Land Management Agencies: Information on Selected Administrative Policies
and Practices (Letter Report, 02/11/97, GAO/RCED-97-40).

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the efficiency and
cost-effectiveness of the National Park Service's, Fish and Wildlife
Service's, Bureau of Land Management's, and Forest Service's
administrative functions, focusing on the: (1) reasons for and the costs
of field-unit managers' geographic relocations; (2) authorization for
and the quantity and condition of employees' rental housing; (3)
requirements for providing employees' uniforms and the expenditures for
them; (4) authorizations for employees' home-to-work travel in their
agency's vehicles; and (5) processes by which the Bureau of Land
Management and the Forest Service issue grazing permits and the
similarities and differences between the two agencies' grazing programs.

GAO found that: (1) only the Forest Service has written policies
expressing the value and necessity of relocating employees if they hold
or aspire to hold managerial positions; (2) however, the importance of
relocating employees is an unwritten tenet of the other three agencies'
culture; (3) according to the four agencies' managers, relocations are
encouraged because they allow employees to gain experience by working in
different geographic areas and with different kinds of people and
because relocations also infuse agencies' units with fresh ideas; (4)
during October 1, 1991, through June 30, 1996, the four agencies
reported spending about $8.4 million to relocate about 380 managers; (5)
federal law authorizes agencies to grant housing to employees who must
live on the land to provide services or protect property or to grant
housing if it is not available within a reasonable commuting distance;
(6) the four agencies' policies follow these criteria; (7) according to
a database of the government's rental housing maintained by the Bureau
of Reclamation, the four agencies had 11,464 housing units, ranging from
houses to tents, as of January 1997; (8) all four agencies believe that
their employees should be easily identified, and all four have policies
requiring or authorizing employees to wear uniforms; (9) for fiscal year
1995, the four agencies reported spending about $8.6 million on uniforms
for about 44,000 employees; (10) federal regulations limit the use of
agencies' vehicles for home-to-work travel to high-level officials,
employees engaged in field work, and other employees in specific
circumstances; (11) the agencies' policies specify that only their
Department's Secretary may authorize the use of an agency's vehicles for
home-to-work travel and that such authorizations must be based on the
increased efficiency and economy of government operations; (12) in
practice, the three Interior agencies have authorized home-to work use
of their vehicles for law enforcement personnel predominantly, although
the agencies have also authorized such use for emergencies or travel to
multiple locations during a day's work; and (13) the Bureau of Land
Management and Forest Service follow similar processes in issuing
permits to ranchers to graze their livestock on federal lands, and both
agencies charge the same grazing fees according to a formula set forth
in law; however, differences exist in the two programs' authorizing leg*

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

 REPORTNUM:  RCED-97-40
     TITLE:  Land Management Agencies: Information on Selected 
             Administrative Policies and Practices
      DATE:  02/11/97
   SUBJECT:  Federal employees
             Employee transfers
             Uniforms
             Clothing allowances
             Federal property management
             Travel
             Rental housing
             Budget authority
             Licenses

             
******************************************************************
** 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 the Chairman, Committee on Appropriations, U.S.  Senate

February 1997

LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCIES -
INFORMATION ON SELECTED
ADMINISTRATIVE POLICIES AND
PRACTICES

GAO/RCED-97-40

Land Management Agencies

(141001)


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

  BLM - Bureau of Land Management
  FS - Forest Service
  FWS - Fish and Wildlife Service
  GAO - General Accounting Office
  NPS - National Park Service
  OMB - Office of Management and Budget

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


B-275732

February 11, 1997

The Honorable Ted Stevens
Chairman, Committee on
 Appropriations
United States Senate

Dear Mr.  Chairman: 

The federal government owns and manages approximately 650 million
acres of land in the United States--over a quarter of the nation's
total land area.  Ninety-six percent of the federal land is managed
by four agencies:  the National Park Service, the Fish and Wildlife
Service, and the Bureau of Land Management, all within the Department
of the Interior; and the Forest Service, within the Department of
Agriculture. 

Each of the four agencies has its own unique mission and
responsibilities for the lands and resources under its jurisdiction. 
The Park Service is responsible for preserving and protecting 78
million acres of the nation's land, which include national parks. 
The Fish and Wildlife Service manages 87.5 million acres for the
conservation and protection of fish and wildlife.  Both the Bureau of
Land Management and the Forest Service support a variety of uses of
the lands that they administer, including recreation, timber
harvesting, livestock grazing, and the production of minerals. 

In fiscal year 1995, the four agencies employed over 75,000
full-time-equivalent employees.  Combined, the agencies received new
budget authority in excess of $8 billion.  They provide some of their
employees with rental housing, authority to use the agency's
vehicles, and allowances to buy uniforms; the agencies also encourage
and pay for some employees to move to different geographic locations
during their careers. 

Concerned about the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the
administrative functions performed by these four agencies, you (in
your former capacity as Chairman of the Senate Committee on
Governmental Affairs) asked us to compare their policies and
practices pertaining to (1) the reasons for and the costs of
field-unit managers' geographic relocations;\1 (2) the authorization
for and the quantity and condition of employees' rental housing; (3)
the requirements for providing employees' uniforms and the
expenditures for them; and (4) the authorizations for employees'
home-to-work travel in their agency's vehicles.  Additionally, you
asked us to compare the processes by which the Bureau of Land
Management and the Forest Service issue grazing permits and to
highlight the similarities and differences between the two agencies'
grazing programs.\2


--------------------
\1 In a separate review, we are assessing relocation practices and
costs governmentwide and expect to issue our report in the spring of
1997. 

\2 Your office also expressed interest in our ongoing review of
opportunities at Interior to reduce costs by consolidating
telecommunications services.  We expect to issue our report on this
subject in the spring of 1997. 


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

Only the Forest Service has written policies expressing the value and
necessity of relocating employees if they hold or aspire to hold
managerial positions.  However, the importance of relocating
employees is an unwritten tenet of the other three agencies' culture. 
According to the four agencies' managers, relocations are encouraged
because they allow employees to gain experience by working in
different geographic areas and with different kinds of people and
because relocations also infuse agencies' units with fresh ideas. 
Managers also cited disadvantages to relocations, including hardships
on families and disruptions in managers' efforts to gain the trust of
local communities.  During October 1, 1991, through June 30, 1996,
the four agencies reported spending about $8.4 million to relocate
about 380 managers.  (See app.  I for more information on the four
agencies' policies and practices on employee relocations.)

Federal law authorizes agencies to grant housing to employees who
must live on the land to provide services or protect property or to
grant housing if it is not available within a reasonable commuting
distance; the four agencies' policies follow these criteria. 
According to a database of the government's rental housing maintained
by Interior's Bureau of Reclamation, the four agencies had 11,464
housing units (ranging from houses to tents) as of January 1997. 
Most of these units were somewhat deteriorated or needed routine
maintenance, although some needed major repairs or replacement.  The
agencies estimated that about $470.2 million would eliminate their
backlog of rehabilitation, repair, and replacement needs for their
housing units.  (See app.  II for more information on the four
agencies' policies and practices on employee housing and for a
summary of previous GAO and Inspector General reports addressing
employee housing.)

All four agencies believe that their employees should be easily
identified, and all four have policies requiring or authorizing
employees to wear uniforms.  Each agency provides employees who are
required or authorized to wear uniforms with an initial allowance
(limited to $400 by federal law) and a subsequent replacement
allowance (up to $400 annually, depending on the agency) to purchase
uniforms.  For fiscal year 1995, the four agencies reported spending
about $8.6 million on uniforms for about 44,000 employees.  (See app. 
III for more information on the four agencies' policies and practices
regarding employees' uniforms.)

Federal regulations limit the use of agencies' vehicles for
home-to-work travel to high-level officials, employees engaged in
field work, and other employees in specific circumstances.  The
agencies' policies specify that only their Department's Secretary may
authorize the use of an agency's vehicles for home-to-work travel and
that such authorizations must be based on the increased efficiency
and economy of government operations.  In practice, the three
Interior agencies--the Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife
Service, and National Park Service--have authorized the home-to-work
use of their vehicles for law enforcement personnel predominately
(although the agencies have also authorized such use for emergencies
or for travel to multiple locations during a day's work).  Forest
Service officials did not have information readily available on their
authorizations of the use of the agency's vehicles for home-to-work
travel because decision-making and record keeping in this regard are
decentralized.  (See app.  IV for more information on the four
agencies' policies and practices regarding the use of their vehicles
and for a summary of previous GAO reports addressing such use.)

The Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service follow similar
processes in issuing permits to ranchers to graze their livestock on
federal lands, and both agencies charge the same grazing fees
according to a formula set forth in law.  Differences exist, however,
in the two programs' authorizing legislation, requirements regarding
the ownership of land and livestock, and conditions for transferring
grazing privileges (e.g., upon the death of a permittee or the sale
of a permittee's land).  (See app.  V for more information on the
similarities and differences in the two agencies' processes for
issuing grazing permits and for a summary of previous GAO reports
addressing livestock grazing on federal lands.)


   AGENCY COMMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2

We provided the Forest Service and Interior with a draft of this
report for their review and comment.  In commenting on the report, a
program coordinator at the Forest Service's Personnel Management
Branch suggested technical clarifications that we incorporated as
appropriate. 

In written comments, Interior provided us with a revised estimate
from the Park Service of the cost to clear the backlog of repair,
rehabilitation, and replacement needs of employee housing in the
Service.  In addition, Interior said that it is moving forward with
an initiative to identify funding alternatives for the repair,
rehabilitation, and replacement of employee housing in the Park
Service.  (See app.  VI.) We incorporated this information in our
report.  Finally, Interior provided us with updated budget and
employment data for the Bureau of Land Management and Fish and
Wildlife Service.  However, we did not use these data because
Interior did not provide comparable information for the Park Service. 


   SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3

We obtained most of the information presented in this report from
interviews with headquarters officials who are responsible for and/or
cognizant of their agency's policies on employee relocation, housing,
uniforms, and home-to-work travel in their agency's vehicles.  We
also reviewed agencies' policies, cost information, and other
relevant documents provided by these officials.  When applicable, we
also obtained and reviewed federal statutes and regulations. 

To identify the number and costs of field-unit managers' relocations,
we asked each agency to tell us how many times the top manager had
changed from October 1, 1991, through June 30, 1996, and the reasons
for those changes for the following field units:  (1) the Park
Service's national parks, national monuments, and comparable units;
(2) the Fish and Wildlife Service's refuges; (3) the Bureau of Land
Management's resource areas; and (4) the Forest Service's national
forests.  We also randomly selected and interviewed 13 managers of
these field units to obtain their views on the benefits and
disadvantages of relocations. 

For information on housing, uniforms, and vehicles for employees, we
interviewed cognizant officials at each agency to obtain information
on the agency's current practices.  We relied on the data that the
officials provided us with regarding the estimated costs to maintain,
repair, or replace housing units; the expenditure of allowances for
uniforms; and the number of employees authorized to use their
agency's vehicles for home-to-work travel.  For all four agencies, we
obtained information on the number of housing units and their
condition from the centralized database managed by Interior's Bureau
of Reclamation. 

As you requested, we limited our review of the processes by which
grazing permits are issued to two agencies:  the Bureau of Land
Management and the Forest Service.  We interviewed officials who are
responsible for their respective agency's grazing programs at the two
agencies' headquarters, at the Bureau's Colorado State Office, and at
the Forest Service's Rocky Mountain Regional Office (Region 2) in
Colorado.  We also visited the Bureau's Uncompahgre Basin Resource
Area Office and the Forest Service's Ouray District Office, which are
located in Montrose, Colorado, to interview grazing program officials
on the grazing permit process and review grazing permit files. 

We conducted our review from August 1996 through January 1997 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  We
did not independently verify or test the reliability of the data
provided by the agencies. 


---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.1

As arranged with your office, unless you publicly announce its
contents earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report
until 7 days after the date of this letter.  At that time, we will
send copies to the Ranking Minority Member of the Committee, the
Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the Senate Committee on
Governmental Affairs, and the Secretaries of Agriculture and the
Interior.  We will make copies available to others on request. 

If you or you staff have any questions, please call me at (202)
512-9775.  Major contributors to this report appear in appendix VII. 

Sincerely yours,

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


EMPLOYEE RELOCATIONS
=========================================================== Appendix I

Although only the Forest Service (FS) has policies pertaining to
employee relocations, the four land management agencies that we
reviewed--the National Park Service (NPS), the Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and FS--have
similar practices.  Of the four agencies, only FS currently has
written policies that express the value and necessity of "mobility"
(i.e., the willingness to relocate) for employees who hold or aspire
to hold managerial positions at the agency.  However, the managers we
interviewed from the other three agencies said that at their agency
as well, employee mobility is a tenet of the corporate culture and
that employees believe that they may have to relocate if they wish to
move ahead in the organization. 

We asked the agencies for information on turnovers in the top
management positions at certain field offices during October 1, 1991,
through June 30, 1996.\1 According to the agencies' responses, there
were 428 turnovers.  Of those, 253 (59 percent) came about because
the previous manager either had been promoted or reassigned. 
Furthermore, 371 (87 percent) of those who filled a land unit manager
vacancy relocated to do so. 

The four agencies also reported spending about $8.4 million to
relocate 384 land unit managers from October 1, 1991, through June
30, 1996.\2

According to an Interior official, the cost of these relocations is
just a small part of the cost of all relocations.  Agency officials
said that the cost of relocating an employee can be quite
high--sometimes $50,000 or more.  Table I.1 shows the total and
average costs reported by the four agencies to relocate land unit
managers from October 1, 1991, through June 30, 1996. 



                               Table I.1
                
                Relocation Costs for Land Unit Managers,
                 October 1, 1991, Through June 30, 1996

                        Number of land
                         unit managers    Average cost
Agency                           moved        per move      Total cost
----------------------  --------------  --------------  --------------
NPS                                153       $15,156\a    $2,318,920\a
FWS                                129          24,502       3,160,761
BLM                                 46          18,112         833,137
FS                                  56          36,863       2,064,350
======================================================================
Total                            384\b         $21,816      $8,377,168
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Amounts exclude costs incurred by NPS when employees sold their
house through a contracted relocation service.  This cost may have
been a flat fee (about $13,000 per house), or a percentage of the
house's value (ranging from about 13 to about 26 percent), depending
on the location and value of the house. 

\b This total does not represent the 371 managers that the agencies
reported as relocated during this same period because the agencies'
data included in this table were taken from financial records,
whereas the previous data were from personnel or other agency
records. 

Source:  Agencies' data. 

Managers from all four agencies spoke of the many benefits that
relocations offer--both to the individual and the agency-- as well as
the numerous disadvantages they bring.  Among the benefits they cited
was the infusion of new ideas into a land unit, thus preventing the
unit's management from becoming too parochial.  Relocations also
provide managers with a variety of experiences in different
geographic areas and with different types of people. 

The managers also cited numerous disadvantages to relocations. 
Several mentioned the hardship on families--for example, the
disruption of the children's schooling and the spouse's career. 
Additionally, several spoke about the time it takes for managers to
gain the trust of local communities and how relocations can disrupt
that trust.  For example, one manager said:  "Local communities are
totally dependant on the federal lands and rely on the government to
make wise decisions regarding the land.  However, these communities
do not form trusting relationships with federal managers very
quickly."


--------------------
\1 The management positions that we were interested in were those of
"land unit managers," such as park superintendents, refuge managers,
resource area managers, and forest supervisors. 

\2 This information was taken from agencies' financial records,
whereas the data reported in the prior paragraph were taken from
personnel or other agency records.  Because the agencies reported the
number of managers relocated as 371 and 384, our letter states "about
380" managers relocated. 


HOUSING
========================================================== Appendix II

NPS, FWS, BLM, and FS have similar policies and practices governing
the provision of rental housing.  These policies and practices are
based on the various laws and administrative guidance that set
eligibility requirements and are based on how rental fees are
calculated.  Each of the agencies reported having a backlog of
housing repair, rehabilitation, and replacement work and reported
that the estimated combined cost of eliminating the backlog is about
$470.2 million. 

According to applicable laws,\1 federal agencies are authorized to
provide seasonal employees with housing when necessary and provide
permanent employees with housing when the agencies determine that

  -- employees must live on the federal land to render necessary
     visitor services or to protect government property or

  -- present and prospective housing are not available for sale or
     rent within a reasonable commuting distance. 

Agencies' policies also require that the need for rental housing be
examined annually and, absent adequate justification, excess housing
be removed from the housing inventory.  The annual reexamination of
housing needs is required because changes can occur in the viability
of local real estate markets.  For example, a park that has been
classified as "isolated" may have become less so because of
population increases in nearby communities. 

Also, each agency is subject to the provisions of Circular A-45,
issued by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).  This circular,
dated October 20, 1993, sets out criteria for agencies to use in
establishing rental rates.  Generally, agencies' rental rates

  -- should be based on reasonable value; that is, they should be set
     at levels equal to those prevailing in comparable private
     housing located in the same area and

  -- may not be set to provide tenants with a housing subsidy, serve
     as an inducement in recruiting or retaining employees, or
     encourage the occupancy of existing government housing. 

All four of the agencies participate in a multiagency program
administered by the Department of the Interior's Bureau of
Reclamation.  The program establishes base rental rates for
government rental housing, conducts surveys of regional housing
markets, and uses statistical programs to establish base rental
rates.  These rates are derived from the consideration of many
factors, such as the housing's location, type, age, size, and
condition.  Once the base rental rates are established, OMB's
guidance requires agencies' managers to administratively reduce rents
for isolated (i.e., remote) locations and allows further reductions
for a variety of other factors, including the inadequacy or absence
of standard amenities (e.g., street lighting, sidewalks, and reliable
utilities).  Adjustments are also made to account for the presence or
absence of features such as fireplaces, garages, or central air
conditioning. 

The Bureau of Reclamation also maintains a database of government
rental quarters--the Quarters Management Information System.  This
database contains comprehensive information on the participating
agencies' rental housing, including the number of housing units and
the housing's type, location, square footage, number of bedrooms and
bathrooms, age, and interior and exterior condition.  Table II.1
shows the number of housing units owned by the four agencies. 



                               Table II.1
                
                     Housing Units Owned, by Agency

Agency                                                   Housing units
----------------------------------------  ----------------------------
NPS                                                              5,401
FWS                                                                757
BLM                                                                252
FS                                                               5,054
======================================================================
Total                                                           11,464
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:  Although we obtained this information in January 1997, agency
officials told us that not all of the data in the source database
were current as of that date.  Nonetheless, they are the most current
data available at this time. 

Source:  Bureau of Reclamation's Quarters Management Information
System database, as of January 1997. 

For the four land management agencies we reviewed, the number and
type of rental housing varied widely.  Table II.2 shows the agencies'
rental housing, by type. 



                               Table II.2
                
                  Types of Units in Agencies' Housing
                              Inventories

                                      Number of units
                      ------------------------------------------------
Housing unit
category                   NPS       FWS       BLM        FS     Total
--------------------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------
House                    2,828       624        54     2,063     5,569
Apartment                  971        11         2       141     1,125
Cabin                      338         9        10       292       649
Mobile home                573        41        21       613     1,248
Travel trailer              47        11         1       134       193
Dormitory/bunkhouse        197        23       152     1,062     1,434
Temporary\a                  0        15         2        12        29
Trailer pad                373        23        10       734     1,140
Tent                        74         0         0         1        75
======================================================================
Total                    5,401       757       252   5,052\b  11,462\b
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:  Although we obtained this information in January 1997, agency
officials told us that not all of the data in the source database
were current as of that date.  Nonetheless, they are the most current
data available at this time. 

\a Temporary housing uses construction methods or materials resulting
in a useful life that is substantially less than that of houses built
by standard construction, e.g., certain types of modular housing. 

\b These column totals include two housing units that FS did not have
categorized by type. 

Source:  Bureau of Reclamation's Quarters Management Information
System database, as of January 1997. 

Similarly, the condition of the rental housing and cost estimates for
needed repair, rehabilitation, and replacement vary across agencies. 
Table II.3 describes the housing's condition. 



                               Table II.3
                
                      Condition of Rental Housing

                        Percent of total inventory in each category of
                                          condition
                        ----------------------------------------------
Condition                      NPS         FWS         BLM          FS
----------------------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------
Interior
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Excellent                      8.5         2.3         8.3         7.6
Good                          45.6        46.0        36.4        40.6
Fair                          33.5        47.5        40.9        41.5
Poor                          12.1         4.0        14.0         9.6
Obsolete                       0.3         0.1         0.4         0.7

Exterior
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Excellent                      8.0         1.9         8.3         8.9
Good                          41.2        50.4        37.6        40.9
Fair                          37.1        42.9        44.2        40.3
Poor                          13.5         4.6         9.9         9.5
Obsolete                       0.2         0.1           0         0.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:  This table, unlike tables II.1 and II.2, excludes trailer pads
and tents--units for which no information on their condition is
maintained in the database. 

In describing the condition of their inventory, the agencies use
nearly the same criteria:  excellent means like new; good means that
routine maintenance, like painting, is necessary; fair means that
early signs of reversible deterioration (like leaking roofs or
inadequate electrical service) are present; poor means that major
repairs are needed because of marginal structural integrity; and
obsolete usually means beyond economic rehabilitation. 

Although we obtained this information in January 1997, agency
officials told us that not all of the data in the source database
were current as of that date.  Nonetheless, they are the most current
data available at this time. 

Source:  Bureau of Reclamation's Quarters Management Information
System database, as of January 1997. 

We asked the four agencies to provide us with cost estimates for
eliminating the existing backlog of their inventory's need for
repair, rehabilitation, or replacement.  Two of the agencies--BLM and
FS--told us that the estimates we reported in an August 1994 report
were still the most current information available.\2 NPS and FWS
officials provided us with the requested data.  Table II.4 shows
these estimates. 



                               Table II.4
                
                   Agencies' Estimated Costs to Clear
                   Repair/Rehabilitation/Replacement
                                Backlog

                         (Dollars in millions)

Agency                                          Estimated backlog cost
----------------------------------------  ----------------------------
NPS                                                             $300.0
FWS                                                               13.2
BLM                                                                8.0
FS                                                               149.0
======================================================================
Total                                                           $470.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  Agency officials. 

In a 1993 report, we found that NPS had adequately justified the need
for about 88 percent of its housing but questioned its justification
for the remaining 12 percent of its housing inventory.\3 As a result,
we recommended that NPS reassess the need for all permanent housing
and consider alternative funding methods to meet its housing needs. 
In response to our recommendations, NPS made a new housing needs
assessment a critical element of each park's housing management plan
(which must be reviewed and revised every 2 years) and now requires
that the needs assessment be completed before funds are spent on new
construction, major repairs or rehabilitation, or trailer replacement
projects.  Also, NPS worked with the Congress to pass legislation
authorizing NPS to enter into alternative arrangements with
developers or others for the provision of employee housing.  In
November 1996, the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act
(P.L.  104-333) was enacted to, among other things, address concerns
about the adequacy and cost of NPS' housing.  Among other things, the
act is intended to expand the alternatives available for the
construction and repair of essential NPS housing and to ensure that
adequate funds are available to provide for the long-term maintenance
needs of NPS' field employee housing.  In commenting on a draft of
this report, Interior stated that it is moving forward with an
initiative to identify funding alternatives for the repair,
rehabilitation, and replacement of employee housing in accordance
with this act. 

In a January 1996 report, Interior's Office of Inspector General
found that FWS spent $33,000 during fiscal year 1993 to maintain
vacant housing and may have to spend an estimated $375,000 for
long-term maintenance of FWS' housing.\4 The Inspector General
reported that FWS should evaluate the need for government-furnished
housing at each location and dispose of housing that is no longer
needed and cannot be converted to other uses.  The report said the
following:  "Housing units that can be moved (particularly trailers)
could be sold or scrapped, and those units for which repair is not
feasible, that are unsightly, or that are safety hazards to the staff
or visiting public could be demolished."


--------------------
\1 The Federal Employees Quarters and Facilities Act of 1964 (P.L. 
88-459) and the Government Organization and Employees Act of 1966
(P.L.  89-554). 

\2 National Park Service:  Reexamination of Employee Housing Program
Is Needed (GAO/RCED-94-284, Aug.  30, 1994). 

\3 National Park Service:  Condition of and Need for Employee Housing
(GAO/RCED-93-192, Sept.  30, 1993). 

\4 Operation & Maintenance of Government Furnished Quarters, U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Inspector General, U.S. 
Department of the Interior, Report No.  96-I-270 (Jan.  29, 1996). 


UNIFORMS
========================================================= Appendix III

NPS, FWS, BLM, and FS have similarities and differences in their
policies and practices on the provision of uniforms.  Each agency
provides allowances for the initial acquisition and maintenance of
uniforms issued; however, the amounts provided vary among the
agencies.  Similarities also exist in the agencies' policies and
practices for obtaining uniforms, tracking allowances for uniforms,
and funding the cost of uniforms.  Differences exist in the agencies'
policies and practices for requiring uniforms and for the type of
uniforms available. 

Each agency believes that it is important that its employees be
easily identified.  The agencies want their employees to be
differentiated from the public and other government employees.  To
accomplish this objective, each agency supplies uniforms (or
components thereof, such as hats or shirts) to those employees
authorized to wear them.  Employees at each agency may be provided
with an annual allowance of up to $400 to purchase uniforms.\1 In
fiscal year 1995, the latest year for which both allowance account
and expenditure data were available from all four agencies, the
agencies provided nearly 44,000 employees with uniform allowances. 
For the same fiscal year, the agencies spent over $8.5 million to
provide their employees with uniforms.  Table III.1 shows the
agencies' number of employees with uniform allowance accounts and the
amount of expenditures for uniforms for fiscal year 1995. 



                              Table III.1
                
                   Uniform Accounts and Expenditures,
                            Fiscal Year 1995

                                    Employees with
                                 uniform allowance        Expenditures
Agency                                    accounts      for uniforms\a
------------------------------  ------------------  ------------------
NPS                                         15,413          $4,168,561
FWS                                          4,400           1,188,000
BLM                                          5,120             407,077
FS                                          18,886           2,824,905
======================================================================
Total                                       43,819          $8,588,543
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a The uniform expenditures shown in the table may include the
purchases of uniforms (or components thereof) made by the agency for
employees without individual allowance accounts.  For example, if an
employee needed a uniform or a component, but only for a short time,
the agency could purchase it directly rather than establish an
account for that person. 

Source:  Agencies' data. 

All four agencies provide two different types of allowances:  initial
and replacement.  An initial allowance is given to new employees,
transferred employees, or employees with new duties to help defray
the cost of purchasing uniforms required by their unit.  A
replacement allowance enables employees to maintain their uniforms
from year to year and to purchase additional items required by
changes in their work location, duties, or uniform standards.  Table
III.2 shows the initial and replacement allowances and allowance
ranges provided by each agency. 



                              Table III.2
                
                   Initial and Replacement Allowance
                           Amounts, by Agency

                                Initial             Annual replacement
Agency                          allowance amount    allowance amount
------------------------------  ------------------  ------------------
NPS                             $320 to $400, on    $135 to $320, on
                                the basis of type   the basis of type
                                of uniform and      of uniform and
                                whether the         whether the
                                employee is         employee is
                                permanent or        permanent or
                                seasonal            seasonal

FWS                             Up to $400, on the  Up to $300, on the
                                basis of            basis of type of
                                components needed   uniform

BLM                             Up to $400, on the  Up to $400, on the
                                basis of            basis of program
                                components needed   needs (policy
                                (policy recommends  recommends $250 to
                                $400)               $350, on the basis
                                                    of type of
                                                    uniform)

FS                              $161 to $400, on    $83 to $400, on
                                the basis of type   the basis of type
                                of uniform and      of uniform and
                                need                need
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  Agencies' policies; agency officials. 

The amount of allowance that employees are provided with can vary on
the basis of several factors, such as what type of uniform is
required, what the cost of needed components is, and whether the
employee holds a permanent or a seasonal position.  Accordingly,
allowances can vary, both within and across agencies. 

The four agencies have similar policies and practices for obtaining
uniforms, tracking uniform allowances, and funding the cost of
uniforms.  Each agency contracts with a company to provide uniforms
and to maintain a database that tracks the balance of each employee's
allowance.  The agencies pay the contractor for the uniforms
delivered.  None of the agencies have an appropriations line item for
uniforms.  Instead, the cost of uniforms is funded by the agency
units and programs for which the uniformed employees work. 

The four agencies have different policies and practices for requiring
employees to wear uniforms and for the type of uniforms available to
employees.  FWS is the only agency that requires all permanent field
office employees, unless specifically excepted, to own and wear
uniforms; it has no similar requirement for regional or headquarters
employees.  At the other agencies, certain employees are authorized
to wear uniforms for a variety of reasons, for example, when the
employees have significant, frequent, or recurring contact with the
public and when it is important for employees to establish their
authority or identification as agency representatives.  The agencies
also differ in the types of general uniforms available.  FS has two
types:  dress and field.  BLM has three types:  dress, field, and
work.  FWS also has three types:  dress, standard, and field.  NPS
has seven types:  formal, semi-formal, service (class A), field, work
(class A), service (class B), and work (class B).  In addition to
these types of general uniforms, the agencies have various
special-purpose uniforms (and components) for specialized work such
as fire fighting, law enforcement, lifeguarding, nursing, and
volunteering.  An NPS official told us that the agency has more
categories of uniforms than the other agencies because NPS "has a
wider breadth of responsibilities than other land management
agencies, ranging from very high profile management of nationally
significant sites, like Independence Hall and the White House, to
dirty day-to-day field work." He added that the formal, semi-formal,
service, field, and work (class A) uniforms do not vary much. 


--------------------
\1 The Federal Employees Uniform Allowance Act of 1954, as amended (5
U.S.C.  5901(a)), authorizes agencies to provide up to $400 per year
per employee as a uniform allowance to defray the cost of purchasing
uniforms.  The act, as amended, also allows the Office of Personnel
Management to adjust the maximum allowance for uniforms from time to
time. 


VEHICLES
========================================================== Appendix IV

The policies used by NPS, FWS, BLM, and FS governing the use of their
vehicles for home-to-work transportation are similar; we found no
significant differences.  These policies are consistent with
governmentwide regulations. 

Both the Department of Agriculture and the Department of the Interior
have policies for employees' use of the agencies' vehicles for
home-to-work travel.  These policies reflect the governmentwide
regulations, issued by the General Services Administration, that
limit the use of government vehicles for home-to-work travel to three
groups of employees:  (1) high-level federal officials, (2) employees
engaged in field work, and (3) other employees when there is a
compelling operational consideration, a clear and present danger, or
an emergency. 

The two Departments' policies are similar.  For example, they

  -- specify that only the Secretary may authorize the use of an
     agency's vehicles for home-to-work travel;

  -- provide for the Secretary to authorize home-to-work vehicle use
     for certain job series or positions (e.g., law enforcement
     personnel);

  -- specify that authorizations must be based on the increased
     efficiency and economy of government operations instead of
     employee comfort and convenience; and

  -- have similar definitions for the conditions under which
     employees may be authorized for home-to-work travel, including
     field work (e.g., work at multiple locations within 1 day) and
     emergencies. 

Two of the four land management agencies--NPS and FWS--issued
additional policies and procedures to guide their employees' use of
agencies' vehicles for home-to-work travel.  These policies are
consistent with Departmental policy, and for the most part, the
additional guidance regards agency-specific processes. 

As mentioned above, the Departments' Secretary can authorize
home-to-work travel for certain job series and positions.  When such
authorizations have occurred, all four agencies have designated field
officials who are authorized to approve, on a case-by-case basis, the
use of agencies' vehicles for home-to-work travel.  For example, the
Secretary of the Interior authorized home-to-work travel for special
agents and rangers (law enforcement positions) at BLM.  According to
his June 1993 authorization, the rationale was the

     ".  .  .  safe and efficient performance of protective services,
     criminal investigations, intelligence, and law enforcement
     activities; to include .  .  .  initial response in conjunction
     with fire and life-rescue services, after-hours standby status
     or call out duty, investigative readiness, surveillance cover
     and emergency backup to primary 24 hour patrol operations."

With this authorization, BLM delegated case-by-case authorization to
its state directors.  Justifications for case-by-case authorizations
are generally more specific.  For example, the stated rationale for
one ranger was that home-to-work travel would (1) provide for rapid
response to BLM's priority incidents, (2) maximize field work, (3)
reduce overtime costs, and (4) provide for the safety of the
employee.  The authorization was limited to instances when conditions
necessitated placing the employee on on-call status or when an
assignment necessitated an early morning departure and/or a late
after-hours return.  In other instances, the ranger was to secure the
agency's vehicle in a locked and fenced federal compound. 

This same process may be followed for non-law enforcement
home-to-work authorizations.  According to other officials, the
rationales for such authorizations for non-law enforcement employees
were various and included such categories as field work and emergency
maintenance.  Table IV.1 shows the number of home-to-work vehicle
authorizations for law enforcement and other employees. 



                               Table IV.1
                
                 Home-to-Work Vehicle Authorizations by
                   Employee Type, as of November 1996

                            Number of home-to-work authorizations
                        ----------------------------------------------
                                   Law
                           enforcement           Other
Agency                       employees       employees           Total
----------------------  --------------  --------------  --------------
NPS                                208               9             217
FWS                                247               0             247
BLM                                 29               0              29
FS                                  \a              \a              \a
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Data were not readily available because, according to agency
officials, decision-making and record keeping are decentralized. 

Source:  Agencies' data; agency officials. 

We have previously reviewed issues related to the use of government
vehicles for home-to-work transportation.  In a 1985 report, for
example, we found that federal agencies were not strictly following
the applicable statutes.\1 At that time, home-to-work transportation
was statutorily precluded, under a 1946 law codified at 31 U.S.C. 
1344, except for certain specific officials and employees.  But
federal agencies' broad interpretations of these home-to-work
exceptions resulted in confusion and questionable extensions of these
exceptions in the use of government vehicles.  In 1986, partly on the
basis of our report, the Congress responded by enacting Public Law
99-550, which amended the previous law and established consistent and
practical limitations on the use of government vehicles for
home-to-work transportation. 

In a March 1991 report, we found that agencies were generally
complying with the restrictions on home-to-work transportation.\2 We
did identify instances where high-level federal officials received
home-to-work transportation even though they were not authorized to
do so.  However, these instances were generally isolated or
infrequent occurrences and did not constitute a regular pattern of
abuse. 


--------------------
\1 Use of Government Motor Vehicles for the Transportation of
Government Officials and the Relatives of Government Officials
(GAO/GGD-85-76, Sept.  16, 1985). 

\2 Government Vehicles:  Officials Now Rarely Receive Unauthorized
Home-to-Work Transportation (GAO/GGD-91-27, Mar.  15, 1991). 


GRAZING PROGRAMS
=========================================================== Appendix V

The grazing programs administered by BLM and FS share certain
elements but differ in several ways.  Among the similarities is the
process by which a citizen applies for and is granted a grazing
permit.  For both agencies, the process consists of a few key steps: 
(1) communication between the applicant and the agency, (2) the
submission of a completed application form and documents verifying
compliance with the basic eligibility requirements, (3) the
determination of the applicant's qualifications, and (4) the issuance
or denial of the permit and the availability of an appeal process to
those who are denied a permit. 

The two agencies' programs are also similar in that they both charge
the same grazing fees, which are calculated by a formula set in the
Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978, and both agencies return a
portion of the fees to the states.  Furthermore, similarities exist
in the types of livestock that the agencies allow to graze. 
According to officials of both agencies, cattle and sheep are the
predominant livestock that permittees graze on federal lands.  Other
types of livestock--such as swine or buffalo--may be considered
acceptable, however, as long as the permittee can control them. 

Among the programs' key differences are those that exist in the
programs' authorizing legislation, in the amount of land and
livestock that a permittee must own, and in the transfer of grazing
privileges from one person to another.  First and foremost, the
programs have different authorizations.  BLM's primary authority for
managing the public lands, including rangelands, is found in the
Taylor Grazing Act of 1934, as amended (43 U.S.C.  315).  The law was
enacted, in part, to stop injury to public grazing lands by
preventing overgrazing and the deterioration of soil.  Under the act,
the Secretary of the Interior was authorized to issue permits to
graze livestock on public lands and charge grazing fees.  Generally,
the Taylor Grazing Act does not apply to grazing on FS lands. 
Rather, FS' grazing program is authorized by other legislation (e.g.,
the Organic Administration Act of 1897 and the Granger-Thye Act of
1950). 

Differences also exist in the agencies' requirements pertaining to
base property (i.e., property that permittees must have to support
their grazing operations).  FS requires that base property be owned
by the permittee, whereas BLM requires that the property be owned or
controlled (i.e., leased) by the permittee.  Additionally, FS imposes
some acreage requirements setting forth the number of acres of
private land needed to support the forage needs of the livestock
being grazed.  The acreage requirements vary among FS units,
depending on such things as the climate and the type and abundance of
vegetation.  BLM, on the other hand, has no acreage requirements. 

Finally, differences exist in the conditions under which a grazing
permit may pass from one landowner to the next.  Under BLM's program,
grazing permits are tied to the base property.  Under FS' program, in
contrast, permits are tied to the individual.  Accordingly, grazing
permits must be waived or relinquished to FS upon the landowner's
death or the land's sale.  FS may choose to issue a grazing permit to
the subsequent landowner as long as qualification requirements are
met but is not legally obligated to do so. 

Over the years, we have reviewed various issues related to grazing on
federal lands.  For example, in a June 1991 report, we compared the
existing grazing fee formula with alternatives that had been jointly
developed by BLM and FS.\1 We noted that the formula kept fees low
enough to promote the economic stability of western livestock grazing
operators with federal permits but too low to cover the government's
cost of managing the grazing program. 

Also, in June 1992 and April 1993 reports, we profiled BLM's and FS'
grazing allotments and permits.\2 Included in the profiles was
information on the numbers of allotments, the average acreage they
encompassed, and the total and average numbers of animal unit months
they sustained.\3



(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix VI

--------------------
\1 Rangeland Management:  Current Formula Keeps Grazing Fees Low
(GAO/RCED-91-185BR, June 11, 1991). 

\2 Rangeland Management:  Profile of the Bureau of Land Management's
Grazing Allotments and Permits (GAO/RCED-92-213FS, June 10, 1992) and
Rangeland Management:  Profile of the Forest Service's Grazing
Allotments and Permittees (GAO/RCED-93-141FS, Apr.  28, 1993). 

\3 An animal unit month is the amount of forage needed to sustain one
cow, one horse, or five sheep for 1 month. 


COMMENTS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF
THE INTERIOR
=========================================================== Appendix V


The following are GAO's comments on the Department of the Interior's
letter dated January 23, 1997. 


   GAO'S COMMENTS
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:1

1.  We did not incorporate this information in our report because we
did not have comparable data for all four agencies. 

2.  We incorporated this information in our report. 


MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
========================================================= Appendix VII

Diane S.  Lund
Sue E.  Naiberk
Cheryl L.  Pilatzke
Cynthia S.  Rasmussen
Victor S.  Rezendes
Pamela K.  Tumler


*** End of document. ***