National Park Service
Opportunities Exist to Clarify and Strengthen Special Uses Permit Guidance on Setting Grazing Fees and Cost-Recovery Gao ID: GAO-06-355R February 9, 2006In our September 2005 report, Livestock Grazing: Federal Expenditures and Receipts Vary, Depending on the Agency and the Purpose of the Fee Charged, we reported that the National Park Service (Park Service) allowed livestock grazing on nearly 1.6 million acres at 31 park units. To manage grazing on their lands, the park units spent at least $410,000 in fiscal year 2004, which included activities such as fence maintenance, personnel, and monitoring resource conditions; they also collected about $196,000 in receipts from ranchers for the privilege of grazing livestock on Park Service lands. In fiscal year 2004, the park units retained about $192,000, or 98 percent, of the receipts collected. During the course of our work, we found that the park units were not consistently implementing the Park Service's special uses permit guidance for fee-setting and cost-recovery. This letter presents the results of our further evaluation of the park units' efforts to manage grazing permits on their lands and makes recommendations to strengthen the Park Service's guidance for setting fees, recovering costs, and retaining funds. This letter discusses (1) the fees that park units charge for grazing permits and (2) reporting and retaining of cost-recovery amounts from grazing permits.
The park units use different approaches when setting grazing fees. Although the Park Service's special uses permit guidance directs park units to charge grazing fees based on two amounts--a land and facility fee plus an amount to recover costs--we found that none of the 31 park units appeared to have followed the Park Service's guidance. Some of the park units have not implemented the guidance on setting grazing fees, in part because they believe that the guidance calls for a fee that is higher than market value and that such a fee would discourage grazing. The Park Service is reviewing its guidance and the fee that it should charge. In reviewing Park Service guidance, we identified questions about the Park Service's fee structure, which we have raised with the Solicitor's Office of the Department of the Interior. For this reason, we are recommending that the Park Service revise its guidance to reflect the resolution we reached with the Solicitor's Office regarding the authority for the Park Service's fee structure. Many of the park units are retaining receipts in excess of what they reported as cost-recovery amounts for managing the grazing program. For example, officials at Gettysburg National Military Park and Eisenhower National Historic Site in Pennsylvania indicated that each location deposited $1,350 in grazing fees for use by the park unit; however, both park units reported no cost-recovery amounts and no expenditures for grazing permits. If park units do not calculate and document cost-recovery amounts, the Park Service cannot ensure that they are only retaining the funds they are authorized to retain. As a result, we are recommending that the Park Service develop strategies to better ensure that the park units calculate and document cost-recovery amounts.
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-06-355R, National Park Service: Opportunities Exist to Clarify and Strengthen Special Uses Permit Guidance on Setting Grazing Fees and Cost-Recovery
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-06-355R
entitled 'National Park Service: Opportunities Exist to Clarify and
Strengthen Special Uses Permit Guidance on Setting Grazing Fees and
Cost-Recovery' which was released on February 9, 2006.
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.
February 9, 2006:
The Honorable Fran P. Mainella:
Director, National Park Service:
Subject: National Park Service: Opportunities Exist to Clarify and
Strengthen Special Uses Permit Guidance on Setting Grazing Fees and
Cost-Recovery:
Dear Ms. Mainella:
In our September 2005 report, Livestock Grazing: Federal Expenditures
and Receipts Vary, Depending on the Agency and the Purpose of the Fee
Charged,[Footnote 1] we reported that the National Park Service (Park
Service) allowed livestock grazing on nearly 1.6 million acres at 31
park units.[Footnote 2] To manage grazing on their lands, the park
units spent at least $410,000 in fiscal year 2004, which included
activities such as fence maintenance, personnel, and monitoring
resource conditions; they also collected about $196,000 in receipts
from ranchers for the privilege of grazing livestock on Park Service
lands. In fiscal year 2004, the park units retained about $192,000, or
98 percent, of the receipts collected. During the course of our work,
we found that the park units were not consistently implementing the
Park Service's special uses permit guidance for fee-setting and cost-
recovery. This letter presents the results of our further evaluation of
the park units' efforts to manage grazing permits on their lands and
makes recommendations to strengthen the Park Service's guidance for
setting fees, recovering costs, and retaining funds.
The Park Service allows limited livestock grazing on its lands as (1)
specifically authorized by federal law; (2) required under a
reservation of rights arising from the acquisition of land; or (3)
designated when conducted as a necessary and integral part of a
recreational activity or required to maintain a historic
scene.[Footnote 3] For example, the Park Service allows grazing along
the Blue Ridge Parkway in Virginia and North Carolina, and at the
Appomattox Court House National Historical Park, also in Virginia, to
help maintain a historic scene.
Generally, different fees--cost-recovery fees, market fees, or other
fees--are structured to achieve different purposes and have different
advantages and disadvantages. For example, a cost-recovery fee might
recover most or all of an agency's costs related to a program, but it
might also be higher than a fee charged for a different purpose. In
contrast, a market fee depends on the ability of an agency to analyze
market rates and may not recover all of an agency's costs.
Park Service guidance provides direction to individual park units on
setting fees for special uses, including grazing. The Park Service has
three levels of guidance documents:
* Management Policies 2001, which serves as the agencywide policy
document and is the highest of three levels of guidance documents.
Adherence to this guidance is mandatory unless specifically waived or
modified by the Secretary, Assistant Secretary, or Director.
* Director's Orders, which are interim updates or amendments to
Management Policies and which serve as a vehicle to clarify or
supplement Management Policies to meet the needs of Park Service
managers.
* Additional guidance, such as reference manuals, which provide the
most detailed and comprehensive guidance on implementing agency policy.
Management Policies states that fees to recover costs will be imposed
for special uses permits and that, when appropriate, the Park Service
will also include a fair charge for the use of its lands or facilities.
Director's Order 53 and Reference Manual 53 provide more specific
guidance to the park units about setting these fees. Specifically,
Director's Order 53 briefly describes the fee that park units are to
charge for special uses, including grazing, and states that charges
should reflect the fair market value of the use requested. The order
states that the fee should consist of two amounts: (1) the value of the
land or facility, plus (2) the Park Service's costs for managing or
supporting the use. Reference Manual 53 states that the fee charged for
the use of facilities, resources, or property should be based on
comparable prices in the area--the market price.[Footnote 4]
Furthermore, Reference Manual 53 provides examples of costs that can be
recovered and states that each park unit will establish and maintain a
written record documenting how costs and charges are established for
each permit issued. As stated in the manual, cost-recovery will be
based on actual amounts as determined by the cost-recovery records for
each permit; the manual also contains a sample form that park units may
use to itemize and record estimated costs.[Footnote 5]
As the statutory basis for the fees to be charged, Park Service
guidance refers to both 16 U.S.C. § 3a and the Independent Offices
Appropriations Act. Under 16 U.S.C. § 3a, the Park Service is
authorized to recover and retain all costs of providing necessary
services associated with special uses permits, which would include
grazing permits. The Independent Offices Appropriations Act, codified
at 31 U.S.C. § 9701, authorizes federal agencies to charge user fees in
certain situations.
This letter discusses (1) the fees that park units charge for grazing
permits and (2) reporting and retaining of cost-recovery amounts from
grazing permits. This letter does not address questions relating to the
underlying legal authority for fees that park units charge under the
above statutes. That issue is being explored separately with the
Department of the Interior's Solicitor's Office and will be reflected
in a separate GAO decision.[Footnote 6] As stated earlier, we
identified inconsistencies in the cost-recovery amounts reported and
retained by park units while conducting work for our September 2005
study on grazing on lands managed by 10 different federal agencies,
including the Park Service. To conduct that work, we interviewed agency
officials about the management of their grazing programs and reviewed
relevant agency documents, laws, and policies. In addition, we
collected data on the extent of grazing on lands managed by the 10
agencies, expenditures on the agencies' grazing programs, receipts
generated by the agencies' grazing programs, and grazing fees charged
by the agencies. At the Park Service, specifically, we worked with
agency officials to design, pretest, distribute, review, and summarize
a data collection instrument that reported data on livestock grazing
activities for fiscal year 2004. We gathered data on the extent of
grazing, expenditures, receipts, fees, and cost-recovery amounts from
31 national park units that have grazing on the lands they manage. Cost-
recovery amounts refer to the costs of providing necessary services
associated with grazing permits that may be recovered and retained
under 16 U.S.C. § 3a. To analyze the data, we compared fees, receipts,
expenditures, and cost-recovery amounts. We discussed several
inconsistencies with both park unit and headquarters staff. In
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards, we
conducted our review for the September 2005 grazing report between
August 2004 and July 2005, and conducted follow-up work with the Park
Service between October and December 2005 for this report.
In summary:
The park units use different approaches when setting grazing fees.
Although the Park Service's special uses permit guidance directs park
units to charge grazing fees based on two amounts--a land and facility
fee plus an amount to recover costs--we found that none of the 31 park
units appeared to have followed the Park Service's guidance. Some of
the park units have not implemented the guidance on setting grazing
fees, in part because they believe that the guidance calls for a fee
that is higher than market value and that such a fee would discourage
grazing. The Park Service is reviewing its guidance and the fee that it
should charge. In reviewing Park Service guidance, we identified
questions about the Park Service's fee structure, which we have raised
with the Solicitor's Office of the Department of the Interior. For this
reason, we are recommending that the Park Service revise its guidance
to reflect the resolution we reached with the Solicitor's Office
regarding the authority for the Park Service's fee structure.
Many of the park units are retaining receipts in excess of what they
reported as cost-recovery amounts for managing the grazing program. For
example, officials at Gettysburg National Military Park and Eisenhower
National Historic Site in Pennsylvania indicated that each location
deposited $1,350 in grazing fees for use by the park unit; however,
both park units reported no cost-recovery amounts and no expenditures
for grazing permits. If park units do not calculate and document cost-
recovery amounts, the Park Service cannot ensure that they are only
retaining the funds they are authorized to retain. As a result, we are
recommending that the Park Service develop strategies to better ensure
that the park units calculate and document cost-recovery amounts.
Park Units Use Different Approaches When Setting Grazing Fees:
In our review of Park Service grazing permits for fiscal year 2004, we
found that park units used different approaches when setting grazing
fees. Park Service guidance directs park units to charge fees based on
two amounts--a "lands and facilities" fee plus an amount to recover
costs. None of the 31 park units with grazing programs had charged fees
based on this fee structure. In reviewing Park Service grazing fee
guidance, we identified questions about this fee structure, which we
have raised with the Solicitor's Office of the Department of the
Interior.
The park units each charged a fee that, in some cases, was based on
market value, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) fee, or a fixed
amount (see encl. I). For example:
* Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area, in Washington State, charged
a two-part fee consisting of (1) the BLM grazing fee, plus (2) a $35
fee to recover administrative costs. However, according to a park unit
official, this $35 fee does not recover the park unit's full costs for
grazing, which would be cost prohibitive and would perhaps prevent
grazing.
* Point Reyes National Seashore, in northern California, charged a fee
for grazing based on market rates for grazing fees. The park unit
recovered its costs from the grazing receipts generated and did not
charge an additional fee to recover those costs.
* Dinosaur National Monument in Colorado and Utah and the City of Rocks
National Reserve in Idaho set fees based on the BLM rate, which was set
at $1.35 per animal unit month (AUM--the amount of forage a cow and her
calf can eat in a month) in fiscal year 2003.
* Eisenhower National Historic Site and Gettysburg National Military
Park in Pennsylvania charged a fixed amount of $25 per acre.
* Capitol Reef National Park in Utah charged $1.35 per AUM in fiscal
year 2004--the same price charged by BLM for grazing in fiscal year
2003.
Some park units did not implement the fee structure in the Park Service
guidance because they did not want to charge higher fees for grazing.
According to the program manager of the special uses permit program,
the fee structure described in Reference Manual 53 was established to
charge a premium for grazing on Park Service lands by recovering costs
in addition to a market fee charged for the lands and facilities used
for grazing. Park unit staff told us that they did not want to charge a
fee as described in the guidance because it would mean charging higher
fees--perhaps fees that are higher than market value. For example,
Point Reyes National Park already charges a market-based rate for
grazing. If it were to add a cost-recovery amount to this current
market-based fee, the total fee would exceed the market value of
grazing fees in the area. Park unit staff stated that charging more
than market value would likely reduce grazing, which they do not want
to do because they are directed to work with local ranchers to maintain
grazing. Other park unit officials indicated that they want to maintain
grazing because the park unit derives benefits, such as controlling
vegetation.
Currently, the Park Service is updating its special uses permit
guidance. The Park Service is rethinking the fee structure and is
considering alternatives. As of January 2006, the Park Service's fee
structure in the draft guidance was the same as in the previous
guidance.[Footnote 7]
Park Units Retained Grazing Receipts in Excess of Reported Cost-
Recovery Amounts:
Many park units retained grazing permit receipts that exceeded the cost-
recovery amounts they reported. Specifically, 17 of the 25 park units
that charged a grazing fee retained all or some portion of grazing
receipts for park unit use but did not document full cost- recovery
amounts.[Footnote 8] Of these 17 park units, 8 reported that they did
not know the cost-recovery amounts, 7 reported no cost- recovery
amounts, and 2 reported some cost-recovery amounts that were less than
the grazing receipts they retained.[Footnote 9] For example:
* Grand Teton National Park retained over $4,000 in grazing receipts
for park use, but did not know its cost-recovery amounts.
* Blue Ridge National Parkway in North Carolina and Virginia reported
$21,068 in grazing receipts and retained the total amount for its use.
Despite showing $30,000 in expenditures, the park unit did not report
any cost-recovery amounts. Similarly, both Gettysburg National Military
Park and Eisenhower National Historic Site in Pennsylvania indicated
that each location deposited $1,350 in grazing fees for use by the
park. Both park units reported no cost-recovery amounts and no
expenditures for grazing permits.
* Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park in Maryland and
West Virginia retained all $3,999.50 in grazing receipts, but only
reported a cost-recovery amount of $700.00. Although the cost-recovery
amount was significantly less than receipts and the park unit reported
that it did not know its expenditures on grazing, the park unit
retained all receipts for its use.
Enclosure I contains detailed information on the 31 park units that
allow grazing on the lands they manage.
Under 16 U.S.C. § 3a, the Park Service is authorized to recover and
retain all costs of providing necessary services associated with the
special uses permits, including grazing permits. Absent additional
authority to retain grazing receipts, any amounts retained in excess of
cost-recovery amounts at these 17 park units should not have been
retained by the Park Service. However, according to the Park Service
program manager, at least some of these park units actually did have
other costs of providing services associated with grazing permits but
did not report the costs to us.
Calculation and documentation of cost-recovery amounts is an important
internal control measure because the lack of such calculation and
documentation may lead to the improper retention of grazing receipts.
The inconsistent responses from park unit officials indicate a lack of
understanding of cost-recovery--how to calculate cost-recovery amounts
or how to properly document the amounts to be retained for park unit
use. For example, officials at two park units--Buffalo National River
in Arkansas and Glen Canyon National Recreation Area in Arizona and
Utah--stated that they did not understand what was meant by "cost-
recovery." If the park units do not calculate and document cost-
recovery amounts, the Park Service cannot ensure that they are
retaining funds that they are authorized to retain.
From our work, we do not fully know whether park units have maintained
documentation of how they established their cost-recovery amounts.
According to the program manager of the special uses permit program,
training has increased in the last few years and about half the park
units have received some training. However, the manager noted that
because employee turnover is high, additional training is needed.
Conclusions:
The Park Service has not fully implemented its special uses permit
guidance as it applies to setting grazing fees and cost-recovery.
However, our review of the guidance raises questions about whether the
guidance should be reemphasized until it is revised. With regard to
cost-recovery, not all of the park units with grazing reported cost-
recovery amounts for the funds they retained, indicating a potential
lack of internal controls over these funds. In revising its guidance,
the Park Service has an opportunity to (1) ensure that the guidance
complies with statutory authority and (2) identify reasons for the park
units' lack of information on cost-recovery and take steps to ensure
park units properly calculate and document cost-recovery amounts.
Recommendations:
As the Park Service revises its guidance on fees for special uses
permits, it should ensure that the guidance reflects the resolution we
reached with the Solicitor's Office regarding the authority for the
Park Service's fee structure.
Furthermore, the Park Service needs to develop strategies to better
ensure that the park units calculate and document cost-recovery
amounts.
We discussed our analysis, conclusions, and recommendations with the
programmanager for the special uses permit program. Although the
manager believes that some park units may have underreported cost-
recovery amounts, she agreed with our overall findings and
recommendations and plans to consider them as she revises the draft
guidance.
We distributed copies of this letter to appropriate congressional
committees and other interested parties. The letter will also be
available at no charge on our Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this letter, please
contact me at (202) 512-3841 or nazzaror@gao.gov. Contact points for
our Offices of Public Affairs and Congressional Relations may be found
on the last page of this letter. GAO staff who made major contributions
to this letter include Andrea Wamstad Brown, Susan Iott, Tony Padilla,
Lesley Rinner, Carol Herrnstadt Shulman, and Amy Webbink.
Sincerely yours,
Signed by:
Robin M. Nazzaro:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
Enclosure I:
National Parks Reporting of Their Grazing Permit Expenditures, Fees,
Receipts, and Disbursements, Fiscal Year 2004:
[See PDF for image]
[A] Not known or reported.
[B] Not applicable.
[C] City of Rocks National Reserve in Idaho signed a cooperative
agreement with the Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation to manage
grazing on its lands. Fee revenues were provided to the state for its
management services.
[D] Grand Canyon Parashant National Monument is managed by both the
National Park Service and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Grazing
in the monument is managed under a memorandum of understanding between
the Park Service, the Bureau of Reclamation, and BLM. They charged the
BLM fee for grazing on these lands and deposited the funds in the U.S.
Treasury.
[E] The parks reported that they used authorities other than 16 U.S.C.
§ 3a , such as the National Historic Preservation Act, to retain
receipts.
[F] Capitol Reef had two permits, one which it managed and one which
the BLM managed. The fees charged for the BLM permit were deposited in
the U.S. Treasury, while the fees charged for the park permit were
deposited in the park's accounts.
[End of table]
(360639):
FOOTNOTES
[1] GAO-05-869 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 30, 2005).
[2] We use park units to refer to all units in the National Park
System, including national historic sites, memorials, monuments, parks,
recreation areas, and other designations.
[3] See 36 C.F.R. § 2.60. We have previously reported on management
concerns with National Park Service special use permits. GAO, National
Park Service: Revenues Could Increase by Charging Allowed Fees for Some
Special Uses Permits, GAO-05-410, (Washington D.C.: May 6, 2005). In
particular, we found that insufficient funds were being charged for
some special park uses--special events, commercial filming, and still
photography.
[4] The manual defines this market price as the "price for a good,
resource, or service that is based on competition in open markets and
creates neither a shortage nor a surplus of the good, resource, or
service." It also states that market price can be generated by
competitive bidding or by reference to prevailing prices in competitive
markets, if competition exists, and, if not, can be determined by
taking into account the prevailing prices and then making adjustments
so that there will be neither a shortage nor a surplus.
[5] Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards No. 4,
Managerial Cost Accounting Concepts and Standards for the Federal
Government, provides guidance for determining reliable information on
the full cost of federal programs, activities, and outputs for purposes
that include making managerial decisions such as setting fees and
prices.
[6] The Department of the Interior's (Interior) Office of the Solicitor
provides legal services to the Park Service, as well as other Interior
agencies. These services include drafting and legal review of
legislation, regulations, permits, and other documents, as well as
furnishing legal advice.
[7] The draft guidance states: "The Park Service should recover costs
and charge a lands and facilities fee for special use permits— [and]—
the Park Service should recover from the permittee all costs the agency
incurs administering and monitoring the permit. The lands and
facilities fee should reflect the market price of the use requested--
that is, the value of the lands or facilities used."
[8] Of the 31 park units that managed grazing in fiscal year 2004, 6
did not charge a fee at all. For example, in 2003, the Hawaii Volcanoes
National Park added 116,000 acres that had been part of a working
cattle operation. To prevent significant harm from invasive species and
to reduce potential fire from overgrowth, the park allowed the former
owners to temporarily continue cattle operations. The park is
developing a recovery plan that will allow it to gradually reclaim the
grazing areas and to phase out the cattle operation. Since the cattle
operation has been continued for the benefit of the park, the park
waived a fee.
[9] Of the eight remaining park units, four reported the same cost-
recovery amount as they retained, one reported that it did not know the
cost-recovery amount but retained funds for a local government under a
cooperative agreement, and three reported that they used other
authorities to retain the funds.
