Land Management Agencies: Major Activities at Selected Units Are Not
Common Across Agencies (Letter Report, 06/26/97, GAO/RCED-97-141).

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the land management
activities carried out by six agencies, focusing on: (1) those
activities that are common across agencies; (2) the changes that have
occurred related to the missions and activities carried out by these
agencies; and (3) cost and revenue data for selected units at these
agencies.

GAO noted that: (1) GAO identified 31 different activities performed by
the agency units it examined in support of their various missions; (2)
these activities include cultural resource management, habitat
conservation, natural resource management, rangeland management, and
other activities; (3) little commonality exists among the major
activities performed, those on which these units spent most of their
resources; (4) visitor services, maintenance, and construction were the
major activities that showed the most commonality in that they were
performed at units of three or more of the six agencies; (5) providing
visitor services is a primary mission in some agencies and a secondary
mission in others, whereas maintenance and construction are integral
activities for most units; (6) the units spent most of their resources
(except for construction and maintenance expenditures) on activities
related to their specific missions; (7) overall, the legislatively
established missions of these agencies have not changed; (8) however,
there has been a shift in the activities that are emphasized and in the
way that activities are managed; (9) for example, from 1990 through
1995, recreational use of federal lands increased by almost 245 million
visits for the six agencies and about 4.5 million visits for the 14
units GAO visited; (10) in contrast, consumptive uses, such as mining,
grazing, and timber production, have decreased at some units for a
variety of reasons; (11) for example, since the market for uranium has
substantially declined, uranium mining at Forest Service and Bureau of
Land Management units has also decreased; (12) the total fiscal year
1995 costs to carry out the agencies' activities and the revenues
generated at the 14 units GAO reviewed varied widely; (13) total costs
ranged from $225,000 for a Bureau of Reclamation unit to almost $18
million at a Forest Service unit; (14) similarly, revenues ranged from
zero at a Reclamation unit to nearly $800,000 at a Forest Service unit;
and (15) however, the costs do not provide a basis for comparison
because the agencies' budget and accounting systems are designed
differently and units' uses and sizes vary greatly.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  RCED-97-141
     TITLE:  Land Management Agencies: Major Activities at Selected 
             Units Are Not Common Across Agencies
      DATE:  06/26/97
   SUBJECT:  Comparative analysis
             Land management
             National recreation areas
             Public lands
             Agency missions
             Administrative costs
             Strategic planning
             User fees
             Conservation
             National parks
IDENTIFIER:  National Wildlife Refuge System
             
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved.  Major          **
** divisions and subdivisions of the text, such as Chapters,    **
** Sections, and Appendixes, are identified by double and       **
** single lines.  The numbers on the right end of these lines   **
** indicate the position of each of the subsections in the      **
** document outline.  These numbers do NOT correspond with the  **
** page numbers of the printed product.                         **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO   **
** Document Distribution Center.  For further details, please   **
** send an e-mail message to:                                   **
**                                                              **
**                                            **
**                                                              **
** with the message 'info' in the body.                         **
******************************************************************


Cover
================================================================ COVER


Report to Congressional Requesters

June 1997

LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCIES - MAJOR
ACTIVITIES AT SELECTED UNITS ARE
NOT COMMON ACROSS AGENCIES

GAO/RCED-97-141

Land Management Agencies

(140112)


Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV

  BLM - Bureau of Land Management
  BOR - Bureau of Reclamation
  FS - Forest Service
  FTE - full-time equivalent
  FWS - Fish and Wildlife Service
  GAO - General Accounting Office
  NPS - National Park Service

Letter
=============================================================== LETTER


B-276725

June 26, 1997

Congressional Requesters

Federal agencies manage about 30 percent of the nation's total land
surface.  In fiscal year 1995, the latest year for which complete
data were available when we initiated our review, the six
agencies--the U.S.  Department of Agriculture's Forest Service; the
Department of the Army's Corps of Engineers; and the Department of
the Interior's Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, Fish
and Wildlife Service, and National Park Service--that manage most of
these lands spent about $10.4 billion and employed about 108,000
staff.  This large commitment of resources continues to spark
congressional interest in the management as well as the uses being
made of the federal lands.  In the last 2 years, we have issued a
variety of reports and testimonies in response to this interest.\1

In anticipation of continued congressional interest in how federal
lands are managed, you asked us to (1) identify the land management
activities carried out by these agencies and identify those that are
common across agencies; (2) describe the changes that have occurred
related to the missions and activities carried out by these agencies;
and (3) provide cost and revenue data for selected units at these
agencies.  As agreed with your offices, we selected 14 units in the
six agencies to examine in detail in order to identify the units'
major activities and to compare these activities across the six
agencies.  The units selected included three national parks or
monuments, three national forests, three Fish and Wildlife Service
refuges, two Bureau of Land Management resource areas, two Bureau of
Reclamation reservoirs, and one Corps of Engineers dam and lake. 


--------------------
\1 See Related GAO Products at the end of this report for a listing
of the reports and testimonies on land management issued since 1995. 


   RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1

We identified 31 different activities performed by the agency units
we examined in support of their various missions.  These activities
include cultural resource management, habitat conservation, natural
resource management, rangeland management, and other activities
listed in appendix I.  Little commonality exists among the major
activities performed--those on which these units spent most of their
resources.  Visitor services, maintenance, and construction were the
major activities that showed the most commonality in that they were
performed at units of three or more of the six agencies.  Providing
visitor services is a primary mission in some agencies and a
secondary mission in others, whereas maintenance and construction are
integral activities for most units.  The units spent most of their
resources (except for construction and maintenance expenditures) on
activities related to their specific missions. 

Overall, the legislatively established missions of these agencies
have not changed.  However, there has been a shift in the activities
that are emphasized and in the way that activities are managed.  For
example, from 1990 through 1995, recreational use of federal lands
increased by almost 245 million visits for the six agencies and about
4.5 million visits for the 14 units we visited.  In contrast,
consumptive uses, such as mining, grazing, and timber production,
have decreased at some units for a variety of reasons.  For example,
since the market for uranium has substantially declined, uranium
mining at Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management units has also
decreased. 

The total fiscal year 1995 costs to carry out the agencies'
activities and the revenues generated at the 14 units we reviewed
varied widely.  Total costs ranged from $225,000 for a Bureau of
Reclamation unit to almost $18 million at a Forest Service unit. 
Similarly, revenues ranged from zero at a Reclamation unit to nearly
$800,000 at a Forest Service unit.  However, the costs do not provide
a basis for comparison because the agencies' budget and accounting
systems are designed differently and units' uses and sizes vary
greatly. 


   BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2

Federal agencies manage about 650 million acres of land, and the six
agencies included in this review manage almost all of it, or about
648 million acres.  About 70 percent of the land is managed by two
agencies--the Bureau of Land Management (40 percent) and the Forest
Service (30 percent). 

Each agency has specific legislation that determines how its lands
can be used.  We characterize these land uses as multiple use,
limited use, or specific use.  Legislation requires the Bureau of
Land Management and the Forest Service to manage their lands for
multiple uses; no one use is considered to be primary.  Therefore,
use of the lands includes consumptive uses, such as mining, grazing,
timber harvesting, hunting, and fishing, as well as other forms of
recreation.  In contrast, the National Park Service and the Fish and
Wildlife Service lands are managed on a limited-use basis.  For
example, Park Service legislation directs the agency to preserve the
natural and historic resources of the lands and provide for the
public's enjoyment of those lands in perpetuity.  Similarly, the Fish
and Wildlife Service's National Wildlife Refuge System is responsible
for preserving a national network of lands and waters for the
conservation and management of fish, wildlife, and plants for the
benefit of present and future generations.  Thus, while limited
consumptive uses may occur on some parks and refuges, such uses are
generally excluded.  The Bureau of Reclamation and the Corps have a
specific role to build and operate water projects.  Reclamation's
mission is evolving from developing and operating reservoirs and
power plants to water resource management with additional missions
related to fish and wildlife protection, recreation, and
environmental restoration.  The Corps' civil works mission is
centered on navigation and flood control but has a growing emphasis
on environmental protection.  Both agencies also undertake land
management activities that relate to their projects, but these
activities, such as grazing, are very limited. 

Appendix II provides overview information on each of the six
agencies, including when the agency was created, the number and types
of units they manage, and the geographical areas in which they
operate, as well as total staffing and budget figures for 1995.  The
appendix also provides background information on the specific units
visited. 


   UNITS VISITED HAVE LITTLE
   COMMONALITY ACROSS AGENCIES IN
   THEIR MAJOR LAND MANAGEMENT
   ACTIVITIES
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3

Of the many different activities performed by the 14 units we
reviewed, there was little in common among the major activities on
which the units spent most of their fiscal year 1995 resources.  The
31 land management activities undertaken by these units cover a wide
range and include timber sales, wildlife habitat management,
maintenance, and hazardous materials management.  We considered
activities to be common if they were performed at units of half or
more of the six agencies and accounted for a substantial\2 share of
their land management resources.  At the Bureau of Reclamation and
the Corps, which are primarily responsible for water projects and
devote most of their resources to those projects, we attempted to
identify commonality from the variety of land management activities
that they also perform at the projects. 

Using the criterion of activities that were performed at units of
half or more of the six agencies, commonality occurred in only three
of the land management activities--visitor services, maintenance, and
construction.\3 Visitor services is a primary mission in some
agencies and a secondary mission in others, whereas maintenance and
construction are integral activities for most units.  The units'
major costs, excluding ones for construction and maintenance,
generally relate to mission-related activities that differ from
agency to agency. 


--------------------
\2 Substantial activities are those land management activities with
the largest costs in each unit that, when added together, accounted
for approximately 60 percent of each unit's fiscal year 1995 costs. 

\3 A number of activities were common between the Bureau of Land
Management and the Forest Service, such as mining and grazing, but
they were not major activities across the units in other agencies. 


      THREE MAJOR ACTIVITIES AT
      THE UNITS ARE COMMON ACROSS
      AGENCIES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.1

Visitor services, maintenance, and construction were the major
activities that showed the most commonality among the six agencies. 
While we identified other activities, such as the protection of
natural and cultural resources and of endangered species at a number
of units, these activities accounted for only a small portion of
these units' costs.  We did not include general administration as a
common activity because it is not a land management activity. 

Visitor services was the only common mission-related activity.  This
activity can include operating visitor centers and providing other
educational activities at parks, refuges, or resource areas; managing
concessions; and operating the permit systems for recreational
activities, such as camping, back country hiking, and river rafting. 
Although visitor services was one of the activities on which the
units spent most of their land management resources at five agencies,
that was not the case at the Bureau of Reclamation units we visited
in part because the Bureau's policy is to have others, such as
federal or state agencies, manage recreational activities on the
Bureau's lands. 

Maintenance and construction are support activities typical of most
federal operations.  Maintenance and construction activities can
include maintaining or constructing visitor centers, administrative
buildings, staff quarters, roads, water management facilities, and
restroom facilities and can account for a substantial amount of costs
at some units. 

Maintenance costs varied considerably, depending partly on how and
whether the costs were captured.  For example, the maintenance costs
captured by the National Park Service units ranged from 13 to 43
percent.  In contrast, most maintenance costs at the Bureau of Land
Management are not charged to the unit, but are recorded at the next
higher level.  Construction costs can also vary drastically from one
year to the next, depending on whether an expensive item, such as a
building or road, is funded and built.  For example, at the Pee Dee
Wildlife Refuge in North Carolina, the construction of a maintenance
building--an infrequent expenditure--accounted for about 60 percent
of the unit's 1995 costs. 


      MOST UNITS' MAJOR ACTIVITIES
      RELATE TO THE AGENCIES'
      MISSIONS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.2

The units' major costs generally related to the activities supporting
their agencies' missions, and these activities were not common across
agencies.  For example, the Bureau of Land Management spent almost 40
percent of its funds at each unit on energy and minerals and
rangeland management activities.  This expenditure is consistent with
the Bureau's multiple-use mission.  Similarly, at the wildlife
refuges, one of the largest expenditures was habitat management,
which ranged from 12 to 50 percent of the units' costs at the refuges
we visited.  These expenditures are consistent with the refuges'
limited-use mission of providing a refuge for migratory birds and
other wildlife. 

The Bureau of Reclamation and the Corps have specific-use missions
related to building and operating water projects, such as dams and
reservoirs.  Most of the resources at the units we visited are spent
on these activities.  For example, at the Santa Rosa Dam and Lake in
New Mexico, 57 percent of the project's costs are for maintaining and
operating the dam and reservoir. 


   CHANGES IN EMPHASIS HAVE
   OCCURRED
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4

Over the last quarter century, the missions carried out by the
agencies and their units have basically remained the same, but shifts
have occurred in the activities that are emphasized and in the way
that activities are managed.  For example, recreation has increased,
while consumptive uses have decreased at some units.  In addition,
management activities at the units have changed--the emphasis on
planning has increased in response to various legislative
requirements, and interagency coordination has expanded in areas such
as providing visitor services, maintenance, and construction. 


      RECREATIONAL USE IS
      INCREASING
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.1

The most significant change is the increase in recreation at federal
units.  Typical examples of recreation offered at the units include
hiking, camping, fishing, and picnicking.  Depending on the unit, a
host of other types of recreation may also be available, including
white-water rafting, rock climbing, skiing, mountain biking, and the
use of 4-wheel drive and other types of all-terrain vehicles. 

From 1990 through 1995, recreational use increased from about 26.4
million visits to about 30.9 million, or nearly 17 percent in total
for the 14 units we reviewed.\4 This increase was typical for the six
agencies overall.  They experienced a combined increase of about 245
million visits, or about 17 percent, over the same period. 
Recreational use is increasing in these units in part because of the
general trend toward increased recreational demand for federal lands. 

Recreation is also increasing because of legislative and executive
changes and changes in the areas bordering federal lands.  The
enactment of the Reclamation Recreation Management Act of 1992 has
promoted recreation at the Bureau of Reclamation's facilities.  The
act stated that there is a federal responsibility to provide
opportunities for public recreation at federal water projects but did
not authorize the Bureau to manage recreation projects.  Instead, it
authorized the Bureau to pay a larger share of the costs for local
governments to operate recreational facilities at such units.  The
act raised the amount the Bureau could pay for the design and
construction of recreational facilities completed before 1965 from
$100,000 to up to 50 percent of the recreational facility's total
costs.  At the units we visited, the Bureau matches the funds
contributed to the development of recreational facilities on a 50/50
basis with the state.  As a result, $786,000 was made available for
the design and construction of recreational facilities in fiscal year
1997 at the Deer Creek Reservoir in Utah; additional amounts are
anticipated for fiscal year 1998.  In addition, the Bureau put
$670,800 into recreational facilities and design at the Elephant
Butte Reservoir in New Mexico in fiscal years 1995 and 1996. 

Legislation has also helped increase the recreational use of specific
federal lands.  For example, on December 31, 1987, the Congress
created the El Malpais National Monument in New Mexico by
transferring approximately 114,000 acres of land from the Bureau of
Land Management and the Forest Service to the National Park Service. 
Recreation has become the primary use of the monument, and visitation
increased from about 52,000 in 1989 to 97,400 in 1995. 

A March 1996 executive order also clarified and expanded, to the
extent consistent with existing laws and interagency agreements, the
role of recreation on refuges.  Although recreation had been an
acceptable activity in refuges as described in the Recreational Use
of Fish and Wildlife Areas Act of 1962, Executive Order 12996 of
March 25, 1996, clarified that specific types of recreation, such as
hunting, wildlife observation, and environmental education, are
priority public uses of refuges and that these uses are to be
expanded when compatible and consistent with sound principles of fish
and wildlife management and are otherwise in the public interest. 

In addition to the legislative and executive changes, changes in the
areas bordering federal lands have also resulted in increased
recreational use.  For example, at the Great Smoky Mountains National
Park in North Carolina, park officials said the success of the
surrounding communities in attracting visitors has also increased
visitation at the park.  The introduction of country music halls and
theaters in towns near the park's western entrance has contributed to
increased visitation to the park (from 6 million visitors in 1978 to
9 million visitors in 1995).  The officials noted that the addition
of a 24-hour-a-day casino scheduled to open in 1997 in Cherokee, near
the North Carolina entrance to the park, is also likely to increase
visitation. 


--------------------
\4 Recreational use data for the units and the agencies are estimated
because not all the units or all the agencies had consistent data for
the 5-year period. 


      SOME CONSUMPTIVE USES ARE
      DECREASING
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.2

While recreation has been increasing at the units we visited,
traditional consumptive uses, such as grazing, mining, and timber
harvesting, have decreased at some units.  For example, the
legislation creating both Canyonlands National Park in Utah and El
Malpais National Monument in New Mexico provides for phasing out
grazing and mining.  The last grazing lease at Canyonlands was
terminated in 1985, and the last grazing lease at El Malpais will be
terminated by December 31, 1997.  By 1993, there were no active
mining claims in Canyonlands, and the act creating El Malpais
prohibits mining, although little existed. 

Market conditions and environmental concerns have also decreased
certain consumptive uses of federal lands.  During the 1970s and
1980s, the market for uranium, which created a demand for mining
activity in New Mexico and Utah, declined substantially, thus
reducing the amount of mining occurring in units managed by the
Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service.  Some timber
production has also decreased because of environmental concerns.  In
1995, 2.5 million board feet of timber was harvested from the Cibola
National Forest's Mount Taylor Ranger District in New Mexico. 
However, according to the Forest Service, in 1996 the court ordered a
stop in timber harvesting while the harvest's potential impacts on
the Mexican spotted owl were assessed. 


      AGENCIES USE INCREASED
      PLANNING TO MANAGE THEIR
      ACTIVITIES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.3

Over time, planning and environmental analyses have become
increasingly important and costly aspects of how the agencies manage
their activities.  The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
requires agencies to prepare planning and environmental assessment
documents, and preparing these documents requires increased data and
technical resources.  In addition, agency-specific legislation, such
as the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the National Forest
Management Act, established planning requirements for the Bureau of
Land Management and the Forest Service, respectively.  The impact on
an agency can be significant.  For example, the Forest Service has
spent more than $250 million over the last 20 years developing
multiyear plans for managing timber production, livestock grazing,
recreation, wildlife and fish habitat, and other legislatively
mandated uses of national forests. 

Finally, other legislation requires the agencies, in doing their
planning and evaluations, to consider various specific impacts, such
as those on water resources, air quality, and archaeological and
historical resources.  Complying with these requirements can be a
major task.  For example, complying with cultural resource
requirements is a major task in the Utah/New Mexico area because the
Four Corners\5

area, of which these states are a part, is one of the most important
cultural resource areas in the country.  Thus, according to unit
officials, cultural resource assessments have to be prepared for
nearly all activities. 

As the agencies' experience with these requirements has increased, so
has the technical expertise needed, the depth of information
required, and the staff expertise necessary to fulfill the
requirements.  As a result, the agencies have had to add more
specialists with expertise in such areas as biology, entomology,
botany, forestry, archaeology, recreation, and geology. 


--------------------
\5 The Four Corners area is the point at which the borders of
Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah connect. 


      SOME UNITS HAVE INCREASED
      THEIR INTERAGENCY
      COOPERATION
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.4

Some units perform their land management activities cooperatively
with units of other agencies.  The Canyon Country of Southeast Utah
offers an example of how interagency cooperation can occur.  The area
includes Canyonlands National Park, the Bureau of Land Management's
Moab District, and the Manti-La Sal National Forest.  In 1993, in
response to the escalating impacts of the recreational boom in Canyon
Country, all of the locally based county, state, and federal land
management authorities formed the Canyon Country Partnership.  The
partnership seeks to, among other things, promote cooperative
planning and share resources. 

The partnership produced an agreement for the Bureau of Land
Management and the National Park Service to share law enforcement
responsibilities and for the federal agencies to share equipment,
expertise, and staff time on construction and maintenance projects. 
Activities included developing and sharing maintenance plans and
performing maintenance for one another, such as construction tasks,
road repair, and mowing.  The partners also provided services to one
another for tasks such as restroom maintenance.  The partnership is
also working to complete a regionwide geographic information system
and to diversify the economies of the region's small communities and
ease their transition from resource extraction, such as mining, to
economies based on amenities, such as recreation. 

In New Mexico, the Bureau of Land Management and El Malpais National
Monument cooperate in their law enforcement activities, and they and
the Forest Service share equipment and staff expertise to perform
maintenance.  Also, the Corps joined with state and federal agencies
to develop the New Mexico Recreation and Heritage Guide Map to inform
the public about the recreational activities on the public lands in
the state. 

In Moab, Utah, a visitor center that opened on June 15, 1993, serves
the needs of the National Park Service, the Bureau of Land
Management, the Forest Service, and the county.  This center cost
about $1.2 million to design, construct, and equip with exhibits,
audio visual equipment, and a video.  A state agency provided
$819,000 of the cost through a low-interest loan, and the federal
government provided the remaining $390,000.  Such jointly operated
visitor centers offer the opportunity to build a single,
comprehensive visitor center that benefits the public by offering
longer hours of operation and one-stop shopping for information about
the entire area.  Because staffing and maintaining a visitor center
can be costly and labor- intensive--the center operates 363 days a
year and 13 hours a day in season--sharing the operation reduces the
cost and burden to all of the agencies involved. 


   WIDE-RANGING COSTS AND REVENUES
   ARE NOT READILY COMPARABLE
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5

The total fiscal year 1995 costs and revenues for each of the 14
units we reviewed varied widely.  Types of costs included those for
managing energy and minerals, grazing, timber sales, and recreation. 
Examples of revenues included mineral leasing fees, grazing fees,
timber sales revenues, entrance fees, and camping fees.  Total costs
ranged from $225,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation's Deer Creek
Reservoir in Utah to almost $18 million at the Forest Service's
Cibola National Forest in New Mexico.  Similarly, Reclamation's Deer
Creek Reservoir generated no revenues, whereas the Cibola National
Forest had almost $800,000 in revenues.  (Table 1 shows the costs and
revenues for the 14 units.)



                                Table 1
                
                Costs and Revenues for Fiscal Year 1995
                          at 14 Units Visited

                         (Dollars in thousands)

                                                 Fiscal year 1995
                                            --------------------------
Agency/unit                                        Costs      Revenues
------------------------------------------  ------------  ------------
Bureau of Land Management
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rio Puerco Resource Area                          $2,001          $427
San Juan Resource Area                              $837          $227

Bureau of Reclamation
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Deer Creek Reservoir                                $225             0
Elephant Butte Reservoir                            $372           $55

Corps of Engineers
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Santa Rosa Dam and Lake                             $814           $11

Forest Service
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cibola National Forest                           $17,879          $772
Manti-La Sal National Forest                     $10,209          $264
Nantahala-Pisgah National Forest                  $9,127          $528

Fish and Wildlife Service
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge                    $771            $6
Bosque del Apache National Wildlife Refuge        $1,082           $42
Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge                    $583           $16

National Park Service
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Canyonlands National Park                         $4,454          $276
El Malpais National Monument                      $1,238             0
Great Smoky Mountains National Park              $13,171          $733
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  The agencies' data. 

Comparing the costs and revenues of these units is not particularly
meaningful, however, because of the many variables, in addition to
differences in size and use, that affect these amounts.  First, the
agencies' budget and accounting systems are designed differently to
meet the individual agencies' requirements.  Consequently, they do
not provide a basis for comparing activity costs across the agencies. 
For example, Fish and Wildlife Service units report their costs
primarily in two broad categories--operations and maintenance--while
other agencies, such as the Bureau of Land Management, identify
narrow categories such as rangeland, cultural resources, or energy
and minerals management separately.  Bureau of Reclamation units are
usually part of much larger projects.  For example, the Elephant
Butte Reservoir in New Mexico is part of the Rio Grande Project.  As
a result, the land management costs at specific Bureau units are not
readily identified. 

Second, some costs, such as those for maintenance and administration,
are not always charged at the unit level, but are recorded at a
higher level in the agency.  For example, maintenance at the Bureau
of Land Management's San Juan Resource Area in Utah is largely
performed by and charged to the Moab District Office, a higher-level
unit.  Likewise, most administrative activities at the Bureau of Land
Management and the Fish and Wildlife Service units are performed at
other levels within the agency and therefore not charged to those
units.  In contrast, most maintenance and administration are
performed and costs accumulated at the unit level in the national
parks and forests.  Thus, a national park could appear to cost more
to operate than a Bureau of Land Management unit that does not
account for similar costs at the unit level. 

Finally, the costs to operate recreational facilities at the units
are not included in the total costs for all units.  Recreation at the
Bureau of Reclamation and the Corps units that we visited is managed
under long-term agreements with the states.  As part of these
agreements, the states paid most of the operating costs.  In
contrast, units such as those at the Forest Service and Park Service
recorded recreational costs directly at the unit level. 

Comparing revenues is not particularly meaningful either because
revenues vary greatly depending on the uses allowed and the fees
charged at the units.  For example, Great Smoky Mountains National
Park charges no entrance fees, while at Canyonlands National Park,
entrance fees account for over 75 percent of its $276,000 in revenue. 


   AGENCIES' COMMENTS AND OUR
   EVALUATION
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6

We provided a draft of this report to the Forest Service, the Corps
of Engineers, and the Department of the Interior for their review and
comment.  The Forest Service noted that it accepted the report as
written and indicated that it reflects the comments presented by the
agency during the exit conferences and adequately expresses the view
of the agency.  The Corps of Engineers reviewed the draft and had no
comments. 

The Department of the Interior agreed with the report but offered
several comments about the need to clearly state in the "Results in
Brief" our criterion for what constitutes a common activity and to
make clear that our message relates to the 14 units we visited and is
not being projected to the six agencies.  We agree with these
comments and added language to our "Results in Brief" and to the body
of the report clarifying our criterion for what constitutes a common
activity and more clearly stating that our message relates to the 14
units we visited.  Interior officials also said we should point out
that the Interior agencies and the Forest Service have an established
program for cooperating and working together on fire management and
fire suppression activities.  We recognize that Interior, the Forest
Service, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and state foresters
coordinate through the National Wildfire Coordinating Group and the
National Mobilization System to establish wildland fire policies and
to conduct fire suppression activities.  We did not address these
activities in the report because our focus was on the major
activities at the 14 units we visited.  Interior officials also
offered several comments to improve the accuracy and clarity of the
report, and we have included them as appropriate. 


   SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7

To obtain information for this report, we interviewed officials and
obtained and reviewed documents and other data from six agencies--the
Department of the Army's Corps of Engineers; the Department of
Agriculture's Forest Service; and the Department of the Interior's
Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, Fish and Wildlife
Service, and National Park Service.  We conducted our review from
July 1996 through May 1997 in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards.  Appendix III contains a more detailed
explanation of our objectives, scope, and methodology. 


---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :7.1

Unless you publicly announce its contents earlier, we plan no further
distribution of this report until 15 days after the date of this
letter.  At that time, we will send copies of this report to the
Secretaries of Agriculture, the Army, and the Interior; the Chief of
the Forest Service; the Chief, U.S.  Corps of Engineers; the
Directors of the Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife
Service, and National Park Service; the Commissioner of the Bureau of
Reclamation; the Director, Office of Management and Budget; and other
interested parties.  We will also make copies available to others
upon request. 

If you have any questions about this report, please call me at (202)
512-8021.  Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix
IV. 

Barry T.  Hill
Associate Director, Energy,
 Resources, and Science Issues


List of Requesters

The Honorable Conrad Burns
United States Senate

The Honorable Frank H.  Murkowski
Chairman, Committee on
 Energy and Natural Resources
United States Senate

The Honorable Larry Craig
Chairman, Subcommittee on Forests and
 Public Lands Management
Committee on Energy and
 Natural Resources
United States Senate

The Honorable Ralph Regula
Chairman, Subcommittee on Interior
Committee on Appropriations
House of Representatives

The Honorable James V.  Hansen
Chairman, Subcommittee on National
 Parks and Public Lands
Committee on Resources
House of Representatives


LAND MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES CARRIED
OUT AT ONE OR MORE OF THE 14 UNITS
WITHIN THE SIX AGENCIES
=========================================================== Appendix I


   ACTIVITIES WITH THE LARGEST
   COSTS
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:1

(Those in each unit which, when added together, account for 60
percent of a unit's costs.)

Construction (facilities, roads, and trails)
Cooperative work
Cost-sharing agreements
Cultural resources
Ecosystem planning, inventory, and monitoring
Energy and minerals management
Fire management (fire and presuppression)
Forestland vegetation management
Habitat management (wildlife and fisheries)
Law enforcement
Maintenance (facilities, roads, and trails)
Natural resources management
Resource management plan preparation
Rangeland/grazing management
Realty
Timber sales/salvage sales management
Visitor services (recreation management)
Volunteer programs
Waterfowl management
Watershed improvements
Wilderness management


   OTHER ACTIVITIES
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:2

Environmental education
Emergency pest suppression
Hazardous materials management
Land acquisition
Land line management (surveying)
Resource protection
Riparian area\1 management
Soil/water/air management
Rights-of-use (permit) administration
Threatened and endangered species management


--------------------
\1 Areas of land directly influenced by permanent water. 


GENERAL OVERVIEW OF THE AGENCIES
AND THE UNITS VISITED
========================================================== Appendix II

The six agencies and the 14 units we reviewed vary in their sizes,
budgets, and operations.  This appendix provides a general overview
of these agencies and their units that we visited.  The agencies have
been created at various times over the last 170 years, manage a
variety of units in different parts of the country, and manage vastly
different amounts of acreage with different budgets and staffing
levels.  Information on these agencies is presented in tables II.1
and II.2. 



                                        Table II.1
                         
                         Year Created, Number and Type of Units,
                            and Area of Operation for Six Land
                                   Management Agencies

Agenc                    Number and type of land
y          Year created  management units          Area of operation
-----  ----------------  ------------------------  --------------------------------------
BLM                1946  139 resource areas        28 states, mainly 10 western states
                                                   and Alaska

BOR                1902  348 reservoirs and        17 states west of the Mississippi
                         254 diversion dams

Corps              1824  about 460 water-          Nationwide
\a                       resource projects

FS                 1905  155 national forests      44 states, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin
                         and                       Islands
                         132 other units
                         including national
                         grasslands

FWS\b              1903  503 refuges and           All 50 states, Puerto Rico, 3
                         86 other areas            territories, and 5 Pacific island
                                                   possessions

NPS                1916  54 parks and              49 states, the District of Columbia,
                         321 other units           American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico,
                                                   Saipan, and the Virgin Islands
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a The Corps' Civil Works program only. 

\b National Wildlife Refuge System only. 

Source:  The agencies' data. 



                               Table II.2
                
                Acres Managed, Staffing, Visitation, and
                 Budget Amounts for Six Land Management
                     Agencies for Fiscal Year 1995

                         Acres
                       managed  Staffing        Visitation      Budget
                           (in       (in       (in million         (in
Agency               millions)   FTEs\a)           visits)   millions)
------------------  ----------  --------  ----------------  ----------
BLM                      267.1    11,046                58      $1,240
BOR                        8.6     6,954                87         859
Corps\b                   12.4    27,661               386       3,339
FS                       191.6    40,712               830       3,362
FWS\c                     91.8     2,215                27         168
NPS                       76.6    19,876               270       1,474
======================================================================
Total                    648.1   108,464             1,658     $10,442
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a A full-time equivalent (FTE) equals the number of hours worked
divided by the number of compensable hours in a fiscal year. 

\b The Corps' Civil Works program only. 

\c National Wildlife Refuge System only. 

Source:  The agencies' data. 


   BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:1

Within the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), we visited two resource
area offices, one in Utah and one in New Mexico.  Resource areas are
the lowest level land management units in BLM.  Following are
descriptions of the units and a table presenting information on their
size, staffing, visitation, costs, and revenues. 


      SAN JUAN RESOURCE AREA
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:1.1

The San Juan Resource Area is located in southeastern Utah.  The area
is bordered by the Colorado state line on the east, the Navajo
Reservation on the south, the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area
and Canyonlands National Park on the west.  It is part of BLM's Moab
District.  The area office is in the process of being reorganized
into the Monticello Field Office with the same boundaries, but with
expanded authority. 

The area is noted for its scenery, cultural and historic resources,
and recreational opportunities.  The uses that are allowed represent
the broad multiple-use mission of BLM, including mining, grazing,
harvesting of forest products, and hunting as well as a broad range
of recreational activities. 


      RIO PUERCO RESOURCE AREA
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:1.2

The Rio Puerco Resource Area is located in central and north-central
New Mexico.  It is part of BLM's Albuquerque District.  The area
office is in the process of being reorganized into the Albuquerque
Field Office with the same boundaries, but with expanded authority. 
Resource area uses include energy and mineral uses, such as oil, gas,
and coal leasing, and mineral mining.  The uses also include
activities related to geological and paleontological resources,
grazing, collecting fuelwood, and a range of recreational activities,
including backpacking, climbing, hiking, camping, swimming, horseback
riding, nature study, off-road vehicle touring, and viewing scenery. 

Table II.3 provides overview information on the BLM units visited. 



                               Table II.3
                
                 Fiscal Year 1995 Data on the BLM Units
                                Visited

                                            Resource area
                                --------------------------------------
                                          San Juan          Rio Puerco
------------------------------  ------------------  ------------------
Acres                                    1,800,000           1,350,000
Visitation                                 148,000              77,800
FTEs\a                                          19                  47
Costs                                     $837,000          $2,001,000
Revenues                                  $227,000            $427,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a A full-time equivalent (FTE) equals the number of hours worked
divided by the number of compensable hours in a fiscal year. 

Source:  The agency's data. 


   BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:2

We visited two Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) units--Deer Creek
Reservoir in Utah and Elephant Butte Reservoir in New Mexico. 
Although these reservoirs provide a variety of recreational
activities, BOR manages none of the recreational activities at these
locations because BOR's policy is to transfer, when possible, the
management of recreation areas on its project lands to other
governmental, e.g., federal and state, entities. 


      DEER CREEK RESERVOIR
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:2.1

Deer Creek Reservoir is located on the Provo River about 16 miles
northeast of Provo, Utah.  It is situated in close proximity to the
Salt Lake City and Provo metropolitan areas in Utah and is the third
most popular reservoir for recreation in Utah.  The Congress
authorized the construction of the Deer Creek dam in 1933 under the
National Industrial Recovery Act.  Construction began in 1938, and
the dam was completed in 1941.  The 6-mile long reservoir created by
the dam has 18 miles of shoreline.  The reservoir's water provides
irrigation and municipal and industrial water directly to two
counties and by exchange to two more. 

Fishing, grazing, hunting, and recreation are authorized, but hunting
is not allowed on lands designated for recreation.  Mining and timber
harvesting, while permissible under certain federal laws, are deemed
incompatible with the project's purposes and are therefore not
authorized on the project's lands. 

BOR is responsible for operating and maintaining the dam and
providing oversight of the adjoining recreation lands run by the
state.  This oversight includes land-use planning, resource
protection and enhancement, rights-of-use administration, and 50/50
cost sharing for mutually agreed-upon capital improvement projects. 
BOR does not fund annual and/or recurring operating and maintenance
costs for recreation at this unit. 


      ELEPHANT BUTTE RESERVOIR
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:2.2

Elephant Butte Reservoir is located on the Rio Grande near Truth or
Consequences, New Mexico, or about 125 miles north of El Paso, Texas. 
Construction of Elephant Butte dam (originally called Engle Dam)
began in 1908 and was completed in 1916 as part of the Rio Grande
Project.  The dam and reservoir were originally constructed to store
floodwaters and to provide regulated release of water for irrigation
needs.  In the late 1930s, Elephant Butte powerplant was built at the
dam to harness the water flow for electricity production. 

The reservoir created by the dam is about 30 miles long with 250
miles of shoreline.  In 1973, BOR leased to New Mexico lands within
the reservoir area, including housing units and other improvements,
and the state operates the area as a state park.  According to the
park superintendent, Elephant Butte Lake State Park is the largest
state park in New Mexico and has 95,000 to 105,000 visitors on
certain holiday weekends. 

Fishing, hunting, and recreation are authorized, but hunting is not
allowed in designated recreation areas.  Grazing is authorized and is
managed for BOR by BLM.  As at Deer Creek, mining and timber
harvesting are incompatible with the project's purposes and are not
authorized. 

BOR is responsible for the dam's operation and maintenance and
provides oversight of the recreation lands run by the state.  This
oversight includes land-use planning, resource protection and
enhancement, rights-of-use administration, and 50/50 cost sharing for
mutually agreed-upon capital improvement projects.  BOR does not fund
annual and/or recurring operating and maintenance costs for
recreation at this unit. 

Table II.4 provides overview data on both reservoirs. 



                               Table II.4
                
                 Fiscal Year 1995 Data on the BOR Units
                                Visited

                                        Deer Creek      Elephant Butte
------  -----------------------  ------------------  ------------------
Acres                                        6,300              61,100
Visitation\a (at state park)               235,000         1,814,000\b
FTEs\c (for land management)                  <1\d                 5\e
Costs                                     $225,000            $372,000
Revenues                                         0           $55,000\f
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Calendar year data. 

\b In calendar year 1995, a total of 283 people toured the BOR
facilities and dam. 

\c A full-time equivalent (FTE) equals the number of hours worked
divided by the number of compensable hours in a fiscal year. 

\d Although various BOR Provo Area Office resources staff have land
management responsibilities at Deer Creek, they spend less than 1
percent of their time on activities associated with Deer Creek
reservoir lands. 

\e One FTE is for a resource management specialist. 

\f Revenue is for vegetation management at Elephant Butte and Caballo
Reservoirs.  The agency cannot separate out revenue for Elephant
Butte . 

Source:  The agency's data. 


   CORPS OF ENGINEERS
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:3

We visited the Corps of Engineers' Santa Rosa Dam and Lake project in
New Mexico.  The project is located in east-central New Mexico and is
part of the Corps' Albuquerque District.  The project was authorized
by the Flood Control Act of 1954 and provides for (1) the
conservation of irrigation water, (2) sedimentation control, and (3)
flood control.  The project was completed in 1981.  The Santa Rosa
project is not a typical Albuquerque District or Corps of Engineers
project because it does not have a permanent recreation pool (the
water can be almost drained in dry summers); however, the irrigation
pool is frequently available for water recreation.  The recreation
areas on the project are leased to, and managed by, the New Mexico
Park and Recreation Division.  Camping, picnicking, swimming, hiking,
fishing, boating, and other water recreation are allowed.  Over
one-half of the project's lands are leased for grazing, which
provides the project's revenues.  Also, some project land is usually
open to hunting. 

Table II.5 provides overview information on the Corps unit we
visited. 



                               Table II.5
                
                Fiscal Year 1995 Data on the Corps Unit
                                Visited

                                               Santa Rosa Dam and Lake
----------------------------------------  ----------------------------
Acres                                                           13,525
Visitation\a                                                    68,000
FTEs\b                                                             4.5
Costs                                                         $813,600
Revenues to Corps                                              $11,400
Revenues to State Park                                         $71,500
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Calendar year data. 

\b A full-time equivalent (FTE) equals the number of hours worked
divided by the number of compensable hours in a fiscal year. 

Source:  The agency's data. 


   FOREST SERVICE
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:4

The Forest Service's (FS) mission is "to achieve quality land
management under the sustained multiple-use management concept to
meet the diverse needs of people." We visited the Cibola National
Forest in New Mexico, the Nantahala-Pisgah\7 National Forest in North
Carolina, and the Manti-La Sal National Forest in Utah.  Fishing,
hunting, grazing, mining, timber harvesting, and recreation are
authorized at all three forests. 


--------------------
\7 Because the Nantahala National Forest and the Pisgah National
Forest operate under one Land and Resource Management Plan, we refer
to them as the Nantahala-Pisgah National Forest in this report. 


      CIBOLA NATIONAL FOREST
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:4.1

The Cibola National Forest is one of seven national forests with
lands in New Mexico.  The forest's name came into existence in 1931
when President Hoover changed the name of the Manzano National Forest
to the Cibola National Forest.  The Cibola is a collection of
mountain ranges scattered east and south of Albuquerque and west to
the border with Arizona.  About 8 percent of the forest's lands
(138,000 acres) is designated as wilderness.  The Cibola also manages
more than 260,000 acres of national grasslands in northeastern New
Mexico, western Oklahoma, and northwestern Texas.  One portion of the
Cibola shares a common border with the El Malpais National Monument. 


      MANTI-LA SAL NATIONAL FOREST
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:4.2

The Manti-La Sal National Forest is one of nine national forests with
lands in Utah.  It was formed through the combination of three
forests--the Manti, the Monticello, and the La Sal.  In 1908, the La
Sal and Monticello forests merged as the La Sal.  In 1949, the Manti
and La Sal forests consolidated initially as the Manti and later it
became the Manti-La Sal National Forest.  The Manti-La Sal is located
in segments in central and southeastern Utah and has a small portion
that extends into Colorado. 

Low-sulfur coal is plentiful on one portion of the forest.  In 1995
the Manti-La Sal produced roughly 85 percent of the low-sulfur coal
mined in Utah.  The forest contains 3,400 documented archaeological
(cultural) sites, including early drawings, structures, and
campsites. 


      NANTAHALA-PISGAH NATIONAL
      FOREST
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:4.3

The Nantahala-Pisgah National Forest is located in western North
Carolina.  Established in 1920, the Nantahala portion is located on
the border with both Tennessee and South Carolina and is the largest
of the four national forests in North Carolina.  The Pisgah portion
is on the border with Tennessee.  Both adjoin the Great Smoky
Mountains National Park.  The Pisgah, established in 1916, was the
first national forest established east of the Mississippi.  The
6,500-acre Cradle of Forestry in America is a National Historic Site
located within the Pisgah. 

Table II.6 provides various data on the three Forest Service units
visited. 



                               Table II.6
                
                 Fiscal Year 1995 Data on the FS Units
                                Visited

                                       National forest
                        ----------------------------------------------
                                                            Nantahala-
                                Cibola    Manti-La Sal          Pisgah
----------------------  --------------  --------------  --------------
Acres                        1,631,000       1,266,000       1,031,000
Visitation                   1,539,000         942,000      16,419,000
FTEs\a                             163             113             153
Costs                      $17,879,000     $10,209,000      $9,127,000
Revenues                      $772,000        $264,000        $528,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:  The Cibola and the Manti-La Sal each has a Forest Supervisor
for the individual forest.  In North Carolina, however, the Forest
Supervisor covers all forests in the state, and the costs for this
office are not attributable to individual forests.  Thus, the
Nantahala-Pisgah figure excludes any Supervisor costs, but the costs
for the Supervisor are included in the figures for the Cibola and
Manti-La Sal National Forests. 

\a A full-time equivalent (FTE) equals the number of hours worked
divided by the number of compensable hours in a fiscal year. 

Source:  The agency's data. 


   FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:5

We visited the Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge in Utah, the Bosque
del Apache National Wildlife Refuge in New Mexico, and the Pee Dee
National Wildlife Refuge in North Carolina. 


      BEAR RIVER MIGRATORY BIRD
      REFUGE
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:5.1

The Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge is located 15 miles west of
Brigham City in northwestern Utah at the mouth of the Bear River, on
the Bear River Bay.  The refuge receives most of its fresh water from
the Bear River.  It was created in 1928 to provide a suitable refuge
and feeding and breeding grounds for migratory birds.  A secondary
objective was to protect waterfowl from botulism, sometimes known as
western duck sickness.  Prior to the refuge's establishment, a 2
million bird die-off occurred in 1910 and a 1.5 million bird die-off
was recorded in 1920.  Forty percent of the refuge is open to
hunting. 

In 1983, flooding devastated the refuge.  Salt water replaced the
fresh water, killing the vegetation; and all of the refuge's
buildings, including the office-visitor center, were destroyed.  In
1985, an estimated 95 percent of the refuge's lands were still
covered by salt water from the Great Salt Lake.  Since 1989, the
refuge has been in a rebuilding mode. 

About 50 percent of the work has been completed on canals and
diversion channels, 75 percent of the restoration of 43 miles of
dikes, and 80 percent of the water control structures.  In addition,
work is about 25 percent complete on sub-dividing the existing water
impoundment units and constructing new dikes.  The refuge's office is
currently located off the refuge in Brigham City.  However, the
refuge hopes to build a new headquarters/education center on refuge
lands in the future. 

Fishing, hunting, and recreation are authorized in certain areas of
the refuge.  The refuge has a 12-mile auto tour route for public
viewing of the wildlife.  Grazing is authorized in certain areas and
is done intermittently to enhance wildlife habitat.  Mining and
timber production are not authorized. 


      BOSQUE DEL APACHE NATIONAL
      WILDLIFE REFUGE
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:5.2

In 1939, President Franklin D.  Roosevelt established the Bosque del
Apache National Wildlife Refuge as a refuge and a breeding ground for
migratory birds and other wildlife.  Located in western-central New
Mexico in Socorro County, the refuge straddles the Rio Grande about
90 miles south of Albuquerque, New Mexico. 

The refuge's importance to Canada geese has diminished, while its
importance to other birds such as snow geese, ducks, and sandhill
cranes has increased.  In 1975, the refuge began providing wintering
habitat for a special flock of endangered whooping cranes, and all
lands on the refuge below 4,600 feet in elevation are legally
designated whooping crane critical habitat. 

The refuge's roles include ensuring the preservation of the refuge's
land and animals, expanding the understanding and appreciation of the
environment, providing a variety of wildlife experiences for people,
and providing for environmental research.  Increased public demand
has expanded the refuge's role in providing environmental education
and wildlife-oriented recreation.  For example, over 90 percent of
the visitors to the refuge come for sightseeing, photography, or
birdwatching.  Fishing, hunting, and recreation are authorized. 
Fishing, however, is minimal because of the limited waters that are
suitable for fisheries.  The refuge has no mining, timber production,
or grazing. 


      PEE DEE NATIONAL WILDLIFE
      REFUGE
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:5.3

The Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge was established in 1963 to
provide wintering habitat for migratory waterfowl.  The refuge is
located in two counties in south-central North Carolina roughly 6
miles north of Wadesboro, North Carolina.  Forest covers about 6,100
acres (over 70 percent) of the refuge land, and almost 1,200 acres
are used as agricultural lands. 

Fishing, hunting, and recreation are authorized at the refuge. 
Mining and grazing are not authorized.  This refuge was the only one
that we visited that had timber harvesting authorized.  However,
timber harvesting is done within forest management guidelines for
red-cockaded woodpeckers (an endangered species located on the
refuge). 

Some refuge lands were reestablished in native switch grass.  The
grass provides a seed source for birds and nesting cover for small
game while providing hay for a local dairy farmer.  In addition,
about 510 acres of soybeans, 620 acres of corn, and 150 acres of
winter wheat were planted on refuge lands in 1995, which yielded
approximately 15,000 bushels of soybeans, 62,000 bushels of corn, and
4,800 bushels of wheat.  The refuge receives a portion of the crop or
services from the farmers as payment for the use of the land. 

Table II.7 provides various data about the Bear River, Bosque del
Apache, and Pee Dee refuges. 



                               Table II.7
                
                 Fiscal Year 1995 Data on the FWS Units
                                Visited

                                            Refuge
                        ----------------------------------------------
                                            Bosque del
                            Bear River          Apache         Pee Dee
----------------------  --------------  --------------  --------------
Acres                         72,972\a          57,191           8,443
Visitation                      18,900         136,000         8,700\a
FTEs\b                               7              15               5
Costs                         $770,586      $1,082,096        $583,443
Revenues                        $6,354         $42,054         $16,416
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Calendar year data. 

\b A full-time equivalent (FTE) equals the number of hours worked
divided by the number of compensable hours in a fiscal year. 

Source:  The agency's data. 


   NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:6

We visited two national parks and one national monument. 


      GREAT SMOKY MOUNTAINS
      NATIONAL PARK
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:6.1

The Act of May 22, 1926, established Great Smoky Mountains National
Park.  The park straddles the border between Tennessee and North
Carolina with about half of the park located in each state. 

The park is noted for the diversity of its plant and animal
resources, the beauty of its ancient mountains, its remnants of
American pioneer culture, and the wilderness sanctuary within its
boundaries.  Its purpose is to preserve its exceptionally diverse
resources and to provide for public benefit and enjoyment of the
resources in ways that will leave them essentially unaltered.  The
uses that are allowed and active are those generally found in parks,
including most recreational activities.  Timber harvesting, mining,
and hunting are prohibited.  Some grazing is allowed, but only to
maintain the historical look the park is trying to preserve. 


      CANYONLANDS NATIONAL PARK
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:6.2

Canyonlands National Park was established in 1964.  It is located in
the heart of the Colorado Plateau in southeastern Utah.  Canyonlands
is part of the Southeast Utah Group, which includes Arches National
Park and Natural Bridges National Monument. 

The park is noted for its canyons, arches, buttes, towers, and other
land forms and for its rock art and other remnants of ancient
habitation.  Its purpose is to preserve its outstanding scenic,
scientific, and archaeological resources for public enjoyment.  The
uses that are allowed and active are those generally found in parks,
including most recreational activities.  The featured recreational
uses include viewing the park's spectacular landscapes, examining its
archaeological treasures, driving four-wheel vehicles, hiking, and
taking river float trips.  Mining, grazing, and hunting are
prohibited and some wood cutting is allowed. 


      EL MALPAIS NATIONAL MONUMENT
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:6.3

El Malpais was established on December 31, 1987.  It is located in
the high desert lands of west-central New Mexico.  The monument is
noted for its lava flows and related lava tube cave systems.  The
area also offers a diverse natural environment and evidence of
American Indian and European history.  The park's purpose is to
preserve for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future
generations the Grants lava flow, the Las Ventanas Chacoan Outlier
Archaeological Site, and other significant natural and cultural
resources.  The uses that are allowed and active are those generally
found in parks, including such recreational activities as hiking and
camping; exploring the lava tubes and cultural sites are popular
activities.  Mining, timber harvesting, and hunting are prohibited,
while grazing is being phased out. 

Table II.8 provides overview information on the NPS units visited. 



                               Table II.8
                
                 Fiscal Year 1995 Data on the NPS Units
                                Visited

                             National park          National monument
                      ----------------------------  ------------------
                      Canyonla         Great Smoky
                           nds           Mountains          El Malpais
--------------------  --------  ------------------  ------------------
Acres                  338,000             521,000             114,000
Visitation             453,000           8,948,000              97,000
FTEs\a                      87                 275                  15
Costs                 $4,454,0         $13,171,000          $1,238,000
                            00
Revenues\b            $276,000            $733,000                   0
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a A full-time equivalent (FTE) equals the number of hours worked
divided by the number of compensable hours in a fiscal year. 

\b Revenues from fees. 

Source:  The agency's data. 


OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY
========================================================= Appendix III

Five congressional members asked us to obtain information on land
management activities at units of six federal agencies--the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture's Forest Service (FS); the Department of
the Army's Corps of Engineers (Corps); and the Department of the
Interior's Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Bureau of Reclamation
(BOR), Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and National Park Service
(NPS).  Specifically, they asked us to (1) identify the land
management activities carried out at individual units of these
agencies and identify common activities across the agencies, (2)
describe the changes over the last 25 years in the missions and
activities these agencies and units carry out, and (3) provide
information on the costs to operate these units and the revenues they
generated. 

In performing our work, we visited 14 land management units, which
included parks, forests, and refuges.  We interviewed unit officials
and obtained and reviewed documents and other data, including land
and resource management plans, annual reports, and environmental
assessments.  In addition, we met with and obtained documentation
from agency officials at headquarters and other organizational levels
within each agency.  We also reviewed legislation creating the
agencies and their specific units. 

To identify the land management activities performed by units of
these agencies, we selected three states, identified units within the
states, and identified activities at each unit.  We selected Utah and
New Mexico because they include units for most of the six land
management agencies and because they had comparable state-managed
land units.  We added North Carolina to provide the perspective of an
eastern state that also had comparable state-managed units. 

In each state, we chose units with large land areas that, when
possible, were also located close to each other.  In Utah and New
Mexico, we selected one unit in each state for each agency, except
for the Corps, which did not have a unit in Utah.  Prior to selecting
a third state, we agreed to exclude units of BOR and the Corps
because our initial work with these agencies showed that they are
primarily water-management agencies that have substantially different
land management responsibilities than the other four agencies. 
Subsequently, we selected North Carolina, where we chose units of FS,
FWS, and NPS.  BLM does not manage any land in the state.  Because
our work was performed in a limited number of states and units within
those states, we recognize that the results cannot be used to make
generalized statements about all units in an agency. 

To identify the land management activities at the various units, we
obtained expenditure reports for each unit.  On the basis of these
data, we identified activities with the largest costs which, in
total, accounted for approximately 60 percent of each unit's fiscal
year 1995 costs.  We selected fiscal year 1995 cost data because it
was the latest year for which complete data were available when we
initiated our review.  We excluded general administration, which in
some cases was a major expenditure, because we did not consider it a
specific land management activity.  Expenditure reports for some
units did not provide sufficient detail for us to identify the costs
for various specific activities.  For those units, we asked unit
managers to identify the major activities for us. 

From the activities meeting the above criteria, we selected those
that were performed at units in half or more of the agencies, and we
consider them to be common activities.  To describe these common
activities, we identified typical tasks that unit staff performed in
carrying out these activities.  We obtained the information from
discussions with unit management and staff and our review of unit
documents. 

To determine changes in the agencies' objectives and activities, we
reviewed legislation; obtained and reviewed agency and unit
documents, such as plans and historical summaries; and interviewed
unit officials about the changes.  To obtain unit costs and revenues
for fiscal year 1995, we requested and obtained the data from either
the individual unit or from the agency's financial center.  We did
not independently verify these data. 


MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
========================================================== Appendix IV

Robert Cronin
Paul Grace
James Hunt
Casandra Joseph
Kenneth Kurz
Jeffery Malcolm


RELATED GAO PRODUCTS
============================================================ Chapter 0

Forest Service:  Construction of National Forest Roads
(GAO/RCED-97-160R, May 27, 1997). 

Forest Service Decision-Making:  A Framework for Improving
Performance (GAO/RCED-97-71, Apr.  29, 1997). 

Tongass National Forest:  Lack of Accountability for Time and Costs
Has Delayed Forest Plan Revision (GAO/T-RCED-97-153, Apr.  29, 1997). 

Federal Land Management:  Authorized Uses in the Grand
Staircase-Escalante National Monument (GAO/RCED-97-117R, Apr.  17,
1997). 

Park Service:  Managing for Results Could Strengthen Accountability
(GAO/RCED-97-125, Apr.  10, 1997). 

Minerals Management:  Costs for Onshore Minerals Leasing Programs in
Three States (GAO/RCED-97-31, Feb.  27, 1997). 

National Parks:  Park Service Needs Better Information to Preserve
and Protect Resources (GAO/T-RCED-97-76, Feb.  27, 1997). 

Forest Service Decision-Making:  Greater Clarity Needed on Mission
Priorities (GAO/T-RCED-97-81, Feb.  25, 1997). 

Emergency Salvage Sale Program:  Forest Service Met Its Target, but
More Timber Could Have Been Offered for Sale (GAO/RCED-97-53, Feb. 
24, 1997). 

Land Management Agencies:  Information on Selected Administrative
Policies and Practices (GAO/RCED-97-40, Feb.  11, 1997). 

U.S.  Forest Service:  Fees for Recreation Special-Use Permits Do Not
Reflect Fair Market Value (GAO/RCED-97-16, Dec.  20, 1996). 

Timber Management:  Opportunities to Limit Future Liability for
Suspended or Canceled Timber Sale Contracts (GAO/RCED-97-14, Oct. 
31, 1996). 

Bureau of Reclamation:  An Assessment of the Environmental Impact
Statement on the Operations of the Glen Canyon Dam (GAO/RCED-97-12,
Oct.  2, 1996). 

National Park Service:  Activities Within Park Borders Have Caused
Damage to Resources (GAO/RCED-96-202, Aug.  23, 1996). 

Salvage Sale Fund's Deposits and Outlays (GAO/RCED-96-240R, Aug.  22,
1996). 

Federal Lands:  Concession Reform is Needed (GAO/T-RCED/GGD-96-223,
July 18, 1996). 

Bureau of Reclamation:  Information on Allocation and Repayment of
Costs of Constructing Water Projects (GAO/RCED-96-109, July 3, 1996). 

Federal Land Management:  Streamlining and Reorganization Issues
(GAO/T-RCED-96-209, June 27, 1996). 

Forest Service's Reforestation Funding:  Financial Sources, Uses, and
Condition of the Knutson-Vandenberg Fund (GAO/RCED-96-15, June 21,
1996)

Forest Service's Financial Data Limitations (GAO/RCED-96-198R, June
19, 1996). 

Comments on H.R.  2107 (GAO/RCED-96-189R, June 11, 1996). 

Public Timber:  Federal and State Programs Differ Significantly in
Pacific Northwest (GAO/RCED-96-108, May 23, 1996). 

National Park Service:  Information on Special Account Funds at
Selected Park Units (GAO/RCED-96-90, May 17, 1996). 

Federal Land Use (GAO/RCED-96-139R, May 7, 1996). 

U.S.  Forest Service:  Fee System for Rights-of-Way Program Needs
Revision (GAO/RCED-96-84, Apr.  22, 1996). 

Tongass National Forest Timber Volumes (GAO/RCED-96-122R, Apr.  16,
1996). 

Lands Managed by the Corps of Engineers (GAO/RCED-96-101R, Apr.  2,
1996). 

Federal Lands:  Views on H.R.  2941--A Bill to Improve Housing for
Employees of Land Management Agencies (GAO/T-RCED-96-110, Mar.  26,
1996). 

Forest Service:  Issues Related to Managing National Forests for
Multiple Uses (GAO/T-RCED-96-111, Mar.  26, 1996). 

Federal Lands:  Information on the Acreage, Management, and Use of
Federal and Other Lands (GAO/T-RCED-96-104, Mar.  21, 1996). 

Land Ownership:  Information on the Acreage, Management, and Use of
Federal and Other Lands (GAO/RCED-96-40, Mar.  13, 1996). 

Federal Land Management:  Information on Efforts to Inventory
Abandoned Hard Rock Mines (GAO/RCED-96-30, Feb.  23, 1996). 

Federal Lands:  Information on Land Owned and Acquired
(GAO/T-RCED-96-73, Feb.  6, 1996). 

Forest Service:  Issues Relating to Its Decisionmaking Process
(GAO/T-RCED-96-66, Jan.  25, 1996). 

Forest Service:  Observations on the Emergency Salvage Sale Program
(GAO-T-RCED-96-38, Nov.  29, 1995). 

Forest Service:  Distribution of Timber Sales Receipts Fiscal Years
1992-94 (GAO/RCED-95-237FS, Sept.  8, 1995). 

National Parks:  Difficult Choices Need to Be Made About the Future
of the Parks (GAO/RCED-95-238, Aug.  30, 1995). 

Federal Lands:  Information on the Use and Impact of Off-Highway
Vehicles (GAO/RCED-95-209, Aug.  18, 1995). 

Federal Lands:  Views on Reform of Recreation Concessioners
(GAO/T-RCED-95-250, July 25, 1995). 

National Parks:  Views on the Denver Service Center and Information
on Related Construction Activities (GAO/RCED-95-79, June 23, 1995). 

Water Quality:  Information on Salinity Control Projects in the
Colorado River Basin (GAO/T-RCED-95-185, May 11, 1995). 

Water Quality:  Information on Salinity Control Projects in the
Colorado River Basin (GAO/RCED-95-58, Mar.  29, 1995). 

Federal Lands:  Information on Land Owned and on Acreage With
Conservation Restrictions (GAO/T-RCED-95-117, Mar.  2, 1995). 

Private Timberlands:  Private Timber Harvests Not Likely to Replace
Declining Federal Harvests (GAO/RCED-95-51, Feb.  16, 1995). 

National Park Service:  Better Management and Broader Restructuring
Efforts Are Needed (GAO/T-RCED-95-101, Feb.  9, 1995). 

Federal Lands:  Information on Land Owned and on Acreage With
Conservation Restrictions (GAO/RCED-95-73FS, Jan.  30, 1995). 

*** End of document. ***