,250;
Forgone revenues: Park Service proposed location fee schedule:
$1,292,850.
Still photography;
Forgone revenues: Forest Service location fee schedule: $464,450;
Forgone revenues: Park Service proposed location fee schedule:
$750,950.
Total;
Forgone revenues: Forest Service location fee schedule: $1,599,700;
Forgone revenues: Park Service proposed location fee schedule:
$2,043,800.
Source: GAO analysis of Park Service data.
Note: Estimates are unadjusted for inflation. Analysis assumes that, in
general, permittees would have paid the fees had the fee schedule been
in effect. However, it is possible that some may have chosen to film at
relatively lower-cost sites elsewhere rather than pay these location
fees to the Park Service.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: Information on the 2003 National Football League Kickoff
Event:
In September 2003, the Park Service's National Capital Parks-Central
staff approved a permit for the National Football League (NFL) to hold
its annual kickoff event on the National Mall (Mall) in Washington,
D.C. The 4-day event was promoted as a welcome home for American
military troops. The Department of the Interior's Take Pride in America
initiative was listed as a partner in the event. The event was attended
by thousands of people--estimates ranged from 100,000 to 500,000--who
participated in football-related activities and attended performances
from a variety of entertainers. Public reaction to the event ranged
from "joy to anger," and many questions were raised about the event and
the Park Service's permitting process. Specifically, concerns were
raised about the appropriateness of permitting this event on the Mall,
the extent of commercial signage, limitations on public access, and
whether costs to repair damages to Mall resources and property were
recovered from the NFL.
Park Service guidance states that special events should "contribute to
visitor understanding of the significance of the park area."
Consequently, critics questioned whether the Mall was an appropriate
venue for an NFL kickoff event. The Mall is a two-mile greenway that
stretches from the U.S. Capitol on the east side to the Lincoln
Memorial on the west. The Mall is the setting for world-renowned
national museums, memorials, and significant federal buildings.
However, for many years the Mall has also been host to diverse events,
including fund-raisers, sports tournaments, and festivals as well as
hundreds of First Amendment activities. Park Service policy for special
events states that it "will not permit the public staging of special
events that are conducted primarily for the material or financial
benefit of organizers or participants; or are commercial in nature; or
that demand in-park advertising or publicity; or for which a separate
public admission fee is to be charged." Critics of the NFL kickoff
event asserted this was a commercial event that was conducted primarily
for the financial benefit of the NFL and the event's commercial
sponsors.
As discussed in this report, Park Service superintendents have a great
deal of discretion in applying the agency guidance for approving
permits. According to Park Service officials, the NFL kickoff event was
intended to honor members of America's armed forces and to promote
volunteerism on public lands. According to a September 3, 2003,
statement by the Secretary of the Interior, the NFL kickoff event was
"a wonderful opportunity to showcase public service by volunteers" who
put "their love of country to work to improve our national parks,
wildlife refuges, public lands, cultural and historic sites,
playgrounds and other recreation areas." In addition to setting up a
Take Pride in America booth at the event to recruit volunteers for this
program, public service announcements about Take Pride in America,
narrated by Washington Redskins players, were broadcast during the NFL
team's season opener. Finally, Park Service officials stated the
product-related signs were allowed as a form of sponsor recognition for
those companies underwriting the cost of the concert and other
activities that were all free to the public.
The 2003 NFL Kickoff Permit:
On May 7, 2003, a permit application for a season-opening event on the
Mall was submitted to the Park Service's National Capital Parks-Central
office by an NFL representative. In the application, the event was
described as a celebration of American treasures, heroes, places, and
pastimes. Following receipt of the application, numerous discussions
and planning meetings took place between Park Service and NFL
representatives. According to Park Service officials involved in these
meetings, the key issues addressed involved public safety and
protection of park resources.
Park Service permits for these types of events contain general
conditions such as the requirement to procure liability insurance that
lists the agency granting the permit as an insured party. In addition
to meeting the general conditions, the NFL was also required to acquire
certain permits from the District of Columbia through the city's
Emergency Management Agency, which coordinates with the Metropolitan
Police, the Fire Department, and other District agencies to assure the
NFL provided adequate emergency medical services such as first aid
stations and ambulances during the event. In late August 2003, National
Capital Parks-Central formally approved the agreed-upon terms and
conditions for the event by issuing the event permit. National Capital
Parks-Central officials continued to meet with NFL event planners to
reach agreement on last minute details of the event and a revised
permit was issued on September 3, 2003.
Due to the location of the event--the Mall--the NFL was required to
closely coordinate all security plans through the United States Park
Police (Park Police), which provided public safety and security for the
event and related activities. A condition of the permit stated that the
NFL was responsible for obtaining the necessary permissions and permits
from the Metropolitan Police Department and from other agencies and
departments with jurisdiction over the public lands not under the
jurisdiction of the Park Service. In addition, the Park Police used the
assistance of other law enforcement officers from federal, state, and
local agencies to provide sufficient staff and personnel to handle the
event. As required by the permit, the costs for providing law
enforcement officers, including Park Police, were reimbursed by the
NFL.
During and following the event, criticism was directed at the Park
Service over the lineup of entertainers, which included Aerosmith,
Britney Spears, and Aretha Franklin, as well as the content of some of
the performances. For example, some people did not consider specific
aspects of Britney Spears' show to be appropriate family entertainment
for an 8:00 p.m. broadcast. While Park Service policies state "the
theme of the special event must be consistent with the mission of the
park and appropriate to the park in which it is to be held," National
Capital Parks-Central officials stated they do not make "content-based
decisions on whether to permit" requested events.
Signage:
The NFL kickoff event was advertised as a welcome home celebration for
American soldiers--a tribute to the military personnel serving in Iraq
and Afghanistan--and an opportunity for people to gather and watch
popular entertainers for no charge. But to some observers, such as the
President of the National Coalition to Save Our Mall, it was a
"tasteless extravaganza of electronic advertising." Following the
event, criticisms directed at the Park Service for allowing commercial
signage on the Mall grew. Critics claimed there were contradictions
between the Park Service's policies and the activities that occurred
during the event. Some critics of the event claimed that most, if not
all, of the commercial signs should not have been displayed on the
Mall. One author, a former national park ranger who is the director of
a Washington, D.C.-based advocacy organization and former president of
the Conservation and Preservation Charities of America, concurred with
outraged critics over "the dimensions of the commercial displays that
had no legitimate place on the National Mall in the first place"--his
description of the giant product banners on the grounds between the
U.S. Capitol and the Lincoln Memorial.
According to the National Capital Parks-Central Superintendent, the
nationally televised event was a new experience for park staff and
resulted in many "lessons learned." Concerning the "excessive
commercial signage" described by some critics, the current
Superintendent, who was the Acting Superintendent at the Park in
September 2003, took responsibility for these issues and said she had
misunderstood the amount, type, and size of signage the NFL planned to
use. In the event permit, she noted, Park Service had not quantified
the number of sponsor recognition signs allowed because they had not
foreseen the need to do so. Consequently, there were also far more
banners and signs posted than the Park Service had anticipated.
Congress passed legislation putting new restrictions on permits issued
for the Mall. Public Law No. 108-108 prohibited the use of appropriated
funds in fiscal year 2004 for special event permits on the Mall, unless
the permit "expressly prohibits the erection, placement, or use of
structures and signs bearing commercial advertising." The law still
allowed for recognizing the sponsors of special events, providing "the
size and form of the recognition shall be consistent with the special
nature and sanctity of the Mall and any lettering or design identifying
the sponsor shall be no larger than one-third the size of the lettering
or design identifying the special event." As a result of this
legislation, the Park Service has drafted policy guidance to restrict
"the size, scale, scope and location of corporate logos and script." In
addition, National Capital Parks-Central officials now require permit
applicants to provide detailed lists of planned signage along with a
scaled replica of each sign to the Park Service for approval at least
30 days in advance of an event.
Public Access Restrictions:
Park Service regulations for the National Capital Region state that the
decision to issue a special event permit must be based on a
consideration of a number of factors, including whether the park area
requested is reasonably suited in terms of size, accessibility, and
nature of the event. The NFL kickoff event, although permitted, raised
a number of access issues. For example, while the permit for the event
stipulated that "all sidewalks, walkways, and roadways must remain
unobstructed to allow for the reasonable use of these areas by
pedestrians, vehicles, and other park visitors," some groups complained
that large portions of the Mall were inaccessible for days leading up
to the NFL event. Another condition of the permit stated "no vehicle
shall obstruct or interfere with the Tourmobile service that utilizes
Jefferson and Madison Drives, from 3rd to 14th Streets. However, the
National Tour Association Web page advised tour operators and
motorcoach drivers bound for Washington, D.C., to be aware of several
street closures and the closure of access to the Mall at noon on
September 4 in association with the NFL kickoff event. The Smithsonian
Institution museums remained open during the festival, but access was
not available from the regular Mall-side doors on the afternoon of the
NFL kickoff event. According to Park Service officials, these streets
were closed during the event for security reasons consistent with
security plans for other large-scale public gatherings on the Mall. The
Mall entrance to the Smithsonian Metro stop was also closed at noon on
the day of the NFL event by the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit
Authority for security reasons. In addition to addressing signage
limitations, Public Law 108-108 also stated that "the Secretary shall
ensure, to the maximum extent practicable, that public use of, and
access to the Mall is not restricted."
Resource Damage Cost Recovery:
There was significant turf and walkway damage to the Mall as a result
of the NFL kickoff event. Prior to the event, National Capital Parks-
Central officials required the permittee to provide irrevocable letters
of credit totaling $250,000 to cover event-related liabilities, such as
monitoring costs and potential resource damages as a result of the
event. The actual cost of the event far exceeded the Park Service's
estimated costs. According to a November 3, 2003, letter to the
permittee, the increase in damage recovery costs occurred in part due
to "the increase in the number and types of heavy equipment that were
utilized during the setup and break down of the event staging and other
facilities." The Superintendent noted that several days of heavy rain
also contributed to the higher-than-expected amount of damage to the
turf and walkways. However, a condition in the NFL kickoff event
permit--which is a standard condition in special event permits--
specifies that the permittee is liable for damage to the resource as a
result of the permitted activity. Consequently, after the NFL kickoff
event, the turf and walkway damage was assessed and the permittee was
notified of the damage along with the Park Service's estimate of repair
costs. The NFL ultimately reimbursed the Park Service over $430,000 to
cover both event monitoring costs and to repair resource damages
(primarily to turf and sod).
The NFL reimbursed the Park Police almost $700,000 to cover the cost
for security personnel for the NFL event. Prior to the event, the NFL
posted a letter of credit for the Park Police in the amount of
$1,150,000. The actual expenses charged for Park Police support of
operations relating to the NFL kickoff permit totaled $698,625. The
inclement weather was cited by Park Police officials as a factor in
their reduced costs, because fewer participants showed up at the event
and fewer people stayed late. This resulted in fewer required security
personnel than originally anticipated and with fewer actual hours of
monitoring.
Reimbursement was not sought from the NFL for the time both Park
Service and Park Police officials spent in planning meetings for the
2003 NFL kickoff event. The practice of the National Capital Region--to
limit charges for administration of permits to cost recovery for
overtime expenses--was based on a mid-1990s unwritten legal opinion
from the Solicitor's Office at the Department of the Interior. National
Capital Parks-Central officials told us they viewed time spent in event-
planning meetings and in processing the permit paperwork as a
"budgeted" or sunk cost. In February 2005, Interior's Office of
Solicitor revised its legal conclusion and recommendation on this
matter and advised both Park Service and Park Police officials in the
National Capital Region to re-examine this practice in order to come
into better compliance with cost recovery policy guidance.
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of the Interior:
United States Department of the Interior:
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY:
Washington, DC 20240:
APR 25 2005:
Ms. Robin M. Nazzaro:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, N.W.:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Ms. Nazzaro:
Thank you for providing the Department of the Interior the opportunity
to review and comment on the draft U.S. Government Accountability
Office report entitled: "National Park Service: Revenues Could Increase
by Charging Allowed Fee for Some Special Use Permits" (GAO-05-410).
Specific comments are listed in the enclosure. If you have any further
questions, please contact Lee Dickinson, Special Park Use Program
Manager, at 202-513-7092.
Sincerely,
Signed by the:
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks:
Enclosure:
Enclosure:
Department of the Interior Comments on the GAO Draft Report entitled,
"National Park Service: Revenues Could Increase by Charging Allowed Fee
for Some Special Use Permits" (GAO-05-410):
Special Park Use Manager (WASO), Office of Solicitor, Division of Parks
Wildlife Superintendent, Independence National Historical Park, Blue
Ridge Parkway have reviewed the above titled draft document and offer
the following comments for your consideration and action:
General Comments:
Comment on Monitoring Costs for Special Park Use Permits. Many times in
the report it is stated that the National Park Service (NPS) failed to
recover the full cost of monitoring permitted activities. While this is
undoubtedly true in some cases, there are also cases where monitoring
was conducted as part of routine operations. The permittee did not
benefit from special services, since the park ranger monitored the
permitted event, as well as other activities in the immediate area, as
part of their routine duties. When this is the case it did not seem
appropriate to charge cost recovery when special services were
performed. (An example of this is the comment about Blue Ridge on page
3.)
NPS policy guidance is quoted throughout the document without footnote
or documentation. I question whether these quotes need an attribution
to management Policies 2001, Resource Manual 53, or other policy and
guidance documents. I would like to see a reference to Resource Manual
53 somewhere in the GAO report to point readers to the location of most
of the policy guidance. Maybe provide a web site (www.nps.gov/policy/
DOrders/RM53.zip).
page 7 - footnote "2" is not needed. The same information is supplied
in the next paragraph. If the footnote is left in the definition for
special use permits should be expanded to include all types of special
use permits including rights-of-way, grazing, agricultural use, filming
and photography, etc. The term should be changed to special event
permits, making the definition more accurate.
page 11 - middle of the page. Fourth bullet - replace ";or" with a
period.
page 14 - I'm not sure that it is clear what the term "administrative
fee" covers, and I'm not sure that the term is used consistently
throughout the report. I believe it is being used in this report to
cover costs incurred by the NPS associated with the processing of a
permit application up to the time the permitted activity starts. The
second paragraph reads "Administrative fees are based on the actual
cost incurred by park unit involved in overseeing the permit activity
and should..." If one uses my definition of "administrative fee" this
sentence is then wrong. The administrative fee does not cover the
permitted activity. Monitoring the permitted activity and any resource
restoration that needs to be done is included in the monitoring charge.
In the first paragraph that discusses the National Capital Region and
the National Football League event and the filming of National
Treasures while it is true that costs were not recovered for processing
the request, costs were collected for overtime associated with the
events themselves. Would a definition section add to the report?
page 15 -16 - This is the section that uses Yellowstone as an example
of the role of the permit monitor. While we think the description of
the purpose of this monitor is quite good, we don't think it is
complete enough. There are two additional reasons for the permit
monitor: (1) To ensure the safety of both the permittee and the public
and (2) to ensure that the permitted activity does not interfere with
normal visitor activities.
page 19 - Section reads "Law requiring the collection of Location Fees
has not Been Implemented"
The last line of the first paragraph is misleading. We would recommend
that it be reworded to read:
"Authority existed prior to the passage of P.L. 106-206 for the Bureau
Land Management (BLM) and the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to charge
location fees for filming and photography and they continue to use
existing location fee schedules and policy while the new regulation and
fee schedule are developed. Prior to the passage of P.L. 106-206 the
FWS and the NPS were barred from collecting a location fee for filming
and photography, and require the promulgation of the new regulation to
allow them to do so. The new regulation will apply to specific agencies
in the Department of the Interior, (DOI) currently BLM, FWS, and NPS,
and is drafted to allow other DOI agencies to adopt the regulation in
the future if desired. The Department of the Interior agencies are
working in a collaborative process with the FS to develop a fee
schedule for all four agencies to use."
In the second paragraph I would add "....with representatives from each
of the four affected agencies to develop regulations and a fee
schedule." since the FS will not be affected by the regulation just the
fee schedule.
Last line, second paragraph "According to official at DOI ... in each
agency and they plan..." I would replace the word department with
agency.
page 35 - The title of the organization quoted "Conservation and
Preservation Federation of America" should be "Conservation and
Preservation Charities of America". The director of this organization
is quoted as describing banners on the grounds between the U.S. Capitol
and the Lincoln Memorial. The NFL event occurred on the Mall from 3rd
Street to 12TH Street. There were no banners past 12TH Street on the
grounds of any of the memorials or on the Capitol grounds.
Office of the Solicitor, Division of Parks and Wildlife:
General comment: the report seems to be citing the NPS general
regulations for special events as applicable to NCR, which is
incorrect. The NPS general regulations for special events at 36 CFR
2.50 provide that a permitted event should not "result in significant
conflict with other existing uses" or "unreasonable interfere" with
park interpretative, visitor service or other park program activities,
or "unreasonable impair" a park's atmosphere. But the NPS regulatory
criteria at 36 CFR 2.50 is inapplicable for NCR and are not the same as
the NPS NCR regulatory criteria for special events found at 36 CFR
7.96(g)(5)(vi) which states:
(vi) Special events are not permitted unless approved by the Regional
Director. In determining whether to approve a proposed special event,
the Regional Director shall consider and base the determination upon
the following criteria:
(A) Whether the objectives and purposes of the proposed special event
relate to and are within the basic mission and responsibilities of the
National Capital Region, National Park Service.
(B) Whether the park area requested is reasonably suited in terms of
accessibility, size, and nature of the proposed special event.
(C) Whether the proposed special event can be permitted within a
reasonable budgetary allocation of National Park Service funds
considering the event's public appeal, and the anticipated
participation of the general public therein.
(D) Whether the proposed event is duplicative of events previously
offered in National Capital Region or elsewhere in or about Washington,
DC.
(E) Whether the activities contemplated for the proposed special event
are in conformity with all applicable laws and regulations.
Page 1-middle of the first paragraph - "Because of some complaints that
there was extensive commercial advertising and some damage to the
Mall..."
Page 8/9 - footnote 5 "Park Service general regulations for most park
units is found at 36 CFR 2.50. Other special regulations govern certain
park units... permit processing, and permit limitations for special
events, which for the National Capital Region are found at 36 CFR
7.96(g)"
Page 8 - Guidance on Special Events:
Park Service policy guidance gives superintendents discretion when
approving permits for special events within their park units, providing
they meet basic criteria set forth under NPS regulations. For most park
areas the basic regulatory criteria for issuing a permit for these
events include the requirements that (1) there is a meaningful
association between the park area and the event and (2) the event will
contribute to the visitor:
understanding of the significance of the park area. Additional
regulatory requirements provide that a permit may be denied (1) if the
activities would cause injury or damage to the park resource (2) is
contrary to the purpose for which the park was established or
unreasonably impair the atmosphere (3) unreasonably interfere with park
interpretive, visitor services or administration (4) substantially
impair the operation of public use facilities or concessioners (5)
present a clear and present danger to the public health and safety (6)
or result in significant conflict with other existing uses. (36 CFR
2.50 (a) (1-6). For the National Capital Region, the basic regulatory
criteria include the requirements at 36 CFR 7.96(g)(5)(vi) that (1)
whether the objective and purpose of the proposed special event relate
to and are within the regions basic mission and responsibilities (2)
whether the requested park area is reasonably suited in terms of
accessibility, size and nature (3) whether it is within the NPS's
reasonable budgetary allocation and (4) whether it is duplicative of
previous offered events (5) whether it is conformity with applicable
laws and regulations.
Page 9 - first paragraph "However, discrete recognition of program
sponsors that was authorized was similar to National Capital Region
policy. As a result, Park Service's National Capital Region has
restated its earlier drafted policy guidance, all park units, ...
sponsors which will continue to restrict size, scale, scope and
location..."
Page 12 - first paragraph, last line - "However, unlike other special
events permits and consistent with the First Amendment, the
superintendent is required by Park Service policies to issue these
permits without any requirement for fees, cost recovery, bonding or
insurance."
Page 36 -:
Public Access Restrictions - A general comment. This section refers to
Park Service policy guidance that directs superintendents to not allow
special events that "unreasonably interfere" with other appropriate
park uses. This is found in 36 CFR 2.50(a)(3). NCR special regulations
do not have these criteria, but are based on "whether the park area
requested is reasonably suited in terms of accessibility, size, and
nature of the proposed special event". 36 CFR 7.96(g)(vi)(B):
Office of Congressional and Legislative Affairs, Department of the
Interior:
Highlights page - last paragraph "The Park Service has not implements
.... resulting in significant annual foregone revenues." The commenter
did not agree with the use of the word "significant" but agrees that
revenues were not collected.
Page 4 - last paragraph, first sentence ... not fully recovering costs
for special events and for commercial filming and still photography..."
The word commercial needs to be added.
Page 7 - paragraph that begins "special events permits are issued for
... : The comment suggests moving the next line to the beginning of the
paragraph so it is clear to the reader immediately.
National Capital Parks - Central:
Words in bold are suggested additions or changes.
Highlights page - second paragraph, last line "Officials said that Park
Units had not spent the time to updated fees because of regional policy
and the high work load..." Commenter requests the addition of the words
"regional policy".
Abbreviations: please change NCPC to NACC:
Page 2 - Results in Brief - "With regard to the 2003 NFL Kickoff
event... quantity of sponsor recognition to be displayed..." Commenter
requests that -0-A:
commercial signage by changed to sponsor recognition.
Page 2/3 - last sentence - "In 2004, the Congress passed legislation...
although were Superintendent was authorized to approve..." Commenter
requests that Superintendents were be changed to Superintendent was.
Page 4 - first sentence - "...Department of the Interior's Solicitor's
Office and as a result, it has modified its guidance and has initiated
..." Please add modified its guidance.
Page 13, footnote 9 - Please add "is assessed a $50 flat fee for
administration and monitoring."
Page 14 - first line "National Capital Parks - Central charge no
administration fees for permitting special uses except for permits that
require a bond."
End of the first paragraph "As a result of GAO bringing this issue to
the attention of the DOI Solicitor's Office, the Solicitor's Office
modified its guidance and directed the National Capital Region..."
Page 18 - footnote 11-commenter requested the wording to be changed to
"was 15 percent of the estimated over 1,400 permits."
Page 20 last sentence of section Proposed Location Fee Schedule...
Commenter requests that statement be revised. Of those 320 filming
permits with 300 people for 8 days 99% of those filming permits were
for educational tour group photographs in front of the U.S. Capitol
which only took 30 minutes to photograph. We did not have any major
picture/TV series film shoots which lasted more than 2 days shooting
time on NPS property in FY 2003.
Page 21 Conclusion - "this is particularly evident in the National
Capital Region where only recently has consideration been given to
charging administrative fees to recover costs on permits not requiring
a bond."
Page 33 bottom of the page "...the NFL was also required to acquire
certain permits from the District of Columbia through the city's
Emergency Management Agency who coordinates with the Metropolitan
Police, DC Fire Department and other DC agencies to assure the NFL
provided adequate..."
Page 34 third paragraph, last line "National Capital Parks - Central
officials stated that based on NIPS regulations and court rulings they
do not make "content based decisions on whether to permit" requested
events.
Page 36 "According to Park Service officials, these streets were closed
during the event for security reasons consistent with security plans
for other large scale public gatherings on the National Mall, such as
the annual Independence Day celebration and the recent dedication of
the World War II Memorial."
Blue Ridge Parkway - The information related to the Blue Ridge Parkway
is accurate but I do have one comment regarding the recovery of
monitoring costs. While it is correct that we only recovered costs by
billing from 8 of 28 events; there are some of the events we permitted
in 2003 that were so low impact that park rangers checked on the event
as a part of routine patrol and the costs were not significant enough
or there actually were no costs to us to process billing.
Independence National Historical Park - Independence NHP plans to
implement an increase in the permit administrative fee this year to
fully recover costs incurred. Administrative costs will be reevaluated
annually.
The following are GAO's comments on the Department of the Interior's
letter dated April 25, 2005.
GAO Comments:
1. We added the Special Park Uses Manager's comment about the
appropriateness of charging cost recovery when the monitoring was
conducted as part of routine operations, in footnote 8 on page 10.
However, based on our review of permit documentation and discussions
with officials at Blue Ridge Parkway, this circumstance did not exist
at Blue Ridge Parkway. Thus, no change to the example on page 3 is
needed.
2. We have included the Reference Manual 53 Web site address in
footnote 10 on page 13, so that readers can more easily seek out Park
Service policy guidance.
3. We agree that further definition of the term "administrative fee" is
warranted. As a result, we added clarifying text and a footnote to page
13 to more explicitly describe permit processing costs included in
administrative fees. (See footnote 10.)
4. While it is true that FWS and Park Service were barred from
collecting a location fee for filming and photography prior to the
passage of the Commercial Filming Law, this was a regulatory
prohibition instituted by the agency itself. The Commercial Filming Law
effectively repealed that prohibition.
5. Park Service regulations are cited in footnote 4 on page 8;
consequently, including a lengthy excerpt from the regulations in the
text is unnecessary.
6. See GAO comment 5.
7. We have removed the reference to the general Park Service
regulations and modified the text on page 34 to describe the specific
regulations associated with the National Capital Region's permitting of
the NFL event and public access restrictions.
8. See GAO comment 1.
[End of section]
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Robin M. Nazzaro, (202) 512-3841:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to those named above, John Delicath, Doreen Feldman,
Timothy Guinane, Julian Klazkin, Roy Judy, Diane Lund, Judy Pagano,
Paul Staley, and Mary Welch made key contributions to this report.
Darren Goode, Robert Martin, Miguel Lujan, Glenn Slocum, and John
Warner made significant contributions related to cost accounting issues
during this review. Kevin Bailey, Denton Herring, and Matthew Reinhart
made important graphic or data input contributions to the report.
(360458):
FOOTNOTES
[1] According to National Capital Parks-Central officials, a public
gathering permit, rather than a special park uses permit, is issued by
their unit in response to a request for either a demonstration or a
special event.
[2] 16 U.S.C. §3a.
[3] Pub. L. No. 106-206 (2000), codified at 16 U.S.C. §460l-6d. The
Park Service refers to this as the Commercial Filming Law.
[4] Park Service general regulations for most park units are found at
36 C.F.R. §2.50. Other special regulations govern certain park units
and include specific guidance on activities applicable to that
particular unit, including some special permits. For example, the
section specific to the National Capital Region includes subsections on
permit requirements, permit applications, permit processing, and permit
limitations. 36 C.F.R. §7.96(g)(2),(3),(4), and (5)(2004).
[5] Department of Interior and Related Agencies Appropriation Act,
2004, Pub. L. No. 108-108 §145. The appropriation act restrictions are
limited to expenditures in fiscal year 2004.
[6] Breaking news is an event that cannot be covered at any other time
or location, according to Park Service guidance.
[7] As of May 2000, this was required by law for filming activities.
Recovery of costs in general was authorized prior to 2000. See 16
U.S.C. §3a.
[8] According to the Special Park Uses Program Manager, there are also
cases where monitoring was conducted as part of routine operations and
when this was the case, "it did not seem appropriate to charge cost
recovery."
[9] See appendix III for additional information on the 2003 NFL kickoff
event.
[10] According to Park Service Reference Manual 53, these costs may
include environmental (National Environmental Policy Act), cultural
(National Historic Preservation Act), and other compliance and
approval, as appropriate, as well as meetings, travel, clerical, public
health inspection and certification, and other cost factors.
Administrative charges should reflect an accurate calculation of the
actual costs associated with the administrative process of decision
and, if approved, preparation of the permit. See full text of reference
manual at www.nps.gov/policy/DOrders/RM53.zip).
[11] Independence National Historical Park officials stated they plan
to re-evaluate this fee annually.
[12] National Capital Parks-Central officials were uncertain about how
often they required a permittee to post a bond. Of the 1,400-plus
permits issued in fiscal year 2003, park officials estimated that 15
percent were required to have a bond.
[13] To develop this estimate, GAO used the criteria currently in use
by the Forest Service, which closely resemble the criteria specified in
the law for the Park Service to use. The analysis presumes permittees
would have paid the fees instead of choosing to film at relatively
lower cost sites. See appendix II.
[14] Secretary refers to the Secretary of the Interior for the Bureau
of Land Management, National Park Service, and Fish and Wildlife
Service and the Secretary of Agriculture for the Forest Service.
[15] Appendix II contains the Forest Service-established location fee
schedule for commercial filming and still photography.
[16] The six park units visited are Blue Ridge Parkway, Golden Gate
National Recreation Area, Independence National Historical Park,
Jefferson National Expansion Memorial, National Capital Parks-Central,
and Yellowstone National Park.
[17] Results from nonprobability samples cannot be used to make
inferences about a population, because in a nonprobability sample, some
elements of the population being studied have no chance or an unknown
chance of being selected as part of the sample.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability 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 e-mail alerts" under the "Order
GAO Products" 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. Government Accountability 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. Government Accountability Office,
441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548:
