Rangeland Management

BLM's Range Improvement Project Data Base Is Incomplete and Inaccurate Gao ID: RCED-93-92 April 5, 1993

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) spent about $18 million in fiscal years 1990 and 1991 to improve the public rangeland. These funds came from fees paid by ranchers to graze their livestock on BLM land. The law requires that the funds be used for projects such as fencing, weed control, and water development that benefit rangeland resources, including wildlife, watersheds, and livestock. This report discusses how range improvements are accounted for, including (1) the types of range improvement projects funded, (2) the cost of each project, and (3) the rangeland resources benefiting from these projects. GAO also provides information on the role that grazing advisory boards play in determining which range improvement projects are funded each year.

GAO found that: (1) BLM uses the Federal Financial System (FFS) and the Range Improvement Project System (RIPS) to track range improvements; (2) FFS tracks the funds obligated for range improvement projects by broad accounting classifications, but does not provide project-specific information; (3) RIPS provides project-specific information, including costs and primary benefits, the number of BLM projects completed, easy tracking of project costs, and the types of funds used to finance range improvement projects; (4) RIPS contains incomplete inventories, does not provide a complete and accurate record of project costs, and does not fully describe the rangeland resources benefitting from range improvement projects; (5) BLM has failed to sufficiently support RIPS to ensure that its information is complete and accurate; (6) BLM officials do not agree on the usefulness of RIPS project-specific cost data; and (7) BLM has not issued sufficient guidance or established accountability for the accuracy of its database.

Recommendations

Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.

Director: Team: Phone:


The Justia Government Accountability Office site republishes public reports retrieved from the U.S. GAO These reports should not be considered official, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Justia.