Land Ownership: Similarities and Differences in the Management of
Selected State and Federal Land Units (Letter Report, 06/27/97,
GAO/RCED-97-158).

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO compared state and federal land
management, focusing on: (1) the purposes and uses for which state-owned
lands are managed; and (2) state and federal land management activities,
operating costs, and revenues.

GAO noted that: (1) the majority of state-owned lands in New Mexico and
Utah are trust lands, which are managed to generate revenue and are
generally not open to the public; (2) the remaining state-owned lands in
New Mexico and Utah and all of the state-owned lands in North Carolina
are public lands, which are managed by state departments and agencies
for various purposes and uses; (3) the public lands are managed, among
other things, to provide recreational opportunities for the public or to
preserve the states' natural, historic, and scenic resources; (4) the
three state parks and the three national parks GAO reviewed conducted
similar activities, but the state parks placed more emphasis on visitor
services while the national parks gave a higher priority to conserving
natural resources; (5) the state parks also cost less to operate and
less per visitor, but more per acre to manage; (6) in addition, although
the state parks usually generated less revenue, they recovered a higher
percentage of their operating costs; (7) the activities emphasized by
the state parks, as well as their smaller area and staffs, were among
the factors contributing to the differences in costs and revenues; (8)
the three state wildlife/waterfowl management areas and three national
wildlife refuges conducted similar activities; (9) however, the state
areas gave less attention to visitor services than did the three
national refuges; (10) the state areas generally had lower operating
costs as well as lower costs per acre; (11) the activities emphasized by
the state areas and their smaller area and staffs were among the factors
accounting for the differences in the operating costs; (12) because both
the state and the national areas are managed to provide habitat for and
to protect wildlife, the revenues generated from the public uses of
these areas were minimal; (13) both the state forest and the national
forests emphasized timber growth and production activities, but the
state forest did not manage for recreation while the national forests
did; (14) the state forest's operating costs were significantly smaller
than the national forests', while the costs per acre to manage were 35
percent higher; (15) in addition, although the state forest generated
less revenue, it recovered a much higher percentage of its operating
costs; and (16) again, the activities emphasized by the state forest, as
well as its much smaller size and staff, were among the factors contrib*

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

 REPORTNUM:  RCED-97-158
     TITLE:  Land Ownership: Similarities and Differences in the 
             Management of Selected State and Federal Land Units
      DATE:  06/27/97
   SUBJECT:  Land management
             Public lands
             Recreation areas
             Conservation
             National parks
             Wildlife conservation
             Cost analysis
             Comparative analysis
             State programs
             Forest management
IDENTIFIER:  New Mexico
             Utah
             North Carolina
             
******************************************************************
** 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 OWNERSHIP - SIMILARITIES AND
DIFFERENCES IN THE MANAGEMENT OF
SELECTED STATE AND FEDERAL LAND
UNITS

GAO/RCED-97-158

Comparison of Selected State and Federal Land Units

(140113)


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


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


B-276875

June 27, 1997

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

The Honorable Richard Pombo
House of Representatives

Both the federal government and the states own millions of acres of
land that are managed for various purposes.  In March 1996, we
reported to the Chairman of the House Committee on Resources and
Representative Pombo on a variety of topics dealing with land
ownership, including the acreage owned by 13 western states.\1
Because you were interested in comparing state and federal land
management, you asked us to (1) identify the purposes and uses for
which state-owned lands are managed and (2) compare state and federal
land management activities, operating costs, and revenues. 

As agreed with your offices, we obtained data on the management of
state-owned lands in New Mexico, North Carolina, and Utah.  In
addition, within these three states, we judgmentally selected 14
state and national parks, wildlife areas, and forests and compared
the activities, operating costs, and revenues of the state units with
those of the federal units.  Because of differences in the emphasis
given to particular activities, the size of the land units reviewed,
the number of staff assigned to the units, and other factors--all of
which affect the units' operating costs and revenues--caution must be
used in interpreting the data gathered on these units and in making
decisions on the basis of these data. 


--------------------
\1 Land Ownership:  Information on the Acreage, Management, and Use
of Federal and Other Lands (GAO/RCED-96-40, Mar.  13, 1996). 


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

The majority of the state-owned lands in New Mexico and Utah are
trust lands, which are managed to generate revenue and are generally
not open to the public.  The remaining state-owned lands in New
Mexico and Utah and all of the state-owned lands in North Carolina
are public lands, which are managed by state departments and agencies
for various purposes and uses.  Specifically, the trust lands--95
percent (8.9 million acres) of the state-owned lands in New Mexico
and 65 percent (3.7 million acres) of the state-owned lands in
Utah--are managed to produce revenue for schools and other designated
institutions from uses such as oil and gas production, grazing, and
mining.  The public lands are managed, among other things, to provide
recreational opportunities for the public or to preserve the states'
natural, historic, and scenic resources.  From these lands, we
selected the state units for comparison with federal units. 

Our review of 14 state and federal land units identified similarities
and differences in their activities, operating costs, and revenues. 

  -- The three state parks and the three national parks we reviewed
     conducted similar activities, but the state parks placed more
     emphasis on visitor services while the national parks gave a
     higher priority to conserving natural resources (resource
     stewardship).  The state parks also cost less to operate and
     less per visitor, but more per acre to manage.  In addition,
     although the state parks usually generated less revenue, they
     recovered a higher percentage of their operating costs.  For
     example, the state park in North Carolina generated about
     $225,000 annually, or 64 percent of its operating costs, while
     the national park generated about $780,000, or 6 percent of its
     operating costs.  The activities emphasized by the state parks,
     as well as their smaller area and staffs, were among the factors
     contributing to the differences in costs and revenues. 

  -- The three state wildlife/waterfowl management areas and three
     national wildlife refuges conducted similar activities; however,
     the state areas gave less attention to visitor services than did
     the three national refuges.  The state areas generally had lower
     operating costs as well as lower costs per acre.  For example,
     the state waterfowl management area in Utah cost an annual
     average of $119,000 to operate and $6 per acre to manage, while
     the national refuge cost an annual average of slightly over
     $770,000 to operate and almost $9 per acre to manage.  The
     activities emphasized by the state areas and their smaller area
     and staffs were among the factors accounting for the differences
     in the operating costs.  Because both the state and the national
     areas are managed to provide habitat for and to protect
     wildlife, the revenues generated from the public uses of these
     areas were minimal. 

  -- Both the state forest and the national forests emphasized timber
     growth and production activities, but the state forest did not
     manage for recreation while the national forests did.  The state
     forest's operating costs were significantly smaller than the
     national forests', while the costs per acre to manage were 35
     percent higher.  In addition, although the state forest
     generated less revenue, it recovered a much higher percentage of
     its operating costs.  Again, the activities emphasized by the
     state forest, as well as its much smaller size and staff, were
     among the factors contributing to the differences in costs and
     revenues. 


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

The federal government owns about 30 percent (650 million acres) of
the nation's total surface area.  Four major federal land management
agencies--the U.S.  Department of Agriculture's Forest Service and
the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Land Management, Fish and
Wildlife Service, and National Park Service--manage about 95 percent
of these lands.  Each of these agencies bases the management of its
lands and resources on its legislatively mandated mission and
responsibilities.  For example, the National Park Service manages its
lands to conserve, preserve, protect, and interpret the nation's
natural, cultural, and historic resources. 

The 50 states also have substantial land holdings, including about 57
million acres of state forests, 20 million acres of state wildlife
areas, and 12 million acres of state parks.  Although the states rely
on a variety of organizational structures, they have each created
management agencies--such as state forestry, wildlife management, and
park agencies--to manage their lands.  Like the federal land
management agencies, the state agencies base the management of their
lands on their missions and responsibilities. 

We judgmentally selected and reviewed 14 state and federal land
management units located in New Mexico, North Carolina, and Utah. 
These units are shown in figure 1.  A detailed description of each of
these units--including its acreage, number of visitors, operating
costs, and revenues generated--appears in appendix I. 

   Figure 1:  Selected State and
   Federal Land Units in New
   Mexico, North Carolina, and
   Utah

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

We used several measures to provide additional perspective on the
operating costs and revenues generated at these units.  First, we
used the cost per visitor in comparing the state and national parks
because these units collected information on visitation.  Then, for
all of the units, we used the cost per acre to manage because it
provides a uniform measure across units that vary in size.  Finally,
for the state and national parks and forests, we calculated revenues
as a percentage of operating costs to measure these units'
self-sufficiency. 


   PURPOSES AND USES FOR WHICH
   THREE STATES MANAGE THEIR LANDS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3

New Mexico, North Carolina, and Utah manage their lands for a variety
of purposes and uses.  Most of the state-owned lands in New Mexico
and Utah--95 percent and 65 percent, respectively--are trust lands.\2
Unlike federal lands, these lands are generally not open to the
public.  Rather, they must be managed to generate revenues for
designated beneficiaries through royalties or fees paid for oil and
gas production, mining, grazing, or other uses.  The remainder of the
lands in these states are either sovereign or public lands.  These
lands are managed for purposes and uses such as wildlife areas,
historic areas, and state parks to preserve natural, historic, and
scenic resources while providing habitat for wildlife and
recreational opportunities for citizens.  In addition, some of these
lands provide sites for state office buildings and medical
facilities. 

In New Mexico, of the 9.4 million acres owned by the state, 8.9
million acres, or 95 percent, are state trust lands.  These lands,
granted to New Mexico at statehood, must be managed to generate
income for schools and other designated institutions.  In fiscal year
1995, uses of these trust lands generated $119.8 million in revenues. 
Although uses such as grazing, leases of rights-of-way, and
commercial activities produced some income, over 87 percent of the
revenues from New Mexico's trust lands came from royalties received
from oil and gas leases.  The remaining acres (about 500,000) are
managed by various state agencies, including the Commission on Higher
Education and the departments of Energy and Minerals and Game and
Fish.  The purposes and uses of these lands range from state parks
and wildlife management areas to sites for state office buildings. 

All of North Carolina's state-owned lands are public lands.  Because
none of the 13 original colonies received trust lands, North Carolina
has none.  The state's 480,000 acres are allocated to state
departments and agencies to be managed for various purposes and uses,
including sites for correctional facilities, educational facilities,
office buildings, parks and recreational areas, and warehouse
facilities.  The largest portion of these lands--almost 380,000
acres, or 79 percent--has been allocated to the Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources.  These lands are used to
(1) provide habitat to wildlife and provide recreational
opportunities to hunters and anglers, (2) promote a better
understanding of forestry, or (3) conserve and preserve natural
resources for the benefit of all of North Carolina's citizens. 

In Utah, 3.7 million, or 65 percent, of the 5.7 million acres of
state-owned land are held in trust for designated public
institutions, primarily schools, which benefit from the income
generated from the use of these lands.  In 1995, Utah's trust lands
generated $15.6 million in income for their beneficiaries from uses
such as mining, oil and gas production, grazing, and special uses
requiring permits.  Mineral leases, which generated $11 million in
royalties, constituted the most significant source of revenue. 

About 1.5 million of Utah's remaining 2 million acres are managed for
multiple uses and sustained yield.  About 1.3 million acres are
associated with the Great Salt Lake, including land and water that
are used for recreation but also generate revenue for the state
through mineral extractions.  Various state agencies and departments
manage the remainder of Utah's lands for a variety of purposes and
uses, including road rights-of-way, correctional facilities, and
state parks and wildlife areas. 


--------------------
\2 Except for Maine, Texas, and West Virginia, the states that joined
the Union after 1803 received grants of land for the benefit of and
use by schools in these states.  These lands are generally known as
state trust lands. 


   SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES IN
   STATE AND NATIONAL PARKS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4

During fiscal years 1994 and 1995,\3 the state and national parks we
selected conducted similar activities, but placed differing emphasis
on activities such as visitor services and resource stewardship. 
This differing emphasis, along with differences in other factors such
as the units' area and number of staff, enabled the state parks to
operate at less cost--both overall and per visitor.  However, the
state parks cost more per acre to manage than the national parks. 
The state parks usually generated less revenue than the national
parks, but they recovered a higher percentage of their operating
costs. 

During this 2-year period, the selected state and national parks both
conducted activities connected with visitor services, resource
stewardship, operations and maintenance, and administration.  These
activities included providing campgrounds and visitor centers,
monitoring and protecting park resources, and maintaining park
facilities and structures.  All of the state and national parks spent
a substantial portion of their operating funds--generally from 30 to
40 percent-- on operations and maintenance activities. 

While the state and national parks conducted similar activities, they
differed in the emphasis they placed on two activities--visitor
services and resource stewardship.  As indicated by the percentage of
operating costs spent on these activities during the 2-year period,
the state parks in New Mexico and Utah emphasized providing
recreational opportunities for visitors, while the national parks
emphasized preserving and protecting park resources.  City of Rocks
State Park in New Mexico and Dead Horse Point State Park in Utah each
spent 50 percent of their average annual operating funds on visitor
services.  El Malpais National Monument in New Mexico and Canyonlands
National Park spent 18 percent and 10 percent, respectively, of their
operating costs on visitor services during this 2-year period.  In
contrast, the national parks in these two states spent from 21 to 28
percent of their operating costs on resource stewardship, while the
state parks spent 5 and 4 percent, respectively.  Because North
Carolina's management philosophy is similar to the National Park
Service's, Hanging Rock State Park and the national park in North
Carolina spent similar percentages on both visitor services and
resource stewardship. 

Overall, the average annual operating costs for the 2-year period
were substantially lower for the state parks than for the national
parks.  The lowest operating cost for a state park was $73,000,
compared with $816,000 for a national park.  The national parks cost
more to operate for a number of reasons, including their larger area
and more numerous staff.  For example, the 6,192-acre Hanging Rock
State Park in North Carolina, with seven full-time staff, cost
$353,000 to operate.  In contrast, the 520,000-acre Great Smoky
Mountains National Park, with 275 full-time staff, cost $13.5
million.  However, despite the difference in the size of their
staffs, all of the state and national parks spent over half of their
operating funds during this 2-year period on salaries and benefits. 

The smaller state parks also had lower costs per visitor than the
national parks for the 2-year period, partly because their operating
costs were lower.  For example, New Mexico's City of Rocks State
Park, which had average annual operating costs of $73,000 and 53,000
visitors, incurred an average per-visitor cost of $1.37.  El Malpais
National Monument, which had average annual operating costs of
$816,000 and 99,000 visitors, incurred an average per-visitor cost of
$8.24.  Figure 2 shows the average cost per visitor at the selected
state and national parks in New Mexico, North Carolina, and Utah. 

   Figure 2:  Average Cost per
   Visitor at Selected State and
   National Parks in New Mexico,
   North Carolina, and Utah,
   Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Even though the state parks cost less to operate and less per visitor
than the national parks, they cost more per acre to manage.  The
state parks conduct many of the same activities and incur the same
types of costs as the national parks.  However, because the state
parks conduct these activities over a smaller area, they incur higher
average costs per acre.  Figure 3 shows the average cost per acre to
manage the selected state and national parks. 

   Figure 3:  Average Cost per
   Acre to Manage Selected State
   and National Parks, Fiscal
   Years 1994 and 1995

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Although the state parks usually generated less revenue than the
national parks during the 2-year period, both collected user fees. 
Differences in the types of fees charged and in the number of
visitors affected the collections.  For example, the state parks
typically charged entrance and camping fees.  City of Rocks State
Park in New Mexico and Dead Horse Point State Park in Utah, which
emphasized visitor services, both charged entrance fees.  Only one of
the three national parks--Canyonlands National Park in Utah--charged
an entrance fee.  All three of the state parks charged camping fees,
compared with two of the national parks.  Nevertheless, the national
parks, which reported more visitors, usually generated more revenue. 
For example, Canyonlands National Park in Utah reported an average of
440,000 visitors and received about $263,000 annually from entrance
and camping fees.  Utah's Dead Horse Point State Park, in comparison,
reported an average of 183,000 visitors and generated about $188,000
annually from entrance and camping fees.  The revenues generated by
the state parks represented a higher percentage of their operating
costs, in part because their operating costs were lower.  For
example, revenues represented about 86 percent of the operating costs
at Dead Horse Point State Park, compared with about 6 percent at
Canyonlands.  Figure 4 shows the revenues generated by the selected
state and national parks as a percentage of their operating costs. 

   Figure 4:  Revenues Generated
   by Selected State and National
   Parks as a Percentage of Their
   Operating Costs, Fiscal Years
   1994 and 1995

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Appendix II, which contains a detailed comparison of one state and
one national park, as well as additional information on the public
uses allowed and the facilities available, provides an example of the
comparisons we made. 


--------------------
\3 For the state and national parks we reviewed, we obtained
information on the cost of operations, number of visitors, and
revenues generated for fiscal years 1994 and 1995.  For the three
states, the fiscal year runs from July 1 to June 30. 


   SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES IN
   STATE WILDLIFE/WATERFOWL AREAS
   AND NATIONAL REFUGES
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5

During fiscal years 1994 and 1995, the state wildlife/waterfowl
management areas and the national refuges both conducted similar
activities, primarily grouped under operations and maintenance. 
However, additional activities included in operating and maintaining
the national refuges and other factors, such as differences in
acreage and staffing, contributed to the state areas' generally
having lower average annual operating costs.  Because both the state
areas and the national refuges are managed to provide habitat for and
to protect wildlife, the revenues generated from the public uses of
these areas were minimal. 

At both the state areas and the national refuges, expenditures for
operations and maintenance activities accounted for over 60 percent
of the costs in the 2 fiscal years.  At both, such activities
included providing habitat and protecting resources for
wildlife/waterfowl and repairing and maintaining structures,
equipment, and grounds.  Other activities, such as construction, fire
protection, and ecological services, were also conducted at some of
the state and national areas. 

However, the costs of operations and maintenance activities at the
national refuges included expenditures for providing visitor centers,
wildlife observation decks, and interpretative programs.  These
activities were conducted to encourage compatible public uses, such
as bird-watching and wildlife observation, that were not emphasized
at the state areas.  While the state areas allowed similar public
uses, they did not provide the number of facilities or
educational/interpretative programs found at the national refuges. 
For example, among the facilities provided to visitors at Bosque del
Apache National Wildlife Refuge in New Mexico were a visitor center,
a 15-mile vehicle tour route, walking trails, and six wildlife
observation decks.  In contrast, a vehicle tour route was the only
recreational facility available at New Mexico's Middle Rio Grande
Valley Waterfowl Management Areas. 

The state areas generally cost less to operate than the national
refuges.  For all three national refuges, the average annual
operating costs exceeded $500,000, while only one of the state areas
cost as much.\4 A number of factors contributed to the higher costs
of operating the national refuges.  Not only did the national refuges
incur more costs for visitor services (i.e., for additional
facilities and interpretative programs), but they also were larger in
area and had more staff than the state areas.  For example, the U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service's 73,000-acre Bear River Migratory Bird
Refuge in Utah, which had seven full-time staff, costs an average of
about $663,000 to operate annually.  During the same period, the
state of Utah spent an average of about $119,000 annually and
retained two full-time staff to operate Ogden Bay Waterfowl
Management Area's 19,000 acres.  Unlike the national parks, the
national refuges cost more per acre to manage than the state areas,
with the exception of the Bosque del Apache National Wildlife Refuge
in New Mexico.\5 Figure 5 shows the average cost per acre to manage
these areas. 

   Figure 5:  Average Cost per
   Acre to Manage Selected State
   Wildlife/Waterfowl Management
   Areas and National Wildlife
   Refuges, Fiscal Years 1994 and
   1995

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Most of the state wildlife/waterfowl management areas and national
refuges generated less than $50,000 annually.\6 At these areas,
generating revenue is secondary to providing habitat for and
protecting wildlife, and revenues are not generated to cover
operating expenses.  Very few fees were charged for the public uses
allowed at these areas.  For example, no state and only one national
area, Bosque del Apache National Wildlife Refuge in New Mexico,
charged an entrance fee.  Instead, the state areas generally received
state funds raised from the sale of hunting and fishing licenses.  In
addition, these areas received between 10 and 75 percent of their
operating funds from federal aid grants.\7 The state areas in New
Mexico and Utah also received funds from the sale of habitat stamps. 
The national refuges, like the national parks and forests, generally
received all of their funding through annual appropriations. 

Appendix III, which contains a detailed comparison of one state
waterfowl management area and a national refuge, as well as
additional information on the public uses allowed and the facilities
available, provides an example of the comparisons we made. 


--------------------
\4 Sandhills Game Land in North Carolina had operating costs of
$672,000 in fiscal year 1995, the only year for which cost and
revenue data were available. 

\5 The water and construction costs incurred by the state area during
this 2-year period contributed to its having a higher per-acre cost
than Bosque del Apache National Wildlife Refuge. 

\6 Sandhills Game Land in North Carolina generated about $260,000 in
fiscal year 1995 from the sale of timber and pine straw. 

\7 The Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act (Pittman-Robertson
Act) provides funding to state wildlife agencies for wildlife
conservation and recreation projects.  A total of $165.2 million,
derived from a federal excise tax on arms and ammunition, will be
apportioned to state wildlife agencies in fiscal year 1997. 


   SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES IN
   STATE AND NATIONAL FORESTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6

During fiscal years 1993, 1994, and 1995,\8 both Bladen Lakes State
Forest and the Nantahala-Pisgah National Forests\9 in North Carolina
conducted similar activities, such as forest management and
utilization.  However, differences in the emphasis that the forests
gave to recreation, as well as differences in the size of the forests
and of their staffs, contributed to differences in their average
annual operating costs and/or revenues.  For the much smaller state
forest, the costs were significantly lower than for the national
forests.  Although the state forest also generated less revenue, its
lower costs and its emphasis on timber growth and production
contributed to a much greater recovery of its costs. 

Both the state and the national forests conducted similar activities. 
The state forest and the national forests spent 35 percent and 55
percent, respectively, of their operating funds on forest management
and utilization.  This activity included managing timber growth,
production, and sales at both forests.  The state forest and the
national forests also spent 40 and 12 percent, respectively, of their
resources to protect forest land and resources, which included
maintaining forest grounds, roads, and facilities.  Other activities
conducted at both forests included administration and fire
protection. 

Differences occurred, however, in the activities conducted under
forest management and utilization.  The state forest focused on
timber growth and production, while the national forests also
emphasized recreation management, spending 28 percent of their forest
management and utilization funds for this activity.  The national
forests provided facilities and services to visitors, which was not a
priority at the state forest.  For example, for about 15 million
visitors per year, on average, the national forests provided a
visitor center, information booths, and informative signs and
exhibits throughout the forests.  The state forest, however, did not
have a separate visitor center or public rest rooms for its
approximately 2,000 visitors. 

The state forest cost substantially less to operate than did the
national forests.  The average annual cost during the 3-year period
to operate the state forest was over $385,000, while that of the
national forests was $9.2 million.  This difference in costs was
attributable to differences in the emphasis given to recreation
management, as well as in the size of the forests and of their
staffs.  For example, the lower-cost state forest, which focused on
timber growth and production, consisted of 32,000 acres and employed
nine full-time employees.  The national forests, which included
recreation management among their major activities, together covered
over 1 million acres and employed 157 full-time staff.  Despite the
difference in the size of their staffs, both forests spent about
two-thirds of their operating costs on salaries and benefits. 

Although the national forests cost more to operate, the average cost
per acre to manage was 35 percent higher for the state forest than
for the national forests.  The average per-acre cost of management
was $12.05 for the state forest, compared with $8.91 for the national
forests.  This difference occurs, in part, because the costs of
managing the national forests are spread out over a larger area,
reducing the costs per acre. 

The one state forest we reviewed generated less revenue than the
national forests, but it produced enough to make itself almost
self-sufficient.  Both the state forest and the national forests
generated most of their revenues from the sale of forest products,
such as timber and pine straw.  For the 3-year period, the state
forest generated average annual revenues totaling almost $300,000, or
about 77 percent of its operating costs.  The national forests
together generated average annual revenues of $322,105, almost
entirely from timber sales.  But because the national forests
incurred higher operating costs and emphasized providing visitor
services, their revenues amounted to about 4 percent of their
operating costs.  Since neither forest charged entrance fees, the
national forests did not derive additional revenue from their
emphasis on visitor services. 

Appendix IV contains a detailed comparison of the state and national
forests, as well as additional information on the public uses allowed
and the facilities available. 


--------------------
\8 Information presented for the state and national forests provides
the average annual operating costs, number of visitors, and revenues
for fiscal years 1993, 1994, and 1995. 

\9 The Nantahala-Pisgah National Forests are actually two forests
(the Nantahala and the Pisgah).  They are two of the four national
forests in North Carolina, all of which are managed by one forest
supervisor. 


   AGENCIES' COMMENTS AND OUR
   EVALUATION
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7

We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Agriculture's
Forest Service, the Department of the Interior, the New Mexico State
Land Office, the Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands
Administration, and the states of New Mexico, North Carolina, and
Utah for review and comment. 

We discussed the draft report with the Forest Service's Director for
Policy Analysis and a Senior Policy Officer for North Carolina's
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources.  Both
agreed that the information contained in the report was accurate and
that no changes were needed. 

The Department of the Interior provided written comments on a draft
of this report.  While not disagreeing with the information contained
in the report, Interior stated that although the report represents a
good starting point for comparing federal and state land management,
statements made and conclusions drawn in the report could be
misleading because of the small number of land units sampled and
differences in the activities and emphases of the units compared. 

We agree that the number of units we examined was small.  However, we
judgmentally selected the 14 units as case studies to explore
similarities and differences in the management of state and federal
land units.  We did not generalize, statistically project, or draw
any conclusions from the data we gathered on these units.  Our report
is meant to be a factual presentation of the similarities and
differences in the activities, operating costs, and revenues of the
selected state and federal land units within New Mexico, North
Carolina, and Utah.  In addition, we advised readers to use caution
in interpreting the data gathered on these units and in making
decisions on the basis of the data contained in this report because
of the differences in emphasis given to particular activities, the
size of the land units reviewed, the number of staff assigned to the
units, and other factors.  Interior's comments are presented in their
entirety, together with our responses, in appendix VI. 

In written comments on a draft of this report, the New Mexico State
Land Office agreed that the information presented on state trust
lands was accurate.  According to the Office, the report provided
interesting comparisons of similarities in the management of state
and federal land units and was of particular value in clearly
pointing out differences in their management.  The New Mexico State
Land Office's comments are presented in their entirety in appendix
VII. 

The states of New Mexico and Utah and the Utah School and
Institutional Trust Lands Administration provided no comments on the
draft report. 


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

We performed our work from July 1996 through May 1997 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.  A complete
discussion of our objectives, scope, and methodology appears in
appendix V. 

As requested, 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 to the
Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior; the Chief of the Forest
Service; the Directors of the Fish and Wildlife Service and the
National Park Service; the governors of New Mexico, North Carolina,
and Utah; the land commissioners of New Mexico and Utah; and other
interested parties.  We will also make copies available to others
upon request. 

Please call me at (202) 512-9775 if you or your staff have any
questions about this report.  Major contributors to this report are
listed in appendix VIII. 

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


LAND UNITS INCLUDED IN OUR REVIEW
=========================================================== Appendix I

We visited both state and federal land management units in each of
the three states included in our review.  Table I.1 shows the
acreage, number of visitors, operating costs, and revenues generated
at the selected state and national parks.  The same data for the
selected state wildlife/waterfowl management areas and national
refuges are shown in table I.2 and for the selected state and
national forests in table I.3.  Brief descriptions of the state and
federal units follow each table. 


   STATE AND NATIONAL PARKS
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:1



                               Table I.1
                
                 Acreage, Number of Visitors, Operating
                 Costs, and Revenues at Selected State
                           and National Parks

                                                Number
                                                    of  Operat
                                        Acreag  visito     ing  Revenu
Park name                                    e      rs   costs      es
--------------------------------------  ------  ------  ------  ------
New Mexico
----------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Rocks State Park                   680  53,478  $73,26  $41,26
                                                             5       9
El Malpais National Monument            114,27  99,069  816,36       0
                                             7               8

North Carolina
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hanging Rock State Park                  6,192  338,28  352,60  224,89
                                                     7       0       9
Great Smoky Mountains National Park     520,00  8,813,  13,507  780,10
                                             0     854    ,940       2