In 2004, Congress passed REA, in part, as  a response to the suggestions and concerns documented in these previous  reports. Working Groups Formed to Foster Interagency Cooperation and Coordination on REA Implementation Issues Have Made Progress, but Some Issues Remain Unresolved

The four technical working groups formed by DOI and USDA to facilitate  interagency cooperation and coordination on specific REA implementation  issues have made progress. In addition, the working  group has not determined the price to charge for the new pass. Most Agencies Have Reviewed and Begun to Modify Recreation Fee Programs to Implement REA, but Some Units are Still Transitioning, Reclamation Is Not Yet Participating, and Agencies Have Been Slow to Issue Final Guidance

After the passage of REA, agencies directed their units to assess and  modify their fee programs to comply with REA criteria. FS reviewed its existing recreation fees and stated that it dropped 437 sites,  such as trailheads and picnic areas, from its fee program because they did  not meet the new criteria described under REA. Some Agencies Do Not Have a System of Routine Audits to Account for Collected Fee Revenues

Many units have not implemented a system of routine audits to help ensure  that fees are collected and used as authorized and that collected funds are  safeguarded. At BLM, FWS, and FS, most proposed projects are  approved at the local unit level. At NPS, however, projects must be reviewed and  approved at the unit and regional levels, as well as at the headquarters or  department level before projects are funded. However, according to  NPS officials, it can sometimes take 1 year or more to obtain approval to  fund a project under this process. Many agency officials at the unit and  regional levels expressed frustration about the length of time it takes to  obtain approval for funding NPS projects, and some noted that the  approval process has delayed project implementation and/or has  contributed to units having unobligated fee revenue balances. Fee-Collecting Units Cite Several Reasons for Unobligated Balances

Those recreation fee collecting units reporting an unobligated balance  cited a variety of reasons for why all available funds were not obligated. In addition, many of the unit staff we visited or who commented on our  survey stated that recreation fee revenues are essential to providing  services at their recreation areas that would not otherwise be funded. In order to improve agencies’ implementation of the Federal Lands  Recreation Enhancement Act and improve the accountability and controls  for recreation fee collection, we recommend that the Secretary of the  Interior direct the  Director, National Park Service; Director, Bureau of Land Management;  and Director, Fish and Wildlife Service to promptly issue final  regulations and implementation guidance on the fee program, including  detailed policy and procedure guidance; and  Director, Bureau of Land Management and Director, Fish and Wildlife  Services to ascertain the extent to which their units do not have  effective processes and procedures for accounting for and controlling  collected fees and develop guidance for implementing appropriate and  effective internal controls over cash management. Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Based on the congressional request letter of May 2005 and subsequent  discussions with your staffs, we agreed to determine (1) what agencies  have done to coordinate the implementation of the Federal Lands  Recreation Enhancement Act (REA), including preparing for the new  interagency federal lands pass; (2) what agencies have done to implement  the REA fee and amenity requirements and sufficiency of guidance for REA  implementation; (3) the extent to which the agencies have control and  accounting procedures for collected recreation fee revenues; (4) how  participating agencies prioritize and approve activities and projects funded  with fee revenues; and (5) the extent to which units have unobligated fund  balances and if recreational fees are being used to fund projects formerly  funded with other appropriations. We developed and administered  a nationwide survey to agency officials responsible for fee programs under  REA. One of REA’s goals was to reduce visitor confusion. Comments from the Forest Service

The following are GAO’s comments on the Department of Agriculture’s  Forest Service letter dated September 7, 2006.
Why GAO Did This Study

In recent years, Congress has expressed concerns about the federal land management agencies' ability to provide quality recreational opportunities and reduce visitor confusion over the variety of user fees. In December 2004, Congress passed the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (REA) to standardize recreation fee collection and use at federal lands and waters. GAO was asked to determine (1) what the agencies have done to coordinate implementation of REA, (2) what agencies have done to implement REA, (3) the extent to which agencies have controls and accounting procedures for collected fees, (4) how projects and activities are selected to receive funding from fees, and (5) the extent of unobligated fund balances. To answer these objectives, GAO reviewed agency guidance, analyzed fee data, interviewed officials, visited 26 fee-collecting units, and administered a nationwide survey to 900 fee-collecting units.

What GAO Found

The Departments of the Interior (DOI) and Agriculture (USDA) established four working groups to facilitate interagency cooperation and coordination of REA implementation. Each working group has made progress, but some issues remain unresolved. For example, the Interagency Pass working group has yet to determine the price to charge for the new pass, which is to be implemented in January 2007. To implement REA, agencies reviewed their fee programs and made modifications to the fee programs at some of their units. For example, several of USDA's Forest Service units dropped 437 sites from their fee program, such as picnic areas, because they did not meet REA criteria. However, not all units are in compliance with REA. Many agency officials said that while the agencies have issued some interim guidance, REA was difficult to interpret and suggested the need for more specific and detailed guidance on the fee program. In addition, DOI's Bureau of Reclamation has not yet determined whether to implement REA. Reclamation is assessing how REA applies to its operations. Some agencies lack adequate controls and accounting procedures for collected recreation fees and lack effective guidance for establishing such controls. On the basis of visits, some units did not have an effective means of verifying whether all collected fees are accounted for. In addition, many units have not implemented a system of routine audits to help ensure that fees are collected and used as authorized and that collected funds are safeguarded. The various agencies participating under REA have different processes for selecting projects to be funded with recreation fee revenues. At DOI's Bureau of Land Management and Fish and Wildlife Service and USDA's Forest Service, most proposed projects are approved at the local unit level, usually within a few weeks. At DOI's National Park Service, fee projects are reviewed and approved at the unit, regional, and headquarters or department level before projects are funded. According to National Park Service officials, under this process, it can sometimes take a year or more to obtain approval for a requested fee project, which delays project implementation and contributes to unobligated fee revenue balances. Agencies have $300 million in unobligated fee revenue balances. Unit officials cited several reasons for the unobligated balances, such as the need to save for large projects. Many unit officials also said that recreation fee revenues are essential to providing services at their recreation areas that would not otherwise be funded.